Re: Chesapeake Primary

1

You see, once the adults give kids a safe space to discuss politics, they have no desire to do so anymore.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
2

You know this isn't going to help our case that we're not crazed with lust when deciding for whom to vote.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
3

You see, once the adults give kids a safe space to discuss politics, they have no desire to do so anymore.

That's the plan, anyway.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
4

Gobama?


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
5

Gobama?

Looks like he's gone pretty far already.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
6

You know this isn't going to help our case that we're not crazed with lust when deciding for whom to vote.

But the accusation about voting with your vagina has been that it causes people to vote for Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
7

2: Yeah, that picture is making me question whether I am in fact 110% heterosexual--which probably means I'm not, since 110ph'ers by definition don't question.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
8

He really is the messiah.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
9

I think you mean the antichrist.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
10

But the accusation about voting with your vagina has been that it causes people to vote for Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama.

The clitorises and the ovaries are waging a civil war.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
11

Battle cry: for orgasms and babies!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
12

They wave tiny flags.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
13

Note for the "antichrist" theory that he's wearing a black hat.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
14

Tiny, baby orgasms!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
15

DC polls closed an hour ago. DC's tiny! How does it take them so long to count the votes!

Then again, my recent interactions with DC Board Of Elections do not inspire confidence.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
16

1- I think we might be seeing the first political thread hijacked by Modern Love.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
17

Racist.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
18

There's a joke to be made here about trench warfare.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
19

The clitorises and the ovaries are waging a civil war.

Roll-over text?

I'm conflicted on linking to the picture of McCain on the CNN frontpage right now. On the one hand, the number of folds in the skin on his neck is ridiculous. On the other, I remember being disgusted once by noticing that National Review as using unattractive pictures of Hillary to fund raise, and this feels similar. But I just did it.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
20

Someday, our children will have occasion to be really embarrassed for us that we lusted after dorky old President Obama.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
21

McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid. Perhaps that is what Bush warned us about in that State of the Union address.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
22

McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid.

He's an uncut foreskin-head!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
23

7- Obama got 98% of the bi vote in Virginia.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
24

21: He's scarier looking than that. The day that a member of the press corps deviates from the Straight Talk line and asks McCain a tough question, I fully expect him to pull off his head and shed his exo-flesh and reveal himself to be a giant warmongering preying mantis.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
25

Can the bi vote be bought?

How many bi could the 'Bama buy
if the bi vote could be bought?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
26

Then we'll send Will Smith after him?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
27

He's a war mongering uncut foreskin-head!


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
28

and reveal himself to be a giant warmongering preying mantis


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
29

It's the Potomac Primary, by the way.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
30

BR and I voted for Obama!!
My son and I semi-silently booed whenever someone in front of us identified themselves as Republican to the election official.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
31

It's the Potomac Primary, by the way.

DC doesn't count, silly. Too many black people.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
32

None of these contests count, of course.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
33

Can the bi vote be bought?

Bought? No.
Titillated? Absolutely.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:12 PM
horizontal rule
34

Why don't they count this time? I can never keep track.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
35

Jesus, it was hard to get to the MD polls tonight. The polling place was surrounded by uncleared ice, making everybody shuffle - I trod on flowers to avoid some of it. Glad to hear they've at least extended the close to 9:30.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
36

34- Because Virginia is for Lovers and that favors the Messiah.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
37

Why don't they count this time?

Because Obama's winning. The only states that count are now Texas and Ohio. Whoever wins those automatically gets the nomination, unless it's Obama, in which case Michigan and Florida are the only states that count. This is all explained in Mark Penn's book.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
38

So. Hott.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
39

Texas has always been the only state that counts, but nevertheless.

Why are they airing Clinton's campaign event when she's not going to give anything resembling a concession speech?


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
40

They didn't take exit polls in DC? Why not?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
41

I can never keep up. Probably because I don't remember the 1968 convention. Does Pennsylvania count?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
42

19: It was especially cruel of them to juxtapose it with a picture of Obama's normal, human-scale rolls.


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
43

39.1: Not from 1836 through 1845.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
44

41: Pennsylvania counts.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
45

Texas has always been the only state that counts, but nevertheless is functionally illiterate?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
46

(As of January 18. Further polling data unavailable. Pennsylvania's count-iness subject to change.)


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
47

39.2 see 39.1


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
48

McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid.

Nope.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
49

When I see photos of McCain I think, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the jowls of war."


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
50

Because Obama's winning. The only states that count are now Texas and Ohio. Whoever wins those automatically gets the nomination, unless it's Obama, in which case Michigan and Florida are the only states that count. This is all explained in Mark Penn's book.

I don't really understand why people are getting bent out of shape about this claim. Obama's doing well, and, nonetheless, it isn't over. If he loses both Ohio and Texas,it still probably won't be over. If people are discounting the Obama wins, it's because it doesn't seem to settle anything.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
51

50: I think the meme about states "counting" has more to do with the Clinton campaign's apologetics about Obama's victories, which have been not merely wins but blowouts.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
52

I'm not actually bent out of shape about it. Just riffing on a theme.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
53

The standard isn't whether it's 'over', it's whether it 'counts', and the joke is that nearly every state Obama's won has been described as 'doesn't count' because a) there are too many black people or b) too many educated people or c) too many rural people or d) too many young people or e) too many white people under 50 or f) because caucuses don't count.

I just needed to get my story straight.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
54

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." Pennsylvania counts!


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
55

I think Pennsylvania's going to surprise us. And thus not count.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
56

(Link for 54)


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
57

I just needed to get my story straight.

Tonight's contests don't count mainly because of your (a), with (b) and possibly (d) invoked to explain Virginia.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
58

Math is everywhere.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
59

Virginia really, really doesn't count.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
60

54- So do I have this right? Pennsylvania counts as long as white people vote white? Math is hard!


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
61

50: If tonight goes like it looks like it's going, it's time to start warming up the fat lady.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
62

59: 17% of Clinton voters think Obama is most qualified to be Commander in Chief, but only 1% of Obama voters think Clinton is. Venom!


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
63

Pennsylvania counts as long as white people vote right.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
64

54: Eh. Lots of people say of Pennsylvania: Philly and Pittsburgh, and the rest is Alabama. So he might be right. And isn't he an HRC supporter?

Barring a big surprise, it doesn't seem likely that either candidate can put it away anytime soon. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
65

59: So Clinton won lapsed Catholics and people who think she's most qualified, and Obama won everyone else. Yep, doesn't count.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
66

54: Rendell's angling for a slot in the Clinton administration. You have to discount anything he says.

(Seriously: He's in his second term as governor and he doesn't have anything left to run for.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
67

64: And which way did Alabama go?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
68

62: No, no. Seventeen percent of voters think that Clinton is more fit to serve as commander in chief but voted for Obama notwithstanding.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
69

I can see Mark Penn now: "The key demographic in this election is lapsed Catholics. I know this through the magic of Microtrendonomics. Buy my book."


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
70

NYTimes is showing Maryland called for Obama.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
71

69: I think there's an argument that he'd be right, but I think they break Obama.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
72

And which way did Alabama go?

No, no. It's like Alabama if it didn't have any black people. Which, admittedly, is pretty hard to imagine.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
73

Maryland, Virginia, and the District have all been called for Obama.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
74

I think there's an argument that he'd be right, but I think they break Obama.

Just promise me you won't buy his book.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
75

64.2: One candidate has won several landslides in a row and looks to come out of tonight with a solid lead in pledged delegates. The other candidate has money problems and a campaign that's coming apart at the seams. It's not over yet, but doesn't it end March 4 if Clinton fails to win Texas and Ohio both by big margins?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
76

Heh. With almost half of the votes counted in DC: 76% Obama to 24% Clinton


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
77

The more I think about it, the more 54 doesn't make any sense at all. There are tons of conservative white people in PA (not even just central PA), but, um, a lot of them are registered Republican. Don't forget, Rick Santorum had two terms, and Casey's about as watered-down a Democrat as you can imagine.

So he's got a point in November, but in April? Dude, Rendell, give it up.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
78

put it away anytime soon

I'm not looking at any numbers as I write this, but I think an Obama win in Wisconsin and losses on the order of 5% in Pa., Oh., and Tx. give him a reasonable (30-40 delegates) pledged delegate lead. Does anyone know if that's close to true or feel like actually checking? If so I think that's putting it away, kinda.

68: Dammit.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
79

64: And which way did Alabama go?

Fair point. It's interesting to see that 32% of the voters were prior election voters but first time primary voters.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
80

77: I'd have to check the election results, and I don't care that much, but didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
81

With almost half of the votes counted in DC: 76% Obama to 24% Clinton

What a shock. Anyone know what his margin was in the Virgin Islands?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
82

WI, PA, OH and TX don't matter.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
83

Nothing matters. We are but dust in the wind.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
84

82: This is all but a painful dream from which we awake at death. None of it matters.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
85

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
86

81: About 90-10.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
87

Size of the state matters not.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
88

You guys all matter to me.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
89

didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?

A fair number, anyway. But they crossed over for a white, socially conservative, not-pro-choice Democrat. And there were several scandals involving Santorum getting major tax dollars to pay for his kids' cyberschooling. That didn't play well with his crowd.

But eh. By April 22, PA won't matter. And November is way too far away to predict.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
90

86: Yeah, I just found it myself. I doubt he'll beat that in DC.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
91

That Obamican line was funny, though it's better when he follows it up with, "Why are we whispering?"


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
92

didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?

Was this some kind of paranormal event?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
93

Actually 90-8. He got all three pledged delegates.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
94

92: Yes, but you furriners wouldn't understand.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
95

The Obama show in Wisconsin now is so-so. The one in South Carolina was so much better.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
96

The dig on McCain's tax cut flip-flop was good...


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
97

This is also good because now I can call my DC superdelegates and ask them to vote the will of the people. DC:

Brown, Michael (202) 741-5019
Strauss, Paul (202) 727-7890


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
98

Was this some kind of paranormal event?

It was sort of a rehearsal for the Rapture. Bad timing, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
99

back off people. Virginia is EVERYTHING!

Dont you know how many Presidents came from Virginia?!?!??!


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
100

97- I'll hold off for now as it would be a drunk dial.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
101

Dont you know how many Presidents came from Virginia?!?!??!

Somehow I doubt any of them would have voted for Obama.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
102

where is the superdelegate list?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
103

That Obamican line was funny, though it's better when he follows it up with, "Why are we whispering?"

What are you talking about?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
104

78:I think more like a couple hundred after tonight, and I think it is over.

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft is keeping a running chart.

Umm, if it does go down to 50-60 pledged delegate difference at the convention, Clinton will seat MI & FL and is the more likely nominee by any means possible.

But I don't think it will get that close, and I expect to see the superdelegates start committing en masse after Wisconsin. Clinton's toast.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
105

where is the superdelegate list?

On the roof, taped to the weathervane. They're not going to turn this around for her.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
106

Interesting about that current DC figure - if I heard the radio right, getting more than 75% of the vote there gets you all the [pledged?] delegates.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
107

83: A Cue!

Futility theorists share [Mosca, Pareto, Michels] with Marxists a malicious determination to uncover basic structural 'laws' that puncture the illusions of smug and complacent 'progressives'.

Against the Masses:Varieties of Anti-Democratic Thought Since the French Revolution Joseph V Femia, Oxford University Press, 2001

...because I thought the "malicious" was interesting, although perhaps unfair since the "futility thesis" is empirical. Funny which sentences grab ya.
...because I have little else to say. Looks like Obama has got the nomination, and my Texas vote won't stop him
...for everything there is a season...


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
108

Now he's "Yes We Can"ing.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
109

106- So he gets both of them?


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
110

Bah, CNN just preempted the Hope for the Fear speech.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
111

Interesting about that current DC figure - if I heard the radio right, getting more than 75% of the vote there gets you all the [pledged?] delegates.

That's not how the NYT explains it. Sounds like pretty typical proportional apportionment. On the other hand, according to Yglesias CNN was wrong in their explanation of how the delegate system works, so who knows.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
112

Hope for the Fear speech

Hmm.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
113

109: D.C. has 38 delegates, though 23 of them are unpledged.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
114

Uh, Hope speech for Fear speech....


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
115

Man, talk about contrasts - they cut from Obama speaking to thousands of college students to McCain speaking to dozens in a conference room, with the ancient John Warner looking on.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
116

I'm made somewhat uncomfortable that the Times and CQ don't even agree on how many delegates D.C. awards.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
117

OK, that might have been completely wrong.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
118

112: Surely you're familiar with John McCain's rhetorical style.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
119

Jesus Christ. And now, for the Dark Lords of the Sith (DLS), John McCain. He's going to break into Force lightning at any minute.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
120

McCain looking at the teleprompter hard.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
121

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to victory.

Vote fear. Vote John McCain.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
122

Huh, I've actually never heard McCain speak in more than soundbites before. He's working the elder father routine.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
123

Vote fear. Vote John McCain.

Vote baby bitin'!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
124

He's working the elder father routine.

Gawd, I hope the "elder" part comes through from now until November 5.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
125

Andy Hamilton on Radio 4 this week says, "Does America want someone in the White House whose campaign slogan is 'Now why did I come in here?'"


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
126

Vote Diehard. Vote John McClain.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
127

God, the debates are going to be so so awesome.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
128

The picture one of the cable news networks uses for mccain victory states looks like him about 20 years younger.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
129

I'm disappointed to see that John McCain added color to his Web site. It was a real sight when it was stark militant black and white.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
130

The delegate counts never cease to amaze me. Puerto Rico gets as big of a say as Oregon?


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
131

Yeah mccain looks like he's running for school board or something with that crowd


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
132

130: Racist.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
133

Ok, I'm am partly guessing, because all results aren't in, but I am seeing at Bowers something like a 120-150 Obama pledged delegate lead after tonight. That is more than combined Michigan & Florida.

If HRC wins Wisonsin, she can shift the momentum. If HRC loses WI, I doubt it gets to Pennsylvania.

If it gets to the convention under 100 votes, we are in hell.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
134

I'm sorry. Did Chris Mathews just say that electricity is runs up his leg when Obama speaks?


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
135

Puerto Rico has more people than Oregon.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
136

Though they're pretty close.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
137

If it gets to the convention under 100 votes, we are in hell.

Calm down, mcmanus. It's going to be fine. The superdelegates aren't going to throw the election. The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
138

Gawd, I hope the "elder" part comes through from now until November 5.

Sure, but I mean that if Obama's our candidate, trashing his youthfulness will be a big thing.

Yeah, I can't wait for the general debates.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
139

The plural of "clitoris" is "clitorides", people.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
140

The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.

Famous last words. Worides.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
141

The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.

You're funny.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
142

clitorides

This is a constellation, right? In the Southern Hemisphere?


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
143

Plenty to hate in this quote, but Hey! ring another vote up for Obama.*

"I'm a staunch Republican. I wanted to vote for McCain," said Paul Sutton, 67, of Falls Church, voting at J.E.B. Stuart High School. But he voted for Obama instead, because "I consider Hillary evil. She and her husband are close to socialists. Government should be small and inexpensive. She stands for government that is in everybody's business."

*'Cuz ain't that America ... whacked out nutcases voting for Barack Obama at J.E.B. Stuart High School.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
144

So has anyone trademarked "The Clintoris" yet?


Posted by: Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
145

A friend of mine and I recently talked about this giant party celebrating the last year of the Bush administration, and it was really dumb, like a party in a high school gym. Now that liberals are ascendant, I'm afraid, they're no longer cool.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
146

Speaking of clitorides, I seem to remember the Bad Sex Awards being a lot of fun the last time around.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
147

That's an interesting quote. "She and her husband are cllose to socialists": You are from the planet Zerxon. "Government should be small and inexpensive": Good luck with that in combination with any candidate on offer. "She stands for government that is everybody's business": Why yes, I agree!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
148

Is in.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
149

137:Well, whatever about "throwing the election" since premature optimism ain't my thing, but otherwise I agree with Tim.

The Superdelegates are going to decide the nomination, as is right and just and true. This is why the Superdelegates are there. And now I expect it to happen before Pennsylvania (6 fucking weeks!), if not before Texas/Ohio. 200-400 of them will declare for Obama and HRC will suspend.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
150

Typing is hard.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
151

I agree with McManus.

Hee!

It's fun to say that!

Yo soy gobama!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
152

I just want to say that I love the "doesn't count" joke. From Yglesias's comment threads:

Hawaii doesn't count because it has volcanos.
Wisconsin doesn't count because it wears part of Michigan like a hat.

These could go on forever and I would die of laughter.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
153

Now that liberals are ascendant

I'm not sure that's true. But with a Dem in the WH, the liberals that still exist will have a friendlier partner to negotiate with.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
154

Washington doesn't count. They just plain don't. Count.


Posted by: Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
155

But with a Dem in the WH, the liberals that still exist will have a friendlier partner to negotiate with.

A glimmer of the Obamacklash to come.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
156

I mean, just wait till he starts letting everyone down. It'll be ugly. "Can we stay in Iraq the whole of my first term? Yes we can!"


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
157

There's a big different between the superdelegates throwing the nomination to the person who didn't win the most dleelgates, and the nominee needing a few dozen supervotes to get over the hump. i think that gets confused.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
158

147: And that's roughly the reasoning people are using in voting, as far as the 'random' interviews on the radio indicate: Obama good, is change, not in government very long! Clinton good, is woman, has worked hard!

Feck, man, Obama's lead is great, but the electoral process is still a spin and popularity contest, a little hard to distinguish from American Idol.

But, you know, gobama. It still counts.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
159

well regan had morning in american after the nastiest recession in 50 years (although, that was mostly nixon's fault)


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
160

153: Yep, Delaware doesn't count because she wore her New Jersey. This stuff never gets old.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
161

A glimmer of the Obamacklash to come.

Eh. Into every life, a little rain must fall. His and theirs.

And, AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday. If it wasn't over for HRC then--it wasn't, and I thought she was still likely to win--it isn't over for her until after TX and OH, if then.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
162

157:The Supers can do what they think is best.

The last time the Supers were important was in 1984, when Gary Hart was damaged goods. If the candidate is found in bed with a dead boy during the convention, the Supers better save our asses.

Anything can happen.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
163

Tim that's assuming momentum plays no role, which, who knows.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
164

Also the scale of the wins is pretty damn significant.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
165

"Can we stay in Iraq the whole of my first term? Yes we can!"

Yeah, I think that may be a done deal. (Though, obviously, I know nothing on which I could base such an opinion.) But it isn't going to be any better with any of the other candidates. "Learn to live with disappointment" is a good life lesson, I guess.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
166

161:Tim, the margins and demographics and trendlines are much worse than expected.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
167

From CNN's VA Republican exit poll page: Now that he's dropped his presidential bid, Romney feels secure enough to come out of the closet.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
168

How like Bob to make a big deal out of a dead boy!

Boys die all the time. Probably it was the boy's own fault because of some damn fool thing he did. Liberals don't believe in consequences.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
169

Also the scale of the wins is pretty damn significant.

Yeah, I don't think the Clinton campaign was anticipating this kind of massacre.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
170

Size of the state matters not.

Step aside, Ohio and Texas. Vermont's gonna decide this thing.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
171

Alexandria City, VA - Obama-rama!


Posted by: bill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
172

AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday.

It isn't, though. Obama was favorable in these states/districts, but it was probably 6 out of 7 favorable, or 5 out of 7 favorable. Sweeping the board, and with these kinds of margins, was just not foreseen.

This changes a lot, especially because of the way that the delegates are assigned. Obama's been picking up huge delegate margins in these smaller states from his big leads and smart ground game (concentrate in districts with an odd number of delegates, etc.). Assumptions about Clinton not being sunk were based on the idea that she'd at least remain competitive in most of these races.

Obama's starting to develop a pledged delegate lead that would require absolutely huge wins, like 20%+ wins, in Ohio and Texas to beat him.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
173

Obviously, if Obama achieves anything less than Free Monthly Presidential Make-Outs within his first hundred days, we'll all be disappointed, but that's no reason not to love him as intensely as we can before the new-presidential-candidate smell wears off.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
174

Did Chris Mathews just say that electricity runs up his leg when Obama speaks?

Urine, down.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
175

167: I especially like that the picture appears next to the polling category "Vote by Gender".


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
176

And, AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday. If it wasn't over for HRC then--it wasn't, and I thought she was still likely to win--it isn't over for her until after TX and OH, if then.

Say what? She was expected to lose most or all of the February primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday. She wasn't expected to get hammered like this.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
177

Way too slow.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
178

I listened to the McCain speech driving home from work. Is he saying "my friends" even more often now? I think he is. It's kind of grating.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
179

Talking about it with some super horse-race following friends, our conclusion was that Hillary's strategy was predicated on winning Iowa (or perhaps finishing second to the underfunded Edwards), and she was completely gobsmacked by the caucus turnout Obama's people pulled off and has been playing catchup ever since.

Also, the revelation in The Atlantic that her recently fired campaign manager/confidante blew through an almost $30 million warchest to run her Senate re-election campaign against... I'm guessing the desiccated corpse of Robert Moses, but I have no idea... was fascinating. She seems to have had some genuine trouble adjusting to the post-Dean realities of fundraising for a national election.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
180

I'm guessing the desiccated corpse of Robert Moses, but I have no idea

A Republican woman whose husband appeared to be, IIRC, very, very shady. Shades of Gerraldine Ferraro. I think her name was Piro or Pirro.

She seems to have had some genuine trouble adjusting to the post-Dean realities of fundraising for a national election.

I think, also, the distinction between "Democrat" and "Clinton supporter." They've been a/the power in DC for 16 years, so that seems somewhat understandable.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
181

179: That was a particularly bitter Senate race, actually.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
182

Also, with 16% of the vote in, Donna "Kittens" Edwards is beating machine plutocrat Al Wynn.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
183

180 - That woman was a DA in Westchester County and dropped out, I think -- the Kerik wiretapping thing ended her political career. I have literally no idea who Clinton actually beat, unless it was actually the Undead Power Broker himself.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
184

the Kerik wiretapping thing ended her political career.

Yes, but this was well after ridiculous amounts of money were spent on both sides. It was front page Post and Daily News fodder for ages. I'm just saying, Clinton wasn't spending that money for no reason at the time. It turned out to be a waste, but it was touch-and-go for a while.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
185

To follow up on 183, if I'm remembering this correctly, the Piro/Pirro/Zombiemoses woman -- whom we will recall was a prosecutor -- asked Bernie Kerik to put her in touch with someone who could plant an illegal listening device on her her maybe-mob-connected husband's houseboat so she could prove that he was cheating on her. Thirty million was clearly required to beat her.

Oh yeah, the other thing I remember about her is that she was missing half the pages of her first big speech, so there was television coverage out there and then she spent a minute silently dying on camera. I feel for her on that one.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
186

184 - From outside the tri-state area, what I knew about the woman was that her husband was mobbed up, she asked a mobbed-up Giuliani hatchetman to spy on him illegally, and she humiliated herself in her first big speech, but you were there and I wasn't. Maybe I'm underestimating the Republican upstate machine or something. It sure looks like HRC could have used an extra fifteen or twenty million at the beginning of this race, though.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
187

183: Wiki says John Spencer, Mayor of Yonkers. And how great is this: had two kids by his second wife while married to his first. Man, NY really is Gomorrah. HRC has the most famous troubled marriage in history, and the Republicans can't find a candidate with a better "family values" resume to oppose her?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
188

185.2: ooh I remember that! Holy shit that was hilarious! Improv much, zombie lady?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
189

I don't have a TV and wasn't following the coverage beyond the local newspaper treatments of it, but it seemed like Pirro was somewhat in it until the Kerik revelations. Also, they did get a lot of serious-sounding digs in on HRC before they exploded in flames. But yeah, I'm guessing HRC's kicking herself about that now.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
190

I'm pretty sure Clinton ended up running against John Spencer, who wasn't much of a political powerhouse either.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
191

Pirro was pretty hott for a corrupt Mafiosa lady.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
192

One of People's 50 Most Beautiful People for 1997.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
193

Also, being favored in a number of races isn't the same as being favored to win all of them. I think he was expected to get tripped up somewhere.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
194

There's not enough venom and discord in this thread. Has anyone linked to this this hilariously petulant Krugman piece? Sympathy: waning.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
195

178: It's true. Sounds hostile when he says it.


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
196

Venom and discord can be found here.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
197

Whoops. I didn't realize that was the column that actually kicked it all off. I am a serpent eating its own tail.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
198

I know that I'm very late to the party, but holy crap, this is a really great speech (on tivo).


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
199

Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary. People like him and Connie Morella (the last Republican I voted for) aren't going to be making it through Republican primaries for the foreseeable future, I guess.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:49 PM
horizontal rule
200

You know, it really is weird to think that McCain now has the nomination practically cinched when the map of primary results so far looks like this.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
201

I wonder if anyone's done the calculation for (approximately) what the delegate split would be if the R's awarded them proportionally.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
202

I wonder if anyone's done the calculation for (approximately) what the delegate split would be if the R's awarded them proportionally.

That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
203

200: Good to see that McCain has the support of the latte-sipping coastal elites.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
204

Again I say: holy crap. They just juxtaposed Obama's speech with McCain's. It just wasn't fair. McCain is a very small, very old man.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
205

Good to see that McCain has the support of the latte-sipping coastal elites.

Ironic, isn't it? Explains why Huckabee's still in the race.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
206

He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.

He must love the electoral college.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
207

That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.

Bear in mind that the UK has FPTP elections.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
208

200: Romney is favored by places of great emptiness, and Massachusetts.

I had a dream last night that I went to vote in our so-late-it-might-as-well-be-after-the-general primary, and when I asked "where's Obama?" (because for some dream reason he was supposed to be there), the guy behind me said "he's out, he lost." I was all :(. McManus, stay out of my dreams.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
209

They just juxtaposed Obama's speech with McCain's. It just wasn't fair.

But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
210

McCain = Andy Rooney. I've said it before and I'll say it again.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:15 PM
horizontal rule
211

But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!

No, his friends are the people in that conference room. See comment 115.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
212

200- I think the winner should be the first person who can walk coast to coast only in states they've won. Obama: I'll take NC for the block!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:18 PM
horizontal rule
213

208: "emptiness" s/b "Mormonicity"


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
214

Compare Missing Pages Lady to Bill:

Bill Clinton in his first State of the Union address was forced to ad-lib when the teleprompter actually carried an old speech draft. The wrong speech was put up there and it was a measure of his skills as an impromptu speaker and no one ever guessed what was going on until later.

Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:20 PM
horizontal rule
215

But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!

double thumbs-up wink!


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
216

Also, here's what was up with DC and the delayed results: the weather was preventing people from delivering the machine cartridges to the polling places.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
217

Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary. People like him and Connie Morella (the last Republican I voted for) aren't going to be making it through Republican primaries for the foreseeable future, I guess.

On the bright side, Al Wynn lost his primary too.

Maybe with all this polarization going on the Democratic party leaders will someday be the people who don't constantly compromise on things nobody but Republicans wants them to compromise on.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
218

Did Wynn lose? Do we know this?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
219

218: Yes.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
220

Here's the Wa Post on Ms. Edwards' victory. A wonderful, wonderful thing.



Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
221

Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary.

Woohoo ! Another great result, if it holds up. This is a seat the Dems have a real shot at - but a moderate like Gilchrest kept it from happening. There's a reason he got Bush's endorsement.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
222

221: This sounds promising.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
223

whups 222 was me. browser is randomly forgetting me.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 11:18 PM
horizontal rule
224

Gilchrest/Wynn: heighten the fuck out of them contradictions.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 02-12-08 11:24 PM
horizontal rule
225

Upcoming Clinton campaign announcement?:

Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our media and fundraising forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the Senator and the devoted service of our 100,000 contributors--the campaign situation has developed not necessarily to Hillary's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:06 AM
horizontal rule
226

Big News Update: Obama beats the fuck out of everybody. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to dig my apartment out of icy oblivion.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 1:01 AM
horizontal rule
227

235 makes sense in the light O BOMB A.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 1:03 AM
horizontal rule
228

I'm done shoveling, and he's still ahead. My anti-jinx worked!


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 1:59 AM
horizontal rule
229

Can't wait for 235, then.

Is this a political thread? Because I have a question: is Florida in play at all in November? I ask because my swing voting b-i-l, who will probably go Democrat this time, is saying there are enough Dems who won't vote for a black man or a white woman to swing it for McCain (but not Huckabee).

He may be full of shit, but I'd be interested in a response to that which doesn't rely mainly on wishful thinking.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:14 AM
horizontal rule
230


That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.

If that was their chief political correspondent in Washington, Justin Webb, he probably did mean it as a compliment. Now there's a guy who drank the kool-aide. He can always count upon to put forth not so much the American, as the Republican spin on any news.


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:39 AM
horizontal rule
231

re: 230. The BBC correspondents in Washington have been dire in recent years - Matt Frei was a particular low point. I think they see their role as being to pass on a simplified version of the Washingtonian conventional wisdom. The problem is that the W.c.w. is itself so utterly misguided much of the time that what the BBC reports ends up being completely empty, like a description of the Derby without the names of the horses. It's always godawful in primary season, and was particularly unspeakable during the Lewinsky saga. (Hundreds of hours of Andrew Sullivan being touted as a particular expert on the American psyche. Gah.) The British papers are often no better; the Sunday Telegraph had Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who wrote vast numbers of utterly deranged Clinton conspiracy theory stories in the early 1990s, while one of the other broadsheets' chief correspondent on the United States had frequent and notable difficulty distinguishing the Senate from the House. And dont get me onto Gerard Baker or the fact that the FT had a column from Amity bloody Shlaes which *won awards*. It's an uphill fucking struggle teaching American politics to British kids who've only been exposed to this sort of crap, I can tell you. Reanimate the (possible) corpse of Charles Wheeler!


Posted by: Nasi Lemak | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:23 AM
horizontal rule
232

10, 11, 12, and 14 made me laugh. Good job Heebie, Merganser, and Cala.

They waive tiny flags. love it


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:26 AM
horizontal rule
233

I wouldn't write off Florida, but then I also wouldn't build a general election strategy based on winning it.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:32 AM
horizontal rule
234

233. So is this a real problem, or is the b-i-l paranoid?


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:38 AM
horizontal rule
235

229: Because I have a question: is Florida in play at all in November?

My anecdata based on some family and friends currently in/or originally from Florida with family living there. Florida will be a challenge this fall, and is maybe the one potential swing state that is tougher for Obama than Hillary (a combo of the age and other demographics and the fears of the sad "can't vote for a black person" effect.) I would love it if this is merely their fears talking and they are proved wrong.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:51 AM
horizontal rule
236

But your anecdata and mine is moving towards a sample.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:55 AM
horizontal rule
237

A real problem, IMO. I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states. Florida, Virginia, and Arkansas seem barely possible. There are also half a dozen or more overrepresented plains and mountain states that might be out of reach. Obama doesn't really change anything, though. Since very few of these states have gone D over the last couple of decades. There are plenty of other places where the Democrats can pick up votes.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 5:00 AM
horizontal rule
238

I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states.

So? Democrats can win the White House without the south. Add Ohio to the states Kerry won, or New Hampshire to the states Gore won, and you've got the presidency.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 5:32 AM
horizontal rule
239

As for whether or not Obama can win State X or State Y, I'd wait until there's actual data on this - like state-level general election match-up polling - before making those kinds of pronouncements.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 5:36 AM
horizontal rule
240

238: That's pretty much exactly what I said. Why the "So?"?

239: I'm sure that there are lots and lots of things you'd do, Stras, but I make a point of not concerning myself with them. OFE asked our opinion about something, and I gave mine.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:00 AM
horizontal rule
241

Add Ohio to the states Kerry won, or New Hampshire to the states Gore won, and you've got the presidency.

I agree with the general sentiment, but the latter clause is no longer quite true. Thanks to the reapportionment folllowing the 2000 census, the Gore states + NH no longer yields 270 electoral votes. The Dems need to win the Kerry states plus either Florida, Ohio, or some combination of Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia. The math is possible, but uncomfortably risky if you write off all the Southern states.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:33 AM
horizontal rule
242

I've often thought that Florida would make a particularly fine State of Israel.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:41 AM
horizontal rule
243

221 - Eh, I have my doubts about a Democrat's ability to take the seat and Gilchrest was really a fighter for environmental/sportsmen's-caucus type issues. If he were a Democrat, he wouldn't even have been in the top quintile of conservatives in the party; I believe in 2006 and 2007 he had the voting record most like a Democrat of any Republican in the House. It's a shame to see him go out to a conservobot fueled by Gilchrest's apostasy on Iraq, since it discourages other Republicans from being sensible on the issues. (I recognize that this is the flip side of primarying Wynn because of his bad record on labor issues and privacy laws, but certainly from my perspective it'd be good to have Gilchrest over whomever beat him.) Reading up on the race quickly last night, the only way I think a Democrat can take it is by really hammering the regional split -- the guy who beat him in the primary is from across the bridge, and the Dem is from Queen Anne's County -- and I don't know if he's well-known/well-funded enough to pull that off.

Again, yay Donna Edwards!


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:50 AM
horizontal rule
244

OFE, I think this is a great question - THE question, writ nationwide - and I honestly don't have an opinion. My life experience suggests to me that the Democratic Party is too racist to nominate any black man, so that shows you what I know.

This is a weird, weird year, and McCain looks like a weak candidate. Obama is necessarily going to lose a significant number of votes to racism, but he doesn't seem to generate the kind of overt race hatred that will motivate people to come to the polls just to vote against him.

And without that kind of animosity, the Republican turn-out-the-base strategy is in tatters. McCain just doesn't whup up the howling freaks the way that Bush did in 2004 - and the way that Hillary conceivably might, on behalf of the Republicans, this year.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
245

243: I hear ya. I've become a single-issue voter, though. The issue: Which party are you going to caucus with?

If you don't answer that question correctly, the rest is just details. You want to be a sensible Republican? Fine. Switch parties.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:59 AM
horizontal rule
246

Back to the important part of the post, the cowboy hat picture: does this picture of Obama looking attractive and electable in a ridiculous hat finally exorcise the ghost of Mike Dukakis looking like Snoopy driving a tank?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
247

Not when you call it 'Snoopy driving a tank' because now I'm laughing. And wearing Michigan like a hat!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
248

194 simply begged fot the return of the repressed

Thou shalt not diss the Krug

I think we will desperately need Krugman next spring, for I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals even if they were strict sharia.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
249

even if they were strict sharia

Stay classy, Bob.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:43 AM
horizontal rule
250

Stay classy, Bob.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
251

Soon, Strasmangelo and I will reach comity on other issues of import, like rye in a Manhattan, "Frank's Wild Years" as Tom Waits' best album, and V. as Pynchon's best novel.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
252

I don't drink Manhattans, but that's scarily close.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
253

You know, I think Krugman's lost it a little -- he got so wrapped up in the mandate argument that he's now just pissed at Obama and anyone he suspects of liking him. I kind of think that's a good thing, though: I'd rather have him writing economic criticism of a Democratic president from the left, which is the position I think he's talked himself into with Obama, than either cheerleading or criticism from the right.

(Again, I find myself not exactly agreeing with McManus's crazytalk, but thinking there's a useful point somewhere right nearby it.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
254

252: You should start, at least in the winter. The finest of cocktails.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
255

253: Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm happy to see Dems criticizing Dems. But what's totally nuts about Krugman's progression over the last several months is how ludicrously out of proportion he's gotten. Even if individual mandates were the absolutely right position to take on this issue - and I don't think they are, and apparently I'm not the only one - it's such a small issue in the larger context of health care reform, which itself is not the end-all and be-all of policy concerns.

There are definite distinctions between Clinton and Obama on the war, on foreign policy and diplomacy, on torture and extraordinary rendition, on open government, on civil liberties - issues to which Krugman has devoted a fair portion of his attention over the past seven years, but apparently have lost all significance to him within the context of the Democratic primary. To listen to Paul Krugman, you'd think the biggest issue facing the American government was the presence or absence of individual mandates in a potential national health care plan, and that's simply not the case. He appears to have rather blithely dismissed the multiple foreign wars this country is currently engaged in, and which have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That's an issue he seemed to care about a great deal not that long ago. But now? Mass slaughter in the Mideast is nothing compared to the evil that would come from a possibly less efficient health care proposal.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
256

Eyes on the Prize


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
257

re: 251

Not sure about Frank's Wild Years [well, I am sure that it's not his best album, but it does contain two of my favourite Waits tracks]. But V definitely is Pynchon's best.*

* although I have an affection for Vineland that serious literary types don't seem to share.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
258

255:Mass slaughter in the Mideast is nothing compared to the evil that would come from a possibly less efficient health care proposal.

Krugman is an economist. All his equations swim in liquid helium.



Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
259

Franks Wild Years has some great tracks, but just within the `trilogy', it's weaker as an album than Rain Dogs, and probaly Swordfish Trombones too.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
260

Well, Krugman's an economist. That doesn't mean he's setting his priorities right (that is, I'm guessing that he's right about the mandate issue, but that doesn't mean that it's a big enough issue to override the differences on foreign policy, which is why I voted for Obama), he's obviously going to (a) care a lot more about economic issues, and (b) get more personally emotionally invested in people not listening to him about economic issues (which I think is what happened here. He pronounced, on an issue where he's got expertise, and is irrationally pissed that people who have been agreeing with him generally didn't fall into line.)

With Bush, the economic idiocy and dishonesty lined up with the political evil, so Krugman got interested in both. But he's really focused on the economics, and that's not a bad thing -- it's a reason to listen more to what he's particularly saying than to his general advice on how to vote, but his column's still useful.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
261

re: 259

I'd agree.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
262

Arguments about mandates or no mandates that I've seen all start with the assumption that the real problems in health care are unfixable. Hard to get to enthusiastic about that, really.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
263

256 what a painful video
and shouldn't you be pro-Obama, not against?
after watching this


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
264

260: That doesn't wash with me. Krugman departed from writing strictly about economics fairly shortly into Bush's term. He didn't just write about tax cuts and the prescription drug bill, he railed against the war and torture and warrantless wiretapping and the general corruption and secrecy surrounding the Bush administration. This is, in fact, what made him such an icon in the liberal blogosphere: that he used his platform at the New York Times to sharply criticize Bush on a host of issues, that he wasn't afraid to venture out from the circumscribed area he was expected to stay in, that he was willing to cry foul on matters of warfare just as quickly as on matters of welfare.

That's what makes this turn so especially galling. For Krugman to retreat to an economics-only approach to analyzing polics - and to particularly become an obsessive about one particular facet of one area of economic policy - and then use that minute focus, excluding everything else, as a rationale to exhaustively demonize one candidate while ignoring all the myriad flaws of another, is offensively hypocritical. It makes it appear that Krugman has either lost it entirely and has turned his column into a personal vendetta against one candidate, or that he never cared all that much about war and torture in the first place, but used them as a handy cudgel to bash an administration who's tax policy he found unpleasant - which would be truly fucked up.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
265

As for whether or not Obama can win State X or State Y, I'd wait until there's actual data on this - like state-level general election match-up polling - before making those kinds of pronouncements.

I have to agree with stras. I think the question of how deeply racism will affect voting is an interesting and significant question, but I also think it's both unreliable and damaging to speculate based on a bunch of anecdata from personal experience. At some point, all this talk about how the racist south could never elect a black man becomes self-fulfilling prophecy -- reassuring people who do think that way that it's a normal/popular position and perhaps discouraging people who think otherwise from voting for Obama because they've already been persuaded it's futile.

I don't suppose it would be very easy to get reliable poll data asking "Are you too racist to vote for a black man?" But I have to think there's polling data out there for any of these southern states comparing how Obama or Clinton would match up against McCain in the general.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
266

Well, he's not a saint, he's an information source. He doesn't seem to lie much compared to most media figures (I'm counting the current anti-Obamizing as nuttily overblown opinion-stating rather than lying), which makes him useful.

But fucked up or not, I'm pretty sure that he had his attention drawn to war and torture because he had strong opinions about Bush on economics -- without the econ hook, he'd probably have been murmuring sadly about how terrible things happen in a vaguely liberal way, rather than stating forceful opinions.

People care about their area of expertise: I find Mukasey's statement that it would be wrong to prosecute someone who relied on the DOJ's statements that waterboarding was legal filthily disgusting, in a way that makes me personally angry. And that should be all about the actual torture, but a fair amount of my emotional energy is that I know Mukasey's talking crap, and that he knows he's talking crap, in an area where I know what I'm talking about. I'm not right to care for those reasons rather than because people were actually tortured, but I do. And I expect Krugman's the same.

Doesn't mean he's a good person in any global sense, but he's still a useful columnist.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
267

248: I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals

This is like all that rather mythical hero-worship that Bill Clinton got.

253: he got so wrapped up in the mandate argument that he's now just pissed at Obama and anyone he suspects of liking him.

Ayup. He can't even get his insults straight: Nixon's cult of personality? Wha?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
268

(Oh, sorry, he was comparing Obama's nasty dirty politics of hate to Nixon. Again, wha?)


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
269

. I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states. Florida, Virginia, and Arkansas seem barely possible.

Gawd knows I love bashing Dixie, but VA elected a black governor before anyone else did, and has started trending blue. I don't know that the Solid South is all that solid.

Well, Krugman's an economist.

Too, Krugman's a dick when he disagrees with you. This is a longstanding criticism of him, but it's also why I love him. Further, he's an academic, and criticism in that arena--an opinion based on gawd knows what--skews harsh. I think that's truer in economics, and truer as you move up the food chain. This is just how he fights. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had a predilection for (and more trust in) a candidate with a similar fighting style: HRC. Also, I think Obama's rhetoric is precisely the sort sets his teeth on edge. Krugman wrote a whole book trashing people like Reich for (IIRC) "policy entrepreneurship" which valued rhetoric and happy-pappy B-school-like theories over anything that he felt he could recognize as scholarship.

I genuinely love the guy--I think one of his books pulled me out of a fugue--but that doesn't mean he's right about everything.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
270

and shouldn't you be pro-Obama, not against?

I am pro-Mavis Staples, I am pro-Ry Cooder, I am pro-Ladysmith Black Mambasa. Obama is not The Prize.

Obama in his speech last night gave hints that this will be Guns-vs-Butter campaign against McCain.

Economists, since and including Adam Smith, believe that The War won't stop because the hearts of people change, but when people are forced into a rational choice of what they can afford.
It has to be "Either Health Care or War" in a context of not affording both.

Mandates are a harder sale, but will force people to check their personal budgets and look for some source of money. We must start now, so the War can be reversed in the spring. And with something approaching single-payer, Iraq could be the last War.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
271

269: This is just how he fights.

See, I love the guy when he fights smart and hammers you relentlessly over the head with the facts, whether he's being dickish or no. His criticisms of Obama's health-care plan are right. I can respect that. But stras hits the nail on the head; pretending the theoretical health care plans of the two candidates are the make-or-break issue is stupid. Vaguely comparing people to Republican bogeymen while issuing the standard Plea for Civility (translation: "please shut up while I call you names") is stupid. That's not the Krugman I respect. If that's what passes for fighting like Hillary, that's not an encouraging sign.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
272

Too, Krugman's a dick when he disagrees with you.

Yep, and in a smart, mostly honest guy (that is, he's throwing undeserved epithets around, but I don't think he's saying factual stuff about Obama's policies that's untrue), I like that, particularly when we're in power (yes, I have counted my chickens. There are six.).


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
273

I am pro-Ladysmith Black Mambasa

Who?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
274

256: Thank you very much for posting that. It was really gripping, and I'd never heard anything of Staples's before.

263: Speaking as an Obama supporter who's given him money, phone banked, and driven friends to the polls on Super Tuesday, I don't think that anyone is obligated to vote for Obama because Obama's black.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
275

There's definitely at least some racist vote out there that would have gone Hillary and won't go Obama -- ran into an example yesterday, under circumstances I'd prefer not to describe. But hopefully not too big.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
276

I don't think that anyone is obligated to vote for Obama because Obama's black.

It's the hat that compels the vote.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
277

276: Very true.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
278

273:Geez, nitpicker

"I will get you Health Care. But it will cost you $5000. Unless I can find some money in our bankruptcy budget. Anybody out there got a suggestion?"

Krugman is the only one doing it right.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
279

On another note, what Staples album would McManus and others recommend buying? I'm thinking of getting 'We'll Never Turn Back', but I was wondering if anyone had other suggestions.


Posted by: the Other Paul | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
280

272: Krugman's been far from honest in his latest round of Obama-bashing. His Ahab schtick is turning him into a hack.

If Krugman were some kind of staunch lefty motivated by a need to criticize a party that had moved too far to the right, I'd cheer him on. But that's not what's going on here. This is a centrist economist who's more or less happy with the Democratic Party's centrist, conventional economic wisdom, and who happens to be nursing a bitter grudge over one facet of one area of economic policy that's far from a settled issue, even among centrist Democratic economists. The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man, and it doesn't say much that's good.

And again, it's not cool that he spent years following the war, torture, foreign policy, etc. and suddenly drops them when bringing them up wouldn't help his anti-Obama crusade.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
281

278:Ok, not the only one.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
282

. The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man, and it doesn't say much that's good.

Don't have his baby, then.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
283

The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man,

Like, that he got hostile in response to something he percieved as an attack? My smelling salts, please. He's not an oracle, but getting aggressive and nasty in a policy argument doesn't suddenly make him worthless.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
284

And Tim says it better.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
285

279:Eyes is very good, Ry Cooder produced it. I can hear Steve Cropper in his lines. Damn, Cooder is good at support.

But I think I would look for a Staples Singers compilation. At her prime, IMHO, Mavis was better at sexy soulgospel than Aretha, which means the best.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
286

279: I'm told her original self-titled album from '69 and "A Piece of the Action" from '77 (produced by Curtis Mayfield!) are both classics.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
287

Stras, it behooves you not to mention Ahab.

At some point, all this talk about how the racist south could never elect a black man becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm reasonably confident that there are not millions of voters hanging on my words, and even more confident that the Democratic strategists will ignore my opinions.

The only Southern states that might possibly go Democratic, by my guess, are Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas. Louisiana might have, before the Katrina depopulation. That leaves eight hopeless Southern states (counting Texas).

The plains and mountain states are actually worse for Democrats, but they're probably less racist so Obama may have a chance. (Another 10 states there, including Alaska).

That still leaves the SW, Midwest, and border states to work on. It's sure a hell of a lot better than having to write off the West Coast and the NE, which the Republicans have to do.

It looks like a bad Republican year, and Obama might run a great campaign. So I'm not ruling out winning these states, but we shouldn't strategize them. Even winning 3 to 5 of the hopless states would be a historic watershed, and would almost certainly bring with it a strongly Democratic Congress.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
288

287.1: Melville's Law?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
289

Ry Cooder had the same piano teacher as me. He was already a professional musician while he was still in HS. He couldn't see going to college and only lasted a year or so. never met him, alas.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
290

Stras codicil.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
291

He's not an oracle, but getting aggressive and nasty in a policy argument doesn't suddenly make him worthless.

It makes him massively unreliable. Look: picking who you want to nominate to be the Democratic Party's candidate for president isn't a small thing. The president is a big job. Part of that job - in fact, a huge part of that job - is foreign policy. Krugman used to seem to care about that, and in particular, about the Iraq war. But the most pro-war candidate for president in the Democratic field has gotten his endorsement because he's nursing a petty grudge. This isn't some tiny "oops" here. Krugman is selling the conservative hawk as the more liberal alternative - and aggressively so - in every column he writes. And yet that doesn't make him worthless? The guy's a pundit. He's only as good as his analysis, and he's spent the last couple months making a very bad one, over and over again, for what look like very bad reasons.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
292

Melville's Law?

I'm going to be snickering for a long time over this one.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
293

Stras, it behooves you not to mention Ahab.

Why?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
294

291: Look, you disagree with his judgment about what the most important issues are. I agree with you, rather than him at this point. But that's the sort of error that's easy to correct for -- if you know you think lunchbox issues aren't as big a deal as he thinks they are, you don't listen to him when that's what's at stake.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
295

Because if there's anyone as obsessive as Bob here, it's you.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
296

293: Because much as I generally agree with you about stuff, you've got a distinctly monomaniacal demeanor about you.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
297

Look, you disagree with his judgment about what the most important issues are.

It's not just that I disagree with him. It's that the Paul Krugman of two or three years ago disagrees with him. It's not just that his priorities are out of wack, it's that he's a hypocrite.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
298

stras views the future of the progressive agenda through the lens of Iraq and other foreign adventurism. Krugman sees the future of the progressive agenda as being largely a function of the Democrats' success on healthcare. Each makes a solid case and I don't find either of these views ridiculous.

I will say that I agree with stras that Krugman has chosen to magnify differences that aren't hugely meaningful in the end. But then, I also think that stras magnifies differences on Iraq that aren't very meaningful in the end.

And: It is useful to have people calling bullshit on minor differences, because it keeps the pressure on. Obama is disincentivized from engaging in bullshit healthcare politics because he gets called on it. Hillary promises to end the war because of the pressure put on her by folks like stras.

It's all good.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
299

295, 296: What can I possibly say in response to something like that? Katherine doesn't get this shit for caring about torture. Whenever I put down more than three comments in a politics thread, clearly there's something wrong with me, because I should be telling cock jokes instead of worrying about the war.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
300

Stras is the Rainbow Warrior harassing Krugman's Pequod.

And Gérard Royal of the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure is on his ass.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
301

Katherine is sensible, often has something new or informative to say, and doesn't repeat herself.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
302

297: Oh, please. If you take every possible political ambiguity and piece of context and resolve it in the way that you think is most plausible, he looks like a hypocrite to you. He wasn't writing columns two years ago saying "The difference between Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's records on foreign policy is more important than the differences between their healthcare policies."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
303

299: Katherine manages to be remarkably sanctimony-free, given her strong opinions and the subject matter she deals with. If you're going to engage in that sort of comparison, I think you ought to pick one that reflects more favorably on you. (e.g., politicalfootball is obnoxious and gets pissed off all the time, and people are nice to him ...)


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
304

302: No, it's that two years ago the war, etc. was more important to him than individual health care mandates.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
305

What can I possibly say in response to something like that?

Probably nothing.

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude toward Obama and the war. You seem to take him at face value. I didn't even trust Edwards; all of the mainstream candidates except Dodd were elusive on the issue -- if he was mainstream.

So I care less about the differences between Hillary and Obama on the war, and at the same time I'm very suspicious of Obama's centrist bipartisan noises, including what he said on health care.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
306

299:I can't easily connect torture to economics, but war as an economic activity is at the core of most leftism. Read some Luxemberg or Lenin or Power Eite

I don't know, stras, it looks to me that you just can't forgive Krugman for not attacking Clinton enough rather than engaging in an objective analysis yourself.

Krugman using the phrase "cult of personality" tells me he is more to the left now than he was ten years ago, and more left than you give him credit for.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
307

304: Two years ago, he didn't have any reason to be weighing one against the other. The war was happening, and no one was offering a health care plan in any immediate sense. That's not hypocrisy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
308

295, 296, 301: You know, I have actually made an effort to try to be less aggressive in my tone and in the way I respond to people here lately, and it clearly doesn't matter, because I'm always going to be known as the one who has Issues.

It's fairly clear to me that every regular commenter here has their own pet issues, and their own ways of being boring and repetitive, but you're all comfortable with each other, and it's very evident that you're not, and have never been, comfortable with me, and I've wasted a long, long, long time here as it is.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
309

308: Dude, I agree with you about nine out of ten things you say. Politically, you're mostly preaching to the choir here. I'm going to make fun of you about your tone some, because you come off as really really tightly wound, and I don't think it's rhetorically effective when someone who could use some convincing shows up.

But I don't want to drive you away, and while I don't have a least favorite steady commenter, you wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
310

You know, I have actually made an effort to try to be less aggressive in my tone and in the way I respond to people here lately, and it clearly doesn't matter, because I'm always going to be known as the one who has Issues.

"I worked hard, graduated from med school, spent my off hours tutoring the underprivileged. I raised five kids, and ran for election twice. I patented a novel surgical technique. But fuck one goat...."


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
311

Stras, much of the time I like you fine, but you go on these tears. People razz Bob all the time too, and Megan sometimes, and B a lot.

I don't share your committment to Obama, and I'm an Obama delegate to the county convention. I've been a Hillary-hater for years, but in 2000 I did figure out that most of the US disagrees with me about a lot of important things. Beggars can't be choosers.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
312

Krugman using the phrase "cult of personality" tells me he is more to the left now than he was ten years ago, and more left than you give him credit for.

I may be projecting here, but I don't think Krugman has changed all that much. He's modestly less hawkish on the whole free trade thing, but that's just an adjustment to the facts on the ground. I can't think of any other significant changes.

For my part, I think this country will be a better place when people like Krugman are once again rightly considered tepid center-leftists.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
313

and while I don't have a least favorite steady commenter, you wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.

Awesome. While I don't have a most exaggerated compliments category, this comment wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
314

I'd call him a passionately committed center-leftist. You get a lot of confusion when you confuse the intensity of someone's commitment to their positions with the extremity of those positions.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
315

313: The amount of effort it took to keep the negatives straight in that was non-trivial.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
316

That still leaves the SW, Midwest, and border states to work on.

Look for Ohio governor Ted Strickland to start vaulting up the VP shortlist.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
317

313: And while I don't have a "comment like the one Heebie just made" category, #313 would be the sole member of that category, if I did have one.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
318

I'd call him a passionately committed center-leftist.

Hmm. Good point. How about this: This country will be a better place when center-leftists can afford to be tepid again.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
319

275- Of course, they're out there. But it's almost impossible at this point to gauge their impact on the general. There's no accurate way to poll 'Would you vote for a black man?'

So to get any kind of indication, you need to look at primary results thus far, which obviously has its limits in projecting to the general.

However, the open Virginia primary is the best indicator. It is the closest state we have to be able to geographically split into 'red' and 'blue' (maybe Richmond?), a general election 'toss up' state. If we assume that white male demographic most likely to have a 'racist' impact, then you'll be encouraged to see how well Obama did well here.

If you believe Hispanics are significantly racist against blacks (which I dispute), you are again encouraged by the results. I'll be drilling down to see how the white male vote breaks down by party and geography.

But what likely trumps all of this is the turnout. The Democratic turnout of 625K to Republican 245K in an open primary in a state where there's a fair Democratic/Republican balance. That's insane.

You can argue that the Republican side has an inevitable candidate, but even that is arguable with the in-party contentiousness. It shows tremendous crossover, which is a much more important factor than whatever racist element is out there (which I happen to be optimistic on).


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
320

308.1: I, for one, have noted and appreciated it, although I did think at first that maybe it was me getting more charged up rather than you getting mellower.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:22 AM
horizontal rule
321

But what likely trumps all of this is the turnout. The Democratic turnout of 625K to Republican 245K in an open primary in a state where there's a fair Democratic/Republican balance. That's insane.

While I think we're going to have an advantage, isn't this sort of comparison going to be overstated in any primary after Romney dropped out? Huck or no Huck, the Republican nominee's been picked, and that has to drive down turnout.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
322

Look for Ohio governor Ted Strickland to start vaulting up the VP shortlist.

Increasingly, I realize that I'm going to be pretty angry if there isn't a woman on the ticket. I'll vote for Obama anyway, and I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case.

I'm sure the various women's groups are still focused on the HRC campaign, but I hope some of them are putting together the case for a female VP, just in case Obama wins.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
323

312:Krugman has also changed on inequality/distribution issues, and like DeLong, changed on the relation of the political and economic. He has become hyper-partisan.

Those are radical changes. What looks like a simple empirical conclusion that the inequality has political rather than economic causes is actually a full move to social democracy or socialism from neo-liberalism.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
324

And Stras, I'm feeling mean, which I didn't intend to be. Just to poke a little fun.

Seriously, your politics are exactly the sort I wish more people had, and I'm not asking for you to tone anything down, just giving you shit for your level of excitement. You're not wrong about much of any import.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
325

Increasingly, I realize that I'm going to be pretty angry if there isn't a woman on the ticket. I'll vote for Obama anyway, and I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case.

You've said this a couple of times, and I'm not getting it. I'd like to see it too, but what makes it a matter of anger this year rather than another?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
326

(324 was meant as an apology, but on rereading doesn't actually contain one. Sorry for teasing you in a way that made you feel unwelcome, Stras.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
327

326 - I'm with SCMT on this. Because if it isn't this year, it is likely to be another eight years. Sixteen years isn't impossible either, and that means I'd be in my fifties before a woman was Pres or VP? It isn't the dominant factor, but the thought makes me sad.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
328

I guess people didn't recognize that earthquake, tho the economic world did. When Krugman did his study, and discarded education as the source of rising inequality and accepted Republican policies as the cause...

Krugman was declaring class war.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
329

323: That's interesting. I'll have to ponder that.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
330

I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case

The strong case is that there just aren't many established female candidates who would add much to the ticket. Beyond Clinton (who I kinda doubt would get an offer or take it), there's who? Sibelius? Sharp woman, to be sure, but she's from a state where Bush beat Gore by 21 points and Kerry by 26 points and largely unknown outside of it.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
331

321- Granted, and that is certainly the argument against. But presumably Huck's competitiveness comes from a conservative, significantly evangelical, protest vote. And McCain wins the 'anti-war' vote (wtf!)?

So independents who care about health care (polls as #2 most important issue) and against the war (polls less importantly than most think, but is significantly more anti-war) will flock to the Democrat. All this bodes so poorly for McCain. I've tried to come up with a scenario in which McCain wins the general and have yet to.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
332

bob, via Yglesias, I think you have to reconsider your position on Obama when you start soundling like Jonah Goldberg.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
333

Paul Krugman Feb 12

As I've said, you've been played like a fiddle by journalists who hate the Clintons, and just make stuff up about how evil they are. And while this may help Obama for now, these people are ultimately not your friends.

2. The general election and after

All my criticisms of Obama have been from a progressive direction. I don't think I've said anything that conservatives could use against him in the general election, or use to undermine his efforts if he makes it to the White House.

Can you say the same about progressive columnists who attack the Clintons, claiming that they're ruthless, that they'll do anything to win, etc. etc? I don't think so.

Again, try to think beyond the intraparty struggle, and realize who your friends really are.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
334

321- And those turnout numbers are so ridiculous for almost any context in a state with its demographics


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
335

313:

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. "
This was unexpected and rather difficult. There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.


Posted by: Bilbo Baggins | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
336

I've tried to come up with a scenario in which McCain wins the general and have yet to.

It isn't crazy to think that he could take the same states Bush carried.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
337

336- Gonna need more than that to sway me, my friend. But I'm not a Southerner.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
338

I've been sort of annoyed by Krugman's caricaturing of Obama supporters. I was tempted to e-mail him to say that I was an Edwards supporter who really preferred Edwards' health plan, and that I agree with Krugman about the importance of a mandate. (I skimmed Krugman's most recent book, and he actually supports a single payer plan, but he doesn't believe that the tax increases required to institute a single payer plan are politically feasible.)

I just also happen to think that foreign policy considerations outweigh the details of a specific health care plan, since health care is something that will be hashed out in Congress and the president has a much freer hand in foreign policy.

I'm just repeating what everyone else has said here, but I do hate being told that I'm the political equivalent of a teenage Beetles fan during their first American tour.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
339

Any group or individual who believed that their interests were served by America remaining weak, divided and bankrupt could arrange for McCain to win by blowing something up in Chicago or LA. You think Homeland Security's going to stop them if they're serious?


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
340

I'd like to see it too, but what makes it a matter of anger this year rather than another?

Because we can, because it's owed, and because I think it would be irredeemably stupid not to.

We can: I have a hard time believing that people willing to vote for an African-American President won't be fine with a female VP. I don't think ticket balancing matters that much. And if there's an option from a red state that we could turn, all the better. Furthermore, it would help establish a baseline. Most Democratic candidates for President are going to be white. There just aren't that many not-white politicians. I'd like it if we could, somehow, establish an expectation going forward--one that might get violated now and again, admittedly--that there will always be a woman on the Dem ticket from now on. For a constellation of things I care about (and for reasons that are, I think, sort of accidental), women are the best available guarantors. A party in which women have a/the big seat at the table is one which I trust more.

It's owed: women are, I think, the biggest part of the Democratic Party by about seven million. And the world has changed: I think people would be fine with a female President. It's time to get paid. It offends my sense of...I dunno, "deal"...not to have a woman on the ticket.

Because it would be stupid not to: if there is a benefit from electing the first woman to the Executive--and I suspect there is, even if it only pays off down the line somewhere--I'd like it to be the Democrats that lock that in. The Republicans aren't going to have a problem running a woman in the general. Liddy Dole was a serious candidate. Might as well beat them to the punch.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
341

but she's from a state where Bush beat Gore by 21 points and Kerry by 26 points and largely unknown outside of it.

That's the case for her, isn't it?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
342

None of that's crazy. I may be overly cautious about putting myself in a position where I could be accused of voting my gender -- I just keep thinking while it's something I'd like, I wouldn't exchange it for even a 5% swing in the chances that we'd lose the election.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
343

342: I guess I'm saying that, in the absence of a really strong case to the contrary, and assuming Obama's the nominee, I just don't think that worry is well-founded.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
344

340: Tim, do you think that Obama ought to offer the job to Hillary?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
345

332:bob, via Yglesias, I think you have to reconsider your position on Obama when you start soundling like Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg, like most Republicans, doesn't exist to me. I can't even imagine putting the arguments of Luxemberg vs Lenin into some kind of dialectic with Goldberg. Life's too short.

I am always reconsidering my positions. I may postpone or mute my criticisms until after the election. Obama is changing his campaign in ways I like. But I see no harm in reminding people that the focus should be on the programs and policies rather than the candidate. There are after all, ~470 other important elections happening this year. (Not really, too many uncontested races, and myriad local races)


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
346

301: thanks, but are you joking?

I think most of Krugman's attacks on Obama are motivated by the "omg he said nice things about republicans, Hillary must hate them more & is therefore more reliable" line of reasoning which I think is utterly false. They really do not seem driven by the economic policy. My husband the liberal economist thinks mandates are good but also thinks that Krugman's going off the rails, & to treat a mandate as THE shining beacon of universal coverage is misleading (as is Krugman's portrayal of some of the recent studies). It's a way to deal with the free-rider problem, & since neither have provided enough details it's hard to know how much better her way really is, let alone all the uncertainty in Cognress.

And some attacks on candidates are just attacks, w/o ideological content: "Obama is a lightweight with a cult of personality following" is no more "from the left" than "Hillary is cakculating & will sell out anyone and everyone to get elected".

Plus, he's a stubborn bastard, & I'm sure he;s getting a lot of nasty email. Which is a very stupid basis indeed for op ed columns, but it's also very stupid for Obama supporters to add to the pissing contest.

As far as electoral math: first of all, in a popular vote landslide, who knows. I don't think that's especially likely but it's not crazy. Second, I think Obama could run worse than Clinton in a couple states--Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, the rust belt's a question mark. But it seems like he's got a better shot in at least as many states. I am not so worried about latino voters supporting McCain: the whole reason Obama lost to Clinton was that: (1) latinos, esp. women, really personally like her; (2) many of them didn't know who Obama was; (3) they preferred Clinton bec. of health care & education & what she said about the economy. McCain will have none of those things going for him. All he has is "not a jerk about immigration" and "white"--and Obama's better about immigration.

Obama is much better as far as state w/ important Senate races.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
347

345: uh huh. Republicans don't exist for you except when their saying nice things about Obama proves that they're smarter than liberals & he's a Trojan horse.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
348

339:You're poaching my turf, dude.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
349

That's the case for her, isn't it?

No, it isn't. Kansas isn't turning blue this election, regardless of whether she's on the ticket. Mississippi and South Carolina were closer races than Kansas and nobody thinks it's possible to flip them. So again, I understand your arguments about having a woman on the ticket but you still haven't named anybody.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
350

I'm neither black nor female, but I object to setting this up as a referendum on whether a woman or a black man can be President. At the moment there's one woman and one black man in the race, and one of them has to lose. Isn't that as bad a lose-lose situation for the Democrats as could be invented? Shouldn't we be doing what we can to preclude that framing?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
351

350: Yes. Particularly now when it is so close, it seems like the better take away message is that neither gender nor race is going to hold back a good candidate. (In the Democratic party.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
352

346:The argument against the "cult of personality" is inarguably a leftish argument, except possibly at the extreme where libertarians meet communists.

Like "Don't follow leaders" it is an impossible conservative position.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
353

Yeah, but we've already seen it framed as blacks vs. women (and sometimes vs. Hispanics too), and not just by media and Republican concern trolls. That's worse than just wrong, it's inevitably wrong and close to sabotage.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
354

Slightly OT anecdatum of the Ick variety: My work partner tells me that his 20-year-old (allegedly Democrat) daughter intends to vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination. She doesn't trust Clinton as far as she can throw her, but does find McCain likeable and trustworthy, and trust is the most important issue for her. So if it's not Obama, it's McCain.

I'm very slightly surprised at how angry I got over this.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
355

353: I agree 100%. Personally, I'd like to hear both Obama and Clinton use a little bit of the spotlight they both now have and start talking about how the closeness of this race between a black man and a white woman says really amazing things about how far we have come as a nation. It's not a message that puts either one over the top now, but could really do alot for generating momentum behind whoever the ultimate candidate is.

Individually, the only audience I even potentially have is a handful of friends and relatives -- but your comment does motivate me to work on talking up this idea among those few but proud who pay me any mind.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
356

My mom has also decided that she won't vote if Clinton is the nominee. She thinks that there's no chance that Obama will attack Iran, but some slight chance that Clinton will, and says she couldn't live with herself if she voted for someone who did that. That makes sense to me, even in the face of the increased chance that McCain will attack Iran. Anyway, my mom lives in Illinois, so it doesn't matter, and I doubt many people are deciding on the same basis.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
357

Slightly OT anecdatum

I have a good friend, a 40-year-old, strongly feminist, white woman who pays very close attention to politics and is decidedly to the left of most of the Democratic Party. She has said for two years that she'd vote third party if HRC were the nominee. This is based almost entirely on foreign policy. Now, that's just one vote in a state that's likely headed to McCain's column anyhow and I have no idea whether she represents a constituency larger than could fit in a phone booth, but it's another anecdatal point on the map.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
358

Huh.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
359

350:

1) It is the fact, and the defining fact of the race for the nomination.

2) We should be delirious that this year the candidates were from three factions of the Party, and not three bland white DLC males.

3) Identity politics can both heighten and diffuse identity politics. That I accept that a populist or a woman can represent my interests is a major step in understanding the way interests intersect.

4) All else being equal, I would rather, on class war grounds, have a black President than a woman. Obama may prove me wrong.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
360

Mississippi and South Carolina were closer races than Kansas and nobody thinks it's possible to flip them.

Neither have a two-term Democratic governor. I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.

Tim, do you think that Obama ought to offer the job to Hillary?

No, because (a) I can't imagine her taking it, and (b) she's too powerful a figure, with too big an intraparty base, for anyone to trust her to act as a second.

Particularly now when it is so close, it seems like the better take away message is that neither gender nor race is going to hold back a good candidate.

Even better: a general election in which we demonstrate both.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
361

Anyway, my mom lives in Illinois, so it doesn't matter.

Living in Illinois as well, this depresses me. You're right, of course. But I hate that it makes my vote feel so meaningless.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
362

Yeah, but we've already seen it framed as blacks vs. women (and sometimes vs. Hispanics too), and not just by media and Republican concern trolls.

I'm not sure that many people are buying it. Even excluding African-Americans, Obama's doing OK with women.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
363

354- There's a ridiculous media narrative on McCain that's bound to leak, if not burst, during the general campaign.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
364

decidedly to the left of most of the Democratic Party

Not difficult after the party triangulated itself solidly center-right (in absolute terms, if not US voter terms). This has to be a difficult thing for anyone who is at all `left' in absolute terms. Do you continue to vote for a party that has fucked you over before and shows every intention of doing it again? But one that is marginally better than the alternative (which is getting worse) and locked in on a small number of key issues you care about . Or `throw your vote away' on a third party?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
365

Even excluding African-Americans, Obama's doing OK with women.

Photos like the one Becks posted don't hurt.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
366

I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.

We don't have separate elections for President and VP.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
367

363: What makes that one any more likely to be destroyed? The media won't turn on him. He's had plenty of previous exposure.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
368

We don't have separate elections for President and VP.

No, but that's just an argument that the VP slot doesn't matter--a view to which I'm sympathetic--but not that there's a better choice out there. (I think it suggests that "better choice" is not an appropriate term.) And given that Sebelius would be, one assumes, the face of the ticket in Kansas, I'm fine with an election in which Kansas picks a VP and gets the President as an add-on.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
369

The VP slot matters, all else being equal, but not enough to sway any election anywhere from a 23-point loss to a victory.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
370

361: but doesn't that make this primary delightful? Everybody counts!

I was realizing, those ridiculous Obama crowds--get 10,000 or 20,000 people enough times, assume some of them tell their friends or families about it, & that you get glowing press coverage from the local press excited to have a presidential candidate come to town--that's not just a photo op. That seriously get votes, in a way that whatever MSNBC wants to obsess about today won't. Particularly in smaller states; we'll see if this works in Ohio & Texas--certainly you've got to throw in a bunch of more modest events not to look like an egomaniac, whereas if you've got 25 states in a week fly-in-big-rally-fly-out is totally understandab;e.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
371

Far better for Obama to ask a different woman to be VP. If Hillary isn't the candidate, one of the best fallouts would be a good slapping to the DLC etc. core that produced her (and her husband).


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
372

367- Mine's not a terribly strong argument, but my thinking is that he'll be challenged by Dems much stronger than Republicans on war issues and economic issues.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
373

Obama can choose his own bucket of warm piss. He'll know better than I what he needs.

And yeah, no woman president in my lifetime makes me very sad.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
374

I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.

1952 69-31 Eisenhower
1956 65-34 Eisenhower
1960 60-39 Nixon
*1964 54-45 LBJ (v Goldwater)
1968 54-34 Nixon
1972 67-29 Nixon
1976 52-45 Ford
1980 57-33 Reagan
1984 66-32 Reagan
1988 55-42 Bush
1992 33-29-27 Bush (3rd is Perot)
1996 54-36-9 Dole (3rd is Perot)
2000 58-37 Bush
2004 62-36 Bush

Very few states in the country have been safer Republican territory in presidential elections than Kansas.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
375

I don't get how a progressive can have such strong confidence in either Obama or Clinton. The latter's a long time DLC type, foreign policy - well we all know, moved to the left on econ for the campaign, but then Bill did too back in '92 and governed from the center. Obama has a long left leaning past but has moved DLCish on econ for the campaign, plus with the bipartisanship stuff. For me the tiebreaker was the past - I see Clinton as more likely to move rightwards as president, and Obama as the reverse, but that's just an educated guess. I miss Edwards. Oh well.


Posted by: tkm | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
376

As for the VP: Clinton is driving excellent female turnout in many places. If placing a woman on the ticket could help keep & build that turnout, it might swing some close states. I'm not sure it could, though: did Geraldine Ferraro? The excitement is over a female PRESIDENT, so for a female VP to help she'd have to be a compelling enough figure to imagine as the next president after Obama. Sebelius didn't look like that, in her SOTU response, but I know a lot of people look terrible in that format so I'd have to see more of her to know what I thought.

I don't think Clinton as VP makes sense, for various reasons, but I don't think you can just sub in another woman & get the same benefits. I can imagine how annoyed I would be if Clinton picked Harold Ford as VP (I think Sebelius is otherwise a much better choice--I'm just saying, politicians aren't interchangeable).


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
377

354, 357: If you're looking for voter rationales that make no sense, there's this. My first Unfogged comment, IIRC.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
378

I don't get how a progressive can have such strong confidence in either Obama or Clinton.

Context matters. Either would be better than McCain.

374: Look, if you're going to cheat by introducing evidence.... I'm not sure Sebelius could swing Kansas, but I don't think it's clear that she wouldn't be the biggest available plus, state by state.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
379

I think Sebelius is otherwise a much better choice--I'm just saying, politicians aren't interchangeable

But this is the important point, I think. Sebelius--two term gov. in reliable red state who pulls Republican politicians across the line--would have to be shortlisted for potential Dem. Presidential candidates, wouldn't she? And there are other women out there that similarly matchup. If there aren't, and if there's a good case against, then fine. But I'm not accepting "we can win with a black guy or with a woman, but not with a black guy and a woman." At least not without a strong argument backing it up.

Also: Obama/Sebelius is the best looking ticket in the history of the world.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
380

Context matters. Either would be better than McCain.

That's a reason for voting for [whichever of them gets the nod] in the general. It is no reason at all for having much confidence it either.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
381

trust is the most important issue for her

I don't know how many sensible liberals I've spoken to who consider voting for McCain on this issue.

I have found that "oh, you're a jackass" is not a convincing rebuttal.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
382

Living in Illinois as well, this depresses me. You're right, of course. But I hate that it makes my vote feel so meaningless.

This logic always surprises me. People who vote because they think their vote will sway the outcome of a presidential election are voting for the wrong reason.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
383

379: Sure, she's on everybody's short list. But after Sebelius, it's a pretty big drop to the next available female candidate.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
384

380- Maybe. But Democratic proposals are now much more progressive than four years ago. Isn't that a reason for confidence?


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
385

384: Not really, when you're talking about serious triangulators (which has become the lifes blood of the D party). It's unclear which way they'll actually run. I can see why people wouldn't have much confidence in either, and are looking at this as `who do I have to hold my nose least for'

379 is true.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
386

shorter 385: confidence, no. hope maybe.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
387

386- Fair enough.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
388

382: Really? What's the right reason to vote?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
389

381: I have found that "oh, you're a jackass" is not a convincing rebuttal.

Yeah. Damn, but this is bothering me. I feel I should talk to the workmate's daughter (or to him, to get to her), but I begin to see red when I contemplate it: "Sure, absolutely, better to trust someone to (say) attack Iran than be unsure whether Clinton will or won't, she's so wily that way."


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
390

352: Watch the parking meters?


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
391

Megan's listening to this speech and she [= McArdle] doesn't really agree with what he's saying, but she's not snorting with derision.

Stop the presses! The Schmibitarians are coming on board.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
392

391 - While it won't last, it does say something surprising about Obama's charisma.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
393

[sexist comment redacted]


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
394

Cult of Personality ...just a national blogger's report on attending an Obama rally. I don't know the guy; via the Agonist (who alo see the cult.) But this was very interesting:

Frozen, I headed down to the convention floor. While I won't go into details (I hate process stories), I'll simply say the Obama volunteers pushed the local press around. I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all.

In comparison to how the Clintons treated the press, the Obama people treated the press disrespectfully and arrogantly. Furthermore, they didn't have anyone available to us except starry-eyed volunteers.

Shorter me: the Clinton camp was respectful of me and other press. The Obama camp was arrogant as all hell (with the exception of national web-guy Sam.) HUGE difference, and differences like this in my experience come from the top down

Let me see here, the Leader preaches Love & Peace while his subordinates act like thugs; have I ever seen this before? Evidence is accumulating.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
395

Shorter me: the Clinton camp was respectful of me and other press.

This is contra almost everything written to date about the Clintons and the press, inc. the killing of the GQ (or Esquire) piece. Shorter me: Given that, and that the author doesn't (in the quoted bit, anyway) acknowledge that narrative, I have no idea why I'd trust anything he says. Irrespective of bad motivations.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
396

Matt Yglesias on an Edwards Endorsement ...shorter Matt, don't do it, John

John Edwards. A nobody. No first place in any primary or caucus. Why should we care who he endorses? And if he endorses Hillary, it'll make him look only like a angry loser. John, don't go away angry because you lost to Barack, the better man. Just go away.

Posted by TLM | February 13, 2008 3:44 PM


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
397

395:shorter Tim

Look over there, Clinton's worse. And I don't trust people who aren't for Obama.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
398

"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all." This line by itself is not terribly confidence inspiring.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
399

"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all."

Yeah, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are there parts of the Internet that only reach certain states?


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
400

"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all."

hahaha


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
401

Holy Crap.

Matthew Yglesias

I'd say I'm fundamentally in agreement with William Julius Wilson's rejoinder to Paul Krugman on the NYT letter page, but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count.

but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count

I can't believe Matt put that so close to a criticism of Krugman. Contemptible. Thuggish and despicable. Cultish.

Fuck it.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
402

Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
403

402:John, what do you think MY is doing there? Why that last phrase in a post about Krugman?

Don't tell me to chill. I used to like and care about these people. I used to respect and admire them. They used to be fair and honest.

Matt's post was the absolute worst kind of garbage, without even the courage to call Krugman "racist"

Fuck him.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
404

X is Y so it doesn't count is a running (since South Carolina, and more so since Super Tuesday) joke about the Clinton campaign's arguments for discounting Obama wins. This is especially true where Y=black. If you want to, consider asking Paul Krugman if you think Matt Yglesias was calling him a racist, or ask Matt what his intention was there, or both.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
405

what do you think MY is doing there?

Playing off the Clinton camp's claims that Obama's wins in SC and other states don't count because the Democratic Party in those states is heavily black. I can't figure out what in the world you are seeing in the sentence.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
406

Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy.

Chill? I'm not even commenting here anymore. How much more chill can I get?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
407

404:Matt is being called on it in the thread by the few commenters left who aren't Obamabots. I wouldn't believe anything Matt said, and of course it is the kind of sleazoid dog-whistle that Krugman daren't be offended by.

I really need it explained why the ending phrase was necessary to the post. It sure ain't funny.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
408

405:Playing off the Clinton camp's claims that Obama's wins in SC and other states don't count because the Democratic Party in those states is heavily black.

Oh, that was the subject of the post? I guess I misread it.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
409

Bob -- look, stupid idiots on the internet


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
410

"Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy."

Seriously, who are you, David Broder? It's not surprising when people get annoyed & hostile at repeatedly being called fascist cult members for three weeks straight. Not that there's any POINT to being trolled, but it's not a surprising phenomenon.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
411

Scary

BTW, the criticisms that Obama is "popular" and "liked even by people who don't follow politics closely" and "acts like he's running for President" and as if he "wants a lot of people to vote for him" are getting pretty funny.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
412

I'm David Broder as far as the Krugman-Obama-Clinton fight goes. People are pumping up the intensity way too far. I expect to vote for one of them, and neither one of them is my first or second choice, and I'd rather not see an Obama-hater (Bob) or a Hillary-hater (Stras) screw things up.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
413

Yeah when I see 12 troll comments in a row from McManus, my immediate reaction is to tell Stras to chill out too.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
414

Stras, no one asked you to leave, but you made unnecessarily snarky remarks to me (238 and 239) and I made snarky remarks back. Then you accused Krugman of being Captain Ahab about Obama and I pointed out that you are a captain Ahab about Krugman. As far as I'm concerned not of that was out of line.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
415

There's a history with Stras too. I was trying to kill two birds with one stone.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
416

If I were the only one calling "cult of personality", or if I didn't see evidence in every thread in the fricking blogosphere, and if I weren't called insane for seeing a "cult of personality", I wouldn't be so bothered.

All you have to do is go thru one long Yglesias thread, and notice the people amazed at the tone of the pro-Obama comments. Just one.

Krugman is dead-on.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
417

Stras has the unfortunate tendency of being mostly right about what he is saying, while McManus is a crazy person. I mean I cringe when I see Stras getting upset about Bob not seeing his point, but still.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
418

Like I said, the venom unleashed at Krugman is one of the more amazing events of my political life, and very very disturbing.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
419

Yes, "people" are pumping of the intensity. Let's not discuss exactly how it happens, sure both sides of the argument are equally to blame.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
420

416: If I were the only one calling "cult of personality",

Oh, you're not, Bob. It's a very fashionable bullshit line of attack that will no doubt be heavily mobilized by the GOP in the general if Obama gets the nomination. Well done pushing the ball down the field.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
421

the venom unleashed at Krugman

Yes, so venomous of people to disagree with him when he's wrong. Terrible. Awful. Blogofascists to a one.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
422

Jesus, Bob, go kick a puppy or something. This stopped being entertaining several threads ago.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
423

Bob, if you go back to those ancient days before Obama v. Clinton became the defining battle of history, you'll find lots of people saying crazy things in Yglesias's comment threads. The fact that there are now lots of people saying crazy things about Obama and Hillary in Yglesias's comment threads is not very interesting.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
424

Like I said, the venom unleashed at Krugman is one of the more amazing events of my political life...

Really? It looks fairly banal from here. Columnist criticizes candidate, candidate's supporters criticize columnist.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
425

I've had some serious problems with Stras too, even though my candidate is the same as his at the moment.

He vastly overestimates the Obama-Hillary difference based on a grudge against Clinton, and he goes into his rants even if Bob isn't there.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
426

I'm not really a member of this community to so I feel wierd asking this but, is there a reason you all assume Bob McManus hates Obama because McManus is crazy not because McManus is a racist?


Posted by: WillieStyle | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
427

426: There's not much evidence that McManus is racist, but plenty that he's eccentric. He's being plain stupid about the Krugman thing, though.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
428

Well, the crazy is already established, see.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
429

I think we will desperately need Krugman next spring, for I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals even if they were strict sharia.


Posted by: WillieStyle | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
430

He's said plenty of things unrelated to Obama/Clinton which I think are crazy*, and none that I think are racist.

*In particular, I'm thinking of his plans to send at least 500,000 American soldiers to the Middle East to advance the cause of women's rights and allow the Democratic party to enact a progressive agenda, as well as regular predictions of civil war against the Republicans.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
431

426, 427: Right. Plenty of evidence of being somewhere between charmingly eccentric and batshit loony, none of being racist.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
432

429: In context of the McManuns oeuvre, likelier to be trolling. But an idiotic comment to be sure.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
433

Fair enough.
I hope that wasn't seen as a criticism of your community. I think you guys are swell!


Posted by: WillieStyle | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
434

426:Welcome to the Unfoggedetariat! All fair-minded Obamabots have a home here.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
435

All fair-minded Obamabots have a home here.

As long as they attend to basic hygiene conventions.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
436

426: My diagnosis is primarily crazy; I think I remember you pointing out his position on the Iraq War, for example, and his response was simply crazy. Basically he can take political polarization or political harmony and either way he'll have some sense of impending apocalyptic doom.

His Obama reaction strikes me as very similar to the whole "Is Obama the antichrist?" phenomenon, which surely is related to race but I think is more about general paranoia. I would reserve the term racist for some of the commenters at Yglesias (you know who I mean); these guys are also crazy as well, but the obsession with race shows through and through.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
437

All your nomination are belong to us, Bob.

His Obama reaction strikes me as very similar to the whole "Is Obama the antichrist?" phenomenon

Just so.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 3:58 PM
horizontal rule
438

Just left yesterday on the Obama Antichrist thread (comment #1234!) at my place:

Obama is not the anti-christ. I feel that he will be assasanated if he wins in '08. He said that he will have Oprah for VP. Can you think of a more influential person to get into politics? She has millions upon millions of people doing her every word. If Obama gets assasinated she will step in. Oprah will lead this world to the ground, not Obama. She has already said that all religions are equal. If that is so then she will try to make all people try to go under one religion. And doesn't anyone else think that the Pope will be an antichrist one day? He also has billions of people following him. I've heard that this is the last pope. If Oprah and the Pope step in together then the world is over.

Heh.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
439

Yes, I am apocalyptic, because the macroeconomics of America are apocalyptic. I am far from the only calling us "Weimerica"

And what will the "Knight on Horseback" look like? He won't be 50%+1, he/she will be a uniter not a divider, and mean it, and do it. He/she will have 70% approval and a positive message.

FDR was hated by a good and very visible chunk of the country.

And yes, when we get our Beloved Leader, I will be called crazy. But "madness is rare in individuals..."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
440

(1) And the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John McCain and Mike Huckabee on the key issues of apocalyptic macroeconomics is...

(2) Exactly my point: whether the Democratic nominee was approved by 70%, 50%+1, 50%-1, or 30% of the population, you'd see something wrong with it. We either need to heighten the contradictions or the Republicans are playing divide and conquer or America is too right-wing or whatever; no matter what the story is, there's a historical parallel to suggest doom. From my point of view a more popular Democratic nominee is a better Democratic nominee.

(3) I am crazy for spending this much time on this thread.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
441

And I know it wouldn't be a Nixon or a Reagan or a Bush that presides over the beginning of police state America. Couldn't happen.

It will be a very popular Democrat.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
442

441: See, that's the Bob I've come to know and love, where it's impossible to tell if you're making an insane joke or an insane serious point. Stick to the classics.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
443

And what will the "Knight on Horseback" look like? He won't be 50%+1, he/she will be a uniter not a divider, and mean it, and do it. He/she will have 70% approval and a positive message.

FDR was hated by a good and very visible chunk of the country.

Not sure I'm following you here. Obama is the second coming of FDR, and this is a bad thing?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
444

No, everyone hated FDR. Also, the Republican hate machine hasn't gotten a shot at Obama yet, so he hasn't been tested in a general election, so he'll probably lose to McCain. Or everyone will rally around him as the American economy collapses this year and the Cult President with the 99% approval rating will invade Poland and start World War III in 2010. All I know is that Obama is bad news.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
445

Not sure I'm following you here. Obama is the second coming of FDR, and this is a bad thing?

No Obama is definitely not the 2nd coming of FDR. FDR was always fiercely partisan and divisive in his rhetoric, comparable to the Edwards campaign.

And it really is hard to discuss in the context of American politics, without reference to historical and overseas evidence, because America hasn't had anything that looks like a dictator since Andrew Jackson. Even Lincoln had strong Union opposition, and barely got re-elected in 1864.

Dictators are very often popular.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
446

445: because America hasn't had anything that looks like a dictator since Andrew Jackson.

Except for the dubiously-elected leader of the last eight years, the one with an actual cult following, but of course compared to that Obama is a rough beast slouching toward Jerusalem, his hour come round at last.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
447

The unpopular FDR:

1932 ELECTION
popular vote:
57.4% (D), 39.7% (R)
42 states D, 6 states R

1936 ELECTION
popular vote:
60.8% (D), 36.5% (R)
46 states D, 2 states R

1940 ELECTION
popular vote:
54.7% (D), 44.8% (R)
38 states D, 10 states R

1944 ELECTION
popular vote:
53.4% (D), 45.9% (R)
36 states D, 12 states R


Posted by: Zombie Franklin Roosevelt | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 4:57 PM
horizontal rule
448

When the Bradley effect comes into play and McCain wins 49 states, you guys will finally admit Bob was right all along.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
449

If Oprah and the Pope step in together then the world is over.

Can't we all agree on this much?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
450

449: The world only technically ends if they do the hokey-pokey and turn themselves around.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
451

450: But first they each have to say: "Mother May We step in together and end the world."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-13-08 8:47 PM
horizontal rule