Who? It's Capps, right?

Whoever you're going to punch is probably going to bob and weave away from your blows now that you've posted this warning. You need to keep these things close to vest so that you can take advantage of the element of surprise.

[dodges]

3: You can run, but you cannot hide, Smasher. Becks knows where you live.

Also, Becks is fierce and has probably learned skillz from her taekwondobro.

Hey, 'Smasher, how do you pronounce "Bedford-Stuyvesant"?

Goddamnit. It's "Bedford-Stiuehrmrmrmmmnt."

I can't wait to hear that in person.

The hispanic vote exit polls are depressing me the most, because:

1) I personally know that he's way the fuck better on immigration issues. They support similar policies but he will actually risk trying to pass a bill & she won't. And who here knows that Bill Clinton signed a worse immigration statute than George W. Bush has yet managed to sign? Not NV voters, seemingly.
2) if this holds in Calif. Obama is screwed.

actually, scratch that. The strip sites not holding it against Clinton that her supporters tried to prevent them from voting depresses me the most.

With 82 percent reporting, the Dem tally in Nevada is still under 10,000 people. This is being treated as a way, way more meaningful contest than it really is.

10 - Not to mention that all the cable TV has been talking about is how the big bad unions that backed Obama are supposedly threatening anyone who wanted to try to caucus for Hillary. Her people are spreading that message as far as they can, true or not.

I suspect the spin is going to be that Mean Bad Obama's people tried to strongarm poor little Hillary's folks and they still won, proving that she's got overwhelming support, etc.

CNN's politics site is priceless, with this copy:

Bling and juice

Who knew that President Bush loves "bling-bling" and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds strawberry juice just dandy.

Under the heading: "Best Political Team"

Not to mention that all the cable TV has been talking about is how the big bad unions that backed Obama are supposedly threatening anyone who wanted to try to caucus for Hillary. Her people are spreading that message as far as they can, true or not.

Bill is talking like he personally saw that kind of thing, which I'm guessing is a huge fucking lie.

14 - That's been on TV every 10 minutes, by the newspeople and all kinds of Hillary's surrogates. Where are Obama's surrogates?

Edwards: teh collapse.

I am really feeling like Bill Clinton needs to sit down, be quiet, and eat a bucket of live eels for a while here.

13: After all, if Chappelle taught us anything, it's that Rice clearly enjoys strawberry drink.

"What the fuck is juice?"

Also pissing me off is people not getting the fucking point of Obama's Reagan comments. Gah.

I'm confused--is Nevada worth GOP delegates or not? I thought it was, but MSNBC keeps implying otherwise.

19: The reaction to those comments bothered me a lot. The message seems to be: nuance, be gone!

Totally to 19.

17: yep. When Rahm Emanuel (a Hillary supporter!) tells you you're being a dick? You're being a dick.

I might be repeating myself. Obama often speaks like an erudite political scientist. If you want to be elected president in sound-bite America, you save your political science for your memoirs and presidential library. America doesn't do nuance. Republicans should not be able to use Obama soundbites.

Obama often speaks like an erudite political scientist.

That's my man!

Well yes, I would rather have him as my professor than as my president.

11: Delegates to the next level convention are what's being counted, not votes. Yes. It's confusing.

Obama is screwed.

The sad truth (I think) is that this was probably inevitable. If we wanted an anti-HRC, we probably should have coalesced around Edwards. I certainly made that mistake. I feel sort of idiotic now, but whatever. HRC won't be horrible, and we'll have a shot at a different Dem in twelve years.

Twelve?

26: Now I see that. But the vote is still in the vicinity of 40,000, right?

It doesn't matter, really; I'm just going to curl up in the corner and mumble "President McCain" over and over, just to get used to the sound of the words.

27: Yep.

Ugh.

it was inevitable because he's black? Is that the argument?

Republicans should not be able to use Obama soundbites.

Should they be able to use Clinton soundbites? Soundbites like "Reagan is one of my favorite presidents," or demagoguing on taxing the rich?

So am I sensing that the Dems are on their way to confirming yet another crap "electable" candidate who will fold like a cheap house of cards with Diebold delivers the office to their Republican opponent in November?

Obama is screwed.

Nooooooooooooo

"with" s/b "when"

||
Sorry to interupt but I just skimmed the prior thread. I'm not a sock puppit. I really did start out wondering about read's identities.
Unless I'm snockered I'm usually too shy to post and if sober am more than a little boring (even to myself.) I don't want to mess up the community with unnecessary conspiricy theories. Back to it then.
|>

mumble "President McCain"

Eh, I still don't think McCain gets the nomination.

it was inevitable because he's black?

No, inevitable because he assembled the Tsongas/Bradley/Dean coalition, which has yet to win a nomination.

Slack, do you have a garage or basement up there in Canadia where my family and I can hang out for the next 8 years or so?

Sorry, Jesus, I'm moving to Sweden. Canada's starting to feel like a vanilla version of Austria in 1937.

"No, inevitable because he assembled the Tsongas/Bradley/Dean coalition, which has yet to win a nomination."

Well look, I've seen how that coalition does & he's doing a fucking hell of a lot better. He has those votes AND OTHERS, and there's nothing radioactive about those votes. I'd say his problem was: he spent most of 2007 running a general election campaign, which you can't do as an underdog in the Democratic primary.

HRC won't be horrible

She'll be a reprise of her husband. I know Democrats want to pretend Clinton the First was awesome, or was a secret liberal restrained by a GOP Congress, but really, he wasn't. Like the rest of the neoliberal movement, he was and is a Reaganite in liberal clothing, and his Wal-Mart board-of-directors First Lady is, too. The jury's out on whether Obama would be any better, domestically speaking - and I don't have high hopes for that - but we know what we're getting with Clinton, and it's not good - at least if you're poor, non-white or foreign.

and we'll have a shot at a different Dem in twelve years

Assuming Clinton actually wins the general - which is a huge assumption - then we get, at best, eight years of Clinton, followed by a run by her successor, who will almost certainly be an ideological clone (Bayh, Warner, etc.). How do you figure we get a shot at a real liberal four years after a run by the post-Clinton II candidate? Or are you assuming one term for Clinton, followed by a fantastic flame-out, followed by a two-term Republican comeback?

41 is depressingly true. It's not clear, particularly with that assclown Harper futzing around the corridors of `power', that moving to Canada is enough.

It's not over. SC is a big one, though. Edwards has to win outright, by a lot, or he's out of the race. Obama probably has to win too, but can afford a narrower victory, I think.

Does anyone know a good blog on Canadian politics?

I'm just hoping that Hillary is, like Al Gore & John Kerry before her, actually a better person than her husband.

I also hope that even if they win, they get a little scared by their lack of support among independents, young voters, & African Americans--scared enough to pick Obama for VP instead of some whitebread DLC safe choice like Evan Bayh.

there's nothing radioactive about those votes

No of course not; it's the part of the party I feel closest to. It just isn't big enough to win.

45: I agree. These results are bad but not disastrous for Obama--if they had tracked the exit polls maybe disastrous, and if the demographics hold up on Feb. 5 it'd be disastrous. But as it is, a convincing win in S.C. (not a landslide, but a decent margin & very high turnout) would suffice to keep him very very much alive.

The idea that the great hope for progressives and liberals in this country is that HRC doesn't suck too badly really is depressing.

45: There's no way Edwards is going to win in SC. The media has more or less made him invisible since Iowa. The question is what Edwards's collapse will do to Obama. If the "Edwards is sucking votes from Clinton" theory is true, then Edwards's slide means Obama is toast. But I'm not totally convinced of that one yet.

I'm just hoping that Hillary is, like Al Gore & John Kerry before her, actually a better person than her husband.

The political reappearance of Bill this past few months has smashed any wisps of Clinton-nostalgia I may have felt.

Edwards has to win outright, by a lot, or he's out of the race.

He's trailing badly. It isn't over for Obama until Super Tuesday because anything can happen and that's a shitoad of delegates at stake, but nothing has happened so far to blunt Clinton's momentum. She can effectively tie the rest of the way and then win thanks to the superdelegates.

48: right, but Dean wasn't exactly taking 75% of the African American vote. I know from personal experience: the Bradley-Dean coalition wins you the Vermont primary if your from Vermont.

I also hope that even if they win, they get a little scared by their lack of support among independents, young voters, & African Americans--scared enough to pick Obama for VP instead of some whitebread DLC safe choice like Evan Bayh.

If they picked Obama for VP, I might choke out of shock. I can't imagine the Clinton camp taking the risk of a "break two glass ceilings" ticket. On top of that, there are a lot of Clinton people who seem to have serious personal animus towards Obama at this point.

I think Edwards probably hurts Obama in SC. More than he does Clinton.

Edwards may not have been in the media much, but that doesn't explain his complete collapse in a smaller caucus state. What we see is that in Nevada, he's got no organization at all -- a condition that undoubtedly predated the Iowa result. It seems likely that he was betting it all on Iowa, hoping a win would bring people to the banner.

56: That was sort of assumed heading in, wasn't it? He spent the last two years campaigning in Iowa, he was going to get a big bounce, etc. That's the way I always understoon the Edwards campaign, and why Iowa depressed me as much as it did...

Fine. Then I'd say he ought to get out before SC, and try to get his people to go Obama.

it was inevitable because he's black? Is that the argument?

In part, both naively and because it (a) forces him to form the coalition that Apo referenced, and (b) limits the way he can campaign. But also, the Clintons have been the effective heads of the Democratic Party, in whole or in part, for sixteen years. That's a lot of time to build up institutional chits, build a machine, form relationships, promote favorites, etc. And, together, those things are a lot to overcome.

I don't know that Edwards would have won, either--HRC is running, and appears to believe in, her inevitability campaign for a reason--but I think he would have had a better shot.

How do you figure we get a shot at a real liberal four years after a run by the post-Clinton II candidate? Or are you assuming one term for Clinton, followed by a fantastic flame-out, followed by a two-term Republican comeback?

Yes, I assume she'll win. I figure two term Clinton, followed by her successor, who loses, followed by a real shot at someone else. Or one-term Clinton, followed by two term Republican. I guess it could be eight years.

Or one-term Clinton, followed by two term Republican.

That's my guess.

I'm pretty sure Edwards is sucking anti-Hillary votes from Obama.

I'm also pretty sure that the "Obama's toast" argument, which premature, is true--not because he's black or has the Dean coalition (which is the thing that got him this far) but because it's been obvious that Hillary is the inside candidate for the last three years. And if it was obvious to *me*, then it should have been obvious to anyone, because I'm stupid about this shit.

The reason it was obvious to me is that I went to an Emily's list thingy back in (I think it was) 2004 or 5, and they were very, very clearly raising money and campaigning for Clinton already.

As Katherine says, Obama has the Bradley/Dean/Tsongas constituency + 75% of the Black vote. That's a big difference.

In terms of Edwards, the fact that Obama did a lot better than the entrance polls suggested leads me to suspect that in Nevada, at least, Edwards people tended to move to Obama. We'll have to see if that holds elsewhere.

I think Obama's still got a shot - he has to win South Carolina, obviously. But given how the process works, with Obama having a lot of money and all primaries giving out delegates proportionally, there's really no reason to call the thing over early. If Obama keeps it close on February 5 and wins some of the states, he'll still be competitive with delegates, and can continue on. On February 5 he ought to win, at least, Alabama, Georgia, and Illinois. Add in some caucus wins (Minnesota? North Dakota? Alaska?), strong second places in California, New York, and New Jersey, and a few other primary wins (Missouri? Massachusetts? Tennessee?), and Obama still has a colorable claim to still be in the race.

Obama often speaks like an erudite political scientist. If you want to be elected president in sound-bite America, you save your political science for your memoirs and presidential library.

Obama sounds like a guy whose party has lost the ability and/or backbone to actually engage in politics.

We've long lost the war on Reagan. The question is, have the last 27 years taught the Democrats anything? Apparently the answer is a resounding "no".

60: Please be wrong.

leads me to suspect that in Nevada, at least, Edwards people tended to move to Obama

Not from what I've heard.

I, perversely, decided that yesterday was the appropriate time to donate to the Edwards campaign. Don't waste my money, John!

Just one point to add - I really don't think Edwards is hurting Obama in South Carolina, or in the south generally. Nationwide, I think he probably does. As someone at TNR, I think, said, the way for Edwards to maximally help Obama, if that's what he wants to do, is to stay in through South Carolina, then drop out and endorse Obama.

I'm just hoping that Hillary is, like Al Gore & John Kerry before her, actually a better person than her husband.

Huh, the thing I associate Tipper Gore with is the Parents Music Resource Center, which I find pretty unpleasant.

58: That seems right to me; it's the only way he can influence things at all. HRC is never going to listen to him, and if he endorses Obama too late it won't do any good either. Might as well roll the dice.

The political reappearance of Bill this past few months has smashed any wisps of Clinton-nostalgia I may have felt.

Politics is hardball in this country, especially for a Democrat. I respect that they understand that. Bill's attitude towards elections isn't ideal. I think he's serious and idealistic about his reasons for wanting to win, but the process, the campaign, is more war-like. For instance, he genuinely seemed to like Bush the elder on a personal level, but that wasn't going to stop him from pullin his punches in a campaign. He wouldv'e been more restrained in the primary if Obama was less of a threat...so that's a call he made, which has it's down sides, but it also means he's hella fixed on winning, which is something we haven't had in the last two Presidential elections. Neither Kerry nor Gore wanted it enough.

On a more personal level, I'm again going to mention that I think what Bill has done with his foundation deserves a lot of respect. He's a good guy.

46: Warren Kinsella is usually pretty good.

65 - what do you mean? You yourself just said that you thought Edwards was sucking anti-Hillary votes from Obama.

The political reappearance of Bill this past few months has smashed any wisps of Clinton-nostalgia I may have felt.

Yar! Eels.

72: I think he is, but I was also told that at one caucus location, anyway, the Edwards and "undecided" people wanted to leave rather than join either Obama or Hillary. They got talked into joining Obama on the grounds that they should support the candidate they disliked the least, which isn't great.

68: I don't mean I prefer Tipper to Al & Theresa to John; I mean that as people rather than effective politicians, I prefer Al, John & maybe Hillary to Bill.

+ 75% of the Black vote. That's a big difference.

In states with a big A-A population. Helps in SC, but not so much in Iowa, NH, and a lot of the country outside the South. I'm not convinced Edwards would have beaten Clinton in a 2-way race, but it was the best shot.

75: Ohhhhhh, thank you, I see.

Edwards's people had been saying they were in it until at least Super Tuesday. Today, they were saying they are in it through the convention.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the delegate division is 13-12, so Nevada is really a tie just like the previous states. But continuing to tie equals a win for Clinton.

Today, they were saying they are in it through the convention.

He's said that since Iowa.

74 - But doesn't that anecdotal evidence, er, back the idea that the Edwards people ended up mostly going to Obama? Grudgingly, rather than enthusiastically, clearly, which is less than ideal, but still ending up going towards Obama. This is what the difference between entrance polls and results suggests to me, as well. (those caucus goers sound a lot like my mom, who likes Edwards, very much dislikes Hillary, and moderately dislikes Obama. In that situation, I think she'd have done what those people did - very grudgingly end up going to Obama.

At any rate, certainly a big victory for Hillary, but I don't think we should overinterpret. It's not over just yet.

They got talked into joining Obama on the grounds that they should support the candidate they disliked the least, which isn't great.

Well it's not like people are given much of a range, really. You pick the best of a bad bunch --- but maybe you go home if you believe the best your being offered is (at best) Clinton years, part deux. Sure, it'll be better than a GOP president, probably. But if that's the best you can say about it, it's hard to work up much enthusiasm.

I'm just interpolating from your comment, not that I really know what's going on in their minds.

77 - obviously, the black vote isn't a magic wand to the nomination, but it certainly marks a major difference from previous candidates in the Obama mold, and gives one reason to think he'll do better than Bradley or Dean or Tsongas. Whether it's enough to win him the nomination remains unclear. It certainly looks at the moment as though he's not going to win New York, New Jersey, or California, which isn't great.

Yeah, I don't expect Edwards to drop out.

81: My point is that believing that getting Edwards out of the race is going to hand it to Obama--who your mom, anyway "moderately dislikes"--over the candidate who has all the money and insider backing is a little nutso.

Now, an outsider candidate--or an anti-powers-that-be position or piece of legislation--*can* win, but it has to have a lot of backing by the outsiders. Lukewarm "well, it's better than the alternative" isn't enough.

84 - I never said it would. I just said it looked like Edwards second choice votes went to Obama in Nevada.

74: I can relate to that, for sure. I have a funny feeling about voting for HRC or Obama; I don't want to endorse any of that shit personally. I'll just write in Dodd and be done with it.

85 - Sure, although both of us are making entirely anecdotal arguments. What we really need is poll data about where Edwards voters would go if Edwards dropped out.

I'm pretty bummed today, as people who know me would expect. But I think that Nevada is going to matter less than we imagine in terms of the the narrative framing the race. Remember, this is a long weekend. Most people won't be paying much attention until Monday night or Tuesday -- if then -- and the story thus won't have legs.

South Carolina, then, really is huge for Obama. And, as many people note, definitive for Edwards (though I think that ship has already sailed). But the real race is California. I can't believe I'm writing that. And I can't believe I haven't worked harder for Obama.

What a very, very weird year.

John, I'm not going to scroll back up but didn't you say that Edwards dropping out would "help" Obama? Which I take to mean, in an actual substantive way that might matter, as opposed to yeah, maybe a few people would vote for Obama, but a few might also vote for Clinton and a lot would lose interest in the primaries altogether.

88: Yes, I'm being anecdotal. But Mr. B. has been making a *lot* of calls to undecided voters and spending a *lot* of time in Nevada. So anecdotal, yes, but based on actual on-the-ground evidence, albeit unscientific and incomplete.

can't believe I haven't worked harder for Obama

Ari, want me to put you in touch with my husband?

But the real race is California.

Gawd, I really think Obama will get slaughtered in CA. Ugh. ("She won't be so bad, she won't be so bad, she won't be so bad." I've just got to keep repeating it until it becomes true.)

But the real race is California.

Can Obama really win California? Given his poor showing with Hispanics in Nevada, things don't look great. California probably has a greater percentage of Tsongas/Bradley types than Nevada, but there's more Hispanics and fewer Blacks. That can't help.

And obviously, February 5 comes down to money and national polls more than anything else, and Hillary's ahead in both. Maybe Obama'll get a bump out of winning SC, but things don't look terrific for the possibility of Obama winning straight out on February 5.

90 - Obviously Edwards getting out will help somebody, except in the very unlikely circumstance that his supporters evenly split between Clinton and Obama. Obviously, some Edwards supporters will go to Clinton, and some to Obama, but if more go to Obama, Obama is helped, and if more go to Clinton, Clinton is helped.

My general feeling is that in the south, where blacks comprise a hefty percentage of the Democratic primary vote, Edwards voters would go mostly to Clinton. Outside the south, I think they'd probably go somewhat more towards Obama, although I'm not sure.

My suggestion for maximal Obama helping (assuming this is what Edwards wants to do) is for Edwards to drop out after SC - his presence helps Obama in SC, but his absence might help him in the February 5 states (I think that, on balance, this is more likely than the alternative). I don't know that it helps him enough to win.

92 - yeah, I don't like Obama's chances in California (or New York and New Jersey, obviously). There are 26 other primaries and caucuses on February 5, though. And everything is proportional. I think Obama can lose all three and still be in it, if the results elsewhere are confused enough. That's not good enough to actually win, though.

My read is that Obama's in a very deep hole here and will have to figure a way out. His organization hasn't been great, at least in NorCal, and I'm not sure how it will get better in a huge hurry. The Clinton brand is bright and shiny in this state, backed by serious money and strong ties to the Democratic establishment. All of that sounds insurmountable to me. And, if I had to guess, I'd say tnat only something pretty unexpected means that Obama wins here.

For instance, I've believed -- wrongly I'm sure -- that Edwards has been angling to be Obama's veep since Iowa (I said as much in a thread here during the speeches after the cacuses). I still can't help but dream that Edwards will drop out after South Carolina, Obama will announce that if he's nominated Edwards is his choice, and the Black cracker ticket will run the table. But that's ridiculous, I know

Also: making predictions this year has been even more of a sucker's bet than ever before. Again: very strange.

95 - Ari, isn't NorCal where Obama should have been focusing? It seems like more friendly territory than all those Hispanics and Suburbanites in Southern California.

Look, given what's happening to the American voting system (and that situation is also relevant to the primaries), isn't all the horse-race commentary a bit moot?

96: This is the problem with California: you can't focus on one part of the state. Which makes it very much like running national campaign: in terms of expenditures, supply lines, and the need for numbers of bodies. Obama should have the dough to compete here. And he does have the bodies. But it may be that either A) his strategy wasn't focused on California* or B) his organization isn't good enough to handle this huge a state**.

* There's not too much shame in this, given that nobody could have predicted that CA would matter. And as somebody noted, above, there are an awful lot of other places voting when we do here.

** If true, likely related to A.

Sorry, nobody could have predicted it because everyone was too busy predicating that the protracted primary schedule would mean that we'd know the winner long before February.

So how about that Republican race - things are looking good for Huckabee in SC. So, with Romney winning Nevada and Huckabee (potentially) winning South Carolina, who's the real winner today?

My guess is that the media will say it is none other than Rudy Giuliani - his inevitable 4% showings in both contests today puts him exactly where he wants to be...

Somebody commented that they'd like to see Huck win South Carolina and the Rudy win big in Florida. Dare to dream, I say.

does Clinton have a better organization there, or does no one have an organization?

the size of the state combined w/ the time frame makes it ridiculously hard to have an adequate org. for February 5. I mean, it's not like Obama would even still be in this if he hadn't focused so heavily on Iowa.

My guess is that the media will say it is none other than Rudy Giuliani

They've given up on Giuliani. They'll say it's a win for McCain.

101: oh no. I'm glad about Romney doing better but I want Rudy's campaign killed dead at the earliest possible date.

But does winning California matter all that much? If February 5 is a total hash - Hillary wins California, New York, New Jersey, and some of the others, Obama wins a fair bit of the rest - and the delegate totals are more or less even - well, at the very least, that's not a result that should force Obama to concede. I think this could go on quite a while.

Josh Marshall says the delegate count may actually be 13 Obama, 12 Clinton.

On the other hand, a Hillary sweep on February 5, even if Obama remains close in the delegate totals, probably ends this.

104 - repeatedly finishing last of the major GOP candidates is exactly where Rudy wants to be. It's not like the GOP candidates who've actually won something or going to be campaigning in Florida for the next week and a half, right?

106 - Does this actually help Obama, does anyone think?

Doesn't make any difference, no. Just interesting.

well, I think it makes it help her less, but she needs the help less.

What are we basing the "Hispanics won't vote for Obama" theory on???

I'm glad about Romney doing better but I want Rudy's campaign killed dead at the earliest possible date.

I don't know. At the moment, I think HRC would kill Rudy, beat McCain, but lose to Romney. Non-DLC neolibs like Yglesias are squishy on Romney. Accordingly, I assume their swing vote cousins could be made to feel similarly squishy.

Hope for Huck, as I think he's the best guarantee of a Democratic victory.

111: Well, you're down with the gente and you're not voting for him, so we all just figured...

Romney? Come on. He's so, so easy to take down. All you need is a series of ads showing him saying one thing at one time and the exact opposite at another. Maybe comparing him to a used-car salesman.

What are we basing the "Hispanics won't vote for Obama" theory on???

Nevada exit polls, the focus group video at Sullivan's place, and life experience.

113: Snort. His problem in California might be that he seems too polished, but that's probably with the same people who hate Clinton's guts, and I don't think that group will be voting in the D primary.

I could be wrong though. I should call my dad and ask who he and his wife are voting for. Last I heard, Dad liked Hillary or McCain. Based, as far as I can tell, exclusively on name recognition.

Nevada exit polls show (I guess) that Latinos in Nevada didn't vote for Obama; they don't show that Latinos in general won't. I haven't seen the Sullivan video. "Life experience"? Honky, please.

You are all misinformed. Rudy is inevitable. Don't you know how to read?

what does NV look like demographically as far as age? A lot of retirees or not so much? I would've thought not so much, but I really don't know. If it's not an old state, then youth turnout was pathetic.

111: Lower popularity of Obama among Hispanics so far. Which isn't a lot of data.

My family is squishy on Romney, and not just because he's LDS. They all tend Reagan-Democrat, and they like Romney's projected competence. Or they did, before he started to pander in every direction possible during the primary. I could see them going for Romney in the general, after he tacked back to the middle.

120: Exactly. Not a lot of data, and I don't think it's enough to make assumptions.

119: Off the top of my guessing head, I'd say fewer retirees than Arizona. Nevada's been growing mostly with middle-class folks moving away from California in the last few years. Who tend to be--she says, making sweeping generalizations--kind of middle-of-the-road conventional-wisdom pawns of tv news, if they follow the news at all. I.e., my guess would be (although primary voters are not representative) that name recognition and a general sense of "the war sucks, and we're worried about the economy, but let's not go crazy with radical change here."

112: I'm totally with SCMT: I think Romney is a hugely dangerous general election foe. Obviously, his primary campaign has been a joke. But in the general, he'll pivot back to being a centrist. He has real management experience, wasn't a bad governor in a tough state to govern, and is incredbily smart. Plus, he's exceedingly good looking and rather deep pocketed. I've consistently underestimated how much his undies will hurt him with the fundies, but I can't imagine he can't use court appointments and the right veep choice as a dog whistle.

But then again, I don't like McCain as a foe, either. I'm just a worrier, I guess. With good reason, of course.

119.---I get the sense that it's a pretty old state. One of the things that impresses me is that although the Mormons make up only %12 of the population, they accounted for more than %25 of the Republican caucas-voters. I call that superior organisational skills.

111 - He lost big with Hispanics in Nevada. Also: the general sense lots of people seem to have that Hispanics don't like Blacks very much.

112, 114 - I think the best thing about Romney as the GOP nominee is that the media hates him. In a Romney vs. Obama race, in particular, you'd see the media working for Obama in much the same way they worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

And the reason Yglesias, et al, are squishy on Romney is a very abstract, counterintuitive case that I don't think would really appeal to many actual voters.

Maybe comparing him to a used-car salesman.

The problem is that Romney's big trouble spots, in some fashion, match up with HRC's (or, more accurately, Billary's). "Used car salesman" is less effective when the candidate's husband is regarded by a lot of people as Slick Willy. People who could not abide voting for a Mormon, I suspect, are among those who hate HRC peculiarly. Romney's a robot, but so's HRC. It's harder to run on Iraq when your candidate voted for it. Etc.

Who knows, though. That's well in the future, a lot could happen, and I could be wrong. I just hope Romney's not the nominee.

As for solace on a day like today, I really do think having a woman president will be a great day for this country. I have two little boys, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to realize that women can't do any job in the world. That's naive, I know, but I'm a naive worrier.

123 - But Romney's pivot back towards the center will just lead to more ridicule from the media. Romney actually is what the media made Gore and Kerry out to be, and they really really hate him.

I don't think he'll be as weak a general election candidate as he now looks like he'd be, but I don't think he'd win.

Although, when all is said and done, I'm pretty dubious of any of these guys winning.

Brag, brag, JM. Once a magic-underwear person, always a magic-underwear person.

I've also heard that Mormon chicks are hotter, once you've got the parental blessing. Brag about that.

126 - this is worrisome. Obama would trounce Romney, I think, but Clinton's definitely a lot weaker. I still think whoever the Dem is beats whoever the Republican is, though. And for some reason I find Romney hilarious, so I kind of can't help rooting for him.

124 - If we assume that Mormons are at least two thirds Republican, though, that goes some way towards making up the difference.

"the policies he advocates are crazy, but he's faking it & may secretly be relatively sane & not as bad as the other Republicans" just cannot possibly be Romney's ticket to glory in November.

If nobody has done this already, here are demographics for NV: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32000.html

I agree that Romney will need to pivot back to the center for the general and that at that point, all the "double Guantamano!" bullshit will look very bad. The Reagan-Democrat types who dislike the Clintons, however, might rationalise their way into believing that Technocrat Romney is the True Face of Romney. (Why this shit never works for the Dems is probably a long story.)

I gotta say, Emerson, that as of about two weeks ago, I was convinced that Mormons in general were going to come out of this primary season as the loser, what with the general innuendo, mockery, and crackpot theological dicsussions. It wasn't very enjoyable. And, one more thing: hotter to whom, may I ask?

The Reagan-Democrat types who dislike the Clintons, however, might rationalise their way into believing that Technocrat Romney is the True Face of Romney

He did, after all, get elected Gov. of MA, in part with the votes of Yglesias and people like him. I think his pivot is easier than that for most of the other Republicans.

132: No, I don't think that would it. I think the campaign would be: "The economy's bad; he can manage money. The brown people are still scary; he's a Republican. We're tired of incompetence; he's never failed at anything. And look at how handsome he is. (Please ignore the flip-flops; we didn't mean it. Please ignore the undies; he'll give you more Saclias.)"

Alll of that said, I think Obama crushes him. Hillary? Maybe not so much. But now we're in electability land. And that's not a place that I even want to visit for a minute.

I'm missing a "be" above. And for all I know, perhaps many other things.

Also: "Scalias." The plural form gives my fingers fear cramps.

The economy's bad; he can manage money.

Yes, this will probably become a huge selling point. It may even prove to be decisive in the Republican primary, who knows.

134: My ex-Mormon ex-wife, not a Mormon since about 1960, is getting tired of the Mormon-baiting too. But of course, she and I have issues. Issues going back 35 years, and then there was the Mountain Meadow Massacre. But what can I do? Be fair and treat people as human beings? Are you kidding?

John, your piece on Jonah was wonderful. I really enjoyed reading it. Am I allowed to say that?

141: Slut.

And?

Notice my absence from this thread. Or don't.

He's all mine. I'll fight you for him.

145 to 143.

144: I did.

and then there was the Mountain Meadow Massacre

I'm sure that whatever Brother Brigham did to your marriage it was truly dreadful, and so undeserved!

Actually I am boycotting Unfogged for your unforgivable failure of honor Bobby Fischer, that Cold War hero, chess genius, and paranoiac. I take it very personally.

Scrabbbalopolous indeed

146: So much funnier the other way.

the general sense lots of people seem to have that Hispanics don't like Blacks very much.

Yeah, well, that general sense is kind of stupidly uninformed. First, because a lot of Latinos are, in fact, black. Second, because "Hispanics" are far from a unified group--do you mean Mexicans in California, Puerto Ricans in New York, Cubans in Florida? What about the Dominicans or Central Americans? Are we talking about recent immigrants, working-class Latinos, or people who own farms and wineries in Napa?

All of which isn't to say that colorism isn't an issue in a lot of Latino countries/cultures. But I think that it's rather a sweeping assumption, and I think people ought not to rely on it.

Given the probable state of things in November, there's no way that Romney wins. The American voter does inexplicable things, but the Republican candidate doesn't has magic mind-control eyes that cause him to automatically win. Everyone fucking hates Bush, and is nostalgic for the Clinton years, back when everything didn't suck.

151 - In terms of that, I was mostly pointing to that as the reason that, generally, people have been saying for the last week that Hispanics are Hillary's "firewall," rather than my personal opinion (although I suppose I wasn't clear on that). The results in Nevada, however, seem to bear out the stupidly uninformed speculation.

the Republican candidate doesn't has magic mind-control eyes

The economy's bad; he can manage money.

Yes, this will probably become a huge selling point. It may even prove to be decisive in the Republican primary, who knows.

Bain Capital, Romney's company, was well known for buying into and downsizing companies. If experience in throwing people out of work and facilitating the flow of money out of middle class pockets and into those of the very rich is what America wants in a money manager, Romney can bring it. Economic Republicans might like that story, but a lot of people won't.

the Republican candidate doesn't has magic mind-control eyes that cause him to automatically win.

He does, however, have the company that runs the vote-fraudcounting machines in his back pocket, which will sort of help.

That Mike Huckabee. Sure he's a Republican who would gladly consign me to hell, but there's something about him. I just like the cut of his jib.

The current polls do not support the Romney will be strongest theory. He gets killed by Clinton and buried by Obama. Maybe that's still name recognition at this point, and obviously a campaign changes things. McCain polls strongest in the general now, ties or wins vs. Obama and Clinton.

Reference for 158. Obama 43-McCain 42; Hillary 45-McCain 48; Obama 54-Huck 31; Clinton 49-Huck 40; Obama 57- Romney 27; Clinton 50 - Romney 39

Why anyone would want to be led by today's shuffling, long ago rolled over for the man John McCain is honestly beyond me, but there it is.

Is there any rationale for how current polling tells us anything about how an undetermined slate of general election candidates fare against each other? I ask not to undermine SP, but because every time I hear numbers like these I'm not sure what they're supposed to tell me. Which is why, yet again, speculating about electability is maddening -- though sometimes fun.

Given that we're at this point much more likely than not to have entered a recession by November, I gotta say that even McCain seems like a long shot for the Republicans.

It's further meaningless in that national polls don't determine the winner, although I feel confident predicting that if the Dem wins by 30 points ain't no one stealing that election.

Also, I'm not saying Romney would be the strongest, just that he wouldn't be a pushover. Unless, that is, he runs in the general as he has in the primaries. But there's every reason to think that the primary campaigns, particularly on the Republican side, aren't very illuminating about how the candidates would run in the general.

163: From your lips to the voters' ears.

much more likely than not to have entered a recession by November

I'm not sure who that helps, though. Especially since the Hitlery-led Democrats did nothing but obstruct and filibuster while they were in the minority, then failed to pass anything after they won. Plus, Jesus votes Republican.

If the economy is in the toilet, will Ross Perot Mike Bloomberg will come riding to the rescue on his Shetland pony?

Assume nothing about who's more or less likely to win in the general. In a sane world, an electorate overwhelmingly opposed to the war would never elect a a war-happy Republican president - but that same electorate in a sane world wouldn't be about to nominate Hillary Clinton, either. This is a country where the majority of Republicans who want to withdraw from Iraq vote for John McCain. There is no rhyme or reason to what voters do, and trying to predict what they'll do is a fool's errand.

Apostropher, you're assuming that the voters pay attention to that crap. Recession helps the Dems the same way that terrorism helps the Republicans, since it fits into the pre-existing narratives about each party.

Apostropher, you're assuming that the voters pay attention to that crap.

No, I'm just being silly. But I do agree with 168, and have had my faith in the goodness and wisdom of the American people dashed so often that I kinda expect them to reflexively pick whoever would be the most harmful, both here and abroad.

Except, stras, the outcomes of US Presidential elections are famously predictable.

Assuming the voters pay attention = being silly, yes.

The big story of this campaign is of course the destruction or self-destruction of John Edwards. Appears I am gonna die with the country still moving slowly toward oligarchical fascism. And I don't expect to die for ten years.

Wish all the people who flightily flipped to the psuedo-progressive had stuck with the real progressive, but Obama jumped into the campaign with a purpose, and that purpose wasn't to stop Clinton. Obama understands the high-info latte-sipping culture-Dems very well, and despises them.

He probably has alienated enough blacks from HRC now to make a Repub victory in November possible. Job well done, Barack.

expect them to reflexively pick whoever would be the most harmful

Therefore, it's Clinton vs McCain. And the VPs will be LaRouche and Lieberman, respectively.

The results in Nevada, however, seem to bear out the stupidly uninformed speculation.

Bah. There are jillions of reasons why Nevada could have gone for Clinton. One of them being that it's a western conservative state (polished-looking guy? no, sorry; screams "liberal elitist!"). Another being that Nevadans, like yer average Californian, are kinda dumbly materialistic and voted for the one person whose name they knew. Another being that Clinton spent a lot of money in that state.

I mean, come on; you had union members getting their backs up because the union endorsed a candidate and they don't like being told what to do. That tells you something, and it isn't about ethnicity or Latino voting patterns.

He probably has alienated enough blacks from HRC now to make a Repub victory in November possible. Job well done, Barack.

Blow me, you undermedicated DLC hack.

He probably has alienated enough blacks from HRC now to make a Repub victory in November possible. Job well done, Barack.

Oh, come on.

I mean, come on; you had union members getting their backs up because the union endorsed a candidate and they don't like being told what to do. That tells you something, and it isn't about ethnicity or Latino voting patterns.

Give me a break. These aren't new fault lines.

Bob, I liked you better when you weren't commenting. And 170 is so true. Also, curious that Obama seems to have swept the rural Nevada caucus sites. What this means from here on out is anybody's guess. But here's mine: nothing.

Who wants to bet on brokered conventions for both parties?

And one more thing: if Hillary gets the nomination because of superdelegates, I'm no longer a Democrat. Which isn't to say she won't have my full-throated support in the general. But really, this system is ass.

Hey, who would evertybody here have been supporting, who would Matt & Ezra have been supporting, who would have twisted the Sullivans into pretzels of hate uncertainty if Obama hadn't entered the race. What would have been the MSM story?

Barack destroyed the Edwards possibility. I look at results and reality, not into a funhouse miror of my own fantasies. What was the result of the Obama campaign? Clinton or a Republican.

We're talking about 10,000 people in Nevada, which really isn't enough to draw wide ranging conclusions about 'the Hispanic vote' or 'rural voters.' Still, it's disheartening to me that Edwards' supporters are rumored to be more likely to break in Clinton's direction.

Barack destroyed the Edwards possibility.

I think this is probably true, but everybody has the right to run for president. Edwards didn't seal the deal.

I'm not sure Clinton-Edwards ends up being a close race in that other possible world anyway. They seem to be sharing the same moderate older Democrat base, and she's winning it now. I find apostropher's diagnosis of Obama's base accurate, and I don't see that group getting as excited over Edwards.

How awesome is McManus at torpedoing the idea that we can have any insight into the counterfactual or future dynamics of a Presidential race? The Fuck Electability lobby should give him a grant to prognosticate.

183:I not only blame Obama, but I remember a year ago when Ezra Klein loved Edwards. Ezra still, on policy prefers Edwards, but turned vigorously to Obama based on the whirlpool-eye thing. And Ezra Klein, or Katherine, represent the kind of people that can turn caucuses and primaries.

We had a true radical progressive who could have run during a recession, and now we don't. I am too old to believe in coincidence.

If Edwards is such the big radical oogabooga progressive, then why are his supporters most likely to go for the center-right Clinton?

I'm disappointed too, but 10 different people ran for the nomination. You seem to be suggesting that Obama is a stalking horse for Clinton. That seems pretty absurd on its face.

188: Particularly given that Edwards pretty clearly prefers Obama to Clinton. Or at least his behavior and speeches suggest as much.

187: The GOP voters who want out of Iraq are breaking for the guy who says we should stay there 100 years. Any group of voters is made up of individuals who all have their idiosyncratic reasons for picking a candidate.

We had a true radical progressive who could have run during a recession, and now we don't. I am too old to believe in coincidence.

Is it also a coincidence that this is the second time in a row that he's been unable to put up the numbers to get the nod? He'd be my first choice in this crowd, but for whatever reason, he doesn't seem to be able to deliver the votes.

187:Cala, as I just told you, one year ago every high info progressive in the blogosphere loved Edwards. Those voters + the blue collarr types, are the core of the historical progressive left. Unions + left intellectuals + blacks.

Obama split that coalition. With whole bucketfuls of Wall Street & coporate money that Edwards didn't have.

188: It's all part of his evil plan, to give a close contest for the nomination to assure Clinton victory, which he does by campaigning well and raising funds, so the Edwards supporters can eventually vote for Clinton.

And by the way, Bob, where's your evidence that the majority of Obama's people break for Edwards if Obama's not in the race. Ezra Klein brings with him how many actual votes again? In the District I know the answer. But in Iowa? I'm thinking: not many.

188:Who gets the oligarchy money? Always follow the capitalist money to understand capitalist desires. Why exactly did big-money America want to back Obama over Clinton? What was wrong with Clinton in the minds of Wall Street financiers?

Stalking horse = Occam's razor.

This is why internet comment boards suck so much during primary season. People get so invested in their preferred candidate.

191: Not really. For whatever reason, the guy doesn't seem to get the media coverage that translates into making him interesting enough to get the nomination.

192: Obama thinks he can win the nomination. He still could. It's hard to fault someone for running given that.

Stalking horse = Occam's razor.

Not hardly.

It seems that the only errand more foolish than discussing electability is arguing with Bob.

194: Like I said, I find apo's argument convincing: Obama appeals to the Deaniac kind of voter. Newer, younger, susceptible to highfalutin principle talk, and the sort that probably doesn't come out to vote in large numbers if they're not enthusiastic about the candidate. Iowa had a lot of new voters, and it's hard to say whether they would have turned up, let alone voted for Edwards.

.

I generally agree with McManus, without committing on every point. I have no idea WTF Obama is up to, but I don't trust him. Too much mushy, problematic rhetoric.

I'm wondering whether politics isn't being swamped by marketing lead times. A candidate brand-naming himself has to get a pretty specific image out there pretty early, and then spread the image round nationwide.

But once he's got the image out there, the candidate has stay consistent with it. Otherwise he's insincere.

So we're deciding between ideas formed 10-15 years ago (or more). Hillary's ideas come from 1988. Probably most of the others are more "hip" and contemporary.

My point being, is that probably bipartisan centrism looked a lot better when Obama adopted it as part of his schtick. But he can't change now, because that would compromise the brand.

It's like trying to steer an ocean freighter. It takes goddamn forever, and by the time there's an actual change of direction, it's too late.

Even assuming that Hillary continues to run the same campaign she has to date, is there anyone here who won't vote for her in the general? My answer is clear, as noted above. I might not vote for Bill again, after his recent behavior. But Hillary will have my money, my support, and my vote.

All of this supposes that she gets the nomination, which I still think is no sure thing.

197: For whatever reason, the guy doesn't seem to get the media coverage

Not to reprise the 'likable' discussion of several weeks ago, but it really is uncanny how hostile/indifferent the media is to Edwards. I swear the average TV viewer would know only haircut-lawyer-haircut-rich lawyer-haircut-hypocrite-rich-haircut-big house-haircut-haircut-haircut. Maybe he is just too "lightweight" in some personality/charisma regard, but I think it is a combo of the media tie-in to the monied interests and a "boring" storyline. And then after Iowa, the whole drama of Hilary/Obama made for better TV.

202: I retract every nice thing I said about your Jonah piece.

Two principles that differentiate me from most of the blogosphere:

1) O think the people who really run the country, like Greenspan or Paulsen or Cheney or the Clintons are really really smart, and I don't assign incompetence easily.

2) I look at what actually happens, and assume that 1) is relevant to events on the ground. Just because I can't explain the mechanisms doesn't mean events are random, chaotic, and uncontrolled. Especially when patterns appear obvious and interests are satisfied. Rich gotten richer for thirty years and nobody knows why? Bullshit.

Follow the money.

I'll vote for her. I don't think I'll be particularly excited about it, but I'll make sure I turn up.

Blow me, you undermedicated DLC hack.

And ... SCMT for the win!

inevitable because he assembled the Tsongas/Bradley/Dean coalition

Funny!--and not just because I supported or worked for all of those campaigns.

Shorter Bob: my tinfoil hat is shinier than yours. Sorry Bob, but the idea that your ability to recognize patterns is so much more refined than Josh Marshall's, Yglesias's, or Apo's seems really dubious to me.

204: I suspect that's probably right. I don't remember Edwards as being all that interesting from the last go-round. Nice, competent, but not exciting. And that's probably fatal in a year with such two 'historic' story arcs. (Not that this makes it Obama's fault, unless we postulate that second-place finishers in close campaigns have a duty to bow out. Or maybe Clinton should have bowed out so Edwards would have had a chance. This is just bizarre.)

Okay, I really wish I hadn't written the first part of that comment. Or hadn't pushed "post." I apologize. Bob, you're just getting my goat tonight. Again, sorry.

Oh, fuck Mcmanus. His claim is that he cares about economics most. There is no rational way to end up ranking the candidates Edwards-DLC-Obama. People arguing with him are being silly.

On the plus side, we don't have to listen to any tired bullshit from him about the problems with Democrats, at least for policies since 1992: he wants to revivify those standards.

Fuck it.

Paul Krassner, circa 1968:"Paranoia is true perception."

"Tinfoil hat ": not an argument. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Ari, your blog is really nifty, by the way.

"Tinfoil hat ": not an argument.

No, but really, bob chucks out a lot of "Obama is Hillary with an afro" without providing much in the way of evidence.

Another connection for Jonah. Liberals are quite adept with the long knives...

I will just say that I have seen very little evidence that the actual governing that any of the three would do would be significantly different from each other, especially given the shape of the country/world they would begin their term with.

215:Truth hurts, doesn't it folks. A year ago, Edwards had a shot. Wasn't me who abandoned him for a pretty face.

I probably won't vote for Clinton. I just want to stop Obama.

205: I'll deduct $0.0005 from my income estimate for next year. That should cover my loss of your esteem.

216: Not to mention the doublethink involved in thinking that Obama is simultaneously stealing all of Edwards' progressive supporters by being to the right of Hillary.

The reason that I wrote that -- not excusing myself in any way -- is that I'm sick to death of being told by Bob that I don't understand all of the ways that Obama is BAD. And not just BAD, mind you, but not who he says he is.

Bob's non-arguments, on a day like today, are tedious. And irrational. But that doesn't make what I wrote okay. I really do regret having lost my temper. And again: I completely apologize. Now I'm going to do something else.

Bob, it's possible that Obama is a centrist masquerading as a progressive. It is not possible that he ran for President for any reason other than to be President. And I say this never having fallen for Obama's whirlpool eye. If Obama loses (which is no sure thing), he still came this close to being President. If he won New Hampshire (which he sure looked like he was going to do), the Clinton campaign was ready to push the panic button.

Ari, you lack the proper for the ethos for the Internet. The key is to always remember when commenting what Bobby Fischer said: "I like the moment when I break a man's ego."

Edwards, with the failed hiring of the bloggers, made it very clear he needed the netroots to make up for the MSM hostility. And for these critical primary months, Edwards has barely been mentioned at Matt and Ezra. All Obama-Clinton, all the time. Edwards needed us.

I look at what happens. I look at reality.

is there anyone here who won't vote for her in the general?

Of course I'll vote for Clinton if she's nominated. She's a better candidate than any of the Republican choices and obviously better than what we've had. She's smart, ferocious, and probably not too far to the right of any of the other Democratic candidates. But, goddammit, I wanted something more than just another Clinton. This fucking War of the Roses shit is wearing me down.

And what will be the "message" of the Edwards "failure"?

Real true Progressives don't have a chance in conservative corporate America. We must talk unity and cooperation with the capitalists. We must sneak and trick our way to power, flattering the Reaganites and Republicans.

Funny how that particular message became the dominant one.

I'm not saying Obama didn't usurp Edwards place in the polls. But the idea that he did it to stop Edwards is wrong. He did it because he thought he was going to be President. And he still might.

And you're underestimating the media's ability to destroy the image of the progressive candidate. They've done it every Democratic Presidential primary since '88. If edwards were doing better, they would be attacking him non-stop.

Bob, "I look at reality" is not bolstered by claiming Edwards is being sunk by a lack of attention from bloggers.

I probably won't vote for Clinton.

Oh, yeah, that'll preserve your virginity. Jeebus.

228:Try looking at Klein & Yglesias the last couple months, gwift. You want me to do a name count, with descriptive context? F off. Klein has been so obvious it's disgusting.

Obama seems to have swept the rural Nevada caucus sites

That's fascinating, and it means that I'm (presuambly) wrong about Obama not being able to win the western libertarinish vote. Impressive. Go Obama!

If Edwards is such the big radical oogabooga progressive, then why are his supporters most likely to go for the center-right Clinton?

Well, as someone who might, if Edwards were out of the race, go for Clinton, I think there are a few reasons (one of which is also the answer to "why are Obama and Clinton getting all the press?). O/C are getting the press because, duh, they're the history-making candidates. They were getting all the press well before the primaries, oh ye of short-term memories. Edwards supporters support him because they like what he's saying; if he's out, they break for whichever of the two history-making candidates appeals to them most. Clinton seems to me more specific about what her policy goals are (part of this is based on her having had years of press coverage before Obama entered the picture--I'm just more familiar, generally, with the stuff she cares about). So people who like Edwards on wonky grounds might well break for Clinton. And I think it's generally true, much as the "blacks vs. women" argument is a stupid one, that the maleishness of the presidency is more of an issue perceptually than its whiteness.

Whatever, the blogosphere and netroots could have helped.

But Obama did have so muc more money, from the progressives on Wall Street who want their power reduced and their taxes raised.

But Obama did have so muc more money, from the progressives on Wall Street who want their power reduced and their taxes raised.

I'm guessing there's not crazy people on Wall Street who noticed that the Republicans are going down this time around, and are trying to make nice with someone they think will likely occupty the White House.

There's also the matter of the Republicans grossly mismanaging the economy, which tends to not please business types.

"1) O think the people who really run the country, like Greenspan or Paulsen or Cheney or the Clintons are really really smart, and I don't assign incompetence easily."

really?

these guys are 'really really smart'

how about, they already have lots of $$/power.

mcmanus' combination of nixonian paranoia and belief that people are have exactly as much influence as they have IQ is pretty amazing.

Nobody has explained to me yet why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Obama stop Clinton.

Does that make sense?

that was me

Does that make sense?

No, but there's no reason to start doing that now.

It's like trying to steer an ocean freighter. It takes goddamn forever, and by the time there's an actual change of direction, it's too late.

There are plenty of counter-examples. Romney, obviously.

Clinton and Obama have each chosen their publiic personas wisely, and that's why they haven't changed. Clinton has no choice other than to be "strong," and Obama has no choice other than to be non-confrontational. Edwards had more options, but made the mistake of running the campaign that I wanted to see him run.

But Obama did have so muc more money, from the progressives on Wall Street who want their power reduced and their taxes raised.

Mcmanus, wouldn't your time be more profitably spent coming up with an explanation for your lefty cohort as to why it would be wrong to raise taxes on the rich? But maybe it won't come up.

I think one of the things i like best about romney is that he's such a craven panderer.

239:SCMT, I think our sarcasm is flying past each other.

Raising taxes on the rich will come up. I expect the Bush cuts to be made permanent, and some kind of VAT tax to be enacted. Under Clinton or Obama or a Republican.

238: Romney's getting hit pretty hard now with the wishy-washy tag, but he might be able to change that, should he get the nomination. He's another one that can't seem to get a break from the media.

237:Nobody has explained to me yet why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Obama stop Clinton.

I'll keep asking. The simplest explanation is that Clinton alone wasn't enough to stop Edwards before the recession hit, and so corporate America financed Obama.

But maybe Clinton really scares Wall Street? I'm waiting.

Nobody has explained to me yet why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Obama stop Clinton.

Why don't you point us to some numbers that shows this is going on. What are Obama's Wall Street fundraising numbers vs. Hillary?

243: Okay, taking a breath now, many of the people who support Obama, Bob, be they moneyed interests of small-time donors like me, are doing so because they want him to be president.

If that doesn't happen, I'm fine -- and I'm sure this is true for many of his other donors -- with other Democratic alternatives. I'd prefer Edwards, sure, but Hillary will be fine. And more than fine, actually, as having a woman occupy the Oval Office will be a source of inspiration for tens of millions of people. Not just women but men also -- again, including me.

Your insistence that Obama is a stalking horse for Clinton, or that fat-cats have financed this Black rube to undermine the only true Christ that progressives have, well this idea is just so much crap that it's driving me nuts.

And 214, I still regret having written that. I really do. It was stupid and small of me.

Nobody has explained to me yet why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Obama stop Clinton.

Ok. I've had half a dozen beers already, so I'll bite. First, you haven't demonstrated that corporate America is giving money to Obama in excess to what it's giving to Clinton or Edwards, much less demonstrated that it's giving with the express intent of "stopping Clinton." As has been remarked on before, if there were ever Democratic politicians who were known quantities on Wall Street, it's the Clintons. The idea that corporate American finds them especially disagreeable is ludicrous.

(I've just cued up "Beautiful Day" on Itunes. I will continue to play that song until the cutting begins.)

Boy, McCain won. In South Carolina. This really is turning out to be some year. I feel sick. Turns out that Bob is the least of my worries.

From the predictions are totally stupid department: McCain/Thompson. You heard it here first. And that ticket isn't going to be easy to beat. At all.

246:Barack Obama Contributions by Corporation

Ari, if you apologize one more time I am going to smack you.

So far bob, signs from my casual googling point towards you being totally full of shit.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/the-white-house-and-the-wall-street-factor/

On the Democratic side, Iowa proved to be tough territory for another recent Wall Street favorite: Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton received nearly $750,000 in donations from employees at Wall Street firms during the third quarter of 2007, compared with just $177,456 for her Democratic competitor Barack Obama, who nevertheless came in first among Democrats in Iowa.

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/REG/104563530/1023/OTHERVIEWS

The two campaigns have been neck and neck in the fund race. At a press briefing last Wednesday, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said $24 million was raised in the fourth quarter last year, which would put Ms. Clinton at an estimated record-breaking $114 million for the full year. Meanwhile, a memo released, also last Wednesday, by Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said that $23.5 million was raised during the same period, bringing the campaign to a roughly $104 million total in 2007.

However, the Obama camp is much less organized than Clinton's in many states, without the deep network of donors--especially big-dollar fund-raisers--that Ms. Clinton has put together over her years as First Lady and New York senator. What the Obama campaign does have going for it are small donors; it says it has attracted 500,000, who have given between $25 and $100 online.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/09/ccuselect109.xml

and this graphic from same article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/graphics/2008/01/09/cnuselect109.gif

Although Obama has considerable grassroots support on Wall Street, he has, based on the most recent filings, failed to attract any big-name investment bank heads other than departed Merrill chairman Stan O'Neal.

From the Bitch knows jack shit about politics department: Clinton's probably the only one who is nasty enough to take on McCain.

250:I have been paying so little attention to Ari I don't know what he is apologizing for. Haven't bothered to scroll up to find out.

Um, so Hillary won the popular vote, but Obama won more delegates in Nevada, 13 to HRC's 12.

Can someone explain?

I was aplogizing to Emerson. Because I like what he wrote. But I'll stop. I'm too filled with fear of the McCain/Thompson juggernaut to do anything but quake. Someone tell me I'm wrong. Apo?

254: Link? B/c Mr. B. called me from the car on his drive back all excited asking if that was true (someone from the campaign had texted him), and I could neither find out nor make sense. But if it is, I'll call him at his corporate awards dinner (hee!) and confirm.

I like what Emerson wrote too, but he's a cranky old guy, like Bob. Plus he was mean to me last week.

Appears the data in 249 and 251 contradict each other. My list in 249 wasn't hard to find googling "Obama fundraising sources"

254: Again, Obama swept the rural parts of the state. Hillary, by contrast, cleaned up in urban Clark County. And Nevada Dems apportioned the delegates in such a way that even with fewer overall votes, it became possible for a candidate to pull more delgates. At least that's how I understand it.

Learn to read, mcmanus. Clinton's list is virtually indistinguishable. Clinton has a bunch more law firms giving her money, Obama has noted bastions of corporate america Harvard and Berkeley, and his home-state power company. Whoop de do.

248: I dunno, Ari. Thompson hasn't demonstrated that he represents any constituency. McCain-Huckabee strikes me as both more likely and more dangerous.

That said - and granting that predictions are a pretty bootless exercise - my best guess is that Romney is the Republican who has the greatest chance of being elected. For one thing, the Republican establishment wouldn't be all that sorry to see McCain lose.

sure.

Here.

Sorry, no link. Just an e-mail from a friend who knows things. TPM seems to indicate that this is being disputed. And by the way, Nevada politics are down and dirty. Just: wow.

It's the third 'graph.

TPM is saying that the two campaigns are fighting over what the definition of "win" is. Obama did get more delegates, according to AP. And Hillary herself, interestingly, in the above-linked article, says, "What this is really about is delegates."

261: I agree with part of what you say. The Republican establishment would love to see McCain go down.

But the straight talking one and the DA are good friends. And Thompson is an excellent choice for veep: in with the evangelical cool kids and a nasty piece of work when he wants to be. But always charming. Plus, though I really don't see it, he has charisma. Whatever that means (wears Drakkar Noir?). Also, he's great on camera. When he can stay awake.

Obama Contribuions by Sector

1) Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 9.7 million
2) Other 8.7
3) Lawyers & Lobbyists 8.0 million
4) Misc Business 6.1

Oct 29, 2007 so I guess this is the all-important seed money

258: No, it it doesn't, you fucking DLC hack.

259, 262, 263, 265: Wow. Mr. B. will be all a-flutter.

Come on, Obama's network of small donors & corporate donors proves the uppity man should have just let the nice boy from South Carolina win.

261: I think the biggest problem with that proposed ticket is that both of them present as old and both have bad health histories. But I still think it's a scary duo.

260:Learn to read, mcmanus. Clinton's list is virtually indistinguishable

I am not saying Clinton is the great champion of the working class. I am saying Obama isn't either.

And since Clinton is a corporate flunky, my question is still relevant. Why would Goldman Sachs give $370 million to a Clinton opponent?

Thompson is an excellent choice for veep

McCain would probably pick somebody younger than Thompson.

268:SCMT, Clinton & Obama are both DLC corporate stooges. Unlike you, I don't feel idealistic and righteous about choosing which one gets to fuck me over.

Maybe we can throw a pie in McCain's face and make him drop dead.

Boy, McCain won. In South Carolina.

What surprises me (besides a McCain victory) is that the weather was really shitty today in the Upstate, the most Republican part of the state. I was hoping that would deter everyone but the hardcore Huckabites. Eh. I'm taking what comfort I can in the news that Romney took Nevada and the knowledge that the Party still hates McCain. For whatever my predictions are worth, I still say it's Romney. But try this on for scary: McCain/Gingrich.

Mr. B. will be all a-flutter.

Tell him to calm down. It would be 13-12 or 12-13, no matter what. In a race to 2161, it isn't really significant.

Get the behind me, Populuxe.

(This isn't really relevant, just an amusing anecdote.) When I think of Nevada and politics, I think of this story, which has convinced me forever that Nevada is just politically bizarre. A few years ago, Snarkout and I were in Nevada and picked up a free weekly. It had an article about local ranchers and their disputes with the national park system. The article contained this memorable quote from a local: "A park is like a cancer. It grows and grows until it covers everything."

Well, Mr. Rancher, that is an interesting perspective, yes.

277: The man's been working his ass off on the campaign. I'm going to allow him to enjoy himself, you party pooper.

259: Looking at the county results, It looks to be a combo of urban v rural but maybe more Reno area v Las Vegas. (True rural is almost non-existent in Nevada in terms of population.) Obama had 7-22% wins in Carson City, Washoe, Storey and Douglass counties which cover the Reno/Carson City area. (He also did quite well in most rural areas.)

Goldman Sachs gave Edwards money, too. Not $370 million, but they didn't give Obama $370 million either, so $77,000 wasn't too bad.

SC was also one of the last of the open primaries where independents can vote. When it's just Republicans, McCain fares worse. My money's still on Romney.

Bob, read your own comments. Specifically,

"Why exactly did big-money America want to back Obama over Clinton? What was wrong with Clinton in the minds of Wall Street financiers?"

and

"Nobody has explained to me yet why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Obama stop Clinton."

Goldman Sachs gave Edwards money

Somebody explain to me why corporate America is spending tens of millions to have Edwards stop nobody?

276: Gingrich really is stone-cold crazy. Seriously, there's no way. But that is scary. Just writing Gingrich is scary.

Also, I just read the full text of the Hillary interview in New Hampshre. The one where, you might have heard something about this, she started to cry. And this quote really caught my eye:

"It's not easy. It's not easy. And I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards. You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. "

There are days when what's happening to this country makes me cry. So: the final two sentences of that quote made me like her a lot more.

And sorry I can't do block quotes. I suck. Oh crap, I apologized again. Please don't hurt me, B.

283:I of course meant thousands instead of millions in 272. Sorry.

267 remains millions

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

283: Yah - Romney-Clinton seems pretty inevitable to me.

286: Yeah, that statement of hers gives one a li'l hope, doesn't it?

Blockquotes are easy. The html command is "blockquote," sans punctuation.

283: True. But the press is going to go absolutely crazy. And the Romney-is-a-Mormon-who-won-Mormon-country stories are going to be intolerable -- even if they're true. How many times can reporters say "Mormon" in a 600-word, above-the-fold process story? A lot.

Shit, I just realized something. I keep trying to talk myself into believing that Clinton is not only "better than Bush" but actually might be a good president, much the same way that after the 2000 election I tried to believe that maybe "compassionate conservatism" was something GWB really meant.

Fuck.

291: Plus watch the backlash if we start jumping the Mormon's shit. The fundies will decide it's all part of the great anti-Christian conspiracy and fall in line.

Fundies don't necessarily believe Mormons count as Christians.

284:And your point?

I suppose you could say that Goldman Sachs is hedging their bets by giving money to both Clinton & Obama, but at some point in 2006 or 2007 they had to decide, for whatever reason, to give seed money to a Clinton challenger to get Obama off the ground, and I haven't heard why.

Obama never stood a chance against Clinton without those millions. Obama declares, Goldman Sachs says Clinton will serve our interests just fine, and Obama becomes Kucinich.

292: I feel you! It's alarming.

Obama advisor Goolsbee has an editorial in the New York Times explicitly against the idea of making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

294: I know, but it'll all be part of the great secular war on religion, just wait.

Obama advisor Goolsbee has an editorial in the New York Times explicitly against the idea of making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Don't tell Bob, who has decided that Goolsbee is the second coming of Artie Laffer.

it'll all be part of the great secular war on religion

They replay that movie every day no matter what.

284:And your point?

Just wondering if you're actually paying attention to your own words.

The weather may have helped McCain because looking through the South Carolina vote there is a pretty big downstate/upstate swing. The coast, Columbia and along the Georgia border for McCain, while along the NC border and the Greenville/Spartanburg area went for the Huckster. Curious if there was a turnout differential.

300: I know. What I'm talking about here is whether or not they'll back Romney, if he's the nominee.

293: There's no comfort in any of this, I'm afaid. Again, I don't like the idea of either McCain or Romney as a general election foe. I was really hoping for Giuliani, crazy as that may sound.

294: And Cala, if you're still around: I think you said something nice above about our blog. If so, thanks. That made me feel better. Seriously. If not, what's wrong with you? No taste?

302: Thompson was the key. He took many evangelical votes away from Huck. Without Thompson, we're talking about Huckmentum now (if only). And Apo's right: letting indies vote is big for Mr. Straight Talk. Very big.

303: It's hard to say because it could go the route of them all pouting and staying home, or deciding that Mormons count as Christians for the purposes of beating Clintons, or putting immigration-bait on the ballot to get out the vote that way.

I suspect, Ari, that whoever the Republican nominee is, that you will convince yourself they are an unstoppable juggernaut. Try the mental exercise. Picture that the Republicans nominate Gary Coleman as their nominee. How long does it take you before you conclude that he's a scary electoral foe?

SCMT, Clinton & Obama are both DLC corporate stooges. Unlike you, I don't feel idealistic and righteous about choosing which one gets to fuck me over.

Pull my other finger, bob. You prefer Clinton--the DLC candidate--to Obama. On, gawd help us all, what appear to be anti-Rubinomics grounds. It's like you're some bizarre multi-year troll performance artist.

Those devious GOP minds! They're going to split the black vote and make a play for Surreal Life-loving college students!

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Someguy?

298:Keep the faith, trust in those promises.

I'll stand by my prediction. which isn't based on campaign bullshit.

A Coleman/Norris ticket would be formidable.

303: I really do think Mitt will run as a get-things-done moderate. And then he'll dog whistle about the Supreme Court. The evangelicals are well trained when it comes to hearing and responding to that tune. But as I said above, as a Canadian raised on the East Coast and then in the suburbs of Cleveland, I don't quite get the anti-Mormon thing.

Bob, all your comment references seem to be off by one.

307: Nope, like I've been saying: I don't fear Giuliani or Huck. I'd love to see either at the top of a Republican ticket. McCain and Romney are both tougher, in my view. I could go on, if you'd like. But I'm too busy visualizing Gary Coleman's inaugural address (telephone books, right?).

And 313 was to 306.

308:Barely Tim, as the slightly lesser of two evils, for reasons not exactly unique to myself. It is only the blogosphere that considers critics of Obama to be rabid Clintonistas.

I don't even consider myself a Democrat.

305: Thompson was the key.

Yes, probably so. You'd need to really get inside the numbers, but in general it looks like Fred did do best where Huck did, especially among the "New South" areas of Greenville/Spartanburg along the I-85 corridor.

It's like you're some bizarre multi-year troll performance artist.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

314:I do that all the time. I don't know why.

I actually fear both Giuliani and Huckabee. And McCain. But Romney--despite being good-looking in a Ken-doll way--just seems risibly lightweight.

Then again, so did GWB.

317: And I don't even consider myself a facist. Nor do I think that I hate the poor. And yet, I support Obama. Weird.

I don't even consider myself a facist

You don't judge people by the fronts of their heads?

Ari's trying to insulate himself from his liberal elitism by pretending not to be able to spell the name of his own ideology. They're we're tricky like that.

I hate the poor, and yet I support Edwards. It's because I'm a low-information voter.

I don't even consider myself a Democrat.

Like I said, bizarre multi-year troll performance artist. Be sure to slip Krauthammer some tongue for me at the next meetup.

321: Yeah, that's just my point (about GWB). But Romney's not a lightweight. He's just run as one. Actually, he's a very accomplished guy, everything that Bush pretended to be and more. Really, if he had run as himself (or the self that most closely approximates his), he would have won this thing already. Why people talk about sacking Mark Penn but ignore Romney's crap-ass advisors is beyond me. Well, no, no it's not: the Democratic race has received almost all of the attention.

323: All I see are smiley faces with Hitler mustaches. And by the way, that's the spelling mistake of mine on which you choose to focus? Among all of the errors I've made? Anti-semite.

Well, I know he's accomplished, but I mean, jeez, seriously: he's made public statements completely contradicting his record. How hard can it be to undermine this guy's reliability?

Plus, he's like, from Massachusetts, for god's sake.

Actually, he's a very accomplished guy, everything that Bush pretended to be and more.

Romney scares the hell out me. (Or, really, he doesn't, which is the problem.) McCain's too old. HRC can out-vigorous him and run him into the ground.

322:It might be fun to go thru Neiwert's checklist

"Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

-- Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective" ...D Neiwert

Other stuff doesn't apply of course, so I won't use that word. The above are two aspects of Obamism I have found unattractive

Ok, people--should I have another beer or not? It's a very nice Cru Dor Belgian-style ale by the North Coast Brewing Company. You may not be able to determine the future of America, but you can determine how drunk I'll get tonight.

"How hard can it be to undermine this guy's reliability?"

If he has relentless message discipline (like Bush had both times), it will be very hard.

"McCain's too old. HRC can out-vigorous him and run him into the ground."

You may be right. But I worry that deep wells of rage can carry an old guy pretty far. Then again, I'm still quaking about the thought of President Coleman (R).

Romney scares the hell out me. (Or, really, he doesn't, which is the problem.) McCain's too old. HRC can out-vigorous him and run him into the ground.

Yeah, I'm leery of Romney too. Huck and Giuliani seem too openly nuts to do well.

331 qualified:Other parts of the Neiwert checklist don't apply without time to study:

"Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

-- Emphasis on esthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects

-- Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia" ...Neiwert,

...who of course doesn't say any of these things separately makes for a fascist, but also says that that they aren't all in full implementation necessary for fascism.

But I have already said I don't like Obama's political style, and hold it against him.

335: Both are just so unpolished. And so openly ignorant. And not very likely to bother learning anything. And, in the case of Giuliani, so completely unappealing. Not to mention crazily bitter. Plus, he's a fascist (Happy now, Apo?). Wait, that probably plays as a virtue.

that's the spelling mistake of mine on which you choose to focus?

Tradition! [cue Tevye]

338: Anti-semite.

I can't believe you people are ignoring the vital question of whether or not Populuxe should have another beer.

Of course you should have another beer, P. In fact, I'm going to have another bowl of ice cream AND some more wine, just to lead the way.

I've already eaten two bowls of mint chocolate chip tonight, if that helps. Now I'm moving to the salty course: chips with fresh salsa. And a beer.

Unpolished, openly ignorant, fascist. Just like the last fucking Republican nominee.

That said, you all are probably right about Romney. The mere fact that I think he's a joke probably means he'll be a two-term president.

Populuxe should stop drinking beer and snort a Sudafed.

341: Two bowls of ice cream? Shit, man. I didn't think normal people did that. I'm only doing it b/c (1) PK wanted some, and it made me think, hmm, that looks good; and (2) I'm on my period.

343: What, without breaking the capsule?

Definitely more beer.

344: First Apo makes fun of me about my spelling (sniff). Now you're teasing me about my binge eating (sniff). Fine, instead of the chips and beer, I'll go for a run.

#340. Best Unfogged advice EVAR.

Being a Mormon, a woman or a black are tremendously complex matters, politically. So far, you have to respect Hillary as an effective politician in dealing with her own challenges.

Being a Mormon, a woman or a black are tremendously complex matters, politically. So far, you have to respect Hillary as an effective politician in dealing with her own challenges.

Being a Mormon, a woman or a black are tremendously complex matters, politically. So far, you have to respect Hillary as an effective politician in dealing with her own challenges.

In fact, I'm going to have another bowl of ice cream AND some more wine, just to lead the way.

I considered ice cream tonight, but convinced myself it didn't pair well with red wine. Was I wrong?

See, Ari? Your 346 is the sight of a man's ego being destroyed. It feels good to all of us who participated in it.

346: No, no, for god's sake, have the chips and beer. Running is crazy talk.

Ack, sorry about the multiple post

351: I'm drinking chardonnay with my chocolate ice cream, and it seems fine to me. But what do I know? Ask apo.

353: Too late. I'm already back. Having run, I can drink and eat more without guilt.

Also, I'm eating chocolate covered coffee beans with along with the beer.

the one upside to a clinton nomination will be the relentless mockery of her '35 years of experience'.

On some theory that the caffeine will cancel out the alcohol and make you less drunk?

356: Unless you end up puking because you ran ion a fully tummy.

Who is Trace Adkins? This is not a hypothetical question.

According to Google, Trace Adkins is some kind of country western singer.

Yes, but why is he on Bill Maher?

More to the point, why the fuck are you watching Bill Maher?

Yeah, especially since I made you your damn cartoon, Kelman.

#359. No, on a theory that the perfect food is some combination of caffeine, chocolate, and alcohol.

why the fuck are you watching Bill Maher?

What's your beef with Maher?

so if Hillary wins the nomination I will be 0 for 5 in presidential races in which I was old enough to vote.

364-5: Because Eric didn't respond to my e-mail about going to either No Country for Old Men or There Will be Blood. Plus, both of my kids are still sick. And Dan Savage seems to be co-hosting. And I just turned it on. And they're talking about the Confederate flag. So stop picking on me (sniff, sniff).

367: He's an ass, that's why.

369: You guys go to movies? Don't you both have, like, full-time jobs and children? What the hell?

Holy hell, Rauchway, that's the hardest I've laughed since reading SCMT's comments tonight. That's really, really funny.

Also, Ari, stop getting your feelings hurt or I will smack you.

He's an ass, that's why.

Moderates a decent panel.

Ass, ass, ass. He annoys the shit out of me.

Also, B's comment is very unfair.

Holy hell, Rauchway

Have I mentioned, we are a full-service blog?

375: Which one? I think I've made half a dozen unfair comments in the last fifteen minutes. At least.

370 b: This would have been a first, I have to admit. But it turns out that I e-mailed the wrong person. Someone who lives in Colombia (doing research for the year). So it's not a huge shock that I didn't hear back. But in keeping with my thin-skinned persona, I'm still hurt that Eric didn't get back to me.

377: On our blog. On his post.

379: There is another blog?

380: Fair point.

379: Then you should comment over there, dude. Else you'll confuse my girly little head.

||
I want the family values people who claim that boys need fathers to explain to me how traditional dads are going to have the supplies on hand to tend to their children's chapped upper lips during cold season, or the know-how to tell them that you press moisturizer into the skin rather than wipe it.
|>

Fuck, Stormcrow was never supposed to find out. This is the kind of shit that happens when Ogged goes on haitus.

Ari, ask Rauchway what I said about your blog tonight.

Not now, though, because he's such a pussy he's gone to bed.

They'll have the moms on hand, too, B. DUH. You teach about chapstick, and Mr. B teaches about manly things.

Having chapstick makes me non traditional?

It depends, gswift. Do you toss your hair in the mirror and say "Call me Suzie Chapstick"? Then yeah, I'd lean towards non-traditional.

382: What's chapstick? And: 384 is fair.

No mirror, but it is cherry flavored.

382.2: Bag Balm.

Shit. I had my tinfoil hat ready to go 2/3 of the way through this thread, then it turns out everyone is talking about Chapstick. Well, maybe I'll cook a baked potato. I don't want it now, but by the time it's done, who knows?

or the know-how to tell them that you press moisturizer into the skin rather than wipe it.

What? How's that supposed to work?

Well, too bad I slept instead of following this thread. My favorite parts-
McManus invoked Occam's razor to support his contention of a conspiracy by wealthy Clinton supporters to fund a stalking horse.
Gswift misread one of Bob's sarcastic comments as his actual position, then used that as an example of Bob contradicting himself.

It's funny how Nevada is right next to Arizona, but that doesn't seem to be important to anyone.

Recommended reading. This is a really stupid way to select a nominee.

This is a really stupid way to select a nominee

It's really no worse than the alternatives that prevail in other parts of the world. For all its flaws, our primary system incorporates a larger measure of popular participation than is typical for large democracies, where the candidates are typically chosen by a party conference, the delegates to which are selected by the tiny fraction of the population that is active, dues-paying party members.

re: 396

I think that's true.

However, it also heavily slants the race in favour of candidates who can produce the funding necessary to support public campaigns over a really remarkably lengthy period of time.

So, there's the benefit of greater public participation, at the cost of producing candidates even more closely aligned with and captured by 'big money'.

no worse than the alternatives that prevail in other parts of the world

Damning with faint praise, that.

The process may not test a candidate's ability to govern, but it certainly tests willingness, ability to organize and motivate a following, play/withstand the press, and ability to tap big money. All of which matter a whole lot in the general.

It's really no worse than the alternatives that prevail in other parts of the world.

Alternatives like what, monarchy?

There are a multitude of flaws intrinsic to our system. It's undemocratic, it encourages corruption and bribery, and it preferences the election of presidents based on their ability to campaign and fundraise rather than their ability to govern. This isn't even touching on the vast, vast problems with the presidential system of republican democracy itself - which allocates disproportionate power in the executive branch at the expense of oversight, transparency, and accountability. A parliamentary system would also be far from perfect, but it'd be a lot better.

A parliamentary system would also be far from perfect, but it'd be a lot better.

I don't agree with this. Instead, I'd like to see our Executive restored to its proper constitutional role -- without all the emanations from penumbras.

I'd like to see our Executive restored to its proper constitutional role -- without all the emanations from penumbras.

Good luck with that. We're never going to get a new constitution, but there's a better chance of that happening than there is of a president getting elected who wants to voluntarily cede two-hundred-plus years of accumulated power.

A parliamentary system is certainly more responsive; it's also less robust. Which you prefer, unless you're a robotic social policy professor, is likely to reflect what state your country is in at the time.

This showed up on a thread linked for other purposes. I just thought I'd share:

Matt, that stings. Since when have I tried to pick up anyone on this or any other blog? Ok, I've got a cybercrush on Megan McArdle, but I try to be a gentleman about it.

Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 02-21-05 11:54 AM

Shouldn't we be working on the innuendo?

403: I'll go with responsiveness in general. Does that make me a "robotic social policy professor"? More responsiveness not only means a greater chance of getting rid of dangerously incompetent and/or criminal leaders, but also means a greater chance of getting popular policies through the legislature. Popular progressive policies - expansions of the welfare state - tend to stay popular and are hard to roll back, even when a conservative government comes back into power. Popular conservative policies - which in the US tend to mostly be socially conservative agenda items - tend to grow far less popular over time, as socially conservative older voters die off, and are easier to overturn down the road.

The way the U.S. system is set up, this is exactly backwards: the malapportionment of the Senate, the filibuster, the presidential veto, all of these things make it incredibly difficult to pass progressive legislation. But the greatest opportunity for advancing the social conservative agenda remains federal and supreme court appointments, where the Senate gives disproportionate power to conservative members who are either unwilling or are afraid to obstruct an appointment. "Robustness" reduces to yet another structural advantage for the right wing.

202, 238:

Well, how about this: candidates who get their images out there years in advance are like ocean freighters and cannot change direction, while candidates who show up late on the national scene can trim their campaigns to the circumstances of the moment. Romney didn't have a big national presence two years ago, so he can design his image now. Obama and Clinton are trapped in their versions of centrism. I think that Obama's "Bring us Together" kumbayah BS looked better 2-3 years ago than it does today.

But maybe the problem is just that no candidate with any populist or militant flavor can get the $$ to buy media.

One of the big differences between centrist and left-liberal Democrats (and those further left) has been the relatively passive centrist response to media consolidation, the loss of the fairness rule, etc. It's not hard to guess why: the present system favors centrist Dems over anyone to their left, even though it also favors Republicans over Democrats.

So now a Democratic Presidential campaign is primarily a pipeline moving large chunks of money from malefactors of great wealth who want favors to different malefactors of great wealth who control media.

I've been arguing for several years (as have others, especially my parther Dave Johnson at "Seeing the Forest") that a lot of this money should be going into the development of independent channels of message development and distribution, perhaps even including a decent national newspaper. I haven't noticed much traction, and people have been more likely to jeer at "Air America" than to support it. (Note: What's in question is not the quality of AA. It's the necessity of getting the Democratic message out there on the radio, whether through AA or some other way.)

I suspect that the ruling factions in the Democratic Party do not want a Democratic or liberal infrastructure of think tanks and publications, because new ideas and newly-mobilized voters might threaten their control of the party.

"Party-building" is a key world, and mainstream Democrats have tended to slight it, and have even figured out ways to transfer party-building money (relabelled "soft money") into each year's campaign fund, pissing the money away on media buys, etc., and leaving nothing permanent behind.

"key word"

406: That's all substantially correct. A few modest differences: I think Obama had plenty of time to change course if he'd decided that was the way to go; and while Hillary no longer has that option, her political choices were made carefully and wisely, and she wouldn't change if she could.

As for the Democrats, I might attribute more of the problem than you do to the challenges inherent in herding cats. Because of the top-down way the Republican movement is constructed, it is necessarily more amenable to "party building." Maybe the Democrats can learn. And there's some evidence that the Internet may be helpful as a medium.

The internet is the most hopeful thing in years, but AFAIK the funders are not on board. How many internet people (excluding print writers who also have sites) make a family living (could raise un-deprived kids on it) mostly off the internet?

My guess is that its in the dozens rather than the hundreds, that it's mostly advertising revenues and not grants and that many of the dozens have worried about insurance, long-term security, etc. Contrast the wingnut welfare, which gives dishonest, less talented writers cushy lifetime jobs.

I've also proposed that an internet-disseminated political print zine should be produced -- something that people could print off at home and give to people who are not wired. It would have to be timely, punchy, fun, and graphically snappy. It could be original or could republish stuff from the blogs, but everything would have to be reformatted for best print effect.

Because, and I'll give this a separate paragraph, there are a lot of people who are not on the internet and never will be. The internet can help us reach these people if we use it right, but we can't wait for them to get wired.

As far as the "herding cats" things goes, I believe a version of it. (It comes from testimony about personal experiences of friends, and there also was an article about this some time ago in the Nation or somewhere.)

I think that it's the big Democratic donors who are the problem. Thy seem to be conceited and bullying. They think that they're deep political thinkers and want someone to get their ideas out there for them. They have pet issues, obsessions and taboos. They want to look closely at what their people are doing, and tend toward micromanagement. They're worried that they'll be taken advantage of, and they don't want their people to lose the purity of self-sacrifice. In many cases their politics is very narrow and specific -- gay rights, abortion or the environment, for example, but not labor or equality issues.

My intuition is that wingnut writers have a job and can expect to be rewarded if they do it, whereas left/liberal writers work for patrons and benefactors who expect personal deference. This is counterintuitive, but it's the impression I get. (As I keep saying, Republican populism is fake, but liberal elitism is real.)

402 -- Oh, I'm not expecting voluntary concessions. I'm expecting that the Republican Congress (after the 2010 midterms) and Roberts Court find that the Executive (embodied, apparently, by the Wicked Witch) isn't supposed to have unfettered discretion with respect to pretty much anything. Except the pardon (because they can't get to that).

405-06 -- I'm pretty sure that in every society since the dawn of time there have been very significant institutional barriers to progressive change. The question is whether people who want that change can get a big enough movement mobilized to overcome the barriers, whether within the system (if it can be played that way) or outside, if the system can't be co-opted. I think our system can be co-opted, with sufficient mobilization, which is why I hesitate to join the McManus Brigade. (I also think that change from outside the system requires just as much mobilization -- and that the hope that a movement can put together the wherewithal for the one but not the other makes the call for revolution frivolous.) The elements aren't all that complicated: you need a charismatic figure, and a substantial population sufficiently aggrieved to take a risk, and take action. I don't believe that either element obtains in 2008.

The final paranthetical in 410 was poorly worded. I think that the Democratic Party nomination process provides as good an opening for a progressive populist movement as you'd expect to find in our society. Not that it's that great an opening, for the reasons JE notes, but the road is there. And, as difficult as it might be, this road through the Dem party process is much smoother than any alternative path to power/change.* The barriers are higher outside that process, while the fundamental requirements -- a charismatic leader and a motivated and broad following -- are certainly no less on the outside.

HRC is no more interested in being that leader than in winning an Olympic medal in figure skating. We've all known that for years. BHO might have, but that's not clear, and, anyway, he's got a pretty short window to get this done by Super Tuesday. JRE made the most explicit credible bid we've seen in a long time, but couldn't close the deal. About which I'd say it was more us than him, but was both us and him.

* The most power-susceptible alternative really amounts to mini-movements, with individual charismatic leaders getting into Congress, propelled by local/regional movements. On the one hand it's not a very efficient path, especially as local conditions lead to significant differences in focus. On the other, it's fair to ask 'how are you going to take control of the country if you can't get control of the Dallas City Council?'

Paul Wellstone had about as good a mini-movement as you could imagine, but it was just him. Even in Minnesota he didn't leave a tradition -- Coleman was a fluke and I expect him to be bounced, but it's unlikely that the guy who replaces him will be of Wellstone's sort. (Klobuchar has been very cautious, though not bad.)

Outside Minnesota he had few followers. Feingold comes closest, but he didn't follow Wellstone's grass-roots approach I don't think (Feingold is independently wealthy and doesn't have to.)

I admit I also posted this at Obsidian Wings. As a Hillary supporter, I am disconcerted by how anti-Hillary left bloggers seem to be. Maybe you are convinced HIllary would lose because you tend to talk among yourselves and not to older people, women, Hispanics, poor people, union members, high school graduates. Bloggers come from the young, well-educated demographic group that Obama appeals to.

I hope you can reassure me about something. If HRC wins the nomination, will liberal bloggers be able to support the Democratic nominee sufficiently well to help her get elected?

I am disheartened by Obama's claims that he really won Nevada. After all his accusations of voting abuses, that seems disingenuous.

I am convinced that Obama might lose because he tends to shoot himself in the foot, e.g, Reagan, Repubicans, the party of ideas, etc. His principles might be wonderful, but his strategy often seems misguided, even destructive. He doesn't yet get American presidential politics. Emphasis on his appeal to independents and Republicans clouds the fact that he isn't necessarily the Democratic favorite in the primaries.

More responsiveness not only means a greater chance of getting rid of dangerously incompetent and/or criminal leaders, but also means a greater chance of getting popular policies through the legislature.

True. And it makes it easier to elect dangerously incompetent and/or criminal leaders without checks and balances, and means a greater chance of getting pernicious policies through the legislature. I don't think you can be definitive about this.

Maybe you are convinced HIllary would lose because you tend to talk among yourselves and not to older people, women, Hispanics, poor people, union members, high school graduates.

Or maybe it's because, as the left blogosphere was founded in no small part on anti-DLC fury, people are having trouble figuring out the proper protocol for now sticking their tongues up the DLC's ass. I wouldn't worry about November, though. Everybody lined up for Kerry after the Dean kneecapping.

Speaking for myself and almost everyone here, I will vote for any Democrat in the general, however grumpily.

I'm aware of Clinton's power with rank and file Democrats. My main objections are her stubborn hawkishness and a general feeling that she'll triangulate a lot of stuff. Centrists Democrats are playing a strong hand like a weak one.

Maybe they have to. The media are so skewed and have so much power over elections, it may be that a strong liberal Democrat cannot possibly ever be elected. That's where I'd put the blame; the voters themselves are so systematically misinformed that it's hard to tell what they really think about anything, since they're responding to caricatures and misrepresentations.

413: What SCMT said. Most everyone will vote for Hillary. And I, for my part, will relish the chance to vote for a woman. But her sex is the only facet of her candidacy that provides me the slightest reason for enthusiasm. Well, there's also the "D" after her name.

I've also proposed that an internet-disseminated political print zine should be produced

John, that's a really awesome idea. Were you thinking that it would get content from several blogs, or just from one? Would the idea be to pass it out on the street, or leave free copies around for people to pick up, or just be able to give it to your friends and neighbors?

The problem with the "timeliness" issue is that with the time it would take to aggregate the content and design the thing, by the time you got it out it might be a little bit late.

I am seriously interested in doing this. You could do it on so many topics, too. You're right that there is so much good writing on the internet, and frankly, a lot of it isn't reaching even people who are on the internet. I have plenty of friends, educated, smart young people, who never read any blogs except mine (because I harass them to read it).

405 Stras: More responsiveness not only means a greater chance of getting rid of dangerously incompetent and/or criminal leaders, but also means a greater chance of getting popular policies through the legislature.

414 OFE: True. And it makes it easier to elect dangerously incompetent and/or criminal leaders without checks and balances, and means a greater chance of getting pernicious policies through the legislature. I don't think you can be definitive about this.

I think that Founders' idea of using institutional forms to prevent misgovernment was a nice idea, but that misgovernment quickly found workarounds and loopholes. Presently a few dozen high-seniority Senators and Congressmen control everything, and most of them are corrupt by any moderately strict standard. And the institutional checks and balances are the tools they work with. I'd agree with Stras on this one. I'd be willing to accept the risk of populist corruption in order to escape the present corruption and get a chance at real progress.

413: Also: you might want to read what Obama actually said about Reagan, particularly if you're going to be clutching your pearls about bloggers saying mean things about Hillary. He was talking about the chance, in a particular moment, to bring the country in a new direction, for a big chunk of the electorate to coalesce around a president -- the right (or wrong, in the case of Reagan) person for the right time. So yes, I don't like it when Democrats laud Reagan any more than you do. But I do llike it when they understand history. And that was a fine reading of history. Debatable, to be sure, but still an interesting point to make.

414: Yeah. Considering popular the popular enthusiasms for burning-at-stake as a good solution for most problems, more "responsiveness" isn't a good idea.

Back in the Fifties polls indicated most of the provisions of the US Bill of Rights would be repealed by the masses if given a chance and I don't think that has changed much.

Leblanc: it would be the best writing available from whatever source, disseminated by internet and printed out. And it would be graphically appealing -- not like a printed-out blog page, not like a mimeographed flyer, and not like something I would do if I had to do it myself.

It could be used in any of many ways. I once suggested leaving it at laundromats and people laughed at the idea, but if one new person a week gets the word, it's worth the dollar or so a month it would cost to put a few copies in there.

Handing out on street corners would be least effective, because people throw that kind of stuff away. But if this was set up, a lot of people could print something out and give it to three good friends and do some good.

The timelag wouldn't be worse than other print media, probably better.

413:I am disconcerted by how anti-Hillary left bloggers seem to be.

redstocking, it is the War. I knew in 2003 the war was going to make Democrats crazy. I know they backed Kerry, after and even over Dean, but Dean was no Prince of Peace. He was rough.

This time we have a Prince of Peace. Clinton is too hawkish, Edwards too angry, but Obama is just gonna hug everybody and get us the pony. The Carebear candidate.

There is a certain kind of irresponsible self-identified innocent, usually but not always young, that just can't resist that infantile shit. Naturally they hate an compromised adult like Clinton.

Jonah's next book: "Carebear Fascism."

422: The problem is that if you were having people print it out, it would still be a bunch of 8.5x11 sheets stapled together. And there's only so graphically appealing that's going to be, even given good design. And it would have to be in black & white, although I guess that's not so bad. Ideally you would have magazine-style, which would be a bunch of 11x7 sheets folded and stapled in the middle, to at least make it easy to flip pages.

Laundromats are a good idea--you could also put stacks in coffeeshops or other restaurants that would allow you to do so. Maybe even currency exchanges? (Those are very common in Chicago, and places where a lot of poor-to-average people go to conduct their business).

Napi, you know, the GOP's previous hatred of the Clintons didn't prevent them from trying to pass an official secrets act under Bill (which he vetoed! But still--they're not going to suddenly want to let the sun shine in.)

Leblanc: Yeah, I've thought that it might be necessary to find print-on-demand technology, possibly through Kinkos or someone, which could print out a snappy-looking brochure. Stapled 8 x 11 doesn't seem right. I'm reasonably confident that something exists, though I haven't done any research.

I'd vote for Clinton. Whether I'd more than that depends very much on her general election campaign.

The problem with Kinko's is that for anything that's not just you making copies on their machines, it's fucking outrageously expensive. I despise them for how much they cost for very simple tasks-it's absurd.

I hate talking about electability. To the extent that people don't think Hillary can win, it's based on polls comparing her with the Republican opposition and memories of HRC's wild popularity during the 90s, not because they, unlike the educated upper middle class HRC supporters, refuse to talk to poor people.

If you wanted to disseminate the content the liberal bloggers are writing in a format that people would read, I'd think it might be better to get them to write articles specifically for that format. Ezra's written a lot on health care, but a lot of his articles don't make sense without the previous day's offerings or the links to the research or the opposition. A "weekly blog roundup" might be better suited.

There is a certain kind of irresponsible self-identified innocent, usually but not always young, that just can't resist that infantile shit. Naturally they hate an compromised adult like Clinton.

As opposed to the aging lefty roue who spends his time railing against soulless capitalism and militarism, and for change, then screws his courage to the sticking place and backs the candidate of the machine that best represents soulless capitalism, militarism, and stasis. There must be some dialectic explanation. Maybe heightening the contradictions by minimizing them. Whatever, you sad-sack fraud.

431:I don't think Tim likes me anymore.

mcmanus doesn't primarily back Clinton, to be fair, but hating "infantile" do-gooder types like me seems to be the only fixed star in his politics.

The sources of the writing could be anything. Disseminating by internet and decentralized print-on-demand is the selling point. The goal would be for blog-literate people to have something to pass out to their unwired friends and acquaintances.

Anyone know anything about print-on-demand technology. Agreed, Kinko's probably wouldn't be that great.

430: Yeah, I was thinking that a lot of the pieces wouldn't easily convert to the print format, without links. But getting bloggers to write things for you is a lot harder than just asking them "can I print up what you write in my 'zine?"

I am thinking of trying to do this in time for the Feb. 5 primary. that might be a little soon, but I already have the tools to design the thing, I would just have to find content and arrange it.

434: I really think that initially, stapled 8.5x11 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. If you wanted to make it more like a booklet, you could do a folded 8.5x11, so it would be like half-magazine size. You know?

434: I agree. I only mentioned it because it's another cost to consider: it's not just picking the top 10 blog posts of the day and ordering a Kinko's run. Essentially what we need are newspaper columnists that are actually liberal.

Keep me posted.

It might be possible to get permissions to edit and reformat blog posts. Or it might just be easier to do everything from scratch. Once it was in place, a lot of people could either print it out or use the same technology to do their own newsletter (for example, locally based or single-issue based.)

I have a neighbor who's a partisan Democrat but not wired. He's delighted with everything I find for him. His only other good source is Olbermann, but Olbermann can be sketchy.

433:Have I ever given the impression that I like Bush and Republicans?

And, Katherine, that was one the first things you ever said to me, way back at Tacitus:"You think I'm a do-gooder."

I don't know why you keep describing yourself that way. It looks kinda defensive.

A trial run at 8 1/2 by 11 would be fine. A more professional option is something to think about.

There's a site called "Cursor.org" with whom I have a weak connection which does a daily blog roundup. A lot of what we want might already be there. Perhaps they'd work with us (they are funding- and time-short, but they have lots of savvy).

Right, I was thinking that there are a lot of posts with links, but there are some long pieces, that if you edited them slightly, would be just fine. I have no idea if bigger bloggers like MY or Klein would agree to such things, but hey, you never know.

439: She was just trying to disarm you, Bob, hoping to reduce the savagery of your attack.

I just looked at Cursor and it's not exactly right, but we could get some tips.

Perhaps a few medium length articles plus a bunch of shorter breaking-news bullet points.

I have no idea if bigger bloggers like MY or Klein would agree to such things, but hey, you never know.

I suspect it wouldn't be their choice to make. If you know anyone with connections to the local weeklies--City Paper, etc.--you should ask them about the distribution issue.

Yes John, more Wellstones. Preferably in the South, where the need is arguably greatest, where a movement not defined by race would be truly transformative.

And a whole big herd of ponies.

Katherine, I think they'll be much more cautious about executive power this time around, having heard from Yoo and Addington just how far it can be stretched.

I may be out of the loop -- I am out of the loop -- but I don't understand there to be a vast underserved market for the E(merson)-zine. I hope to be proven wrong.

Both MY and EK are blogging as the online content of something that already has a presence in print, aren't they?

I conceive this somewhat as a supplementary link between the internet and the normal 80% of the population, mostly for face-to-face small-lot distribution. I really don't think of it as a free national publication being distributed to every coffee shop in the world (especially because coffee-shop people are most likely to be wired). That's something to think about too, though.

419. Presently a few dozen high-seniority Senators and Congressmen control everything

Presently I entirely agree with you, which is why I said it depended on the state of your country, unless your beyond emotional considerations. But when you've instituted a parliamentary alternative and they've gone and elected Salazar as national salvation leader, then the old ways might look better.

I don't see it as a vast market. I think of it as something for people to give to their unwired friends and acquaintances. If it existed, there are probably 3 or 4 people around here I'd give it to, though the number might grow.

3 or 4 is small time, but it's a multiplier.

It would also be a national publication with a single production cost. The distributor would pay printing, which could be as low as a dime each.

If it were genuinely small-time and credits were properly given, places like The American Prospect might see it as free advertising.

Sure, don't interpret me as being a naysayer, just that I'm not sure who owns MY and Klein's content. I like the idea of a very inexpensive print run of blog content, because I can think of several places to put it around town just off the top of my head.

I think that it's important not to think of it as a Big Deal. It's a little deal multiplied as many times as it's multiplied, which could be quite a few. Sort of a supplement or auxiliary. It could be done in one place by a few people, but distributed nationally.

Good graphics and layout would be key. You'd want to avoid the boring look.

Emerson in 412: Feingold comes closest, but he didn't follow Wellstone's grass-roots approach I don't think (Feingold is independently wealthy and doesn't have to.)

I don't believe that this is true. I think I heard a piece on NPR which estimated what his assets were worth, and he's the least rich guy in the Senate. I don't know enough about Wellstone's operation to know teh specifics of its grass-roots character, but I do know that Feingold goes to every county in Wisconsin to do listening tours. He seems more plugged into what's going on on teh ground than most.

1.) Okay, so my goal as a Democratic primary voter is to stop Hillary Clinton. I prefer John Edwards, but should I vote for Obama? Can Edwards control his delegates in any meaningful way and throw it to Obama while raising important progressive issues?

2.) I will vote for Clinton in the general, but I really think that she'd have to pay me money to do much more than that.

3.) To support #1, I'm trying to get my godparents (New Republic subscribers whom I haven't been able to convert to the American Prospect) to understand that Hillary Clinton is much worse than the others on foreign policy, specifically Iran. Is there a good collection of stuff that would highlight her awful position on Iran and compare it to the other candidates' views?

I would think that people tied in to a magazine wouldn't participate but that's a relatively low %. People doing this for free are generally desperate for readers. Put something free in the right places & a lot of people would at least give it a look.

I think I was wrong about Feingold. I was thinking of Wisconsin Sen. Kohl.

431:There must be some dialectic explanation. Maybe heightening the contradictions by minimizing them. Whatever, you sad-sack fraud.

Fraud? I am on record on this blog as believing Clinton will tear this country to shreds and energize the left as the raging militant force it needs to become to destroy the Republican Party and their fellow-travelers to the extent they can be destroyed inside or outside Constitutional limits.

Difference is, I don't really blame Clinton for what is going to happen, anymore than I would have blamed Kerensky. The people I read at the Agonist and other far left blogs are historical materialists and determinists. The leading indicators are strong:the fascists, the pearly savior, the crazed libertarian survivalist, the futile populist. The desperate flailing financiers.

As far as your little magazine, whatever. It may spread ideas and frames, but I think the understanding is out there. Half of Berlin read Marxist newsweeklies during the 1st quarter of the 20th. Didn't mean much. I need to read that book about Weimar.

PS:I had to look up "roue". I like it.

Also: you might want to read what Obama actually said about Reagan

Ari, I read the transcript and saw the video. Digby captures my opinion on this.

The word for what Obama was doing is triangulating.

Obama. I get tired of attacking Obama.

There has been a war for for this country for hundreds of years and Obama is not going to bring peace.

There is no fucking peace.

458: I read that piece and thought it was one of Digby's very best in a long time. I thought (and still think) that because she wasn't just clutching pearls; she was actually thiniking about what had happened.

As I said above, I wish that Obama hadn't alluded to Reagan in that way. And I wish that he would shut up about social security -- unless he has something interesting to say on the subject. But the idea that he was, rather simply, casting Reagan in a positive light is foolish. He was making a large-frame argument about historical context, about moments, not a small-frame argument about policy.

I also know that the large fame Obama so often uses is one thing that progressives (and Bob) hate about him. Fine. I just wish that people wouldn't put words or ideas into his mouth, including: "He said that Reagan was good." That wasn't his point at all. The man was a community organizer -- when he could have been doing almost anything else, including getting very rich -- during the Reagan years. He knows how bad Reagan was for urban America.

Okay, getting tired of hearing myself. Sorry to ramble.

In comments on another blog, I was trying to excuse Obama on the grounds that Reagan, too, had a weird habit of invoking FDR. When I attempted to supplement my memory with Reagan's actual language, here's what I came up with, from his first acceptance speech

And, the time is now to redeem promises once made to the American people by another candidate, in another time and another place. He said, "For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government--federal, state, and local--costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action, we must abolish useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government...we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like the private citizen, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford."

"I propose to you, my friends, and through you that government of all kinds, big and little be made solvent and that the example be set by the president of the United State and his Cabinet."

So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention in July 1932.

You can see that Reagan and Obama took entirely different approaches to a hallowed leader from the past. Obama was not imitating Reagan's revolutionary language. He was imitating Bill Clinton's triangulation.

What I think of as Clinton triangulation involves POLICY MATTERS. What Obama was doing is being meta, meta, meta. And if we're going to prioritize campaign rhetoric over their records in office (of which I think is his actually quite clearly the most progressive--admittedly it was much easier for him to be liberal than Edwards, but until primary season began Clinton was NOT very liberal at all in a seat where it was very safe to be), well, if we ignore rhetoric like this because he is soft on Reagan, we're fools.

my godparents (New Republic subscribers whom I haven't been able to convert to the American Prospect)

BG, your godparents are Episcopalians, right? Have they taken cognizance of Marty Peretz's editorial line on the Episcopal Church? That might be an angle to play. (I suppose it's possible, god forbid, that they've noticed it and agree with it.)

What Katherine said. Seriously, the idea that Obama is a Reagan-lover, or even that he was engaging in any kind of a hagiographic discussion of the Gipper, is both false and a bit silly. And the original comment, to which I replied, came without context and on the heels of some why-won't-the-internets-stop-being-mean-to-Hillary nonsense. I haven't noticed this site being too mean about HRC. People, for the most part, seem to be saying that they don't like her but will vote for her. If Hillary expects better than that after the campaign she has run, especially when I couple that campaign with her record in the Senate, she has another thing coming.

See, the point is that once the upper lip is already painfully chapped, smearing chapstick on--thick, heavy!--is a Bad Idea. As is vaseline.

On the other hand, a nice gentle eye cream, followed by a non-allergenic, very mild moisturizer, will seep into the skin without stinking and actually make things better overnight.

I shit you not; PK's lip is All Better now.

Chaopstick always worked for me, even when my lips were already chapped. I suspect that B was suffering from some unspeakable metrosexual disease.

I find that a Vitamin E capsule broken open also works well as an overnight chapped lip treatment.

462: This is a good point. Obama seems to keep the unity talk on the level of talk. It's the difference between "we're all the same, we can compromise" and "we're all the same, you're better than the options you're being presented, come my way."

Obama isn't a Reagan-lover, but he's playing the non-partisan game. At face value, this is wrong several different ways: in the first place, it won't protect him from vicious attacks, and second, it seems to be a proposal to work in a bipartisan way, when that would be exactly exactly wrong. The Republicans need to be displaced and their work undone (and furthermore, their leadership will destroy any Republican who tries bipartisanship -- look at the shit the very conservative McCain is getting for a very few bipartisan efforts.)

Perhaps Republican Party discipline will weaken once there's no grft to distribute, but I've seen it suggested that loyal Republicans who are voted out of office can expect a golden parachute.

What? How's that supposed to work?

See? If you'd paid more attention to Nora Dunn's character Pat Stevens (model turned talk show host; SNL) you'd know that you should always "dab, do not wipe."

you might want to read what Obama actually said about Reagan, particularly if you're going to be clutching your pearls about bloggers saying mean things about Hillary

I blow the whistle here. Most of the mean things that have been said about Hillary have a lot to do with not reading what *she* said--e.g., as you yourself pointed out earlier, the full text of her comments when she "cried."

"Obama isn't a Reagan-lover, but he's playing the non-partisan game"

I really don't think so. I think there's a world of difference between what Broder wants & what he's trying to do. Admittedly, Broderish types tend to think Obama's playing their game, & he tends to let them. But I don't think that's what he's trying to do or what the speech in 462 describes. That is, admittedly, a hopeful interpretation of Obama's campaign, but based on his prior record it's a pretty realistic hope. I can't tell if people disagree with my reasoning or won't even take it seriously because they basically break out in hives & cover their ears when they hear someone talking about unity.

The next time I see an intelligent person talking about being protected from vicious attacks, I'm going to scream. (The more usual formulation is that adopting a conciliatory posture isn't going to prevent Republicans from being mean).

Of course nothing our side does will prevent Republicans and their slimeball followers from engaging in various forms of know-nothingism. The question is whether the inevitable attacks will resonate with independents, and light partisans.

Sen. Clinton has a safe seat now, but when she set out to get it, it was anything but. She spent a tremendous amount of time charming people upstate, and it made a huge difference. It's a very big deal that a great many non-Dems don't buy into any angry black man subtexts when they hear Limbaugh et all attack Obama (if he ends up the nominee).

What I think of as Clinton triangulation involves POLICY MATTERS.

Amen.

Obama has tried to position himself above the fray. This is especially appropriate while running for President.

Kind of like what Bush did... of course say that and this will only feed the conviction that Obama is a right-winger in disguise. Because people are idiots.

470: But not the mean things I'm saying about her. So please don't blow the whistle on me.

I'm so part of the 471-473 choir. If it will have me as a member. I think Napi still likes I'm a liar.

Most of the mean things that have been said about Hillary have a lot to do with not reading what *she* said

She has said that she doesn't regret having given Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, just what Bush did with it. It's pretty difficult for me to invent enough mean things to say about that.

Digby's piece is excellent. She's completely right, and she's putting her finger on the thing that worries me about Obama. For all everyone thinks Hillary is the one who panders to the right, it seems to me that Obama's rhetoric of bipartisanship suggests that he's more likely to do so than she is--if only because he's probably a little more naive about how fucking dirty and dishonest the right really is. I don't think there's anyone out there who has more reason to mistrust and hate those fuckers than Clinton.

What JM said about Hillary. Between Obama and Hillary, I still support Obama.

I'll be happy if Obama is elected. If his kumbaya stuff also turns out to be just fluff, I'll be happy. If he fights the Congressional Republicans on key issues, and beats them, I'll be ecstatic.

It's clear to me, though, that even though a flood of events have discredited the Republicans and have made it possible to win a partisan election, both leading Democrats are still playing the centrist game. And that both of them are ashamed to be seen in public with the likes of me, though they're willing to meet with us in secret. We're getting dog-whistle politics.

Blame the Democrats, blame the media, blame my fellow Americans? Plenty of blame to go around, I guess.

What I find especially troubling about right-winger Obama is the fact that he served on the board of Wal-mart. Also, the fact that media mogul Rupert Murdoch is a strong backer of Obama! Can't this newcomer to politics see through the right-wing noise machine? Probably not, he's too naive.

I give Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Shumer, and others of that type credit for being willing to play hardball. I just wish that they hadn't chosen to be centrists, since that means they play a lot of hardball against me.

I think that Murdoch might slant Democratic this year. Why shouldn't he? He's really more a crooked businessman than an ideologue.

You know, I don't think the real problem with the Democrats in Washington for the past 8 years has been a LACK of cynicism.

476- Well, that's not quite her argument. She argues that the vote wasn't a war vote, which is nonsense. Half of Democratic Senators didn't courageously vote against authorization because they didn't want inspectors to 'finish their job'.

It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "

I just spent an hour searching for Obama's history as a community organizer (only two years, asbestos removal and community banking) and his arguments with Tom Hayden. I wish I had a copy of Audacity, I have been told that the critique of Reagan in the book is more nuanced than people like Ari at 460 pretend, to whit, from a comment at Matt Stoller's:

"I also think that this comment [Reagan stuff] reflects the community organizer in Obama. It's important to remember that the liberalism of the Great Society was completely top-down and unaccountable. There were major critiques of it from the left, all of which filtered into the current community organizing world (the NWRO and ACORN, Citizen Action, the IAF, and so on). It is unimaginable that Obama isn't thinking of this when we talks about accountability.

Just about everyone in America was in some way frustrated with the government over the course of the 70's. Reagan successfully convinced a majority of Americans that his solutions were the right ones. I think what Obama is saying now is that there is a moment where everyone is upset and Reagan's example shows how that breeds realignment.

Basically, he does agree with Reagan (as did most and as should you) that there was a problem with an unaccountable government by 1980. He doesn't agree with Reagan about the substance of that problem or the solution."

Okay. I have played with left anarchism, but just played, because I don't see a decent path to it except through state socialism. Too many left out.

I have also said that the left & right meet at anarchism, except for the property stuff.

How can Obama join with Republicans, in a progressive way offensive to old liberals?

Localism, federalism, block-grants, devolution of welfare-statism to communitarianism. I have seen Obama described as a "left libertarian" in a meaning of the phrase much less left than I world prefer. If he came of political age in the 1970s he would have been immersed in that dialogue. The Panthers and Nation of Islam were self-sufficient localists, and Obama still retains distant ties to that Chicago community.

Obama may really be a "new kind of liberal" somewhere between Ronald Reagan & Rosa Luxemberg. I think he is, and I don't think he is telling us.

Are y'all attracted to devolution and decentralization of the welfare state and various gov't services? Have you thought about it?

Are y'all attracted to devolution and decentralization of the welfare state and various gov't services?

Without getting into a great big argument about it, I would broadly say that yes, I am, which is a major factor in my having been attracted to the Green Party. I do think that there are a certain number of rights and budgeting and whatnot that can only be guaranteed by the federal government, but local communities are probably the best equipped to understand their own needs.

484:I mean this is a discussion that has been flirted with for a while.

Are Chicago blacks, are Chicago poor better off for sending net tax dollars to Mississippi? The Red States, the military, Western water projects...Chicago and New York etc are net tax/spend losers under the current system.

Would Chicago & NT be better off keeping their money, even tho the Texas and Mississippi poor would be much worse off? Do we have the right to ask Northern Urban poor to have worse than possible services for the sake of the country as a whole?

Do we need a National abortion law, better than what Texas would pass but worse than what California would pass?

And an independent Chicago is less likely to finance a war.

485:But it always politics, which means you will not get everything you want, and will have to give up something to get something.

Want my opinion? Republicans have seen this coming for ages, and are perfectly willing to partially secede the Deep South again in exchange for us liberals to quit interfering with their local traditions blah blah. White Southerners have always had a different perspective on Nixon's "Southern Strategy" than the one Nixon & Reagan had.

Ari, I don't think you're a liar. And I like your blog.

Thing is, I really listen to Obama, and when he says he is for "change" in a way that feels like more than a change from Bushism, I take him seriously.

No, Obama in his highest ambitions is not a Hayden-Clinton-Edwards liberal, not really a New Dealer or Great Society Liberal.

He is something else.

And like FDR and Reagan, he will have to be vague about it until elected, and then go radical.

He will sit with the Republicans and offer Universal Healthcare but in block grants controlled by the states, and Hayley Barbour in Mississippi will open a new bank account.

OT:

For those like me who still think it is funny, I have a book cover and table of contents for Republican Communism, and have organized notes from the thread here.

I am totally against devolution to the states unless it allows Minnesota and Oregon to seced and join Canada.

So are you going to write the damn thing?

I'm actually still hoping for assistance. I should also go to the library to get a copy of Goldberg's book.

BG, your godparents are Episcopalians, right? Have they taken cognizance of Marty Peretz's editorial line on the Episcopal Church? That might be an angle to play. (I suppose it's possible, god forbid, that they've noticed it and agree with it.)

Strictly speaking, it's one of my godmothers and her husband. She was kind of appalled by his anti-Episcopalian views, but she doesn't think that Peretz *is* The New Republic, and she doesn't feel that she's quite ready for The Nation.

They don't buy TNR's line on Israel stuff, but they basically ignore that. I think this comes from livign and working in places where it really isn't quite safe to criticize Israel, Brookline and the Harvard School of Public Health respectively.

491: Nice work!

491- I love it!

Seldom do I agree with the Sewing Machine Heir, but you DO know, don't you, that the Anglican ("Episcopal") Church was only founded so that Henry VIII could screw and/or behead VI wives in succession.

Carnality! Long lovely necks! Brutishness! The horror! The horror! Oh, the humanity!

Nothing personal I mean, BG, you seem to be a very fine person who has been misinformed and recruited into a sick cult.

As is so frequently the case, Eddie Izzard said it best.

Kobe represents five superdelegates.

Jane Hamsher (I agree):

The temptation is to think that criticism of Obama benefits Clinton or Edwards and vice versa when viewed through the lens of their supporters, but it isn't a zero sum game. Speaking for myself I can say that our allegiance is to a counternarrative which we hope will create the possibility of progressive change no matter who gets elected.

From that standpoint, if one candidate sees another receiving negative feedback for something they are less likely to engage in it themselves. The likelihood that Clinton or Edwards is going to step in it now and start praising St. Ronnie in the next few days is remote. We win.

That seems to be a schema that is almost impossible for people whose allegiance is to a particular candidate to understand, and thus we're accused of being agents of a candidate who isn't on the receiving end of a particular critique. We're not. We're trying to shift the whole dialog by shifting all the candidates, using one to pressure the rest.

It may not be what some people are looking to hear, but it is nonetheless both true and necessary in the world of less-than-perfect candidates.

Unfogged's HTML sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Maybe I made some kind of mistake. Screw it.

oh the counternarrative is important. But it's way too narrowly focused, negative (meaning: focused on yelling at candidates for sounding too partisan & overlooking anything promising) & directed at the D.C. press to the exclusion of the rest of the country.

I think McManus has convinced me to change my vote from Edwards to Obama.

505:Whatever. I am not open to disappointment or failure anymore.

505: What would you have to be disappointed by, Bob? Over the past couple years you've presented a wish list that's so wildly contradictory and ludicrously incoherent that no logically consistent universe could deliver it anyway.

504-506:And so it goes. You want me to explain or defend myself, or just go away. How boring.

I merely state that stras voting for Obama would be grudgingly accepted and not viewed as a personal failure and stras finds reason in that for some gratuitous insult about my lack of a systematic philosophy. Very few of us have one, stras.

And this instinct to cruelty in the most trivial and irrelevant circumstances is why you Obammers and other liberals aren't going to masturbate yourselves to an end to war or social justice.

Go ahead, stras. Obama will be the mirror to make you feel pretty, make you hard or wet. Edwards is so angry, and Clinton is so dull. No fun.

Me I am as incoherent and pathetic and absurd as a dog's head on the body of a 13-yr-old girl in a gutter in Baghdad. I am really ugly. I work at it.

And which is more real, Obama-mirror or dog-girl?

Do You Like Me Now

I really did like Tim's "roue" and "sad-sack fraud" The truth makes me laugh.

Obama may really be a "new kind of liberal" somewhere between Ronald Reagan & Rosa Luxemberg. I think he is, and I don't think he is telling us.

Obama is Tony Blair, circa 1996. Been there. Done that. Got the blood stained teeshirt. He will break your hearts.

What I find especially troubling about right-winger Obama is the fact that he served on the board of Wal-mart.

Be ye not troubled. Hillary served on the board of Wal Mart, not Obama.

Gswift misread one of Bob's sarcastic comments as his actual position, then used that as an example of Bob contradicting himself.

Maybe others have a better feel for bob or something and can tell when he's joking, because I sure as hell can't.

Also Rupert Murdoch is a Clinton supporter, not an Obama supporter. I was just being sarcastic about the concern over naive Obama and the right-wing noise machine.

Ah, my bad. Seems like there was something about Obama and Wal Mart though...

and google search reveals I'm probably thinking of this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/michelle_obama_.html

Maybe others have a better feel for bob or something and can tell when he's joking, because I sure as hell can't.

Bob can't tell when Bob's joking, gswift.

Bob, what's patently irritating about your anti-Obama screeds is that you're essentially claiming that Obama is a secret Clintonite in liberal clothing, while favoring his alternative, who is the completely open, genuine article. Now maybe you're right about Obama, and he's secretly the second coming of Bill Clinton. But he might not be. So why the fuck should I vote for someone who quite literally does represent the second coming of Bill Clinton into the White House? That you cannot follow this logic demonstrates to me that you either have no idea what you're talking about, or that you're just off your meds, or both.

Bob's view of the world is sufficiently ambiguous that virtually every action by every politician can be interepreted as something sinister if he chooses. Unity politics is a ploy to create a disaster. Divisive politics is a ploy to create a disaster. Only Clinton with her clear moderate Democrat politics can be trusted; the other candidates *might* be Clintonites in disguise, and that would be a disaster.

Looks like Giuliani is well and truly fucked.

That's not fucked. On 9/11, Giuliani knew what well and truly fucked was.

514:Hell, stras I don't remember telling anybody to vote for any particular candidate, and have often said that I myself might not vote this year. But I gave an argument at comment 457:

"I am on record on this blog as believing Clinton will tear this country to shreds and energize the left as the raging militant force it needs to become to destroy the Republican Party and their fellow-travelers to the extent they can be destroyed inside or outside Constitutional limits."

And this Leninist "heighten-the-contradictions" argument is one I have made before. I am certain the Left is not as prepared to take advantage of the Coming Depression as the Right who have engineered it. And the Right has been preparing for years, with the New Solid South, taxophobia, a Constitution-in-Exile SCOTUS.

Now maybe the mobilized Obamabots can turn from happy-face to Bastille-stormers on a dime, but I would rather have a People's Army without optimism in their leadership and delusions about the process, with a bitterness about the corporate war machine and an abandonment of nationalism that will permit an unconditional surrender to the Islamofascists overseas and guillotines at home.

Clinton '08! Only she can destroy us All!

Talking 1917 Blues here. I want me some Brest-Litovsk. Yummmm.

bob's just upset that people are excited about politics and aren't building barricades in the streets so he can comment about them.

518: Oh, break me a fucking give. So now it's not that you're anti-Obama, it's that you're pro-Clinton because she'll be so bad? Well, why aren't you just outright pro-McCain, then? And if any revolution was going to happen, why wouldn't it happen under Bush? The bottom line is that something about Obama - and I've got a pretty good idea what, but decorum prevents me from saying it here - makes you irrationally crazier than usual, and grasp at any possible straws to rail and screech about him.

We are Evil, stras. We are racist resource-raping mass-murdering BigMac-chomping theatre-of-cruelty-watching Empire-building motherfuckers with an unassailable sense of our own innocence, and I don't want that Grace-Abounding Chicago charlatan offering anybody freeze-dried discount Redemption.

Torture culture gotta pay for our sins. Penance first.

Redemption and cyclicality is a complete fallacy. Whether good things or bad things happen to us is independent of whether we deserve them, and of whether we had good or bad things before. We may well pay, but it won't be because we have sinned, and we may well flourish, but it won't be because we were good.

and I've got a pretty good idea what, but decorum prevents me from saying it here

Man, Stras, that's a shitty thing of you to say, and the not-quite-saying it doesn't make it any less shitty. You can disagree with Bob's political analysis all you like on the grounds that it's hyperbolic and only loosely based in fact, without having to call him a crypto-racist. (And if that wasn't what you meant, you should be paying closer attention to the natural implications of what you wrote.)

523: Then Bob shouldn't be so cavalier with shit like "Islamic third-way economics" that leave me with no other possible interpretation. And B, if you're out there, this is exactly the kind of thing I meant in that other thread.

LB, it's pretty obvious that stras was implying that Bob thinks Obama might be the anti-christ. He's not the only one, you know.

520:Awww, go ahead. Race?

What, with my level of raging misanthropy you think I even notice the color of his skin amidst the projectile vomiting at the Kumbaya love your hedge-trading-homophobe-pregnancy-forcing-Iraqi-murdering-Southern-Republican brother preaching?

Is Obama black?

True. There is a groundswell of belief along those lines.

That said, while McManus is pretty funny, it doesn't seem worthwhile to get upset over whatever he's rambling about.

call him a crypto-racist.

mcmanus's problem is the color of whichever pill he's decided to stop taking, not the color of Obama's skin. Your mistake, stras, is in trying to make sense of an internally incoherent political posture. You are trying to connect thought and deed for mcmanus, and there is no evidence that mcmanus does that. But, hey, knock yourself out.

522:Wrong. After 40 years of political despair Bush and Iraq and a Depression accompanied by this particular kind of Democratic Primary season is true justice for my disspated lecherous life.

Proves there is a God.

Enough. I gotta go strangle a kitten.

What, with my level of raging misanthropy you think I even notice the color of his skin

Bob, like Ron Paul and Stephen Colbert, doesn't see race.

533:Stras, race & culture are of course there, but like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, I am not sure how much I should take them into account.

And I am not comfortable getting into the kinds of arguments Cleaver and Newton and Carmichael got into with MLK and the NAACP during the 60s, just as I don't engage in militant vs conciliatory feminist arguments. Or I try to avoid them from my privileged position.

Of course, in general I am a BURNSHITDOWN kinda guy, and those sympathies are extensible.

You are trying to connect thought and deed for mcmanus, and there is no evidence that mcmanus does that.

Well, DUH. It's like nobody listens.

Tell me again how hardcore you are, Bob.

535:Is this where I immolate myself or take fertilizer to the mall to prove my authenticity?

It's the blogosphere, stras. Hardcore enough to try to attack the toughest targets at their strengths, rather than trying to impress the tribe with witty smackdowns of Jonah Goldberg.

Not as hardcore as Billmon, not hard enough to kiss it all goodbye.

Hardcore enough to try to attack the toughest targets at their strengths

Oh, please. You're a pathetic little old man scribbling on the internet. You're "attacking" no one.

Thank you, stras. You have done Unfogged, the blogosphere, and myself a great service.

Geesh stras, are you really worried that someone reads McManus's stuff and find it convincing? Let it go.