2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

Right – which is why I added the "disingenuous" tag.

one of Sully's readers sez to hell with the party:

Watching the Democrats self-immolate during this election, which should have been a slam-dunk for the party, has really made me question its abiity to lead this country at all, ever again. If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain. From its ineffectual performance in Congress since the midterms to its fratricidal primary warfare, the Dem party seems determined to prove that it has outlived its usefulness. Now, gifted with a candidate who represents a new start for the future--who offers an attempt to show the country how we can at least attempt to transcend the most divisive elements of racism, prejudice and partisanship (no, not get rid of them completely, but at least kick them a ways to the curb in the name of progress and solving this country's very serious current challenges), it has instead chosen a fight to the death to re-install a desperate, discredited monarchy that is taking refuge in the last century's cultural and identity wars.

What the hell?

And where is the party's leadership? Cowering in the shadows. Unlike the Republicans, who are at least attempting to unite around their candidate and present a grown-up face--and whose candidates were Emily Posts compared to the Clintons in their effort to maintain some of the party's dignity during the primaries--too many Dem leaders are standing around watching this ridiculous spectacle hands in pockets.

Gore? Edwards? Biden? Richardson? If they really backed the Clintons they'd have said so by now, but rather than come out and stand up for the future, they're hedging their bets. Hoping for Cabinet posts? The Republican drop outs, meanwhile, immediately moved to unity, endorsing McCain quickly.

Dems will say this is healthy. Democracy is messy! Oh, please. Maybe it WAS healthy. Now it's just nuts. No offense to the Palestinians, but you know that saying that "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?" Well, the Dems have become the Palestinians of U.S. politics.

This election will signal the end of my identification as a Democrat. I've had it. And I can't imagine I'm alone in thinking and feeling this way. Can't the party see this?

on point

no offense to the palestinians

Clinton campaign to respond to Obama's vote suspending earmarks for a full year: "Obama has clearly demonstrated his aversion to pork barrel spending. You know who else hates pork? Muslims, that's who."

I'm only a Dem in primary season. By the time of the GE, I'm unaffiliated again. Every time.

Wish I lived in a state with open primary voting.

I don't think there's nothing to Hillary's electability arguments, but I'm glad she feels the need to divide the party in scorched-earth fashion to avoid taking a risk on Obama so that we can take a risk on her.

Drudge or the Clinton campaign could easily get the headline: "OBAMA MINISTER: 'GOD DAMN AMERICA'" -- but, again, the pre-Internet Rove strategies of the past have assumed that people won't look up the facts and context behind the statement and it wouldn't necessarily get traction in 2008 the way it would have in 2000.

Wait - where did these verbatim quotes of the guys sermons come from? Why was anyone recording them?

people record sermons all of the time

the media does NOT have a very long attention span on these supposed "obama controversies" I've noticed. they last maybe one news cycle, have no effect, he wins another primary, and then no-one cares (rightly so)

If these tactics still worked, this fall would be "GOD DAMN AMERICA" vs. "POPE IS A WHORE".

Really? I'm guessing this is a USA-Europe divide, because I have never heard of anyone recording a sermon here.

It's going to be a great year for industrial dance remixes.

xpost HAHA

Some of the larger British evangelical churches offer DVDs. Cashflow, baby.

Well, I'm Church of Scotland, and 'larger' evangelical churches in Scotland are tiny really.

what is ferraro's job now, exactly?

she should step down from it regardless

Sully OTM

"hillary clinton has never been called a nigger"

this is kind of interesting:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/12/should-obama-agree-to-seat-florida.aspx

raises the question of whether obama would benefit from simply conceding the florida delegates as they stand.

florida's largely clinton-friendly, and since he's likely to lose a florida re-vote anyway - though certainly not by as big a margin as he did in january - conceding the delegates-as-they-are would prevent any big clinton-momentum event spun by her w/ the media likely to follow.

What worries Obama managers in Chicago is the timing: if Florida is seen as a real re-do, and if the media portrays it as a wide open contest, a clear Clinton victory would give her a big bounce of momentum right as the primary window closes.

What's worse for Obama, taking the delegate hit that would result from seating Florida's delegation as is (in the neighborhood of a net 35 delegate loss), or going forward with a revote? The consensus--which seems right to me--is that he'd probably lose again, but by a narrower margin, with a delegate loss maybe half that, or less. What's more important--the delegates or the perception of late momentum?

it's a very interesting idea, especially considering the complete media bonanza about the clinton-comeback in ohio/texas, which had a real impact on the perception of the race, even though it changed virtually nothing about the delegate count.

might also be used as some bargaining leverage -- e.g. we'll give you florida-as-is if you give us a michigan caucus (or split michigan 50-50?).

apparently Ferraro's been fighting multiple myeloma for 10 years

it seems fairly clear that Clinton intends to strike no "deals" whatsoever and will not concede under any circumstances until someone fucking tells her to give it up OR ELSE

I think she'll drop out if it becomes clear that he has a stronger claim on electability, like if he won OH or TX. she's not convinced of that yet, and I might not totally be either.

but this bullshit where she's writing states off for the Dems in the Fall makes her the worst person in the world, afaic

A Kerry-level claim on electability?

Sullivan poster is overlooking that the rest of the GOP field was far more inept at attracting votes than Shril is, hence they "united" quickly.

If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain.

The fun part is neither is the other party, and if you consider a thirs, you're an "irrelevant" fantasist.

I have never heard of anyone recording a sermon here

Europeans don't have phones?

I doubt Barack's opponents are going to jump on Ministergate as it defeats the much more effective Muslimgate

although it might pop up later when more people have realized he's not a Muslim

Not on in church they don't, Morbs.

guys, you can't get to universal health care if your first bargaining position doesn't have an adult mandate, but it's totally ok to tell North Dakota and Texas to go fuck themselves

i was speaking to a friend last night of the opinion that Hillary's still in the race not necessarily out of pure ambition or greed, but because she already owes so many favors to her strategic allies and supporters that there is tremendous pressure on her to remain in the race -- for the people who've supported her and who are banking on access to her administration, dropping out is simply unacceptable. it's true to how she does politics and is a lot more relevant than "power hungry woman," i think.

what say you folks? accurate y/n?

that's a v. good point

she's still in the race because she still thinks she can win, and she may be right

people might have placed larger bets on her since she was "inevitable"

It is a good point. The moral of the story once again is not to write checks with mouth that your ass can't cash.

Hillary's still in the race not necessarily out of pure ambition

ambition, god forbid.

i mean, i'm not supporting her but criticisms like that (and things like "shrillary") do give me pause.

lauren, i'm not making any value judgements on ambition, but it does seem to be the most popular motive ascribed to her among her detractors

well, ambition and entitlement.

being the front for a gaggle of professional poli-whores isn't part of ambition? see PRETZEL BOY: neocons

btw I call her Shrillary bcz she turned particularly shrill about 4 weeks ago. I hadn't before.

i understand that it's something her detractors like to harp on. personally, i don't think that her ambition is somehow different from that of any number of other politicians.

Not that interested in where she and her team get their massive sense of entitlement; more concerned how encompassing it is and whether she has enough grace left to see the handwriting on the wall and concede in an appropriate fashion if it comes down to that(and I don't think it has, to be fair).

Haha wait you guys are defending the concept of a minister urging God to "damn" America for its crimes? I think I know what he was trying to say, but come on - that is strictly Phelps territory the way it came out. And unfortunately it plays right into the "Obama = an unsettling, alien presence" thing that's started to take shape -- predicted by Somerby, fulfilled by Dowd last week (Obama's "impassioned egghead advisers have made his campaign seem not only out of his control, but effete and vaguely foreign — the same unflattering light that doomed Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.") It's all complete horsesh*t of course, but horsesh*t is the currency of elections.

I've never understood the "entitled" criticism of Hillary either. What has Hillary said or done that betrays a sense of entitlement that goes beyond any other candidate? Is it because people have the feeling that she hasn't earned this perch she's on?

Or does any candidate painted as "the inevitable" nominee get this treatment? I don't remember people talking about Gore's sense of entitlement, or George Bush Sr's.

"I have so many opportunities for this country"

I'm not very impressed with Hillary as a politician, but it does seem that part of the criticism directed towards her is based on the implicit assumptions of how a woman should and should not be (for example, not overtly ambitious). The weirdest of all was to read those Germaine Greer comments, where she criticized Hillary because she is "cold and manipulative and bossy", and because her relationship with Bill is more rational than emotional. Okay, maybe that is her personal impression of Hillary, but doesn't she realize those are the very same arguments anti-feminists use against career women?

What has Hillary said or done that betrays a sense of entitlement that goes beyond any other candidate?

She refuses to humbly surrender to Obama.

How can a politician not be "ambitious"?

(exception made for Fred Thompson)

By putting the greater good ahead of cronyism.