2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

Deej maybe you should learn to read before you participate in these threads?

many of the objections

yeah sorry missed this

misread rather

hahaha I wondered

what i think is so interesting about the reactions to hillary is that they fall into two broad categories: 1) she's too partisan and won't work across the aisle to solve america's problems constructively, i.e. she's a divider, not a uniter like obama; 2) she's a corporate crony, hawkish and right-wing, and has betrayed whatever convictions she once had (as a corporate lawyer?). the people who feel either one of these things feel them passionately. either one of these positions is right and the other is wrong, or the positions are more complex than is being made out, in which case the passion for one or the other is misplaced.

I think they are both true to varying degrees? She's like the anti-Obama that way; he works from the left but speaks to the center, she works from the center but speaks as an uber-partisan

I think both are true in a way - I think she's too divisive as a figure to be effective in uniting people - nothing to do with whether or not she herself is a "uniter" in terms of goal/personality. xp

or maybe i like hillary and think she would be a good president but i just like obama more!

one thing i do side with hillary on is health care, cuz we all know that whatever proposal a dem makes will get seriously watered down, so why not start at a further point to the left? i would guess that hillary's plan, if it went through congress, would end up looking exactly like obama's. i dunno what obama's would look like by the time congress cut it up.

btw, is there any chance for the dems to replace the congressional leadership after the election?

or maybe i like hillary and think she would be a good president but i just like obama more!

This is pretty much my position.

yeah ill co-sign on that

Thirded

Agreed.

He'll be a better one-term prez than she'd be.

what i think is so interesting about the reactions to hillary is that they fall into two broad categories: 1) she's too partisan and won't work across the aisle to solve america's problems constructively, i.e. she's a divider, not a uniter like obama; 2) she's a corporate crony, hawkish and right-wing, and has betrayed whatever convictions she once had

-- Tracer

Only the second bothers me (the lawyer bit is a non-issue).

The first doesn't bother me, 'cuz I don't hear much talk about how (or see any indication that) she won't work across the aisles. She obviously will and isn't radically partisan. What I do hear said is that Republicans, both voters and her fellow politicians, hate her with an irrational, virulent fury. This makes her a problematic nominee, and may fortell a difficult presidenct. When she's called a "divider", it has less to do with her than with other people's reactions to her.

That said, I'll be perfectly happy to vote for her, if she gets the nom.

"presidency", that shoulda read

i dunno i want to agree w/ max dan ned ygs team of :-) but i think the iraq vote still kinda cancels out what good will i had for her ... i don't doubt that she's 'on our side' but in the context of a genuinely bad decision her modestly compromised decisions stand out more

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

I wouldn't go so far as "like," I would accept Hillary as the nominee and vote for her vs. McCain but I'm not sure she's really on the right side of some issues I think are important. one example was that she seemed to go waffley on torture in one of the debates ("well I'd have to be in the commander in chief's shoes" or some such). I find her much more hawkish than Obama.

* Barack Obama folded you an origami crane
* Barack Obama held your hand when you were frightened
* Barack Obama told me to tell you hello
* Barack Obama recited a poem that reminded him of you

:D :D :D

I couldn't look at it for too long, 'cuz I kept thinking a vampire guy would yell at me.

yeah dont get me wrong Hillary >>>>>>>>>>>>> McCain

if she's gonna get the nom she's gotta win fair and square, tho, or else McCain's gonna be prez, right?? people would go ballistic.

I think I'd consider superdelegates fair and square (an unfortunate outcome but all in the game) but not MI / FL

i would still be surprised if the superdels went against the popular vote

one thing i do side with hillary on is health care, cuz we all know that whatever proposal a dem makes will get seriously watered down, so why not start at a further point to the left?

yeah, it's crazy to me that neither of them are going for anything approaching single-payer -- the c.w. is that it's simply politically impossible, they'd get accused of being socialists etc. but what better time than now do make this happen?? people are genuinely fed up, genuinely straining under the weight of their insurance obligations and are thirsty for imagination and simplicity. making sure everyone is part of the system is absolutely crucial in making universal health care a reality rather than slowly being stripped of its powers by republicans and becoming a ghettoized "insurance for poor people" (i.e. think of the same approach being used for schools -- if people weren't obligated to pay taxes for public education).

i think yance is right that anything will get watered down, so why isn't obama being bold here? he's got the duende -- use it for something! the same applies to hillary!

yeah aren't you glad we have good schools for poor people?

what i'd heard about this was that he had actually shot for a proposal that would be to the left of Hillary's, since he announced his first - and instead her proposal was to the left of his

dont have any idea how true this is, i just remember someone repeating it to me and could be received wisdom

it's crazy to me that neither of them are going for anything approaching single-payer

-- Tracer

The tipping point of a recession is not the best time to sell or embark on a massive, insanely expensive, new social program. (Or a war, for that matter.) Hell, single-payer was a hard sell during the cash-flush Clinton years.

The right thing to do is not always a good idea.

we should send homeless people to medical school and then each of them is assigned to be a live with one american family and be their personal physician. two birds!

funny thing is if you wanted to make an analogy w/single payer to education its closest to vouchers!

xpost

I think that one difference between HRC and BO is that HRC cut her political eyeteeth during a period dominated by Reaganite politics and policies. She has spent her whole political life learning how to cut across that fact to get the votes to get anything done. This was good at the time and a useful skill. It has colored all her poliical instincts.

BO is attempting to forge a new coalition and create a new political ascendency, where Reaganite politics and policies are irrelevant except as a point of departure. If it works, we enter a new era.

HRC's past will make it difficult to impossible for her to be the one to make this happen. With her we will get a rigidification of the opposition and nonstop duelling, not because this is what she wants, but because this is what she inspires among Republicans. She would be able to govern, but only in fits and starts and by hard-won increments. Fillibusters would multiply like fleas.

With Obama, you will get either a breaking of the mold, or he'll be Jimmy-Cartered by midterm. I'm willing to bet he won't be marginalized, but will become the center of power and very popular.

yah tax-hating americans + super-powerful insurance industry = no fucking single payer

even tho obv its be cheaper over all than paying the corrupt as fuck insurance companies - but for whatever reason people feel more comfortable giving them their money

all this hand-wringing about the superdelegates - why the hell would they decide to back Hillary against a popularly-endorsed Obama who by all accounts will fare better in the GE against McCain? They have no real politically sensible rationale to back her.

http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpsych/gnelson/paradigm-shift-cartoon.gif

I mean if by mid-March Obama a) has majority support among Dem voters and b) faces better odds against McCain, all other rationales for supporting Hillary look pretty fucking foolish/inconsequential.

post

-- aimless

I agree, though I think you're overselling the chance for some kind of hueg change. Try this:

(Clinton) would be able to govern, but only in fits and starts and by hard-won increments. Fillibusters would multiply like fleas. With Obama, you will get either a breaking of the mold mumble-something, or he'll be Jimmy-Cartered by midterm.

OTM

(a) is a possibility. But no one really knows the answer to (b), and Clinton certainly would never concede that point.

xpost

Especially since many (most?) of the supers are elected officials, there would be political hell to pay if they were complicit in a backroom nomination.

xp to shakey

It's interesting that here in the US the thought of a nomination being decided by party insiders is widely viewed as tantamount to political armageddon, whereas in most of the world's democracies, that's the only way it's ever done.

i luv u guys but i got to get some work done this afternoon -- laterz!

USA USA USA

Bill Clinton isn't just hinting at trying to wrest those Florida delegates for HRC's saek – he's already admitted it.

where?

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/bill_florida_co.html

this is gonna end with bill swinging a machete around, isn't it?

I guess France has primaries too. It seems that most democracies that follow the British parliamentary model do not.

Fake real conservative to endorse maverick. Someone somewhere will complain, doubtless.

should i go see kumar talk about obama tonight? :>

(Personally I think HRC and BO are close enough to each other that many of the objections raised to either are manifestations of subconscious racial/gender biases.)

so the solid majority of under-30 voters, of either gender, have "subconscious" (don't you mean preconscious?) gender biases? or rather, they all have more or less the *same* gender biases?

this thread needs more humility, less accusation.

the health-care thing is very problematic; obama's plan doesn't convince me and i agree that this is the moment to strive for something broader, bolder even if it gets somewhat watered-down in the end.

i've been an obama supporter, albeit a slightly ambivalent one, for a while. so what i'm about to say is no doubt colored by my prejudices. but hillary's bullshit re. trying to admit michigan and florida delegates is... well, it's unconscionable. obama should agree to another debate and bring this up. bring a quote from hillary or from one of her campaign managers back when they agreed not to run in those two states. jesus christ. hillary could lose any edge over mccain from this bullshit alone.

(b), and Clinton certainly would never concede that point.

she doesn't have to concede it - the superdelegates just have to realize it. and I don't see how they could avoid this realization, as it is rather super-obvious, even at this stage.

either way I have no doubt the Clintons are gonna go down swinging and its gonna get real ugly - machetes and all lolz