Hard News: The Universal Intercept
104 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
And according to Nancy Pelosi, Clinton also wrecked any chance of the "dream ticket".
Did anyone really take it seriously in the first place? Perhaps it might have worked, but not less than a week after the 'it's 3am, a phone rings in the White House' ad. For me, the real jump the shark moment was when Clinton rolled out the '“[McCain]’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”" She did realise she just said the Republican nominee would make a better President than the other Democrat in the race?
-
but Toamsky is also making the claim that there would be that perception. I'd just like som evidence.
Well it seemed fairly logical to me. But if someone runs around surveying world leaders... good on them.
But you could agrue that someone that could transcend national boundaries might do more good than some one who reinforces them.
You could, if Clinton was Nelson Mandela. But she's clearly not.
And in terms of major issues the USA needs to deal with over the next four years - it's either countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or it's "the Middle East/Muslim region/religion".
So either having a better perception at the country level is going to help, or... being Obama with an African father, time spent living in Indonesia, and having voted against going into Iraq is going to go down a lot better with the Muslim world.
-
I think not, Craig.
Seems to me she said [paraphrase]: If our opponents are going to run with an "experience counts" message, why would we want to stand a rookie up against them?
And as for Muslim reaction to either Clinton or Obama, it's anyone's guess whether they would rather deal with a woman or a Muslim-turned-Christian. I believe the latter species is not well thought of in Muslim traditionalist circles.
Darn, I told myself I was not going to take any notice of US elections till it was compulsory for NZers to vote in them...
-
So either having a better perception at the country level is going to help...
But you and Tomasky offer no evidence that this would be true.
Obama could very well have an edge over Hillary in offering something positive to some conflicts in Africa. But it's not like there haven't been other male black leaders that have been active in this area, such as Mandela, and they don't exactly face an easy task. It doesn't guarantee anything when dealing with Mugabe, Darfur etc.
And I can't see any other region where Obama would have any obvious advantage. The Muslin world is heterogeneous, he might appeal to some and not to others. And why shouldn't Clinton be able to reach out to Muslim woman?
I just don't think that there is a case to be made that Obama being black or Clinton being female will make much of a difference. Personal character may. Obama appears more personable. Maybe he can woo the US's opponents better. But maybe Clinton would be better. I suspect that they would each have their strengths and overall it would not make much difference.
I find the mix of wildly extravagent claims of Obama's future success combined with quite vicious attacks on Clinton such as by Michael Tomasky to be unnerving.
-
But you and Tomasky offer no evidence that this would be true.
I think we've covered this ground. So, up to you what you think really.
I find the mix of wildly extravagent claims of Obama's future success combined with quite vicious attacks on Clinton such as by Michael Tomasky to be unnerving.
You must be referring to different parts of what he wrote than the bits you quoted. I can't see wildly extravagant, and I think calling those paragraphs a vicious attack is a little unusual.
-
It was this that I thought wildly extravagant -
His election would also - far, far more than the election of another war-mongering white man, and yes, even considerably more than the election of a woman - send an unimaginably powerful message to the rest of the world, where most of the people are darker than most Americans are by this shade or that.
If he has stopped at war-mongering white man, i.e. McCain, I'd have no problem. The rest is what he wants to be true but provides no evidence.
I'm surprised that Obama supporters need to go that far. I can understand why on issues such as health and education one might prefer one or other of the candidates. I prefer HRC but there's not a lot in it. But rather than that sort of talk on issues there's a Obama Will Save The World.
I was wrong to imply that Tomasky has made such an attack here - I was thinking of the netroots.
But to put a bit of nuance into things, I thought it was wrong for Clinton to want Samantha Powers sacked (if Obama gets in she'll be a big plus for his team) and I think Obama should have nothing to worry about regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He's dealt with that issue well as far as I'm concerned.
-
Let me put two things together....
Partially because no country is 90% women, partially because most world leaders are male, and partially because of who she is and who she's married to, there won't be so much interest from countries in having Clinton get elected.
And in terms of major issues the USA needs to deal with over the next four years - it's either countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or it's "the Middle East/Muslim region/religion".
You're right. No country is 90% women, and in the countries listed, women are treated appallingly badly.
Just maybe having a woman as President of the most powerful country in the world might do something for the disenfranchised and savagely oppressed women of some of those countries.
-
I think not, Craig.
Seems to me she said [paraphrase]: If our opponents are going to run with an "experience counts" message, why would we want to stand a rookie up against them?
Perhaps, daleway, but I decided to take what she said at face value. And perhaps I'm a little naive, but I wouldn't expect a round of applause if I stood up in a National Party selection meeting and said the Labour nominee had "a lifetime of experience" as a way to dis my opponent as a lightweight. Not only dumb strategy when you're trying to appeal to a partisan audience, but what the hell does it mean? Obama is a zombie? He has no "life experience" because he's been in a coma since brith, or living in a bubble?
I've always said that the 'experience' card is a risky one for Clinton to run when -- as a simple matter of fact -- she's the least experienced, in terms of actual elected office, of the three of them. And attempts to talk up her foreign policy experience in Bosnia in 1996, um, turned to custard, so trading on her husband's record in the Oval Office isn't quite the winner it used to be either.
In the end, I really hope Hillary gets her advisors back on a very short choke chain because its embarrasing watching her campaign commit slow motion political suicide.
-
The Readers Digest version:
Who's the big winner from all the crap flowing from the Clinton campaign.
McCain.
Now, as long as he doesn't lose his mind and select Romney as his running mate, I can live with a world in which John and Cindy are the tenants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But not if he and Clinton end up running the same old, same old game of who can throw the most shit that sticks before the clock runs out.
-
You can go by the Readers Digest version, I perfer some facts.
Both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by 1.5% but Clinton gets more votes than Obama. (That's matched by a slight corresponding increase in votes for McCain).
So the famous divisiveness that the Obama camp claims to be her defining charactersitc gives her more votes than him. Seems she just motivates people a bit more.
Now Obama's supporters can continue to talk up the idea that their candidate is the only one to beat McCain and that Clinton is destroying things for the Dems but this doesn't correspond to any facts.
-
Do you mean dailykos? There's always been a strong anti-Clinton faction out there but there are pro-Clinton sites (or at least not so partisan) too such as TalkLeft.
I mean Americablog, Huffpo, Buzzflash and Kos: a really big netroots bloc between them -- three of them are probably in the top 10 political sites in the US. Honestly, at this point, if Hillary wins, the Dems' campaign is toast.
-
Just maybe having a woman as President of the most powerful country in the world might do something for the disenfranchised and savagely oppressed women of some of those countries.
Oh yes, quite possibly. And that would be a good thing.
But the original article was talking about the perception that other countries would have about the election of Obama/Clinton. Not the reality of how it would play out on the ground around the world.
-
You can go by the Readers Digest version, I perfer some facts.
And I prefer to get my fiction from novelists not pollsters. Remember, Neil, if the polls at this point in an electoral cycle were reliable Neil Kinnock would have become Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1992, John Howard would never have been Prime Minister of anywhere and we'd be eagerly awaiting President Gore's valedictory.
And keep this in mind, dear, the fundamental flaw in any question that begins "if an election was held tomorrow" is that it fucking isn't.
-
we'd be eagerly awaiting President Gore's valedictory.
OK, the polling got that one right according to most sources. The Supreme Court however...
-
OK, the polling got that one right according to most sources. The Supreme Court however...
Well, since you brought that up -- you'd think the 2000 election, and Bush v. Gore, would have put paid to the notion that 'small' states don't matter. After all, if Gore had carried his home state's eleven electors (and he only lost the popular vote in Tennessee by 3.86%), then the result in Florida would have been electorally irrelevant.
Of course that would have been cancelled out if Bush had overcome Gore's 0.22% lead in Wisconsin (11 electors); and again, Florida wouldn't have mattered if Bush had also won three 'small' states where Gore's poplar vote margin was also less than one point: New Mexico (5 electors), Iowa and Oregon (7 each).
I'm also pretty sure everyone is hoping a way can be found to seat Florida and Michigan delegates at Denver that doesn't involve litigation.
-
And I prefer to get my fiction from novelists not pollsters.
I completely agree to an extent, Kerry was 14% ahead of Bush at this stage of the election cycle, but besides our own personal preferences, the polls are the only form of factual evidence in any Who Will Beat McCain argument.
I've said before that it's much too hard to answer that one and one might as well vote for the person whose policies one prefers. But I see very little criticism of Clinton based on her policies, rather it's she's supposedly divisive, she'll cause the Dems to lose etc. For which the only evidence we have - the polls - says is not true. The netroots might threaten revolt but that's only one section of Democrat voters.
What the polls show at present is that there is very little difference in voting patterns with either Obama or Clinton having the nomination. There's no big defection away from voting for the Democrat party just because sections of voters don't get their preferred candidate.
Toast, but then toast is quite nice.
-
But I see very little criticism of Clinton based on her policies, rather it's she's supposedly divisive, she'll cause the Dems to lose etc.
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the first part of that -- because after running the '3 am' ad, I think the MSM has been running a healthily sceptical reality check on her own claims of foreign affairs expertise. I just don't think the Clinton camp can have it both ways: Does anyone seriously want to argue that if Geraldine Ferraro was a proxy for the McCain campaign, and a Republican vice-presidential nominee, her comments wouldn't have been explicitly condemned as racist dog-whistling?
-
Slightly OT, but by golly here's a gripping piece of reporting by Greg Palast on the Spitzer downfall, the sub-prime mortgage scandal, and the latest sleight of hand by the Bush administration, and why they may be all part of the same story:
http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/ -
Think of the candidate what you will (and I am a fan), but as a sometime speech-writer, I am damn impressed with Obama's latest effort
Dunno if it will make any difference with regards to the bruising fight to the death that he is engaged in with Hillary, but that is one mighty fine piece of rhetoric.
-
Yeah. Obama's chief speech writer, is Jon Favreau. He's 26. His two assistants are 26, and 30.
Not bad really.
-
Dunno if it will make any difference with regards to the bruising fight to the death that he is engaged in with Hillary, but that is one mighty fine piece of rhetoric.
Sure, but I was more impressed by the substance under the rhetoric. Sorry for using a disgraceful cliché, but there's a three course meal for thought there. And isn't it rather refreshing to see a politician take a 'scandal', and use it as an opportunity for saying a few thoughtful things about the kind of questions (race, class, religion) that are usually talked about in bland soundbites, if at all?
As I've said from the start, there's a hell of a lot I disagree with Obama on politically. But at least he strikes me as someone who wants -- and can lead -- a debate between civil and thoughtful grown-ups.
-
Sure, but I was more impressed by the substance under the rhetoric.
Absolutely - sorry I didn't mean to imply it was a triumph of style over substance at all. But it is a beautifully written and balanced attempt to take a much loftier view of the issue, while framing it in words that all sides of the divide can (should?) understand.
I hope it will have an impact, because its superb (the doozy is when he weaves in religion in a meaningful sense "In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.")
Yet sadly, there are already plenty of entrenched views from the Clinton or Republican support bases who have completely dismissed the speech as nothing but empty, evasive words. No matter what happens between now and November, no matter what scandals are dredged up, many people have simply made up their minds.
-
Yet sadly, there are already plenty of entrenched views from the Clinton or Republican support bases who have completely dismissed the speech as nothing but empty, evasive words. No matter what happens between now and November, no matter what scandals are dredged up, many people have simply made up their minds.
Plenty of Clinton supporters? Do you have any links? I've visited pro-Clinton sites and all I've seen is praise.
But at least he strikes me as someone who wants -- and can lead -- a debate between civil and thoughtful grown-ups.
perhaps he can, but many of his supporters can't. I don't think anyone at dailyKos actually taks the time to digest what Obama is saying.
-
But it is a beautifully written and balanced attempt to take a much loftier view of the issue, while framing it in words that all sides of the divide can (should?) understand.
I am so pathetically grateful to have someone running for president who can carry off a speech that moving, and complex, and historically aware, and generally awesome. Just reading it makes me teary-eyed. The era of ridiculous simplistic repetitiveness in presidential speechmaking can't end soon enough.
-
The era of ridiculous simplistic repetitiveness in presidential speechmaking can't end soon enough.
If you consider Democrats that era is just a bit of an anomaly.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.