Campaign 2008

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im pointing out that you dont hear anyone else in the media giving serious (ok, so the Prohibition guy wasn't, but he still got air time) 10 minute inteviews to the leaders of these third parties. For a guy with the #3 show in America he's taking a risk (especially interviewing the head of Nazi Party, I cant wait for what he's called on that one) interviewing them. I have a feeling that a McCain/Democrat General Election will result in more people voting 3rd party than usual and although I know it wont be enough to keep them out of the White House, maybe it will help kickstart the move to 3 parties. Im not voting for either, but most people now will be relegated to voting in favor of the lesser of two evils and thats a bad thing, although not as bad as a lot of people just not voting (how low do you think voter turnout will be for whats supposed to be such an important election?)

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Voter turnout will probably be very high, judging by the insane turnout in the primaries so far.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I'm watching Mitt's speech. He looks like he wants to cry. I want to cry with him. What a waste of a great head of hair. These are dark times ahead for non-liberals.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I'm watching Mitt's speech. He looks like he wants to cry. I want to cry with him. What a waste of a great head of hair. These are dark times ahead for non-liberals.

 

Yep, too bad. Right now the Daily Show is running a segment calling Romney a douche, and after some of the shit he said in that speech, I'm in strong agreement with them.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

jon stewart tell em

 

McCain just said that it's shameful for Senate Democrats to try and prevent expanded government surveillance. WHAT? "Reduce the federal government" my ass. I hate this party sometimes. I only want to be a Republican because I don't like people. Don't do this to me, John.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I only want to be a Republican because I don't like people.

 

The truth is out, no longer take this man's opinion at worth

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I hope to God that nobody did before. But come on, pshyeah as if I'm not the only person whose conservatism/libertarianism is rooted in misanthropy.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I try to atone for my misanthropy by voting Democrat.

[Nightwing 0]

Im pointing out that you dont hear anyone else in the media giving serious (ok, so the Prohibition guy wasn't, but he still got air time) 10 minute inteviews to the leaders of these third parties. For a guy with the #3 show in America he's taking a risk (especially interviewing the head of Nazi Party, I cant wait for what he's called on that one) interviewing them. I have a feeling that a McCain/Democrat General Election will result in more people voting 3rd party than usual and although I know it wont be enough to keep them out of the White House, maybe it will help kickstart the move to 3 parties. Im not voting for either, but most people now will be relegated to voting in favor of the lesser of two evils and thats a bad thing, although not as bad as a lot of people just not voting (how low do you think voter turnout will be for whats supposed to be such an important election?)

Considering the popularity of Obamalamadingdong (Who seems to be on pace to lock up the nom) and McCain's weird yet powerful appeal to moderates and independents, I doubt it. Sure, Conservatives say they won't vote for him... but they will. They know the score. In all honesty, I don't think the third parties are going to get any extra turnout. Heck, maybe even less, as I think the majority of people are going to be somewhat happy with their candidates, unlike the last two times.

 

I'm hearing rumors about a possible "Redo" with Michigan and Florida. Anyone else here this?

[2GOLD 0]

Obama is on pace to lock it up? Don't lie to me like that.

And a redo why? Why can't Florida just make ANYTHING god damn simple?

[Nightwing 0]

Obama is on pace, or at least seems as such. With the hard stuff past him, he's raising more money and has more momentum behind him. He's a better campaigner overall, and he can eliminate the 'name recognition' advantage Clinton has in the end.

 

And again, it's rumors, mostly coming down to if they really need those votes at the Convention. I was just wondering who else may have heard that.

[2GOLD 0]

Obama is on pace, or at least seems as such. With the hard stuff past him, he's raising more money and has more momentum behind him. He's a better campaigner overall, and he can eliminate the 'name recognition' advantage Clinton has in the end.

 

And again, it's rumors, mostly coming down to if they really need those votes at the Convention. I was just wondering who else may have heard that.

 

I haven't really heard about it at all and I've been forced into keeping track of the news while my girl is at school.

I don't know about momentum, he had it once before and Clinton stopped it with a tear in the eye. I just don't believe for a second that she doesn't have something else up her sleeve to make the American public feel for her.

 

The Clintons are a crafty bunch.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im pointing out that you dont hear anyone else in the media giving serious (ok, so the Prohibition guy wasn't, but he still got air time) 10 minute inteviews to the leaders of these third parties. For a guy with the #3 show in America he's taking a risk (especially interviewing the head of Nazi Party, I cant wait for what he's called on that one) interviewing them. I have a feeling that a McCain/Democrat General Election will result in more people voting 3rd party than usual and although I know it wont be enough to keep them out of the White House, maybe it will help kickstart the move to 3 parties. Im not voting for either, but most people now will be relegated to voting in favor of the lesser of two evils and thats a bad thing, although not as bad as a lot of people just not voting (how low do you think voter turnout will be for whats supposed to be such an important election?)

Considering the popularity of Obamalamadingdong (Who seems to be on pace to lock up the nom) and McCain's weird yet powerful appeal to moderates and independents, I doubt it. Sure, Conservatives say they won't vote for him... but they will. They know the score. In all honesty, I don't think the third parties are going to get any extra turnout. Heck, maybe even less, as I think the majority of people are going to be somewhat happy with their candidates, unlike the last two times.

 

I'm hearing rumors about a possible "Redo" with Michigan and Florida. Anyone else here this?

 

Shh..I accidentally stumbled upon Air America for like..5 minutes last night and the host was saying that he thinks Michigan and Florida will redo with caucusses despite the high cost. The poor caller from florida was pissed that his vote didnt count or something.

 

Oh, and heres a scenario that will piss everyone off. Obama wins the most delegates going into the Convention but not the required number to win (or even worse he has the number to win..). So the "Super Delegates" decide that the American people know jack shit about politics and go, hey we dont really like this Obama guy, we want Hillary Clinton as President. Hell, Bill Clinton himself is a Democratic Super Delegate...dum dum dum duh..I think that would sufficiently piss enough democrat voters off not to vote along with the Conservatives not voting for McCain..WORST CASE SCENARIO? Its probably more likely than you think. And no, this didnt come from Glenn Beck..it came from the CBS News tonight describing how Super Delegates work. They gave the explanation for having Super Delegates as to keep people from voting in someone who wooed the American voters but didn't have the political resume to back it up. Sounds like Obama to me..

[Guest kaplanir]

Glenn Beck tells you to shut the fuck up, Albino.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

Obama is on pace, or at least seems as such. With the hard stuff past him, he's raising more money and has more momentum behind him. He's a better campaigner overall, and he can eliminate the 'name recognition' advantage Clinton has in the end.

 

And again, it's rumors, mostly coming down to if they really need those votes at the Convention. I was just wondering who else may have heard that.

 

I haven't really heard about it at all and I've been forced into keeping track of the news while my girl is at school.

I don't know about momentum, he had it once before and Clinton stopped it with a tear in the eye. I just don't believe for a second that she doesn't have something else up her sleeve to make the American public feel for her.

 

The Clintons are a crafty bunch.

 

Add to the fact big players Texas, Ohio and Pennslyvania are all having their Democratic primaries coming up. Hillary has been doing quite well in the bigger states, where Obama really hasn't done that well (I'll give him Illnois, Georgia and Missouri). I think its really going to come down to March 4th primary (I believe Texas and Ohio are up then, not to sure about Pennslyvania) where we will finally have a Democratic frontrunner. Its going to be tough for Obama in those primaries because Latinos have shown to generally go for Hillary (Texas) and the working class (John Edwards supposed base) and women have held for her too (Ohio). Ohio is really key, since its a state where the Democrats really need to flip blue come November.

 

At the point, the race is at a stalemate. Hillary's big lead has evaporated big time and Obama's momentum didn't produce California, New Jersey and Mass etc. Again, its really going to come down to March 4th for the Democrats.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I think that would be nuts if it came down to Oregon. This state is nuts for Obama.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Im pointing out that you dont hear anyone else in the media giving serious (ok, so the Prohibition guy wasn't, but he still got air time) 10 minute inteviews to the leaders of these third parties. For a guy with the #3 show in America he's taking a risk (especially interviewing the head of Nazi Party, I cant wait for what he's called on that one) interviewing them. I have a feeling that a McCain/Democrat General Election will result in more people voting 3rd party than usual and although I know it wont be enough to keep them out of the White House, maybe it will help kickstart the move to 3 parties. Im not voting for either, but most people now will be relegated to voting in favor of the lesser of two evils and thats a bad thing, although not as bad as a lot of people just not voting (how low do you think voter turnout will be for whats supposed to be such an important election?)

Considering the popularity of Obamalamadingdong (Who seems to be on pace to lock up the nom) and McCain's weird yet powerful appeal to moderates and independents, I doubt it. Sure, Conservatives say they won't vote for him... but they will. They know the score. In all honesty, I don't think the third parties are going to get any extra turnout. Heck, maybe even less, as I think the majority of people are going to be somewhat happy with their candidates, unlike the last two times.

 

I'm hearing rumors about a possible "Redo" with Michigan and Florida. Anyone else here this?

 

Shh..I accidentally stumbled upon Air America for like..5 minutes last night and the host was saying that he thinks Michigan and Florida will redo with caucusses despite the high cost. The poor caller from florida was pissed that his vote didnt count or something.

 

Oh, and heres a scenario that will piss everyone off. Obama wins the most delegates going into the Convention but not the required number to win (or even worse he has the number to win..). So the "Super Delegates" decide that the American people know jack shit about politics and go, hey we dont really like this Obama guy, we want Hillary Clinton as President. Hell, Bill Clinton himself is a Democratic Super Delegate...dum dum dum duh..I think that would sufficiently piss enough democrat voters off not to vote along with the Conservatives not voting for McCain..WORST CASE SCENARIO? Its probably more likely than you think. And no, this didnt come from Glenn Beck..it came from the CBS News tonight describing how Super Delegates work. They gave the explanation for having Super Delegates as to keep people from voting in someone who wooed the American voters but didn't have the political resume to back it up. Sounds like Obama to me..

 

Me & Boon already discussed this earlier in the thread, cochise.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

Glenn Beck tells you to shut the fuck up, Albino.

See, this is why I lobby for Leena's reinstatement.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Glenn Beck tells you to shut the fuck up, Albino.

See, this is why I lobby for Leena's reinstatement.

 

Yeah, because that added a lot to the discussion.

 

I was holding out hope that everyone was going to no-sell her appearance in this thread, as I was reading through, until you decided to chime in.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I'm gonna NoCalMike it up here and post an article in its entirety so I can bold the lines I liked, for varying reasons. This is from Joe Klein at Time.

 

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Barack Obama said in yet another memorable election-night speech on Super-Confusing Tuesday. "We are the change that we seek." Waiting to hear what Obama has to say — win, lose or tie — has become the most anticipated event of any given primary night. The man's use of pronouns (never I), of inspirational language and of poetic meter — "WE are the CHANGE that we SEEK" — is unprecedented in recent memory. Yes, Ronald Reagan could give great set-piece speeches on grand occasions, and so could John F. Kennedy, but Obama's ability to toss one off, different each week, is simply breathtaking. His New Hampshire concession speech, with the refrain "Yes, We Can," was turned into a brilliant music video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities. The video, stark in black-and-white, raised an existential question for Democrats: How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?

 

And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

 

That is not unprecedented. It has echoes of Howard Dean's 2004 primary effort, although in Dean's case the propellant was substance, not rhetoric — the candidate's early courageous voice against the war. But Dean soon found that wasn't enough. In June 2003 he told me he needed to broaden his movement, reach out past the young and the academic and find a greater array of issues that could inspire working people. He never quite found that second act, and his campaign became about process, not substance: the hundreds of thousands of supporters signing up on the Internet, the millions of dollars raised. He lost track of the rest of the world; his campaign was about ... his campaign.

 

Obama would never be so tone-deaf, but he is facing a similar ceiling, a similar inability to speak to the working people of the Democratic Party (at least, those who are not African American) or find an issue, a specific issue, that distinguishes him from his opponent. And his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has proved herself tough, specific and reliable — qualities that become increasingly important as the economy teeters and as worries about the future gather in the land.

 

This has become an odd campaign for Democrats. There is good news ... and fear. The good news is that this time the people seem far more interested in their party than in the Republicans. On Super Tuesday, at least 15,417,521 voted Democratic, and 9,181,297 voted Republican. And more good news: both Obama and Clinton are very good candidates who hold similar positions on most issues, moderates who intend to reach out to Republicans after they are elected — although, given Clinton's undeserved reputation as a partisan operative, that may be a tougher sell for her than for Obama. But this is not a struggle for the ideological soul of the party. It may, however, be a struggle for the party's demographic soul — older voters vs. younger, information-age workers vs. industrial and service workers, wine vs. beer. There is also — and I will try to tread lightly here — the classic high school girl/boy differential: the note-taking, front-row girl grind vs. the charismatic, last-minute-cramming, preening male finesse artist. Both Clinton and Obama have difficulties reaching across those divides, and that is where the fear resides: neither candidate may prove strong or broad enough. As this campaign progresses, their weaknesses — the reasons for their inability to put away this nomination — are going to become more apparent than their strengths.

 

Clinton's strengths are most apparent in debates, which is why she is pressing to have one each week. She simply knows more than Obama does. In recent weeks, she has been far more likely to take questions from the press and public than Obama is. That appeals to voters more interested in results than in inspiration; it especially appeals to the middle-class women, juggling job and family, who are the demographic heart of the Democratic Party. Clinton's weaknesses are intractable. They are wrapped up in her husband, who nearly ruined her campaign in the two weeks after Iowa but seems to have been relegated to the back of the bus in recent days. And they are wrapped up in her age. She is a baby boomer, of a generation that has been notably obnoxious and unsuccessful in the public arena. Perhaps the most dreadful baby-boom political legacy has been the overconsulted, fanatically tactical, poll-driven campaign — and Clinton has suffered whenever she has emphasized tactics over substance. Her lame attempts to "go negative" on Obama have been almost entirely counterproductive. Her husband's attempts to paint Obama as a "race" candidate — his resort to the most toxic sort of old-fashioned politics — only reinforced the strangely desperate nature of their campaign. It was the very opposite of "Yes, We Can" politics.

 

Obama's strength is inspiration, and it's also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party's detriment — and that is not Obama's game. After his Iowa victory, his stump speech had become a soufflé untroubled by much substance of any sort. He has rectified that, to some extent. He now spends some time talking about the laments of average Americans he has met along the way; then he dives into a litany of solutions he has proposed to address the laments. But those are not nearly so convincing as Clinton's versions of the same; of course, Clinton has a tragic deficit when it comes to inspiration.

 

There is an odd, anachronistic formality to Obama's stump speech: it is always the same. It sets his audiences afire, but it does not reach very far beyond them. It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key — but not so strong in primaries, where more diverse masses of people are involved. He should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

 

Then again, one of Obama's most effective lines is about the "craziness" of trying the same old thing in Washington "over and over and over again, and somehow expecting a different result." The first politician I ever heard use that line — weirdly attributed to everyone from Benjamin Franklin to Albert Einstein — was Bill Clinton. It is a sad but inescapable fact of this election that Bill and Hillary Clinton have now become "the same old thing" they once railed against. In a country where freshness is fetishized — and where a staggering 70% of the public is upset with the way things are today — the "same old thing" is not the place to be. Unless, of course, the next new thing turns out to be a mirage.

Very well-written, and I enjoyed reading this a lot. That's the bullseye right there, folks.

, but she is, in all likelihood, a better candidate.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama would be assassinated if he won the race for the White House, it is claimed.

Doris Lessing, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, said a first black American president would not be tolerated by some.

 

Barack Obama Obama and Hillary Clinton are the front-runners for the Democratic party's nomination for November's election.

 

Mrs Lessing, 88, a Brit who won the award last year, said Obama "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him".

 

 

to Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter believes it would be better if Mrs Clinton, the former First Lady, won.

 

Victory would make her the first female US president.

 

"The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama," she said.

 

This is a difficult one for me. No one should ever be scared into not voting for him because of a bunch of nutjobs, but at the same time, this woman has a valid point.

 

I know he has the best security in the world, but even then, there's only so much you can do about some crazy guy with a gun who doesn't care about getting caught.

[snuffbox 0]

Hillary proves her worth as a candidate every time she defends the Iraq War.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I can never tell if snuffbox is being serious or not in these threads.

 

Also,

Barack Obama Obama and Hillary Clinton are the front-runners for the Democratic party's nomination for November's election.

Obamabama!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Joe Klein is a douchebag.

 

This is silly concern trolling. "Dangerously self-referential" Oh noes!

 

Klein undermines his entire argument right here:

 

It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key.

 

So the people who actually pay attention to and care about politics (and are probably far more informed on policy positions) and give enough of a shit to spend an hour or so at a caucus tend to support Obama overwhelmingly. This kind of belies the claim that Obama is all style and no substance.

 

Czech, this is classic concern trolling. I especially like the fact that you highlighted the sentence that says that Clinton "simply knows more." She didn't know enough to vote against the debacle in Iraq or not push a bullshit flag burning amendment or crusade against violence in video games, or vote to keep using cluster bombs. A couple weeks ago Clinton was the "gnarled claw of the Democratic establishment" and now she's the Dems' best choice.

 

Hillary may not have American Gangster on her iPod for the Byron The Bulbs of the world, but she is, in all likelihood, a better candidate.

 

Isn't the better candidate the one who has a better chance of winning? Perhaps there's some other criterion for "better candidate for political office" that I'm unaware of.

 

[snuffbox 0]

Be nice, you guys, this Obama thing is really getting to czech.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

Hillary may not have American Gangster on her iPod for the Byron The Bulbs of the world, but she is, in all likelihood, a better candidate.

 

Isn't the better candidate the one who has a better chance of winning? Perhaps there's some other criterion for "better candidate for political office" that I'm unaware of.

 

To be fair, John Kerry after it was clear he would be the party's nominee, had a fourteen point lead over George Bush.We all knew how that turned out.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

I'm skeptical of anything that's thrust upon me as something that obviously I have to support. Why shouldn't I be?

[snuffbox 0]

Be skeptical all you want. That's good. But you might want to consider looking at Obama beyond the wave-of-momentum thing.

 

For me, his desire to change our drug policy to one that makes sense & anti-Iraq War stance make him the only serious contender who might actually lower taxes.

[Guest Blue Man Czech]

He's a liberal Democrat. He's not lowering taxes. No mainstream candidate is going to lower taxes. I just can't see it.

[snuffbox 0]

'Liberal Democrat' means jackshit to taxes now. They are no longer the party in favor of the biggest govt and there is absolutely no indication of that ever changing. You said it yourself in this thread, Czech, the GOP does no more than talk a good small govt game. Obama is the only candidate with a real chance who is in favor of cutting the huges expenses of the Drug & Iraq Wars; that's a multi-billion dollar cut right there.

 

Obama won all four of today's Democratic contests, by wide margins. He still trails Hillary due to the Democratic establishment 'superdelegates', though. And if there's any bloc that knows their ass from a hole in the ground, it's the Democratic establishment!