Campaign 2008

[At Home 0]

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.

 

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Cancer Marney is a joke, right?

[Kinetic 0]

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.

 

Hands off my warnings, you Washington fat cats! I rely on them to tell me when stuff's about to happen.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Why Hillary's staying in: she doesn't think the black guy can win.

 

from daily kos

Before we dive into this, let me say what this is not. It's not any kind of a gaffe, or any kind of a "gotcha" moment. It's my interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of some conversations he's had with Hillary Clinton and her close advisers. The journalist is Mark Halperin, who by most accounts is fairly close with the Clintons, even if he can sometimes lapse into douchebaggery. The interview is with Jane Skinner, who is a host on Ed Rendell's favorite network.

 

SKINNER: What is the gist of her argument [for remaining in the race]?

 

HALPERIN: Well, she's not much interested in what Obama supporters, journalists, or even neutral Democrats think. She believes -- and she told me and in talking to her advisers, the strong sense I get is -- she believes not just she'd be a better President than Barack Obama -- she thinks Obama's going to lose to McCain. She thinks McCain thinks that too. What she wants to do is try to prove that case. What's I think a little bit, uh, galling or frustrating to her is that she knows people are going to blame her -- that if she continues to fight, Obama loses, people are going to blame her for Obama losing. She thinks Obama's going to lose anyway, so her argument is she's got to stop Obama from being the nominee. That's the mindset at least that I got from her and from talking to her people.

 

SKINNER: And how is she making the case particularly to the superdelegates -- is it, just don't take a chance on him?

 

HALPERIN: Well, it's electability. She can't say -- the impression I got from her and again from talking to others around her -- she can't say anything like, anything more than just a small fraction of he case she'd like to make, because some of it's too sensitive. But the heart of the argument is about electability. It's not about past performances, who won caucuses and primaries -- she'd like to argue, in some sensitive areas more than she'd like, more than she is able, that Obama can't win. Everyone's sort of projecting forward -- Howard Dean says it should end by July, some people -- Obama yesterday suggested perhaps it should end by June, after the voting's done -- what she's trying to do is go step by step and the next step up, in a big way, is Pennsylvania. What she's hoping, although she wouldn't say this to me, I tried to press her on it -- is that the exit poll that Fox and others do in Pennsylvania show that white voters are turning against Obama in Pennsylvania, even more than Ohio. Now, that is the biggest challenge to getting elected President as a Democrat is winning enough of the white vote. She hopes to show, perhaps based on what's happened with Reverand Wright, perhaps based on Obama's appeal in Pennsylvania, she hopes to be able that to superdelegates: 'look at what happened on Ohio, look at what happened in Pennsylvania, this guy can't win'. That's the mindset, that's the argument.

 

SKINNER: [she] wants to have the evidence of it. Does time I guess, she thinks is on her side because maybe she's waiting for another shoe to drop, another skeleton from the closet, another Reverand Wright to surface?

 

HALPERIN: What I like to say Jane is another shoe to come out of the closet, sort of mix those two. That I think -- look, that's got to be part of her calculation. I should say, as I try to any time I talk about this in any format -- Obama is heavily favored, winning those early contests has given him an impregnable lead amongst the su -- the elected delegates. People like Pat Leahy, people like Howard Dean, people like Nancy Pelosi are waiting for what they believe is inevitable -- the voting ends, he's ahead in elected delegates, the superdelegates go to him in big enough numbers, in order to take this away from Hillary Clinton and have Obama win. But, her way of winning is to have a sequence of things. Win maybe seven of the remaining ten contests, do well among key constituencies -- including white voters, although it's politically incorrect to talk about it in polite company sometimes -- and then, keep Obama from getting enough superdelegates to get a majority, take it to the convention.

 

 

video of interview

 

 

Man, what a bitch. So, her and Bill spend years speaking out against racisim and supporting civil rights, and now suddely she'll turn around and say 'hey, no one will vote for a black man.'

 

Will some people not vote for Obama because he's black? Of course. But, franky, those people don't usually vote democrat anyway. The idea that Hillary will argue he's unelectable because he's black is appalling. If this is indeed her plan, it has to be the worst thing she's ever done.

[godthedog 0]

that's not anywhere in the ballpark of what this argument is. she's not being a bitch, and she's not trying to take advantage of some backwards-ass racism. the "white vote" is being talked about here politically and demographically, no differently from talking about appealing to the black vote or to certain age groups. the democratic party absolutely DOES need a high number of white votes in key areas for the general election, and the argument here is that she's well ahead in that particular key demographic.

 

you're adding an imaginary step here that says white democrats in PA/OH are against him PURELY because he's black. there are all sorts of reasons they might favor hillary: first, she's focusing more on specific economic and labor issues. she's saying over & over again, "if you elect me, i will enact policies X, Y, and Z, which will benefit you in this way." the commercials she's running in this area are very policy-driven, specific, cut-and-dry. the fact that hillary hasn't addressed race in any specific way probably bothers a lot of black people who want someone to fight for them, but white voters in PA/OH don't exactly have those as high priorities. not that obama doesn't have similar economic goals, but you get the impression that she'll fight harder for them. most of the area is white, and this is what they care about--more than foreign policy, more than "yes we can," possibly more than even the image of change obama is selling himself as. reason 1a, her family is from pennsylvania, in this same sort of tradition, which gives her a little bit of homefield advantage, and gives the impression that she's being more sincere about these promises.

 

second, the reverend wright comments & obama's refusal to disown him outright may make voters fear that he might be associated with other people prone to make hateful/racist comments, sort of negating the whole "uniting" effect of having a black president.

 

i have trouble buying the argument, because i think these democratic voters would end up voting for obama anyway if hillary lost the primary, because mccain's already being painted as "four more years of bush's economic policies" and mccain would have trouble arguing out of that.

 

BUT, "having trouble with white voters" does not mean "they don't like him because he's black." it's more about the differences in priorities the candidates place in their platforms. and if this quote is indeed her rationale for staying in the race, then she's right to be very careful about saying it, for exactly the conclusions you jumped to.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

that's not anywhere in the ballpark of what this argument is. she's not being a bitch, and she's not trying to take advantage of some backwards-ass racism.

 

Yes, she is. She's been doing that since South Carolina. Or rather, getting Bill to do her dirty work for her.

 

 

the "white vote" is being talked about here politically and demographically, no differently from talking about appealing to the black vote or to certain age groups. the democratic party absolutely DOES need a high number of white votes in key areas for the general election, and the argument here is that she's well ahead in that particular key demographic.

 

She ahead with working class whites because they miss Bill Clinton and remember how great it was with him as presidency. I think it's more that, than not voting for Obama because he's black.

 

 

you're adding an imaginary step here that says white democrats in PA/OH are against him PURELY because he's black.

 

Again, I don't think that. But that's what she's trying to argue. That's what's unforgivable.

 

 

 

second, the reverend wright comments & obama's refusal to disown him outright may make voters fear that he might be associated with other people prone to make hateful/racist comments, sort of negating the whole "uniting" effect of having a black president.

 

 

Recent polls have indicated that hasn't hurt him much at all.

 

i have trouble buying the argument, because i think these de

 

mocratic voters would end up voting for obama anyway if hillary lost the primary, because mccain's already being painted as "four more years of bush's economic policies" and mccain would have trouble arguing out of that.

 

BUT, "having trouble with white voters" does not mean "they don't like him because he's black." it's more about the differences in priorities the candidates place in their platforms. and if this quote is indeed her rationale for staying in the race, then she's right to be very careful about saying it, for exactly the conclusions you jumped to.

 

Again, I don't disagree that these voters aren't voting for Obama solely because he's black. But if this makes it to the convention, this is apparently what Hillary will try to argue.

 

You don't have a problem with that?

 

 

I really think you've missed the point of what that guy was saying: it's not about whether or not Obama can get the white vote. More, that Hillary is perfectly willing to go in front of the convention and say a candidate should not get the nomination, despite having more delegates and the popular vote, because he's black and couldn't possibly win.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Hillary should stay in until the convention, since it's not like voters are 80-20 for Obama or something. I mean, technically, the purpose of the convention is, in fact, for the party to nominate its candidate, not just celebrate itself. Maybe this year's protracted process will effect some changes in the questionable primary phase of elections, whether it's the Democrats simplifying their superdelegate/proportional representation system that has come under such fire, or condensing the primary schedule into a few weeks (one day is surely asking too much) so that one state can't determine the race while another gets saddled with the Republicans' foregone conclusion, or no race at all. So Hillary is down in the polls what, 46-42? So why are you like "UGH GIVE IT UP ALREADY YA CUNT GEEZ" in every post? Just let it play out. It's hardly as if either one would lose to John McCain.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hillary should stay in until the convention, since it's not like voters are 80-20 for Obama or something. I mean, technically, the purpose of the convention is, in fact, for the party to nominate its candidate, not just celebrate itself. Maybe this year's protracted process will effect some changes in the questionable primary phase of elections, whether it's the Democrats simplifying their superdelegate/proportional representation system that has come under such fire, or condensing the primary schedule into a few weeks (one day is surely asking too much) so that one state can't determine the race while another gets saddled with the Republicans' foregone conclusion, or no race at all. So Hillary is down in the polls what, 46-42? So why are you like "UGH GIVE IT UP ALREADY YA CUNT GEEZ" in every post? Just let it play out. It's hardly as if either one would lose to John McCain.

 

 

I don't so much object to her staying in, I didn't have a problem with Huckabee sticking around either. It's more how she's conducting herself. She's not selling herself anymore, she's bashing Obama. and hurting the 90% certain nominee for November.

 

And the thing is, the only way she can win it is by stealing it. She's not going to be able to overtake him in delegates or popular votes, even her campaign admits this. So, she has to convince the superdelagates to over turn the will of the people. Which there's no point in doing because it would anger to many peope and she wouldn't win in Novemeber anyway.

 

You might think any dem would win against Mccain, but no democrat candidate can win without black support. And if Hillary does convince the superdelagtes that he's unelectable because his his race and he loses the nomination because of that, this will surely infuriate most African Americans.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Obama can't win on plain old delegates either, can he?

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Obama can't win on plain old delegates either, can he?

 

There's a difference between walking into the convetion with more delegates and needing a few more to get you to the magic number, and going in with less delegates than your opponents, and needing a massive amount of superdelegates to surpuss your opponent and get you to 2025.

[godthedog 0]

<snip>

 

Again, I don't disagree that these voters aren't voting for Obama solely because he's black. But if this makes it to the convention, this is apparently what Hillary will try to argue.

 

You don't have a problem with that?

 

 

I really think you've missed the point of what that guy was saying: it's not about whether or not Obama can get the white vote. More, that Hillary is perfectly willing to go in front of the convention and say a candidate should not get the nomination, despite having more delegates and the popular vote, because he's black and couldn't possibly win.

 

dude, try to resist the impulse to nullify somebody's every word line-by-line. it sometimes leads to grievous misquoting (as you did taking my hypothetical "any number of reasons" for points themselves to argue, when that wasn't the point), it leads to easily to this excessive chocolate-socket "i will DESTROY YOU!" impulse (really, is there any reason to stop one sentence into my post to say "yes she is"?), and the argument tends to dissolve into a lot of little rivulets instead of staying focused. it's also annoying. just replying to key points or to the gist of a post is fine.

 

the point is, hillary's argument does not list any causes for WHY white voters in these key states support her more. you want to say she's implying "because he's black," and i don't see that implication anywhere. how could white voters possibly be in the process of "turning against" a candidate they knew he was black 12 months ago? if she's arguing that his poll numbers are going down, how could poll numbers go down when he's always been black?

 

i think we can both agree, she wants to prove that she does better in this demographic. you want to say she's trying to prove it by implying it's because he's black. i want to say it's because her platform has more appeal for white voters who might otherwise vote for mccain. since this quote didn't come with any argument or reasons about WHY clinton says she's more popular with whites, we're both speculating. i think your speculation is bad.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

<snip>

 

Again, I don't disagree that these voters aren't voting for Obama solely because he's black. But if this makes it to the convention, this is apparently what Hillary will try to argue.

 

You don't have a problem with that?

 

 

I really think you've missed the point of what that guy was saying: it's not about whether or not Obama can get the white vote. More, that Hillary is perfectly willing to go in front of the convention and say a candidate should not get the nomination, despite having more delegates and the popular vote, because he's black and couldn't possibly win.

 

dude, try to resist the impulse to nullify somebody's every word line-by-line. it sometimes leads to grievous misquoting (as you did taking my hypothetical "any number of reasons" for points themselves to argue, when that wasn't the point), it leads to easily to this excessive chocolate-socket "i will DESTROY YOU!" impulse (really, is there any reason to stop one sentence into my post to say "yes she is"?), and the argument tends to dissolve into a lot of little rivulets instead of staying focused. it's also annoying. just replying to key points or to the gist of a post is fine.

 

the point is, hillary's argument does not list any causes for WHY white voters in these key states support her more. you want to say she's implying "because he's black," and i don't see that implication anywhere. how could white voters possibly be in the process of "turning against" a candidate they knew he was black 12 months ago? if she's arguing that his poll numbers are going down, how could poll numbers go down when he's always been black?

 

i think we can both agree, she wants to prove that she does better in this demographic. you want to say she's trying to prove it by implying it's because he's black. i want to say it's because her platform has more appeal for white voters who might otherwise vote for mccain. since this quote didn't come with any argument or reasons about WHY clinton says she's more popular with whites, we're both speculating. i think your speculation is bad.

 

 

The journalist says Hillary's main arguement for Barack's unelectability is 'a sensitive issue' that she has to be careful of and she can't just come out and say it.

 

What else can it be, other than skin colour?

 

He's too liberal? She's already said that. Only appeals to middle classes? She's said that too. I really think you need to look over that interview again, because it's very obvious what he's getting at. Why would she assume 'Mccain knows Obama can't beat him?' That's a pretty spectacular claim. What basis could she ever have to think that this young, charismatic man with loads of cash and support couldn't stand a chance against John Mccain?

 

Does she genuinely think Obama can't win because he's black? I don't know. But, from that interview, I think that's the argument she'll take to the superdelgates.

[SuperJerk 0]

In fairness, this might just be a case of the that's what the media is making her strategy out to be, rather than what it actually is. For whatever reason, maybe the press (or at least this particular reporter) is getting the story wrong.

 

In other news...

 

Clinton backer: Obama will win

Posted: 07:10 PM ET

 

Cleaver, a supporter of Clinton, said he'd be stunned if Obama didn't win.

(CNN) — A key Hillary Clinton supporter appeared to be a bit off message during a recent interview with a Canadian radio station.

 

"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said in a Canadian public radio interview this weekend. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States."

 

Cleaver, an African-American, endorsed Clinton's White House bid last year and formally remained aligned with the New York senator even as other black leaders shifted their support to Barack Obama.

 

But after his district voted for Obama in the February 5 primary, Cleaver did indicate he would consider voting for the Illinois senator at the party's convention if the delegate count was extremely tight between the two candidates.

 

In the Canadian radio interview, Cleaver made clear he doesn't expect Clinton to overtake Obama, comparing his support of the New York Democrat to that of his hometown losing football team.

 

“Even though I don't expect the Kansas City Chiefs to beat the Indianapolis Colts, I cheer for the Kansas City Chiefs,” he said.

 

He also pushed back on the notion Clinton should take her fight for the party's nomination all the way to the August convention — though he acknowledged that is not the position he is supposed to take.

 

"If I do the party line, I'm supposed to say — and maybe I'll say, just so if anybody hears it they can say well, 'Cleaver did the party line before he told the truth' — we believe that a contest going all the way to the convention is good for America."

 

But, he added, an actual convention fight would be a “tragedy of tragedies.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...obama-will-win/

[Atticus Chaos 0]

In fairness, this might just be a case of the that's what the media is making her strategy out to be, rather than what it actually is. For whatever reason, maybe the press (or at least this particular reporter) is getting the story wrong.

 

 

The journalist in question has spent a lot of time with her, and been involved with her campaign, so he has more on an insight than most.

 

And to be honest, looking at the bigger picture, it's been obvious she's been heading towards this argument for a while. Why is she even staying in it, unless she knows she has a very good reason as to why the superdelegates can't give Obama the nomination?

 

I think she's looking at states like Indiana and Pennsylvania, not to win or gain more delegates, but to prove white voters are abandoning Obama, and therefore he can't win the GE.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I'm going to slap you across the face with a fish.

[snuffbox 0]

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.

 

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz.

 

-Reduce spending (drug war, Iraq, worldwide military presence, bureacracy spending) = actual tax cuts.

-Those four examples of reduced government alone would be huge.

-Cutting back on surveillance of people and such (this both returns privacy and will save a massive amount of money).

 

Cutting the government down doesn't mean no firemen or police or that everbody will be dead on the sidewalks with needles dangling from spent arms. Ron Paul has often been rather careful to preface any of his more revolutionary ideas by saying that they would be done over an extended period of time. None but the fringe people who don't really understand the realistics of libertarianism are suggesting that everything be shut down on day one. Andrew Jackson already showed us ending the Federal Reserve immediately would be a horrendous idea. It an be cut, I've given examples, but if they ever comes to a fruition it wont be overnight it won't be the end of public safety forever.

[At Home 0]

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.

 

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz.

 

-Reduce spending (drug war, Iraq, worldwide military presence, bureacracy spending) = actual tax cuts.

-Those four examples of reduced government alone would be huge.

-Cutting back on surveillance of people and such (this both returns privacy and will save a massive amount of money).

 

Iraq and surveillance have been products of the Bush administration, pretty much. Surveillance maybe less so, but Iraq definitely. And the drug war, that's a moral issue. Is it being poorly run? Yes. It's focused in all the wrong directions, but that can be changed. I think anti-drug efforts are needed on more than an educational level.

 

Bureaucratic reform is also necessary. I think we should rip out a page from France's book, because their bureaucracy is citizen-centric, and not process-centric. Their whole French bureaucracy is one to create the least amount of headaches. Reform is necessary in most areas of our federal government, but for the most part, I believe that it's there to take care of its citizens, ala the social contract theory.

 

For the most part, it's difficult for me to separate a "reduced government" with 21st century-rugged individualism and being an opponent to a welfare state.

 

RE: Clinton. I think it's becoming a little more obvious to me that she's pursuing her campaign on two grounds: the chance that she has is incredibly slim and will only win through undemocratically perverting the superdelegate system, but the chance is still marginally there (and she's a fighter, to be sure); there's a lot of money backing her from party elites, and they don't want to be disappointed.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpaK-cGO9U

 

 

Hillary's new 3 am ad. Although at least she's attacking Mccain this time.

 

What is it about phone calls and sleeping children?

[Guest Vitamin X]

I like how she used a different stock footage of the girl sleeping in the ad. Wonder if she's grown up to be an Obama supporter as well.

[EricMM 0]

Unless she's using sleeping girl footage from the 1950's, it's statistically likely.

[2GOLD 0]

 

Be interesting if the little girl is now a huge supporter of John McCain.

Why can't they just find a Clinton supporter with a little girl, film her sleeping and then make the ad? Is there a rule that says they can't film 20 seconds of a child sleeping to use in an ad?

[EricMM 0]

Hilary Clinton doesn't have any money to pay for non-stock footage.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Mccain has responded with his own 3 am ad

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueT9WuzMtNQ

 

 

No more of these 3 am ads. It's beyond a joke now.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

So, the third and final puzzling element to this story: Why haven’t we seen this yet? Why did the public’s first look at the athletic side of candidate Obama show him as a tentative, inadequate bowler?

 

The basketball games have been “down time” for Obama, Axelrod said, and therefore closed to media coverage. Wolffe said he never wrote or reported about the games because he understood them to be off the record. He said he even checked with Axelrod on Wednesday before agreeing to discuss them with me.

 

Was race also a factor? Was there some reluctance on the part of Obama’s campaign to associate him with stereotypes by showing him excelling at a sport in which most of the stars are African-American?

What the fuuuuuck? They can't let people see Obama play basketball because he's black, so he has to bowl to impress working-class white people? You know what, I'm with Obama on this one, because I can't bowl for shit either, and I don't give a damn, and neither should Barack, because bowling sucks, and bowling alleys suck, and people who like to bowl at bowling alleys suck.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Bowling is fun, people who don't like it secretly liked to be teabagged in the wee hours of the night by old Polish men.

[Guest]

Obama's a real trash talker on the court.

 

"Raisin' taxes on those bitches!"

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Barack and I are the Bad Bowling Brothers. Well, not brothers, and not brothers, but you know what I mean.

 

Bowling is shit, and don't ANY of you try to tell me otherwise. Or maybe you enjoy the company of middle-aged smokers drinking cheap beer while shitty old music plays in the background? I don't know? If profound failure has a smell, it is the smell of a bowling alley.

[The Niggardly King 0]

If profound failure has a stench, it's in a marching band. Blow on that tuba, bitch.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

One time in marching band, I got hit by the extra point.

[The Niggardly King 0]

And I picked up a 37 year old mother of 3 after bowling a game of 207.

 

I win