VoxOrion wrote:I resent the spin that voting Republican is a vote for racism, bigotry, and torture - but hey, you got to resort to what you got to resort to

That definitely was not my intent, nor did I mean to imply such a thing. It's just a gut feeling. Perhaps one example that's influencing my lack of faith in the electorate is, well, take what happened this Monday with McCain in South Carolina, where he was asked by someone in attendance "How do we beat the (female dog word that rymes with witch)?". To top it off, the McCain campaign is now using the controversy to raise money. Another is Romney's Obama/Osama gaffe (which occurred more than once). With such caricatureizationing (thought I'd invent a word ) already in gear, I just don't have the faith that enough of the electorate won't be influenced.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Clinton was a mess, wasn't he

See, and here I thought you were just dropping in to cheer me on for using the phrase "the left's arrogance and snobbery"...

Oh come on, the fruit was hanging so low it was practically touching the ground!

I'm in favor of all of your liberal bashing of late. I resent the spin that voting Republican is a vote for racism, bigotry, and torture - but hey, you got to resort to what you got to resort to

No, you got it wrong. Let me fix this for you.

It is unfortunate that voting Republican is a vote with racism, bigotry, and torture - but hey, you got to resort to what you got to resort to

Here's maybe the best criticism I've yet read of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. After starting off with a simple declaration that he's for Obama and is mostly positive toward Edwards, Lessig writes:

The other front running Democrat, however, is not a close call for me. ... She supported the war, but as my support of Edwards last time round indicates, I can forgive that. The parts I can't get over all relate to the issues around corruption. I signaled as much in my comments about her comments about lobbyists. We see two radically different worlds here. And were she President, I'd bet everything that we'd see radically little change.

But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. ... Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe. (Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage -- and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ).

All politicians of course do this to some degree. And about some issues, I even get it. But what put me over the line with Senator Clinton was the refusal to join the bipartisan call that presidential debates be free. Not because this is a big issue. But because even on this (relatively) small issue, she couldn't muster the strength to do the right thing.

Her failure here was not because her campaign didn't know of the issue. I spoke directly to leading figures (or so they said) in the campaign. The issue was discussed, and a decision was made. And the decision was to say nothing about the issue. You can almost see the kind of tiny speak that was battered around inside HQ. "Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright." "It might weaken our support among IP lawyers and Hollywood." "What would Disney think?" Better to say nothing about the issue. Better to let it simply go away.
...
We (Democrats) and we (Americans) have had enough of this kind of "leadership." That (plus the Lincoln Bedroom) made it impossible for me, honestly, to support Senator Clinton.

All emphases mine. Hillary seems to have taken all the worst traits of Democrats from the last 20 years--Bill's triangulation and urge to service powerful wealthy interests like an intern servicing [...]; Kerry's wishy-washiness, Dukakis's discomfort in his own skin--and incorporated them into her campaign. Why vote for her? Because she's a Clinton, dammit, and a woman, and by god she's earned your support, you ungrateful little peon.

She's kind of doing a mediocre impression of her husband - I'm not intentionally being unfair, in another case I'd just say Bill Clinton - but he was pretty good at standing in the middle of things then sorting them out. His critics argued that he goverend via Gallup Poll, and his fans said it showed that he wasn't stubborn and unwavering.

Either way, he could pull it off and still come off with some leadership gravatas. She can't.

VoxOrion wrote:She's kind of doing a mediocre impression of her husband - I'm not intentionally being unfair, in another case I'd just say Bill Clinton - but he was pretty good at standing in the middle of things then sorting them out. His critics argued that he goverend via Gallup Poll, and his fans said it showed that he wasn't stubborn and unwavering.

Either way, he could pull it off and still come off with some leadership gravatas. She can't.

At the risk of perpetuating conversation about a subject I never enjoy, the more I think about it, the less idea I have about the Clinton administration. I don't understand why he was a successful president--though I do think that, on balance, he was. (This has nothing to do with partisanship, by the way; I'm not a big fan of St. Ronnie the Reagan, but he was undeniably a successful president. Nixon was an evil SOB, but if it hadn't been for Watergate, he very probably would be rememgered as a successful president too. Carter wasn't; Bush43 clearly isn't; Bush41 I'm not sure about.)

The warm fuzzies Bill Clinton continues to generate from the electorate presumably had to do with the strong economy of the late '90s. To the extent he deserves credit for this, though, it stems from the 1993 budget vote--which was a reason why the Democrats lost Congress the next year. The consequence of that, and the failure of "Hillarycare"--which was underrated as a plan; the problem was in the process and the selling--basically cured them of trying to do Big Things.

The policy actions for which Clinton is credited include welfare reform, the final version of which was closer to Gingrich's draconian model than Clinton's murky framework; S-CHIP, which was possible back when people like Dole and the surprisingly flexible Trent Lott ran the Senate; the expansion of the EITC; and if you're a rich guy, NAFTA (which got through over the objections of most Democrats). Aside maybe from NAFTA, good stuff all--yes, including welfare reform; it wasn't perfect, could have and should have been a lot better, but AFDC was a disaster--but was this why the public liked him? Could most people even tell you what the EITC is, or S-CHIP?

Maybe that's our answer. After 1997, all Clinton did was dodge and triangulate; yet by the end of his term he was extremely popular. In part this had to do with how clearly odious his political enemies were; Charles Manson might seem sympathetic when the point of comparison is Tom DeLay. Perhaps this is what's at the bottom of the current Clinton campaign.

This may sound glib, and I don't mean it as a total indictment of the Clinton presidency, but I think there's a lot to be said based on Krauthammer's brilliant description that the 90's were a "Vacation from History".

Times were good for everyone, whether Clinton was responsible or not (not the subject), he's part and parcel of the nostalgia for when people were day trading, surfing for porn for the first time, enjoying gigantic silly summer blockbusters, and doing the Macarena.

He's an icon from that time. That's why his more hyperbolic detractors will always sound silly - no matter what is said or how convincing an argument can be made for the time between 1992-2000, no one remembers it as a bad time.

VoxOrion wrote:This may sound glib, and I don't mean it as a total indictment of the Clinton presidency, but I think there's a lot to be said based on Krauthammer's brilliant description that the 90's were a "Vacation from History".

Times were good for everyone, whether Clinton was responsible or not (not the subject), he's part and parcel of the nostalgia for when people were day trading, surfing for porn for the first time, enjoying gigantic silly summer blockbusters, and doing the Macarena.

He's an icon from that time. That's why his more hyperbolic detractors will always sound silly - no matter what is said or how convincing an argument can be made for the time between 1992-2000, no one remembers it as a bad time.

This is part of my problem with these discussions: you write "Krauthammer" and I just think of the horse's ass who diagnosed from afar both Gore and Dean with mental illness... because they opposed the Iraq War.

Putting him aside, you've got a point. That was a happier time for the country than the Bush years have been, for reasons not entirely either president's doing--though while I was at times embarrassed to have voted for the horndog Clinton, he never did anything to make me ashamed to be an American, like condoning torture.

Now I have to go projectile-barf at my TV watching Lady Triangula try to complete the Restoration of InevitaBillary. She's bleating in the other room as I type.

Watching the CNN democratic debate....Hillary and Obama just finished talking about doing away with the Social Security tax cap. Hillary is against it calling it a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class. Obama had a great line in rebuttal pointing out that the top 6% of income earners in this country do not qualify as the middle class. I think that is a great example of how Hillary may not really be "in touch" with the average American.

Anyone else think Biden is the most qualified candidate?

I think Biden is and always will be the decent choice that doesn't have the oomph to get there.

I work with a bunch of DE lawyers that are very familiar with him (like, probably golf with him and stuff). I get the vibe they're Republicans (so that tells you they aren't plaintiff's attorneys ), but the one made a pretty funny comment "Joe Biden is the master of saying absolutely nothing".

Biden might be the smartest person in the race. The problem is that while I think he might be, he's clearly certain of it. Both he and Dodd would make fine presidents, but they don't have the starpower. I hate our media.

Richardson impressed me tonight, for the first time since he got in.

Don't you think Biden's own image is his worst enemy? The media may be "criminal" for reporting what he says when he says it (debatable), but he's way to comfortable and not nearly PC enough for the Democrats. Can you imagine the photoshops if a Republican made the 7-11 comments? Or the Obama thing? I mean, he took his lumps, but no one has declared him a full fledged Klegal of the KKK with a swastika tattoo on his butt and demanded he resign. While none of that could happen to a Democrat (presumably because being a Democrat in the first place is proof that you aren't evil at heart), I think the heart of the party, even the mainstream, won't go for that kind of antic from a presidential candidate.

He called Obama articulate. That's not a bad thing. There's no reason to suggest that he meant it in the 'oh, he speaks so well now dance!' way. Obama didn't seem to think so.

Now this--this is funny.

Particularly when you think of the average Fox News viewer--an angry old white guy in his 70s. From Ailes's point of view, though, I get it: you want that viewer to be fully stimulated. And from Rupert's, it's just nice to have it both ways.

pacino wrote:He called Obama articulate. That's not a bad thing. There's no reason to suggest that he meant it in the 'oh, he speaks so well now dance!' way. Obama didn't seem to think so.

Obama was smart about it, I don't think that's a reflection on Biden. Trust me, if Romney implied that a well spoken black guy was a dream date, he'd be a serious racist. Same with the "you can't go into a seven-11 without hearing an accent" issue. I didn't sense malice in either comment, I don't think anyone did - but it creates a hypocrisy of reaction that becomes difficult to defend based on past issues, like a watered down version of NOW continuing to support Clinton after he "abused" his wife by cheating on her.

Sullivan on McCain and Giuliani:

The reason McCain still matters, it seems to me, is that he is the sole Republican able to be respected for his position on the war - and deserves credit for being more confident about the surge's tactical potential than most others - while retaining the honor that marked America's war-making for two centuries. I truly fear the potential of dumb machismo warping the United States into being something it really isn't and mustn't allow itself to become. McCain's insistence on this core issue is both courageous in the current Republican climate and absolutely right. He is also capable of projecting strength while not pandering completely to fear.

Compare him with Giuliani.

If Rudy wins the nomination, we will, I fear, have a campaign in which he routinely pulls the fear-chain to justify enormous powers for himself as a post-Cheney president. ... Rudy will run on rounding up illegal immigrants, building a massive wall on the Southern border, bombing Iran, fighting indefinitely in Iraq, and tearing up what's left of America's alliances. There would be no transparency in his campaign or administration - just an appeal to trust a strong leader to protect us and attack undesirables. Think of a Malkin-Hannity fantasy - and that is what he would eagerly provide. McCain, in contrast, still has a link to the honor of the American past, its tradition of tolerance, of welcoming immigrants, of embracing diversity. And Democrats would not immediately see a McCain presidency as a source of fear and loathing. Increasingly, I'm afraid, I see the main task in this campaign as stopping the Giuliani freight train to unchecked power. McCain may not be able to stop it; but he helps reminds us why it's necessary.

VoxOrion wrote:Don't you think Biden's own image is his worst enemy? The media may be "criminal" for reporting what he says when he says it (debatable), but he's way to comfortable and not nearly PC enough for the Democrats. Can you imagine the photoshops if a Republican made the 7-11 comments? Or the Obama thing? I mean, he took his lumps, but no one has declared him a full fledged Klegal of the KKK with a swastika tattoo on his butt and demanded he resign. While none of that could happen to a Democrat (presumably because being a Democrat in the first place is proof that you aren't evil at heart), I think the heart of the party, even the mainstream, won't go for that kind of antic from a presidential candidate.

Any chance you can make statements without editorials I bolded? You seem to want to always lump everyone together under these nice neat headings but pretend that you aren't a part of one.

pacino wrote:He called Obama articulate. That's not a bad thing. There's no reason to suggest that he meant it in the 'oh, he speaks so well now dance!' way. Obama didn't seem to think so.

I misses when this was said, but it is a ridiculously stupid comment. Would he call Edwards articulate? Probably not.

No thanks on Joe Biden. He's got a great resume, but little personal charm and too many missteps for them to be portrayed as simply mild errors or attempts to misconstrue his actions by his enemies. I developed a lot of antipathy toward him during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and his career since has painted him as someone with little poise and a good deal of arrogance who is either completely tone-deaf to the impact of his remarks or too wrapped up in his own words to care.

dajafi wrote:Now this--this is funny.

Between that and last night's episode of The Office, I finally have some quotes for my signature.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8[/youtube]

I still don't like Huckabee. But it made me laugh.