Edwards is unfortunately suffering from the post-Obama speech slot. Clinton was probably wise to just release a statement and not even try to give a speech.
DOESN'T COUNT, TOO BLACK
MY IMAGINARY FLORIDA FRIENDS STILL LIKE ME
Why do I keep having to see Bill Bennett's giant, stupid head on my TV?
Oh, she's just going to give a 40 minute stump speech in Tennessee. That's kind of a waste of the spotlight. Oof.
The Clintons really are tranparently angling for Florida now.
Wow, this was a great way to round off the tail of a hangover.
It would just be Chris Matthews' giant, stupid head then.
Intriguing hypothetical: if the SCOTUS hadn't stolen the 2000 election, would Joe Lieberman be in the political fight of his life right now?
6: If you switch to Univision it could be Don Francisco's giant, stupid head instead.
7: Nah, some GOP fucker would be running for his second term after recently invading Iraq.
6: There's got to be another channel that's covering the primary.
7: Not intriguing. Sickening on too many levels to count. You should know better.
Intriguing hypothetical: if the SCOTUS hadn't stolen the 2000 election, would Joe Lieberman be in the political fight of his life right now?
Interesting. I can't imagine Lieberman improving much on his disastrous 2004 campaign, even as VP.
I imagine that Hillary would still be running, but Clinton-Gore-Clinton would really drive people insane.
11: I've no interest whatsoever in Brit Hume's giant, stupid head.
I wonder how much Joe Lieberman would be the Lieberman he is today. It really does amaze me how much seems to have changed in the past 8 years.
I think things would also look much less exciting on the Democrat side. It would probably be Clinton vs. Lieberman, because things almost certainly would not have gotten as bad. Without the major problems of the past several years, the civil rights violations, the lopsided tax cuts, the war and massive deficit spending, I just couldn't see the same degree of political interest and intense desire for change that has driven the careers of younger relative outsiders like Dean, Edwards and Obama.
Things may not have gotten as bad, but I would also bet that things would not have the chance to get as good.
14: What do you have against anorexic basset hounds?
I dunno, I didn't have much trouble identifying Lieberman as a loathesome toad even back then.
17: It's a goy thing. You wouldn't understand.
Umm, with 1% of the black vote in SC, Edwards becoming a compromise candidate of the convention is looking unlikely. Whyever did I listen to Petey?
18: Agreed. Orthodox Jew scold. Just what the nation needed. Why anyone thought that would play in Peoria is beyond me. Or even in West Palm Beach.
Carolina Kennedy has also come out for Obama.
19, 21: I thought that was supposed to be Thursday.
18: I can believe it. I didn't follow politics well enough to know anything about Lieberman, being 14-15 at the time. I dunno, I still feel somehow that he must have moved a little more obviously right in the past few years. And there certainly has been a much more powerful group on the left that's arisen, which is what gives me the most hope.
I still dream of Edwards dropping out before Tuesday and Obama announcing the black/cracker ticket. Utter nonsense, I know.
Ethnicity aside, Lieberman reminds me of your annoying uncle who's really perfectly nice but you just wish he'd shut up.
You mean my annoying uncle? Because if so, you're dead on.
I have more than one of those uncles.
Orthodox Jew scolds? I'm genuinely sorry. No wonder you're such an anti-Semite.
I'm happy, but more than a little confused: what were those things behind Obama on his victory lap?
80% of the voters said they'd be happy with the other candidate. (I don't know if Edwards was included). It's not like black women hate Hillary, they just like Obama. Etc.
And AFAIK, the 20% were just saying that they'd sort of grumblingly vote for the other candidate (like me for all candidates anywhere anytime). Not that they'd sit the election out or vote Republican.
But the electoral process, the number-crunchers, and the media find these statistical cleavages which they puff up into unmanageable differences and diametrical oppositions.
I'm kind of pleased that I don't have any. None of the B. relatives are "perfectly nice"; either they're enjoyable cranks, or they're smug assholes.
Orthodox Jew scolds?
100% true: one of them did convert to Judaism to marry. But not Orthodox, just Air Force.
34: Some kind of Star Wars motif?
Orthodox Jew scolds?
Don't make me link to myself again, Ari. It'd be uncouth.
None of the B. relatives are "perfectly nice"; either they're enjoyable cranks, or they're smug assholes.
This explains so much.
38: But why would he want to surround himself with Vaders?
I know. They're illegal immigrants! With a few terrorists among them!
I was only intending about 35% snark. But, you know, intentional fallacy.
The Terrorists have embraced The Dark Side? Might as well anoint Guiliani then, because we're fucked.
I confess that while I'm not crazy about Obama, I was sort of pleased with the result.
And maybe he wasn't kidding when he said that the Clinton attacks toughened him up to deal with Republican attacks. It makes sense.
Tomorrow I'll be grumpy again, forget I said this.
No, no, I was genuinely pleased. Good job.
29:It is very much the political consensus that Edwards is helping Obama by staying in the race. In addition as long as Edwards remains around 15% there is a strong chance that his delegates can be used to put either one of the two leaders over the top.
Hoodwinked & Bamboozled ...This was fun. Via trickster over at ObsWi
Snark will help you in your love life, Teo, up to a point. You have been snark-deficient to date.
You're not at risk of reaching my toxic level.
46: Bill Clinton carries more authority and goodwill than any Republican in the country. You're probably right.
Anyway, almost all of my relatives are like that. Perfectly nice, but a little goes a long way. Excluding my mom and sister there are only a couple of relatives that I like being around for extended periods of time.
Snark will help you in your love life, Teo, up to a point. You have been snark-deficient to date.
This may well be true.
Edwards is helping Obama by staying in the race
My guess is that many of his delegates are more friendly to Obama than many of his voters. But it's only a guess.
My guess is that many of his delegates are more friendly to Obama than many of his voters.
This is quite possible, and it underscores the point that the delegates are actual people with a certain amount of free will in their choices.
The delegate divison: Obama 25, Clinton 11, Edwards 5.
That still leaves 4 committed delegates unassigned yet.
What are the best that this is all effectively over on Feb 5? I say yes.
58: I can't even begin to do a state-by-state prediction.
54:edwards Helps Obama Matt Yglesias, Jan 18
No fuckin clue.
I do suspect that most of the super-delegates, being career Democrats, will vote to put the frontrunner over the top, if it's possible for them to do so.
59: A week away? HRC's going to clock him.
59: I bet Obama wins Georgia and Alabama.
It will also be interesting to see whether McCain can land a knockout blow on Feb 5 in the Republican contest. Because of the large number of winner-takes-all contests, he could rack up a prohibitive lead if he continues to take a plurality against divided opposition.
I'd bet on him in Illinois and Massachusetts, too. If he places reasonably close in NY and CA, it's still too close to call.
I'm praying for Romney. Not that my prayers are recognized as valid.
HRC's going to clock him.
You really think so? I'm guessing SC brings out a lot of those "invisible" voters, the kind who aren't currently factored into polls of any sort. (Obama was supposed to win SC, but not nearly so definitively.)
65: It's weird, because the GOP weights state delegations according to how strongly Republican they are, GA has almost as many delegates as NY.
I'd bet on him in Illinois and Massachusetts, too. If he places reasonably close in NY and CA, it's still too close to call.
Illinois, yeah. I don't know about Massachusetts, though. I really doubt he comes close in NY or CA, and honestly I don't see a whole lot of other states where he has a reasonable shot.
Surely there's some poll data out there for these states.
His unexpectedly big win in SC might change things in some states, of course.
Here are the votes for Obama from non-blacks in the South Carolina primary by age:
18-29 - 52%
30-44 - 25%
45-59 - 23%
60+ - 15%
Here are the votes by income for Edwards:
Under $15,000 - 14%
$15,000-$30,000 - 15%
$30,000-$50,000 - 16%
$50,000-$75,000 - 22%
$75,000-$100,000 - 26%
$100,000-$150,000 - 24%
$150,000-$200,000 - not enough data
$200,000 or more - 29%
california is 370 delegates. Average polling over the last 10 days is 43-31, which equates to 159-114. That's reasonably close in my book.
I'd bet on him in Illinois and Massachusetts, too.
I wish that were so, but the last Massachusetts poll I saw showed Hillary with a commanding lead.
Obama has the black Muslim vote in NY, if signs in Halal stores are any indication. I saw a new ten or so just today.
As of yesterday, Clinton had a 12 point lead over Obama in CA. I saw this on the news, otherwise I'd link to it. I think teo's right though: we need to see how things shake up in the next few days before deciding anything. SC may've propelled him into the White House, for all we know. (Esp. given how tough the media's being on HRC about Michigan and Florida. That could -- crosses fingers -- backfire massively.)
72:The age differential is a killer. So radical a drop from 20s to 30/40s.
62: Clinton currently has the superdelegate advantage.
AP ran a story a few days ago saying that mathematically it's very unlikely that Feb 5 will be decisive. But that must have been based on polling numbers as of back then.
72a -- That's the game. BHO is going to have to improve the older white voter numbers.
california is 370 delegates. Average polling over the last 10 days is 43-31, which equates to 159-114. That's reasonably close in my book.
Huh, yeah, that's not so far (although there's a lot of variation among the individual polls). I was thinking it was more like the NY and NJ polling.
81:I am seeing Howard Fineman say the most recent polls show HRC leading Obama 4-1 among Hispanics in the high-Hispanic states.
4-1. Sorry. I hate this year. No fun.
Which of the Super Tuesday states are not winner-take-all? Any?
He certainly deserves some damn momentum from this one. She won NH by 2 percentage points & Nevada by what, 6? And does Democratic turnout usually exceed GOP turnout in the S.C. primary? Okay, granted, it's never counted quite this much before, but still.
Ouch, no kidding. Maybe Tim's right.
mathematically it's very unlikely
Mathematically, it's impossible I think.
79: Marty Chavez is an at-large superdelegate? Christ.
84: No Dem primaries are winner take all.
Clinton currently has the superdelegate advantage
Superdelegates are uncommitted. They don't actually cast their votes until the convention, and can change their alignment at any time until then, and if the momentum - or the committed delegates - swings Obama's way, they'll probably end up in his column.
Nearly all of the Super Tuesday GOP primaries are WTA or some modified form thereof.
81: He had better results among old white people in Iowa and New Hampshire. He also had higher approvals than Clinton (83% versus 77% would be satisfied with Obama or Clinton as the candidate, 61% versus 40% would be "very satisfied"). Something tells me even old white people like him enough.
Final SC delegate count is 25-12-8.
Old white southerners are very different from old white everyone-else. SC old people are a peculiar kind.
89: Yes, that's a tabulation of endorsements as they currently stand. Thanks for the clarification.
South Carolina is peculiar even within the South.
Nearly all of the Super Tuesday GOP primaries are WTA or some modified form thereof.
It's easy to see which party cares about inequality.
Super Tuesday Polls. Note that many of these states haven't been polled in several months.
92: Here's the approval data that I pulled from.
Old white southerners are very different from old white everyone-else.
Not that different. There was an interesting interview on Fresh Air (I don't care; I like it) with a black actor/director associated with The Wire (Clark Johnson?) a couple of days ago. His grandfather, a New Yorker, apparently played an important role in integrating the Armed Forces and long supported the Civil Rights movement. Never spoke to his beloved daughter again after she married Johnson's black father. Admittedly, that's one generation off, but I think that--while old people change--it's hard to change, especially as you get older.
But I'm OK with that. HRC will be fine.
100:
McCain embedded producer, Malini Bawa contributed to this report.
Jesus, is this a military operation now? Is Malini in camo an wearing a helmet?
101: That's the old "Yes, but would you want your daughter to marry one?" exception that used to be an argument-winner until as late as the 1970s, or 1980s in some places.
I need to read more. But Apo's 74 is both key and right. And those numbers will, barring something unexpected, likely tighten. Hillary has had this state wrapped up for months. But Obama supposedly is really going to a full-court press starting tomorrow. So here's where we see if Hillary has a ceiling because she's already so well know and Obama has more upside. Fascinating.
Do Republicans actually think bitchery about who's more hawkish still makes them look leaderly? Seems impossible that all this "VOW TO BE IN IRAQ FOREVER OR ELSE THERE WILL BE GENOCIDE AND BLOOD FLOWING IN THE STREETS" still gets a rise out of Romney. "Nuh-uh! I wanna be in Iraq forever, too, okay? I promise!"
Is there anyone who isn't directly profiting from the war who thinks we haven't been there long enough to start thinking about leaving?
South Carolina is peculiar even within the South.
I had a bizarre encounter when I was in high school with a cop from Greenwood, SC, who, thinking me a racist like himself (I'm white, so why wouldn't I be?) showed me his KKK hood.
I harbor more general ill will against South Carolina than any other state.
Is there anyone who isn't directly profiting from the war who thinks we haven't been there long enough to start thinking about leaving?
There are apparently quite a few such people, and they all vote in Republican primaries.
In Iowa, Clinton beat Obama 34-21 among voters 60-64, and 45-18 among voters over 65.
Great Van Susteren has the goods on the Embed Producers blog.
[T]hese are the producers who are traveling with the candidates and blogging the INSIDE story - the "stuff" you don't get to see on TV....the Embed collective blog (click below) makes you feel like you are there..pics, video, inside stories etc...you name it!
the "stuff" you don't get to see on TV
Interesting use of quotation marks.
McCain embedded producer
I thought pretty much all journalists were embedded in McCain.
110, I've said it before: Logan's Run wasn't all wrong.
I thought pretty much all journalists were embedded in McCain.
No, he's embedded in some of them.
SC really is the worst, KR. Charleston history is pretty fascinating on this issue---it was really the entry point for the most major slave-trading, and the bastion of extremely wealthy urban slave-holders in the South. Some of the most extreme lynching incidents were right outside Charleston, and they have preserved the downtown slave market as a sort of craft fair spot for Sea Islands basket-weavers. It's all marketed like, "Get a little history after lunch! And buy a sweetgrass basket in the old slave market!"
115: you were going for the fellatio metaphor, and I for the head up the ass metaphor. Both are apt.
Charleston history is pretty fascinating on this issue---it was really the entry point for the most major slave-trading
In more than one direction, at different times.
"Obama Weathers Attacks to Win"
Headline from the Times. That's very good press for Obama.
That's very good press for Obama.
Not going to be enough, and, given their endorsement, it's clear which way the NYT thinks the wind is blowing.
I find that repeating "HRC's going to win, and she'll be fine," is very soothing.
From MyDD: 500,000 voted in the SC Dem primary, exceeding the most optimistic forecasts.
Obama's vote total alone today has now officially exceeded all votes cast in the 2004 Dem primary. He's now about 294,000. And MSNBC just announced that 155,000 more black voters voted today than voted in 2004. 445,000 people voted in last weekend's Republican primary. Democratic turnout outpaced Republican turnout in South Carolina? Amazing.
121: No, she won't be. If the Democrats can't pick Edwards or Obama in a year like this, when the conditions are ripe for a big push and permanent shift in the nation's government role, the Democrats don't deserve my vote. Fuck 'em if they think it can be taken for granted.
I sometimes think we're all a little Mark Penn-ish with the internal demographics. White people won't vote for him? In Iowa they did. Low income people won't for him? In South Carolina they did. Women won't vote for him? In Iowa they will. Rural white people won't vote for him? In Nevada they did. In Illinois, I like his chances with any demographic group you can name. In NY I hate his chances most of the same demographic groups. He's obviously going to need really really great turnout from his supporters & some serious improvement across all segments of the country to stay close enough on Feb. 5. Where that comes from, who knows. Security moms, waitress moms, old white people, latinos, whatever. Votes are votes. When you win, your coalition looks great, when you lose it looks crappy, but it's not because some regions or demographic groups are more equal than others. Voters are voters. There are a hell of a lot more of them in NY & California & all the rest of the Feb. 5 states than Iowa or South Carolina, & there's not much time, so yes, it'll be tough.
I find that repeating "HRC's going to win, and she'll be fine," is very soothing.
Agreed. On both counts. But it's really not over yet. I still think Hillary's the favorite. And yet, Obama faced withering attacks, pulled thousands of new voters to the polls, won by 30 points, and now controls the news cycle.
HRC's going to win, and she'll be fine
I don't think she's good for the Democratic Party's long-term health, though.
I don't think she's good for the Democratic Party's long-term health, though.
Yes, but you also think Obama would lose the general. So.
I hate to say this, but I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election, instead of foisting another unambitious candidate on the country who will be fought every step of the way in her very modest attempts at progressivism.
The massive long-term good that can be done by one president, with the right amount of support at the right time, makes it vital to take advantage of every one of those opportunities. If we throw it away, let the passion that's fired the left wing of the Democrats for the past two elections dim, then no one wins apart from the party powers who remain entrenched as kingmakers. Nothing permanent or major will change, cosmetic changes to law pushed by a timid and rebuked White House with poor popular support will easily be rolled back by future administrations, and a whole lot of us will be far less inclined to care about the party any more after it kicked us while down.
I'm just worried about the general. I don't know what to think. I'm not sure we've ever had a candidate who combines Obama's raw charisma and almost total lack of political and governmental experience. Closest would be Kennedy, I guess, and he's not that encouraging a parallel. (Since he barely won the general while pandering like crazy in every direction...lousy President too, but that's another issue).
Obama's an opportunist, flat out -- he made a splash in 04, looked around him, said "fuck this, I can beat all these charisma-challenged mediocrities...have you heard me speak lately?", ran, and now he just might do it. Thing is, both McCain and Romney have way more impressive resumes than he does to your average suburban middle class undecided...when you combine that with the weirdo Hussein black quasi-Muslim factor I just can't quite see it.
Love to be wrong though.
I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election
How much longer will John Paul Stevens live? Romney's not evidently insane, but he's already said that he's going to appoint another 19-year-old Federalist Society stooge with good genes to ensure right-wing control of the Supreme Court until I'm gumming my Lipitor in the rest home.
I hate to say this, but I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election, instead of foisting another unambitious candidate on the country who will be fought every step of the way in her very modest attempts at progressivism.
When exactly is this progressive landslide supposed to happen? This country has elected exactly two kinds of presidents in the last 30 years - crazed Republicans and moderate Democrats.
If eight years of Bush didn't heighten the contradictions enough, it ain't never gonna happen.
and now controls the news cycle.
Until the beast turns its attention to Florida.
And the Embed Producers will be there!
130 is an interesting comment. Bide your time for the next FDR, huh?
You have to wonder what a Dem Congress continuing to roll over for a Rep President would do to the party brand though. Unless we end up with a third party that replaces the Dems (wildly unlikely) the whole party needs a shakeup. You need a President for that.
Juxtaposing 130 and 131 is really fascinating. The country is poised for change, and so we shouldn't waste the moment. The country will never change, so we shouldn't gamble. I'd love to know PMP's and PGD's ages, as I'm guessing that reveals all.
Ok, I was too strong in 130. I do fear the damage that McCain or Guiliani could do in office, since I believe the former would have terrifyingly bad policies in nearly every conceivable area while the latter would continue the most distressing and difficult to reverse pattern of the Bush era: the expansion of Executive Privilege and successful side-stepping of nearly all oversight. So if either of those two were the nominee, I would fear the damage they could do to the country too much to really feel happy with them taking the office.
Romney, though, he's odd. I don't think he'd do anything too scary. I don't think he's daring enough to do anything too terrible and fundamental to our government structures or law, and I don't think he has the raw power lust that would cause him to expand upon the worst of Bush's excesses in the way he governs. He seems like he would be 4 years of unpleasant medicine, just enough heat to keep the left wing of the Democratic party simmering, and enough years out of power that the rest are willing to give a real progressive candidate a try.
137 makes things a lot less interesting. Drat your pragmatism, PMP, you've ruined a perfectly good theory.
I'd love to know PMP's and PGD's ages, as I'm guessing that reveals all.
He be young and I be old. Well, I'm middle-aged.
Guessing that's the opposite of your assumptions...but I've seen too many elections pass with the "we'll get 'em next time, and it will be the GRAND REALIGNMENT" excuse.
I basically agree with Gabriel in 133. It's not going to be a grand FDR thing. It's going to be gradually demonstrating, over a decade or so, that the Democrats can use government to actually help you.
I don't think he has the raw power lust
But he's a Republican. So if not that, then why is he running? To bring more power to LDS? To make himself even richer?
"HRC's going to win, and she'll be fine,"
Too bad neither of these things is true.
Romney, though, he's odd. I don't think he'd do anything too scary.
Right. He wouldn't sit there and sign whatever legislation the Rs want to put through. Not.
139: No, totally in line with my expectations.
131 - Kennedy did pretty much singlehandedly prevent a nuclear war over Cuba. That goes a fair distance in my book. Obviously, his rhetoric was generally more impressive than the reality of the policies he implemented, but I think the anti-Kennedy backlash that seems so hip these days has gone as far wrong in the one direction as Kennedy lionization did in the other.
As to lack of experience, Bush II was the governor of a state with the weakest governorship in the country; Carter was a one term governor of Georgia with no experience on the national stage. Eisenhower had no political experience whatever, although obviously being Supreme Allied Commander twice might qualify as governmental experience. Hoover was never elected to anything prior to 1928, although, again, he had a great deal of administrative experience. Wilson had been governor of New Jersey for two years.
Losing candidates tend to have lots of experience - John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, George Bush I, Mondale, Ford, Humphrey, Nixon, Dewey...I think if you add up the total experience of losing presidential candidates and compare it to that of winners, you'll find the losers are far superior in that department.
Also, why is Mitt Romney so much more experienced than Obama? He was a one term governor of Massachusetts, with no previous political experience except an unsuccessful Senate run in 1994.
I hate to say this, but I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election,
Mistake.
If you're really worried, try and sort out a Dem coalition that could kick HRC's legs out from under her and support it.
The young have more time to bide, obv!
"I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election"
Leaving aside the "ZOMG the Supreme Court!!!!" factor, that's a big if. Why increase the likelihood of something very bad happening for the next 4 years, in return for a very uncertain future gain? None of us are psychic, or have any real idea what 2012 looks like.
Of course, by the same token, there's no reason at all to be having depressing conversations about Nov. on a night like tonight. I was really trying hard to keep my head down & work away on the issues & not get swept up into projecting my hopes onto a presidential candidate who might not be worthy of them & would probably lose anyway. But in the face of Obama's political skills this is apparently as much use as my husband saying he's given up on the NY Jets once and for all. Can you imagine how great election night in November could be? I can.
Bide your time for the next FDR, huh?
At this point, I'd settle for another Nixon. At least he had the balls to create OSHA and the EPA before everyone found out what a paranoid bastard he was. And I'd even say that, on the balance, his foreign policy was probably even on the better side of average, though split between amazing lasting triumphs and horrendous warcrime lows.
Blargh. The thought of Hillary selling the whole damn country out in '04 and then coming to get the nomination handed to her on a silver platter when she finally feels like it just angers up my blood, as has come up in past threads.
(now if only Obama got elected and went back toward his early musings of single-payer health care. mmm... that'll be pleasant dreaming tonight)
Is it completely negligible that Obama is a professor of constitutional law? It's not political experience, but it is, actually, like, knowledge of how the country works, of which Bush seemed to have exactly zero. Why don't they bring this up? Too fancy-sounding?
Romney, though, he's odd. I don't think he'd do anything too scary.
That reaction is why I worry about Romney vs. HRC.
I'm sure why some people are relatively soft on Romney. He's run an utterly repellent campaign. I agree that it's probably insincere, which is better than the alternative, but that doesn't exactly inspire great confidence either. I think he's less of a nutty hawk than McCain, but McCain has actual flashes of decency that Romney seems to entirely lack.
The thing about the whole "experience" knock on Obama is that Hillary Clinton doesn't actually have all that much more of a track record. Her Senate record is fairly lame. She's a very smart woman who knows a lot about policy & understands in intimate detail what she'll be up against, but as far as actually having the policy judgment & priorities & the political skill to do what the country needs, I really do have more confidence in him.
I hate to say this, but I'd rather have 4 years of Mitt Romney or some other crazed Republican if it would lead to an actual progressive landslide for Democrats in the next election
Why would the election of a crazed Republican lead to a landslide for "actual progressives," whatever those might be? This country followed up eight years of corrupt, middling center-right Clintonism with eight years of George W. Bush - about as crazed a Republican as you could ask for - and instead of any progressive landslide, we're being presented with... more corrupt, middling center-right Clintonism. Why, it's almost as if there's no institutional support for actual progressivism in the Democratic Party, landslide or no!
Blargh. The thought of Hillary selling the whole damn country out in '04 and then coming to get the nomination handed to her on a silver platter when she finally feels like it just angers up my blood, as has come up in past threads.
I think a lot of people feel like that. Not anywhere near enough to get Obama the nomination, though. Coalitions are a pain in the ass, and sometimes you get stuck with other people's preferences.
Yeah, batshit Republicans do not make for brave progressive liberal Democrats. They make for scared, careful, shit-eating Democrats. What evidence do you have to the contrary, PMP?
Why, it's almost as if there's no institutional support for actual progressivism in the Democratic Party, landslide or no!
Or public interest in actual progressivism in the American electorate, by all indications.
151: Yes, and it's another reason why people stupidly thinking they're voting for the individual rather than the party is so annoying.
144: true, Kennedy restrained the kookier generals on Cuba...but it's hard to see Eisenhauer or even Nixon vaporizing the world. And: the "missile gap", Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, the Castro assasination attempts, letting the CIA go, etc. But whatever, I'm not too committed to anything beyond the view that Kennedy is overrated.
why is Mitt Romney so much more experienced than Obama?
Even one term as governor counts for a lot, and I think the business experience will impress people too. Obama has had no executive management experience of any kind running any kind of large organization, ever. That's rare. The campaign itself is the largest operation he has ever managed. So far he is doing a great job of it though.
I agree with you that experience is not necessarily that important -- basically there is no experience that prepares you to be President anyway -- but hitting the ground running is critical, and that requires rapidly setting up executive management in the White House.
154: Tim, don't you think there's a real chance that Obama can create a new coalition? A coalition in which younger and urban -- used here in both the coded and uncoded sense -- voters show up at the polls in absolutely huge numbers? Isn't that something to hope for. Particularly since, for the first time in my adult life, it could actually happen.
That reaction is why I worry about Romney vs. HRC.
Tim, you should be worried about anybody versus HRC. The GOP could run a dead raccoon against Clinton and it'd still get all the red states and at least 45% of the vote in Florida.
If you're really worried, try and sort out a Dem coalition that could kick HRC's legs out from under her and support it.
I do! I keep sending mash notes to Edwards that go on about top-up funding for poor rural and urban school districts, expanded unemployment insurance and an expanded EITC, signed "Barry O" with the little afro on the O. And I'm now working on one from "John Edwards" to Obama that discusses auctioning methods for carbon emission permits, strategies for bringing Iran and the UN into Iraq to help broker peace accords and be more open to trade & inspections in exchange for help developing civilian nuclear power and reduced sanctions, and a special section listing his favorite parts of Spike Lee movies.
I already had great success with my Barry O letter to Dennis that said "You'll always be the Secretary of Peace in my heart" and dotted all the i's with little hearts and peace signs.
Obama has had no executive management experience of any kind running any kind of large organization, ever.
Neither has HRC, of course.
Tim, you should be worried about anybody versus HRC. The GOP could run a dead raccoon against Clinton and it'd still get all the red states and at least 45% of the vote in Florida.
Yeah, but a dead raccoon wouldn't be on record as supporting another 100 years in Iraq. Not much room for the Republican nominee to pivot on that, especially if it's McCain.
The thing about the whole "experience" knock on Obama is that Hillary Clinton doesn't actually have all that much more of a track record.
Now, that is wrong. She was basically co-President with Bill. Before that she was co-governor of Arkansas. For better or worse, she's incredibly experienced at executive management. The equivalent of Nixon at least in experience.
Is it completely negligible that Obama is a professor of constitutional law?
"I can run things -- I'm a college professor!" is an argument that would only fly among the Unfogged demographic.
162: not so much Edwards, either. The best experience candidate was Richardson.
I know this isn't really a good predictor of governing, but his campaign organization is damn, damn impressive.
163: For the moment, the press has neutralized Iraq as an issue. It's not right that this has happened; it's horrible, sickening even. But there it is. Will this still be the case in the fall? I have no idea. If it is, though, Iraq isn't going to be a slam-dunk issue for the Democrats after all. Hard to belive, but probably true. Unless I'm wrong.
Tim, you should be worried about anybody versus HRC.
I don't think so. I think HRC beats Neocon John, though it'll be close. I suspect Obama would lose to him, and beat Romney.
She was basically co-President with Bill.
That's not true. She explicitly pulled back after healthcare reform and the '94 elections.
166 strikes me as correct, and I can hardly believe it either. Apparently all that is necessary to render the public quiescent is to make some progress toward pacifying a rebellious province
164: Was she really? Impressive how she co-managed foreign policy without a security clearance or ever being in the room. On domestic policy, I'm sure she had some role, but the only specific thing I can point to is the health care thing. She'll have done much else behind the scenes, of course, & I'm sure she gets how D.C. works much better now than she did then, but you know, I would like some f***ing specifics, not "she is half responsible for everything good during the Clinton administration & not responsible for anything bad" and a bunch of handwaving. She gave me no specifics in the Senate.
153, 155: There is legitimate support for candidates running on platforms of more progressive taxation, more open foreign policy that strives to engage with foreign leaders even if we disagree with them, and especially publically-funded health care for the masses. People are actually talking about the safety net for those at the bottom instead of just the "middle class". I don't remember seeing much support for those things in 2000 or in 1996.
Success doesn't breed ambition in the Democrats. Those who play it safe and centrist and then get elected take it as proof that they should remain safe and centrist in all future elections. Hell, even Reagan's years of success led to the more mild Bush Sr. years. Success makes people soft, you can only hope for big changes at the change times.
Only when a party's been out of power for ages are they willing to try something radical and to take power in a substantial way (see New Labour, and to a lesser extent, what's going on in the Tory party at the moment, though the US Democrats would have to move in the opposite direction since they started out as centrist pantwetters).
she's incredibly experienced at executive management.
Gah. Health care policy fiasco. No thanks.
163: Right, because the American electorate is so well-known for being issue-oriented and fact-based when it comes to picking their presidents, especially with the help of a responsible news media that holds political figures like John McCain to account for shit like that.
Most Republicans who want to end the war have been voting for McCain in the primaries. Most Democrats who want to end the war have been voting for Clinton. I don't mean to say Americans are dumb as shit, but Americans are dumb as shit, and if the plan is to beat the eventual Republican nominee with facts, you'd better get another plan.
That's not true. She explicitly pulled back after healthcare reform and the '94 elections.
In her public role, yes. But do you really think she didn't remain a top advisor, as she had been to Bill throughout his public career? "Co-President" is a little strong, but her experience at least bears comparison to being a White House chief of staff or other top managerial position.
Tim, don't you think there's a real chance that Obama can create a new coalition?
That was my hope: a Northern-urban (uncoded) coalition, with tendrils reaching out into the soft South. Now I think it was just too soon. It would be nice to have a strong bulwark against the Southern Conservatives. Someday.
I don't mean to say Americans are dumb as shit, but Americans are dumb as shit
Stras, you should totally run for office. With that as your campaign slogan, you can't lose.
Most Democrats who want to end the war have been voting for Clinton. I don't mean to say Americans are dumb as shit, but Americans are dumb as shit
You know, it's remotely possible that people are voting for the person they think is the likely D candidate on the grounds that the Ds are the party that's most likely to end the war one way or another. And that at least some of the folks voting for McCain are doing so because he's the only fucking R candidate who's anti-torture.
I think HRC beats Neocon John, though it'll be close.
You have lead a terribly sheltered life. McCain is the crazy right-winger that liberals irrationally believe is trustworthy; Clinton is the moderate conservative that moderates and conservatives irrationally believe is a psychopath. If you don't think this dynamic will dominate the campaign to the exclusion of everything else - McCain's age, craziness, record of support for deranged policies, etc. - you are terribly naive.
158: And Khrushchev got what he wanted from Kennedy: the withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey and a promise not to invade Cuba.
175: But the number of people voting in the primaries is staggering. Sure, a lot of that is anti-Bush, but not all of it. It seems like Obama is really moving people. Enough people? I don't know. The Clinton machine is just awesome to behold. They're so good at the game. But I'm not giving up yet. I'm with Katherine. And I won't rest until you're with us, too.
You know, it's remotely possible that people are voting for the person they think is the likely D candidate on the grounds that the Ds are the party that's most likely to end the war one way or another.
B, if any of these people had actually read Clinton's statements on "ending the war," they would know that she plans to have troops in Iraq when she leaves office in 2017.
And that at least some of the folks voting for McCain are doing so because he's the only fucking R candidate who's anti-torture.
The exit polls in question didn't ask about torture. They asked about ending the war. And most