Indiana Jonesing
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
I don't have to explain away - what Clinton is saying is true.
And this is why I find these kinds of discussion with you increasingly futile. Clinton knows damn well that a large proportion of the Democratic base believes -- and will go to their graves believing -- that Bush won Florida (and the Presidency) in 2000 through fraud, corruption, voter intimidation and a partisan Supreme Court that told the law to go get fucked.
Clinton could have made a case for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan without accusing Obama of "Republican tactics". he chose not to do so.
How loud does the dog-whistle have to get before you hear it?
My Rage-O-Meter waddles all the way up to 2. They would both do exactly the same if their positions were reversed.
And do try being a little more condescending, Neil, it's such a fabulous look. I have no idea whether "they would both do exactly the same if their positions were reversed", but I'm damn tired of listening to that kind of excuse for douche-bag politics. Just a little too circular and self-serving for my blood.
-
Do you think he took his name off the Michigan ballot out of the goodness of his heart?
I understand he did so to honour an agreement he made with the DNC. What a bastard. And as I've said repeatedly, if I was a "disenfranchised" Florida Democrat I wouldn't be pissed off at Obama or Clinton. I be highly pissed at the state party who played a high stakes game of chicken and lost. (And as it turns out, one that was totally needless given that the nomination wasn't done and dusted by Super Tuesday after all.)
-
Florida is "getting this kind of treatment", as Clinton put it, because it flouted the orders of the DNC and was disciplined.
It was the Florida Republican party that sitched things for the Dems. The Florida Dems were quite prepared to go back to the original dates - the Republicans made sure they couldn't.
It's a debacle, but blaming Obama is nuts
how was I blaming Obama - this is just politics as usual. I don't take exception to what he is doing but what Clinton is saying is true. And the Clintons are perfectly entitled to point this out.
Good God, Obama's not a saint, thank god for that, he's playing politics with Florida and Michigan to his advantage. I'm amazed at the level of outrage for merely pointing this out.
-
I understand he did so to honour an agreement he made with the DNC.
no he didn't. It was a deal with parts of the Michigan party machine he wanted to curry favour with. Again this doesn't rate highly on my Rage-O-Meter.
-
no he didn't. It was a deal with parts of the Michigan party machine he wanted to curry favour with.
That's dubious claim. Fact was, Edwards withdrew his name from the MI ballot too, Kucinich wanted to, and the only serious candidate on the ballot was Clinton -- after she'd previously indicated she'd be off the ballot, then changed her mind.
One of the TalkLeft bloggers and a number of their readers advanced the view that Clinton should get the only delegates from MI, and Obama should get none. That's kinda crazy ...
-
One of the TalkLeft bloggers and a number of their readers advanced the view that Clinton should get the only delegates from MI, and Obama should get none. That's kinda crazy ...
That indeed would be crazy. I think some of them had a technical issue (they seem to be lawyers afterall) with Obama getting all of the not commited votes - when an unknown number were for other candidates, especially Edwards. (but as for Obama - why did he leave his name on the Florida ballot?)
It's hard to know what to think about the timing of Edwards's endorsement - he had to do it sometime so over-analysing is a definite risk - but it's hard not to see it as a (sucessful) response to Clinton's arguments about the working class vote and the Michigan/Florida stand-off.
Getting Edwards signals reaching out to working class voters and since Edawards got 15% of the vote in Florida his delegates are now free to go for Obama if, as they should, the delegates are counted. (Similarly with Michigan). So Clinton's Florida advanyage would be greatly reduced.
That's just speculation on their motives but those consequences I think hold.
It might have been that Elizabeth Edwards finally got Obama to agree to adopt Hillary's helath care policies - which she prefered. (That's a joke).
-
(but as for Obama - why did he leave his name on the Florida ballot?)
He couldn't withdraw it under Florida law except by withdrawing from every other primary as well.
-
It's hard to know what to think about the timing of Edwards's endorsement - he had to do it sometime so over-analysing is a definite risk - but it's hard not to see it as a (sucessful) response to Clinton's arguments about the working class vote and the Michigan/Florida stand-off.
That, and he obviously got the pair of jet skis he asked for.
Seriously, did anybody see the edWORDs on Colbert a couple of weeks back? That was priceless.
-
It's hard to know what to think about the timing of Edwards's endorsement - he had to do it sometime so over-analysing is a definite risk - but it's hard not to see it as a (sucessful) response to Clinton's arguments about the working class vote and the Michigan/Florida stand-off.
The interview that was linked to here a few days ago, he basically said that he respected both of them and didn't want to interfere in the race.
I wonder now if speculation will tip over to Gore.
-
One of the TalkLeft bloggers and a number of their readers advanced the view that Clinton should get the only delegates from MI, and Obama should get none.
So does Wolfson, by the way, that's the campaign official line. It's only marginally less insane than Huckabee's "I didn't major in maths, I majored in miracles" line, but there it is.
That said, I still maintain she's pulling her punches now and moving towards the concession. All her arguments are pro-Clinton as opposed to anti-Obama, and she's already asking her supporters to vote for him in the GE.
-
It's hard to know what to think about the timing of Edwards's endorsement - he had to do it sometime so over-analysing is a definite risk - but it's hard not to see it as a (sucessful) response to Clinton's arguments about the working class vote and the Michigan/Florida stand-off.
I think he's angling for VP.
-
I think he's angling for VP.
Because he did such a great job for the Kerry campaign? If ever there was a disappearing prospective VP it was him.
-
I'm amazed at the level of outrage for merely pointing this out.
Neil:
I'm more amazed at how disingenuously tin-eared you can be when it suits. Believe it or not, the 2000 Florida Recount and Bush v. Gore is still a remarkably sore point among partisan Democrats (many of who believe Bush only won the 2000 election through outright fraud and a corrupt, partisan Supreme Court), and what else do you think Clinton was alluding to when he accused Obama of engaging in a "Republican strategy"?
That's not "stating facts", Neil -- even if you don't buy the 'stolen elec tion' scenario, I don't see how you could draw any sane equations between the 2000 election and the 2008 Democratic primary in Florida. It's a cheap and ugly dog-whistle, carefully pitched to a partisan audience ahead of a primary. Then again, I'm one of those cranks who thinks it's out of line to accuse people of stealing elections, not matter how subtly (or not) the allegation is coded.
-
I'm one of those cranks who thinks it's out of line to accuse people of stealing elections, not matter how subtly (or not) the allegation is coded.
Unless they did of course.
-
...and what else do you think Clinton was alluding to when he accused Obama of engaging in a "Republican strategy"
I agree, that is exactly what he's alluding to. It might be an unfair comparison but it's more than unfair to the voters of Florida for Obama to delay a solution either until Clinton doesn't get an advantage or til it doesn't matter.
With the RCP Florida average showing Obama losing to McCain by 9% but Clinton beating McCain by 1.7% it's no wonder the Clintons are talking very loudly about this.
But this is a bit a laugh. I don't know how that rates on the whisky drinking scale.
-
I agree, that is exactly what he's alluding to. It might be an unfair comparison...
So, as the great wheel of fate turns once more: Why the hell did he go there? Dishonest comparisons are unfair.
With the RCP Florida average showing Obama losing to McCain by 9% but Clinton beating McCain by 1.7% it's no wonder the Clintons are talking very loudly about this.
And allowing an invalid primary to stand is relevant to this exactly how? My God, on paper Selwyn is pretty safely in the National column. Not particularly relevant to the validity or otherwise of the contested selection.
I'd also be a little cautious about extrapolating out a rolling average six months ahead forward to a general election.
But this is a bit a laugh.
Prepare another snide comment about your flat-lining outrate meter, because I think it's pretty sad. Then again, it's pretty sad that someone feels the need to defend themselves against flat out lies based on anti-Muslim bigotry.
-
It reminds me of a second hand shop in Cuba Street that a few years back displayed a massive nazi flag near the entrance. When I protested that most people would find it incredibly offensive, the owner suggested I put my money where my outrage was: "for fifty bucks you can remove it from the shop".
It's possible the owner attended the National Lampoon School of Marketing. It's equally possible that 5 minutes after you bought it another would appear in its place, for $60.
"Sixty dollars?!"
"Oh yes, they're very popular - we've sold one already this morning" -
WH,
I guess nowadays we'd dismiss that as the rhetoric of an empty shirt, and say that appealing to the worse demons of people like Aaron Roe & Susan Dzimian is just "how it is" when you've got an election to win.
Well, this year the Republican primary was fought out amongst nine old white men on the real issues - tax cuts, crime and who was tougher on illegal latino immigration. Keeping liberal judges off the Supreme Court - you know, those Brown v Board of Education, anti states rights types, also rated a few mentions. There is another 50 years of Southern Strategy context you've cheerfully omitted that I won't even start on.
Modern conservative Administrations aren't famous for their enthusiasm for social equality, Craig. Elections have consequences, and if you want to win them, you need to think about your message as well as what your audience is likely to respond to. I'm certain that Obama and Clinton know this and put a lot of thought into how they would present their candidacies to the American people. The picture of high road you're painting defies reality in my opinion.
Having the Democrat win the general election is more important to me than which Democrat wins the nomination. The Democratic Party and its objectives are ultimately bigger and more important than either groundbreaking and worthwhile candidacy.
-
And allowing an invalid primary to stand is relevant to this exactly how?
It's not really invalid as such. The non-seating is a punishment that can and will be appealed. That's what the rules allow. It's also a punishment that went against the rules - the rules were to have only 50% not seated.
But it's only because the race is so close that this has become a significant issue.
Prepare another snide comment about your flat-lining outrate meter, because I think it's pretty sad.
After Hillary getting so much heat for the whisky drinking I really couldn't resist that one. Obama has spent the last two weeks drinking beer and playing pool in working class bars - but that's not the image he wants to send to Christians.
Is Hillary having to over-compensate to working class men for being a woman so different from Obama having to over-compensate on the issue of religion? You and Russell were arguing that Hillary's repackaging herself for particular audiences was just outrageous. Whereas I was arguing that it’s the sort of thing every politician has to do.
But isn't Bush a a complete bastard.
-
-
But isn't Bush a a complete bastard.
Hooray, we all agree!
-
__But isn't Bush a a complete bastard.__
Hooray, we all agree!
GW Bush, uniting liberals since, well ... ever, really.
-
Elections have consequences, and if you want to win them, you need to think about your message as well as what your audience is likely to respond to. I'm certain that Obama and Clinton know this and put a lot of thought into how they would present their candidacies to the American people. The picture of high road you're painting defies reality in my opinion.
WH, in my opinion, if you find the 'Republican attack machine'/'vast right wing conspiracy' (hat-tip Senator Hillary Clinton) so despicable, you shouldn't campaign like Karl Rove on steroids.
And please don't pull out the moral equivalence card on me, WH. Back in 1992, Michael Kinsley laid a brilliant bitch-slap on George H. Bush, which is applicable to Senators Clinton and McCain: "President Bush is nice enough not to want to be associated with a nasty remark but not nice enough not to make it. Lacking the courage of one's nastiness does not make you nice."
Having the Democrat win the general election is more important to me than which Democrat wins the nomination. The Democratic Party and its objectives are ultimately bigger and more important than either groundbreaking and worthwhile candidacy.
So, the ends always justify the means? Interesting argument, but let's hope we're not back here in six months bitching and moaning about how gutter-bound our election campaign was.
I'd also point out that rank appeals to bigotry don't seem to be doing the GOP any good. Three special House election defeats in the last three months, all in districts that heavily went for Bush in the '04 general. And even the most rabid theo-cons are bracing themselves for double digit losses in the House, and Democrats potentially winning a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Who's not in touch with reality here?
-
BTW, in one of those delightful moments of libraries immitating life I've just taken delivery of a shiny new copy of Andrew Sullivan's __The Conservative Soul__. Please restrain your snickers, because it's worth a look.
-
GW Bush, uniting liberals since, well ... ever, really.
It was just the right application of CRC that my sluggish Rage-O-Meter needed to send it flying up to 11.
Apart from the utter unfairness to Obama the whole debate about the Middle East is hard enough without crap like that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.