2008 USA Presidential Primaries thread

[Neon]

Mike Huckabee isn't crazy.

If you believe that the Bible (or whatever religious text) is more valid on the subject of the origins of the human species than most scientific texts over the last few hundred years, then you'd have to be crazy not to be a creationist. It all depends on the value you assign to the relevant texts

I don't think positively of the man and don't relish defending him, but there you have it

[/geek]

[professor ganson]

Mike Huckabee isn't crazy.

If you believe that the Bible (or whatever religious text) is more valid on the subject of the origins of the human species than most scientific texts over the last few hundred years, then you'd have to be crazy not to be a creationist.

But it's the antecedent of that conditional that's the problem. He shouldn't be looking to the Bible to form beliefs on the subject. That IS crazy. The Republican party is a sad mess right now. Not sad for me. Just sad.

[Neon]

Mike Huckabee isn't crazy.

If you believe that the Bible (or whatever religious text) is more valid on the subject of the origins of the human species than most scientific texts over the last few hundred years, then you'd have to be crazy not to be a creationist.

But it's the antecedent of that conditional that's the problem. He shouldn't be looking to the Bible to form beliefs on the subject. That IS crazy. The Republican party is a sad mess right now. Not sad for me. Just sad.

Well...yeah. Agreed.

[Randorama]

The neo-nazi fringes of the republican party started in the '50s and '60s to focus on massive reproduction and co-opting of the frustrated lumpenproletariat to their goal (English name...?). Take frustration, poverty and anger, build up a feasible target, level masses to the lowest level (i.e. as long as they can vote, it's enough).

It basically goes back to Goldwater and its zany ideas, for the most part. "The right nation" by Mickelthwait and Wooldridge (2004) has a good analysis with some outlandish conclusions here and there...journalists are not logicians, after all.

You can't squeeze too much sanity from inbred PASPs, I fear.

[Neon]

Barack Obama is the king of spin.

Appeal to Republicans and Independents because you're more moderate? Sell yourself as a unifier, one who can inspire people.

No experience or record to run on? Sell yourself as a change from the status quo. I'll add that he wasn't even in the Senate when the vote to invade Iraq was taken, so his sentiments and 'genuineness' are worth a bucket of warm spit.

...and he has the audacity (ha) to say he's somehow a change from politics as usual.

The best part was when he gave a direct answer to a 'what is your biggest fault' type question. Jesus, even I know not to do that in a job interview. The man doesn't have a clue.

I don't think the Republickin's will need to swiftboat this guy. He'll probably misspeak or generally fuck up the general election himself just like he did with New Hampshire.

[Twiddle]

I'm happy with any of the 3 likely candidates at this point, even though wresting government control from corporate lobbying is going to become a futile effort within less than a decade.

[Ed Oscuro]

Agree with Twiddle, and also with Neon. Obama seems to have the most media- and joe public- saavy campaign overall.

Woo, Prairie Home Companion did a joke "the candidates cook omelets" session before I switched the radio off.

This isn't going to make much (or any) sense if you didn't listen to the program, but as usual with PHC you missed absolutely nothing at all (although I laughed a bit - the show is peculiar in that way).

Ah hell, I just admitted to listening to PHC. Anyway, I was kinda surprised at their take on John McCain, what with the "I'm going to give you the straight talk on omelets - my omelets have bits of egg shells, cheese is mold, eggs come straight out the back hatch of a chicken, and my omelets look more like scrambled eggs but DEAL WITH IT." Lolz @ Bill Clinton asking to put chocolate and marshmallows in Hillary's omelet.

[BulletMagnet]

@Neon - Obama's getting a free pass on a lot of things at the moment because all he has to do to win the media's favor is say "I'm Not a Clinton." If he manages to bump Hillary out of the picture and that line doesn't count for anything anymore, then the Reps and their lapdogs in the media will really unload on him...heck, even right now look at how half of them refuse to mention him without bringing up his middle name as an issue. McCain isn't quite as much of a media darling as he once was, but wait until he's had the chance to invite reporters back onto the "Straight Talk Express" (seriously, they've been repeating his campaign slogan for him for free for years now), gives them donuts and tells them how bright they all are...in any event, if one of them pulls ahead the press will work extra hard to dig up (or make up) a scandal on him to make things more interesting (discussing all the wonkish stuff that actually matters is so boring!).

They brought down Gore and Kerry even against the laughable likes of W. way back when, and they're perfectly capable of doing it again unless the public wises up.

[Twiddle]

The Fox News brainwashed drones don't like McCain much either, though.

[Ed Oscuro]

The last two weeks the press seemed equally enamored with McCain for an endless supply of the "straight talk" jokes I mentioned and because it was giving them a reason to cover Rush Limbaugh. Not much going on there...

[BulletMagnet]

The Fox News brainwashed drones don't like McCain much either, though.

Don't worry, they'll come around...hardcore conservatives are just so used to completely getting their way, even when it meant flattening the will of the majority of the country, after six years of near-unopposed dominance over all branches of government, that they're no longer satisfied with a half-loony representative, they want a total raving crackpot with zero inhibitions whatsoever, like back in the good old days (as I've mentioned before, it absolutely cracks me up that they're demanding that whoever the Dem candidate is should preach "reconciliation" and "reaching across the aisle" when they almost without exception told anyone remotely liberal to go f*ck him/herself for their entire run). Once they get acquainted with the idea that not everything will be handed to them on a silver platter anymore they'll rally around Saint McCain to protect them from the Manchurian candidacy of Obama. After all, someone who sings about bombing Iran and says he's willing to spend a century in Iraq (after assuring everyone that it'd be a cake walk when he endorsed the invasion) is a real man's man! And anyone who'd look for anything other than brutal, direct, magic-bullet-pie-in-the-sky-self-pleasuring solutions to problems is too much of a wuss to hold such a position!

[Turrican]

I'm getting all this feedback from you US folks (well, many of you) that Obama is nothing but small talk and a pretty face. That he only has slogans, he fills his mouth with "change" but he doesn't have a clear stance or a practical recipe to really give a following to his speeches.


This is basically the kind of image the press gave us in the late days of Segolene Royal... that she was an unxeperienced pretty face, chosen because of the "woman" factor but not nearly as convincing as a real man's man like Sarko.

I'm curious to know how many here (even Obama supporters) do agree with this analysis; whether you think this is just propaganda from the opposition (be it Hillary or McCain) and how much will damage him in the long term.

From what I can see so far, it's true that he's not really "deep" in his speeches, but then again this might be due to the electoral mood, and after all even JFK is remembered for hotheaded talks. However, I can already register an important and very material change Obama brought - he's rising the affluence to vote and he's getting a lot of ethnic minorities and young peoples back into politics again. And that already sounds like a good change to me. What's your opinion?

[BulletMagnet]

I'm curious to know how many here (even Obama supporters) do agree with this analysis; whether you think this is just propaganda from the opposition (be it Hillary or McCain) and how much will damage him in the long term.

I don't support a particular candidate, but speaking for myself my problem with Obama is not that he isn't specific enough in his calls for change (if nothing else, his proposals have far more substance than any of the Republican candidates, past or present, have), but that they don't go far enough - although he's been near-universally labeled as "the change guy," he's actually the one who's most willing to kowtow to the conservatives and their disastrous policies of the past several years, in the interest of being "the uniter" (the ridiculousness of which I've already addressed). Granted, he's not nearly as shameless in this regard as McCain is, but that's not saying much...in several ways Hillary's proposals are more dramatic than his, and Edwards handily outdid both while he was still in. But those haircuts were totally unacceptable!

However, I can already register an important and very material change Obama brought - he's rising the affluence to vote and he's getting a lot of ethnic minorities and young peoples back into politics again. And that already sounds like a good change to me. What's your opinion?

The fact that he's getting people interested and involved in the process (as opposed to the brainless self-masturbation of "Bush and Gore are exactly the same" that led to the 2000 debacle in particular) can only be a good thing. What I would like him to do more of, though, is encouraging people to demand better of those who report the information to us, since most normal (non-millionaire) people, even if they genuinely want to, find it difficult to keep up with everything when they've already got plenty on their minds (especially since the economy's tanking now). I wish he'd encourage more focus on the less sexy but more important data and policy minutiae, and less coverage of "personality" issues (remember how good a judge of character the media was in '00 and '04?)...but of course "character" issues are a strong point for him, so it's left to Hillary to complain (and be denounced as a "whiner" for doing it).

This is basically the kind of image the press gave us in the late days of Segolene Royal... that she was an unxeperienced pretty face, chosen because of the "woman" factor but not nearly as convincing as a real man's man like Sarko.

Out of curiosity, what is the state of media ownership over there - is it corporate-owned, as here? How much are such "media personalities" paid - in the millions of dollars (US) per year, as here? I'm interested to know what sort of bunch it is, that resorted to the tactics you mentioned...

[Turrican]

Out of curiosity, what is the state of media ownership over there - is it corporate-owned, as here? How much are such "media personalities" paid - in the millions of dollars (US) per year, as here? I'm interested to know what sort of bunch it is, that resorted to the tactics you mentioned...

Our media situation? I'm surprised you don't know - we are basically labeled as a semi-free country (i.e. not really a free one) by many international observers (freedomhouse.org comes to mind) because, even if technically in a democratic republic, Italy doesn't have any kind of free press. Our national tvs are basically private property of the parties, and all the "commercial" media are owned by the single richest man, Berlusconi. Which incidentally was already prime minister twice in the previous decade.

You want to know the outcome of all this? Well, we don't have a single news channel that would go in-depth analyzing Segolene, Hillary or Obama's politics. Are you acquainted with how the media treated the "holy image" of Princess Diana? Basically all our reports of foreign politics are like this. We are incredibly expert about Hillary's haircut or Obama's clothes. And not much else.

[BulletMagnet]

Our national tvs are basically private property of the parties, and all the "commercial" media are owned by the single richest man, Berlusconi. Which incidentally was already prime minister twice in the previous decade...We are incredibly expert about Hillary's haircut or Obama's clothes. And not much else.

I should have guessed as much, I suppose...it requires a pampered, shallow, paper-trained and so-rich-we-don't-need-to-care-about-what-affects-real-people bunch to vomit up such trollop and call it "journalism" with a straight face. And a disenfranchised public to swallow it, let alone praise it.

[Turrican]

I should have guessed as much, I suppose...it requires a pampered, shallow, paper-trained and so-rich-we-don't-need-to-care-about-what-affects-real-people bunch to vomit up such trollop and call it "journalism" with a straight face. And a disenfranchised public to swallow it, let alone praise it.

Our only true journalists are like 80-90 years old and are becoming a rare breed. They are somewhat tolerated like grumpy old geezers. Usually they are too respected to take direct measures against them, but if someone gets really annoying to the powers, they won't hesitate to mute him too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Biagi

But enough talking of our sad situation, I don't want to derail the thread.

[BryanM]

I'm getting all this feedback from you US folks (well, many of you) that Obama is nothing but small talk and a pretty face.

The real image of the man is obfuscated by what people are told to believe, of course.

His stats copypasta'ed:

* ~10-16 years: Community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer
* 7 years: Illinois Senate
* 4 years: Federal Senate

Compared to his opponent Clinton, he has more "experience" than she does. His potential future opponent McCain, not so much obviously. That guy is a couple weeks from the big easy.

After the way John Kerry was eviscerated, it only makes damn sense to vote on things that really matter, if you want to continue to level up. It's harder to construct a straw man without any straw.

[Ex-Cyber]

It's harder to construct a straw man without any straw.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder whether "not experienced enough" is essentially code for "we can't find any dirt on him". So far it seems that the worst Obama's detractors can come up with is laughably weak Manchurian Candidate innuendo:

- He has a "Muslim name" (I wonder if a candidate named Baruch would be criticized for having a "Jewish name").

- He attended a "madrassa" (actually just a regular Indonesian school that happened to be majority-Muslim).

- His parents might have been Communists, because many mixed-race couples at the time of his birth were Communists.

- Louis Farrakhan said nice things about him.

- He doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin.

Clearly this man is not fit to be president.

[Ed Oscuro]

But it's the antecedent of that conditional that's the problem.

Booyah, supergeek logic pwnage.

[Ed Oscuro]

What I would like [Nader] to do more of, though, is encouraging people to demand better of those who report the information to us, since most normal (non-millionaire) people, even if they genuinely want to, find it difficult to keep up with everything when they've already got plenty on their minds (especially since the economy's tanking now). I wish he'd encourage more focus on the less sexy but more important data and policy minutiae, and less coverage of "personality" issues (remember how good a judge of character the media was in '00 and '04?)...but of course "character" issues are a strong point for him, so it's left to Hillary to complain (and be denounced as a "whiner" for doing it).

The problem is that even in the 2000 election he was basically marginalized by most people by electability concerns. If you aren't electable, nobody cares what you have to say, and the media won't give you airtime.

The media has found it expedient (and most ratings-worthy) to focus on character issues - nothing fills headlines like juicy talk of racism, sexism, and changes of character (some people call them flip-flops; other call them "second acts in American lives," to invoke Fitzgerald). Hilary Clinton is often described as a "policy wonk" - who the hell thinks that's a positive thing? What about policy expert?

The way candidates run their campaigns also holds a share of blame. You know, back in the 1960s JFK's campaign told America "it's time to get America moving again," an idea most Americans thought was flighty nonsense because it really didn't mean a damn thing. People wanted to hear about how we were going to stop the Soviets. Today, candidates want to be all things to all people - if they can get a vote from somebody who normally wouldn't vote for them, so much the better. The anti-McCain right-wing pundits that we've been hearing about so much recently also have a role to play in this game - I'm not sure what their angle is, but they're certainly committed to something (besides an impending commission to insane asylums, anyway).

I think Obama's doing alright, but his success really has made me think again about JFK more critically. JFK created the "missile gap" issue - I don't believe the record shows he was aware it wasn't true, but his lack of knowledge about the affair coupled with his good TV presence equaled big wins in November for the guy. Let's not forget that he fucked up in the Bay of Pigs and didn't know how to handle the CIA effectively, and took a while to get his administration running effectively - although Nixon probably could've some way to mess up as well.

However, I see a silver lining in the way the campaigns are playing out. Whoever wins will have succeeded in a masterful stroke of public perception management, and by coincidence one of the major tasks of any sitting President is managing perceptions - in other countries as well as in their own.

[Obama stats]
* ~10-16 years: Community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer
* 7 years: Illinois Senate
* 4 years: Federal Senate

Compared to his opponent Clinton, he has more "experience" than she does.

Um, no. For one, she has twice his time in the Federal Senate; Clinton clearly has somewhat more experience than Obama. I'd agree that it could be seen as closer than some people believe, but saying Obama has more experience than Clinton - even if we ignore her time as First Lady completely - is completely wrong.

[Neon]

I'm getting all this feedback from you US folks (well, many of you) that Obama is nothing but small talk and a pretty face. That he only has slogans, he fills his mouth with "change" but he doesn't have a clear stance or a practical recipe to really give a following to his speeches.


This is basically the kind of image the press gave us in the late days of Segolene Royal... that she was an unxeperienced pretty face, chosen because of the "woman" factor but not nearly as convincing as a real man's man like Sarko.

I'm curious to know how many here (even Obama supporters) do agree with this analysis; whether you think this is just propaganda from the opposition (be it Hillary or McCain) and how much will damage him in the long term.

Of course the opposition (be they from the left or right) will latch on to any possible weakness and try to exploit it whether it makes a difference or not, so it's propaganda on that level. I just worry about the general election. Obama has made a few mistakes in the primaries already, yet Clinton is just so savvy. I started supporting her in the days before the New Hampshire primary, which she won despite polls giving Obama a double-digit lead. She makes all the right moves and won't go out without a fight.

From what I can see so far, it's true that he's not really "deep" in his speeches, but then again this might be due to the electoral mood, and after all even JFK is remembered for hotheaded talks. However, I can already register an important and very material change Obama brought - he's rising the affluence to vote and he's getting a lot of ethnic minorities and young peoples back into politics again. And that already sounds like a good change to me. What's your opinion?

'Tis dangerous. These young people don't have finely tuned bullshit detectors or they wouldn't be going to Starbucks to pay $4 for a cup of coffee. He's getting people involved who are gonna vote Republican once they move into the suburbs and a higher tax bracket. It's the nature of the beast that you'll attract more moderate voters when you're a black man (symbolic of machismo) vs. a white woman, but to actively recruit them (with this totally fabricated 'change' phenomenon) and then sell yourself as a 'unifier?' That's not different from 'politics as usual,' (to borrow his phrase) but people prefer to see this inspiring figure who's going to fix everything to the truth. They're tired of being cynical.

[Turrican]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/

Obama's momentum comes to an halt. I guess this thread won't die any soon.

Regardless of the outcome, it's a fair analysis to say that this internal struggle won't help democrats in the long term.

[BulletMagnet]

Regardless of the outcome, it's a fair analysis to say that this internal struggle won't help democrats in the long term.

If they (and the media) handled it with some sense of class, as an involved competition and exchange of ideas, a "refining process" of sorts, it could help the party's image, at least against the Reps' current "which of these old white guys who want to continue the last guy's failed policies do we hate the least" status. Of course, the candidates and press (and, as a result, more of the electorate than should be) are choosing, as usual, to focus on trivial, insulting garbage, and leaving themselves open for a nice big black eye. The fact of the matter is, both candidates have some good things to offer, and having to choose between the two should be cause for at least a little celebration - but of course, the rulebook says that this can't be allowed to happen when it comes to progressive types (where would our carefully-crafted reputation as doomsayers go?).

[Neon]

I like this site: http://electoral-vote.com/

The fact of the matter is, both candidates have some good things to offer

As someone whose primary concern is electability, I've been flip-flopping a lot over the course of these primaries. On the one hand, Obama appeals more to independents; on the other, H-Rod wins the swing states in hypotheticals, and is less likely to misspeak/have a scandal dug up. Plus she gets the Catholic vote, which cost Kerry Ohio.

I'm hoping for the Clinton/Obama dream ticket

[MadSteelDarkness]

Guys, I caucused for Obama last night. Fun!

Obama's supporters outnumbered Clinton's by, conservatively (snark), 10-to-1, and some of her people were clearly unhappy with having to deal with the hordes of unwashed, nattily-attired riffraff that don't usually participate in these things. Oh, and I saw King Coffey (former/current? Butthole Surfers drummer and all around nice guy) in line to sign up for Obama.

So....yeah. I love my neighborhood.

By the way, I did ultimately make my decision based on electability, at least as I perceive it. Lesser evils and all that.

[Ganelon]

Judging from the preliminary caucus results, you have to wonder how many Republicans skipped out on their primary and decided to vote for Hillary instead.

[Neon]

Guys, I caucused for Obama last night. Fun!

Obama's supporters outnumbered Clinton's by, conservatively (snark), 10-to-1, and some of her people were clearly unhappy with having to deal with the hordes of unwashed, nattily-attired riffraff that don't usually participate in these things. Oh, and I saw King Coffey (former/current? Butthole Surfers drummer and all around nice guy) in line to sign up for Obama.

So....yeah. I love my neighborhood.

By the way, I did ultimately make my decision based on electability, at least as I perceive it. Lesser evils and all that.

Everyone cool is rooting for Obama, which is swinging me back in his direction.

Except for Arcade Fire. They're still nerds.

Judging from the preliminary caucus results, you have to wonder how many Republicans skipped out on their primary and decided to vote for Hillary instead.

All the rednecks I know are going for Obama over Clinton (which kinda cancels out my first statement, but whatever). Sexism is still way more socially permissible than racism and all that.

[Turrican]

Jimmy Carter looks like one of the best you had since FDR, judging from the outside. His recent stances in foreign policy and human rights make him a fine gentleman. He urged to close the Guantanamo lager. He met Fidel, instead of trying to kill him via CIA as usual. I can only hope Obama will follow on his footsteps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7845585.stm

Well done Mr. President!

Now just lift that criminal embargo and we're buddies!

[Specineff]

Embargo?

[Turrican]

Embargo?

Huh, yes speci... this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo never heard of it?