A merciful mid-campaign lull precluded the need for a “minus two weeks” thread, but things are well and truly picking up again now. Real Clear Politics’ Pennsylvania Democratic poll average has Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 47.4 per cent to 40.4 per cent, which is not as much as she would like. However, the most very recent poll from SurveyUSA puts it at 56-38 (UPDATE: Whoops, that’s not the most recent poll after all. There have been quite a few others since that have been around the RCP average). Statistical anomaly, or Obama’s elitist chickens coming home to roost? I report – you decide.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
1,655 Comments
I just so do love a New Thread… thanks William.
However, can’t believe someone as credible as you would quote SurveyUSA.
Bit like quoting Dennis Shanahanahanahan as an objective political commentator.
i’d be surprised if the elitist thing bites as so-called other scandals such as wright and michelle’s comments havent
How many of the elite have now attacted Obama as an ‘elite’, I wonder?
The Pennsylvanian result was always known, a Hillary victory but we all know she needs to win by 20+ to make any in roads in the delegate count…though Obama has put his foot in it of late.
Apparently Obama’s comments are all over US talk back radio. Seems to be running and running and running. I saw a Rassmussen survey on Fox that said 58% disapprove of comments and 26% approve. Seems to be a polarising issue.
Ah yes….Rasmussen…Fox commentator and Republican pollster of choice.
Big news in talkback radio land huh….well blow me down with a feather.
Meanwhile…Gallup has Obama up 10 over Billary nationally….and Temple Uni pollsters have Obama And Billary comfortably leading McCain in Penn.
Although the elite tag by itself is unlikely to hurt Obama there does seem to be an obvious move against Obama by some powerful players. I think that now Hillary is close to being out of the race McCain supporters feel more comfortable laying into Obama. It is not sticking yet but there is a long time to go.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5go2sy0SV4BVuekAPmo_FA8d21IXgD9027S7O3
The Quinnipiac University poll shows 50-44 clinton up. No change. No tsunami here.
The way the rest of the primaries go is simple (relatively):
Clinton will win (or should win, at least) the following states:
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Puerto Rico
Obama will win (or should win):
North Carolina
Oregon
South Dakota
Montana
The only really contested state left to come is Indiana (voting May 6th with 85 delegates at stake). Clinton is currently up in the polls there but by less than 5%. She needs to win Indiana (in addition to the ones I’ve listed above) for her to be credible at the Convention.
If Obama wins Indiana, it’s over (figuratively, at least). However, if Clinton wins Indiana and runs closer than expected in either North Carolina or Oregon, then she can credibly make a case to the superdelegates that she is the only candidate capable of beating John McCain. The general election polls support her – she’s beating McCain in both PA and OH and running close in FL (based on Real Clear Politics Average) – whilst Obama is losing to McCain in all three of those vital states (including by a large margin in FL).
For the record, my money (literally) is on Clinton to be the nominee – but that’s more of a speculator (she was @3.30 at that time).
Sean of Perth, your comment has been deleted. Put it on the other thread, which as you know perfectly well is where it belongs.
OK – my comment about Indiana being close atm is incorrect.
New poll just came out from Survey USA – Clinton 55/Obama 39.
Don’t know if it’s a rogue (gee, haven’t used that term since last November
), but it’s an increase in Clinton’s lead from 9% two weeks ago.
# Swing Lowe. You appear wrong in your assertion. Obama not losing polls to McCain in PA at Real Clear Politics
Hillary will win Indiana, she has the backing of popular Senator Evan Bayh.
If Obama continues to give the Republicans free kicks like calling small town Americans bitter for wanting guns and religion cos they dont have their jobs then the Supers may give it to Billary. If Obama is smart he’ll shut up and stop giving ammo to Billary. But if he continues to make a fool of himself and opening himself up to attack then Obama doesn’t deserve the nomination.
Daryl @ 8,
Good link. However, I would prefer to see polls later in the week once the full impact of all the publicity hits.
HarryH,
You give no dates or sources so hard to tell how reliable your figures are given the obvious change in momentum from even a few days ago.
Don’t need a feather to blow you over sunshine.
Darryl @ 12,
Yep – that’s my bad.
But I must point out that Obama is up 3.5% in PA against McCain, whilst Clinton is up 8.5%.
Someone correct me, but don’t the dems just need one state to fall? PA, OH, FL?
Diogenes #1138
A change of tack. I will genuinely accept as 100% intended.
Agree , simplcity is dificult complex phenomena but will try.
My first reaction to Friscogate was compassion and not political.
The comments were not confined to a few ‘redknecks’ but to hardship “working class” peoples throughout the mid west. Alot of battlers few of whom are ‘redknecks’. Peoples who have a harder life than ours who did not need public exposure & denigration of their & their childrens hardship lives. The embarassment to them & their kids will linger long after all Pollies have moved on.
Obama I thought made a massive ethical/moral mistake for the above reason and he should have appologised.so yes I’m passionate in this context
My second reaction was political re POTUS , a politically foolish attack against not a few redknecks but many ordinary working class in the mid west.
The political errors were
1/ to insult the mid west which he needs to win POTUS and
2/ to demonstrate he is not only a northeast Liberal but that he is an “Elitist”. His political antennae filter must have been switched off because an elitist unlike an ‘Intellectual’ , is ‘not of them the masses ‘ at all.
Whether an elitist is understanding of their lifes & whether or not they have empathy apart from getting votes is questionable at best.
What an elitist certainly is is the belief they are in a superior class or elite to the normal person. To contrast , I think of rich , well now educated & successful people like late Dr Victor Chang , Dick Smith & numerous ’social’ Judges & the like who are the antithisis of an ‘elitist’
A normal pollies stand is rightly questioned. an elitist pollies more so.
3/ Kevin07 the man would never have said 5 such insults.Its a question of decency.For mine Obama is therefore not in Kevin07 class. (neither is Hillary)
4/ On compassionate & political grounds , I thought Obama should have appologised in full for all 5 insults , and could have added they were all ill chosen words in the heat of the campaign. Probably would have won more respect.
5/ Which lead me to think about the unfair (sometimes) gift of the power of brilliant speakers to avoid apologising on compassionate grounds to the innocent mid west working class and politically avoiding taking responsibility for a bad error of judgement by simply saying I got it wrong….if only once
I DO have reservations about Obama on other grounds and I have frankly expressed them before , but the above was the sole reason for the brilliant speaker comment and my belief the Pollie Obama , and I might add the Media , in time will ‘move on’ to another story but the human damage of public Nationwide ridicule remains behind
well, here’s a surprise.
The Howard lovers of old are out in force at PB, hating Obama.
I was actually getting quite comfortable with Grinch, Finns and even r/Ron, but now here’s Glen and the gang. (at least we haven’t had to deal with Tabitha- yet.)
The countdown is on, and this feels very similar to pre-November 24,:
when the majority was right, despite the best efforts of a vocal and extreme minority.
Calling someone elite is the same ridiculousness as calling someone an intellectual. Has it occurred to people that the guy you relate to probably isn’t the guy who should be President, unless you yourself can relate to the Presidents job? I would consider our own 07 an intellectual, an elitist and even a prissy fop, and I would also say so far he’s made a damn good leader. I don’t think this sort of fawning over salt of the earth types promotes good leaders.
GG
Bothh polls i mentioned,Gallup Tracking and Temple Uni were from yesterday Mon 14 U.S. …sunshine.
seems like the elitist thing is definately been blown out of proportion, but, seriously, what the hell was Obama thinking. What a stupid thing to say, he must know anything is fair game
Erytnicam-
the point is that unless you can personally relate to the POTUS, (and her/him to you) then they are not worthy.
Hence, Ronald McDonald for POTUS.
Or, for the “intellectuals” – Kerry O’Brien.
And for the sexually obsessed – Paris Hilton.
Andf for the concerned conservationsits – David Suzuki
And for the lesbians-kd lang
and for the Catholics -the Pope
In other words, unless the candidate is part of your group then you cannot support them , nor can they represent you.
What a lot of bunkum.
Erytnicam @ 19
I agree, it if for this very reason I think a powerful minority at the top are out to get Obama. There is no way a story like this plays in the general press unless there is motive behind it.
Jen I can’t relate to any of those people, and hence cannot be lead.
Jen,
Fair suck of the sav.
This is a political blog and there are bound to be differing opinions. Personally. I welcome all contributions. Even the ones I disagree with. I might learn something. I might alter my perspective. I might change my opinion.
However, I never want to get between you and a corflute of John Howard.
HarryH,
How about some links, feathers.
William
1. What does “the most very recent poll” mean as opposed to “the most recent poll”?
2. The Survey USA poll you linked is from 5/4 to 7/4. There have been seven polls on RCP since then. It was done before the Elitegate fiasco.
Jen is Margaret Thatcher’s gimmick account and she is performing the worlds most almighty troll.
Hillary is a fake, a fraud and the worst actor I have ever seen.
How people can bring themselves to support what is clearly a conjob of magnificant proportions astounds me.
Hillary will do and say anything to win the primary. For someone so gungho about going into Iraq it’s a laugh and a half to see her now telling us what a bad job GW Bush is doing in Iraq and how she’s the candidate for bringing the troops home.
Give us a break Billary
Grinch-
that is f#cking hillarious.
You so do not welcome differing opinions. You go all out to silence dissent, although some of us with snorkels have survived.
And what I could do to Johnny on a coreflute is only limited by your own imagination. Mine is boundless.
Diogenes ,
the least I expected was ‘drivel’
Hi LaborVoter,
And your point is?
Sunshine
I thought you’d know your way to the polls page on http://www.realclearpolitics.com by this stage.
Andrew @21
what he said was actually true.
Jen,
“You so do not welcome differing opinions. You go all out to silence dissent, although some of us with snorkels have survived”.
Room of mirrors time for you, my friend.
Erytnicam@28-
not sure how you got there, but goddamn it,you caught me sweetheart.
(Might be the hairdo…)
Grinch_
ceilings??
Jen, in a way Andrew is right, because Obama is clever enough to know that he shouldn’t come across as being so damn clever. For 8 years we had someone who pretended to be a fool, then turned out to be a fool, for once it might be nice to have someone play the fool and then turn out to be a leader.
But you must take care jen, hasn’t the society for women expelled you for taking up arms against your fellow sisters?!
nah, mac-
I fight on an equal footing. there are women i do not admire. Hillary is among them.
Listening to PBS News Hour tonight, one thing is clear in Pennsylvania. The struggle between Obama and Clinton has raised the level of interest in Presidential politics there considerably. Registration of Democrat voters has skyrocketed in many areas of the US. If these new Democrats across the States can get behind the eventual nominee then McCain could be left standing.
On a related matter, Voices Without Votes are interested in Australian bloggers who post regularly about US politics. If you have suggested sites, please let me know through my blog: Labor View from Broome or contact them direct.
There are women to whom that notion would be seriously, fundamentally baffling. The “I don’t chose Hillary because she is a woman, but because I am” category. The one that assume opposition to Hillary amounts to misogeny. The it’s her turn group.
The catwomen.
The problem with Obama is he is looking more and more like a phoney. The latest is of course Bittergate. Obama likes to pride himself as the new voice that understands and unites America. What “Bittergate” has shown is that he does not understand America at all, especially the so called “middle america”. People and the media now are starting to see through this via Michellegate, Pastorgate and now Bittergate. The Obama Holy Trinity.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama Wasn’t Just Insulting Pennsylvanians
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:20 AM
Obama doesn’t understand a great deal of America. He has no experience with it other than as a politician looking for votes, and even that experience outside of Chicago has been accumulated only since he began his run for the U.S. Senate in 2003. His life has made him keenly aware of urban dysfunction and of African-American issues even as it has exposed him to the Third World in a way that very few American officials have been.
But he is blind to what makes most American communities work. His family experiences and his work experiences have never immersed him in the majority of America that not only functions but indeed thrives. His projection on to that America of his own beliefs — that odd mix of the beliefs assembled during his very unusual childhood, in Hawaii’s most privileged school, on Chicago’s south side, and at Columbia and Harvard Law School and Trinity’s congregation– has opened a lot of eyes to just how different Obama’s vision of America is.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/476297ad-3801-43d7-a670-bb68b3f58741
my work is done tonight.
But for those of you who have missed it:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Hi Jen,
Am I the Fred Astaire of PB?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac6o8PXthzQ
Finnigan, that just looks like another episode of “He ain’t like us”
Im a bloke
Just thought I’d clear that up for Finns
Grinch-
you do look a little like Fred Astair.
And I look like Ginger Rogers, minus the red hair and sensational legs.
Go Finns,
“The problem with Obama is he is looking more and more like a phoney.”
This is the question the SDs must address. Who is the best chance to win in November?
Is Obama really the best choice for the Democrats?
18
Jen
Jen, take pity, I mean, imagine having to hitch your hopes to Horatio Hornet, and watching the likes of Lord Downer of the Long Lunch and Pete Costello (the world’s greatest treasurer), reclining on the back bench.
And all the while, the PM strides the international stage and then comes home to appoint a capable and republican woman as Governor General.
Take pity Jen, look what’s left of them!
17 Ron
As often happens when the dust settles, I agree with almost all of your points. However, if you look at your arguments, they are all good reasons why Obama should not have said what he did. They are not arguments that what he said was incorrect.
I agree that it was stupid politically and that the rednecks don’t need to be further denigraded than they already are, especially by their probable next POTUS. But that doesn’t affect the veracity of the comments which I still agree with.
Were the comments true? Yes
Should he have said them (as a politician)? No
As someone who is continually in conflict with others due to my self-destructive compulsion to tell the truth, I am on Obama’s side for actually being intellectually honest. It’s a sad day when we attack our politicians for telling the truth and applaud them for being hypocritical, which is what I consider Hillary’s criticism to be.
Finns
may I suggest a term like Friscogate or better still I’m sure you or others here can probably improve on ‘Friscogate’…anything but ‘bittergate’
‘bittergate’ is an attempt by obambotics & friendly Obama media to imply ONLY ‘bitter’ was used by Obama in San Francisco
There were 7 slurs put in 5 categorys…. ..guns , religion , antipathy to anyone not like them , prejudical , anti immigrant , anti trade AND ‘bitter’
Obama should be accountable for all 7 San Francisco slurs ?
Oh come on Grinch and Finns –
you cannot seriously believe that Billary are the best option.
That leaves McCain or Obama, and I am going to trust in your Labor principles that you could never support a Repug.
So get with the groove, boys. And hope that he is up to the job.
(wouldn’t you just be terrified if you were he?…)
Poor ol Ferny still trying to prove his manhood
*slides Ferny a cold beer and a pie n sauce
#51 Ron, 7ups?
Gawd….now we’re having an argument over what kind of ‘gate’ it is.
IT’S FREAKIN’ BORINGGATE!
The lack of anything to report has reduced us to this
#52 jen – thought you have drifting off to your dreamland. Obama is now Fcuk. So who is still standing? Our gal, Hillary “Annie” Clinton.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=3161&rendTypeId=4
It seems that Obama’s lead over Clinton in the Gallup daily tracking poll has widened since his empathic articulation of small town America’s frustration and bitterness at 30 years of economic decline and politician’s lies that they will restore America’s heartland.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Numbers-Holding-Strong.aspx
“It’s a classic Washington scandal. We screwed up by telling the truth’” – CJ on West Wing
Once again West Wing art imitates life
For those PBs who are interested in voting for/against Hillary in this newsmax poll
http://polls.newsmax.com/hillary/?p=1&promo_code=48C0-1&gclid=CO_Lz7OI3ZICFSMaagodbzFb_A
Ferny ,
7ups-gate is big news in every media.
It is only boring to those who already have a complete committment to Obama.
Thats like saying core Hillary supporters are entitled to say all negative Hillary news is boring. The blog reasonably has to work both ways
56 Finns-
In the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan-
“jousting sticks? – tell ‘em he’s dreamin’, “.
Night all.
x.
57
TurningWorm
Looks like the punters might have decided that it’s boring-gate as well! LOL
Ron, the nonsense of debating which ‘gate’ this should be is boring to those of us who are committed to substance.
Here is an interesting take on Obama’s responses to gaffes: “Barack Obama’s counterpunching style”, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html.
The writers argue that
I don’t agree with the take that he immediately counterattacks to the detriment of all else when on the backfoot – his two noticable dangerpoints in this campaign have been during Wright (when he hit the ground then rose with a defining speech) and post ‘bitter’ (when he has attacked as well as clarifying intent). BUT he has been successful at directing and responding to attacks while seeming largely above the fray. This is something that Clinton has constantly been arguing that he will be unable to do against the Republicans. Seems to me he’s doing pretty well against quite an attacking machine.
it’s kinda like all the “disasters” in Rudds campaign…you know…strippergate…burkegate…heinergate….reingate.
these negatives don’t stick with the voters unless their is substance to them….you know…like voting for the Iraq War or somethin
#25 GG
‘Fair suck of the sav’ great to see some people still use our great Aussie dialect.
If the best the US can come up with is Mc Cain, Clinton and Obama for POTUS candidates they are in real trouble, strewth!
Mc Cain= warmongerer
Clinton= dishonest, untrustworthy
Obama= All style no substance
I find it spurious that whenever Obama makes a clear cut gaffe that the next day he comes out to face the media and then proceeds to claim to have been misrepresented and he didn’t mean his comments to be taken a certain way like he did nothing wrong. What baloney!
Just for the record I’m no Clinton backer, and the only reason i was glad to see her win Ohio and Texas was to prolong the Democrat brawl. But i don’t have the time for Obama’s preachy rhetoric….
McCain is looking less tainted every day, and when he should have no chance of winning he is looking a good bet come November. As much as it is over for Mrs Clinton she’ll not back down after all she can argue she’ll have 47-9% of the vote, but Obama will get it in the end.
64/65
You’ve both put this thing in perspective, and for the tedious trawling over an offhand remark to get so much attention speaks volumes of how little substance there is in this campaign.
Clinton is suddenly Annie (git ya gun) after years of being anti-gun, and it makes you wonder what she will not do or say for votes. Talk about patronising!
At least Obama’s made a point: the white working class has been baited on guns and god by Republicans and look at all the good its done them.
Hard to argue with that.
Hey, that’s politics Glen. Like when your old boy repeatedly got his ‘q’s and ‘n’s mixed up on the back of Ira…
Also, just for the record (and largely in response to some of the moralising above) you’re all aware that the remarks were made at a private fundraiser in a supporter’s house right? They were recorded by a blogger, Mayhill Fowler, who then posted them on the Huffington Post. This does not excuse the stupidity of the choice of Obama’s words, or the fact that he should have realised that there is no such thing as a ‘private event’ these days (though no reporters were invited), but this was not a stump speech or anything similar. And, as previous speeches of Bill Clinton, and the notes of meetings by Harvard academic Theda Skocpol with the Clintons have since illustrated, the Clintons share these exact same opinions. The politics and fallout are of definite interest, but dissecting the ’slurs’ and the rest of it are a bit rich.
If I was an American voter I often wonder who I would vote for considering voting is not compulsary. I would probably vote for Obama but with no enthusiasm, I certainly wouldn’t help in his campaign or donate money to his cause. At least in Oz we had a real choice and Kev has been a sh*t hot performer so far
What’s interesting is Hillary suddenly attacking not only Obama but Gore, Kerry and now Edwards too! Is this pure suicide on her part? Maybe she knows Gore and Edwards are about to endorse Obama?
Progressive,
What is the common thread between Gor, Kerry, Edwards and throw in Howard Dean.
They are all losers.
Tying Obama to losers is the theme.
Progressive
Edwards was always going to endorse Obama leading up to the North Carolina primary…if needed.
Kerry has already endorsed Obama.
Sounds like Gore and Carter are getting ready.
But no worry….Annie Oakley is still blazin away
Both Gore and Kerry carried Pennsylvania.
One more big state like Ohio or Florida would’ve done it for Kerry. For Gore, any state (big or small) would have sufficed.
GG
i actually agree with you.
these losers endorsements do nothing for Obama electorally. He is running against the establishment and is doing it beautifully.
the only thing it might do is force her to quit…but even that is debateable.
“The struggle between Obama and Clinton has raised the level of interest in Presidential politics there considerably.”
This makes me wonder that if it is Obama’s presence that has increased this interest in politics then will they all stay home in disappointment and disinterest on election day if he doesn’t get the nomination?
I am also amazed that McCain is the best the Republicans can come up with for head of the USA. I don’t believe he is as stupid or easily manipulated as Bush despite the bomb bomb rhetoric.
The whole bunch seem much of a muchness except maybe Obama. But will it make any difference to Australia who wins?
76
HarryH – Sorry but no body runs against the Establishment…
Obama is just a part of it like Clinton hell anybody who is anybody and got into D.C is part of the establishment. Obama takes money from oil companies and is bankrolled by wealthy elitists and Clinton is backed by the Democrat top brass who are nostalgic of the Bill Era.
Politics is a dirty game and to say Obama is immune from the ‘politics’ of Washington is ignorant.
The first question one must ask ones self when weighing up a candidate is to ask what types of things must this person have done to get to where they are.
The only person that comes close to not being part of the Establishment is McCain and even he is not clean either!
Since I’m not eligible to vote in the US elections, my sentiments are really absolutely irrelevant. But if was entitled to vote, I wouldn’t take exception to Obama’s philosophising (a very elite pastime if there ever was one) about white trash, guns, god and alienation. Bitter ain’t the half of it, I’d imagine. Down the bottom of the food chain in small-town America, people have reason to be very sore indeed. And if was one these people – gawd I am almost white and I am trashy in my own target-shopping way – I would feel truly deeply repelled by Hillary’s nakedly hypocritical and bilious burst of indignation. She is vile.
I saw Obama for what he was at the start, a phoney. I came very close to switching sides, enamoured by rhetoric on his videos etc
But its a whole load of baloney, he uses words, but theyre so cliche and so sucker up politician-ish its makes me wanna throw up.
Yeah Hillary lies and stumbles, so does everyone else, she’s got the brains and the experience
I just see Obama as some guy who’s good with words and acts like he’s some sort of saviour of America.
Kina….will it make any difference to Australia?
I guess not. A republican might be better on trade and agriculture. A democrat might be better on foreign policy and the environment. In a more general sense, any POTUS that can unify the country, fix the government’s finances and keep the US out of any more stupid wars would have to be good for everyone, including us.
Glen @ 76, you really are just a troll.
How much, and from which oil companies?
Or is just small amounts from individuals who happen to work for oil companies?
As far as I can tell, he takes in between $30M and $50M a month, ‘long-tailed’ – that is, lots of small donations.
From what I can ascertain (google is your friend) he has taken a total of about $215,000 from people employed by oil companies and no money – because it is illegal – from oil companies directly.
Glen
well bugger me Glen….here was i thinking Obama was running as the anti establishment candidate. But thankfully you are here to set me straight.
Maybe you can email the Obama campaign to let them know that nobody can run as anti establishment.
Oh and thanks for letting me in on the secret that no candidate is ACTUALLY anti establishment. Your enlightenment is staggering sometimes.
The plebs are smart enough to know though that if THEY fund Obamas campaign and Big Money and Pac Money fund Billary and Bomb Bombs campaign, then they are in with a chance with Obi.
Peter it has been discussed on early forums about the companies who have given money to Obama and individuals associated with the oil industry.
Peter we live in a Democracy if you consider people who voice an opinion different to yours as trolling you obviously don’t support free speech!
Glen – more trolling and misdirection.
How is calling a spade a spade, and a troll a troll anything remotely like a free speech issue?
You are caught out. He takes nothing from oil companies, and next to nothing from employees of oil companies.
Money from oil company employees are not making a noticeable difference to the campaign. If you doubled their contributions, or removed them entirely it would make no discernible difference – the money is lost in the noise. He takes in millions a month, and those donations are not even rounding error.
PJN,
What is a “troll”? (Stupid question, I know, but the word does seem to be mainly used on this site as term of abuse against other bloggers, rather than having any precise definition that gives its use some point).
Guess who’s coming to dinner at 1600 Penn?
Suck it up Glen, Growler, Sean, Finn and Erytnicam (come lately)
You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, gentleman. The Kid’s just started to get warm.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/04/signs-obama-is-weathering-cont.html
Dyno – one could argue that by taking the bait, I have been trolled.
The admonition is “don’t feed the trolls” – a troll is a deliberate provocateur online – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Fine line between a “deliberate provocateur” and someone who just happens to have a contrary opinion, isn’t there?
SeanofPerth and Glen
Welcome to the site !
The Obama supporters average 10 to every 1 Obama doubter
your addition improves the odds abit
HarryH , be careful of defending Obama on ‘oil companies’ , I’ve got some info on Obama which is on the public record in his own words and can not be refuted
but Pastorgate and 7ups-gate have side tracked me
Dyno – Glen’s opinion is not contrary, it is provably wrong, and one suspects he knows it.
There is a world of difference between matters of opinion, and matters of fact.
Ron,
I am an Obama doubter, a Clinton doubter and a McCain doubter.
If Obi was a racehorse, he would have won the Triple Crown as a three year old. The Kid’s all class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing
Quote of the Day
“The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes. As a wise older woman who was talking to me the other day said, ‘You misspoke, but you didn’t lie.’”
– Sen. Barack Obama, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer, on his recent “bitter voter” comments.
Shut the bitter-gate, The horse has bolted!
EC,
He’s got the nomination, bittergate or no bittergate. Why the game goes on, I’m not sure.
Whether Obama’s victory in the nomination is a good thing, now that is something that the jury is still out on, in my view.
appologies Dyno , my oversight.
I was trying to encourage more diverse views here because the ratio here of
10 core Obama to 1 Obama doubter/Clinton supports could be improved with more diverse opinions and as a general doubtor welcome
But for all non committed Obama supporters there is a warning.
Some of the hardline Obama supporters operate as a wolve pack and have successfully scared off previous independently minded bloggers , so you need a thick skin and humour
As to ‘troll’ definition , Dyno , I do not know what it means and have avoided a dictionary and blithly assume its TLC …then smile
‘he would have won the Triple Crown as a three year old’
No hope , he can not go around corners.
Non cornered ? , try the Newmarket
Ron @ 90
Oh God please save me. this just keeps getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.
Ron has Oilgate tucked up his sleeve until Pastorgate and Bittergate pass.
Diogenes @ 27: well spotted, I’d stuffed that up. Correction now added.
I’ve got a great idea. From now on, all comments that contain the word “troll” will go into moderation – from which they will be released very slowly, if at all.
Glen, a couple of months ago you were telling us Obama is an Al Qaeda plant. Now you say he’s the establishment’s boy. So which is it?
#90
Ron Says:
OK – lets call this one Rongate.
Come on – spill the beans but please back it up:
1. take care with your sentence construction
2. try to keep your initial pitch small and condensed
3. and link to some concrete evidence
After all – we don’t need another rambling episode of Sons and Daughters.
Oh , I missed your punchline of
“Shut the bitter-gate, The horse has bolted!”
He was leading well , his jockey was relaxed riding only hands & heels , the finishing post at Flemington was 300 metres away……
heavens , the horse himself has steped into the 7ups-gate pot hole
thats 7 smears worse that the bittergate one and the Stewards (SD’s) are
starting to mumble he’s p*ssed off the whole mid west , insiluted gun owners , and anyone who goes to a mainstrean church
perhaps he’s not up to weight for age class , cause McCain won’t p*ss them off
#102
Signs of bitterness?
LOL
For those not up to speed, Daddy has just cracked another job in media. He has been unemployed for some time and is divorced. The family has been struggling financially for some time and sacrifices have been made. His two daughters are gold medal smart asses(the action is Sep-side) and adore him, but give him an extremely hard time, although Daddy likes it that way. Petey is their pet pooch and the neddy is Danae’s alter ego.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=AsV7wqCAignH5xbCVjKMJ58VvTYC
The game goes on Dyno, because Brutusina believes she is the centre of the known universe but isn’t. And the Dem “brains-trust” havn’t the stones to tap her yet. Serious vino has been wagered on this very site as to the exact time of her drop-off date.
William #99 , you are the arbitrator & the boss without question
But I would like to leave you a thought to consider
You know I’ve never objected to being called anything. Perhaps you are responding to Glen’s comments but am not sure he was overly upset
My thought for consideration , is the more words you ban the more work you have and bloggers smarter than I will come up with similar words to circumvent your ruling and create more work. So may I respectfully suggest you leave a final decision under advisement
Junior Senator
I was actaully smiling when I wrote #102 thinking of EC steadfastly unwilling to reply , but realising others have walked home from a racetack having also lost their fare home
No, I’d say it’s pretty much settled, Ron. Thank you for your concern however. Those who “circumvent my ruling” will be warned the first time and banned the second. On a related note, I like most of what John Quiggin has to say about comment moderation. There will be no LP-style code of conduct/bill of rights here – I reserve the right at all times to exercise my powers as arbitrarily and capriciously as my fancy takes me.
#105
Ron
How about responding to my comment at #101? I’m confident that you do have something to back up your Rongate scenario and I’m just waiting here with baited breath.
Ron @ 105:
It seems to be the topic de jour… http://johnquiggin.com/
William – this is my last comment on this. Pennsylvania, here I come!
I’m not too keen on people demanding that other commenters respond to them either. In fact, I take back what I said before – I do have a bill of rights, consisting of one article: “Everybody has the right to ignore whoever they feel like ignoring”.
Peter, I should point out that you were far from the only offender – I had something to say about this subject earlier today as well.
no problem William
I read that John Qiggin link and the comment that astonished me was
“I’m no longer interested in, and no longer have time for, dealing with people who are rude and insulting, particularly if they are rude and insulting to me”
He was extremely overtolerant putting up with personal rudeness & insults !
Good night to you and all fellow pollbludgers
In light of Williams fist amendment – I hereby retract my request to Ron to get up front and personal as to his latest Xgate fetish. I accept Williams advice that I have no right to call Ron out irrespective of underlying track record, and I fully respect Ron’s right to abuse the English language, subject us to very long repetitive posts, and to alienate us from concrete facts.
William for POTUS.
Absolutely, Jen, he’s so big and strong!
Brutusina loses traction; shrinks accordingly:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/15/la_timesbloomberg_clinton_loses_traction_in_key_states.html
Morning PBs
Looks like “bittergate” may slam into Hillary’s face
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2189184/
There may be an upset result for HRC in PA
The “effete elitist” in a pique.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/a-meal-with-the-media-leaves-a-bad-taste/2008/04/15/1208025190070.html
114 & 115,
Other polls tell a different story.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/clinton-sees-opening-as-rival-stumbles/2008/04/15/1208025190064.html
#70 – Amigo, [Also, just for the record (and largely in response to some of the moralising above) you’re all aware that the remarks were made at a private fundraiser in a supporter’s house right?]
- you are missing the point here big time. This makes it worse. This makes Obama looks like a real phoney. saying one thing in public and saying another in private. This is from a candidate that promised a new way of politics.
Finns -
it’s not like he said they were a bunch of f*cknucle rednecks (which i would personally agree with, being an elitist and all), but he said things that were true, and showed an understanding for people who had been let down by the system. He didn’t say anthing so bad- this is a beat up, and it will go the way of all th other attempts to discedit him,such as Pastorsaucegate: ie: nowhere.
Finns, not really. It makes it crystal clear. Of course it was a stupid comment. But of course a duckshooter from Pennsylvania doesn’t think that a Chicago lawyer is like him or her. Or vice versa. This is a fact. AND if you want to make two sides here – an us and a them – then 100 million dollar Hillary is on the side of Obama (here’s a tip – keep an eye out for the gun control bill that is about to blow up in her face in a day or two’s time). The CLintons are on public record making the same points, as I note @70. This whole thing is gotcha politics by Hillary being pushed way too far, and she is only giving Obama an opportunity to present as the candidate who empathises.
jen – it’s not just WHAT you say. It’s HOW, WHERE, WHEN and to WHOM you say it. They are all part of the narrative. As I said before, Obama is losing the narrative war here, especially for Nov.
New ad from Obama – vaguely interesting – has the very recent bit where the crowd jeered Hillary talking about his comments in it:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/new-obama-ad-responds-to-bitterness/
Agree Finns,
It’s not always what you say, it is the way that you say it. The perception is that Obama is sniggering or mocking hard working families that are ‘doing it tough”.
Obama needs a lesson in empathy.
Finns-
when you say losing the war I assume you mean that despite the fact that he is ahead in all the polls and going to win the nomination and then go to town on McCain and become POTUS that he is in a bad position.
Jen, you need to see things through Clintonian eyes. Just cos hes winning, doesn’t mean he’s winning.
Pancho,
Love your misrepresentations.
It is more he is leading, but has not won (unless you can point to some breaking news somewhere).
leading, winning, potatoes, pot-ar-toes (actually I don’t know anyone that says that). But in the interest of civility, I reject and denounce winning. He is leading in all of those categories. In most cases unassailably.
Grinch-
if it was your Girl in the same position (which I might cruelly point out – it ain’t), would you be trying to paint her as in a losing position?
Come on guys – get with the groove.
Have done a bit of a trawl across the main papers in Philadelphia to get the flavour of the local MSM response to Obama’s elitist patronising of the glorious ‘common man” of middle America – the gun-totin’, god-fearin’ native wildlife killer demographic.
It hasn’t taken off like Hillary (the born-again beer swilling duck shooter) would like, by the look of the front pages.
In the Philly Post-Gazette there is even an interesting article suggesting a rebound on the Clinton attack – of a racial undertone to the accusation of ‘elitism’ against Obama, akin to the old-time concept of the ‘uppity’ black – the ones who didn’t know their place:
Good polls, Indiana:
Yesterday: SurveyUSA Clinton 55, Obama 39
Today: LATimes/Bloomberg Clinton 35, Obama 40
Swing of 21 points? Are they sure they are polling the same state?
On the back of polling showing the extended Wright saga and his handling of it has actually helped Obama (see the first link below), it looks like Hillary, again, cant take a trick. Her eyes light up, she telegraphs her hand, and the Obama campaign shut her down again: fold. Gotta work on that poker face:
Clinton losing traction over Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll16apr16,0,794499.story
“Her formerly double-digit lead is now just a five-point margin in Pennsylvania, survey finds. The reduced margin makes a win for her there less significant. She trails Obama among Hoosiers.”
Chatty Crowd Forces Clinton to Cut Speech Short
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/14/politics/fromtheroad/entry4014458.shtml
“PHILADELPHIA — Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand.”
128
jaundiced view
Like the song said JV:
We’re rednecks, we’re keepin’ the niggers down
…and Hillary is dogwhistling this tune. Kind of ironic really, when uber rich Senator Clinton starts calling the dark boy ‘elitist’, eh?
But as the Slate article so delicately put it, the punters can smell BS, and Hillary is getting quite an odour about her lately.
Looks like Thomas Jefferson was a Frazier Crane style elitist too. From the Post-Gazette Now News Blog:
JV,
That’s wierd, the post didn’t show up first time, so I thought it might have been the ‘n’ word!
I liked this blog, from a US site:
I would love to see a woman in White House. It’’s about time. However, not this one. It’’s most unfortunate for us women that the first viable female candidate is Hillary. If she manages the government the way she did the only two real big enterprises she ever handled – Health Care and this election, it will be a disaster. She will set back women years.
Hopefully a woman qualified on her own will emerge in near future, rather than someone on her husband’’s coat tail.
…that about nails it.
Gaffe In for the ron factory…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-b_n_96760.html
KR @ 132 – Which post was it that didn’t show up KR?
133
KR – the author wasn’t someone called ‘Jen’ by any chance?
137
jaundiced view
It’s now showing as in ‘moderation’…bloody useless system! I can’t see why, since the ‘n’ word was used last night.
It was a reply to your post 128. It’ll show up when William gets around to letting it out of the sin bin.
138
Ferny Grover
Very clever my fine frondy friend! No, but you can sense the shift of the female vote that’s getting a tad tired of her tricks. And of course it’s obvious that Obama did not run the Bosnia thing against her, yet she takes one inept slip and tries to crucify him with it.
Her character is showing, unfortunately for her.
136
codger
I watched that clip last night on the Daily Show and it’s classic Stewart. He rips the media’s childish preoccupations to shreds.
Hi Ferny@136 -
I did wonder whether I might have posted that in my sleep, but it appears other women share my sentiments.
If anyone wants to read about the sociological debate over who and what the white working class is in the US:
http://www.slate.com/id/2189011/
…it’s a lot less shallow than most of the vacuous crappola that fills the media void.
142
Jen, she was obviously channeling your thoughts! LOL
KR – Did the ‘n’ word finish with an ‘a’ or with ‘er’ ? That might explain it.
Yes KR – as I mentioned yesterday Obama’s silence re the Bosnia and other Clinton blunders is shown in stark contrast to Hillary’s shrill hypocrisy.
I have an American colleague where I work. She is a young lawyer, probably mid 20’s, spending a couple of years with her husband working here in Oz. Last time we spoke politics back around Super Tuesday she was a strong Hillary supporter. Nothing would sway her.
By yesterday she’d had enough. The lies and hypocrisy have beaten the support out of her. “I can’t stand what she’s doing to the Democratic Party” were her sad words as she told me she will be voting for Obama come November.
How widespread this leaking of her support is, time will tell.
That Stewart clip is hilarious
“Y’know, I hear what you’re all saying, but doesn’t elite mean good? Is that something we’re not looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates, come with me…I know elite is a ‘bad word’ in politics, and you wanna go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you’re appying for, if you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain. If you don’t actually think you’re better than us, then what the f@ck are you doing?”
147
Pancho
That was my favourite line too, and I just tried to think of what they’ll do with George W Bush’s head! LOL
Carve it into a bowling ball?
149
Pancho
Touche!
This ‘elitism’ concept deserves more consideration generally I reckon.
The anti-elitism thing we are seeing from Hilllary & Co is just another form of the idea that politics should pander to the prejudices of the ‘uninformed’.
This is the idea of pushing the buttons of the amorphous mass’s prejudices to get elected – the anti-immigration, pro-death penalty, gun rights talk-back type of prejudices.
This approach worships at the altar of ignorance. It polls to find out what the ‘uninformed’ voter’s attitudes are and panders to those attitudes for votes. It is the opposite of elitist, and it stinks.
It deliberately follows the masses, refusing to lead towards the light of good principle. It prefers to wallow in the worst elements of human nature. It says, “The idiots are right; more power to the idiots”.
It was the keynote of the Textor/Crosby Howard years, and it is clearly out and about in the US.
Wiki has as one definition of ‘elitism’ being of those “whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern ”
Isn’t that what we’re after?
Or would we rather someone from the ranks of the gun-totin’, god-fearin’ idiots? I believe the US is enjoying the Presidency of one of that focus group right now.
The idea that one of the most privileged women on earth (let’s not forget she was First Lady for 8 years), born into a wealthy family and who has spent her life surrounded by what for most of us is unimaginable wealth, the idea that she would accuse a black man from a working class background as elitist is so hypocritical and arrogant it is breathtaking.
I have said here previously that despite preferring Obama I have admiration for Hillary- not any more.
Oh the Finns, I used to be a Hillary fan, but you are sounding so much like the tories on here before the fed election, spinning and twisting all they could in the face of the polls and the political reality. I just hope that when Obama wins the candidacy you will throw your weight behind him and not be BITTER (the word of the moment). Remember the end game is to get a Dem in the White House, and I worry that Hillary supporters wont actively help Obama
The following online poll was linked in the article KR referenced at #143. It is a poll taken by the Pittsburg Post Gazette.
Of the presidential candidates, who is out of touch with the voters of Pennsylvania?.
Hillary Rodham Clinton – 4326 (41%)
John McCain – 1928 (18%)
Barack Obama – 3486 (33%)
Ron Paul – 120 (1%)
All of the above – 479 (5%)
None of the above – 94 (1%)
http://www.post-gazette.com/polls/?pollID=2467
and like Jen at 152 I did like Hillary initially but her tactics and arrogance are too much to bear. That said, she’d be an infinitely better pres than McCain
I do love it when you get worked up Jen
JS @ 154 whilst the Hillary lead in at poll is not surprising, I think the Obama figure would have been much much lower before the current debate. Maybe it is biting a bit. Voter after all are not that sophisticated
Thanks Ferny – a bit of passion in politics makes it much more interesting. (I’m off for a quick cool down dip in the PB pool!)
Going by the menagerie of malicious monolgues emanating from the Obamists this morning, this bittergate matter seems to have touched a few raw nerves. Obviously, Hillary has played this matter well if she has once again got under the thin skins of the “PB elitists”.
You must be doing something right if your avowed irrational opponents are floundering in their sea of bile. Go Hillary!
Yes Grinch-
indeed as the polls support Obama, and Hillary looks more and more disengenuous and desperate we are getting more alarmed- not.
You can’t honestly say that you think her fake southern-drawled Elma Fudd act impresses you.
GG – “menagerie of malicious monolgues” – magnificent my man! Better watch it with the clever alliteration though. People might think you’re a elitist.
Don’t care! I am not running for POTUS like Obama.
True enough Grinch. We would want the POTUS to be less educated and aware than your average PB contributor.
Jen,
Who is “We”?
Your diatribes against Hillary are becoming more hysterical by the post.
GG @ 162 – No, he’s not running – he’s doing it in a canter.
I remember us talking back in January about the amount of mud that would be thrown at Obama during the campaign. Some were saying it would be an avalanche of muck that he would be unable to withstand, and I wondered if that might be correct. But looking back on it now, what has been amazing is just how little there has been, and how well he has responded. When his opponent is reduced to trying to twist and magnify a few private words of truth into something to bash him with, it exposes this lack of any real ammunition against him. I can’t see McCain doing any better against him either when there are only blanks to fire.
‘WE” are the people that the POTUS will impact on – pretty much everybody in the Western world and beyond. Dont you want sommone above average?
As for “hysterical” – according to Freud it goes with the uterus.
Or else I feel strongly about Hillary’s behaviour and am pissed off at the ridiculous, trivial, bottom of the barrell trawling that the commentariat is focussing on.
‘
Obama paying compliments to Clinton
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/14/obama-says-hes-impressed-clinton-still-raising-money-despite-losses/
J/V #151
“This ‘elitism’ concept deserves more consideration generally I reckon.
Wiki has as ONE definition of ‘elitism’ being of those “whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern ”
This was the mildest definition & it still reeks with self arrogance/ self importance
Why not quote the other definitions. You’ve guted the meaning of the word as it has been applied to Obama & as it is generally understood to mean
How about : snouted snoby ,to believe belonging to a superior or elite class
What is really galling for ‘Elitists’ is not so much that Obama has been called one (as that makes Elitists proud) , but that ‘elitists’ publicly have been rightly ridiculed for their moronic arrogance of deluded self importance. Its here.
Being confronted with such public exposure is very discomforting to those tut tuting in the secrecy of a Gentlemans club looking down at the ignorant masses
The minority elitists here are having their own nightmare as I smile at the irony
Obama was foolish to ‘out’ himself , although his brand of elitism appears to be restricted to being a different class belief rather than the normal all encompassing elitiists repugnant attributes , so the damage will be far far less.
Interesting that ‘elitists’ pretend to be part of the ‘Intellectuals’ set to camoflage their more repellant characteristics but unfortunately for them ‘Intellectuals’ are not only clever but have a basic humanity base
GG, while I wouldn’t stoop to a cliche like pot and kettle, can I just put
“Your diatribes against Hillary are becoming more hysterical by the post.”
alongside
“menagerie of malicious monolgues”.
Eye of the beholder stuff I guess…
It really has been an amazing performance by Obama.
The nomination was Hillary’s at the start of the campaign.
But Obama has taken on the Clinton machine single handedly and given them a belting.
He has campaigned one out in every state while the Clintons have campaigned en masse…all 3 of them. Dispersing Hillary to one state, ex President Bill to another and Chelsea to every university in the country.
Obama has assembled a ground team that has put the Clinton team to shame…smashing them in the caucuses.
I guess having a message to sell helps too.
Hillary has been wandering around telling Democrats they should vote for her….well just because they should.
Well…Democrats are thinkers….and with the country in the shit state it is, they just think Obama is the better candidate.
btw Grinch-
which bit was Hysterical?
as opposed to the statement that we are “Floundering in out own sea of bile”. I’m happy for you to show me where I can match that statement of yours for overblown hyperbole.
A Freudian slip? or a deliberate slip for Barack Osama as it has sipped into the consciousness of the masses. Who is who? and What is what?
AP’s Dean Singleton slipped when asking the senator if he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where ‘”Obama” bin Laden is still at large.’
http://media.smh.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=37133
btw: #171, jen, ok, it’s me that is hysterical.
Finns, you ain’t the bad cop to GGs badder cop persona are you?
Pancho,
Playing the take me out of context game are we? Read the rest of the post which specifically talks about the vicious posts this morning from the Obama supporters.
As for Jen, she needs a new “schtik”. This, “I used to support/like/respect Hillary but she is now a complete “bitch” because she won’t give up and go away”, routine is becoming transparent because we have seen it so many times. Jen is probably only fooling herself with the confected outrage.
Pancho,
Playing the take me out of context game are we? Read the rest of the post which specifically talks about the vicious posts this morning from the Obama supporters.
As for Jen, she needs a new “schtik”. This, “I used to support/like/respect Hillary but she is now a complete “b*tch” because she won’t give up and go away”, routine is becoming transparent because we have seen it so many times. Jen is probably only fooling herself with the confected outrage.
Growler-
you can direct your criticisms of me directly to me – I can take it.
as for my “schtick” – it’s the reality for me. Not sure what yours is, beyond Hillary should be elected because she is Hillary. But there you go, we each have our reasons which I guess are always going to be ’schtick’ to someone who doesn’t agree. Or to you, anyway.
And you still haven’t shown where i was more hysterical than your comments to date.
You mean the contextualisation of the rest of the post like:
“your avowed irrational opponents are floundering in their sea of bile.”
It all looks like good sport to me – just making the point that it’s going both ways.
Jen,
It is the repetition. It is fairly plain that you never had any regard or respect for Hillary. That’s OK, but why the pretence?
The hysteria is in the way you ramp up the aggro whenever your Obama teddy is criticised or called to account.
As for me, I think there is a distinction between hyperbole and hysteria. I have also written a number of posts about why I support Hillary. Don’t see much point in the mindless repetition of the same thing over and over again. Do you?
Tennis balls always bounce highest on Thursdays
#173 – no. just an anticipating being accused of hysterical from you obamaphiles. btw: i have paid my due in advance, win or lose.
Grouch-
I too have posted many reasons as to why I want to see Obama as POTUS, as well as, and in addition to my loss of respect for Clinton, but you are choosing to characterise me using only that one – fair enough. It’s just not accurate, that’s all.
Not sure how you define hysteria vs hyperbole, but feel free to give me an example of where I was hysterical as opposed to where you just didn’t like what I said.
I think it may be the elitist label on Obama.
You see the ‘elitists’ are smouldering as we speak with my #168 post , to defend their principles such as they are but ‘out’ themselves in the process
or quietly figit at the public ridicule of their pompousness
I’ve noticed any intereseting pattern here on PB. It seems whatever Obama is accused of those of us who support him suddenly are tarred with the same brush – ie: naive, dreamers, and lately misogynists(!), and now elitists.
Which, if we followed the same logic would mean Clinton’s supporters were liars, embellishers, privileged, spoilt, delusional and really really bad losers. Of course that wouldn’t be fair.
Yes Jen,
It’s the same criticism Howard lovers used on labor voters (exept the misogynist bit)
You might have to be registered with teh WPost for this one…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502668.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Interesting though. Makes the point that the tumbling US dollar could have a beneficial impact on US exports (and therefore manufacturing). Just thought it was pertinent seeing as we are talking about PA and all…
Looks like predictions that the Bosnia flap wouldn’t play are incorrect. Huge dives in ‘honest and trustworthy’ scores:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html
186
Yo ho ho
That’s economics 101, and it is, to a small degree happening. But that’s the small timeframe. On the bigger picture, the US has moved out of manufacturing because it cannot compete with cheap labour elsewhere, and the percentage of blue collar jobs is falling. But now they’re also finding their ’service’ economy (mostly financial services) can be outsourced.
There’s also the relative movement of capital to developing countries and the inevitable decline in US living standards after a couple of decades binging on debt, but that’s for later.
Meanwhile, as the USD falls, all denominated commodities rise in price, and they are flat out increasing the money supply to inflate their way out of debt and driving down the value of their buck at the same time. Any (small) increase in manufactured exports is but a grain of sand on this beach I’m afraid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Basically argues that for Hillary to get elected, she must go negative. According to the author, the only way Hillary can win is to undermine the perception of Obama as electable with the SDs.
Jen , let me say absolutely I do not regard you as an ‘elitist’ and never have
Some of your ‘friends’ clearly are ‘elitists’ and its a pure coincidence that they and you happen to be on the same site and both supporting Obama
For the same reason , its purely a coincidence that there are also “Intellectuals” here supporting Obama on the same site that elitists’ here are alo supporting Obama.
On this site supporting Obama are a mix of supporters including the “elitists” ,
the ”intellectuals’ (who I incidently respect) and average people like you & me
As for you Jen , you wouldn’t even get past the “elitist” homes front gates , but for the moment your blogoshere fairweather ‘elitist’ friends find you handy.
I understand your support is a genuine equity belief in what Obama says,
which I understand , but its your unquestioned support that is surprising
My problem with your support is you do not make any real criticism of Obama when he deserves it on traditional ‘left’ principles. I think on those occasions you should criticise him but still be a firm Obama supporter (even though the wolve pack mentality of this site I admit makes it difficult for you and the
‘Intellectuals” here to do so)
If you want examples I’ll give them
Thanks Ron -
glad to hear I wouldn’t make it past the front aget of elitism .(who would btw?).
As for my unquestioning support for Obama you may be right, appart from the fact that i have repeatedly said that his evangelistic style, wearing religion on his sleeve and support for guns are all issues that I don’t like about him. Apart from that I have never criticised him(!).
You handy non-intellectual non-elitist, you, Jen
I know jv! – I’m so proud and thankful that some of you can put me to good use.
btw Obamabots-
when is our next secret meeting scheduled at the cubby house so we can plan our pack- mentality attack strategies on the poor unsuspecting individual Clinton supporters.
In the New Millenium Hegemonic Games, no one compares to Uncle Sammy when it comes to medalling.
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/51759
Wed. April 16: A woman walks into a bar……..
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=AoMBXeVdcPtJnhplFDUpqvTb.sgF
Wed April 16: The limitations of spin
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=AiEuJZa25COeQANhZK3MyOJT_b4F
Classic:
Shawn Erfman lives in a trailer park, listens to Rush Limbaugh and voted for George W. Bush — twice. Over the weekend, he heard all about what Barack Obama had to say about “bitter” Pennsylvanians like himself. And he’s mad as hell.
Not at the guy you might expect, though. “It’s f@cking true,” he said Monday night. “Everybody’s bitter for one reason or another. So they’re crucifying him because he spoke the truth? Cause he’s not saying something that’s going to suck up to people and kiss ass? Because, what, he slipped and accidentally spoke the truth, instead of kissing butt?”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/16/bitter/
Gee, i wonder if i’m one of Ron’s elitists.
And i wonder what my overall wearing, union rep Dad thinks about that. Or my footy club mates.Or my old print factory workmates in my 20 year job. Or my boss who i took on for 10 of those years as the union rep.
Ron, you have bought into this whole “elitist” strawman issue that conservatives all round the world have used to dog whistle people like you.
Using your brain is not being elitist.
How you can possibly line up Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama and come to the conclusion that Obama is the elitist just shows ignorance.
But then i guess…..ah why bother
hi Harry-
as an Obama supporter have you found me to be useful too??
I sure hope so…
JV at 165 how right you are. if what’s come so far against Obama is the best they’ve got (and I’m sure Hillary would not hold back anything) he’s got this thing sewn up. Reminds me alot of all the so-called Rudd controversies last year…
Another great essay worth a look here: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/15/20428/9669/878/496453
“…Barack Obama is the most gifted politician of his generation in either party. He’s not perfect, no one is. But he’s a singular figure in our politics for many more reasons than his unique name. He’s a guy who graduated Columbia University and left a job on Wall Street to work as a community organizer. He then graduated from Harvard Law and returned to Chicago’s South Side to register voters, helping turn Illinois blue and keeping his promise to the community he left. He worked tirelessly in the Illinois state legislature for eight years and he’s made, in the few short years he’s been in the national eye, speeches that will go down in the history of our nation as among our most memorable and significant. Since 2004 he has been our only African-American Senator and he’s the first candidate of color to be on the brink of winning the nomination of either party.
…I think Hillary Clinton is a smart, ambitious candidate who has already lost. If she chooses to push forward and does, somehow, win the nomination in Denver with a floor fight battle, I will certainly support her as the nominee and work to elect her.
But I also know that she will only do so at great cost to herself and our party. Clinton can only win by tearing apart the Democratic Party. Bill and Hillary know this. They needed to win Wisconsin and Virginia and Minnesota and Maine and Missouri and Connecticut. It’s too late for that.
Bill told us to “chill out” in San Jose. His wife then went on to launch a destructive attack on Barack Obama that continues to this day. I have no charitable spot in my heart for the utter hypocrisy that represents.”
Jen @ 198
i find most bloggers here useful, including you.
i learn from them.
others?….well………………
Not sure Jen but found the ron factory…
http://www.youtube.com/user/NObamaO8
Poor Billy’s worried about being a philandering footnote, when the actual first black president is in a position to do all the things he couldn’t. But I’m not sure telling kids they don’t understand is necessarily gonna win him the youth vote:
“”Older voters gravitate to Hillary Clinton because they’re too wise to be fooled by Barack Obama’s rhetoric, former president Bill Clinton told Pennsylvania voters today.
Clinton’s comments, to a packed high school gym about an hour north of Philadelphia, were one part presidential politics and one part legacy protection. His beef was with Obama’s contention that many of the problems facing the country today were simmering long before President Bush took office seven-plus years ago.
I think there is a big reason there’s an age difference in a lot of these polls,” he said. “Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”
“So I think it’s important that we get to the truth of this,” [Bill] Clinton continued, going on to compare his and Bush’s record on jobs, family incomes, and other measures.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/bill_clinton_ol.html
I find it amusing to see people on this site (and elsewhere) claiming that Hillary should step down for the “good” of the party.
Apart from the obviously anti-democratic sentiment underlying this assertion, what these critics fail to recognise is that Obama could (and probably should) have sealed the nomination already.
Obama has already had 3 key opportunities to effectively knock Clinton out of the race:
1. By winning in New Hampshire
2. By winning either Massachusetts, New Jersey or California on Super Tuesday
3. By winning either (probably) or both (definitely) Ohio and Texas
Yet when push came to shove, he couldn’t deliver. This is what worries me as a Democratic Party supporter – when push comes to shove against John McCain (the toughest Republican to face this year), can he deliver? The fact that he’s trailing McCain in both Ohio and Florida (by 11%+) does not bode well for him in November.
That said, Obama has 2 more occassions when he has the opportunity to knock Clinton out for good. They are:
1. Pennsylvania (unlikely, but it would be a definite KO)
2. Indiana (no idea given the polls that came out today – Survey USA says Clinton up 16, LA Times says Obama up 5 – but it’s the only “close” state left on the primaries calendar)
If he can’t seal the deal with either of these, real questions will need to be asked about whether Obama has the capability to deliver the votes when he needs them (coz you can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP will be doing everything they can to stop the Dems taking the White House – it’s the only thing they’ve got left…)
Swing Lowe
well said. Abit afraid there was too much logic in your blog for the hypnotised set to understand , so I guess they will be indignant at your suggestion
swing lowe, I dont think you can necessarily extrapolate the events of the Obama/Clinton race to an Obama/McCain one. I would argue that Obama has done an incredible job in obtaining the lead he has currently given what the polls were saying last year
Swing Lowe – ther is no way that Clinton would have dropped out after New Hampshire, given that she was running a ‘big state’ machine driven strategy which pivoted on Super Tuesday. There is no way she would have been out after Super Tuesday if Obama won one of the states you list. Clinton still held an overall lead at the time due to her super delegate advantage, and this would have remained even given one of those states.
It is not entirely correct of you to state that had Obama won either Texas or Ohio Clinton would be out – this is buying into the Clinton narrative that caucuses do not count. While Clinton won the vote in the primary, she lost the caucus. The overall delegate count had Obama up by 5. So taking the official yardstick into consideration, Obama did win Texas. However, you are right to say that had won both of Ohio and Texas, he definately could have put the heat on her.
The same will be the case if Obama holds her to say, less than 7 in PA, demolishes her in NC, then wins in Indiana. That will be the next yardstick, and if Obama can manage all that, get ready for another Clinton narrative shift.
This is an interesting piece about how Huffington Post operates. I am surprised that it has to “consider” what impacts would be on Obama before it decides to publish. It is exposed simply an extension of Obama campaign team and as partisan as it can be. So buyer bewares.
#204 – Ditto for the remaining SDs. if they are so convinced about the electability of Obama in November, they would have cut Hillary into pieces by now. It does not matter how the Obamaphiles on this blog like to spin it, the SDs are simply not convinced. And the longer the contest between Hillary and Obama lasts, the less convinced the SDs will be. Because Michellegate, then Pastorgate, then Bittergate and who knows what other Gates to come …. San Francisco, open your GOLDENGATE, You let no other Gates wait outside your door.
Deep Inside ‘Bittergate’
By Bill Bradley
It’s one of the great ironies of the campaign. The resolutely pro-Obama Huffington Post, the site Barack Obama chose last month to put out his statement on Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s outrageous comments, this month is the source of one of his biggest campaign crises……
It turns out that the momentous decision by Huffington Post to run this piece which would cause so much trouble for the site’s preferred presidential candidate was made in just a few hours last Friday morning, with Huffington weighing in via cell phone from the South Pacific…..
She had not, according to sources, been thrilled with Fowler’s earlier piece from the private fundraiser, with a cocky Obama saying he didn’t need a running mate with foreign policy expertise.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/deep_inside_bittergate.html
199 Andrew – Yes, Howard was forced by a cleanskin politician to box at the shadows of his own straw men, just like Clinton is. The electorate here remained resolute for change however, just as it is doing in the US.
202 codger – a beauty! How many more of those pages will be set up by November?
Compare that with EC’s cartoon at 195 “The limitations of spin”.
Jen – Have I told you today how useful you are? Slip out to the back fridge and grab us another beer would you? And a packet of those pork crackle things.
Swing Lowe @ 204- I love that ‘logic’. There is a clear leader in a 100 metre race at the 75 metre mark. But, the logic says, unless that leader wins by more than, what? – say 10 metres, or whatever margin you want it to be – the race should be awarded to the runner-up. Superb.
#204
Swing Lowe:
Texas total pledged delegate: 193
Obama: 99
Clinton: 94
Advantage Obama by 5 delegates.
Have basic mathematical rules changed all of a sudden?
Swing Lowe
Does that mean that Hillary has to win North Carolina to prove she can seal the deal?
If Clinton wins Penn by single figures , can you provide a scenario where it is credible for Hillary to proceed?
Do you think it is tenable to take the nomination from Obama in August if he has won the most pledged delegates and popular vote?
Swing Lowe
I don’t disagree with what you wrote. I think that had Obama won any of the states you outlined this would’ve been over. However, given that he still leads, it’s hardly a strong endorsement of HIllary’s campaign either.
Swing Lowe
Yo ho ho supplied an interesting link earlier in his #189
As of now , now Hillary has almost 50% split the popular vote of rusted on Democrats give or take 2% , and yet this is DESPITE Hillary being so disliked
and DESPITE the attraction of Obama’s attractive ‘message’ of hope/change
Any unbiased Democrat strategist (not a Clinton supporter) is going to horrified Obama has not done decisively better within the Democrat heartland , meaning a Democrat POTUS becomes less likely.
Therefore the SD’s will be very concerned about this. Additionally they will be concerned that Obama on current polling is going to have trouble beating McCain in some States that matter.
What 7ups at Frsco has exposed (to the MCain machine) is how to defeat Obama ,which Hillary has so belately now grasped. You do not fight the impossible , the ‘message’, you simply demonstrate what the man himself actually says whether its his silent condoning of the anti American slurs in Pastorgate or his alleged snoby views of other Americans at Frisco including disparing gun owners and those who hold mainstream religion ‘dear’ compared to his brand of whacko Wright religion.
The question is not how true this is but that Obama’s words imply they may be his views and that is enough to sew the seeds of doubt greater than voters distaste for Iraq aginst POW hero McCain
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Finns , ypu’ve done it again !….thew 7ups-Goldengate.
Ok – let’s try to take you guys on one by one (now I know how Glen feels on this blog…
)
Andrew @ 206, there is no doubt Obama has done an amazing job turning out what was supposed to be a “coronation” for Queen Hillary into a lead in the delegate count. But McCain is a very strong candidate – he’s well liked by independents, conservative Democrats and he will get the vote of most Republicans (even if they may not think him conservative enough). Obama’s mistakes during the campaign (i.e, the “bitter” remark and his links to Rev. Wright) will be brought up continuously by the Republicans during the general election campaign – is he strong enough to withstand these and win the states he needs?
Pancho @ 207, if Obama had won NH by the margin the polls were predicting (approx. 8%+), Clinton may have stuck around but almost certainly would not have won Nevada and she would have been annihilated in South Carolina and then Super Tuesday. If Obama had won California (especially), it would have put enormous pressure on Clinton to drop out and she would have been forced to make her last stand in a state like Wisconscin rather than Ohio and Texas.
JV @ 209, using that logic, does the fact that Obama is leading at the 75m mark mean the race should be declared over now. It isn’t over til it’s over – and it’s not over until someone gets to 2251 (or whatever the number is for a majority at the Democratic Convention).
And finally junior senator @ 210, yes, I am aware that Obama got more delegates in Texas. But, as I reiterated many times last year, in politics:
perception = reality
The perception was that Clinton won in Texas and that’s what she needed to do. If Obama had won the Texas primary, then it’s likely that Clinton would be under significantly more pressure to quit today than she is now.
In the end, whilst the delegate count is important, if neither of them get to the magic number (whatever it may be), the most important consideration is not going to be the amount of delegates won (unless Obama gets extremely close to winning it outright – unlikely at this stage) – it’s going to be who’s going to do better in November against McCain. At this stage, I’m saying Clinton – coz she’s doing better than Obama in the states that are going to matter in November (PA, OH, FL).
Ron – “As of now , now Hillary has almost 50% split the popular vote of rusted on Democrats give or take 2% , and yet this is DESPITE Hillary being so disliked
and DESPITE the attraction of Obama’s attractive ‘message’ of hope/change”
Interesting argument. But just shift your frame for a minute, and substitute ‘Howard’ for ‘Hillary’. I’m pretty sure he had almost 50% of the vote (give or take 2%).
Sorry, but you’re still on a losing horse.
#214 Ron your #213 link [After all, the superdelegates have the power to end the Democratic contest now and have chosen to wait. At the very least, Clinton has created enough doubts about Obama and his electability to have earned a chance to compete in the next handful of primaries] – simply confirms what i said at #208.
That the effing elephant in the room that the Obamaphiles here cannot and will not see.
Clinton had 1 key opportunity to effectively knock Obama out of the race, Super Tuesday. There was no plan B, no thought of a strategy after Super Tuesday as Annie Oakley was going to be the presumptive nominee once she gave those dreamers a reality check.
This revisionism about Obama’s failure to knock Clinton out of the race amuses me. It’s been a handicap race from the start and the little Obi that could has overcome massive odds to topple the slickest political machine in the US.
#215 – SL – [now I know how Glen feels on this blog] – what about us, the three amigoes, Finns/Ron/GG? We have taken more blows than that guy took from Barry Hall, but we are still standing.
Turningworm
You make a fair point. The cliche remains that it was Hillary’s to lose. And she has not done well.
But as Swing Lowe said perception=reality. The Clinton camp is doing a better job as setting the agenda around his inability to ‘knock her out’, even though he is the underdog.
No matter which Democrat gets nominated, there’s another 6 months of this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaTdhmzxnz1k&refer=home
…corporate bankruptcies on the rise. Distressed debt is everywhere, and the picture for refinancing in Chapter 11 is bleak to say the least.
Come November this will be a dark cloud over America, it will touch eveyone’s lives, and it will be a time for bitterness, lots of bitterness. So, if you can, imagine John McCain standing up there and sprouting Bush’s economic and foreign policies in this cold and gloomy climate.
The US is headed down a spiral of foreclosures and bankruptcies like it hasn’t seen in generations, and all the while the price of everything they import will be going up, and up, and up.
Bitter? The US is about to turn into a freakin’ lemon!
SWING LOWE
Hope you do not go the way of some departed bloggers , allowed the ‘wolf pack’ of Obamabots to scare you off just because you offer a diverse political opinion backed up by logic
You need not only your logic here , but a thinkskin and humour (to smile at their alleged unbiased attempts to kill off all dissent from their messiah) and enjoy
The Clintons have done a woeful job of everything.
The only reason the SD’s and the Party haven’t knocked them out yet is because of who they are. They are the Head Honcho’s of the Party with favours owing aplenty.
The Democratic voters have already delivered the knockout punch.
HarryH,
Clinton does not have to win NC to stay in the race.
Why? For the simple reason that everyone expects her to lose (and lose big) there. So if she can get the margin to under 5%, she probably comes out on top in the expectations game (but that’s debateable).
For similar reasons, Obama isn’t expected to win in PA (as I said if he wins there, it’s all over), Kentucky, West Virginia or Puerto Rico. Clinton isn’t expected to win in South Dakota, Montana and Oregon. That’s why the only competitive race left is Indiana.
And I can see a very real scenario where Obama has a plurality of delegates and a higher popular vote and still not get the nomination – it’s where Clinton is doing better than him in key states against McCain. Remember what the purpose of superdelegates are – to nominate the best candidate for the Democrats in November, not the candidate with the most popular votes (as an aside, this system was initiated to stop Jesse Jackson from becoming the Dems nominee in 1988 – this worked, except they ended up nominating Dukakis instead – who got thumped by Bush I in November…)
Swing Lowe – “it’s going to be who’s going to do better in November against McCain. At this stage, I’m saying Clinton – coz she’s doing better than Obama in the states that are going to matter in November”
Sorry, but that aint right either. Electoral vote sites are showing either candidate level vs. McCain, or Obama ahead of Hillary vs. McCain.
At the moment http://electoral-vote.com/ has:
Obama 237 vs McCain 277, 24 ties
Clinton 240 vs McCain 298, 0 ties
And http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ has:
Obama 256.5 vs. McCain 281.5
Clinton 238.4 vs. McCain 299.6
I disagrre Yo ho ho. The perception I am hearing from the US is that Hillary is a lame duck who cannot win the nomination and who is damaging the party by remaining in the race and going negative on Obama.
Ron
i hope Swing Lowe stays too.
we might get some reasoned debate on here…not rambling, inane monologues.
Problem is that we are in 21st. century and false or inaccurate perceptions and the propagation can be very easily show for what they are. The reality is that this race is about delegates, and as you note – neither delegate will archive the knock-out number. But what we do know is the Obama will be at least 100 pledged delegates ahead, will have won more states, and will have the popular vote. But I agree that perceptions will play into the superdelegate thinking – perceptions that Obama has run a brilliant campaign, stated on message, remained calm and presidential thought the race, is considered to be more trustworthy than Clinton, and viewed as someone more likely to bring America together.
Oh gosh – its difficult isn’t it!
Pancho,
I take your point.
However, I have to admit that despite the quality of the Electoral Vote site (and it’s brilliant), it’s electoral college vote calculation methodology leaves something to be desired.
The first problem is that it uses only the latest poll (singular) in that state to allocate the electoral college votes for each candidate. This results in some odd looking maps – for example, Electoral Vote has McCain winning NY against Obama (thanks to a Marist College poll), but tying in NC and losing North Dakota (which hasn’t been won by the Dems since 1964).
The other problem is that it is slightly out of date – recent polls have put Clinton over McCain in Ohio, but on Electoral Vote, she’s still losing to him by 5%.
That’s why I prefer the Real Clear Politics Average for particular states. And on that basis, she’s doing better than Obama in OH, PA and FL (but not in WI).
I wasn’t aware of the FiveThirtyEight site, so I can’t comment on it…
Swing Lowe-
I don’t agree with you, but your reasoning is good.
However I am a bit sick of the accusation that those of us who support Obama are wolves hunting in packs. For God’s sake! We are simply people who prefer him as the candidate and say so, but there appears to be a conspiracy theory that we all get on line together to attack other views. It’s rubbish.
However, if you find that it is true please say so, as I respect your opinions.
Cheers,
Happy arguing!
Junior Senator,
Those very well could be the perceptions of the super-delegates – in which case Obama will become the nominee
Alternatively, the perception could be that Clinton has showed resolve in tough situations, has delivered when required, has won the big states that matter come general election time and has the temperement and experience to handle a fully fledged Republican assault.
The perception also coud be that Obama hasn’t won a state (apart from his home state of Illinois) bigger than Georgia in the primaries (15 electoral votes) whilst Clinton has won CA (55), TX (34), OH (20), FL (27), MI (17), NJ (15) and probably PA (21). It could also be that Obama doesn’t have the “killer” instinct when it comes to delivering political KOs to his opponents, that he’s too (dare I say) elitist, urban, liberal and inexperienced (both in terms of campaigns and policy) to win a general election against a war hero who has 25 years of experience in the senate…
Arianna Huffington:
By cynically twisting Obama’s comments about small town voters in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party, Hillary Clinton has adopted the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth. The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She’s burning down the village to save it — or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won’t be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants: Hill and Bill.
…so, McCain can go on holidays because Hillary is reading the Karl Rove playbook.
My wife doesn’t understand me anymore. She refuses to sleep with me because she says I’m “elitist”. Says I lack the common touch. Told me all she ever wanted in the sack was action, not conversation.
“Our bedroom is not a library or a salon”, she said. “Talk is cheap, you can do it at the barber shop. If you really care about our relationship, you’d drink International Roast coffee like normal people, start watching footy again and take me line-dancing occasionanally”.
So we’re getting cable and making Fox our “Home-Page”, and tuning in regularly to A.M. talkback radio. Blogging in our open-plan living area is no longer an option.
My old man always used to say, “son, velvet handcuffs are the strongest form of human bondage.”
Now, after all these years, I finally geddit!
EC: “Honey, will you pop another 6-pak in the ridgy-didge while I have a gander at the Nascar racing.”
It life’s little compromises that count. Tonight, I’m on a promise.
Swing Lowe
What about the overall anti Obama demographics in States that count ?
you were quite generous to pancho there Swing Lowe , both of his examples showed both Hillary & Obama losing anyway.
What he should have argued and did not for obvious reasons are there are now massive demographics generally that Obama has upset or who overwhelmingly support Hillary:
BUT the SD’s will be worried about Obama upsetting off:
the Jewish vote
the hispanic
the gun supporters
the traditional mainstream church goers vs his whacko Wrights Church
the patriots vs the anti american slurs
anyone who looks at someone differently
working class in the mid west
the over 50’s Democrats (conservative either about a black or a northeast Libera
the anti ‘elitist’ …the tag WILL be remebered by alot
the independent females eeing Hillary as a trail blazer beaten by a damn man
and laugh , but alot of females think she had the ability & was female
Finns , have I left out a demographic
Swing Lowe, I am sure that those are the perceptions of Clinton supporters as I’ve read them about a thousand times before on other blogs. The problem is, they are not shared by a majority of Democratic party members.
Don’t worry Kirri -
it appears have woken up to crappy politicians after 8 years of The Village Idiot-
appealing to base fears and prejudices won’t cut it this time.
Swing Lowe
I agree with the possibilities you have outlined, although I should note that I see the prospect of superdelegates overturning the will of the people a very unlikely scenario. Instead – I see the party coming together behind Obama and pulling out all of the stops for a really historic race.
Kirribilli
“By cynically twisting Obama’s comments about small town voters”
even when the words come out of Obama’s own mouth in full and uncensored , you glibly delude yourself they were twisted ….pathetic
Swing Lowe, against all that, any hypothetical path to the nomination for Clinton would have the SDs who have gone to Obama over Clinton at a rate of 6-1 since Super Tuesday (although admittedly that has recently slowed) saying to the African-American community ‘thanks for showing up, good work with the winning, but we’ll take it from here’. And while no candidate will reach 2047 (as things stand) without SD votes, Obama will have 50%+1 of all pledged delegates.
A Clinton nomination would also require the party to turn their back on the record numbers of young people engaged in the Obama campaign, who in turn have broken records with their enrolment numbers this Primary season. The party would also likely be cutting themselves off from off the revolutionary grassroots fundraising organisation that currently exists within the Obama campaign.
In addition to this they would be voting against Kennedy, Richardson, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Carter and probably Gore. I honestly can’t see any realistic way that all these things will happen, and have not seen a realistic hypothetical for a Clinton nomination presented anywhere within the past month or so.
#232 – KR – noted that Arianna Huffington is one of your unbiased “approved” commentators. keep it up.
Look (this is to all),
The whole point of what I’m saying is that Obama leading in the popular vote and the delegate count isn’t going to be (or rather, shouldn’t be) the key determining factor of the way the superdelegates vote at the Convention.
The superdelegates have a responsibility to the party as a whole – and that responsibility is to elect the person who they believe has the best chance of winning the general election in November. If the GOP nominee had been Huckabee, then the superdelegates could have decided by tossing a coin (either Clinton or Obama would have trounced him).
But against someone like McCain, the decision cannot be so flippant. We don’t know what the polls will look like by the time the convention comes around – but it is frankly naive and stupid to suggest that just because Obama has a plurality (as opposed to majority) of delegates, he is automatically entitled to the Democratic nomination. The reason why superdelegates were included in the Convention was for this particular purpose (see my comment about Jesse Jackson in 1988 above) – it is their duty to vote for the candidate they consider as the better chance in November…
Pancho #216
Ron – “As of now , now Hillary has almost 50% split the popular vote of rusted on Democrats give or take 2% , and yet this is DESPITE Hillary being so disliked
and DESPITE the attraction of Obama’s attractive ‘message’ of hope/change”
Interesting argument. But just shift your frame for a minute, and substitute ‘Howard’ for ‘Hillary’. I’m pretty sure he had almost 50% of the vote (give or take 2%). Sorry, but you’re still on a losing horse
Ron says:
Pancho , that is not a comparative analogy.
The analogy in an Australian context would be a notional plebiscite of Labor core supporters between Rudd vs say a Swan or Gillard
If Rudd has the ‘message’ and Swan or Gillard were strongly disliked yet got 50% of the labor faithful vote , the electability of Rudd would be questionable
and more so if Swan or Gillard had better polls in the crucial marginal seats
Over to you ?
Ron – I agree to an extent, I have presented a false analogy. But so have you. The ALP does not have year long public plebiscites on its leaders that captivate international attention. But I hardly think that is the point I am making. According to RCP, Obama leads the popular vote by 2.6% (not counting Florida) or 1.4% with it. The leader wins, even if the margin is just a whisker.
Swing Lowe
what you are correctly saying is the Democrat Party (and its Sd’s have an
over riding responsibility to have a Democrat POTUS
Therefore they must pick the candidate who is more likely to win
IF that means overlooking Obama , bad luck those Democrat Primary voters who JUST in % terms on the popular vote favoured Obama
It is not the SD’s role to vote for Obama If they believe he has a less chance of winning and risk giving POTUS to the Repugs
Swing Lowe, nobody is arguing that the party shouldn’t choose the candidate who will have the best chance of defeating McCain. The debate is between Clinton and Obama supporters over just who that candidate is. Clinton supporters around here tend to phrase their posts in a way that sound absolutist in their tone which is bound to offend obama supporters here and cause an avalanche of responses.
A quick history for the Gen-Y on winners and losers of POTUS.
1980 – Ronald Reagan vs Jimmy Carter (Liberal, loser)
1984 – Reagan vs Walter Mondale (Liberal, loser)
1988 – George Bush Sr Vs Michael Dukakis (Liberal, loser)
1992 – George Bush Sr vs Bill Clinton (bad man, liar, winner)
1996 – Bob Dole Vs Bill Clinton (Impeachable, womaniser, winner)
2000 – Geroge W Bush Vs Al Gore (Liberal, loser)
2004 – Geroge W Bush Vs John Kerry (Liberal, loser)
2008 – John McCain vs Barack Obama (Ultra Liberal, Goldengater, loser)
2008 – John McCain vs Hillary Clinton (Another liar, Six shooter, winner)
Turningworm @ 244,
Fair enough (I haven’t been following this site for a while so I don’t know how true your comment is
)
Clinton is currently up (and I’m repeating myself) in FL, OH and PA. She’s also up in NY (where according to Electoral Vote, Obama is losing) and in WV.
Obama is up in MI, WI, MN and WA – the only problem for him is that FL, OH, PA and NY equal 99 electoral votes whilst MI, WI, MN and WA equal 48 electoral votes. Even if you throw in Texas (where Obama is down by 1 to McCain), that’s still only 82 electoral votes – and these are all key states.
Of course, things may (and probably will) change as we get closer to the Convention. We shall see…
I agree Pancho neither are good analogys.
What I am saying is the core responsibility of a Party is to win POTUS above all else. That is the SD’s function (or should be)
You may well be currently an Obama supporter , but if you concluded Hillary who you object to (for all the sound reasons you may feel justified in believing) ,
was signifiantly more likely to be elected, surely an SD in the intersts of the
Democrat Party would vote for her instead of your preferred Obama
RATHER than having the Repug Repugs get the POTUS ?
I suggest to you this is the reason why SD’s have not finished off Hillary because of those doubts. Frankly whilst you disagree probably with the impact , I think 7ups-Goldengate will increase those doubts of electability
Further , some SD’s who did commit , may now be having some doubts
EVEN a 1% Hillary win in Penns will further consolidate those doubts
Finnigans
a quick history for you
Iraq War:
McCain Yes
Clinton Yes
Obama No
Recession:
Republicans Yes
Democrats No
Very different year this year. As Billary is finding out now…and Bomb Bomb will find out later…..Dog whistles aint gonna work.
Swing Lowe – Your scenario is just possible, but I don’t think it is at all probable, for all the reasons Pancho canvassed at 238, unless there is a major Obama ‘car crash’.
A further factor that the SD’s should – as they obviously have been – take into account is the very reaon Obama has the majority of pledged delegates. That is bacause Obama in the voters’ eyes is the best candidate because he represents the best opportunity for change – and even Republican voters want fundamental change. He isn’t a dud candidate.
The remaining super delegates aren’t a single mass considering its options. The SD’s have been coming out in a large majority for Obama for all the reasons outlined. Plus Hillary has some real heavy baggage.
But, having said that, there will be a change in the overal dynamics and there should then be a big overall lead to the Dems over McCain, once they get their damn candidate nominated at last, in my view.
And that should be sooner rather than later to avoid their potential lead being eroded.
In that sense it isn’t a race so much as a boxing match. The Dem referee needs to stop the fight when one candidate has suffered a TKO – that is, is so stuffed as to be unable to come back and win. Where’s the point in taking it any further? That may be as soon as Penn for Hillary.
#248
Ron
There is ample evidence of superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama, but I have not seen any cases of superdelegates switching from Obama to Clinton. Any chance you could provide some evidence to support your suspicion?
Swing Lowe,
Even Michael Dukakis managed to win New York in 88 by 4 points, and every Democratic candidate has won it by at least 16 points since. It doesn’t matter who’s nominated, the Dems will win New York, and the GOP will win Texas, regardless of what any polls are saying at the moment.
Re Swing Lowe
TurningWorm #245
“Swing Lowe, nobody is arguing that the party shouldn’t choose the candidate who will have the best chance of defeating McCain”
You may have blind sided Swing Lowe with that comment & incidently impplied somehow he was siing with the ‘devils’ of bloggers , but I certainly am not going to let you get away with that sanctimonious nonsense
Most of you Obama supporters have absolutely said Obama is the only candidate and the only candidate because of his ‘message’ you’ve all said plus that hillary is unworthy , a liar & any other denigration most of you guys could think of. You have never suggested if Hillary was more electable , she should be the SD’s choice. Frankly very ingenuous at best Turning Worm
Whereas I have frankly voiced concerns at both , but as a Obama doubter on elelectability & suitability grounds I think he represents a risk to the Democrar Party & risks givinfg POTUS to the Repugs
“bitter”…it’s a word, get over it.
What a tawdry beatup it all is. And the dullards swilling this tosh have the gall to call anyone who wants to yawn at it an elitist?
Give me a break, this stuff is infantile.
229 Swing Lowe The http://www.electoral-vote.com site has been very accurate in the past, check previous elections on the site. It is updated daily with the polls.
Kirribilli #254 we are not worrying about you precious dears at the moment.
By the way Finns made it 7ups-Goldengate…
7 slurs not one , just so you get the maths right
In America, when candidates and media treat voting adults like rubes, “elitist” kids get lawyered-up.
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080415_i_know_you_are_but_what_am_i/
Chris #255 ,
yes it is a good site & I don’t think Swing was suggesting to dismiss it but they naturally do have to rely on some value judgement which is difficult
My blog #234 lists some of the demographics Obama has serious problems with and alot of them are in swing States where when mcCain is finished exploiting them means problems for Obama. Hillary seems to have a more solid base on which to try to win the difference in States needed
All the attention lately has been on the Dem candidates’ gaffes. McCain will make gaffes too in the gen. election campaign. His age will be a big issue, particularly if the Dems nominate O.
H is much more divisive; her negative ratings have been above 50% for the entirety of this campaign; that doesn’t sound terribly electable to me.
O has done a great job in cutting down H’s big lead leading up to Super Tues. Losing ST 50.2-49.8 in total votes was much better than expected, as he was down by double digits leading into that vote. His crushing wins in the 2 weeks following ST established his current 163 pledged delegate lead.
If it’s O vs McCain, why shouldn’t O’s great primary campaign carry through to the general? I think O could rapidly turn things around in those states once he’s the official Dem nominee. He’s run an excellent primary campaign against a candidate who was hugely favoured; there’s every reason to expect him to easily out-campaign McCain.
Bottom line: O vs McCain – O by landslide; H vs McCain – too close to call.
Ron, my apology. i spoke too soon: #208 [Because Michellegate, then Pastorgate, then Bittergate and who knows what other Gates to come …. San Francisco, open your GOLDENGATE, You let no other Gates wait outside your door]
Daddygate?
Long-lost article by Obama’s dad surfaces
By: Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner
April 15, 2008 05:05 PM EST
Barack Obama’s dad was such an important but absent figure in his life that he devoted his first book, “Dreams From My Father,” to the search for details about his father’s life and how the quest helped forge a son’s identity.
Now, a long-forgotten essay written 43 years ago by Obama’s father has surfaced, and its contents reveal much — not only about the senior Obama’s grasp of economic theory but also about the iconoclastic politics that, his son would later write, sent him into the spiral of career disappointment that concluded with his death in 1982 in his native Kenya.
Parts of the article, titled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” have been making the rounds on several small blogs over the past week, but Politico.com is now, for the first time, reproducing the entire piece in its original form.
The article, with a loaded term in the title and a casual discussion of socialism, communism and nationalization, has raised the hackles of some anti-Obama conservatives who have been discussing it online. Greg Ransom, a blogger who unearthed the journal at the University of California, Los Angeles, library, calls the article “the Rosebud” that provides the missing key to Obama’s memoir. Ransom wrote about the article’s contents recently in a posting with the provocative headline “Obama Hid His Father’s Socialist and Anti-Western Convictions From His Readers.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=51418214-3048-5C12-00D20AC776ED4E67
#234 – Ron – another apology for responding late – [Finns , have I left out a demographic] – yes, yes, yes, the Asian Votes. Do not underestimate the Asian votes. Let us just say, like Obama’s granny, they are AFRAID of the Blacks.
#260
The Finnigans
OK – so, let me get this straight, Obama junior was 2 years old at the time the paper was written. So help me out – how is this relevant?
256
Ron Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Kirribilli #254 we are not worrying about you precious dears at the moment.
that’s classic, you calling me ‘precious’! LOL
You go on, and on, and on with your mangled expression and think we actually read it?
Like Jen said, it’s tedious.
Don’t worry, though Ron, we ‘elitists’ will get over it.
#262, it’s the narrative, dear boy, the narrative. [“Obama Hid His Father’s Socialist and Anti-Western Convictions From His Readers.”]
so now Obama can’t win because his daddy wrote an essay 40 something years ago – like I said before bottom of the barrel scraping. Imagine the time and effort they are putting in to dredging up this dross. They’ve got Nothing on him.
Imagine if he started on Hillary- looks like he won’t need to though.
259
Lord D
I think you’ve nailed it: Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to turn his low numbers into a winning position, and Hillary has frittered away a monumental lead down to almost nothing, and all the while she’s trashed her credibility.
How anyone thinks that Hillary’s performance has been inspiring I do not know.
As for McCain, well, if it’s OK for Camp Hillary-here goes: McCain addressing a crowd with “audicity” and then correcting himself with “audacity” is going to remind people of Mr don’t ‘misunderestimate’ me. He is NOT a good speaker, never was, and he shows signs of being a bit wobbly now, so god help him come November.
Oabama will run rings around him, just like he’s done with Hillary Clinton.
a tap dancing elitist from the leafy suburbs clutching at straws….how quaint
263 #Kirribilli Removals Says:
“that’s classic, you calling me ‘precious’! LOL
You go on, and on, and on with your mangled expression and think we actually read it? ”
you NOT only read it but quoted from it.!
Do you realise how circular your question was.
Or was it that you ‘out’ yourself as an elitist’ that you are really embarassed about
thanks Finns , will add the Asian vote …perhaps 2% of the Electorate
Lord , suggest you look back at Chris’s site.
A landslide ?
Can you list the ‘red’ states
#267 – another Barry Hall
Hey Ron – it’s medication time.
your Obama research is magnificent Finns and the Obamabots look forward to it as it makes them so happy…what a giving person you are
@ 271 junior senator – ha! that’s right – We need Nurse Ratched to administer the dosage. Which reminds me:
Hillary has often been compared with Nurse Ratched
Lord D @ 259,
I say this as a true Democrat – Obama v McCain will not be a landslide. That said, Clinton v McCain will also not be a landslide.
McCain is the most moderate Republican nominated since (at least) George H W Bush and possibly going back to Gerald Ford. He has strong crossover appeal to independents and conservative Democrats. He is a war hero, considered very principled (very rare nowadays) and has shown a willingness for bipartisanship. All of the above will help him in November – he’s no pushover by any stretch of the imagination.
His weakness (primarily) is economics. He can’t do much about the current economic situation, but he can fix his policy weakness in one of two ways:
1. Appoint a popular Governor from a state that is performing strongly in economic terms (eg, Pawlenty from Minnesota, Crist in Florida, Sanford in South Carolina or possibly Jindal in Louisiana)
2. Adopt an economically populist message (i.e, anti-NAFTA, pro-subsidies, etc.)
I honestly don’t think the Iraq war is going to play against him as much as you think – primarily because he’s John McCain. He’s been consistent and people “know” he will be strong on national security.
On a more pseph level, he seems to be doing quite well in the mid-West and he’s holding the South. If he pursues the Bush 04 strategy, he should be quite well placed…
#273
jundiced view
I guess Parker is right because according to Swing Lowe perception is the new reality.
268
Ron
If anything is addressed to me, as in having KR at the top of it, then I’ll usually do the author the courtesy of reading it, although I must say, there’s been a few posters through here that haven’t always been deserving.
And so yes, I read that post.
As for the other page-long exercises in tiresome moralising, I avoid them like the plague, except when I feel the need for amusement, I’ll read a paragraph and just try to visualise you typing away, thinking yourself so very clever, when the truth is Ron, you have a serious problem with the English language.
Amusing, yes, but that’s about all one could say of the reams of tripe you post.
That’s it from me, since you asked.
junior s @ 275
Here’s another pearler from journalist Paul Mulshine from his 1998 column in the “Star-Ledger ” (paper in Newark, New Jersey).
Are these the people with whom Hillary drinks beer and shoots ducks? :
274
Swing Lowe
Your appraisal of McCain is not very well informed by the facts. Going back to the Keating Five, McCain has been up to his neck in it.
As for ‘moderate’, his Imperialist view of US hegemony is as uber-rightwing as anything the Neocons dreamed up.
He is reknown for a foul temper, and dissing fellow Republicans. “Maverick” is a euphemism, in case you didn’t know.
He’s dissed the religious right, then warmly embraced them the second time around…man of principle?
He’s bolted onto supply side economics and lowering taxes until the deficit makes their eyes bulge out. But hey, that’s ‘moderate’?
Are we talking about the same McCain???
re 277 & 273 Mind you, those journos with the old quotes are both unpleasant right-wing warriors, but the sentiment is more universal now.
Swing Lowe
i think you have way too much confidence in McCain as a candidate….not as a person, but as a candidate.
He is 73, he has admitted he knows little about the economy, he IS Iraq, he is following the Idiot Son and half his base hate him.
Overall in the National Polls Obama is already beating him and Democrat NEW registered voters are going through the roof. These are terrible signs for him.
And i don’t quite get your argument that McCain is so strong with Independants so Hillary(who independants can’t stand) will do better than Obama(who Independants like).
SL
Another error: John McCain is adamantly free trade, and says so at every opportunity. Remember Michigan? Most of those jobs won’t come back is what he said.
As for ’strong on national security’ being in any way equated with buggering your armed forces in a war you cannot win, then you seriously misunderstand what the majority of US citizens want ie to get out of the mess in Iraq.
Stumbled across this in Wiki when looking up Hillary’s book “It Take A Village”
Does anyone recognise a pattern of behaviour in this, recently seen in the Bosnia fabrication, the Darfur assertion, and the others?
#274 – Sorry SL – [He is a war hero] – he is NOT a war hero. he is a war victim. there is nothing heroic about the Vietnam war.
277
jaundiced view
That’s truly funny; Hillary as Nurse Ratched! LOL
(Her book was truly awful, so I think the author has hit on something there)
Speaking of books, Bill’s was very good on all the interesting people he met, and he usually outlined their achievements, and his comment about meeting Howard? Well, basically “I met John Howard” …next subject! LOL He got that right, eh?
282 – last line not part of the quotation:
That is quite unnerving given the recent episodes she’s had, is it not?
Hillary Clinton is a pretender.
She pretends to be in touch with the “common people”, she pretends that her marriage to Bill and the name Clinton has no bearing on her success to date, she pretends that she gives a rats about the democrat party and she pretends that she wants to govern for the people of the US rather than for her own power and status.
And she pretends that no one has noticed.
The only question now is how long she can maintain these delusions. My bet is forever- back to the wooden stake option.
285
jaundiced view
It reeks of Hillary’s modus operandi, looking to aggrandise herself at every turn.
Nurse Ratched!
I’m still chuckling over that one…it’s so apposite.
Jen
I’ll bring the garlic!
Ok, a few things.
1. I’m a Democrat. I think the Democrats will win this year. But I don’t think it will be a landslide regardless of the nominee – this extended primary process has made sure of that.
2. When I say McCain is a strong candidate, that’s not just my opinion. It’s his current performance in the polls (as noted before, he’s leading both Obama and Clinton in electoral college terms on Electoral Vote) and the views of the American political commentariat (eg, CNN, Washington Post, The Economist – yes, I know that’s British, but it’s reputable enough…)
3. The Republican base may very well hate him BUT they will still turn up and vote for him come November (same applies to any disaffected liberals who don’t like the Democratic nominee). Why? Coz the White House is the only race the Republicans have a chance of winning this year and because Republicans would rather see McCain in the White House than Obama (too liberal) or Clinton (coz she’s Hillary).
4. Iraq will be a problem for him BUT it’s not going to be as bad as it would have been if there had been another Republican nominee. Also, the better the surge goes, the stronger McCain will get on this issue.
5. As I said before, economics is his weakest point. The problem is that he is “economically liberal” (in the sense that The Economist is an economically liberal magazine), but this means that he ends up sounding too pro-free trade for American tastes (though he would be an economic centrist in Australia). His support for tax cuts at the moment actually makes economic sense – America is heading for a recession and needs a fiscal stimulus.
6. The Keating Five was a long time ago. But we’ll see if the Democrats can make anything of it – I’m sure they’ll try but it didn’t seem to get any tractions from other Republicans in their primary process.
7. McCain’s strength with independents isn’t an indictment on either Democrat. I was just saying that his strength there makes it that much harder for either Democrat to win in November.
The more we learn about Obama, the more phoney he gets. He wrote a book for and about his father, and yet, he did not do sufficient research about his father’s writings. Rather odd. could it be that the title has scared him off: “Problems Facing Our Socialism”.
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html
Come on Finns @ 290 – the first paragraph of the link gives the game away – simple really; the commies are under Barack’s father’s bed!
3/10 See me. Must do better.
Welcome Swing Lowe to the debate. I have just read through your contributions today and agree with and have probably said many of the same things over the last few months (though nowhere near as clearly and concisely as yourself).
Good to have another voice of sanity added to the side of the angels.
Jen, KR,
Name-calling deleted – PB
292
Greeensborough Growler
Thank god you’re here GG, we were running low on gratuitous hate and had to improvise some.
You can take over now, it is, afterall, your forte.
Damn William, you beat me to it! LOL
KR: that’s ever so slightly rich coming after your own efforts at 254, 263 and 276.
lol at the talking head on Fox News just now indignantly asking the Republican analyst:
with all this brouhaha about Bittergate and Barack Obama’s elitist comments its staggering to see this mornings polls indicate that Obama’s lead is increasing nationally and closing the gap in Penn.
How can this be?..she squealed to the analyst
Anylist: I guess the public just aren’t watching us enough
bahahaha
haha. I love it
296
HarryH
The MSM are the elitists!
That’s the point that’s being completely missed. They fabricate issues from nothing, distort things, magnify them out of all proportion, and then accuse others of being ‘elitist’, when the truth is, the average person thinks this stuff is downright silly.
It’s a performance, orchestrated, calculated, and designed to manipulate opinion, but funnily enough, the public are actually sick of it.
I wonder why?
i guess Walter Kronkite and Ed Murrow were a tad more believable in their day than Bill O’Reilly or Wolf Blitzer lol
Yesterday, Stephen Colbert did a fine vocal duet, a cappella, of the Star Spangled Banner (he’s not just a pretty face!), and tonight he’s interviewed Michelle Obama. But the show concluded with a young trio, a black guitarist (ok, no Jimmy Hendrix) who riffed away on the national anthem, and then he and the bass player smashed their instruments.
Colbert, iconoclasm? Or what?
Newest Polls:
ABC News/Wash Post
Obama v Clinton Obama +10
McCain v Obama Obama +5
McCain v Clinton McCain +3
Swing Lowe
Have just returned after 3 hours and read your 2 blogs on McCain.
I think McCain’s age , his TV ‘presentation’ and his Oratory skills may be some disadvantage to him , hower overall you have given a fair analysis of him from a Democrat viewpoint. He certainly is more moderate in many respects than others here think he is , given he does have a general Repug philosophy
Again , I mention as I did after your first blog, diverse opinions are welcome abut as you saw from immediately after your first blog the some of the Obama supporters were quick to jump on you…usually there would be more , must be a quite night.
What you will find are some obama supporters who will rationally debate & you should enjoy such discussions
However there are other Obama supporters here who are snobby ‘elitist’ and another further Obama group group who only wish to stir trouble & be sniper type to throw their barbs in betweeen rational Obama supporters comments. Obama doubtors/Clinton supporters now respond to those 2 groups as well so as to minimise their effect on the blog….so suggest you ignore their & our responses to those 2 useless groups when we puti them in their place
From Crikey today (Subs required). More on Daddygate.
US correspondent Guy Rundle writes:
Yes here we go. Someone’s dug up and scanned in an article Obama senior wrote when he was a phD student at Harvard for what the Politico site calls the “obscure East Africa Journal”, though the publication was probably less so in … erm … East Africa. Entitled “Problems of African Socialism”, the article is a not too focused reflection on the crooked path of the the sort of third way socialism that was seen as the inevitable path for the third world.
Hoo-boy. Will it play as an issue? Are you kidding? Even if it’s pitched as a meta-issue – a Fox news debate on whether it should matter that Barack’s Dad was, if not a commie, then a pinko, or given the idea of a distinctly African socialism, a browno, or a pinko-browno, which sounds more like an 80s colour scheme. That’ll run and run on all networks…………..
Which is why one suspects that this ancient sheet now scanned in to the global intertubes will play, if it plays at all, as further evidence that Obama is fundamentally other, different, strange. McCain’s father and his father etc were admirals all the way back, and his ghostwritten family memoir was a Lifetime channel movie-of-the-week, whereas Obama’s family history reads like the outline of the next Wes Anderson movie.
It’s what made Obama who he is, whoever he is, but I have a suspicion that for all the fuss over him, enough of a tranche of voters have just never had any intention of voting for this bloke, and his support will collapse as soon as the campaign proper starts.
Finns @ 303 – haahahaha. Still, good point – all these Obama’s are clearly the same – have been for generations. Black on the outside, pink in the middle.
Ah, gotta love America – thank heaven the commie bogie has finally been unleashed. It was slightly unreal without it, knowing it would turn up at some stage soon.
Latest Odds on what might scare Swing Lowe away from the sep blog after Ron’s #302:
Obamabots : $2.80
Raving Elitists: $3.40
Ron’s Cuddling: $1.10
HarryH,
The overuse of the -gate suffix: $1.01!
obviously the punters laying money on who they love & respect
am overwhelmed HarryH , looks like you backed the short priced favourite as well
Finns ,
the message of your research is the background frames the first foundations of standards or prejudices
Latest polls from Political Wire :
Clinton ahead in:
Kentucky 62-26 (Survey USA)
Pennsylvania 46-41 (LATimes/Bloomberg)
Obama ahead in:
North Carolina 47-34 (LAT/B)
Indiana 40-35 (LAT/B)
Sth Dakota 46-34 (DWU)
Using these and the following assumptions:
* latest RCP polls where available
* giving Hillary 60-40 in all the remaining primaries
* giving Hillary 60-40 of the superdelegates,
We get this prediction from the Forbes calculator:
Obama 2038
Clinton 1989
Al ,
If each Obama ‘gaffe’ contained only one Obama political electability or POTUS suitability Obama weakness we could refer to that weakness by attribute
BUT there are so manyadverse issues exposed about Obama in each of his ‘gaffes’ , that one has to categorise them as “..gates”. For the Obama supporters generally their highlighting here is an embarassment of their man but the same reptitive negative Hillary info is also repeatedly quoted here and I do not complain , its all fair game except some Obama supporters only want it one way & that is not how a blog works
On the MSN in the same light , there was the absurd suggestion earlier the MSN are elitist. The person making it is elitist and was trying to divert attention away
from self inflicted ‘outing.
I think humans can be elitist ,but media can not. Media are mainly in the business of selling news , not just reporting it. Therefore Media target demographic groups primarily for sales & profit maximisation. The problem often with political media is it can be biased / influenced by the Owners or Editors and occasionally the journalists. If you do not like it do not buy it and in the US there is plenty of pro ‘left’ and pro right’ media to chose from. The Huffington Post is very pro Obama , I do no take offence & still read it with that in mind
adding gate to everything is so tiresome, and this latest Dad thinkg must surely be the absolute bottom of the barrell
re: McCain, he considered joining the Dems and being Kerry’s running mate. Surely the reneck conservatives will love this. They will not turn out for him. He has crossover appeal, but why would a democrat or indie voter want or need to cross over from Obama or Clinton
latest polls
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/poll-shows-obama-gaining-holding-steady-in-key-states/
The problem for Hillary is that the above assumptions on the unknowns are against the current trends. How does she stop the current SD bleeding and reverse the proportion she’s getting? How can she change the polls in the remaining primaries?
No, it’s over, I’d say.
I will comment on your blog j/v as its soundly statistically based.
their prediction Obama 2038 & Clinton 1989. thats 49
Believe its too pro Hillary in assumptions because Obama narrows in almost every primary due to his unique ground based network and so would expect Obama to finish with well over a 100 lead rather than 49.
Even if i happen to be correct , the SD’s are going to have to decide and the fact so many haven’t indicates in my personal opinion theyy have legitimate doubts on Obama’s electability in key states based on Poll over many months on one hand but their horror of a Party split on the other. Not that Hillary is guaranteed on the swing States Polls but she stands far better
A nightmare scenareo for the whole Party either way , when POTUS should have been assured
R/ron @ 313 – Please note that that outcome was the result of my input. I used the latest available polls, BUT -
I then skewed the input in Hillary’s favour by assuming she will get 60-40 in the remaining unpolled states, and 60% of the remaining superdelegates.
That scenario is most unlikely because she has only achieved something like 25% of superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and the polls are holding for Obama in the upcoming primaries.
So, even skewing things unrealistically in Hillary’s favour she would still end up well behind.
Where are these mysterious extra superdelegates coming from – I already factored them in. Are they breeding on an outer planet?
If the argument is that the remaining super-delegates have legitimate doubts on Obama’s electability in key states and the evidence of this is that they haven’t declared for Obama, wouldn’t the fact that they also haven’t declared for Clinton indicate they have legitimate doubts on Clinton’s electability ?
Kevin @ 315 – Exactly. But there is a colony cloning in large petri dishes somewhere in the outer solar system who will arrive to vote at the convention, apparently.
r/Ron – If you put in 50/50 for the remaining states for which there is no polling yet, and 50/50 for the remaining superdelegates, then the final delegate count would be (including all supers):
Obama 2084 – Clinton 1941
And again, how is Clinton going to get to that 50% of the remaining dwindling supers when she is getting nothing like that number now, and has not since February.
Even if she does turn it around to that very large extent and gets the equivalent of 50% of the remaining supers by the power of persuasion and maybe by swaying a few to change their decarations, she ends up 143 behind.
Need I add that 143 delegates in arrears is not enough to win? It’s more likely to be something like 200 in arrears if current trends continue.
Try it yourself if you don’t have the link:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election-oped-cx_jb_0227delegates.html
j/v
because of an argument that you probably do not agree with.
The 472 committed superdelegates have every right to become uncommitted. The lot of them if they wish.
ie Obama only has a 160 delegate lead and notionally in reality all 796 superdelegates can move for Obama or Hillary and provide either with a clear majority. This will occur if they think Obama is definitively likely to be less electable than Hillary.
On the Polls in key swing States she is more electable , before 7ups Goldengate which will put off more swing State voters including Ohio where he already did trail vs. Hillary (& if Obama was to face McCain there & he reminds them of Obama’s comments)
For the SDs ,this is not a question of not supporting Obama’s ‘message’ or of supporting the dislikeable Hillary , its the Party wanting to win POTUS whoever is the Candidate, rather than the Repugs winning it. This may upset those who wish to see a message’ Candidate be the csandidate
315
Kevin
Welcome to the twilight zone Kevin, where any innane assertion, without any evidence, can be put forward, no matter how illogical.
The fact that Clinton is behind, and cannot overtake Obama unless everyone starts hallucinating for Hillary, should not stand in the way of any silly proposition! LOL
KR at 317 youre spot on. Dont let maths stand in the way of Hillary-dreaming. Truly psychotic stuff
rRon
But show me the evidence that the 472 committed superdelegates want to change their minds. And what new element has occurred to change their minds? The word ‘bitter’, or the commies under Obama senoir’s bed? Sorry, no. And why do the uncommitted supers keep joining Barack in much higher proportions than they are joining Hillary? Are they thinking differently to those already committed?
Are all the superdelegates going to wake up one day and say “Wait a minute, I’ve been a silly person. I must renounce Obama and embrace Clinton.”
Let me ask this R/ron – will this political apocolypse you predict happen on a particular day at a particular time – is the time nigh? What’s your view on when the world will end?
j/v ,
I am giving you an opinion partly based on politicans & individual political Party’s power ambitions to get POTUS & deny the Repugs POTUS compared to political ‘messages’ based on principle
You believe in Obama (for whatever reason you do so)
You do not support Hillary (for whatever reason you do not so)
But MOST of the SD’s above all else are ‘politicans’/operatives whose principles generally extend as a priority to winning office , POTUS
IF Hillary by the Convention or before shows in the key State Polls to be clearly more electable then all 796 supers are up for grabs
(witness the axing of Hayden for Hawke for the same reason on 83 deathknock)
Their dilemma is a Party revolt, due to the delegate lead vs a more electable Hillary (if that was then the case)
You are assuming Politicians/operatives would risk forgoing power & POTUS and also risk giving POTUS to the Repugs , based on Obama’s message & delegate lead even despite Hillary (if it was still the case) definitively being more electable on statistical evidence in the key swing States.
When will this happen. As the Sd’s continue to watch the Swing State Polls and f Hillary continues to hold those decisive matchup leads in them over McCain compared to Obama, without which her bid disapates
r/Ron – What you are indulging in can be described in two words, with the following meanings:
1. dry stalk of a cereal plant ; 2. to take hold of, usually with one’s hands.
then why have not all those uncommitted Sd’s voted for Obama ????
BECAUSE statistically he will have to win the delegate numbers race
I just can’t see it happening Ron.
in the absence of my explanation , you should have an alternative explanation
BECAUSE both Candidates have been trying REAL hard to get them to commit
Another new poll would not appear to be bringing on the apocolypse for Obama, I’m afraid:
Very cute JV, I’ll leave a little clue:
G@S
…and maybe he’ll tell us when the world is going to end! LOL
324
Dyno Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 12:54 am
I just can’t see it happening Ron.
Dyno , I also did mention part of the other side of the coin of the dilemma the SD’s face. ie a Party revolt and consequently endorsee’s loss of face. but it has happened before. If Hillary continues to be more electable statistically in key swing States , the Party has a problem either way
j/v polls of Democrats against Democrats are irrelevant, its the swing States Polls vs McCain that matter
r/Ron @ 325 – many of the SD’s are elected politicians themselves. It suits some to wait a while. They might soon have to justify their endorsement of a candidate to their own electorate. It is easier to justify supporting a candidate with the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote overall, I would think. Some may prefer to argue that they should go with their own state’s vote, others might go against their own state – particularly if it is their last term. But what they aren’t is a solid bloc of like-minded people. They will just continue to line up they way they have been unless the apocolypse comes.
r/Ron @ 324 What – and Democrats:
1. believing by a margin of 2/1 that Obama is more electable than Clinton, and 2. having an unfavourable view of Clinton,
counts for nothing amongst the supers delegates? When Obama already has the lead?
I’d better bring in another cereal crop.
Obama’s lead in the Gallup daily tracking poll has widened another point today to be at 11 (51-40), this margin is the largest enjoyed by Obama this year.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106537/Gallup-Daily-Obama-51-Clinton-40.aspx
statistically they all know (and we do) Obama will win the delegate numbers race
The reasons you give are quite plausible up to a month ago
Since then the Party bleeding has become very serious
and DESPITE both Candidates trying REAL hard to get the remaining 322 to commit to stop the bleeding & unite the party , they have still not done so.
I suggest Polls showing Hillary more electable as the reason , which is a difficult proposition for all but the unbiased to contemplate.
Were the roles reversed , no doubt core Hillary supporters would not accept my contention either quite frankly. This is the difficulty with partisan political debating , which no doubt you would disagree with
g’night all – thanks for the discussion.
Oh dear, how about Schoolgate Ron?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/bill_clinton_ol.html
Ron, much as I think it is unwise to engage in any dialogue with you, where are these supposed polls “showing Hillary [is] more electable”? The polls support the opposite conclusion. Hillary is on the way down the chute.
Tworm @ 334 – before switching off I had a look at that link. Dangerous stuff from Bill . But just look at the comments below the article. The first seven are all anti-Clinton, as are most of the others by a quick scan. I particularly like blog number 12:
the discussion seems to centre around
j/v’s belief the 472 committed delegates will remain committed AND
that the remaining 322 superdelegates who have not committed have remained uncommitted because of j/v’s reasons (& will vote based on j/v’s reasons)
refer j/v’s blogs #320 & #329 blogs (which you should read collectively
(if I’ve mis-quoted , correct me)
vs
my belief the 472 committed could all become uncommitted & most of them and most of the current uncommitted 322 could vote for Hillary , giving her the nomination
refer my blogs #321 and #332 (which you should also read collectively)
Pity there are not any non parisan bloggers to give a review , but j/v seems to have a higher view of SD’s politican’s/’operatives’ principles than I do
Turning worm
Schoolgate ?
Some of your Obama friends do not like these “…gates”
Its Ok with me but Turning worm , if I use the terms , why should not you , fair enough , no problem at all
Schoolgate , Bill says
“When they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 o’clock at night, too.”
Guess you could make that into an insult of the aged , but he IS including his wife as well , so the credibility is almost zero for mine but the test for you is whether Obama thinks its got credibility & uses it in TV ads
Question Will Obama does use the quote in full ?
Blindoptimist
which polls are they & which candidates are being compared & are they National or by State
331# TurningWorm
Those Obama figures are incredibly consistent. Don’t they manage to produce outliers in the USA?
While superdelegates may be ducking for cover Bruce Spingsteen is stepping up and making his opinion public.
http://brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html
Oh – and Bruce has a special message for r/Ron …
Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water, a new survey of Pennsylvania from Public Policy Polling (D) gives Barack Obama a narrow lead over Hillary Clinton. Here are the numbers, compared to a week ago:
Obama 45% (+2)
Clinton 42% (-4)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/poll_gives_obama_narrow_lead_i.php
You got to love the man!
ROTFLOL
Kina, apparently Gallup doesn’t. This poll did manage to capture the trend away from Clinton after Super Tuesday and away from Obama after the Texas and Ohio primaries and the firebrand preacher revelations. It seems a pretty good guide to American sentiment.
Kina ,
Today I’ve had ‘discussions’ with a fair number of Obama supporters starting from Pancho & Jen and finishing with j/v , briefly Turning Worm & Blindoptimist and I’m sure more in between but I’m only the “B” team
The “A” duo team (undefeated) are resting.
Perhaps so should I for another day.
HOWEVER , for your consideration to assess (and Turning Worm & Blindoptimist who also made a point on these Gallup Polls at 14/4/08)
Obama leads Hillary 51 to 40 (amongst Democrats)
amongst all registered voters per the same Gallup Poll:
Obama leads McCain 46 to 44 and Hillary also leads McCain 46 to 44
So its the swing States each leads McCain that counts not the 51 to 40
goodnite all
#344 r/Ron said ..
Yes – there is a god after all.
Reuters – McCain even with Obama, leads Clinton: Reuters poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1619209020080416
Grow up, JS.
Bonjour Bludgeurs,
(Whaddya expect! I’m an elitist.) Geez it’s hard to get a good serve of Freedom Fries these days!
This week the anti-Obi elitist meme made the scene. But will it play?
“There is, of course, another reason why attacking Obama as an out-of-touch elitist would be a misguided strategy for the GOP. Obama knows what it is like to be black in America. He knows what it means to be poor in America. He knows what it means to struggle without succeeding, to be underestimated or written off. Al Gore may have been raised in a Washington hotel by a Tennessee Senator. John Kerry may have spent his formative years in elite private schools and living richly in France. But Barack Obama was raised by a single mother in a third world country, and has spent his adulthood on the Southside of Chicago. He and his predecessors are simply nothing alike.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/the-wrong-playbook_b_96918.html
So let’s see, shall we, how Obi handles the “out-of-touch elitist” slurs from Beltway Brutusina aka Senator Duck-Clinton in tonight’s (Sep-time) 90 minute debate.
As urbanity, wit and street-smarts verses shrill and grasping desperation.
Wed April 16: In the fullness of time, at the end of the day, the reality(show) is……
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/boondocks;_ylt=A0WTUchfPQZII4cAuRADwLAF
EC, love your work and couldn’t agree more. Enjoyed your previous post re Mrs EC.
Thanks megan, really appreciate it.
Wed April 16:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=AmrpWEVJJWCoyqie3mj6_qzV.i8C
Who we’re dealing with here. A man who moved from “paradise” so he could be creatively stimulated; a satirist for all seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_Miller
Morning EC and Megan-
Is it safe to come out?…
The polls appear to be amazingly positive for Obama: a lead in Pennsylvania when Clinton was expectd to take it by over 20 points is pretty damn good for the boy.
How much longer can she pretend?
with jam…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
If you were an SD what do you reckon you might be thinking today?
McCain/ Obama – Obama 0.6
McCain/ Clinton – McCain 2.6
and that’s before the campaign against McCain has begun.
I am looking forward to hearing from my fellow PBers how these figures, plus the decline in Hillary’’s lead in Pennsylvania puts her in the winning position, and indicates how unelectable Obama is. It’s going to be a slow day at work so watching the mental calisthenics required should be almost as much fun as synchronised swimming.
The longer this contest runs, the more Hillary’s standing decays. Her attacks on Obama are hurting her more than they hurt him. Hopefully, Pennsylvania will bring things to a culmination and the supers will declare for Obama. Once this happens, the bounce in support – voters naturally love a winner – will help Obama open a decent lead over McCain.
Can’t be long now..
Ron,
I thought your contribution and that of Swing Lowe added some real depth to the discussion last night. Congratulations, and keep up the good work.
It’s clear that Clinton is the only candidate that can win in November.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
Damn!
Thanks Ferny. I like good news with my yoghurt and muesli.
On the reasons why some SD’s have not come out of the closet yet, it is not because they have doubts about who they will support. Most SD’s will have known their choice for some time. Among the many reasons for their caution, here’s two:
1. They don’t want to be accused of second-guessing the electorate. In other words, many sincerely believe that in a contest as close and emotive as this the decision should properly be left until the end of the primary season in June. We can expect to see many declarations in the days following June 3.
2. There is concern that an SD-led abandonment of one candidate will disenfranchise the supporters of the other. Before declaring their hand, many SD’s want to ensure there is in place a dignified exit strategy for the losing candidate which ensures the Dems won’t lose the votes of that candidate’s supporters come November.
That makes sense Ferny-
and completely debunks the notion that really they are going to turn around after all that has happened and give it to Hillary.
I would imagine there is also some hope (a vain one), that she wll see the reality for what it is and pull out of the race so they don’t have to deal with the fallout of p*ssing off the Clintons – hardly a thing the Democrats as a party would be wanting to do.
That makes sense Ferny-
and completely debunks the notion that really they are going to turn around after all that has happened and give it to Hillary.
I would imagine there is also some hope (a vain one), that she wll see the reality for what it is and pull out of the race so they don’t have to deal with the fallout of p*ssing off the Clintons – hardly a thing the Democrats as a party would be wanting to do.
Jen,
Clinton is not going to pull out of the race unless she loses any one of:
1. Pennsylvania (unlikely at the moment)
2. Kentucky
3. West Virginia
4. Puerto Rico (all 3 of which is very unlikely)
5. Indiana (her next “last stand” – but she’s up in the RCP average by 4.6)
Of course, if she pulls off an upset in NC or OR (both unlikely at the moment), she’s going to have the momentum and it’s Obama who’s going to be on the back foot.
Salamat pagi, (good morning, in a lingo the kid can speak), bludgers one and all.
Looks like the ‘uppity nigga’, (UN) is, well, getting up in the polls some more! Whoever would of thunk it, huh? I mean, here’s Hillary, bags packed, ready for day one, waiting by the phone at 3am to be POTUS, and along comes the UN and usurps her! The hide! The outrage!
It’s enough to make you downright BITTER, isn’t it?
And there she was, duck caller in one hand, dog whistle in the other, shotgun over the shoulder, downing a beer and shot, and never once patronising the rubes. What a feat of magic was that? If she ever leaves politics she should become an illusionist, she already is doing a fine job of it.
Damn that Yankee smarty pants UN, he must be an ‘elitist’, wouldn’t you reckon?
The US poll madness continues. While PPP (with a solid sample of 1095) gives Obama a narrow 3 point lead in PA, Rasmussen (with a 741 sample) gives Clinton a 9 point lead.
With polls diverging 20 points or more, there’s going to be plenty of mud in the faces of those that get it wrong.
Who is doing the live blog of the debate which is starting soon?
EC @ 348
Cartoons rule EC. A link from that Huff Post page to:
“Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: “Screw ‘Em”
Oops, she must have forgotten about that little outburst.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
And as a cartoon afficionado, have you ever seen Martin Honeysett’s work? Not political, but beautifully and socially seditious.
Check out the third one down on the left in this collection, at the lights.
http://www.martinhoneysett.com/cartoons/index.htm
Jen @ 353 – [how these figures, plus the decline in Hillary’’s lead in Pennsylvania puts her in the winning position]
After last night’s PB discussion I expect more of the same fantastical scenarios today as to how Hillary will do a Harry Houdini. The SD’s will wake up one day soon, and, en masse, renounce Obama and grovel before Hillary. That day is nigh – take up your placards and walk the streets, the apocalypse is upon us.
Or otherwise, the group of extra SD’s cloning in the outer solar system will emerge from their giant petri dishes and appear at the convention ready to vote for Hillary.
One or the other.
Claude @ 363,
US pollsters have a much tougher job than their Australian counterparts. They have to deal with the problem of optional voting, which means that not only does sample size vary quite widely, but also that some polls may poll “Registered Voters” whilst other polls may poll “Likely Voters”.
What makes this even worse is that “Likely Voters” is an effective guess from the pollster as to who is going to turn up to vote – something that works (suprisingly) quite effectively for general elections but has been pretty hopeless for primaries.
Some cases in point are:
1. Clinton winning in NH when all the polls were saying Obama was going to win by 8%+
2. Clinton winning in OH by 10%+, when all the polls were saying she was only marginally ahead
3. Clinton winning in CA by 13%, when some polls (particularly Zogby) were saying that Obama was in front
4. Obama winning in SC by 27%, when most polls were predicting a margin of about 10%
What we can all take from this is when there are polls that diverge by 20 points (as they currently are in Indiana), we should take all of them with a grain of salt. Probably the most reliable way of working out what is going on is to look at the RCP average – it smooths out any ‘rogue’ polls…
Morning JV -and Bludgers all
would thiose petrie-dish developing SD’s have come from our original alien abductions do you reckon??
Back to planet earth: it dawned on me last night that thing that gives me such a sense of hope for the future is not actually Obama himself, but the willingness of a nation who I really though tof as not able to think m,uch beyond t MIckey Mouse and McDonald’s (elitist of me I know), embracing soemone of such complexity and vision over the tired old “you’re with us or against us” patriotic crap of the past decade and more.
If America steps up to be what it is capable of, then the world will change. That is why this feels much more important on every level than just a political stoush.
364
jaundiced view
Fine cartoons, and the one above your cited one is perfect for the current visitor to Bushland.
On a related note, Jen, this is what I do like about Hitchens: instead of fawning all over the Pope, he’s asked why are they still giving asylum to Cardinal Law, a guy who spent years covering for some of the most vile child rapistss in their hallowed organisation.
He won’t give up on the hypocrites, and it’s admirable.
The debate, live blog:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/live-blogging-the-democratic-debate-6/index.html?hp
KR @ 362 – That boy just don’t know his place.
& 367 Glad you appreciate Honeysett – Hail Mary, indeed.
Swing Lowe @ 365 – I like the RCP average for that reason as well. PA has moved gently around recently from 5 points difference up to about 8 and now down to 6.7 despite the large variations.
Elsewhere lies insanity. The individual polls have more mood swings than a manic depressive.
Jen @ 366 – Yes, I think it’s all part of the Clinton parallel universe where anything can happen if you want it enough and are prepared to lie regularly.
Couldn’t agree more – there is something visceral about the way the US body politic seems to be shifting away from the the past towards Obama. Although, caution is required – as HL Mencken said, “Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people”.
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette endorses Obama
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873625-35.stm
Want some bitters with your lemon juice Senator Clinton?
370
Ferny Grover
The Governor obviously hasn’t muzzled the Pittsburgh Gazette! LOL
Ferny G @ 370 – That’s one of the three big PA papers -Obama went to that paper’s office to be interviewed by the editorial board a couple of days ago. He must have been impressive.
Hi PB’s,
I love how you’se sift out the opinion pieces and editorials and blogs, which give this little aussie a perspective on how the Americans are thinking. Keep up the links and the good work.
ps I’m a Obamabot. sorry Clintonites. As the link Ferny @370 gave from the Pittsburgh Post, Obama represents renewal and electricifies, Hill has been out communicated by Obama right from the start.
372
JV – Hillary also visited the Gazette on the same day. The endorsement came in the next day’s edition.
Ferny – 374 – [Hillary also visited the Gazette on the same day]
Ah, then she can’t have been impressive ;0
FG, that’s a great editorial, well written, balanced, and nuanced.
And you’re so right, more than a dash of bitters for the Clintonista.
Ouch! Obama bites back, and so deftly:
Mr. Obama turns the tables on Mrs. Clinton, bringing up comments that she made, back in 1992, that seemed to be an insult to stay-at-home moms, “that I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.”
Mr. Obama said he was watching TV at the time, and when she was attacked as an elitist — as she is attacking him now — he thought, “that’s not who she is.” But, he says, “she learned the wrong lesson because she’s adopting the same tactics.”
(from NYT live blog on the debate)
Finally, a live feed of the debate:
http://a.abclocal.go.com/wpvi/livemedia?section=news/politics&id=6083174
Hi FernyG-
just read your link – perfectly put.
It gives me goosebumps to think that America may be capable of such an enormous cultural shift, and a willingness to critically examine their past, and their future direction,
In a time of global warming, terrorism and global inequity we collectively must do something, but that takes leadership and I never really believed it could happen.
Maybe it can.
Y’all – live feed of the debate here: http://a.abclocal.go.com/wpvi/livemedia?section=news/politics&id=6083174. Lots of ads though…
The worm goes wild for Clinton talking about pulling out of Iraq.
No surprises there, and a slap for the McCain position of eternal war.
Sorry Pancho, SNAP!
How correct Obama is on this? If it’s not one manufactured issue, it will be another (from the debate live blog):
The moderator just played a cut from the standard Republican line delivered by McCain with a pretty funny twist. Claimed that the Democrats were planning to ‘raise your taxes, and they’ve got the audacity to hope ya don’t mind’.
yes Swing Lowe , the US pollsters vary their methodogy
It is a point that has been made here before by myself and Pancho arguing I as a Obama doubtor and Pancho as a Obama supporter, and coming from a new blogger may have more resonance
Separately I’ve also previously noted that 2 of the most respected Pollsters in the US (SurveyUSA and Rasmassen) are the 2 Pollsters used by election prediction sites.
But that one uses ‘likely voters and the other registered voters , causing each to vary between themselves significantly despite polling on the one day.
A further conequential effect is for the ‘likely voter’ methodology , its my understanding that the previous election voter base is initially taken & that some sort of current estimate is calculated based on current Primary turnout trends)
Another big difference between many pollsters , including the above 2 is one pushs harder for a voter preference and the other doesn’t (and the temptation of the later method is so ignore those poll contacts entirely for fear of having an unrealistically high ‘undecided % in the thier final poll %’s)
Compusory voting if nothing else makes polling more accurate therefore & having said that there can still be big differences for numerous reasons
addition
and the temptation of the later method “REGARDING ‘NOT SURE’ RESPONSES”
SNAP again Pancho!
I quoted this last night, where McCain first said “audicity” and quickly grabbed his zimmer frame to correct himself.
The worm goes wild when Clinton talks gun control!
Bunch of liberal elitists on that worm, eh? LOL
385: Ron, I understand that, but a 20 point difference over a polling period of a few days raises some issues about the credibility of the polls themselves.
Sorry KR – I’ll stop McCaining you now
390
Pancho
touche! (again!)
TV DEBATE
All pollbludgers must be watching. Sorry I’m not
Why watch an uneven contest and alot of it rehearsed by all of those Pollies
Its like watching a TV debate between Kevin07 and the Libs Kevin Andrews.
TV debates are Kevin07′ forte and so it is for Obama , who’ll win votes from it.
The difference is Kevin07 is a man who was electable with concrete realistic plans , whereas Obama has some undefined ‘change’ plans & inferior Healthcare plans but with electability problems making his undoubted Oratory & debating skills probably academic in the long run
Actually, Ron might be worth tuning in. Hillary is presenting really well. No knock out blow or anything, but as a contest, I’d give it to her on points at the moment.
393
Pancho
I think they’ve both conducted themselves very well, but have you noticed that the worm is much more pro-Clinton? When they are essentially saying the same thing, they both get positive responses, but Hillary’s is always a notch above.
McCain is going to get flogged by either of them, and the poor white blokes are going to think hard and long about letting the Republicans do them over again.
Yep, Clinton’s won the debate.
Let’s see whether the result translates into a bounce for her in the polls either in PA or nationally?
Also – it would be interesting to see whether the debate translates into a bounce for either Democratic candidate against McCain in the general election polls or whether McCain gets the bounce instead…
Clinton is so much better when she is being substantive rather than tricky and playing dirt politics. She has genuinely been impressive here. Her whole campaign has just been structured the wrong way, and it’s to late for her to turn it around now – the shift will just feed into the impression that she is not a straight shooter. These words she has offered tonight don’t fit with the attack ads she is currently running and the Bill malarkey going on in parallel.
396
Pancho
yeah, it’s a pity that she’s so enamoured of her own sense of entitlement vis a vis the nomination that she ran such a poor campaign.
The ‘debate’ (what a misnomer!) spent the first hour on the trivial crappola, Obama’s non-flag pin for god’s sake! No wonder he looked a bit bored with it.
Pancho ,
I’m abit cynical of all American Pollies who to me a more plastic than even a JWH
so I’m happy with your final assessment.
But think this is Obama forte territory and I’m afraid bearing in mind our debate
he has a born gift of words , which even when he has an inferior argument and he does if Healthcare comes up , he will still win the viewer despite what you more analytical guys think if at the end by chance you happen to think she did win it
in the meantime , I’m helping out EC with something
just caught the stuff on tax reform. Hillary spoke well, Obama was less fluent. Substance-wise they both seemed pretty similar.
KR, just because you don’t agree with the policies of a Government you should still be patriotic to your country! I may dislike Rudd but i am still an Australian patriot. Obama used to wear it but he said because of Iraq he no longer would wear it, sounds to me like Rev Wright got to him.
60,000 online webchat on ABC for the debate!
It’s curious how the worm works, for example, a joke by Hillary against the Bush administration registers off the dial.
Hmm, that’s a great ‘debating’ point, eh?
So after an hour of hammering Obama about bitterness and Wright, (and one question to CLinton over Bosnia), it’s no wonder he didn’t shine.
They both performed well, but I’d have to say Clinton looked more comfortable.
401
Glen
That’s twaddle. It’s a friggin’ pin, and it means nothing. You’re doing the same dumbarse stuff of the MSM, making the discourse about irrelevencies and then defining what it means.
It’s puerile Glen, but you’re welcome to express your opinion.
If Australia is any indication (where admittedly debates feature much less prominently) then debates don’t sway anyone, but only confirm to the already-decideds that their decision is correct. Consequently their impact on voting results is zilch.
KR it would be irrelevant had he not worn it for awhile and then said because American invaded Iraq he’d no longer wear it, he made it an issue and considering his wife’s views and that of his former Pastor it’s no wonder he took it off.
FG debates sometimes never happen, Berlusconi and his left wing counterpart did not have a debate in the campaign of the recent Italian Election…Berlusconi did not want a repeat of 2006 where Prodi made him look stupid. We should be lucky we even got one debate, maybe Howie should have refused it worked for Silvio…
Sorry Glen, I just won’t bother reading anything of yours, even if you address me directly.
You’ve trolled your stuff for so long it sends me to sleep.
I’m not interested in any opinion you’re likely to express, but hey, go ahead, put it up, you never know, someone might be bothered to read it, just NOT me.
bye bye
whilst the TV debate assume continues and my TV remains still silent , I thought the few minutes could be spent on my friend EC & his elitist dilemma:my ‘partner’ doesn’t understand me anymore.
And the tale must be told ,
of a blogger who sought out help
to the blogoshere near & far ,
of a choice no blogger should make
the passion of eltitism or the partner of hope ,
and did anyone answer this plea for help
for wise counsel to a confused aging blogger man ,
no alas , silence just reigned the blogosphere
as a TV debate raged the blogs spaces
and the blogger came to despair of hope ,
but then there was light , then more light ,
then no bigger than a mans hand on the horizon
stood a shadow , the generosity of spirit
but it could not be , but only Uncle Ron
with a beacon and a sermon of a new way ,
to shed thou elitist robes of discontent
and a world of promises will never arise ,
as partners guarantees are now assured
and satisfaction reigns & priorities learnt.
By an illiterate , typo sloppy , wordy , and
sloppy words off the cuff , average guy
Ron -
WTF are you going on about?
KR, one way or another, #406 is the last comment of that kind you will ever make on this site. Your persistent obnoxiousness and aggressiveness is making these threads a chore to moderate.
Jen , EC #233 asked an opinion in jest , its our jest on blog with no harm assure you. He wrote a very humorous blog & with clever satire I assure you
The one thing still in the Democrats favour is that they are dominating the media coverage of the US Presidential Election and not a hell of alot is going McCains way so even though he has a head start, really he’s not making a big impression given his lack of media attention.
That being said the negatives of a drawn out nomination process cannot be good for the Democrats, when they look like they can’t keep their own house in order and when they look divided, McCain will look the better option. Also I can’t see Hillary dropping out if she wins by double digits in PA, she’s said all along that she’s not a quiter so she’d lose whatever credibility she has in reneging on that promise she made.
sorry Ron-
didn’t realise it was a personal posting.
Cheers.
Glen , McCain’s advantage among other factors , he is has lots of quotable quotes (Democrat leadership credible) & he should have learnt the secret to how to defeat Obama which Hillary only in part has discovered and too belatedly
Re William @ 409,
One of the great ironies on this blog is the amount of people who have been booted out because they’ve demanded Glen get kicked off himself or have called him a troll (or worse).
Yet Glen still survives, standing as a beacon of hope against the orthodoxy on this blog (I feel an analogy with Hillary coming on, but anyway…)
Personal comment to Glen – someone (I can’t remember who) referred to me as a “newcomer” on this blog
Alas, Glen, I feel we have become the veterans on this blog, having been here for the titanic wars of Election 07…
And question to William – does the Pollbludger Donations for Bandwith Fund require a top-up? Or are things going swimmingly in that department?
Yes the more drawn out the nomination process, the more and more negative the contest will come and no matter who is the nominee they’ll have alot of nice quotes any Karl Rove junior could spin in his favour.
Just so happens that it does, SL – I had to pay my $400 hosting fee earlier this week. I’ll be crying poor about this on a thread tomorrow.
Just dropped you a $25 donation, William.
I encourage all of you other contributors to donate as well – without William, we wouldn’t be able to dissect these ultimately meaningless debates in excruciating detail…
From the New York Times
Obama picks up three more superdelegates.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/three-more-superdelegates-for-obama/
406?
William, is ‘troll’ an aggressive/obnoxious word? Sorry, I will refrain from using it.
418
junior senator
That ‘uppity nigga’ just does not know his place! LOL
KR, your comment at #419 reminds me of the “what? me?” expression on Barry Hall’s face after he sucker-punched Brent Staker on the jaw. Every single aspect of #418 was aggressive and obnoxious. The whole comment was bereft of political content, consisting entirely of abuse directed at another commenter who hadn’t done anything wrong.
On the flag pin debate, i feel Garry Trudeau does it best…
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080413
Five of PA major newspapers endorse Obama and:
The Harrisburgh Patriot-News, the largest papers in central Pennsylvania, pointed to Obama’s ability to unite the country and particularly get young voters involved is monumental. ‘Young people are the future,’ the Patriot-News writes. ‘And they see and sense something in Obama that coincides with their hopes and aspirations for themselves and for the kind of world they want to live in.’
(from NYT blogger)
421
William Bowe
I think you’re referring to 406 William, and yes, I’m a bit surprised to be frank, but hey, not everyone sees things the same way.
I’ll tone it down, but surely I have the right to tell another poster that I just refuse to read their posts? If you think that post is aggressive/obnoxious then I wonder what you make of the near constant gratuiotus insults of some other posters?
It is your blog, and I’ll be happy to abide by whatever standard you decree, but I would like to say that I do not think you apply it consistently.
422
Yo ho ho
I think it was Ecky who posted that yesterday, and yes, classic.
I’m surprised someone hasn’t called it open season on anyone not wearing one! LOL
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/the-boss-defends-obama/2008/04/17/1208025344350.html
If the Boss says he’s ok, surely that puts the ‘elitist’ thing to death?
KR’s posts are among the best on the site for substance. imho.
The biffo(from both sides and numerous posters) is just the fluff.
427
HarryH
I’m blushing HH, but I think Pancho does great research on the polls and articles, and Ecky packs a thump with the gonzo gruffness. I ain’t in their league.
But I’ll agree about the fluff, though. And yes, I am seriously bewildered by William’s slap, but I guess different people read things in different ways. And I think I get far more than I dish out, but maybe I’m too ’sensitive’! LOL
Anyway, Vive la Différence!
Don’t ban Kirribilli, William-
(Although you are entitled to do whatever you like of course)
he is great contributor, and I think wea re all getting a little heated aa this bloody race drags out.
i agree we should all endeavour to be a little more respectful, and will endeavour to lifT my own game.
(contribution on the way)
back to the issue-
it appears Hiallary won the debate.
Will it make any significant difference, given that Obama has benefited in the past when he has won.
Never seems to matter much here, but we have such a different system.
I say ban KR and put Ron and Glen on staff. But that’s just me.
#431 LOL
KR for POTUS
js-
he’s proably got more chance than Hillary.
Looks like I missed the action half of the debate up front, and caught the staid discussion at the end. There is a bit of unhappiness about the moderation, and in particular the avoidance of Democratic policy issues in favour of gotcha stuff. TPM says ‘Looking around other sites, I guess I’m not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty’. But then David Brooks says “I thought the questions were excellent.” May be an interesting few days ahead.
and Pancho , as you know from #398 your assessment is awaited and was there a ‘winner’ and were there any one liners that peope will actual remember
Jen, this is for you:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/17/vagina_monologues/
…and by the way, I’ve never said that HRC would not make a good Prez, it’s just that the Clinton baggage is NOT what the country needs, she’ll have a VERY hard time winning with her negative polling, (although saying that, I think McCain is seriously flawed), and Obama, whatever his relative inexperience, is literally unique in his ability to learn on his feet, get over the issues, and most importantly, inspire a huge range of people.
I agree with you about the ‘inspiration’ stuff, which coming from a signed up cynic is rather remarkable. We aren’t the only ones to feel it.
I think the upshot of this debate is that Clinton has probably sealed a win in PA (though she already had a pretty handy lead anyway).
Whether this gives her a bounce in NC or IN or in the general election polls is still to be determined. That said, even if she got a bounce in NC, it would mean she would be down by 10% instead of 15%…
Thank you for the donations, Jen and SL.
Jen, I would love to not ban KR, and I hope I don’t have to. At least three quarters of his comments are of a very high standard. All he has to do is think twice before hitting “submit” when he finds himself commenting on another commenter, rather than a political matter. And yes, KR, that includes any comment in which you “tell another poster that I just refuse to read their posts”. Any such comment is a self-indulgent waste of space.
Much as I would like to remain about the partisan fray, this needs to be said: an overwhelming majority of the bad behaviour on these threads recently has come from Obama supporters. If I do ban somebody in the immediate future (Junior Senator is at least as likely a candidate as KR), it will no doubt be partly motivated by my desire to thin out the herd. I am not in the slightest bit concerned if anyone thinks this makes me “inconsistent”.
Sorry Ron, missed that one. From what I saw (which was only the second half) Clinton won on points. But looking at a few dissections apparently Obama got quite a grilling early in the piece, and from the moderators more so than Clinton, which gave him a hit without making her hands look dirty. In any case, the almost unanimous press take from what I see is that Clinton was the winner, but alongside this most accounts mention the Obama grilling and the fact that he didn’t cop a Barry Hall at any time. I don’t think that anything new or substantive was presented.
Agree with Jen,William…..KR’s posts are top of my list when I scroll through- enjoy the lively,informative,humorous and cheeky . Have found the tone of PB much less aggressive/personal of late and it would be a shame if we lose the likes of KR and find ourselves left with the eye-glazingly predictable.
Contribution on it’s way-I ‘d miss this site so much if you couldn’t continue.
Obama supporters are slipping.
They started out as a pack of wolves – and have now been reduced to a ‘herd’.
How tame.
#438 – William – i paid my due early to pancho, even though i have not lost. i am going to pay my due to you early as well. i think i said i will donate $50 to you if Hillary wins. pls send me an email on how i donate this $50 now.
438
William Bowe
Thanks for the ruling, William. I will desist from publicly ignoring anyone! LOL
If I switch sides (my democratic right, surely?) can I get in some aggro against the one-eyed kumbaya crooning audaciously hopeful elitist yankee lovers? I think someone called them ‘precious’, but hey, we can do better than that!!(Irony alert!)
(And when my boat comes in, McCain is in the bag but yet to pay, and hopefully Obama, I will, just like last time, be kicking the can for your excellent blog.)
cheers
That’s the spirit, KR.
440
megan
Thanks Megan, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve refrained from hitting the submit button!
Write lines:
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
I must try harder
…………
For the latest on the Democratic debate in Philadelphia: Democratic debate: God and Guns Includes Link to transcript.
We’ve all become a herd – tamed by William
And now KR has become Bart Simpson.
GEEZUS! Are we there yet????
William – that’s ok, just donated $50 for your blog.
FG,
This “herd” that we have become is nothing compared to the rampaging mob that used to lurk in this part of cyberspace late last year – particularly on the (in)famous Newspoll nights!
437
“I think the upshot of this debate is that Clinton has probably sealed a win in PA”.
SL – have you any evidence of a ‘debate’ making any difference at all – let alone ’sealing a win’?
I’m not doubting your comment, I simply can’t think of an instance where a debate (such as they are) has made any difference to voting intentions. I’d be interested if you know of any.
447
Ferny Grover
Ah, my fine fronded friend, we are all but bison now! Eeking out an existence on the fringes of evolutionary success. Once proud herds, sweeping across the plains as far as the eye could see, glorious Obama supporters, mooing and hopeful, but now, a dwindled rump on the edges of survival.
Oh, my dear, how we’ve been coralled and our numbers decimated! Where’s Zino now? Moooooooooooooooooo moooooooooooooo
Of wolves FG, herd of wolves.
The moderation controversy is beginning to make some sense to me. Here’s a little background on the chair. I didn’t realise he was inside the tent:
“Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of the 1992 Clinton campaign. His role on the campaign is portrayed in the documentary film The War Room.[2] At the outset of Clinton’s presidency, Stephanopoulos served as the de facto press secretary, briefing the press even though Dee Dee Myers was officially the White House Press Secretary. Later, he was moved to Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy, when Dee Dee Myers began personally conducting the briefings and David Gergen was brought in as the new White House Communications Director. The move was largely viewed as a rebuke to Stephanopoulos’ handling of public relations during the first six months of the Clinton Administration.
On Feb. 25, 1994 George Stephanopoulos and Harold Ickes had a conference call with Roger Altman to discuss RTC’s choice of Republican lawyer Jay Stephens to head the Madison Guaranty investigation, that later turned in to the Whitewater investigation. [3]
During his tenure in the White House, Stephanopoulos was known to arrive at work by 6:00 AM every day.
His 1999 memoir, entitled All Too Human: A Political Education, was published after he left the White House during Clinton’s second term. It quickly became a #1 New York Times best seller. In his book, Stephanopoulos spoke of his depression and how his face broke out into hives due to the pressures of conveying the Clinton White House message. Bill Clinton referred to the book in his autobiography, My Life, apologizing for what he felt in retrospect to be excessive demands placed on the young staffer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos
Thanks Pancho ,
Perhaps he’ll learn for next time if there is one. Now comes the bit that frustrates me more almost than anything else in Politics. How the Media headline the debate outcome & the issues discussed and the respective good points on varying issues I assume they each made some where along the line.
And it can be distorted & conned to the Public (whether they saw the Debate or not) to suit the ‘right’ (for ‘right’ media) and to suit which of the 2 Democrat Candidates that particular media is overtly or covertly privately ’supporting’
AND within all that coverage is those many admirable pundits who can dispationately assess & report different perspectives
which is why I asked you , as a pro Obama or pro Hillary press headline on the debate would not impress me unless I knew the writers dispationate record
Thanks for analysis
449
SL – yes those were the heady days alright. By comparison we have become – to use Billy Connolly’s term – a pack of ‘beige-ists’.
Ferny
SL has had a wager on Hillary.
As an avid punter myself(who doesn’t bet on politics btw) i know hope springs eternal.
Also (according to the same wiki article) Sam Seaborn was based on Stephanopolous (though he claims he was more like Josh Lyman).
Glen at 415, I am pleased to say that I agree with you!! Both Dem camps are giving McCain a fair amount of ammunition. However, I still think that either will beat him.
Latest polls, Obama leading McCain, Clinton is behind. Dems get a clear majority on how to handle Iraq and economy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/16/11233/8094/730/496593
As for ‘thinning the herd’ William – can you DO that??
It’s just that I’ve been trying for ages to lose a few kilos and would appreciate any kind of thinning that doesn’t involve what’s left of my hair.
I agree Swing Lowe -
I think we are much better behaved in general than some of teh late night sledging that went on prior to the Oz election. The irony is that the most frequent contributors currently on this thread in the main were on the same team then, (with some spats between Labour/ greens supporters).
And now we are at each others throats over Hillary/ Obama. I suspect though that when it’s either of them vs McCain there will be an accord, with one or two brave dissenters supporting the Repugs. And you’d have to admire their courage!
Overall I think PB is not for the fainthearted, but it can be such a hoot.
I wonder about what we’ll do after the US elections and with 2 years to go in Oz…
Jen I sincerely hope that the supporters of the losing Dem candidate fully support the other against McCain. Let’s not lose sight of the end game
Absolutely Andrew. And I’m pretty sure we all would, after the inital disappointment/gloating crap that will go on for a while.
Once the race-proper begins it will be the main game to get rid of the GOP, and this contest will fade the same way as the Beazley/Crean/ Rudd leadership dramas are long forgotten here.
I can take no more of this ‘love in’ stuff.
Spoken by the elitists with gnarled mouths of frustration to be re-released to attack the barbarian , by the working class believers that I the heathen can be converted to the ‘love in’ and by the “Intellectualls” wh set their mischevious trap to to make me vunerable , after credit carding out on those exotic
of ‘wolve proof’ defensive armoury
No lame herd roams this blogoshere , only the pangs & claws ready to slice
the barbarian down as I plead for the return of non love hostilities within the Moderators rulings. Let me say Obama is a policy phoney on healthcare to tingle the love in’ spirit
457
Andrew – true, yet W was behind by 10points in 2000 and 2004 and won both times, the fact that McCain is close and ahead of Clinton shows he is a candidate not to be taken lightly, he might be old but he’s no idiot.
I admire the fact that many of you Dems supporters will automatically back the candidate who comes out on top even if you have said they aren’t the best and have many flaws. What has been said and probably will be the case unless the Dems nomination is wrapped up soon, is that many blue collar workers who have backed Clinton may decide to vote for McCain or abstain altogether, which would be a disaster for the Dems. How many people here honestly think Hillary will endorse Obama when he wins the nomination???
While McCain is not scoring any punches right now, he doesnt have to when both Dems are having at each other…
Debates (particular in the general election) have often made a significant difference to the trajectory of the campaign.
Clear examples are Ronald Reagan in 1980 (”there you go again” and “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”) and again in 1984 (”I will not make age an issue of this campaign”). And of course there was JFK back in 1960 against Nixon.
In primaries, Walter Mondale sealed the Democratic nomination during a debate with Gary Hart (”Where’s the beef?”).
I’m sure there are plenty of other examples where a strong performance in one debate has sealed a state (as opposed to the above where they either sealed a nomination or an election win), but I don’t have time to search through Wikipedia.
AND A FURTHER NOTE
and where was the TLC shown for that loveable of all bloggers , the affiable GG
462
Ron Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I can take no more of this ‘love in’ stuff.
Spoken by the elitists with gnarled mouths of frustration to be re-released to attack the barbarian , by the working class believers that I the heathen can be converted to the ‘love in’ and by the “Intellectualls” wh set their mischevious trap to to make me vunerable , after credit carding out on those exotic
of ‘wolve proof’ defensive armoury
No lame herd roams this blogoshere , only the pangs & claws ready to slice
the barbarian down as I plead for the return of non love hostilities within the Moderators rulings. Let me say Obama is a policy phoney on healthcare to tingle the love in’ spirit
Afternoon Gang,
What an eventful day it’s been in Bludgerdom.
Heard Simon Jackman on ABC radio (Kim Lander’s report) while moseying on back to my “sleeper cell” in the chariot after a brief stint of “official business” in the world outside the inter-tubes. Simon said (as Simons do with great authority) that the debate was conducted with “relative civility”, that neither candidate said anything “dramatic” that would play into the PA or NC primaries. However, he suggested that Dem elders were concerned about the possibility of collateral damage to core supporters of either candidate who could become increasingly polarised and pissed off enough to remain home and not vote for “the other” Dem candidate come November if the process drags on interminably.
Don’t think we’re quite at that point yet, but if elders allow the nomination to go to the CO convention, then a Jesse Jackson/Hubert Humphrey scenario a la Chicago ’68( as has already been mentioned here) is a distinct possibility. ie the GOP candidate, Nixon in that instance, went on to become president over the “divided and ruled” Dems.
The editorial endorsements of major PA newspapers are a blow to Beltway Brutusina’s bread basket, as is the 11 point national spread favouring Obi in the Gallups.
Swing Lowe makes a good point about the unreliability of polling in a non- compulsory voting system.
JV at 364, he’s a wicked, wicked cartoonist, Martin Honeysett, totally socially seditious indeed. Now in my favs column, ta.
I think she will because it would be a political necessity for her. Life after the nomination battle will go on and Clinton will continue as the NY Senator. Even in the last debate she has stated that she will work for the benefit of a united Democratic party once the nomination is over (and she’s on record stating that Obama can beat McCain).
Ron at 407: “I thought the few minutes could be spent on my friend EC & his elitist dilemma:my ‘partner’ doesn’t understand me anymore.”
Thank you for that wonderful response.
Ron: “and did anyone answer this plea for help
for wise counsel to a confused aging blogger man ,
no alas , silence just reigned the blogosphere”
Actually Megan at 349 also responded. Enjoyed your verse very much as did my wife when I read it to her over a recent cuppa and pow-wow. Anyway, as you homed-in on, it was the Orwellian use of the term “elitist” and its hyper-flogging by the GOPper boosting media that sparked the homespun snark.
Ron: “By an illiterate , typo sloppy , wordy , and
sloppy words off the cuff , average guy”
The genetic mix of my antecedents, btw, is top heavy with Lowland Kraut and Bog Irish based thymine adenine, cytosine, and guanine. Very proud of it too.
Long may we spar, Ron, but please don’t assume you’ve toted up any Brownie points with your brilliant and expansive literary effort; step outta line and I’ll rip yer bloody arms off!
Yeah! And to go with that venom another fact. DKos reporting Obama has picked up a fourth SD for the day”
“Council member and newly-elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama.”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/17/02838/8889/1018/497322
Glen – ‘I admire the fact that many of you Dems supporters will automatically back the candidate who comes out on top even if you have said they aren’t the best and have many flaws.’
Didn’t you support Malcolm before Brendan? And will you go back to Mal when he knocks the troubador off his perch in a couple of months? And didn’t you support Giuliani before the Old Boy? Surely you can see some philosophical differences between the two parties in such a system or you wouldn’t have flipped-flopped yourself.
In any situation like this one sides supporters say they won’t vote for the other. In 2000 about 50% of McCain’s supporters said they wouldn’t vote for Bush during the primary season, but they all came flooding back in November.
I for one will be ambivalent if it becomes a McCain/Clinton race for POTUS.
I would prefer a Dem to a Repub but nothing in America or the World will really change if one of these 2 candidates win. They are both fully bought and paid for.
Barack Obama is the first candidate in history that has been financed by everyday Americans…..over a million of them.
No Pac money….No lobby money.
Here is a chance…maybe a slim chance, maybe a viable chance…to do it a better way.
#470
HarryH – yep agree 100%.
I thought Malcolm was inevitable, but i got suckered into that view given the media’s overwhelming preference for Turnbull, but my politics are more closely aligned with Brendan and i said such and if i were a Liberal MP i’d have voted for Brendan for the leadership.
Obviously i would like Nelson to stay on but if he goes he goes, nothing i can do to change that. Of course i backed Giuliani, but McCain is the closet candidate to Giuliani infact Rudy said that McCain and him were very similar policy wise.
True Pancho but Bush won the primaries early on after McCain got a thrashing in SC, the Dems will fight this to the convention and it will be far uglier.
459 etc SL, Jen & Andrew
It’s funny, our behaviour is affected by our strong views about the candidates.
The emotional investment levels have continued to rise as we have learnt more, and it has become impossible to divorce (love that word) oneself from it when attempting objective analysis.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld once said. It’s what I enjoy most about the blog.
Luckily a very few of the more, er … elite … members here have the uncanny skill and discipline to restrict ourselves to cool objective analysis at every turn for the benefit of the remaining emotional wrecks.
EC @ 466,
The split in the Democratic party in 1968 came about due to dissatisfaction with Humphery being the nominee. He was not considered anti-war enough and there was a strong push for George McGovern (who Nixon thrashed in 1972). Also note that there was a third party (the ‘Dixiecrat’ ticket under Wallace) who picked up several states in the solid south (and also delivered other southern states to Nixon). Humphery ended up coming 0.7% below Nixon in the popular vote, but ended 110 votes behind in the Electoral College.
It’s unlikely that there is going to be a repeat of the 1968 convention this year. The simple reason is that there are only 2 candidates left in the race – and that at the first vote in the Convention, one of them will win (if it hasn’t been decided before then). Once that happens, the other candidate will (and they definitely will do this) endorse the other and everything will flow on from there.
Having said all that, it is clear that the current disunity amongst Democratic ranks is playing right into McCain’s hands. The arguments that the Democrats use to attack each other will invariably be recycled by the Republican machine for the general election campaign. It is primarily this that has turned what looked like a slam-dunk (and possibly landslide) win for the Democrats in November into a much closer contest…
That’s the trouble with having a truckload of talent. Inevitably it involves a long, drawn out contest to find who is the best of the best.
On the other hand, in a bog full of turds it doesnt take much effort for one to float to the top.
Tom Shales from the Washington Post isn’t pulling any punches in his review of the debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html
Swing Lowe,
There is always the Gore Card to be played if the division continues.
js – If the quality of the moderation gets a bit more of a run and becomes a cycle in itself this is bad news for Clinton. It will add to the narrative that an ongoing contest is bad news for the Democratic party as a whole and lead to more pressure on SDs to move. It also diminishes what was a pretty good performance by Hillary, and reinforces the ’same old politics’ theme, which is winning ground for Obama.
GG, there will be no encore.
Pancho @ 469
4 superdelegates for Obama in one day?
But that can’t be – aren’t they all going to prostrate themselves before Hillary because of, ah, because she might, if Uranus lines up with the Planet Formerly known as Pluto, look like getting more votes than Barack in 3 of the mid-western states with the white 60-65 year old scone-maker demographic?
Maybe they are doing it just to throw us off the scent temporarily – they’ll sneak back to Hillary under cover of the next dark and stormy night.
480
Effectively 5 SD extra because one defected from Hillary.
Hi Ron,
In the spirit of affiablity I believe that PB is often Gilligans Island meets Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven. Somehow it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTCYLbFxTpI
Now I’d like to be the eternal optimist but have just finished reading the equivalent of an icy shower- a rather lengthy article by Steven Rosenfeld-” How Republicans quietly hijacked the Justice Dept to swing elections” .
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/82348/
Excerpt-
“Since the 2004 election, activist lawyers with ties to the Republican Party and its presidential campaigns, Republican legislators, and even the Supreme Court — in a largely unnoticed ruling in 2006 — have been aggressively regulating most aspects of the voting process. Collectively, these efforts are undoing the gains of the civil rights era that brought voting rights to minorities and the poor, groups that tend to support Democrats.
In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ), which for decades had fought to ensure that all eligible citizens could vote, now encourages states to take steps in the opposite direction. Political appointees who advocate for stringent requirements before ballots are cast and votes are counted have driven much of the DOJ’s Voting Section’s recent agenda. As a result, the Department has pushed states to purge voter lists, and to adopt newly restrictive voter ID and provisional ballot laws. In addition, during most of George W. Bush’s tenure, the DOJ has stopped enforcing federal laws designed to aid registration, such as the requirement that state welfare offices offer public aid recipients the opportunity to register to vote………” …..
Something tells me that it may not matter how well Hillary or Obama poll as those shadowy Repug puppeteers have white-anted the democratic process.
Enough of this silly fighting and bickering. A few words of wisdom and comfort from the master. Alas, I can’t imagine any of the three remaining candidates coming close to these tear-jerkingly beautiful sentiments.
“God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear.”
- LA, Calif; March 2, 2004
Amen to that brother.
1) If Obama wins the nomination fairly…ie delegates and votes…then he will beat McCain comfortably.
2) If Clinton wins the nomination fairly…ie delegates and votes… then she will beat McCain comfortably.
Option 1 is reality
Option 2 is non reality.
If this thing goes to the convention, which is only 3 months before the election, and the winner is declared the loser and the loser is declared the winner…then it is all over for the Dems.
Obama is NOT unelectable FFS. He is ahead of McCain in the polls already. Clinton is behind.
I think it was Swing Lowe who said “in politics, perception is reality”. If they take this thing off Obama then the Dem party is cactus for a long time.
Mark my words, this thing will be finished in 4 weeks at the latest.
It’s time to start tiring out the 73 year old.
Kirri sez: “I ain’t in their league.”
Yes you are, pal. Like several of us here, the hip-shooting nature of your responses is why you were never really a suitable candidate for instruction in the Diplomatic Corps:)
Sometimes you remind me of the James Coburn character in the Charles Bronson movie “The Street Fighter”. One of the most brilliant gee-up artists I’ve ever seen on-screen, but sometimes, only sometimes mind you, he just didn’t know when it was time to desist.
You’ve just gotta watch that bossman Billbo though, somedays he just loves to kick arse down the lion!
http://schoolnet.gov.mt/circus/liontamer.gif
452
Pancho
I’m surprised you didn’t know who GS was Pancho, but it makes any notion that he’s not a completely partisan player laughable, doesn’t it?
Both of them copped heaps on the NYT blog, I must say.
That’s the thing about George, Diogs-
he brings such peace to the world. Lord knows he’ll be missed.
486
Enemy Combatant
Ha, ha! That’s Mrs Kirribilli’s constant refrain, that Diplomacy is not my forte. (From she who is the Mistress of it; it’s hard to take Ecky, hard to take! LOL)
485
HarryH – do not fall into the trap of hubris my good man, thinking Obama will win a Presidential Election in 4 weeks against McCain is just plain arrogance.
McCain has been in politics for what 20+
Obama has been a US Senator for how many terms??? 1 i believe!
Just assuming Obama will thrash McCain is not a good look and is totally underestimating a veteran of politics who knows all the tricks of the trade against a political novice (who has done well mind you against Clinton) but against a seasoned campaigner it may not be as easy as you think…i do not think just because he’s young he’ll beat McCain…
For the record Obama is only just ahead of McCain or tied, this does not bode well for the Democrats were 10 points ahead of Bush twice and they couldn’t beat the Republican machine in 2000 and 2004. The Dems will have a big fight to take the Presidency off the Republicans, they are odds on to do it but it will be no easy fight i can tell you.
Enemy Combatant #468
fortunately for you , whilst it was written as was from the cuff , there were a few other lines off the cuff written & then quickly deleted , requiring practical proof of committment that a lady would be convinced of , but male genorosity reigned
Suffice to ponder a ‘blogoshere’ or other bouquet daily , but hell the suggestion may actually take the ladies fancy , and oh what brownie points I would have gained and a lady even more content
I’d noticed something had been missing in these hillary v obama threads…
good to see hubris is back!
Glen- not the HUBRIS thing again!!!
thought we’d left that behind in November ‘07
464
“Debates (particular in the general election) have often made a significant difference to the trajectory of the campaign.”
I hear these things said, SL, but I have never seen any data (such as polling data) to back it up. I accept that a good (or bad) debate can feed into the overall momentum of a campaign, but I have never seen any evidence that a result would have been any different if a particular debate had never taken place.
Sure, the debate is a chance to air campaign slogans (such as the examples you mention), but the slogans and policies were being aired anyway. It didn’t take a debate to do that.
I’d argue that debates are basically a chance to market to the support base (who tend to be the bulk of the audience) and make no difference to voting intentions. I’ve seen no data to refute this view.
464
Swing Lowe
You forgot to mention Nixon sweating, although you couldn’t say Obama looked that way today, just a tad p!ssed off with the endlessly innane nitpickery.
Glen
i did not suggest he would beat McCain in 4 weeks.
i suggested the Dem nom would be over in 4 weeks.
Will the perceived lack of objectivity in the moderation of the debate affect the end result?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/us-election/outrage-at-clinton-bias-in-debate/2008/04/17/1208025351372.html
Hillary down to 10.2%
For tomorrow’s Deathwatch, I’m guessing her continued poor polling and the SD leak to Obama will be balanced out by her win in the debate, although the main topic seems to be ABCs rampant bias which will at least shut up all the Clinton campaign’s whingeing about the media being mean to Princess.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189282/
Sorry Harry, i ‘mis-underestimated’ you.
What would a politics blog be about if hubris wasn’t thrown around when justified?
475
Ferny Grover
That’s a disgusting metaphor, and soooo very appropriate for the Republican primary race! LOL
McCain was a Dalit (untouchable) to the right-lunar-religious-born-again-undescended-from-apes herd, but now that he’s floated to the top (as you so eloquently put it), he’s pure Brahmin!
(Although Ann Coulter, the rabid she-whippett of the right, still wants Hillary over McCain. Johnny’s still Dalit for Annie. I think Rush is still choking over his prescription meds too!)
FG @ 494,
(All sourced from Wikipedia) In the 1980 Presidential Election Campaign, Jimmy Carter had a small lead over Ronald Reagan heading into the 2nd Presidential Debate on October 28. During the debate, Carter referred to having discussions about nuclear weapons policy with his 12 year old daughter and Reagan used two of his famous campaign lines:
“There you go again…” in response to Carter’s attacks on Reagan’s record as Governor of California; and
“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” in his closing remarks
Carter’s Press Secretary said that internal tracking polls showed that immediately after the debate aired, Carter’s lead had turned into a Reagan landslide.
Carter’s loss a week later was the worst defeat for an incumbent President since Herbert Hoover in 1932.
And for a purely stats-based example, after the first Presidential debate in 2004 (on September 30) – which Kerry was thought to have won decisively, Bush’s lead in the polls dropped from 6% (49.5-43.5) to 1% (47.5-46.5). Have a look at this graph from RCP below:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
I haven’t seen the debate, but an observation. Most Americans believe they know Clinton pretty well, so I suspect that her doing well in the debate may not boost her vote nearly as much as a good performance by Obama would his.
On a (tenuously) related tack, the University of Georgia have just released a study (press release) showing that TV audiences are increasing watching news from networks aligned with their political views. So Repubs get their news from Fox, Dems from CNN. The trend seems to be stronger among Republicans.
That is going to increasingly make campaigning harder. How do you reach people that mostly access media that isn’t at least neutral to your views?
Of course this isn’t just an American phenomenon. I’ve given up on programs like Insiders, and whereas even 5 years ago I had the Murdoch rag delivered daily, now I only buy his Sunday paper mainly to get the weekly TV program guide. I try an avoid reading anything by his political ‘journo’s because it’s better for my blood pressure.
#362 – Kirribilli Removals Says: [Salamat pagi, (good morning, in a lingo the kid can speak)] The kid is “jago ngomong, tapi seperti Tong kosong nyaring bunyinya”. Selamat sore.
501
Thanks SL, that’s interesting. I’m much more familar with Australian debates and related voting intentions than the US, so that helps fill in the blanks. It may also indicate why the US campaigns are riddled with debates while they are infrequent here.
What has happened to the Australian? take a look at the comments. Sanity.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/half_baked_nelson_exposed/
For the Clintonistas who keep yapping that she is more electable than Obi, have you had a squizz at your favoured http://www.electoral-vote.com lately?
The Hillary v McCain map is damn scary.
look at all the Strong, Weak, Barely’s.
Swing Lowe at 474: On the whole I concur with your analysis.
Mulling it over a bit, if a week is a long time in politics, from here to November is “geological time”. A lot of things can happen. I’m biased towards Obi because he’s such an outstanding candidate, but more than anything because he offers the best hope of dealing with the complexities of climate change. eg by appointing Al Gore to deal with Big Carbon to let ‘em know that they they can still make a motza, but things are gonna change. Then backing it up with legislation from a Dem controlled House and Senate. Even Newt Gingrich said yesterday that the GOP are rooted. As I’ve mentioned several times in previous threads; Obi’s ass ain’t owned. He’s not Beltway beholden as McCain and Clinton are.
When he gets his party’s nod, he’ll have the doddering old warmonger for breakfast. Even with McCain getting MSM mega-support, one can only gild a lily so far, and as PT Barnum said, you can’t fool all of the people, all of the time.
Only a bomb or a bullet will stop The Kid im(extraordinarily) ho.
“Obama is receiving unprecedented political and associational scrutiny here from ABC. Has he gotten a pass for the first 21 debates? Or is ABC going to precipitate a backlash? I’m getting lots of e-mail feedback from usually temperate Obama supporters, like: “This is the craziest thing i have ever seen. Did they take money from the Clinton campaign?” On the other hand, I can envision Clinton supporters saying to themselves, “Yeah, baby, now you know what it feels like.”"
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/debate_wire_iii.php
“[63 minutes later] On to the issues
It’s 9:03, time for the first real question about the economy.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
You Decieve…. We Believe!
FG @ 504,
I can think of one recent (but tenuous) example of a debate in Australian politics having an effect in opinion polls.
Cast your mind back to 2001 at the start of the campaign, where (post-Tampa and 9/11), Labor was reeling at 43% TPP.
Immediately after the one and only debate of that campaign (where the Bomber trounced the Rodent), Labor’s TPP jumped about 2-3% and eventually ended up at 49%.
Beazley’s performance in that campaign, and in particular, the debate, saved Labor from electoral annihilation (think of 1966/1975 magnitudes) and kept Labor in a position where they could realistically win government in 2004. Of course, then came Crean and Latham…
Well it did not take long for my #453 post of media bias to be proved
The pathetic Washington Post slamming ABC for a bias against Obama.
Having not watched the Debate but reading their article , the bias in favour of Obama reeks through. Obama supporters may be happy with the article…this time but the reverse occurs in the POTUS election at a critical stage you will be outraged.
No I did not watch the Debate , yes I know some think Hillary won it , but the article irrespective of ones prior knowledge is shamefully biased. Hillary has some pro Media outlets as well but not as many as Obama from my readings.
Maybe McCain being less conservative on some issues has more than Obama
and so if you are apathetic now to my comments how will you later raise McCain has a more bias media on his side argument.
The Obama supporters say the ‘message’ , the new way , a new way of Politics
About 25 of you guys & gals and I’ll count how many can answer
the 3 simple QUESTIONS:
how is the shameful Washington Lobbyist influence going 2 diminished & by wat
how is the disgusting porkbarrelling at expense of equiy to diminish & by wat
Is the undemocratic influence of the press to be affected at all , deregulation ?
Harry@506, that has been the case over months. I remember noting it to GG in a friendly spat, who thought it ‘very Robert Mugabe of me’
. But if I can continue along this line for a moment, Obama has far more strength both at the base and at the crossover point than Clinton according to the EV site. Indulge me – if we put the tieds and ‘barely’s into an ‘in-play’ category we get:
Clinton 141, McCain 282, In-play 115 (note that 99 of these are barely Dem, and officially in Clinton’s column)
as opposed to
Obama 153, McCain 195, In-play 190 (24 tied, barelys split down the middle).
Scratch at the surface with some analysis and there is no contest.
505
charles
Crikey! In the Oz!
Sheridan is bang on, Nelson’s a dud, and they need a figleaf to cover their shame of being bereft and politcally naked.
Tis time for a Mal, wouldn’t you say?
#481
Darryl
Putting this into contest – a 5 delegate movement towards Obama is equivalent to another Texas victory, or the effective wipeout of the delegate gain that Clinton accrued in the Rhode Island contest.
Ron, check what I lifted@452 about the moderator – a man who was a highly placed official in the Clinton Whitehouse. Having a look over transcripts and footage, many outlets will conclude that the debate was biased, and given the moderator’s history, this will be hard to refute.
Pancho @ 512,
As I said yesterday, I’m a bit hesitant on the Electoral Vote methodology at this stage.
Apart from the fact that only the most recent poll counts for their purposes, some of the states have not been polled on a general election basis for a long time (including some potentially crucial ones).
For example, Missouri hasn’t been polled since March 24, Washington since March 27, Oregon since March 26, New Jersey on March 27 and Minnesota on March 19.
As has been said before, a week is a long time in politics – and that is certainly the case in this particular campaign.
It is also worth noting that Electoral Vote has Clinton down by 5% to McCain in Ohio, whilst the RCP Average has Clinton up by 2.8%.
That said, what should be of concern to all us Democrats is that McCain has 270+ electoral college votes against both Clinton and Obama at the moment. This at a time when he’s had very limited media airtime and has hardly been running any ads. As I’ve said before, McCain is not going to be a pushover come November…
And to anyone who thinks Hillary’s remarks about small town voters are anything but hypocritical I say “Screw ‘Em”!
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
“Screw ‘em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
Swing Lowe – I completely agree. There is little point paying attention to three cornered contests while the Democratic campaign has not gotten underway, McCain has received no scrutiny, and Democratic supporters are divided and claiming in any number of polls that they will either not vote or defect if their candidate does not win (for strategic reasons or bitterness atm).
But I think the flawed data, as it stands, makes the Clintonian argument that she is more electable laughable. And this is asides the fact that ‘electability’ is about the fifth yardstick she has chosen as a measurement by which to guage her and Obama.
KR
I think Sheridan hit the nail in the head, what surprised me is there were readers that agreed.
Response in PA:
“Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,
…With your performance tonight — your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane “issue” questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters — you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it’s even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to “export democracy,” and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, “no thank you.” Because that was no way to promote democracy.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24161540#24172484
Do Obamabots and Clintonistas agree that in the wake of this campaign, and in light of internet and media involvement and scrutiny these days, that this Super Delegate idea needs serious revision?
Is it tenable in this day and age that Super’s can overturn the vote of the people?….especially in the Democratic Party.
I’m not at all convinced the the role of superdelegates will an issue – but this opinion is based on my presumption that the superdelegates will fall in line with public opinion. If (on the other hand) the superdelegates switch to Clinton I would expect that the Democrats will lose the election and that the Democratic Party will go though a process of restructure under which superdelegate influence will be dramatically curtailed. But looking ahead – I think the role of the internet will be much more significant in terms of future campaign management and scrutiny of the media.
I have never impressed with Obama during the 3 or 4 debates that I have watched. He seems to be a much better orator than a debater. In a set piece speech, he appears more relax and in control. Whereas, during debate and questioning under pressure, he is much less assured and tends to ramble on. Have not watched this one, but the review by NBC (Obama friendly) seems to have confirmed it.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/16/905215.aspx
HarryH @ 521,
I think the SD idea has its merits. Its original (and current) purpose is to stop popular but unelectable candidates (think Howard Dean) from winning the Democratic nomination and then losing in November. It was developed initially to stop Jesse Jackson winning the nomination in 1988 (which was a smart idea – except they nominated a liberal wasp from Massachusetts instead). It is arguable to suggest that SDs would have stopped people like George McGovern and Walter Mondale from being nominated in the first place.
What I do think needs changing in the Democratic party is the delegates allocation system. The fact that delegates are awarded (for the most part) on a proportional by congressional district basis leads to the ridiculous situation where Clinton can win the primary vote in Texas but get fewer delegates.
IMHO, they should switch to the Republican system – i.e., winner takes all. That’s the way it operates in the Electoral College, so that’s the way it should work in the primaries. It would also lead to more decisive results (and therefore a shorter primaries process – a good thing in my opinion)
JS
i agree it is untenable for Supers to overturn the publics vote. So if that is so, why have them?
#523
The Finnigans – yes I agree – but we should also point out that during the single attack on Clinton is was Obama that defended Hillary. For my money – that was character coming out in front.
Swing Lowe
Don’t you think if both parties had the winner take all system that that would even more starkly divide the country into red and blue states?
Dems would ONLY campaign in THEIR states and vice versa.
And on your other point about Supers…why does the Party have a right to overturn its members choice? That makes a farce of a Democratic Party.
If they have a vote and their members vote, then they must honour it.
I can see why it was bought in in 84 and i know the history of it and its purpose but in this day and age of involvement thru the internet, is it still tenable?
Swing Lowe – it is not the proportionality that led to Clinton’s loss in Texas, it is Texas’ unique system of having a primary and a caucus. And these systems are decided on a state by state basis. Even given the proportional system, Clinton won 4 more delegates in the Texas primary. But given her weak tactical organisation she lost the caucuses by 9. A winner takes all system would be far less democratic, and one which would present the nomination to whoever had the biggest chequebook as a matter of course.
#526 js – [but we should also point out that during the single attack on Clinton is was Obama that defended Hillary] – do you mean this?
“Obama also noted how Clinton was roundly attacked for saying during the 1992 campaign that she did not want to spend her days as first lady baking cookies and holding teas. “People attacked her for being elitist,” he said. “I remember watching that on TV and saying, ‘Well, that’s not who she is.’ ”
if so, there is not much to defend.
#525
HarryH
Simply because it a management perspective – the media attention, etc. etc. I agree with the logical conclusion of you assertion – but behind the scenes we have the potential for people that for the most part has qualified opinions to step up and offer formal enforcements. However – this is becoming a little bit of a face as we have superdelegates stating that on one hand they will endorce Clinton and on the other hand stating they will vote Obama. Go figure. In effect the superdelegate role is (as a consequence of this race) weakening. Personally I think superdelegates have to either (a) get a lot more aggressive but how they handle the role in terms of media and ongoing support for a delegate, or (b) take themselves out of the equation. My bet is that option (a) will prove more attractive.
Further to my point about Supers.
I can imagine that many of the remaining Supers probably prefer Clinton, but they will be compelled to vote for Obama because he is clearly ahead.
So what is the point of having them?
529
The Finnigans
woops
529
The Finnigans
Which just goes to show that the guy is no empty suite.
HarryH,
I have to disagree with you there. If both parties had winner take all systems, the Dems would still have to campaign in all the states (as they all will still allocate delegates). However, candidates would have to fight harder in close states (in the primaries) as they know the consequences of falling just behind would be so much greater.
As an example, look at how the Missouri primary turned out this year. Both parties returned similar results (Obama 49/Clinton 48 v McCain 50/Huckabee 48). Yet the Missouri result meant so much more for the Republicans as McCain got all of the delegates as a result of his win, whilst Obama picked up only a (net) handful of delegates as a result of his win.
Additionally, it is important to note that the purpose of the primaries is not to have an exercise in democracy for the sake of it – it’s to find a nominee for the party who is going to be electable in November. The party that selects its nominee the fastest always ends up with an early advantage in the polls – a fact that is crucial not only in terms of fundraising (very important in itself) but also in terms of morale (which can have an important effect on congressional races that are going on at the time).
If they didn’t have such a long drawn-out primary season, we wouldn’t be having this argument. It should all be over by now. Why weren’t the last twelve or so primaries in this interminable six week break? What the hell is wrong with these people? It’s like the old “rest day” in Test cricket? Remember that? This has been six excruciating weeks of navel-gazing and waffle. It’s been the show about nothing. God, let it end!
Diogenes,
The problem was that initially the last six weeks would have been filled by states that ended up having their primaries/caucuses on Super Tuesday (plus, ironically, Florida and Michigan).
Everybody expected a nominee to have already been decided by now – no one actually expected the Pennsylvania primary (let alone the Indiana primary) to be of any relevance in determining the nominee of the Democratic party.
Hopefully, the DNC will have more foresight next time around…
JS
thanx for your responses.
my point is in this day and age of the Internet, i don’t think party insiders have control of the agenda.
i think the people do.
it’s like death by a thousand bloggers for Parties and the MSM.
and it will only become more so in the future.
exciting for truer democracy i would think.
Swing Lowe @ 534
I don’t like first past the post systems – it is the most alienating and disenfranchising of the lot. Winner takes all, or first past the post in each state is not in itself going to speed up the race anyway. All it would take is a schedule of primaries over a shorter time frame, and/or earlier. Then you can still get a proportional system that lets party members have their vote given some value for a while, even if their candidate loses in the end.
One thing the caucus system they have in some states now clearly does is favour candidates with the better grass roots network ‘on the ground’ – with more supporters coming out to help. That has to be healthier don’t you think, than the more centralised populist approach?
Swing Lowe
in your scenario of winner take all
wouldn’t it stop an Obama from campaigning in ,say, Colorado, where he has now put that state in play come November.
currently he can campaign in California AND ,say,Colorado. If California was winner take all he would have to concentrate only on Cali.
Do you see my point.
Another friendly fire from the Huffs (very Obama friendly, ok worship). The kid has been kid gloved all along. GG, Ron, we told them, we told them and we told them.
Just How Soft has Obama’s Coverage Been?
The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they’ve applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That’s right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.
This is the reason we lose elections.
We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that’s what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.
No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/just-how-soft-has-obamas_b_97146.html
I need to re read the article to see if there’s bias Finns , then will comment
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvOPJ0BBTJo
…and welcome to Iraq, like no Iraqi ever knew it before the Idiot_POTUS took it into his evacuated head that Rummy, Darth and the Neocons were all ’smart’ people.
It strikes me as ironic, deeply, that the only big anti-Iranian Shiite bloc, Muqtada al Sadr’s, is the one the US has marginalised and allowed the pro-Iranian groups to exert enormous power over Baghdad (and not quite as far as Basra, as we’ve seen recently).
Whoever wins the presidency will need to be able to talk to all the stakeholders, and even though Muki has avowed to never deal with the infidels, there’s always back channels for serious high level meetings.
Now, can anyone imagine McCain doing this? Clinton? Obama?
Hint: probably NOT the first two! LOL
Not only are Superdelegates undemocratic, but the few times they’ve been used for their stated purpose, selecting the most electable instead of merely the most popular candidate, they have failed to deliver victory. And failed miserably.
The U.S. electoral system has many serious flaws and it seems to me that Superdelegates is one of the worst.
i think Clinton has outperformed Obama in every debate. Doesnt mean she is the better candidate or the one most likely to beat McCain. That would be Obama. Having picked up a net +5 supers today despite all the supposed elitist controversy shows business as usual for Obama
Having now read Obama’s defence of Hillary in 1992 compared with Hillary’s attacks of 2008 re: elitism (granted Obama wasnt running against her in 1992), I understand why I prefer Obama.
There so many Obama quips here …start with the last
Andrew
People attacked her for being elitist,” he said. “I remember watching that on TV and saying, ‘Well, that’s not who she is.’ ”
when did Obama first say that ?
i get your point Ron, As I understand he said it recently rather than 1992. My mistake
#546 – or “She’s likeable enough” – if someone tries defend me like that, i’d rather be attacked.
Finn,
The cult of Obama has permeated every aspect of the MSM and especially here at PB. Hillary proved today that she is a candidate of substance and despite all the “We believe in Fairies” mantra from the Obamists their candidate has no chance at he end of the year.
Some are discussing the role of the super delegates. The reality is they will vote for whomever they believe will win the election at the end of the year. They will no doubt be guided by popular votes. But, they will equally be guided by who can win the key States that will swing the election.
Unfortunately, Obama is just another Liberal in the production line of Liberal Losers the Dems have managed to produce over the last thirty plus years. Hillary on the other hand has the experience of being a key player in the only winning Democrat team in the living memory of most Democrat supporters.
The other excrutiating factor is that the Dems have a real chance to build a dynasty of Government to change things for the better. The obvious is Hillary supported by Obama and then Obama with real experience to takeover.
Finns dont confuse preference for Obama for hatred of Hillary. I think she’d be a really good president, but I think Obama would be better. It may be a media portayal/perception thing, but I’m seeing arrogance and ruthlessness.
Andrew,
“It may be a media portayal/perception thing, but I’m seeing arrogance and ruthlessness.”
You think this a bad thing?
GG
didn’t you say obama’s a liberal loser. how will a few years as VP will fix him?
Yes , Andrew #547 , he said now , claiming retrospecyively thats what he thought in 1992. Further her comment was ‘feminist’ at worst and as such politically positive in this enlightened age
I have to say it again but Obama’s description of it as ‘elitist’ is at best disingenuous and at worst misleading to divert away from from his statements were ‘elitist’ unless one wants to gut the meaning of the word
Ah yes, the substance candidate shines through when the kid gloves hero gets his first taste criticism!
21 debates, 42 states, Rezko, Wright, bitter, sophist, elitist…frankly this seems to me to have been a pretty grueling nomination process. Certainly much tougher than Kerry, Gore or Bill Clinton endured.
And as for that debate – there will be an absolute flood of criticism about the way it was conducted which will drown out anything Hillary wishes to take from it. There’s a great little montage of ‘highlights’ here which are well worth a look: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/16/attention-abc-youre-hurting-america
I think that in the 63 minutes of gotcha sh1t presented (with not one mention of Mark Penn, the Columbia deal or NAFTA) my favourite question, delivered through intent little eyes was:
“Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Brilliant! Ok, we’ve hit rock bottom. I think that’s me until the 22nd.
Daryl,
My suggestion is a real job in the Clinton Administration such as Secretary of State where he will have the opportunity to put real substance on to his CV. I agree Vice President is a dead end.
Pancho,
You only have to go back 24 hours on this site to see the bile spat at Hillary which apparently passes as fair political comment. This is broadly a reflection of the MSM.
Obama is your classical hedgehog. Lots of poisoned quills on the outside. But dinner once he is flipped over.
The Republicans are good at flipping hedgehogs.
Those supers aren’t going anywhere on this sort of evidence:
Working back by quip , Kirribilli on iraq
has blogged this view many times with the same answer. I do not disagree with it at all So have I on other non Iraq issues.
The problem with the blog summary is the answer ….a POTUS
….an Obama POTUS
I think the problem is not who is POTUS but whether anyone in the US can the frame of a stategy covering ALL of the following because Obama has NOT
and shows no capacity to understand the dynamics (neither has Hillary)
Kurds wish for separation vs Turkey /Nato, the power of iran that the US will not accept , the terror groups floating , Afghanistan consequences , protecting their precious Suudi & Kuwait Sheiks , not allowing partition with the Shia having the oil & the Sunni’s none , where to re locate those necessary military bases , preventing a civil war , worse still the nightmare it could spread in the M/E
etc etc etc
with the 3 biggest priotories or the good US of A
1/ doing a non vietnam…getting out with some semblance of ‘honour’/success
2/ protecting their 52nd State …Israel out with a semblance of honour USA
3/ over riding all else…protecting those magic oil supplies
#550 – Andrew – [Finns dont confuse preference for Obama for hatred of Hillary] – i hope you are speaking for yourself, which is a good thing. Because I have proved previously, not sure if you have followed this, many bloggers on this site are driven purely by the hatred of Hillary.
Meanwhile, this article below should open your eyes:
Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! – Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.
By Rebecca Traister
I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn’t know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race — an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she’d had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton’s policies before adding that when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/print.html
but at least has some experience in this complex area.
Swing Lowe – This is on the point discussed earlier about the apparent evening on RCP of all the disparate polls. Taegan Goddard doesn’t agree with us:
Thurs April 17: O—M—-G. It’s the E-word again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/robertariail;_ylt=Aux.goQA8FKCJy7wFzeHf2LV.i8C
Wed April 16: Empathy for Sep commuters or awe at the rise of the Vatican share portfolio? You be the judge.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AjfEMBA.Oeau7SQkb30s4_xR_b4F
Thurs April 17: Far too few cartographers appreciate that the Gulf of Tonkin is actually in Canada. No, just a cotton-pickin’ minute, it’s in I-ran isn’t it?
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=AjPOx3.TREc7KptJm5huTCbd.sgF
jv,
How can using an average magnify the individual polls’ defects? That doesn’t make sense.
Agree the US polls are very imperfect and info is thus hard to come by. But an average of polls is probably about the best anyone’s going to come up with in what is a bit of an information vacuum.
Dyno,
An average will tell you that if your head is in the oven and your feet are in the freezer, you are on average, warm.
i think the real problem for Hillary is that the negative persona she portays in going after Barrack outweighs the negative of the so-called Obama scandal of the day. this is why she does not make ground out of this stuff.
the next comment back was Finns
you have quoted the Huffington Post , it IS generally a pro Obama publication.
The writer taylor marsh is a pro Democrat writer and seem from by reading to be neutral on the Candidates but over a long time pressing both toughly as he is sick of Democrat POTUS losers
The problem is the issues he raises are some of the issues I’ve & others have raised here including pastorgate but others.
We have been repeatedly told they are NON issues and would go away.
ABC TV i see also raised these NON issues.
McCain must be laughing that Obma the llikely Candidate has not yet been put under the blowtorch on them , BUT already knows his lame disingenuous words
of defence when gently pressed
its a brilliant article in my opinion of reality from a Media Democrat supporter , although only addresses SOME volcanic Obama weakness’s. Its a pity we have addressed some of these issues as they are ‘tainted’
Guess Finns , another one for your forensic file 9if there is space left)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/just-how-soft-has-obamas_b_97146.html
GG @ 564,
If the average shows the two candidates to be close, then your analogy has relevance.
But if the average shows one candidate miles in front, chances are they are really miles in front.
And moroever, GG, come up with a more informative measurement, if you don’t think averages of polls are worth looking at.
An average of polls has many shortcomings, but it’s the best we can do, normally.
563 Dyno – GG is right of course about a simple average between two results. But Goddard is talking about RCP which has a set of polls in its averaging group. So I suppose he means that if they grab the latest bunch of polls to average which happen to have similar incorrect biases, then the average will be way out of whack compared to reality. In other words averaging is meaningless, because no group of polls will necessarily cancel out each others’ inbuilt errors, because they might be the same or only partly overlapping. Especially in the US where the methodology seems to vary a lot.
Where this leaves those of us seeking poll truth I’m not sure. I think it means we aren’t going to find it – through averaging polls or by any other means.
Mr. Obama, words mater, words matter. In your own words:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMcht-EW6I
Why now are you complaining that: “Wednesday night, in a debate here, Barack Obama complained a number of times about the presidential campaign process and how some people spend way too much time “obsessing” about some of the things that he and others have actually said”.
…………
Words matter when they are with you and they dont matter when they are against you. Or maybe it is a case of: “You know a candidate is really feeling the heat when he starts complaining about the kitchen. You know a candidate is having problems when he starts complaining about the process”.
…………
Mr. Obama, i have also noticed, when you are under pressure, you have been a manglin’ many a word lately.
“Regarding Rev. Wright, Obama said: “And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me, but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn’t give the American people enough credit.”
But wait. On March 18, in a carefully crafted speech, Obama said he would not disown Wright. Obama said: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, one of the moderators of the debate, immediately challenged Obama on this. “You’ve disowned him?” Stephanopolous asked Obama. “The comments, comments that I’ve disowned,” Obama said.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5A3B2CED-3048-5C12-00E64501B6065222
#563: gigo, Dyno, gigo!
—————–
Commenter at 407:
“I’m biased towards Obi because he’s such an outstanding candidate, but more than anything because he offers the best hope of dealing with the complexities of climate change. eg by appointing Al Gore to deal with Big Carbon to let ‘em know that they they can still make a motza, but things are gonna change. Then backing it up with legislation from a Dem controlled House and Senate.”
Thurs April 17: Me and Tommy, we go way back.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=Ahl.VTLGhsS4_P21G3KJN81T_b4F
Uber-authoritarianism a la BushCo is one thing, mass extinctions are another thing entirely. Think it’s important that the most powerful pollie on the planet can scope the big picture. So do my kids. All the personal wealth on earth can’t buy you, those you love, those with whom you socialise or do business with, another biosphere.
That’s primarily why I want Obi chowing down at 1600 Penn. in January 09.
next comment back Diogenes #517 Hillary an ‘elitist’ example
Hillary saying ’scew them’
When we debated Obama’s obvious ‘elitist’ comments at Frisco , Pancho had already supplied the whole speech so the words were in context.
Obama’s words in context were ‘elitist’. Its want he thinks
Now lets look at hillary’s alleged comments as they are not on tape as obama’s are. They are not ‘elitist’ as the staff writer alleges.
1/ They are foul language and
2/ they show Hillary like ALL politicans including Obama when discussing political votes to be won think of voting blocks as numbers to win votes.
Here is the full context:
“In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
“Screw ‘em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”
The statement — which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, “The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House” — was PROMPTED BY another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching “Reagan Democrats.” (in southen States which had not voted Democrat in bill’s 1992 election and never have since
Summary
It was a political numbers discussion
The words are not about either policy nor a pracy on their life styles , their religion , their clinging to guns or “apathy to anyone who looks different to you”
nor are they “bitter” or “anti immigrant”. ALL of which obama said
Bad language , yes. Politically numbers ruthless , yes and the Northern voters know this would be normal pollies political expediency. Like Rudd chasing Toorak
Dyno,
Try the PB test.
My observation is that most PBers listen to those that agree with them and abuse the rest.
The most would be the Obama supporters right GG?
Hi EC,
As our resident hippy, you might enjoy my 482.
Cheers.
EC @ 571 – [That’s primarily why I want Obi chowing down at 1600 Penn]
Exactly. They are uncomplicated questions: Who is the candidate offering the best chance of making the world safer, both from world violence and terror, and from environmental destruction? And who is more likely to be able to change the business/military/political modus operandi in Washington?
Hillary simply and demonstrably cannot and will not deliver on any of those things.
Diogenes, you said you weren’t up to speed on all the sectarian issues in Iraq a while back, so this may be interesting to you. It’s 40 minutes long, so get comfy, and watch Juan Cole get interviewed by Dan Drezner. (Warning: Drezner can be VERY irritating, but Cole is superb, and he covers all the big issues, Iran, the Shia militias, the Kurds, Turkey and the Turkoman, and of course the US problems in both Iraq and the region).
This is worth a ticket:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10036
TW @ 574,
As my hero Francis Urquart might say,
“‘You may very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment,”
Oh well GG, you can let your perceptions be your own reality until the convention. Then you have to join the real world or it’s gonna get real creepy.
578
Greeensborough Growler
Oh, you old Machiavellian you!
Old Francis, your hero?
No wonder you root for Hillary! LOL
next comment Pancho re one of the moderators ‘possible bias’
This guy in your #452 blog works in high profile jobs for POOTUS Clinton including the initial defacto ‘press secretary in the first 6 months of POTUS
So he was not unkown to the Obama machine.
Since then he has had a career in TV especially TV political. So ?
So his questions were hard and or too persistent vs Hillary.
Thats not bias necessarily at all…its a TV debate where a moderator will zero in on a pollie appearing to have a political weakness.
Maybe IF he handled them better , he may have had a hard list up his sleeve for Hillary…time is limited on TV …tough business Politics
THEN , where is this guys PAST history of anti Obama bias shown or coincidently did it just arise last night andcoincidently him asking questions eg on Pastorgate that Obama bloggers here do not like to hear ..’move on” and the like.
Of course IF the Obama machine was concerned they could have insisted on different moderators afterall HE is leading the delegate count..hillary needed the Debate not Obama
This is pro Obama supporters & pro obama media flooding the airwaves trying to sidetrack the voters from Obama’s debate loss.
If Obama beats McCain in a TV debate , the McCain supporters & pro McCain Media will flood the airwaves saying ‘legitimately’ the moderator or his qustions were biased.
Finally if all modrators are biased anyway, the C
Candidates are getting fee time to launch a counter attack on their political opponent…its called opportunity
TW @ 579,
I am not a joiner. What has the real world ever done for me!
Well for an update on what Mac is doing….since we all seem so caught up in ‘Obillary’…
President McCain? It could happen
http://www.newstatesman.com/200804170028
McCain manufacturing a victory
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24162362/
“Democratic superdelegates seem to have little choice but to rally behind Obama. But if Obama wins the nomination without the support of Rust Belt working-class whites, will McCain be able to pick off what should be reliable blue states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, as well as swing states like Ohio?”
559Finns:
and that would have been posted by Chelsea and her bestest-ever -girl friends.
Like Jaime.
In my world (not even in the US) there are women who wanted to, but have decided not to support Hillary.
I wish there was a woman candidate that was worthy of my support, but sadly….
And almost finally the the disneyland quips about committed delegates
SD’s are not righteous preachers who give their bond (pledge) and its forever
It is given in good faith at that time with the implicit understanding that if the Party’s overall critical interests subsequently are in conflict with that pledge ,
then the pledge becomes ‘flexible’ That is reality.
IF superdelegates prior to the convention believe Obama is by then unelectable on Polls etc or that Hillary is infinitively more electable on Polls etc ,
What is suggested in such circumstances ?????
(which current Polls imply at least isn’t an impossibilty on swing state matchups
and from which more Obama adverse gaffe’s or history may emerge
These SD’s politicans/operatives will KNOWINGLY risk giving POTUS 2 the Repugs
They would consider it. They also have to consider a Party revolt if they did
Above all , they will have to live with either decision. POTUS would win I think
Probably unlikely , but not impossible which is why Hillary is legitimately going to remain in the race providing shec can win Pennsylvania by 1% or more
Those who think this is a political impossibility abound here but then pastorgate was nothing either and was a non issue a month ago
Grinch-
did you abuse me last night?
(Billbo censored you)….
surely we can swim together in a spirit of anti-republicanism.
EC @ 571,
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you have to just give up altogether.
US polls may be rubbish compared to Oz but:
- Trends in the same poll probably mean something
- Averaging polls is at least likely to moderate the impact of some of the outliers.
#587 – jen – did you abuse me last night?
Finns-
in your dreams.
Kinda of like this setup. Working on my business via email and blogging on PBs at the same time. Not a bad life.
r/Ron – [if the Party’s overall critical interests subsequently are in conflict with that pledge ,then the pledge becomes ‘flexible’ That is reality. ]
I have come to the conclusion r/Ron that your ‘reality’ and mine are very different.
Today, that’s 16 April 2008 (US time), 3 superdelegates outed for Barack, and one deserted Hillary for Barack, making a nett result for Barack of 5 in one day, today. Are they living in the cone of silence do you think, or been in a coma for a few month and haven’t heard the news that there is an avalanche for Hillary? How is it that we seem to know the SD’s are just itching to flood over to Hillary, and yet the real SD’s – the persons themselves -are still walzing in droves to Barack. Today. As we speak. They are telling their constituents in their states and districts they are committing to Obama. They are spelling out their reasons in public. Which ones do you think are only kidding?
There was no evidence yesterday, so where’s the evidence of the apocalypse confronting Obama … today?
Admit it. There is none. The HRC position is one of hope over the numbers – the classic Stephen Bradbury position, I’m afraid
Jen,
I didn’t think so.
I am all in favour of an Australian Republic, if that helps.
jv,
Although I am a fence sitter on the relative merits of HRC and Obama, I agree with you entirely at 592.
She’s gone.
Finns @ 591,
Are you talking about the dream or the abuse?
Dyno
join the herd at your own peril.
HarryH,
“join the herd at your own peril.”
Hillary has it all under control.
join the herd at your own peril.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFnvLC83ew
#595 – Yes GG, the dream is to a build a global based business. A brand new above the line media business that nobody has even thought of. The abuse is getting a reply like #590, very disappointing.
Harry,
It’s just the maths really.
And the complete lack of evidence of a flood of SDs to Hillary, which is the only thing that could save her now.
And the apparent lack of a re-run in Michigan or Florida, meaning those delegates won’t be seated (unless the contest is already decided).
I am sure she is very frustrated, especially given the poor campaign she has run in caucus states, which look like making most of the difference. But hey, she stuffed up, she’s lost, and that’s life, she and her supporters will just have to get used to it.
Whether Obama will make a better candidate, or a better President, now they are different questions altogether.
Finns,
With respect, the answer might be in your hands if you think 590 is a setback.
If we are to be a herd, then I’d rather be known as a gnu than a wildebeest.
As Flanders & Swan said:
I’m a gnu—spelt G – N – U
Call me bison or okapi and I’ll sue
#600 – GG – I should be so lucky
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/turning-40-am-i-bothered-says-kylie/2008/04/17/1208025369909.html
3554 Pancho
“Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Brilliant! Ok, we’ve hit rock bottom. I think that’s me until the 22nd”
Richard Carlton on ABC asked Hawke after he ‘knifed’ Hayden for the Leadership
as the very first question to the new ALP leader:
‘how do you feel with blood on your hands ? ” or words close
Pancho they are brutal questions and whilst perhaps ill mannered & offensive & not as you would have framed the question had you asked re the subject ,
The point is a POTUS candidate has to have the mettle to handke a brutal question ! Surely a POTUS’s other challenges will be more brutal.
The test was Obama to pass a simple brutal test , not to pass a test of answering the same question gently over lunch
His answer was ? and was it convincing ? and have more seeds of doubt been raised about Obama’s patriotism ? Obama needed to rise to the challenge
#601 jv – your GNU – Open Source? or Proprietary?
#603 – well said Ron. Obama promised a revolution in November. Yet, he has not heed the wisdom of Chairman Mao “Revolution is not a dinner party”. Obama thinks revolution is just another hand holding Kumbaya party.
So the over 300 uncommitted Sd’s are allowing the Party to bleed seriously and give mcCain massive advantages including more harsh quotable quotes because:
1/ they are democracy minded to let a close contest be fought out with the democrat faithful deciding
2/ do not want to upset their own States exiting pledged Primary preference
3/ hoping Hillary will simply concede and call for the party to unite
4/ trying put together an offer for Hillary to accept with a graceful exit/ position
and expecting her as a quid quo to concede
5/ expecting Hillary to see the wisdom of abandoning a one in a lifetime chance for POTUS and the chance of more Obama decisive ‘gafes’
Obama supporters , I think you are hoping the impossible with any of them
I believe hillary will fight all the ay to the convention unless she loses Penns. or the SD’s in mass move against her
Finns
Obi has just been taking it easy on your girl out of respect for her and the Party.
Wait till he starts on Bomb Bomb and the Repugs….then you’ll see the revolution.
Jen, this is what we said about Obi’s Philly Address back then:
966 jen Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am Obama’s speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html
compare it to reaganomics, the sleaze of the Clinton’s , the utterly breathtaking stupidity of Bush, and dare to dream.
975 Enemy Combatant Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Jen at 966: “compare it to reaganomics, the sleaze of the Clinton’s, the utterly breathtaking stupidity of Bush, and dare to dream.”
Compared it to Gettysburg and Jefferson and Franklin and FDR, jen.
Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in Philly is as good as any of them and has the right stuff to ensure that the present liars, thieves and warmongers will be hurled from the corridors of power come November.
Below is a para from the feature article in the latest nyrob:
“In his prose, Obama of necessity lagged far behind the resplendent Lincoln. But what is of lasting interest is their similar strategy for meeting the charge of extremism. Both argued against the politics of fear. Neither denied the darker aspects of our history, yet they held out hope for what Lincoln called here the better “lights of current experience”—what he would later call the “better angels of our nature.” Each looked for larger patterns under the surface bitternesses of their day. Each forged a moral position that rose above the occasions for their speaking.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21290
————
Growler, I’m afraid the Gilligan Is. clip didn’t do it for me but please, k. t.
Dyno, agree, the Sep op polls are a difficult “read”. Perhaps we could keep an eye on ‘em all at say, RCP from here to Nov., to suss which ones are the most accurate.
R.rron @ 603 [seeds of doubt been raised about Obama’s patriotism ? Obama needed to rise to the challenge]
That’s right, that’s right. Barack needs to wear a stars and stripes suit and a pair of colt .45s in twin scrolled leather holsters for the remainder of the campaign.
Barack enjoys playing poker, so he can arrange the perfect set-up for a advert to demonstrate his shooting skill and patriotism. Scene opens. He is playing poker in a group – low light, smoky bar room. Suddenly Barack catches one of the other players – all of middle-eastern appearance – cheating. One of them throws over the table. Barack stands ready. The middle-eastern players go for their guns, but Barack draws like lightening and brings the towel-heads down with both guns blazing. The camera zooms in as he blows cordite fumes from both barrel ends, and says into the lens, breathing heavily “God bless America. My work is done here, I’m needed elsewhere.” He walks slowly out of the swinging bar doors which creak in unison to a slow halt. Cut.
That should make up for the missing f*ckin lapel pin.
lol jv
i could picture the fumes coming out your ears as you typed
#609 like this?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QKLvKZ6nIiA
609
jaundiced view
Hahaha!
But seriously, do you think that would be enough? You know, to show that he’s not really a secret sword carrying Mohammadan? It’s hard to bowl in a robe, so maybe, hey, maybe, that’s why he’s cr@p at that too!
If anyones interested,
I reckon Obama is a Collingwood supporter because he claims to be black and white, Hillary is Carlton because everyone Blues about her and according to PB McCain has to be Essendon because he is the Bomber.
Cheers and good night.
#612 – KR – i am sure it is EXACTLY like this!!!
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iORmi46dowo
614
The Finnigans
It was very funny, way back then, when we all were more ‘innocent’ and probably naive about Western imperial exploits in Arab lands, but I must say, it looks very strange to me now.
Maybe it’s something about the fact that the Arab world has seen this same story played out century after century, and that they all know that the US is on the same path as the French in Algeria, or the British in Egypt. They’ve seen it all before, they know how this ends, and the ‘hero’ with the revolver in fact is not the one who comes out of this in one piece.
It’s amazing how a few years, a blunderingly stupid invasion, and NOT reading the MSM can change even one’s sense humour.
Hi Finns @ 614,
Classic. Great metaphor for Hillary v Obama.
Cheers.
I love the financial press:
Crude toys with $115
…they know how to write an attention getting headline.
Or, to translate, the US dollar is going down the S-bend even further.
KR – [do you think that would be enough]
It probably wouldn’t be enough for some. You can imagine the frustration Obama must be feeling with this petty rubbish the right wingers keep beating up. You could almost see it today in the ‘debate’. They just wanted to close him down with relentless trivia. Partisan and pathetic.
604 @ Finns – [your GNU - Open Source? or Proprietary?]
Just realised what you were on about. I don’t think Flander or Swan had any inkling of an operating system – let alone one called gnu.
Anyway, If it were an operating system rather than an African herd animal I was talking about it would be open source, because my own gnu instincts are towards the co-operative. All herd animals have a natural inclination to group together to share the risk of predation for a start, so they are in that sense egalitarians. Conclusion : Herd animals are pinkos, and should be proud of it.
Finns @ 611 No, you were right the first time – High Noon is the mood the rednecks identify with I reckon
Finns , the video , thats as quick a blow as big bad Barry Hall
are you suggesting thats how quick its gnna be at the convention to annoint hillary , especially after those seeds of doubt on his patriotism and 7ups Goldengate
618
jaundiced view
Yeah, it was disgraceful pigswill for nearly an hour, and he was obviously tired of it. But, he at least rose above it, and it made CLinton’s carping look even more ugly than usual (is that possible??).
Can he ride on through it? No doubt he will.
Ron @ 619.
I luv your style.
Laughing uncontrollably here.
It looks like he can power on KR – because the opposition’s upboard is bare. They only had negatives to offer, and Stephanopoulos (sp?) had nothing new today, and he had come straight from Hillary Central. All we saw was another flogging of dead horses. Is that the best they’ve got? Given the importance of PA to Hillary, I’d say it is. There must be tension in the Clinton campaign room unknown since the 600 rode into the valley of death.
laughing uncontrollably at Growlers transparent urgings.
it’s great fun aint it brutha
j/v
You can imagine the frustration Obama must be feeling with this petty rubbish the right wingers keep beating up.
Frustration at that , then how can he handle POTUS
Kirribiili
“Yeah, it was disgraceful pigswill for nearly an hour, and he was obviously tired of it.”
wow , won’t be POTUS be a breeze
Ha has not even had a sniff of a real blowtorch yet.
Hillary was a ‘colleague’. Wait till the enemy strike , over 6 months of attack…tired ? ….frustrated ? ….wow
Another disgraceful pro Obama review.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/17/2220357.htm?section=world
JV
You can say that again:
But the result was as dull as it was pointless, with a discussion that tells us nothing about the candidates, their visions, or their ability to govern. E&P’s Greg Mitchell called it “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” The Washington Post’s Tom Shales called it “step downward for network news,” and noted that the moderators delivered “shoddy, despicable performances.” Will Bunch noted, “[A] word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must. Stop.” Salon’s own Walter Shapiro added:
This is the way it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. If Wednesday night’s fizzle in Philly was indeed the last debate of the Democratic primary season between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it will be remembered for, well, not much of anything.
Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon.
So, who won? I haven’t the foggiest idea, but I’m quite certain we all lost.
Salon.com
j/v
‘the 600 rode into the valley of death’
must have been one of Obama’s ancestors ordering the attack…..the wrong way
623
HarryH
ooh, ooh, I have to stop myself!
I must try harder…
HarryH @ 623 – I think the word might be ‘grooming’. If it is successful the result is an acolyte.
Priests have their acolytes and thurifers*, and then there are mere altar boys.
* a thurifer is an acolyte who carries a thurible (but you probably knew that)
GG Obama quote
“Senator Obama said he had “mangled” his words”
We have lots of Obama supporters who said here , Obama meant what he said !
that he told the truth because he is the new way of Polics future , the honest !
but that is different to ‘mangled’ surely ?
631
jaundiced view
I can hear Rowan Atkinson asking “which one of you boys would like to come up and be altared?”
Ron @ 632
I am always happy to fess up.
But, you have the wrong criminal this time, Mi Lord.
KR, I am more than a little disappointed that I have had to delete yet another comment from you which was not about politics because it was entirely about another commenter. What part of this very simple injunction do you not understand?
R/ron @ 632 [he told the truth because he is the new way of Polics future , the honest ! but that is different to ‘mangled’ surely ?]
Ah, r/Ron how can I put this … sometimes when people speak spontaneously, particularly when they are in small group meetings in private – well, I guess like we are here in a way – and are relaxed and comfortable and speaking directly about what they really think, then just occasionally – believe it or not – and I know it may seem unlikely to you in particular r/Ron, but occasionally they will perhaps choose an expression or a turn of phrase that doesn’t result in the best syntax or clarity, but nevertheless roughly gets the message across. You of all people would find that difficult to believe of course, but sometimes what people say in those circumstances can even appear a little garbled and difficult to understand to others who might perchance read it. Would you credit that? Amazing, eh?
GG #633 wrong addrssing
and j/v
in the interview Obama explained his guns , religion, bitter words as ‘mangled words’
and yet his supporters for the last 2 days were saying here Obama knew exactly what he saying and he was telling the truth.
all poll bludgers agreed ! yet the Obama ones did not think it was ‘elitist’
Obviously Obama has had a change of political antennae eh ?
he now knows they were ‘elitist’ words , so now he says they were ‘mangled words’ …disingenuous again
Obviously j/v you has have had a change of political antennae , cause you guys are also backing away & suggesting ‘mangled words’
when you keep moving backward , you know what happens !
634
William Bowe
Eh? Are you referring to the poster that started with “T” and only ever wrote couplets?
Surely not???????
KR @ 632 Ha. That’s right – and I was also reminded of The Alteration by Kingsley Amis
William, I presumed the injunction was for real actual alive bloggers! LOL
Sorry, but I kind of miss the “T”, content challenged perhaps, but incredibly consistent, wouldn’t you say?
KR, your comment read as follows.
By this, I presume you mean that a certain other commenter – either GG or Ron, I gather – was “wasting” more than two lines at a time. Am I wrong about this?
I said an hour after 7ups-Goldebgate happened , the words were elitist and Obama should immediately retract and I actually said he could say ‘ill chosen words in his full apology
THE TRUTH is j/v , I was derided , that Obama had nothing to apologise for and he was telling the truth and the words were not elitist
To be fair , your #635 blog should have been all Obama supporters answer a week ago on the day instead of blindly defending Obama and dismissing my opiion outright
and your #635 blog or my above words also could ahve been Obama’s on the day the story boke a week ago with a full apology.
Neither you guys or Obama fess up , delay with ‘words’ then make a partial concession , but you would not accept this either
sorry last line got cut off
‘and a week later belatedly Obama now says quote ‘my words were mangled’
Just because Obama is wrong on this does not necessarily mean you should drop your support
640
William Bowe
It was a throw away line, not “bitter”, not aggressive/obnoxious, and not aimed at anyone in particular.
Like Diogenes said today, in exasperation, let it end!
And you’ll note, after 623, I did in fact not join in the derision, even if it was possible to construe it as levity. (God forbid I might be misconstrued! LOL)
There’s been a lot of ‘not about politics’ comments tonight, in rambling fashion, and I just remembered the dearly departed and utterly dependable Tabitha, who understood the virtue of brevity, if not much else! LOL
#549
Greeensborough Growler
Thing is GG that when I’m leaning back and thinking about all of this – I’m ranking Obama at 8/10, Clinton somewhere between 4-2/10 and McCain at a steady 3/10. So yes – from that perspective r/Ron diatribes don’t impact the equation. I’m more in line with Jen – its the potential that matter and guess what – Obama is the catalyst. I know this means that I will forever be excluded from the unaligned – but what the hell – I like my position and win or loose – I’l feel god about my convictions.
I disagree – I think the fundamentals will be:
1. how does my vote impact my constituency (a.k.a. my re-election)
2. how does my vote impact my political career (a.k.a the inevitable Clinton consequence versus the potential Obama drama taking into account life within the Democtratic Party )
3. how will my vote be recorded in history (i.e. for the people or against the people)
4. if the Democrats loose the best option is to be over in corder X (and you and I both know which corder that is)
Thing is, while I understand where your coming from – I see Obama as an symbol of of opportunity for the rest of the world. Yes – I know it sounds grandiose, yes I know I’m positioning myself as and an ObamaX (and your welcome to substitute whatever for the X but in doing so you discount the potential). And I guess – yes -probably – its the possibility that is driving me – just like Jen – it is the chance of something better.
Do you really want to a dynasty?
#563
Greeensborough Growler
Me to.
#607 Yes.
HarryH – once again, your right on the money.
#634 WB
Given that I’m on the cusp of dismissal – any recommendations as to how I should modify my behaviour. It seems to me that you are giving KR at lot of advice but at the same time your leaving me in the dark. For what it is worth – I too miss Tabitha.
JS
Can you put all that in two lines?
Hate to say it, but I get the feeling this is all going round in circles, and really nothing new has been said for so long I’ve almost forgotten why we’re here.
But answer this: will tomorrow’s headline be “Obama not patriotic” or “Crude hits $115″?
I wonder?
New poll from zogby
Penn Clinton +1
two things i found interesting:
when asked , Pennsylvanians said 2 to 1 (60-29) that Obama was correct about his “bitter” remarks and don’t consider him elitist.
the other interesting thing was they actually asked this question:
who would you rather have a beer with? it was a tie (39-38)
what the hell are they asking questions like that for?
KR, my earlier injunction contained no exemption for “throwaway lines”. It is plainly obvious that Tabitha was an indirect object of your comment rather than its subject. From now on, you will not be making any comments of any kind which do not relate to politics.
#646
Kirribilli Removals
Possibly, but I wouldn’t fee half as good about it at the end of the day.
Crikey r/Ron – around we go yet again.
Where is the contradiction between 1. ‘knew what he was saying’, 2. ‘telling the truth’ and 3. Obama wishing he hadn’t chosen one or two of the words used to express the truth he knew? There is none, by a simple process of logic.
I would say the words he regrets are ‘bitter’ and ‘cling’ but I don’t know. These seem to be the words that his opponents are using to suggest he meant something different to what he was actually expressing.
That people cling to religion is a given. Many turn more fervently to their religion [poor fools] when they are under stress.
Others, not so religious, turn inward to other things when they are p*ssed off (or ‘bitter’) about their spouses, world or the government or their party, for example to their recreational pursuits, such as huntin’ and fishin’. That’s the gist of what I thought Obama was saying.
So where’s the problem? It’s the truth. The issue only arose because of the desperation of Hillary and the other right-wingers who are trying to extrapolate something out of nothing from a couple of the words because there is absolutely nothing real to ‘get’ Barack on.
What mildy irritates me r/Ron is your unreasonable assertions that I have ever said anything different to the thrust of the above about this issue.
647
HarryH
Oh, it’s the Brewer’s Poll, obviously. (Follow up question: which brand of beer)
Looks like the cursed ‘narrowing’ to me HH.
#648
Mr. Chairman – point of order – if an opinion is just plain rubbish then calling out the opinion is just plain within the scope of policy and procedure (and throw me under the bus if you disagree with me).
JS, you can avoid dismissal the same way as KR – by making comments only about politics. If your comment is about another commenter, don’t hit submit. If it’s a smart-arse one-liner that serves no other purpose than denigrating somebody else, don’t hit submit. Follow this simple rule and I can almost guarantee you that you will never be banned, short of breaching libel and vilification laws.
If an opinion is rubbish, criticise the opinion rather than the person making it. Don’t they teach this stuff in kindergarten anymore?
#650: jaundiced view – well said
#654
I never went to kindergarten.
William, just as an observation, a fairly high percentage of what is written on this blog is about other bloggers, in various shapes and forms. I’m not being ’smart-arsed’, just pointing out that night and day, people are talking at each other, about each other, deriding each other, with various levels of skill and severity.
I don’t expect any ’special’ exemption, but really, take a look at what’s being written here everyday, and tell me this is NOT what’s going on?
Junior Senator #644
You obviously put alot of thought & time into your blog , so I won’t repond with what i sometimes get is a one liner effectively saying ‘drivel’ as the response.
Your options 3/ and 4/ are a prediction of a scenario & have merit but I would add some caveats
The electoral college polls at the moment indicate a close POTUS race against McCain be it Hillary or Obama as hs opponent.
From my reading of swing states , Hillary has a stronger chance in those swing states collectively than Obama. Its not a likeability issue , or who I support or whose policys are better or who is a liar thats my poll reading views
If those polls stay as they are the SD’s may take the greater risk of Obama for at least one of the 4 reasons you’ve said , but then if McCin becomes POTUS they will forever be blamed (which would over ride all of your 4 reasons)
But there are further adverse demogrphic factors at work now which increase the chances of Hillary’s electability which I think make the SDs choice of being blamed for a Repug POTUS perhaps unbearable to live with
Ah KR, you very norty boy…as Chairman Rudd said one late nite in NY…
“if your t*ts were wicks and ready to light
Keelty & Ruddock up your cl*cker they’d fight’
Meanwhile Mission Accomplished: Update # 69
http://ia341042.us.archive.org/3/items/marabt/marabt.WMV
The bead.
KR, when I say that you will never get banned if you don’t make comments about other commenters, I do not mean that you will get banned just because you do. The point is that I asked you personally to stop doing it less than 12 hours ago. No doubt my attitude will relax in time if you just show you can respect this for a while.
GG, I know you meant well with your comment which I am not letting out of moderation, but … Jesus.
j/v I do not wish to unwittingly insult you so I’m replying
660
William Bowe
It’s ironic, because that’s what I was actually trying to do! LOL
Seriously, instead of saying there’s too much verbiage coming from certain people (and it sounding, you know, aggresive/obnoxious, a/o), I remembered the delightful brevity of Tabitha. It was meant as humour, but I guess you really couldn’t see it that way.
Levity is the soul of wit? Or was it….??
#657
In part yes.
This blog contains a lot of information about what is happening and a good part is critique of information. Some of the people here who make comments are plain crystal, but there are comments that are just plain stupid. The thing that William seems to objecting to is when someone posts a stupid comment that we should not be calling out that individual as just plain stupid. Instead – we should be pointing out to that individual just why they are stupid and how they could deal it. Thing is – what if said stupid poster keeps on posting said stupid posts over and over and over? However – I will follow Williams directive and I undertake not to reference ‘he who must not be named’.
william
1 comment on this stuff.
is Ron not deriding other posters in nearly every post he makes by labelling them with all sorts of inane tags.
i’m not saying he is offending anyone, but really, is anyone else either?
Not that I’ve noticed, Harry. Can you point to anything he’s said that wasn’t essentially about politics?
js @ 655 Thanks,
Is this the approach we need around here? – a Karl Kraus quote, something like this:
Mr Bowe let them run their race, 2 way traffic, they’ll tire, your brand is intact etc…
PS any reply to my non paypal $?
Don’t think I’ve received an email from you, Codger, unless it’s on my other computer. You might hear back tomorrow.
Some news -This is just relentless for Barack – another Philly paper goes for him.
“Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Obama”
But not only that – those fickle SD’s, I don’t know:
“Plus: The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that “prominent Pennsylvania supporters” will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity.”
http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/17/philadelphia-daily-news-endorses-obama/
For the record – I’m not making a donation.
William
look , i’m not here on this site to bicker, and i’m not interested in going back thru Rons posts.
i’ll leave it at that.
codger, that vid is disturbing stuff, but the reality of war should never be forgotten. It makes a good antidote to the Raider clip, with the silly joke at the A-rabs expense. That vid’s a good reminder of how they’ve turned that corny joke on its head.
There’s only getting out left, that’s the ONLY option, and as Juan Cole put it, even McCain will have to do it…just latter.
I think you’d be disappointed if you tried, Harry. Ron receives 100 times what he dishes out, in both volume and intensity, and I am persistently amazed by the good grace with which he suffers it.
For good reason.
1. logic
2. fact
And yes, this is a political opinion.
This is painful stuff for Hillary -from the Daily News editorial board’s reasons for supporting Obama. It’s also strong stuff:
/v #635
You may have misunderstood my intent here
1/ A week ago ,
(a) I said ALL 7 slurs words were elitist & condescending and
(b) he should make a full apology that day and
(c) honestly say the words were ill chosen
(d) I also said his political attenanne must have been turned off as it was politically foolish to alienate the whole mid west
j/v Thats all I said basically
2/ The overwhelming majority of Obama supporters said the words were not slurs & were not elitist , that no apology was needed , his political antennae was not turned because he told the truth /this is the new political way truth , what he said he meant exactly because thats what those people basically are (redkecks) and no apology was needed
3/ j/v #650 your reply
What mildy irritates me r/Ron is your unreasonable assertions that I have ever said anything different to the thrust of the above about this issue.
4/ I’m asserting what I said in point 2/
ie The overwhelming majority of Obama supporters said point 2/
No one I recall conceded my point 1/ (c) at all (let alone the rest of point 1/
In fact Obama supporters refer point 2/ were adamant the words were exactly what he meant to say , he was clever and his words should be taken in context with the whole speech
and further they are ‘redknecks’ There was no mild concession that anything was wrong except me picking on words (in fact 7 slurs)
If you were not saying this , can you let me know where you said it perhaps I missed your blog ????
Also can you tell me the difference between wha tObama supporters said in point 2/ compared to “the truth he knew” (your words) ????
If you wish to clarify my two inquirys and as a result I’ve unwittingly included you in with what the majority of Obama supporters in point 2/ actually said then I would not hestitate to apologise for wrongly claiming something you did not assert
670
jaundiced view
That “uppity nigga”!
Hillary Clinton had one shot in the locker: dump on Obama and make him look bad, and she shot it.
Pity it ricocheted right back at her. The public have seen enough of her Shrillary side, and it was always a risk she’d send ‘em screeching away in horror if she exposed it more.
She knew the risks, but she didn’t have much left.
whereas Obama now is saying ‘my words were mangled’
No, JS, it’s an opinion about Ron. This is your last warning. Another thing: do not respond to this comment.
lol William
i’m certainly not saying it’s 1 sided. my point was everyone does it. i guess i was just surprised you took offence at KR’s humorous dig @628 that is now deleted.
i certainly don’t appreciate being slabbed in Ron’s elitist category but hey, it’s only back and forth.
and PS:
i think Ron is easier to take when you are a mod than as a contributor .
it’s all fun though.
OK
r/Ron @ 677- I honestly can’t quite make out your point. I can only speak for myself, and my view of it is there @ 650. There’s nothing further to add. I have never suggested anything otherwise.
“She knew the risks, but she didn’t have much left.”
I entirely agree
Politics is about winning and this can involve sowing doubt about your opponent
to the vote. Whether its fair or not, or indeed whether its only partly true ,
is how the brutal game is played.
For Hillary I’ve said its probably a belated tactic as it needs time to have an effect. McCain has time.
Obama has not been immune either from doing so from the NAFTA pamplets to the Healthcare policys & others. No pollie can succeed in the US without a negative side to their campaign via ’supporter’ groups. We were abit cleaner here JWH learnt these US tricks long before Rove appeared
For all the gigabytes (or terrabytes maybe) that have been expended on a word, bitter, it seems the outcome has not been diverted one iota. The kid’s still got Big Mo, and he’s still an SD magnet.
What’s ironic, is that he may have been technically wrong, but so many people understood what he meant to say, and they understood it in different ways. Of course the MSM were all over it to enliven a dreary interlude between primaries, and were going to spin it out of control for as long as they could, but the effect has been to turn the public away from this tiresome drivel.
So, “Obama not patriotic” or “Crude Oil hits $115″, what’ll it be?
Oh yeah, and it’s one thing to express an idea poorly, in an off guard moment, but it’s another entirely to repeatedly lie about something important and then dismiss it casually when you get caught out. I think most people do understand the ethical difference.
Here comes another one – at least this one uses live telephone operators:
“Zogby Poll: Pennsylvania Too Close To Call
A new Zogby poll in Pennsylvania finds Sen. Hillary Clinton barely edging Sen. Barack Obama, 45% to 44% with 12% undecided.”
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481
bedtime for me I reckon – now no-one get sin-binned tonight y’all. Discipline, focus, and Karl Kraus are all you need to attain William’s standards unscathed.
686
jaundiced view
No matter how camp Clinton spins it, getting numbers like this must be freaking them out.
It’s been commented on that morale is pretty, well, there isn’t any, and you’d have to think they are sitting there biting their nails every time another SD drops, another major PA paper endorses him, another poll shaves off more of her once huge margin.
It must be sheer hell! Water torture, of the Chinese kind (but soon to be the Whitehouse approved kind! LOL)
She’s drowning, (not waving).
well j/v , I’ll look back over your past posts and also review my #677 post into a more concise but better clarified viewpoint
I do believe that if my opinion properly expressed as I intend & without intended malice
(excluding bloging ‘ barbs’ iin the rough & tumble of blogging)
causes offence then I think that is for the receiver to deal with.
However you are saying something different and if I’ve unwittingly misquoted & unwittingly caused offence I’m happy to correct at any time
Yep, long day, and not a lot to show for it.
I must try harder…
True – where is my LOL moment – instead I’m dealing with an under the bus moment. Pull your self together and show us your real potential!
Oh bugger – my last post could be construed as non-political. KR my sincere apologies – it was a moment of weakness.
Morning Bludgers-
so the debate didn’t do too much for either of them by the look of it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189362/
(I know that’s not a REAL poll- but it is fun).
William, I’m a bit confused by your ruling about non-political slagging. is it therefore OK to be hammered as long as there’s a poliical reference (ie -Obamabot??).
And here’s one for r/Ron-
I think this guy is saying what you have been trying to.
Personally I think it’s pretty much a crock, but then I would, being a one-eyed Obamabot and all.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_shaken_rattled_and_rolle.html
My beauty sleep has obviously denied me of the fun and games last night/this morning.
WB, my only comment is “please be gentle with them, for they know not what they are doing”. personally, i dont give a hsit about whatever abuses/slagging/insult bloggers throw at me on this forum. It’s just blowing in the wind for me. i dont like it but never get upset over it.
But this is good and simple: [If an opinion is rubbish, criticise the opinion rather than the person making it]
Hi Finns-
your opinion is rubbish.
you, however are lovely.
Obama is way superior to Clinton (just to make sure this has political content).
GG & Ron & KR & jen, This video:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iORmi46dowo
is actually very very deep in the context of the current Christian Vs Islam; West Vs East; White Vs Black; Developed Vs Undeveloped; Hillary Vs Obama; Obama Vs The bitter gun clinging ones as well as being very funny.
The Q is will Obama suffer the same fate? Bang, bang, shot down by Hillary Annie Oakley six shooter.
That is hilarious Finns.
(Indiana being Obama of course.)
Talking about a sword swirling, puffed up deluded man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7352654.stm
Dear William
The rest of us KRs would appreciate it if you could refer to the offender in some other way than by initials. On occasions I have mistakenly thought commenters were referring to a more famous, casual resident of Kirribilli.
684
“Politics is about winning and this involve sowing doubt about your opponent…Whether it’s fair or not, or indeed whether its only partly true, is how the brutal game is played.”
And THAT is what’s wrong with politics and is exactly why Obama is winning. The electorate is sick and tired of politics being an ethics-free zone and is crying out for leadership and character – the kind of leadership you can be proud of.
Good morning PB crew – how many SD’s to declare today I wonder? Obama +5 yesterday.
FernyG @701 [The electorate is sick and tired of politics being an ethics-free zone and is crying out for leadership and character]
Barack has now said virtually what you are saying FG – how prescient!:
And just as the latest Philly Fed report shows the local economy well down the drain, this bit of economic news should have a few people choking on their ‘freedom fries’:
At today’s dollar/euro (EUR) exchange rate, many nations are already much richer than Americans. The average American earned about $38,000 last year. But the average person in Switzerland earned $64,000. In Denmark, the average salary was $62,000. In Norway, Luxembourg and Germany all had average salaries around $60,000. The Belgians earned an average of $47,000. And the French…yes, dear reader…the frogs are now richer than Americans. The average Frenchman earns $42,000 per year. How’s that for divine comedy? How’s that for taking the starch out of the flag? In the measure that really counts – money – the French are ahead of Americans by a substantial margin.
daily reckoning
…tres ironic? eh what?
KR,
We’d be ahead on that measure too!!!
Average wage in Aust is osmething like $50 – with the AUssie buying 93 off us cents that’s $47 odd thousand US dollars…..
Juniour Sheriff no longer!!
Yikes – proofreading a bit poor this morning.
“93 odd US cents” and “Junior”
Though maybe the decline in US hegemony will lead to more “U”s appearing in words….
702 JV
Here’s the vid, and once again, the kid’s turned the disgracefull ABC ‘debate’ into humour and nailed the message that this is what he will not do.
I saw that a lot of bloggers in the US took note that when he had the chance to dump on Clinton for her outrageous Bosnia lie, he sidestepped it graciously like it was something on the pavement, but Clinton took every chance not to return the courtesy and fabricated as many more as she could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4
…she left a little pile on the footpath of her campaign, and everyone saw it.
704
Rates Analyst
yeah, I was just about to look up our number, and you beat me to it! LOL
Maybe the Yanks beat the Kiwis?
What’s happening there is a salutary lesson in how not to run an economy nor regulate a rogue financial industry, and the whirlwind is producing a very bitter harvest.
And it’s only just begun.
Hillary Deathwatch still 10.7%
http://www.slate.com/id/2189362/
I’ve come around to the idea that Hillary is probably not hurting Obama’s chances in the general election as long as she doesn’t make any more unfavourable comparisons between Obama and McCain (which she has not done for a while now). All of these attacks on Obama will be performed by the Repugs in spades, and she is really just letting Obama deal with them now and neutralise them before the real campaign, by which time they will be old news and easily spun. And while all the press is about the Dems, their voters are at least engaged and signing up.
KR,
Here’s a more balanced summary of the debate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr17.html
GG
With the wonderful summary
“All in all, it was a pretty useless and uninformative debate. The moderators should be ashamed of themselves. They could have grilled the candidates on what they are going to do to bring jobs to small towns or what their exit plan for Iraq is.”
GG 709
Have you noticed on that map that New York is considered line-ball? They’ve got Obama LOSING to McCain by 46% to 48%, and in her home state Hillary only beating McCain 48% to 46%. What the hell is going on in New York? It does make me pretty sceptical about putting much credence on these scenarios at such an early stage. I remember feeling very confident four years ago that the polls were predicting Kerry would easily beat the Imbecile. Boy, was that a letdown!
FINNS #697
video of Annie Oakley shootout ..on Obama….very funny ,
but there is no ‘boyish’ innocence” in the Annie Oakley ‘blow’ , whereas look at those wide blue boyish Barry Hall eyes …..a split second after his KO punch.
If a jury just saw the 1 second after frame , could they find him guilty ?
FINNS Forsenic File:
you may wish to add & select from:
Dick Polman is a national political columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_shaken_rattled_and_rolle.html
711
Diogenes
Did you get that video link I left for you last night?
710
Yo ho ho
Thanks YHH, that saves me reading the entire thing! LOL
It’s pretty much what all the sensible commentators, and a majority of the bloggers are saying.
Partisan parsing of the ‘debate’ is trounced by near overwhelming revulsion to the low level content.
Clinton fans can spin it how they like, the majority view will not accord with it.
Ron
Regarding Hillary’s “Screw ‘em” line, I agree with you that it was different to Obama’s bitter and cling comments. They were made in the context of whether Bill should try and win over the “redneck” population who vote with their values rather than their hip pockets (something normally only done in Australia by us latte-sipping elitists, actually I’m drinking a cappucino as I write this!).
However, Hillary has repeatedly said that she has always fought for small-town people, and is even trying to get them to identify with her by referring to her duckshooting and whisky skulling. This seems to be at odds with her advice to Bill to “Screw ‘em” as a group to win over, and to concentrate on bringing other demographics into the Clinton fold.
Andy Kohut discusses the numbers:
Assuming a win in the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton campaign can be expected to make the case that having won all of the major swing-state primaries, the former first lady is more likely than Barack Obama to carry these states in a general election. But a breakout of the results of recent surveys would argue otherwise
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-clear-advantage/
713 KR
Yes, thanks for that. I’m reading “Looming Tower; al-Qaeda’s Road to 9/11″ at the moment which has explained a lot about the various streams of Muslim thought. Did you know that the first westerner to be killed in a terrorist action by al Qaeda was an Australian? He was holidaying in Yemen in 1992 and they bombed his hotel. They were trying to get US soldiers in transit to help the relief effort in Somalia but they got the wrong hotel!
Hi Ron,
Apparently William has hired Barry Hall to bring some of the back chatting recalcitrant PBs into line. After last night, there might be a bit of work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzN4Ly_yd9w
There goes Clinton’s last trump card:
When pitted against the presumptive Republican nominee each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, made apparent in the primaries, balance out. The data is simply not there to choose a nominee based on electability
…according to Pew’s results in the link above.
What Kohut is saying is that they come out so close against McCain that there’s no empirical evidence for the ‘electability’ theme to have any play.
And who has has been making the claim they’e more ‘electable’?
Hmmmm????
Watch the spinmeisters at camp Clinton come out like rabid dogs to attack this one!
GG, that is just offensive and antagonistic and has nothing to do with politics. No doubt William will deal with it.
TW,
I’ll give you, “that is just offensive and antagonistic and has nothing to do with politics”,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhXWSbA1O8
TW,
I’ll give you, “that is just offensive and antagonistic and has nothing to do with politics”,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhXWSbA1O8
717
Diogenes
Very interesting! It seems that they got a bit more sophisticated by 911. Fast learners.
That Cole discussion is a ripper, and the best lines are about how the US and Iran are virtually in bed together in Iraq, ie both supporting Maliki and how if you translate Iranian official statements about Iraq (goals and preferred outcomes) they read like US ones! LOL
But his overall theme, that the US is in the de-colonisation phase, and that there is really one path for them, is argued intelligently, cogently, and with expansive knowledge of both the terrain and the individual players.
What a refreshing antidote to the dreary drivel that is doled out as ‘commentary’ about the Middle East.
What a lovely song, GG. That calmed me down after all that antagonism.
If we want this blog to function in a more grown-up way then from now on whenever you think about posting with comments on knife fights or gun fights or King hitting people, you should post that song instead.
Diogenes #715
‘Hillary has repeatedly said that she has always fought for small-town people’
In the link of yours she did NOT even imply this cease fighting for them.
Hillary said (colourfully) we are not wasting money & resources to win small-town peoples votes in the South who never vote for us:
which means she is saying we will spend money & resources elsewhere to win Office AND that may include small-town peoples EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE USA in the mid west, the northeast , the west etc.
Frankly , this anti Hillary allegation is absurd.
One of your colleagues put up: I’m not staying ‘home’ allegedly being elititist
which it was not . It was ‘feminist’ at worst. Another absurd anti Hillary claim
Oh OK Ron all these anti-Hillary claims are absurd. Can we just check the scoreboard instead??
And then there’s McCain. As one wit said, ultimately McCain will beat McCain! LOL
It’s interesting how little discussion there’s been about him on this blog, and how little media scrutiny, but hey, the show in the big tent has been about flag pins! Gotta call that rivetting, eh?
Anyway, when the media circus starts looking, there’s plenty to discusss. Take this for example:
When presenting hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts this week, John McCain and his campaign said the cuts wouldn’t necessarily worsen the deficit. The key, they said, is McCain’s commitment to cutting spending by eliminating congressional earmarks.
On its face, the claim is simply foolish. Even if McCain could eliminate the entire practice of placing earmarks in spending bills — a dubious proposition — Taxpayers for Common Sense did an exhaustive review of the 2008 expenditures and found $18.3 billion in earmarks. With McCain’s tax cuts poised to cost about 22 times that much, the “solution” isn’t exactly budget neutral.
Salon
…expect a lot more of this when Obama gets the nomination and turns his focus on the Republican nightmare.
As the man said, bring it on! LOL
KR I wouldnt worry at all that either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain. He wont turn out enough conservatives. His history of considering joing the Dems and running with Kerry, as well as Iraq. Iran, immigration, the economy, and many other issues mean he stands little chance.
725
…”which means she is saying…”
…that ’screw em!’ really means we love small town folk and will lavish love, resources and money upon them.
But Obama’s words are not provided with a similar benefit-of-the-doubt positive interpretation. Nup! It’s “7-up Gate” and endless dark parsings of every syllable utterred by the dark man with the darker soul.
Fair enough – I couldn’t stand it if we were forced to endure ‘Screw-em gate’.
Andrew #736 ,
Unlike Obama supporters I HAVE repeatedly acknowledged many significant flaws in Hillary.Whereas Obama supporters 9with one exception out you 25 or so) do not acknowledge any significant flaws in Obama (& ‘clumsy’ is rather lame & hadly significant)
So I’m comfortable with my ’standards’ of stating significantly ‘anti’ in both.
Have been ‘waiting’ for the other side to ever do so.
But I do not have to agree to anti Hillary allegations that are absurd. I know of anti Hillary legitimate ones , duly reported but I’m not doing you ‘guys’ work.
TW,
No way Jose. I don’t want no Barry Hall a’knockin on my door.
But your broader point is fair. If some of the Hilaobambots here on PB don’t loosen up, laugh at themselves a bit more and try to enjoy the company, well this could be the fate for the site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqk_hVmcOQQ
KR @ 727 – McCain looks to have some sizeable problems before he starts – no money, and a turkey round his neck:
Re McCain’s planned unorthodox campaign again. As one of the comments under the Politoco article says about it:
732
JV
This bit’s rich:
But aides also hope they can turn necessity into virtue and argue that by facing tough questions from reporters on his bus each day and potentially even tougher ones from audience members at frequent town hall meetings, McCain will demonstrate how he’s different from two politicians who are far less accessible.
…because the MSM have not only been ‘eating out of his hand’, they’ve actually been feeding him…literally! The other day one of the reptiles was ostentaciously offering him donuts (with choc chips, his favourite!) and coffee (little bit of milk and sugar, just as he likes it!)
The media DO NOTASK HIM ANYTHING, at least not YET!
Wait unitl the Democrats start driving the agenda with their huge piles of money and electrified electorate! Boy, will it be a different story then.
From all I’ve read, McCain has inherited the neutered almost reverential media scrum from the Bush administration’s perversion of accountability.
That is the funniest line I’ve read in quite some time!
JV, I thought you meant George Bush, as in albatross around his neck, and then I realised what you meant!
Hahahahaha….both meanings are spot on!
KR – The overall impression you get from how McCain is shaping up is that Obama’s real contest is the one he’s having now. Once the Dem sh*tfight is over the polls will quicky tilt their candidate’s way, I have no doubt. Especially if it’s BO.
yeah, it’s interesting JV, on the one hand, the whole primary thing is a tedious, crazy process, and yet it has another dimension to it, where you get to see more than just the soundbites and the spin. You get to see the candidates running a small organisation across the country, and you get a real feel of what they’re really like at the important stuff, like how they relate to people, how they inspire confidence, what they will and will not do, in order to make themselves ‘look good’.
And although the ‘Obama is the messiah stuff’ is ludicrous, he’s a pretty stunning performer, and even his worst effort (arguably he was off his game last night), he comes across as genuinely comfortable with who he is, across the issues, and steadfastly determined NOT to play the tacky games that have infested their politics.
It’s fascinating to watch.
725 Ron
I agree that “screw ‘em” wasn’t elitist but it does show that when it’s politically expedient, Hillary will throw the southern small town voters under the bus. I imagine that many of the western and Appalacian small-towners would share many of the values of their southern cousins.
The Democrat party has really stuffed up by losing this demographic, which I’m told is about 20% of the population, to the Repugs who really don’t seem to be helping them out at all economically. I don’t think Obama or Clinton will win them back either. I don’t know the history of how these folks voting patterns but I’m guessing they once voted Dem but under the “elite liberals” from McGovern onwards the Dems lost this group.
I didn’t see any of the most recent debate, but the unbiased view seems to be Hillary did rather well. However, probably too late for her, she needs a huge victory in Pennsylvania next week, something like a 20 point victory: a narrow victory over Obama won’t be good enough.
Is it just me who thinks the ABC hates Kevin Rudd? The national broadcaster is as pro Liberal as it was before the election.
And, Nick D’Arcy? No sympathy from me for the bloke, I don’t want thugs on the Olympic team.
A brilliant spoof on yesterday’s debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQ3q6Rb4ew
KR,
Thanks for that Juan Cole link- impressive and ,from what I have read,on the money. It is the larger,long term picture that he is so good at. More laid back than Robert Fisk and a broader perspective. Worth bottling!
741
megan
I’m glad you saw it, Megan. Thinking people now have the internet, thank god, or we’d be forever at the mercy of those fawning reptiles that take Whitehouse press releases and reprint them as ‘news’!
yep, Cole is a true gem, and has that great overview from a truly well educated historical perspective. I think his book on Napolean would be a ripper read too.
I liked his terse summary of the next POTUS’s options…including McCain! In other words they will all do the same thing, out of necessity, it will only be a slight difference in timing.
But having a POTUS that’s prepared to be honest about where they’re at, and why, will be a whole new ballgame, eh?
740 ahahhahaha – Thanks js – it’s brilliant alright.
This debate thing is playing right into Obama’s hands – there is a sense of outrage emerging in the public arena at the old grubby politics as seen in the debate. And that is right on Obama’s theme – a new approach to the political game. Obama is coming out of it as pure and clean, and correct about wanting to change this grubby style of Bush and Clinton. Not being on his best form for the debate doesn’t seem to matter. Everything he touches is turning to gold.
I think it’s because most people have made up their minds, and that’s it, game over.
jv
like Rudd, Obama passed the stink test with the public early on. No trivial dirt dished up by the very people they hate(current poli’s and MSM) is going to stick.
Well, he is PUTTING it in: “Russian president Vladimir Putin has reportedly left his wife for a former rhythmic gymnast less than half his age”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/vlads-on-the-hook-over-gymnast-lover/2008/04/18/1208025421777.html
Or just a case of, Puttin on the Ritz.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=j02k9t4rP50
HarryH
You just touched on something interesting. I have a vague memory of someone (maybe Possum?) pointing out that once a voting public forms an attachment to someone, they are not receptive of any mud flung his/her way. In that case it was used to point out that the mud flung at Rudd during last years election merely solidified his support base.
I’d suggest that the same has occured with Obama (surely the Clintonistas can attest to this!).
Yo Ho Ho,
The comparison stands for Hillary too. So how about that, neither candidate is affected by the dung throwing.
A 20 point lead in PA a couple of weeks ago is now hovering somewhere south of 6. Meanwhile BHO’s lead over Hillary among Dem voters has stretched from 5 to 10 points in the same period and the drift of SD’s to the Kid is becoming a constant trickle instead of a slow drip.
I’d say someone is affected by the dung throwing GG.
To clarify once again (in reponse to Jen at 693 and others): I have asked KR (sorry Kevin) and Junior Senator to discuss politics only. Everybody else is allowed their normal degree of latitude, which they will keep until such time as they abuse it. If KR gets banned, it will be for refusing to do as I asked. JS is a slightly different case: there is a good chance I will make a more arbitrary decision to ban him on the grounds that he’s a wanker.
GG
Fair point. And Clinton certainly has been around longer and has had a large amount of mud flung her way. This would suggest her ‘base’ support levels would be very stable. Obama’s, with less time in the spotlight, would not be as stable.
750 YHH
That would explain why Hillary’s support levels are currently sliding down around her ankles, wouldn’t it?
In fact, what the hell. I am banning Junior Senator.
FG
I suppose so. She certainly has managed to stay in the race on the back of a strong support base (even if it seems to me as though she’s not picking up support, just maintaining).
Geez Billbowe – your sliding from mildly Napoleonic to positively Robespierre there.
Ready Madamme Guillotine!!
Oops – ‘you’re’
753
YHH – she’s not maintaining. All indicators are that her support is failing.
756
Yeah? Sorry, didn’t realise that.
To be honest i’ve only been looking at her polling in the PA primary (and god knows what’s going to happen there) and the deathwatch thingy.
I guess if she’s falling that puts a massive hole in the argument. At least in that it can apply to Hillary.
FG,
You never expect the Spanish Inquisition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
There’s tactics afoot in Camp Clinton:
“Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters — in part to offset Mrs. Clinton’s baggage in this area. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted March 28-April 2 with 1,196 registered voters nationwide, 60 percent of them believe Mrs. Clinton shared the values that most Americans tried to live by, and 34 percent did not. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain fared better, with Mr. Obama performing best — 70 percent said he shared those values, and 21 percent said he did not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Let’s call it Valuesgate!
No….let’s not.
GG @ 747 – except that Hillary’s ‘on the nose’ rating has skyrocketed during the campaign according to the polls – we were discussing one of those polls the other day. 54% of Dems disapprove of Hillary now.
jv,
I love it when you use such meaningfully scientific terms as “on the nose rating”. It provides so much depth to the discussion.
738 Diogenes
725 Ron
“I agree that “screw ‘em” wasn’t elitist but it does show that when it’s politically expedient, Hillary will throw the southern small town voters under the bus.
…but I’m guessing they (southern small town voters etc) once voted Dem but under the “elite liberals” from McGovern onwards the Dems lost this group.”
Yes , I agree entirely with your first sentence. Politically expedient it certainly is to dump a voting bloc to spend your money to win votes in more winable voting blocs or regions even though (assumably) you do care for them. All political Partys and Candidates cynically do this including the 2 current candidates
My 2 arguments would be on idealism (their life equity status is why they deserve you ‘wasting’ precious resources there) AND my version of political commonsense
ie. to cease having an ‘elite liberal’ Candidate at all so that instead of the whole South being ‘red’ , some of the South can be ‘blue’ over time meaning more Democrat POTUS’s are guaranteed than Repug ones in the future (quoting your McGovern premise) ?
Jv
54% is a massive number. Is that nationally?
If the SD’s are all that can save the world from Obama, then the numbers (and the SD’s commentary on the Clinton campaign) are grim:
“…Obama spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said Thursday: “Since Feb. 5, Senator Obama has garnered the support of 80 superdelegates to Senator Clinton’s 5. We’ll let the results of Senator Clinton’s ‘kitchen sink’ strategy speak for themselves.”
From the artcle above @ 759
YHH & GG 761 -Now I’ve opened my big mouth I’ll have to go and find the poll won’t I? At least that will be a bit more scientific, eh GG? Won’t be long.
YHH & GG – Found it – from 16 April:
@740 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQ3q6Rb4ew
it’s really weird because I only saw Network for the first time last night on fox classics. Then today it’s up there on youtube. And so true, those debate questions really were surreal.
jv,
Am not doubting the existence of said poll. Just querying who would run such a poll and why. Is their a MOE.
762 Ron
As someone with no political background, I think it sticks out like a sore thumb that the Dems have been losing because of the 20% “small town” vote for ages. And I totally agree that elite liberals either don’t want to or don’t know how to get them back into the fold, assuming they ever were in the fold. Clinton is clearly seem less as an elite than Obama, which is somewhat interesting. I think her manner, while it is not graceful and can grate, is more down to earth than Obama/Kerry/Edwards etc.
The fact that the Repugs are in with a good chance of winning again despite the most disastrous and unpopular presidency ever indicates to me that the Dem Party is missing the point.
GG 768 – MOE and size of sample:
Diogenes,
I think we are on the same page @ 769.
JV,
Was there an “on the nose table” or did you make that bit up?
According to the quote in my 759 above, it is Obama who is seen as more in touch with American values than either Hillary (who came last) or McCain.
So who’s regarded as elitist?
GG 772 – Hillary’s ‘on the nose tables’ as requested – done up just for you from the poll reports below.
Table 1 – Both sides to blame for negative campaign = 25%
– Clinton to blame for negative campaign = 75%
Table 3 – Obama more honest – 61
– Clinton more honest – 38
774 ‘Table 3′ should read ‘Table 2′
JV
Ta for all the work there! Its a strong number.
Diogenes
To me, FGs poll, and my impression that Obama has done strongly in small states and small towns suggests that he’s the person for the job here. I think the only thing that says Clinton does well in small towns etc is that she says she does well there. Her base is among traditional democrats (’rusted ons’ if we’re getting scientific).
Ron at 730, my point is this: the numbers are not there for Hillary. By attacking Obama, she is just affecting her own standing.
After the so called scandals of reverend wright and elitism, Obama is within striking distance in Penn after being 20% behind.
Hillary fans are not going to convince Obama fans to switch, and vice versa. I can see Obama’s flaws and have posted about them, but I think that he is the better candidate, and I think both are infinitely better than McCain
Wonder what will happen as a result of this ?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/dean-i-need-a-decision-now
778
Kevin, absolutely nothing.
The majority of the remaining undecideds will wait till after June 3. Then expect some serious movement.
It’s not that they haven’t decided already, they are simply sticklers for protocol and want all votes counted before declaring their hand. As I said earlier, many are also concerned that unless there is a dignified exit strategy for the losing candidate, they run the risk of losing that candidate’s supporters come November.
So they wait – and so do we.
Diogenes #769
Commonsence I think wins over everything else in politics , so newness is never a drawback.
The Net & colleagues supply the backup of all the Stats , demographics , voting historys etc. The Democrat Party 12 months ago ie. approx before any Candidate put his/her name up had POTUS guaranteed with the right Candidate.
Instead the Leadership wrongly assumed any Candidate would guarantee POTUS
Shades of Hewson’s “fightback” & the Democrats are left with the 3rd & 4th best
(In addition as we have discussed there has been no planning for , nor selection of a Candidate suitable for stopping the Repugs continuing to hold the whole South). And if Nader belatedly runs this miscalculation may be the last straw
Nader announced his candidacy weeks ago Ron
http://www.votenader.org/
From Nader’s site:
“For fully a month now, the national media has largely ignored the Nader/Gonzalez campaign.
And yet, when the people of Michigan were asked earlier this month if the choice in November were between McCain, Clinton or Nader, 46 percent said McCain, 37 percent said Clinton and fully 10 percent said Nader.
If the choice were between McCain, Obama and Nader, Obama pulled 43 percent, McCain 41 percent, and Nader 8 percent.”
Yo ho ho #776
I would suggest forgetting the Polls and assess actual Primary results regarding small towns.
Ohio has a massive number & these peoples are mainly working class with a
high % without college education.
Hillary vs Obama Primary….Hillary won 75% vote , no typo 75%
Hillary AND Obama won other (but obviously different) demographics making up their respective votes.
So when you say “I think the only thing that says Clinton does well in small towns etc is that she says she does well there.” is not accurate.
Hillary does tell lies but this was not one of them
Ferny Grove #782
“If the choice were between McCain, Obama and Nader, Obama pulled 43 percent, McCain 41 percent, and Nader 8 percent.”
In the last 3 POTUS elections the Democrats won 51% of the vote.
So unless the missing 8% in your quoted figures all voted for Obama (which is mathematically improbable) then Nader would diminish the Democrat vote.
Further , depending on the split of the 8% , theoretically it could prove fatal or more likely a cliffhanger in an existing blue” State , hence my point of Nader
Ron I think that Nader running is a potential problem for the Dems, as it does steals vote. Why does this guy bother when (1) there is no way he can win and (2) all he does is help the republican candidate who presumably is the antithesis of what he stands for? As I’ve said before, would be great to have an independent ultraconservative to siphon votes from McCain
There is one already Andrew; Bob Barr who’s running for the Libertarian Party nomination. Although I doubt if he’ll draw the same amount of support as Nader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
Ron, where did you get that 75% figure from? I thought the primary result was closer to 55-45.
Andrew #785
Andrew I do not understand his reason Andrew. I don’t how he could justify ever running under their voting system and still claim the values he does.
In 2000 , his 90,000 votes in Florida definitively cost Gore the POTUS
It give Bush POTUS with its deplorable Bush consequences
Turning Worm #787
75% of the demographic that was mentioned in the blog & Yo ho ho comments
You mean that Clinton won 75% of the vote in the small towns of Ohio? Where does that come from?
Good Afternoon, Bludgers,
{checks for dirt under fingernails, ensures hair smartly parted, suitably spruced up enters blogsite, places polished apple on blogmeistre’s desk, endures glares of opprobrium from fellow commenters, chirrups “Gee you’re looking terrific today, Mr. Bowe”, occupies seat next to mentor, Eddie Haskell*, commences to tap keyboard……}
Thurs April 18: Betway Brutusina and Johnny Bomb-Bomb Tag-Team Obi.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=Ag3WNU1xtsKXVsFwFDc.yOoVvTYC
Fri. April 18: What, me worry?!
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=AtvcaRKUeL7KmFtnjvhtByI0vTYC
Fri.April 18: Torture Dick’s Lament: So many wars… so little time.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=AhJswLdaAsL3iwo0uOIfKi_d.sgF
*The son of George and Agnes, Eddie Haskell was the smart-mouthed best friend of Wally Cleaver in the TV series “Leave It To Beaver”. The character has become a cultural reference recognized as an archetype for the behind-your-back rebel. Eddie was the kind of friend parents such as Ward and June Cleaver wish their children would limit association with, but need to have to gain learning experiences. Ward once remarked that “[Eddie] is so polite, it’s almost un-American”.[1] Even today, the phrase “Eddie Haskell” is known to refer to an insincere brown-noser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Haskell
poor junior senator!
(don’t see how what he did was any worse that the rest of us – you’re making me nervous William.)
Ferny and Kevin: if Dean is asking for SD comittments surely it will have some impact. I know they don’t have to do what he asks, but I would have thought that he is expressing some pretty senior views within the party which must put some pressure on them.
EC @ 790 – Superb cartoons as usual EC, even if you started off a little ‘Eddie-ish’ today.
Jen @ 791 – a one-term junior senator. A shame, because I think you have to get two successive terms to qualify for the pension.
Actually, I’m not sure if it’s only a suspension, or if it’s a lifetime ban for js. Is there any distinction between those two alternatives for transgressors, William? You know – like the difference in penalty given for an accidental trip, compared with a full-blown ‘Barry Hall’?
EC – Eddie must have been a bit like this Wilson chap:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/blowup_stock.asp?imageref=cey0044&artist=Eyles,+Craig&topic=sycophant+
Jen, I’m fairly confident you’d never leave a comment like this, which is why you probably don’t need to worry. JV, it is most certainly a permanent ban.
In fact, read the following comments in sequence – 671, 674, 675, 680, 682 – and ask yourself what I’ve ever done wrong that I should have to put up with such a childish dickhead. Jen, your assessment that he wasn’t “any worse that the rest of us” is quite misplaced.
Turning Worm #789
Am going out but briefly will reply.
Data in one of the numerous exit or post full analysis critiques that are done on all Primarys. Which one for Ohio, you can do the work if you wish.
However to assist , in virtually all Primarys held , Hillary wins the working class ”white’ ‘poor’ non college educated whilst Obama wins the college educated of ‘white’ and ‘black’
The college educated do not exceed the non college educated working ‘white’
‘poor’ in the small towns so there’s the first starting indication why the figures in any event are credible
790
Ecky, did I not use the metaphor of the housing market deflating quicker than the Hindenburg the other day? Sheeesh, talk about the zeitgeist, it’s spooky! (And I thought it a strange one for me at the time, too! )
Latest figures in that area are truly gut wrenching, which makes the ‘flag pin’ stuff seem so, how should one put it delicately, trivial? There’s clearly a huge disconnect between the media camp followers of the primary campaigns and the scary stuff that’s happening to people all across the country.
Going out myself now – see you all – don’t forget to keep checking tonight’s super declarations – how many for BO tonight while the US is awake? 5 yesterday and more were indicating an announcement today I thought. I’ll be on the edge of my beer wondering all evening.
KR,
Watch for Citigroup quarterly profit report too … More write downs on the way, me thinks.
The worst thing about the current US situation is that there are some seriously troubling things that are not really being corrected.
The US has lived through debt funding and printing money for a long time, becuase the rest of the world always trusted the US to pay it back, there’s been no issue. They have no reserves and no “space” to fight this.
Unlike Australia, which has been reasonably fiscally prudent and could spend it’s way into a softening, the US has no money left – and inflation at 4%.
William, you make a fair point. It’s no fun to be the one doing the hard work on a project which others get to enjoy only to cop grief from those same people. Whatever antagonism exists between us guests it should never be unleashed on your good self.
Thank you TW. On that note, no more meta-commentary please, for or against – there has been far too much of it lately. The judge’s decisions, right or wrong, are final.
799
Rates Analyst
Crikey, Merril was bad enough, but I’ve got my fingers in my ears for Citi, although I noticed the other day they are off-loading assets as quickly as they can, and GE just bought a huge financing/leasing arm. I’ve seen numbers for the capital raising they need and it’s obviously beyond the scope of the Fed, so the question is, who’s coming to the rescue? The Sovereign Funds have already taken a severe haircut, and the ability to raise this kind of money is severely restrained. (THere’s even talk from ratings agencies of downgrading the US if things get any worse!! Eeeeeeeek!)
Meanwhile, there’s a smell in the market around Libor:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120831164167818299.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
…the consequences of which you will no doubt appreciate better than me! LOL
As for their inflation rate, the hedonics they apply have masked the true figure for so long it’s a standard joke, but the average Joe knows it’s NOT 4%, and now they’re even importing inflation from China.
It is, as they say, the perfect storm, and it makes Katrina look benign.
RA, sorry, that’s capital raising across the entire banking sector, not just Citi, of course!
Ron, this 75% sounds a little ad-hoc to me. Besides it sounds like you are basing your statistic on exit polls which makes your statement “I would suggest forgetting the Polls and assess actual Primary results regarding small towns” a little puzzling.
Sorry William. I get it.
#805 – jen – [Sorry William. I get it] – a hole in the bucket?
Taking up Ron’s point, I’ve tried to look at the voting patterns of the “redneck” demographic. I tried to find breakdown on White protestants, town size, income, education level.
A good redneck state where the vote was close is Texas with a big exit poll. The relevant bits are:
White Protestants; Clinton vs Obama = 59% vs 40%
Less than high school education; Clinton vs Obama = 71% vs 29%
Rural ; Clinton vs Obama = 64% vs 33%
Income < $30K; Clinton vs Obama = 57% vs 43%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226009/
If you were to combine those four characteristics to define a “redneck”, I’m sure that Ron’s 75% estimate is TOO LOW. Considering each of the four attributes as an independent variable, the percentage having all four characteristics is; Clinton vs Obama = 90% vs 10%.
Jv at 793, Eddie was way too cool to ever become embedded like Wilson. Eddie only dished his flattery en passant. Glad you enjoyed the toons, selection criteria are rigorous; primo only.
Kirri, your dirigible was prescient indeed. When you recently used the Hindenburg analogy with the US Economy I was reminded of Colbert at the D.C. press bash a couple of years back when he gave it to The Imbecile AND the MSM with both barrels. ‘Twas a very gutsy effort. Must glom the latest Colbert Report where HRC and BHO appear on his show at different times. According to Huffy, Hillary was schnoring John Edwards backstage. Despite Dem Chairman, Howard Dean, urging undeclared SDs to get committed pronto, no news yet on which way Edwards will steer his 30 or so apostles.
Wed. April 17: Rejecting media criticism and defending his family’s integrity, an angry President claimed: “All my relatives are moral!”
http://www.miamiherald.com/jim_morin/image_media/498476.html
807 addendum
Further to the Texas data, when you do the same analysis using pooled data from the exit polls from primaries up to 2 March, the result is Clinton 81% to Obama 19%. This is not the redneck vote but it’s as close an approximation as I can work out. I will never doubt Ron again!
808
Enemy Combatant
yeah, we all await Christopher Hitchens’ reply to the Papal bull about ‘moral relativism’, eh?
It ought to be real zinger.
806 Finns-
too obtuse for me I’m afraid.
Diogenes – out of curiosity and because I’m confused by your posts, what is the relevance of Texas at the moment?
Is there a similar demographic to Pennsylvania or some other relevance?
probably very dumb question but….
Ec-
I believe George’s moral brother has the highest rate of executions in the US.
God bless America.
Jen 811
As Homer Simpson said “There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.”
I explained myself badly, or not at all. We had been discussing how strongly the “redneck” vote favoured Clinton over Obama. I was trying to look at the demographic which fitted the “redneck” tag the best. I settled on white protestants with low income, who didn’t finish high school and lived rurally. I correlated this demographic combination with their voting pattern in Texas (as shown in exit polls), which is a quintessential redneck state. After I found pooled data from lots of states, I did the analysis again. And Ron was right. The “rednecks” voted overwhelmingly in Hillary’s favour over Obama (coincidentally in about the same proportions as the “black” vote favoured Obama),
Jen,
GW didn’t let his side down,executing 127 during his tenure. Further, disappointed that Al Gore supported the death penalty back in 2000.
what a shame for Ron (and Hillary) that you actually need the highest number of delegates rather than the % of redneck votes to win the nomination. Perhaps Hillary could lobby to change the rules!!
It getting a massive case of deja vu here with Hillary supporters doing their best to come up with figures/other issues/smokescreens in denial of the reality of poll numbers. Up with the best of the tories last federal election. Why cant you be honest and say, she’s behind, she will need a much bigger share of remaining contests that the polls suggest, her SD lead is shrinking, it’s not looking good. Despite how much you like her, the numbers dont add up
Thanks Diogs-
I’m now in the picture!
Sadly for Hillary as Andrew points out it’s not going to do it for her it would seem.
Interestingly and with no knowledge of US politics whatsoever I would have thought those people would support the Repugs over the Dems any day.
Maybe just goes to show how Hillary is more appealing to swinging repug voters than Obama, but they are not going to decide the election as far as I can tell (happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).
It all sounds like a bunch of pseudo-phrenology to me Dio, GWB wouldn’t fit into your demographic definition of a redneck now would he?
Megan,
don’t know what Obama’s stand on the death penalty is, but I bet no one would get near a candidacy in the US unless they publicly supported it. Same with guns.
It is so disappointing, but baby steps…
Jen
The “rednecks” who vote in the Dem primaries are in the minority. As you say, they “block” vote Repug to a large extent. They are evidently 20% of the population and could easily decide the election. That’s why they are important. There are plenty of them in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
818 TW
The Imbecile is definitely not a “redneck”. Rural poor somehow doesn’t fit his background. Sociological definitions of “redneck” are based on demographics, not on their beliefs or lack of intelligence (lack of education is a characteristic though).
820 Diogs
I can see your point Diogs, but Obama must be winning some of them looking at the polls. Can Ohio, Texas and PA win the election for the repugs , and will that demographic, although significant really be enough to swing it?
I guess that’s what the SD’s are trying to work out, but the momentum is clearly with Obama. And would they dare to go against it??
821- Diogs again
what about Lack of Intelligence?- the “rednecks” look like Rhodes Scholars next to the World’s Greatest Idiot. If`there is any chance he could get held to account for the damage he has done it might be enough to swing me away from atheism.
Forgive me Dio, don’t tell what you are doing passes as sociology.
Hillary keeps knocking on that door. Go you good thing.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/clinton_invokes_90s_in_closing.html
Grinch-
you’re as deluded as she is, you poor darling.
Hope you don’t start trying those scary wide eyes and fake fabulous smile she’s trying to convince everyone with. sad.
“It is time for us to clean house and one thing women know how to do is to clean house,” she said. “I put you on notice, I may need you to come help…there’s no telling what we’re going to find.”
HRC.
I think I might throw up.
#824 – Yes, go you good thing indeed.
#825 – who is the pretty boy then?
1980 – Ronald Reagan vs Jimmy Carter (Liberal, loser)
1984 – Reagan vs Walter Mondale (Liberal, loser)
1988 – George Bush Sr Vs Michael Dukakis (Liberal, loser)
1992 – George Bush Sr vs Bill Clinton (bad man, liar, winner)
1996 – Bob Dole Vs Bill Clinton (Impeachable, womaniser, winner)
2000 – Geroge W Bush Vs Al Gore (Liberal, loser)
2004 – Geroge W Bush Vs John Kerry (Liberal, loser)
2008 – John McCain vs Barack Obama (Ultra Liberal, Goldengater, loser)
2008 – John McCain vs Hillary Clinton (Another liar, Six shooter, winner)
Finns-
what kind of contingency do you have for when she loses?
#828 – i did my effing dancing already!! what else do you want, my soul?
jen,
What kind of contingency do you have when Obama loses.
“I have always liked and respected Hillary. She has my full support?”
grinch-
he’s not going to lose I hope. I’ve got a bottle of wine riding on it.
Finns-
loved the dance. Soul could be good … and then there’s always my favourite PB sport – a dolphin could really cut it for us in Beiging
What about 1976 when Jimmy Carter one. Reminds me of John Howard/Costello’s Chronology of Interest Rates where there was this mysterious period from 1976-1983 missing lol.
Also Al Gore won more votes. Kerry probably would have won a fair election too.
Won**. What a terrible mistake
Dio, I refer you to, once again:
we’re rednecks,
we don’t know our ass from a hole in the ground,
and we’re keeping the niggas down.
Is that what you’re trying to prove? LOL
Since the Dixicrats had that Yankee civil rights stuff poured down their throats, they ain’t bin votin’ for nuthin’ but Republicans or maybe some dude that came from these parts and wasn’t a liberal varmint!
The funny thing, ironic really, about Obama’s ‘bitter’ trope was the bit he did not say was that they cling to this racial wedge, but I contend, everyone knew what he was really saying.
It was, if you will, negative dogwhistling. He danced all around it, tripped over it almost, but in the end it didn’t matter, because the truth is, he’s right. They ain’t gunna vote for the nigga, even if some of them will line up for Bill’s missus.
Can he swing the young, the thinkers, the truly ‘bitter’ and the damned p!ssed off?
Yes he can, but it’s going to be close where it counts, I suspect.
revisionism Scotty-
it’s a favourite pastime here.
beijing -ooops.
832
Scotty
Don’t feel too bad, Scotty. I do that all the time…it’s like the fingers type phonetically sometimes. It’s freaky how it happens. It’s like they belong to someone else…aaaaaaaaaaargh!
scotty –
as for my atrocious typing: there has been great tolerance shown ,so don’t sweat. you’ll get much more grief for supporting Obama.
I thought the US economy already had troubles?
McCain Plans for $3.3 Trillion Tax Cut, Balanced Budget at Odds
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080418/pl_bloomberg/afsl0vu5t7j8
Jen,
Is that a pout? Gee, you Obamists whinge a lot.
RA
You’re probably not around at this time of the day, but I just saw this about Citi:
Banking giant swoons to quarterly loss of $5 billion as revenue slumps 48%, but there’s progress to be seen in CEO’s workout program.
…and talk about massaging expectations, it’s hailed as a good result! LOL
Gotta say it, I just love the delusional world of Wall Street, it makes Hollywood look boringly pedestrian and mundane.
(I noticed the DOW’s on a PE near 50!!!!!!!!!!! God help ‘em, as they shovel cash out of negative returns into blue sky on multiples you’d expect from penny dreadfulls)
I’ll pout if I lose the wine Grinch .
Otherwise, have big fake cheesy grin firmly in place, rest assured.
Jen, if Obama wins the nomination and then loses the to McCain, he will condemn the Dems to at least 2 or more terms in wilderness and very damaged brand. Dems – a party that forever keeps selecting Liberal as their POTUS candidate and forever keeps losing. Is that what you want? It will look like this:
1980 – Ronald Reagan vs Jimmy Carter (Liberal, loser)
1984 – Reagan vs Walter Mondale (Liberal, loser)
1988 – George Bush Sr Vs Michael Dukakis (Liberal, loser)
1992 – George Bush Sr vs Bill Clinton (bad man, liar, winner)
1996 – Bob Dole Vs Bill Clinton (Impeachable, womaniser, winner)
2000 – Geroge W Bush Vs Al Gore (Liberal, loser)
2004 – Geroge W Bush Vs John Kerry (Liberal, loser)
2008 – John McCain vs Barack Obama (Ultra Liberal, Goldengater, loser)
2012 – Mickey Mouse vs Another Liberal (loser)
2016 – Yogi Bear vs Another Liberal (loser)
2020 – Goofy Vs Kevin Rudd (Winner – Kev2020, yes they need our Dear Leader)
KR,
Please let us know when we should get Barry Maguires “Eve of Destruction” back on high rotation.
Bloody Virgnia Triolli (on Lateline now) needs a new jacket. She has been wearing the same black jacket as far as i can remember.
Finns-
you notice her jacket?
(and what was the Hole in The Bucket thing?..)
GG and KR
The US public has well and truly woken up to the biggest liar and bull-sh*tter in the country and it’s not Hillary. It’s all good for the Dems and Bad Bad Bad for Macca.
Public’s View of Economy Takes Fast Turn Downward
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703769_pf.html
Diogenes,
John McCain is not George Bush. I would be surprised if voters blame John Mc Cain for the recession.
Finns @ 843
I do understand the concern that the election will be lost because the Repug voters would go for Hillary over Obama: I do get it.
However, I think you may be ‘misunderestimating’ the desire for radical change that is taking place. I may be wrong (there’s always a first), but I am bouyed by an uncharacteristc optimistic hope (and the polls) that Americans can do way better than they have till now – and Hillarity would be more of the same.
Growler!
Are you seriously trying to say that the new Repug candidate will not be affected by the actions of his predecessor?
Ask Brendan Nelson.
Jen, it was just reminding me of “Harry belafonte-Odetta – There is a hole in the bucket” situation:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Et2YsI1_I
As far as Trigger is concerned, she’s been wearing that jacket for about 2 years now. It’s time to move-on.
Finns-
know the song- just don’t get the connection. Must be in very dumb (but great cleaner) mode tonight. ooh- Better give Hillary a call.
847
Diogenes
yeah, I think I may have alluded to the possibility that this may happen, er, some time back actually! LOL
Which makes the rightwing ‘flag pin’ flap so poignantly pathetic, n’est pas?
Bitter? I’ll show you bitter when the malls are shuttered and the FOR SALE signs are the only thing there’s more of.
There’s been nothing like this in the living memory of 95% of the population, and it’s going to erupt on the Republicans come November.
You can bank on it.
hehe good to know.
Finnigans
“he will condemn the Dems to at least 2 or more terms in wilderness”
You are quoting history yet when was the last time an American party federally had 4 terms in a row. Not to mention the 5 you have implied?
Personally I think it would have been better if John Edwards had stayed in. (apparently that makes me both sexist and racist however
)
Unfortunatley he was enough honourable to try and put the party first.
Kirri-
I never comment on your dire predictions because, frankly they scare the sh*t out of me. But I fear you are right. The consequences of that, combined with the awful reality of global warming are too hard to imagine. That’s why I stick to the stoush between H and O.
Head in sand- more wine.
KR #834 The day after the Pennsylvania Primary I’ll be teaching classes on what the Depression did to US politics. There’s bitterness and there’s BITTERNESS. Regarding the redneck vote, I seem to recall that the analysis in “What’s Wrong With What’s Wrong With Kansas” demonstrated that the poor voted Democrat in every state and that the difference between the Red and Blue states was that the poor voted less in the Red and the rich and middle classes voted Dem in the Blue states and Repug in the Red.
That would seem to indicate that the problem with poor whites is generally their lack of engagement rather than their “bitterness”. How this squares with the exit polls that indicate that por white Democrats prefer Clinton to Obama and what that will mean in November is pretty complex,
Robert-
asthe Grapes of Wrath potentially descend again on the United States, what is your view of the real impact on affected people’s voting?
856
Robert Bollard
Interesting RB, but not that I’m an expert, I’ve been reading a number of refutations of Frank (that’s his name?) lately, but I’ve got to admit, er, too much detail for this little brown duck. Essentially, a couple of academics have gone over the hills and dales and sliced and diced the demographics and concluded that he’s actually wrong, but I am not going to even attempt an explanation of it off the top of my head! LOL
I’ll dig up some reference for you…
OK RB, here’s a quick summary:
http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2005/10/larry-bartels-on-whats-matter-with.html
…and along somewhat similar lines, this discourse which is pretty interesting:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/15/elitism/index.html
#858 There are a number of lessons in it imho, KR. One is to be wary of buying into the anti-working class discourse of the American media. The term “trailer trash” being the most obvious example. But, in reply to Jen, there is a historical debate about the reaction of Americans to the Depression. The reality appears to be that a minority were radicalised but that a majority turned inwards, blamed themselves and/or were too busy trying to survive to bother with politics. That being said, most were open to FDR’s siren song and many (later) to the siren songs of Huey Long, Father Coughlin and Aimee McDonald.
The most important episode in the seismic political shift caused by the Depression came a bit later as the economy lifted slightly and millions of “BITTER” workers took their revenge by sitting down in a few glorious months in 1937.
But that’s what happens in Depressions. What we have here is (unless KR is willing to argue otherwise) your common or garden recession – nasty enough, but just sufficient to upset the punters and make them think of voting differently. We are yet to see if it’s enough to deliver the presidency to Obama. What is clear, however, is that Clinton can’t win it. She could only get the Dem nomination by pissing on the party’s base and telling black voters that their votes don’t matter ’cause the wise white super delegates know better. The “trailer trash rednecks” won’t vote for the N*gg*er don’t y’know?
Cue apathy, disengagement and victory for McCain.
RB
I’ll give you an “R” for sure, but a “D” would be a confluence of some very unfortunate events (but lower on the scale of probabilities, granted).
As for Clinton, her scorched earth policy is appearing to be a turn off for the majority of Dems, and the dogwhistling (and the ludicrous duck calling!) is not a good look.
But I despair when they both do a ‘read my lips’ moment in unison, and fall down grovelling to lick the rightwings boots, in one of the most bizarre political duets of all time. The Uppity Nigga and Nurse Ratched went all jelly at the knees and crossed their hearts and sucked their thumbs and feigned this silly reverence for the impossible. Reaganomics is DEAD. Either, stop spending OR raise taxes, OR BOTH! There is no other way to avert catastrophe, and anyone with even half a brain that still functions knows this is true.
But they both sat there and played dumb and rolled over. It was pretty shocking, really.
McCain is worse! LOL
860 RB,
the thought of McCain winning is just too awful to contemplate.
Found 10 reasons why(courtesy moveon.com)
“10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don’t):
1.John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
4. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”
5. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.
6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
KR #859 The 2 links you provide are instructive. The first provides a similar critique of WRWK to the one I was referring to (which I believe was published by Counterpoint). The second is a typical Clintonesque op-ed which attacks Obama supporters for daing to argue (in thei condescending liberal way) that white working class voters may be voting for Clinton because they don’t like blacks – which, I admite, sounds like what I said above.
However, there is a difference between the arguments. Thw white working clss are both (by definition) working class and white. In different circumstances they will identify with their class or their “race”. If they are doing alright economically, or treading water but their neighbourhood is decaying socially and there’s a high crime rate and they this appears superficially to be linked in someway to ethnicity, then they will be prime candidates for a wedge.
In the aftermath of 2001, while the economy was still ok (though there was still enough structural pain to make people hurt) then the poorest were disengaged, the evangelicals of all classes were mobilised and identity trumped class. In the last congressional elections that polarity was reversed and class trumped identity.
But in a Democrat Primary where there is a (admittedly permeable) firewall keeping out the previously unengaged and the big issues are crowded out by campaign trivia (because, after all, the policy differences are subtle) identity trumps policy. White working class voters are more likely to vote for the white Democrat candidate.
I think November will be different and that the polls now are distorted by the focus on the trivia that surfaces inevitably in a race betwen two Democrats. Let Obama campaign unhindered against McCain on war and the economy and we will see what stuff the “trailer trash” are really made of.
Looks like a super delegate is about to endorse Obama.
….
The endorsement in question is that of Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s first Secretary of Labor and a friend of both the former president and his wife for four decades. Around 1:00pm EST, Reich informs me, he intends formally to declare his support for Obama…”
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html
‘What is clear, however, is that Clinton can’t win it’
Nonsense.
And what about the more decisive (than ‘black’ voters) core Clinton supporters p…off or the independent female supporting Hillary as the trail blazer getting beaten by a man (not a black or white man) a man who only talks good. Then the Hispanics who on a “variety” (read what you like) of fronts strongly support Hillary over Obama. The redknecks of Ohio 75% Hillary over Obama (a state ‘red’ that Bill won twice & apart from I think 1960 votes with the winner)
Hillary ‘has’ these critical demographics & more, and they will stick despite a Convention bloodletting. As for the ‘black’ voters , Bill was da the man & he can win enough back. Hillary can win The SD’s probably will lack the courage to pop the Obama balloon & another unlosable election will have passed
BUT Obama has problems with all these & other groups & I see problems therefore in his electability
All Obama has done through an internet & land based network is to ’rounded up’ voter groups of the Democrat FAITHFUL to get a delegate lead with a ‘message of a new politics’ that has never been defined only