Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)

by **Woody** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:13:44

They all gotta be on greenies, let's face it

by **dajafi** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:20:43

Woody wrote:They all gotta be on greenies, let's face it

Maybe the mortal normals.

Obama, however, can fly through the air and destroy political enemies with his mind. He requires neither sleep nor food--only ecstatic applause.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:21:26

He's about half right. Ari Fleischer is a moron, and him running to keep abortion and other issues in the spotlight makes some sense. But it's not a coronation anymore. The race is over. He lost.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:22:07

dajafi wrote:Obama, however, can fly through the air and destroy political enemies with his mind

Voldemort?

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:22:22

dajafi wrote:It was a guy, dave Judging by his looks, he might have been able to give some good barbecue tips, though...

But you're right--a terrible job by the "surrogate," and a lousy prep job by the campaign. Thing about the Obama campaign, though, is that they generally don't repeat their mistakes: I'd bet the farm that nobody who goes on TV for Obama through the duration of this political year will do so without being briefed. Compare that to the Clintons who leak, spin and smear day after day--mostly serving to undermine their own cause.

Crap, I misread the CNN article and thought that Stephanie Tubbs Jones made the comment. :oops:

Anyway, you are 100% correct, the Obama compaign learns from their mistakes quickly. Overall, I don't think this does a lot of damage but it just gives the campaign something to fix rather than focusing on Texas and Ohio.

by **FlightRisk** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:25:37

VoxOrion wrote:...I had a gay friend that was all hung up on the fact that...

It's backseat driving but if I had been making this argument, I would have tossed in the word, "very" in front of the word, "gay". Just to WOW my audience.

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:28:21

CNN reporting that The Teamsters union plans to endorese Obama today according to two sources.

by **momadance** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:28:36

Commence Party Destruction!

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

by **dajafi** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 14:37:57

jerseyhoya wrote:He's about half right. Ari Fleischer is a moron, and him running to keep abortion and other issues in the spotlight makes some sense. But it's not a coronation anymore. The race is over. He lost.

I agree, which is why I think the broadside is better directed at Bush from eight years ago.

But Huckabee's irrelevant now anyway. McCain is playing it exactly right--he said nice things about Huck early in his speech last night, then started blasting at Obama. And as I said, Huckabee didn't attack McCain. He knows what he's doing.

I wish Clinton would take that approach. As various people across the 'tubes have noted today, if it had been Obama who'd lost 10 in a row, the cries for him to withdraw would be deafening--and news that he was about to launch a political kamikaze attack would be met with anger and outrage. But the Clintons' past victories, I guess, still somewhat inoculate them from that sort of (appropriate) reaction.

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 15:42:33

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:He's about half right. Ari Fleischer is a moron, and him running to keep abortion and other issues in the spotlight makes some sense. But it's not a coronation anymore. The race is over. He lost.

I agree, which is why I think the broadside is better directed at Bush from eight years ago.

But Huckabee's irrelevant now anyway. McCain is playing it exactly right--he said nice things about Huck early in his speech last night, then started blasting at Obama. And as I said, Huckabee didn't attack McCain. He knows what he's doing.

I wish Clinton would take that approach. As various people across the 'tubes have noted today, if it had been Obama who'd lost 10 in a row, the cries for him to withdraw would be deafening--and news that he was about to launch a political kamikaze attack would be met with anger and outrage. But the Clintons' past victories, I guess, still somewhat inoculate them from that sort of (appropriate) reaction.

This is where the Dems could end up being hurt in Nov. McCain essentially has a two-month head start on national campaigning for the Presidency. If Hillary is as much in love with the Democratic Party as she says she better step aside if Obama takes either Texas or Ohio.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 15:52:35

Interesting thoughts on what's next for Hillary - I hadn't thought of this before:

Hillary's Floor [Lisa Schiffren]

...Hillary does have more class than Bill — but also more of a current stake to preserve. She could serve as the U.S. Senator from New York for the next 20 years if she plays it right — even if she just preserves the merest of fig leaves. Whatever her shortcomings, the NY State GOP has no candidate likely to displace her anytime soon. And in 20 years, or even 12, you can accomplish a lot of your underlying liberal agenda — especially if you give up your presidential aspirations, and have no need to "triangulate" your votes to appeal to moderates later on. Teddy Kennedy is a reasonable model for this approach. It's not the big, glittering prize that the oval office is. And it requires the kind of hard, daily legislative work Hillary hasn't done so much of. But, for better or worse, it would be a real legacy...

by **Bakestar** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 16:02:04

VoxOrion wrote:Interesting thoughts on what's next for Hillary - I hadn't thought of this before:

Hillary's Floor [Lisa Schiffren]

...Hillary does have more class than Bill — but also more of a current stake to preserve. She could serve as the U.S. Senator from New York for the next 20 years if she plays it right — even if she just preserves the merest of fig leaves. Whatever her shortcomings, the NY State GOP has no candidate likely to displace her anytime soon. And in 20 years, or even 12, you can accomplish a lot of your underlying liberal agenda — especially if you give up your presidential aspirations, and have no need to "triangulate" your votes to appeal to moderates later on. Teddy Kennedy is a reasonable model for this approach. It's not the big, glittering prize that the oval office is. And it requires the kind of hard, daily legislative work Hillary hasn't done so much of. But, for better or worse, it would be a real legacy...

And think that's what bothers lots of us on the Left the most about Hillary's rightward "lurch" since taking office. As a senator with a big name from a safe Democratic state with her intelligence and strength, she has the ability to be a real champion of a lot of progressive causes... but she's spent most of her first eight years basically pandering to the imaginary "swing voters" in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who haven't made up their mind about her yet.

I've invoked Teddy as a good aspiration for Hillary... minus the drownings, of course.

by **dajafi** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 16:08:47

I think it was the same Lisa Schiffren who was on The Corner last night suggesting that Obama's mixed-race parents were Bolshies.

But she's onto something with that post about HRC. Clinton could be a solid liberal Senator who emphasizes both constituent service (which she has, almost to the old D'Amato level) and does the "hard work" for progressive goals. Instead, she's triangulated her way to... well, where she is, with little going for her politically except the two X chromosomes and the fading Clinton Brand loyalty of low-information Democratic voters.

There have been comments on various lefty sites about how if Clinton loses the nomination, she'll lose the Senate seat in 2012. Nonsense. She's got that gig for life if she wants it. Ironically the Republican argument against her, somewhat in her semi-close 2000 race and very much in her 2006 walkover, was that she saw the Senate only as a stepping-stone to the White House. With that out of the way, she could be a political colossus--and, I would suggest, create a greater feminist legacy through passing legislation than she would have by winning the presidency Eva Peron-style.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 16:43:06

momadance wrote:Commence Party Destruction!

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

I didn't click on that link until now.

Holy shit. I honestly can't believe she's going to do this.

by **dajafi** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 16:55:52

A million donors to the Obama campaign?

I think Obama's success here is probably symptom as much as cause--the left is just more fired up right now and probably better organized for online fundraising. But this stuff is cyclical, and also not necessarily correlated with electoral success--in 1964 Barry Goldwater broke all kinds of ground with fund-raising.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 17:00:53

Re: this whole "Clinton is going to push the commander-in-chief" angle - um, isn't that dumb? No one seems to be winning on a platform of "I'm going to pull out the troops in x days", and the war has been lower on the priorities scale in polling (probably because it isn't a disaster any longer). I can't see this tactic doing anything but hurting both Obama and Clinton in comparison to McCain. It doesn't make it right or anything, but I would think the military veteran has that edge in the unwashed mass mind, and highlighting that difference is probably a bad idea for either Democrat.

Eh, maybe not, it didn't get Kerry anywhere (although it may have helped him percentage-wise, hard to tell).

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 17:03:31

jerseyhoya wrote:
momadance wrote:Commence Party Destruction!

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

I didn't click on that link until now.

Holy $#@!. I honestly can't believe she's going to do this.

Me neither and it was stunning. I found it particularly funny (meaning idiotic) that the left side of the page levels claims about the Obama campaign such as:

"The Obama campaign is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama"

when the right side has a quote from David Axelrod saying:

"I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party…"

Also, when has anyone in the Obama camp said that the race is "all over"? Those people are off their rocker!

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 17:22:38

traderdave wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
momadance wrote:Commence Party Destruction!

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

I didn't click on that link until now.

Holy $#@!. I honestly can't believe she's going to do this.

Me neither and it was stunning. I found it particularly funny (meaning idiotic) that the left side of the page levels claims about the Obama campaign such as:

"The Obama campaign is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama"

when the right side has a quote from David Axelrod saying:

"I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party…"

Also, when has anyone in the Obama camp said that the race is "all over"? Those people are off their rocker!

... just about over

Hillary Clinton's campaign said Wednesday morning that Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential frontrunner – and the Illinois senator’s campaign said the race was just about over.

by **Disco Stu** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 17:29:02

FlightRisk wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:...I had a gay friend that was all hung up on the fact that...

It's backseat driving but if I had been making this argument, I would have tossed in the word, "very" in front of the word, "gay". Just to WOW my audience.

It's not like Vox was belittling you.

by **dajafi** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 17:44:01

I'm gunna lock this here thread, mmmkay?

Archived

Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)