posted
Looks like he's handling Clinton with kids gloves too, even as he picks up attacks on McCain.
He's switching over to General mode, even as the Clinton Camp is saying that West Virginia voters can "end this" on Tuesday by voting for Clinton. Talk about fantasyland.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, what was the quote I saw? Clinton tried to say WV was the kingmaker, that no Democrat has won the White House since 1914 without West Virginia. Yeah, that's because they're so late in the voting schedule, why on earth would they ever vote against the leader? Well, besides this year. Rather interesting.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how losing a primary contest in a state translates into losing that same state in the general. People, especially in the Clinton campaign seem to be treating it like this is the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't understand how losing a primary contest in a state translates into losing that same state in the general. People, especially in the Clinton campaign seem to be treating it like this is the case.
Yeah, I've been scratching my head at that one too. I don't imagine that Clinton actually thinks this; whatever her faults, she isn't stupid. When she makes this argument I have to think that she's assuming stupidity on the part of her audience.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When she makes this argument I have to think that she's assuming stupidity on the part of her audience.
As far as I can tell, in the current koine, doing otherwise means that you are an elitist.
---
This bugs me. I actually am an elitist. It offends me that I am being lumped in with someone who thinks that people are generally intelligent and willing to apply this intelligence to complex matters.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been struggling with the evil lung goblins of late, so my participation here has been spotty. I realize it's an old issue, but I'm egotistical enough to not care.
I was bothered by Brarack Obama's "bitter" comment. Not because of its content, but because of who he said it to.
Contentwise, I think it was pretty accurate, in either way it could be meant. However, talking about this in an audience in San Fransisco made it talking about these people. I do think that what he talked about is a problem and if he treated it as such, speaking about it to them or in a way designed to address it as a problem as opposed to talking about people problems in order to raise money from another group, I'd find it courageous and admirable.
Of course, neither Sen Clinton nor Sen McCain really hit on this. I'd have gained a lot of respect for either of them if they had gone the route of acknowledging that he had a point, but showing the problems with the audience he made it to and taking on the issue as a problem to be solved, as opposed to an opportunity to make some cheap political hay.
I think it would have been a smart move for Sen Obama to make this point, along with an apology. Admit he was wrong in bringing it up in San Fransisco, but point out that the other candidates' reactions shows that the people in the areas he is talking about can't expect anything other than a focus on guns, God, and gays (and immigrants) as the other candidates addressing their issues.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was fairly satisfied with his apology during the Pennsylvania Primary. He's definitely paid for that mistake, but I don't know if the shadow of it will go away completely in the general.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm hoping that when we get to the general election, we can put some of the petty, stupid things the media is focusing on now behind us and focus on the issues.
("...And as long as I'm imagining, I'd like a pony...")
If West Virginia is the kingmaker, does that mean that if Obama takes it, Hillary will drop out?...
(Uh huh.)
I hope that if things go the way they seem likely to, Clinton will have enough sense to put half as much work into making sure her supporters reconcile with the Obama camp as she has to pressing the attack.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see Clinton drop out after the WV. She gets to leave on a high note then, and while I think that at this point it is almost impossible for her to leave with dignity and grace, after a win is the best chance for that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Clinton campaign strategy is to draw things out as long as possible, making negative attacks to try to hurt Sen Obama's chances in November, then, when an ugly conflict looms for the convention, she concedes and shifts her support over to Sen Obama.
I think her efforts towards reconciling her supporters to Sen Obama will be half-hearted at best, but I'm working from the perspective that she wants him to lose so that she can set up her run in 2012.
I think that after she concedes, you'll still get Clinton surrogates grumbling about politcally damaging things on Barack Obama and trying to embitter Clinton voters, especially women.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anyone worried that Obama can't compete in West Virgina? Obama lost Pennsylvania, Indiana(by a smidge), and Ohio to H. Clinton. Isn't anyone worried that he is going to have a hard time winning those states in the general? I know that national polling has him even with McCain, but I think I'm safe in assuming that national polling overrepresents huge states like California, New York, Florida. Granted, I've been saying that McCain is going to win nearly every state by a handful of points. Mostly because of people like pooka. Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain. Which is fine, but if that's the case, the Democrats should stop spending all of their time and energy courting your-- and your ilks-- Presidential vote.
I do hope that once Obama loses, we can start talking about new models of democracy, with a weakened executive branch because I think this quest to win the Presidency, and the strong executive tradition, frustrates many chances to even talk about a progressive political agenda. I guess my answer to the Democratic party is for them to give up on the Presidency and use the podium to focus on taking chances with other issues.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Is anyone worried that Obama can't compete in West Virgina? Obama lost Pennsylvania, Indiana(by a smidge), and Ohio to H. Clinton. Isn't anyone worried that he is going to have a hard time winning those states in the general? I know that national polling has him even with McCain, but I think I'm safe in assuming that national polling overrepresents huge states like California, New York, Florida. Granted, I've been saying that McCain is going to win nearly every state by a handful of points. Mostly because of people like pooka. Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain. Which is fine, but if that's the case, the Democrats should stop spending all of their time and energy courting your-- and your ilks-- Presidential vote.
I do hope that once Obama loses, we can start talking about new models of democracy, with a weakened executive branch because I think this quest to win the Presidency, and the strong executive tradition, frustrates many chances to even talk about a progressive political agenda. I guess my answer to the Democratic party is for them to give up on the Presidency and use the podium to focus on taking chances with other issues.
What are you smoking. Whatever it is send me some.
IP: Logged |
quote:Is anyone worried that Obama can't compete in West Virgina? Obama lost Pennsylvania, Indiana(by a smidge), and Ohio to H. Clinton. Isn't anyone worried that he is going to have a hard time winning those states in the general?
I've been wondering the same thing. I think an Obama victory depends largely on a united and energized democratic base. Every day that the race continues makes this less and less likely. If McCain paints Obama as a "typical liberal," and himself as the moderates choice, then he can win by bringing in former Clinton supporters.
quote:Every day that the race continues makes this less and less likely. If McCain paints Obama as a "typical liberal," and himself as the moderates choice, then he can win by bringing in former Clinton supporters.
McCain doesn't even need a lot of them. He just needs to win regular Republicans and good slice Clinton supporters over 65.
It's not the kind of victory that does anything for the down ticket, in fact, I think the Democrats will have a fine Congressional and local election cycle.
posted
Does it upset anyone else the amount of money spent on presidential campaigns? I can think of much more productive uses for hundreds of millions of dollars (and yet I still donated $20 to my candidate).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does it upset anyone else the amount of money spent on presidential campaigns? I can think of much more productive uses for hundreds of millions of dollars (and yet I still donated $20 to my candidate).
Not unless a cheaper process that gets one's message out to 300 million + Americans can be devised, or else the country becomes far smaller and the sheer amount of ground that has to be covered is significantly shrunk.
Or else Americans need to start watching the news, reading the newspaper, and subscribing to political journals in record numbers.
Laying aside whether Bush is a good or bad president, think how much of a difference a president can make. Hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated to our war on terror because of who was elected president. A few hundred million dollars, seems to be a small but still significant trade off for the damage an ignorant vote could generate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
They really thought it would be a good idea to use a newspaper clipping on TrooperGate as the background for their fake headline on Obama opposing Clinton's gas tax plan?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This won't really be news, and most people will not see it or hear about it. But at the same time it's little surprise to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't expect it to be news. I'm just surprised that they would use TrooperGate as the newspaper article considering that TrooperGate is not exactly the type of issue that Clinton would like to be associated with.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton's only chance at this point is to engage Obama in counter attacks, but he's going to let it blow by. The only think he has to not do is marginalize West Virginia completely, and I'm sure he'll concede victory graciously and immediately as soon as the exit polls are released.
quote:Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain.
No problem. I'm with McCain because of issues like abortion and our responsibility for the situation that we've created in Iraq. I'm not with him on everything, but those are the two biggies, and Obama couldn't be further from my view on either of those. But Obama may likely win, and I can live with him as a president much more happily than Clinton, because I think she is a carpetbagger on every conceivable level. Some people on the right think Obama isn't sincere, but I think it's just possible his wife thinks and says her own thoughts and not always his.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deleted my self quote there, not sure what happened.
Jesus is Lord.
But I came back to say that West Virginia is a real wild card. They went for Bush twice, Clinton twice, Dukakis, Reagan, Carter twice, Nixon in '72 but Humphrey in Nixon's first victory and on it goes.
I had thought WV would go for McCain in the General, but the really liked Bill Clinton. I don't know.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Clinton's only chance at this point is to engage Obama in counter attacks, but he's going to let it blow by. The only think he has to not do is marginalize West Virginia completely, and I'm sure he'll concede victory graciously and immediately as soon as the exit polls are released.
quote:Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain.
No problem. I'm with McCain because of issues like abortion and our responsibility for the situation that we've created in Iraq. I'm not with him on everything, but those are the two biggies, and Obama couldn't be further from my view on either of those. But Obama may likely win, and I can live with him as a president much more happily than Clinton, because I think she is a carpetbagger on every conceivable level. Some people on the right think Obama isn't sincere, but I think it's just possible his wife thinks and says her own thoughts and not always his.
posted
I think the answer to a lot of the questions about why Obama would sit through Rev. Wright's sermons for twenty years probably come back to Obama's wife. Now Obama isn't going to blame the whole Wright thing on his wife, of course, that would be cowardly. But in addition to her "proud of America for the first time" thing way back when, last week she spoke about Blacks living under a veil of impossibility in America. linkPosts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think your seriously over emtionalizing what she said, she being proud of america now doesn't mean in that Elitist Grand Conspiracy of the Left way that Righties seem to think that she was never proud of america before this moment or in that other "Liberal" way think America is some evil yucky monster.
Also I see nothing wrong with her remarks about the impossibility bit, she's black isn't she?
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And wow i can't even read that article its just so absurd.
its like me critisizing McCain for calling Vietnamese people gooks. Speaking of which do you really want a President who may harbor a secret grudge towards the Vietnamese?
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just answering your question about why some people on the right could think Obama isn't sincere. Sure that article takes every bitter thing she ever said and spins it in the worst light possible. No one is going to bother listing things she has said that are unflattering in order to flatter her.
So I guess you're the sort who would not want to be told about lettuce in your teeth?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add that I don't think Michelle Obama is this terrible person. I think she is what Cat Stevens called "a hard headed woman".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm no longer totally sure that Clinton is purposefully attempting to ruin Obama's chances.
A lot of Clinton insiders are saying that she's trying to get into the strongest negotiating position possible, which'll be after Kentucky, at which point she'll take a stab at the VP spot. I hadn't realized this but, apparently she's not so keen on returning to the Senate. She's burned a LOT of bridges there with this campaign, maybe even ruining the chance she had at getting the Leader spot in the future. But frankly I think she's burned her bridge with Obama more, and I can't see what kind of pressure forces him to say yes.
But anyway, 2012 might be in her head for her long term plan, but I think she actually might be trying to force a her VPness on Obama now. And if she campaigns for him 100% all the way, I think it'll be a huge boost to his viability. If she campaigns half heartedly and tries to sabotage him, she'll never get the nomination in 2012.
Just when I thought things couldn't get any weirder.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no way Obama will pick her for VP. That governor of Kansas has all Clinton's positives and none of her negatives.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the superdelegates say they'll be happy to get on board if he keeps her, he may do it. Or he can wait and see what happens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm just answering your question about why some people on the right could think Obama isn't sincere. Sure that article takes every bitter thing she ever said and spins it in the worst light possible. No one is going to bother listing things she has said that are unflattering in order to flatter her.
So I guess you're the sort who would not want to be told about lettuce in your teeth?
Your not making sense.
The article for a fact is massively biased against her as such it is only honest to account for this and hey realize that her remarks aren't anywhere near what you seem to be attributing to them. She's an intelligent rational well reasoned person with experience in these sort of things Uncle Orson thinks highly of her based on her thesis.
And what the heck is the dig about lettuce? Your supposed to keep people away from your salad.
IP: Logged |
Oh I agree. I think he abhors the idea, and I think Sebelius is the better choice for him to make. I think with the way things are split now, looking at the electorate he might, MIGHT have a better chance with her as his VP, because all her supporters would join with him. But if I were him, I'd take my chances with Sebelius, and leave her on the curb rather than have her sniping at me from the OEOB.
The DNC and a lot of party insiders will be trying hard to force her on him though I think, really hard. They care about winning, he cares about his own presidency and what it'll be like. I don't know.
At this point I think I'm rooting for an Obama/Sebelius ticket. But there are so many combinations it's really almost ridiculous to be rooting for any VP in particular. But in less than a month I think we'll know how this will shake out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lettuce remark refers to whether you would like someone to tell you if you have a problem or if you'd prefer to just never be criticized.
Since you probably don't know who Cat Stevens is, the relevant part of the song is
quote:I'm looking for a hard-headed woman, one who will make me do my best and when I find my hard-headed woman, I know the rest of my life will be blessed.
posted
I'm saying I don't think Michelle Obama is a bad person.
I think her feelings about being black in America may be more of an angry nature, similar to Rev. Wright, than Obama's.
I don't think her attitudes invalidate Obama's message of hope and change.
But...
People who reject any discussion of Michelle's attitude run the risk of not correcting the issue, which could turn into a problem.
Or are you still talking about the lettuce? The lettuce is a metaphor for whether one welcomes criticism.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Edwards would probably make a better VP choice for Obama than Clinton if he wanted to go with a former opponent. He'd probably help with the southern vote, and he hasn't nearly the visceral dislike that some people feel for Hillary Clinton.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice how people say Edwards would be a good AG but never that Clinton would be a good AG. I really don't think they are similar posts. I swear I've asked this before, and been told know, but Gore can't, right? It was probably covered in pages 11-19 of this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I think Edwards would probably make a better VP choice for Obama than Clinton if he wanted to go with a former opponent. He'd probably help with the southern vote, and he hasn't nearly the visceral dislike that some people feel for Hillary Clinton.
It should probably be noted that Edwards' presence didn't do a whole lot for Kerry in the South.
I strongly agree with this recent article on the Open Left blog, regarding how Obama should choose his VP. The conventional wisdom is that a VP choice should shore up a candidate's perceived weakness. What's often overlooked, however, is that this approach can also amplify those very weaknesses. For example, Kerry's choice of Edwards, a youthful, good-looking guy with a Southern accent, only made him look more like an aging patrician from Snobbsville, Massachusetts. An ideal VP should provide credibility in areas the candidate him/herself does not, while bolstering the candidate's perceived strengths and supporting the candidate's message.
Oddly, in my mind, Edwards is actually a bit too much of the latter and not enough of the former. He has significant cred as a "change" candidate, given his "Two Americas" populism, and again, he's youthful. So he complements Obama in those areas. However, he doesn't help to counter the "experience" charges, given that his own Senate tenure was very short, and that he also lacks executive experience. He is also likely to suffer from Obama's problem with the elderly demographic.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Obama needs a heavyweight with experience on the bottom of the ticket, but not so much that whoever it is outshines him.
Pooka -
You mean Gore can't be AG or can't be VP? He could certainly be VP. Does he have a JD? I wasn't sure if he was actually a lawyer or not. I generally assume they ALL are because so often, well, they all are. But I'm not sure. If he doesn't have one though then I don't think he could be. I don't think he'd take either spot if offered to him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't expect something like this could have turned the WV election, but it's still souring to hear... and this article seems to suggest that Obama would be more hurt by this than Clinton, but I don't know if that would really be the case.
quote:West Virginia Secretary of State Disenfranchising Thousands of Obama Voters? said: I got a call today from Mark Levine, the election protection attorney for Donna Edwards and one in whom I have a good amount of trust, and he told me about a brewing problem in West Virginia which will probably end up disenfranchising thousands of Obama voters. Here's the nub of the issue. West Virginia has an open primary, which means you can vote even if you are an independent. However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are automatically given a normal ballot in a primary. If you are an independent, you are pointed to a touch screen device which does not list a Presidential choice.
If you are an independent, you have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican ballot so you can vote in the Presidential primary, but you have to request it. And unless you know to request it, you will end up with no vote in the Presidential primary. The Secretary of State has decided not to inform people of this fact, which will leave potentially thousands of voters in West Virginia who came to vote for Obama without a choice.
Independents, in other words, are being disenfranchised. There's a full press release on the flip....
Inconsistencies like this show it's important to learn the rules to follow for your area. I'm glad Oregon has a vote-by-mail ballot so we can take enough time to look it over and make sure all is correct... It's a closed primary here, but the rules are well-publicized.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: CNN is projecting a winner (Clinton) in W. Virginia with 3% of precincts reporting...
Does a projection based on 3% of precincts even qualify as news?...
When networks call a race that early, they're doing it based on the exit polling rather than the actual reported results. Since exit polling is notoriously unreliable in anything resembling a close election, the networks only ever do this when the exit polling is so strongly skewed to one side that most of the respondents would have had to be outright liars for the other candidate to win.
In short, yes. It does qualify as news. At least as much as anything else does on the night of an election wherein the outcome is all but predetermined.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I notice how people say Edwards would be a good AG but never that Clinton would be a good AG. I really don't think they are similar posts. I swear I've asked this before, and been told know, but Gore can't, right? It was probably covered in pages 11-19 of this thread.
AG as in Attorney General?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I don't expect something like this could have turned the WV election, but it's still souring to hear... and this article seems to suggest that Obama would be more hurt by this than Clinton, but I don't know if that would really be the case.
quote:West Virginia Secretary of State Disenfranchising Thousands of Obama Voters? said: I got a call today from Mark Levine, the election protection attorney for Donna Edwards and one in whom I have a good amount of trust, and he told me about a brewing problem in West Virginia which will probably end up disenfranchising thousands of Obama voters. Here's the nub of the issue. West Virginia has an open primary, which means you can vote even if you are an independent. However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are automatically given a normal ballot in a primary. If you are an independent, you are pointed to a touch screen device which does not list a Presidential choice.
If you are an independent, you have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican ballot so you can vote in the Presidential primary, but you have to request it. And unless you know to request it, you will end up with no vote in the Presidential primary. The Secretary of State has decided not to inform people of this fact, which will leave potentially thousands of voters in West Virginia who came to vote for Obama without a choice.
Independents, in other words, are being disenfranchised. There's a full press release on the flip....
Inconsistencies like this show it's important to learn the rules to follow for your area. I'm glad Oregon has a vote-by-mail ballot so we can take enough time to look it over and make sure all is correct... It's a closed primary here, but the rules are well-publicized.
Um, except Clinton got the Independent Vote 51% to 38%
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, pretty much every time someone has mentioned Edwards for VP in this thread previously, someone else has said "he'd make a great AG (Attorney General)." It has always seemed to me that it would be a step backward for him politically, in that no one would suggest a former vice president become AG. I didn't realize Gore was not an attorney at the time I mentioned it - which you think I would have remembered. I was totally in love with him in 1992.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
