I'm kind of offended that no one is worried about us despoiling your women. Are we not virile?

no.

Apparently they're more worried about you despoiling the men. These gay Muslims just won't stop sucking my cock.

Apparently they're more worried about you despoiling the men taut, smooth boys.

What's really sad is that rural young Republicans really fall for this shit. I sat my dumbass 18yo Oklahoman cousin down for a chat about Guiliani, whom she fucking worships "because of 9/11," and she wouldn't hear it. I explained the whole thing to her, the failure to provide for emergencies, the failure to care for rescue workers, etc. And all she could come up with was, "Yeah, but he was there. He was on the scene." So were a lot of people who are dead now.

Besides, what the fuck is all this anti-Muslim hate-mongering about? What is the point of that ad? Muslims are really fucked-up people, and only Giuliani knows how to get them in a headlock? GAH.

My only comfort is that pretty much all of the Republican candidates are obviously disastrous in totally different ways, and there's a high likelihood of some kind of third-party breakoff, which should split the crazy/stupid vote up a bit.

Everyone knows that teh Muslims are fueled in their killing fury because they are saving their virgin be-circumcised cocks for the seventy virgins in paradise. Duh.

Moderately off topic, the first time I ever taught Latin 101, we were going over the homework and the first sentence began "Bello persico," making this up now "Leonidas held the pass."
The kid who translated it said "Leonidas held the pass with the beautiful Persian boy." Hilarity ensued. It was of course a good mistake for teaching, because "bello persico" is an ablative of time when and means "in the time of the persian war." To be an ablative of accompaniment, it would need a "cum" (ahem) for Leonidas to have done it alongside of a beautiful (taking bellum as a substantive of bellus/a/um rather than bellum, i) Persian boy. That would leave us with ablative of means -- that is Leonidas wedged that boy into the pass to keep the nasty Persians out. Ever after, I would end my example sentences with "with a beautiful Persian boy." At the end of the semester, one of my students, a nice Iranian boy, told me that he thought it was all for him.

Guiliani is way too faggy for my family to consider supporting him, and they're really into 9/11.

8: I wonder if anyone has that under their Facebook interests. "making chili, fishing, walking through the park with my dog, 9/11, my beautiful children"

one of my students, a nice Iranian boy, told me that he thought it was all for him.

Was it, oudemia, you sly dog?

Errrrrghghhghghghghgh! Why isn't Iowa over already! I want my caucus results NOOOOOOOOOOWWWW!

It's funny, I should be on tenterhooks because this is pretty make or break for Edwards. I think I went through despair a while back and am temporarily stuck in not-giving-a-damn.

7 is wonderful.

Ummm, it's already stopped being hilarious. Years ago.

10: No, I adored him, and he's a sort of friend now, but if anything the notion of "beautiful Persian boy" played amusingly into Orientalist notions of languid and taut youths, maybe with kohl around their eyes, and -- well, at this point, pass me my fan!

I feel sort of bad that I don't actually care at all about the caucuses.

Seriously, this "not starting until 7" crap is boring. Let's go, already!

7- Best HS Latin translation was a dialogue between a slave and her owner and she was complaining about the cruelty of the owner, translated as, "Master, why are you so hard?"

1: They were. Then they read your blog and realized that what would happen, is halfway to despoiling, the Muslim hordes will be consumed with self-doubt, and find reasons not to bother with the ravishing.

I have to wonder if Edwards is going to be dinged by the whole "people who have to work instead of attending a 3 hour caucus" thing.

Just more evidence that Gay Fascism is the Grand Unifying Principle of Wingnut Politics.

Liberal Fascists are teh Gay? D'oh ... like yeaahhh.
Fascist Fascists are teh Gay? Kiss the whip, little one. It's named love.
Islamofascists are teh Gay? How many women did you see in Lawrence of Arabia?

21: I have to hope that Edwards will do well because of his strength in rural areas.

I have friends who are super-excited about Obama, but I don't get it. I was crazy for Dean, but I just can't muster taht sort fo enthusiasm for Obama, especially since his health care plan is meh, he says stupid things about social security, and he seems to be only slightly less aggressive than Clinton about getting our troops out of Iraq.

mrh, if you're reading: you said that you had a little rear-view mirror for your computer at work. Where did you get that?

12:I'm dying. Edwards is the only acceptable candidate for me. I don't think I can vote for Obama in November. I just sorta trust Clinton to not fuck us over, she has the necessary spite and opposition, but I don't trust Obama.

And my understanding of the economy/class war makes anything but an Edwards election a tragedy for billions.

Are we not virile?

WE ARE DEVO.

'Giuliani' is spelled incorrectly so many times (3) in this thread, and by people whom I normally assume to take a high degree of care about such things, that I was strongly questioning my beliefs about its spelling.

I just sorta trust Clinton to not fuck us over, she has the necessary spite and opposition

I've never understood your logic on this one, Bob. Her husband spent eight years fucking us over, and they both hail from a political movement whose main ambition was to sell out the left. I agree, though, that Obama is proving himself to be a Broderite through and through, and I have less than no confidence in him.

Her husband spent eight years fucking us over, and they both hail from a political movement whose main ambition was to sell out the left.

I can certainly see how that would make one reluctant to support southern DLC Democrats. I'm just not sure how that can be reconciled with supporting John Edwards.

This answer from Obama in November made me feel a little better about the Broderisms- is he just framing things that way to win, or will he really govern like that? Neither is admirable, but the former is at least acceptable.

I'm not interested in good government for the sake of good government. You can make an argument that there were times when patronage politics worked pretty well for the down and out and for the immigrant end of America. And, you know, maybe the lace curtain crowd didn't like it, but it really helped in terms of upward mobility. That's not true any more. So when I say I want to change politics, it's precisely because I want to make sure that people have health care, that they've got a job that pays a living wage, that they can send their kids to college, that they can retire with dignity and respect.
...I'm not afraid to get in a big partisan fight. But what I'm not going to do is organize my campaign around the fact that I'm not a Republican. I don't think that gets us to where we need to go. So, look, nobody's been fiercer in going after Republicans where I think they're wrong. I've never been a centrist, middle of the road Democrat. I mean, if anything, both Hillary and John have had their moments, you know, their roles in that. That's not a role I've ever taken. And I've never pretended to take that role. I have always taken the view that my job is to fight for people who nobody else is fighting for. And to fight hard for 'em. And sometimes that's partisan. But sometimes it's not. Sometimes working with Republicans is the best way to deliver for them. Sometimes cleaning up politics is the best way to deliver for them. Ultimately, my goal is to deliver for them.

my dumbass 18yo Oklahoman cousin

I initially read this as "1870 Oklahoman cousin."

My ideal scenario would be that Edwards & Obama virtually tie & Hillary finishes a somewhat distant third, and/or Edwards wins Iowa & Obama wins New Hampshire. With stakes this high & this many strong candidates, let's have a real race. I've never been as undecided for so long as between Obama & Edwards--I always assumed that only one would be viable by the time I was voting, but until tonight, I can dream.

As for Obama's "bipartisanship, togetherness, tra la la" talk, I find it annoying too--beyond annoying at times when applied to the question of whether this administration has committed crimes--but in more optimistic moments I think: (1) a lot of this vague conciliatory talk doesn't actually hurt liberal causes anymore than Rahm Emanuel's "I'll stick it to the Republicans" talk actually helps liberal causes; (2) it seems to work remarkably well at building a majority for a pretty fucking liberal candidate.

(well, "getting people to cross the aisle for" a pretty liberal candidate--I don't know about a majority.)

27: Best of a bad bunch?

I'm sanguine on Obama: in '00, Bush ran on a strategy of bipartisanship and blurring the differences between himself and the Democrats, but that committed him to absolutely nothing once he was in office. Liberal policies wrapped in conservative rhetoric are totally ok in my book.

Or maybe I'm just tired of Vietnam. So, so tired. It ended before I was even born. Why are people still fighting over it?

Why are people still fighting over it?

bad at losing, mostly.

||

BG, I don't remember where I got mine, but the internet is full of them.

|>

26:Where the hell have my cookies gone? Am I diseased, infected,viral?

Stras, there are a lot reasons on both sides Clinton & Republicans will have a harder arriving at a bi-partison consensus on any issue than Obama & Republicans. I cannot stand Andrew Sullivan, von at ObsWi, even fucking Thomas at RedState saying "Well, Obama could be okay." It makes me froth at the mouth. I know exactly what that means, and it is very very specific. Those Republicans believe Obama will not raise taxes and will cut spending, especially entitlements. Repubs really care about little else. Obama openly wants to make Republicans happy. Fuck him, fuck him.

Clinton might, but a) Repubs hate her and must be percieved by their base as hating her, and b) Clinton will not want to make Repubs happy or re-elected, I think she hates them back. The history and the congress will make her Presidency slightly better than her husbands. Not good enough, but good enough I will vote for her over a Republican.

30: Mr. B. makes the quite reasonable point that he supports Obama primarily because he thinks that the vicious partisan bullshit has been exceedingly bad for the country.

Not good enough, but good enough I will vote for her over a Republican.

At this point, is that saying much? A pox on both their houses, but this time round I'd take pretty much any conceivable D candidate over pretty much any conceivable R candidate.

Mr. B. makes the quite reasonable point that he supports Obama primarily because he thinks that the vicious partisan bullshit has been exceedingly bad for the country.

Electing a black man named Hussein isn't exactly going to reduce the level of vicious partisan bullshit.

vicious partisan bullshit has been exceedingly bad for the country.

I think this is true, but also that it is only a symptom. There is zero probability of fixing this without fixing deeper problems. The tall pole is probably (maybe not) getting the asshat wing of the R's out of control, and only a relative meltdown in R-land will do that.

In 40 I meant out of control of the Republican party, not out of the Whitehouse (which is a necessary but not sufficient step)

36:Democrats haven't set a record for filibusters, 3 times higher than any other Senate.

Obama may be delusional, but I doubt, He is lying, but is isn't the moderates and independents he is trying to fool.

Example:Obama "only" wants to raise the cap on FICA taxes. Problem:Obama knows very well he is going to have to deal, deal big, give something valuable up to raise taxes on the upper-middle class. So he is planning on needing a lot of Republican votes, because some Democrats will not like the deal. The deal just got worse.

Bob, it frightens me when you're sensible and cogent -- I start thinking that possibly I should be stocking up on canned foods and weapons for when the riots start.

43: I used to think that was a complete fantasy in my lifetime. I'm no longer convinced.

"even fucking Thomas at RedState saying "Well, Obama could be okay."

are you serious? Jesus.

I actually think that some of the "Obama could be okay" talk may stem from the fact that: (1) until recently he really looked like he was going to lose--hell, even Huckabee & McCain seemed less objectionable to me when they clearly weren't going to be president; (2) it's good for their self-image to be saying that about one Democrat, Joe Lieberman's not in the race, Hillary's a Clinton, Edwards is mean to them, & Obama has the added advantage of showing that they're not racist. They're not actually going to VOTE for him or seriously consider it if he's the nominee.

But this doesn't explain a bunch of independents & former Republicans in one of the whitest states in the nation caucusing for him.

Some of it may be simply a narrative thing: a lot of people are really fucking depressed about where this country is going. If a bunch of white Republicans & independents in Iowa can register Democratic & show up at their first caucus for a liberal black candidate--well. Maybe there's hope for us yet. It's not just that Obama's got a good narrative, it's that he plays into a narrative we'd like to believe about ourselves & the country.

In the face of a candidate as good as Edwards, who has many of the benefits of Obama without some of the potential down sides (maybe we'll never really elect a black guy--maybe he really doesn't have a clue what he'll be up against if he wins--maybe he's as Broderish as he sometimes sounds) I may be crazy to be on the verge of falling for this. And yet...

I see no evidence whatsoever, absolutely none, that Obama is so strongly committed to raising the FICA cap that he intends to sell out social security . How a few admittedly annoying remarks trumps Hillary's war vote & her continued conviction that it was the right decision is bizarre & maddening to me. If we're going to vote against someone for vague "I don't trust them" reasons how about the one whose top advisor is Mark Penn.

AWB: Something I've noticed is that if you argue against a lazy but cherished belief, no one will ever admit that they were wrong, and change their mind in front of you. Slowly, though, the cherished belief will erode away. I would check back with your cousin in a couple of months to see if you made any headway.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and may have good intentions.

Clinton will run to against the wall of the Senate Republicans, not get anything done, and get blamed for it without a grassroots base to help her.

Edwards will not get anything done, and go to class war. In 2006, I said the Senate Democrats should just go home and campaign against Republicans for two years. Edwards will scream bloody murder, and change the direction of the country for 2010 and 2012. This is the best we can hope for.

Obama will get things done. They will be on margin center-right things, like Romney Health Care, will help moderate Republicans and blue-dog Democrats, and will move the countryto the right.

Progressives are gonna be in hell trying to attack the first black President, a Democrat. Andy Sullivan will call you "racist", and remind everyone that Democrats have a history of racism (the Bartlett book). It will be depression & despair worse than Clinton years. And I can see Republicans taking back Congress.

That is at least plausible, & the Andy Sullivan line in particular is grossing me out. But I can't quite shake the phenomenon described in 45....

"Obama is so strongly committed to raising the FICA cap that he intends to sell out social security"

Then you tell me how he gets a tax increase past the filibuster. What, Obama is gonna charm and seduce Grover Norquist? "Damn, he's good", says Grover, "I didn't even see it coming."

I can certainly see how that would make one reluctant to support southern DLC Democrats. I'm just not sure how that can be reconciled with supporting John Edwards.

Edwards wasn't bad for a southern Dem. His record in the Senate was comparable to Clinton's; the difference was that Clinton was representing one of the bluest states in the country and Edwards was representing one of the reddest. That counts for something in my book. The big thing, though, is that his campaign is based around selling an unashamedly progressive, anti-corporate message to a wide spectrum of voters. He's the first Democrat in my lifetime who I think could actually expand liberalism, comparable to the way that Reagan expanded conservatism.

50: my point is that in the face of a filibuster I think he'd drop the tax increase rather than cut benefits to get a deal. Unless he's an idiot, which I can't totally rule out--but I don't see a reason to assume it will happen.

Republican officeholders can get skittish & break ranks too, as they did w/ social security when Bush tried it. There has to be a cost, though.

But this doesn't explain a bunch of independents & former Republicans in one of the whitest states in the nation caucusing for him.

Class, class, social class.

52:Obama views himself as transformational. He will not accept failure easily, especially if Republicans offer him successes. A pro-choice pro-business justice. HRC or Edwards won't get that offer.

God, Republicans would love a black President who likes them. If they could get just 10-20% more black vote in certain states, ertain districts....they will give Obama a lot for that kind of re-alignment.
...
Hillary OTOH may be like her husband, an incrementalist and "conservative" in the sense of preserving as much as possible from the barbarian attacks. Just tiny little liberal advances, tho more than Bill, because she will have a better Congress.

But mainly less war, balance the budget (fucking ouch), and let Rubin & Bernanke try to generate the money.

Obama is, or was, very good at hitting all of the right "uniter" notes, too. (And for a while he was managing to do that while saying things like "I'm against dumb wars." That seems to have dropped out, to my annoyance.) His rhetoric made a lot of people I know actually get excited about politics after several years of basically hating all of it, and he did seem to have the ability to appeal to non-wingnut Republicans. I am a little concerned he's turning into Lieberman.

Dodd doesn't have a prayer but I like his pro-smacking-wiretapping-thugs plank. I hope someone picks him up as VP.

The idea of Obama accepting bad deals for the sake of "solving problems" is worrisome to me. On the other hand, has he actually ever done it? He sometimes talks like Broder, but as far as his record, I don't really buy that he thinks like Broder.

Bill Clinton actually did it a ton, too--less deals than him just frequently signing crap bills that the GOP congress put on his desk that made things actively worse for people. I guess this is less of a risk if the Democrats retain their majority, but who knows what things will look like after the 2010 elections.

The idea of Republicans becoming really popular with blacks as a result of the Obama presidency is just very odd.

God, Republicans would love a black President who likes them. If they could get just 10-20% more black vote in certain states, ertain districts....they will give Obama a lot for that kind of re-alignment.

I doubt Obama has the skirt for it, but offering the fiscal conservative this sort of deal for splitting, volubly and acrimonously with the social conservatives could be excellent for the country.

"(And for a while he was managing to do that while saying things like "I'm against dumb wars." That seems to have dropped out, to my annoyance.) "

Yeah. He can turn it up & fight but I would like to have more contemporary evidence of his ability to do this. There are good bits in stump speeches & the occasional pleasingly little nasty counterattack to a Republican but more would be very very reassuring indeed.

56:Okay, Bruce Webb has been all over the nets with questions about Obama's advisors. Katherine or MY would remeber Tony Lake better than I, I have researched the economists. This BW comment, 12:40, which contains a link, so go to Ezra's for details, is why I am scared:

For example top three Obama advisor Jeffrey Liebman is the lead author of the pretty prominant Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform Plan also known as LMS. Well I have read it and so has Krugman and the idea that this guy is anywhere close to the center of future economics policy should send shivers down every progressive spine. It basically boils down to a worker financed bailout of most of capitals obligation to repay Social Security for the money they borrowed. It's only nine pages and worth the read. Don't forget to look at the proposed outcomes for lower income workers in table 1. Hint, on balance no real improvement at all.

These are not 'offhand comments' by Obama in the heat of an election campaign, these are hiring decisions made months or years ago. Until someone can explain away the people Obama is freely choosing to make up his policy teams I am going to stay pretty skeptical about his progressive cred. What I am seeing frankly is another Harold Ford Jr., initially so promising but ultimately a deep disappointment" ...Bruce Webb

Sorry. I think Obama, after serving thru the Bush failure, really wants to "reform" Social Security. There are macroeconomic reasons to do so, derived from the desperate straits the Reagan/Bush deficits have put us into.

Krugman knows. Krugman understands, now. We are in the middle of a very vicious class war. In a country that is closer to a South American or Middle-Eastern oligopoly than a European Social Democracy. IOW, It will not be pretty for workers to win, if possible. The three plans:

1) Clinton/Rubin (DeLong?): slowly, at a rate of 2-5% a year, year after year, transfer wealth by inflation from wages to capital, hoping globalization keeps labor quiescent and at sustenance.

2) Obama/Liebman(?):Slowly transfer wealth in entitlements (SS trust fund) from labour to capital.

3) Edwards:CLASS WAR!!!

The richest rich getting ever richer will not give up ther wealth & power easily. They may take their money to the Bahamas, they may hire Blackwater, they may start more wars overseas. Actual class war has always involved blood in the streets. Always.

I think DeLong, for instance, believes that avoiding violence or depression is worth almost any cost, including a long term impoverishment of workers. It can be reversed or ameliorated. Keynesianism was born in despair, and is a despair.

DeLong may be right, and 1) & 2) are the better choices. Not my choices. I'm an asshole.

Mr. B. makes the quite reasonable point that he supports Obama primarily because he thinks that the vicious partisan bullshit has been exceedingly bad for the country.

Try to keep him from voting.

60: I'm an asshole.

Couldn't say. but if you are, you're at least an interesting and insightful asshole. I'm sure the miners had harsh words for the canary as it keeled over as well.

I agree with the trend of your analysis, but would see it all happening over a much longer period of time, Edwards would only be "CLASS WAR" in comparison to Clinton and Obama, but he would cause some friction and keep economic populism front and center.

But it all seems to be one big Obamagasm now.