A bit early in the year for that award, wouldn't you say?
I didn't even remember that today is Tuesday. I think I'm tired.
"When you change with every new day" seems more appropriate for Mitt Romney.
Cool polling-place art!
You're being ironic, right? Because that's like echt Florida kitsch.
Presumably there have been lots of "Rudy *Can* Fail" and "A Message to You Rudy"?
Fingers crossed for the Mittster...
I like oudemia's "A Message to You Rudy" better. Quite excellent, actually.
"Echt Kitsch" could also work as a solution here.
"Goodbye Rudys Tuesday" was used in Minnesota, in 1992, when Governor Rudy Perpich and Senator Rudy Boschwitz were both defeated. My favorite headline of all time.
5: It's emblematic of our shared history with Florida and elections. Reading from left to right: a solitary sailboat ventures forth, like one vote on election day or a single chad hanging; (partially obscured) Scylla and Charybdis; hopes dashed.
Plus 7 and 9 have the advantage of letting you watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TGDQ85Dg-ss
Permalink for works discussed in 12.
It's emblematic of our shared history with Florida and elections
Or at least it was until they changed the picture.
14 to 15. Adios, mofos, I'm going to go watch returns.
emblematic of our shared history
This is one of those lessons in how art criticism can be better than art.
Who are we supposed to want to win in FL anyway?
Unless by "FL" you mean "Fontana Labs," in which case everyone wins.
Romney nicely combines unelectability and less-craziness. Huckabee (Fuck me!) is unelectable, but scary crazy. McCain is scary electable (and actually scary crazy, too.)
So Romney is a nice partner for Labs.
I always knew that Labs liked the pretty switch boys.
Note that 25 wasn't trolling. It would have been trolling if I'd written: Mrs. Clinton wins !!
22 is right. Just watched CNN go over the map, and it's looking good for McCain, unfortunately.
What percentage of the Florida Republican electorate is military veterans over 60 and their wives?
McCain isn't winning any general election. No need to panic.
31: I wish I believed you, but I don't.
And 31 isn't making the inane point that he's not winning a general election today, but that he couldn't win if nominated. A lot of evangelicals hate him, and they're just about all the republicans have left.
Well, I hope so, but a lot of those damn swing voters think he's a-okay.
Low-information voters love McCain. The only hope for humanity would be if said low-information voters notice a couple days before the election that he is really really old, and finally decide not to vote for him.
A-okay among the Republican group or a-okay against a Dem? Doesn't he get crushed in (admittedly unreliable) projective polling against either Obama or Clinton?
If only somebody could leak his adult diaper to the press.
38: nope. Matches up quite well, and is in fact beating Hillary at the moment, I believe.
Doesn't he get crushed in (admittedly unreliable) projective polling against either Obama or Clinton?
No, he's the only Republican who doesn't get crushed in those polls. Sometimes he even comes out on top.
40: Oh, well those polls are totally unreliable anyway. I'm not worried.
I agree. Those polls are totally unreliable. I also agree that you're not worried.
Surely 8 years of Bush has taught the electorate something...
44: not to vote for Bush?
Keep in mind McCain has been solidly winning among anti-war Republicans. People are stupid.
Surely 8 years of Bush has taught the electorate something...
Yeah, no more liberals like Bush who go swanning about the place losing wars and wasting all the government's money. We need an old-fashioned fiscal conservative who knows how to win wars. The Republicans have to run against Bush somehow, and I think that's how they're going to do it if McCain is the guy.
Keep in mind McCain has been solidly winning among anti-war Republicans.
I did see that. Bizarre.
Surely 8 years of Bush has taught the electorate something...
Never to trust their fellow citizens to get the most obvious electoral choices right?
Yeah, no more liberals like Bush who go swanning about the place losing wars and wasting all the government's money. We need an old-fashioned fiscal conservative who knows how to win wars. The Republicans have to run against Bush somehow, and I think that's how they're going to do it if McCain is the guy.
De-Stalinization all over again. Which, in a certain sense of things, is not really a bad thing. Losing the war in Iraq and wasting all of the governments money are both in any list of the top few worst things that the Bush administration has done, possibly joined by the hugely increased politicalization and incompetence of the federal government.
not to vote for Bush?
I wonder how many will decide that while they can't not vote for George Bush, they can certainly not vote for Bill Clinton?
It says something about the Republican party that not wanting to start a war for the purposes of bringing about the Second Coming, but merely wanting to start a war of choice, makes you the sane and sensible voice of experience.
Remember, McCain will effectively get millions of dollars of free advertising from the news media. Watch Chris Matthews try to keep his raging erection in his pants tonight. McCain is the only Republican with a chance to win in the general. Moreover, if there's anybody who could make the evangelicals hold their nose and vote for McCain, it's Hillary Clinton.
53: It's my worst nightmare. The most hawkish Republican in the field versus the most hawkish Democrat in the field. It makes me want to vomit.
Any of the Democrats could win. It just won't be any kind of an easy thing if it's McCain.
54: Sorry, I meant I like HRC's chances versus McCain. Call me crazy, but I think she can win that one.
It's not clear that McCain is more hawkish than Giuliani, though it's certainly clear he's been a hawk for longer. But maybe you're defining field to mean people who aren't dropping out tonight and endorsing McCain tomorrow.
Are you talking about electability, Sifu?
54: I like the fact that we can now think of McCain as the most hawkish Republican in the field. Goodbye Rudy Tuesday indeed.
Surely 8 years of Bush has taught the electorate something...
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Same old, same old, but I suppose each generation has to learn it anew.
Apo gets it exactly right in 52.
As far as I'm concerned, the Bush fiasco should have cost the Republicans their right to nominate a candidate for this election cycle. The law should be that when the approval rating of your current President dips below 30%, you've shown that you don't know what you're doing and you lose a turn. It should be the Dems vs. the Constitution party candidate. The Republicans would get another chance in 2012.
56:Call me crazy
You're crazy. But on this narrow topic, I think you are onto something. For once, I think it's reasonable for Republicans to worry that the Democrat is going to be a nasty, gutter campaigner.
Call me crazy, but I think she can win that one.
You're crazy.
Brock in 61 is genius.
I do agree that HRC could bring out some evangelical voters (against her). But enough to turn the tide? McCain has been unambiguously pro-Iraq. Do you think the news from there will get more positive over the coming year?
61 is sweet. Do not pass go, do not hold a primary! Go reflect on your sins and eat your vegetables.
Low-information voters are giving McCain a boost right now. There are three things they don't realize: The sumbitch is a worse warpig than Bush; the sumbitch is disdainful of domestic issues; and the sumbitch is old, and looks it.
Reagan's age was an issue in '80 and '84, and he was much more vigorous than McCain. McCain looks like Dole in '96.
Giuliani's entire strategy was based on winning Florida, wasn't it? Too bad the primary wasn't held on 9/11.
58: no! They're all electable!
Dammit.
Reagan's age was an issue in '80 and '84, and he was much more vigorous than McCain. McCain looks like Dole in '96.
Well, he's closer to Dole's age in '96 than Reagan's in '80. I really do think his age is going to kill him.
I really do think his age is going to kill him.
Eventually.
I really do think his age is going to kill him.
It does eventually get pretty much everybody who doesn't die of something else first.
My nightmare scenario: McCain, needing help on the religious right, makes Huckabee his running mate, wins the election, then drops dead in office. Although I suppose it's arguable that McCain's a bigger nightmare in his own right than Huckabee is.
Plus, really terrible health. On the other hand: Chris Matthews! And all the others huge heads that float into my house when I turn on the TV.
74 to 71. Sorry, having a very slow day. Really feeling quite craptastic.
Giuliani is giving his concession speech now. Why did anyone think this guy would win that race?
61 is pretty awesome.
Do you think the news from there will get more positive over the coming year?
The coming year? We're going to be hearing all about the presidential race, and whether or not Hillary's going to win because of the woman vote/Obama's going to win because of the black vote. And who's campaigning dirty, and who would be more fun to drink beer with, and who spends more getting their hair cut.
What war?
76: Maybe he had some kind of "in" with the Diebold people or something.
57- Nobody's more hawkish than McCain. The guy relinquishes the commander-in-chief role to Patreus. He has no diplomatic skills to speak of. He's a reformed supply-sider. It would be a disaster. His views on torture is the only positive I can think of.
A friend from Denmark tells me that McCain is very popular there. Den fucking Mark. It's the media narrative of the straight-talking, POW hero.
Clinton CAN win, but if we nominate her WE ARE SO SO SO SO SO STUPID.
If you want to know why I think this, forget the D.C. idiocy for a while & watch the local coverage of Obama's campaign appearances in Bush states. They are beautiful to behold. 2000 start lining up at 6 am in a fucking blizzard in nowheresville, Kansas to watch black guy make a very similar speech to the one he made at MLK's church in Atlanta, complete with the lines about universal health care, being nice to gays, immigrants & atheists. He is America, and so you can you! Local news anchors swoon--no one ever comes to Kansas--can't remember any campaign event, let alone one like this, since Bob Dole ran.
He's not an idiot & he's not a sell out. He's running a strategy, and it's a good one: it's starting to work. But Clinton's more familiar, & the national press is obsessed with trivia, & a lot of liberals are too traumatized & fearful & bitter & paranoid, & he's running out of time. So we're trying yet again with "the voters are mean, but they're also dumb, maybe we can trick them into electing Democrats & then cling to power for eight years" strategy, & the most hawkish candidate.
I'm never happy with the primaries. I supported Bradley in 2000, Dean in 2004, I think I was briefly for Harkin in 1992 because that's what my parents Nation said...I was more attached to Dean than Obama, & I think Clinton's a better candidate than Kerry. But none of them have had the quite the sense of "oh my God, we're blowing a huge opportunity", as this one.
Why did anyone think this guy would win that race?
I'm not aware that anyone did think that.
No, 82, you can't say that. Check out the purple line.
Thanks, Sifu. Now I feel better. You'll find me under the bed for the next few days. It's comfy under here. Except for the dust bunnies. They're not comfortable at all.
81: He can't win. Because I love him. And so does my co-blogger. And we are *not* America. We're barely we. (Though I'm still quite dusty. Thanks to Sifu.)
81: Also, as I think you know, I agree with everything that you wrote. Actually, I agree with everything you've ever written.
Check out the purple line.
It seems to be going constantly, and after a certain point precipitously, down. And, okay, if the Florida primary had been held three months ago Rudy probably would have won it, but it was held today, everybody knew it was going to be held today, and the closer it got to today, and the more people in Florida (and elsewhere) saw of Rudy, the less probable it became that he would win.
And then Romney. Who's not bad on the stump. And probably a more dangerous opponent than McCain, but for the whole idiotic press thing.
Every four years, Republican Money picks a candidate. The sole qualification for that candidate: Who will best serve Republican Money?
The candidate of Republican Money always wins the Republican primary. Romney is the candidate of Republican Money. Even after McCain in Florida, I still think Romney is going to win.
But maybe not. Either way, the key to understanding this year is understanding that the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
It's literally conceivable that a McCain-Huckabee ticket could make Republican Money indifferent to the outcome of the general election - or would swing Republican Money to Hillary.
And Romney ! If you think Hillary and Bill aim below the belt when their opponent is black, well, you ought to reflect on what they would do to a Mormon.
87: This was why he was my favorite Republican candidate from day one. I'm very sad to see him go.
This kind of coverage will help. A lot. More of this. Please.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/065183.php
Either way, the key to understanding this year is understanding that the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Yep. It seems pretty clear that if Republican Money had succeeded in getting rid of Huckabee like they wanted Romney would have had the nomination sewn up by now.
But none of them have had the quite the sense of "oh my God, we're blowing a huge opportunity", as this one.
Not yet we aren't. Teddy Kennedy!
If Giuliani had held out a little longer, Romney would have won. Someone pointed out that Rudy's mistake was campaigning at all. People liked him better before they knew about him.
We will at least see a full week of McCain smears and attacks on Romney, and if neither one of them wraps it up, that could go on indefinitely.
Someone pointed out that Rudy's mistake was campaigning at all. People liked him better before they knew about him.
Fred Thompson should have given him some tips on this.
Reagan's age was an issue in '80 and '84
And he won 93 of 100 states across the two elections.
His views on torture is the only positive I can think of.
I wouldn't be too enthusiastic on that score if I were you.
95: Most of their primaries are winner-take-all. If Romney keeps finishing in second, it won't matter if it's close.
I would like to thnk that 89 is correct. I've certainly thought that Republican Money was basically in charge for a long time. Let's hope that the election turns out the way Ned's predicting.
Ari, if you collect all the dust bunnies into one place, they'll make a nice soft dusty pillow.
97: But in '84 he wasn't running against the 1984 equivalent of Barack Obama! Which would be...Ron Dellums?
I'd like to believe that McCain's age will give voters pause, but I haven't seen it mentioned by anybody except people who would never vote for him anyhow for altogether unrelated reasons.
How much does Florida's Jewish population help McCain, who's perceived as VERY good for Jews? Does anyone have numbers?
If the numbers are what I'm guessing they are, I'm not sure that McCain keeps winning primaries. Emerson's dreamy scenario has a good chance of playing out, then, as there are lots of monied people who'll be begging Romney not to leave the race any time soon. If the Republican establishment begins to push him out, then he'll go. But not a minue before that, I wouldn't think.
81: Katherine, I hate arguing with you because I'm either right or wrong. I don't like being wrong, but when I argue with you, I would pretty much always prefer to be wrong than right.
That said ... if Obama can't win the Democratic nomination, then he's a lousy candidate for the general election. If Hillary can beat him with naked racial appeals in the Democratic Party, then he's an extremely dangerous candidate to put up in the general election.
On the other hand, maybe Obama can win the Democratic nomination, and if he can, I'd certainly be happy to see him advance to the general election.
McCain only looks good on torture compared to Zarqawi and those Americans who buy into the same theory of public relations.
Here's the text of the speech in Kansas, & some of the local news coverage (I actually had seen a different station earlier, w/ more of the "standing outside freezing their asses off" footage.)
But OMG he snubbed Hillary!!!!
Sifu: yeah, I know I'm being unduly pessimistic, & should just enjoy it while it lasts.
McCain obviously only won in Florida because it's full of old people like him.
(Note: I stole this theory from Jonah Goldberg, so take it for what it's worth.)
I stole this theory from Jonah Goldberg
Typical liberal fascist.
Florida is the oldest state (all links are PDF, so I'll spare you).
Florida is the oldest state
In more ways than one.
Sifu: yeah, I know I'm being unduly pessimistic, & should just enjoy it while it lasts.
Which is forever!
Seriously maybe Obama is going out of his way to appeal to independents and so on because Democrats are such wet blankets! Of course he'll win! He's our guy! You gotta beliieeeeeeeve!
I say this as a Boston sports fan in the new century.
Coverage like this can't be what the Clinton campaign was hoping for:
But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory in South Carolina's Democratic primary.
And the whole piece is that scornful. Wow.
113: You're conceding that point? Where's your New Mexico pride?
Juan Ponce de Leon's endorsement of McCain ensured him the immortal conquistador vote, which is a key swing constituency in Florida.
113: in what other ways? I can only think of one.
I say this as a Boston sports fan
Oh yeah, I forgot. Fuck you and your opinions.
Electability forever!
115: I'm starting to think that the Clinton's are making themselves look bad lately so they can be back on the defensive. They like to be cornered.
Where's your New Mexico pride?
Much as I hate to admit it, the evidence is pretty incontrovertible. 1565 is significantly earlier than 1598.
They like to be cornered.
Then they ejaculate in the sink.
politicalfootball: bullshit. Look at that footage from rural Kansas. Who're you going to believe about who's a stronger candidate in the general: the D.C. press, or your lying eyes? I'll trust my lying eyes (& the turnout #s and exit polls).
If she beats him, it won't even be him with racial crap. More than anything else it'll be because Democratic primary voters know her name, remember things sucking a lot less under her husband's administration, she's a smart lady, & they have positive emotional associations with her for one reason or another. And they don't know that much about him, & there's not enough time for him to hold enough rallies & town halls, or for enough kids to convince their parents, or for his organizers to do their thing. If we nominate him, there'll be time & he'll be starting from a much larger base of support.
"I don't like being wrong, but when I argue with you, I would pretty much always prefer to be wrong than right."
Get a shitkickin backup band, Ari. You could be the primo tears-in-my-beer singer of the wonk world.
And then you and Katherine get a room.
120: Cutting it a little close on the comeback before next Tuesday, aren't they?
Immortal conquistadors love war, of course. It's their key issue.
And yes, as a decidedly mortal conquistador, De Soto may not be the best choice for McCain's running mate.
The most mellifluous pairing is Giuliani/Pujols.
125: I didn't say that, John. At least I don't think so. I'm pretty sure it was politicalfootball. But now that you've hurt my feelings, I'm going to put my son to sleep.
On the McCain age issue, it seems to me that his VP could help to allay people's concerns. I know many people say VPs don't matter all that much on the ticket, but I'm not sure here.
Who would make a good running mate? Huckabee for the evangelical vote. Who else?
124 -- And older white people are more comfortable with her than with him. Apparently. He's going to have to either win them or swamp them. I'm actually not sure which I prefer.
114: Let's not raise divisive issues, Sifu. The Democratic party must remain sports-fan-inclusive.
And the whole piece is that scornful. Wow.
Milbank is one of the few remaining vocal liberals in the MSM. Plus, the MSM digs Obama.
The media do really like Obama and hate Romney and Hillary. I am interested to know if Emerson disagrees with me about that.
On the sports issue, I am becoming increasingly convinced that 'Brady has a sprain!' has been allowed to become news just so the media don't cook up a more annoying narrative for the Superbowl.
Pujols is a good choice for swing-state reasons, but the Republican candidate would be more likely to pick Mike Sweeney.
132: McCain/Huckabee means an oxycontin blowout for a certain radio blowhard. I just can't imagine the Republicans running a ticket composed of the two people the conservative came out explicitly and all but uniformly against.
OTOH, what if it wins the general?
Right, I totally forgot. Roethlisburblehork for Undersecretary of Hard Working Blue Collar Heroes!
Milbank is one of the few remaining vocal liberals in the MSM.
His new book is surprisingly unobjective and non-good, though.
124: older white Democrats.
Here's the thing: I know some older white Democrats, & they don't especially have a problem with Obama--they just REALLY LIKE Hillary. If I thought this were universal & not nearly 100% correlated with party affiliation I might start to buy the argument about her being the stronger general election candidate even a little.
Who would make a good running mate? Huckabee for the evangelical vote. Who else?
Olympia Snowe. McCain/Snowe would be lethal against Clinton.
Following on 139:
Romney won it 33-31 according to CNN exits. Even in Florida, independents were McCain's margin of victory. Kind of incredible.
From The Corner.
Olympia Snowe. McCain/Snowe would be lethal against Clinton.
Would the GOP really just cede a senate seat like that, though?
If he wants young, there's Matt Blunt and Bobby Jindal.
On the McCain age issue, it seems to me that his VP could help to allay people's concerns.
The problem with McCain is that he's nuts, and he doesn't conceal it. Reagan was good at not appearing crazy and Bush junior likewise tried to appear non nuts in the general. But McCain seems to have wholly bought into "I'm John Straight Talking POW Motherfucking McCain, and I say whatever the hell I please."
142 -- I don't think she's a stronger candidate in the general, not at all. But it doesn't matter if Obama can't get there, and he can't get there is he can't beat the crap out of her next week.
That said ... if Obama can't win the Democratic nomination, then he's a lousy candidate for the general election. If Hillary can beat him with naked racial appeals in the Democratic Party, then he's an extremely dangerous candidate to put up in the general election.
This doesn't follow. There is probably a large chunk of Democrats who would prefer a white Democrat to a black Democrat, but would prefer either to a Republican. If most of the Republicans who won't vote for a black candidate wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, Obama could easily be a better general election candidate.
135: AFAIK, yes.
This is a test of the standard "autonomous Heathers" theory of the media, which I reject. Though of course, simultaneously a test of the "stealth centrist" theory of Obama. Conceivably the big money people are willing to ditch the Republicans for a centrist Democrat. The Republicans delivered a lot, but they've outlived their usefulness by screwing everything up. Democrats are good at cleaning up Republican messes, and if that's what they're doing, they aren't going to be taking many initiatives.
Who're you going to believe about who's a stronger candidate in the general: the D.C. press, or your lying eyes? I'll trust my lying eyes (& the turnout #s and exit polls).
Then we need not fret about Obama winning the Democratic nomination, do we?
Also, you don't need to win every demographic. My point is that across demographic groups when Obama actually campaigns in & organizes a state, he seems to improve really really really dramatically.
I believe that the second paragraph of 124 is 100% correct.
151: no, it only works if there's time to organize & campaign a bit to get people off of there default settings. (Since people are more suspicious of media "momentum" than last time.) And I think she's going to successfully run out the clock, with an assist from a stupid relentlessly trivial media & the tendency of traumatized people to vote their fears.
Obama should have won NH but didn't. He should have won the casino caucus sites in Nevada, but didn't. This thing is winnable, absolutely, but it's still less likely than not, I'm afraid.
McCain/Snowe would be lethal against Clinton.
Holy shit, yes it would.
I know it's less likely than not; that is exactly my point. No, he's not running a perfect campaign, just the best primary campaign I've seen.
156: Kerry should have won in 2004, but didn't. There are reasons that winners win, and they aren't always honorable reasons, even if we would rather not admit this.
There is probably a large chunk of Democrats who would prefer a white Democrat to a black Democrat, but would prefer either to a Republican.
But do you want to test their party loyalty? It's not like people haven't broken old political bonds pretty severely over race in the past.
Obama wins or he doesn't. It doesn't really matter why he loses the nomination race.
157 -- Except for the low turnout, it would be. The Jesus Loves Fags crew would come out to Save Us From the Wicked Witch, but probably not in the numbers needed.
That's HATES Fags.
Geez, time for bed . . .
Would the GOP really just cede a senate seat like that, though?
If it meant winning the White House decisively, maybe. If they found a candidate to run in Collins' place this year, they might not have to, and she'd do just as well. This is entirely ex recto, of course.
Jesus Loves Fags
I would totally march with them.
(also, I think the main error the Obama campaign has made was to look ahead too much to the general for a primary underdog, so the "if he loses the primary he obviously would've lost the general" argument isn't especially convincing.)
165: I think Obama has run something close to an ideal campaign, given his political liabilities. What do you propose that he could have done better?
But do you want to test their party loyalty? It's not like people haven't broken old political bonds pretty severely over race in the past.
Obama wins or he doesn't. It doesn't really matter why he loses the nomination race.
For certain values of "doesn't matter". Why Obama loses the primary doesn't matter to his chances of winning the general election - they're zero in any event. Why Obama loses the primary may matter very much to Hillary's chances of winning the general.
Dick Riordan lost the California gubernatorial primary a few years back because he was not strictly pro-life, something that was not very likely to hurt him in the general.
did you notice the shift in his rhetoric after NH? He should have done that, sooner. A little less focus on making the press swoon & proving he's electable--that was 2004's battle, this year's a bit different. That said: he is running a great campaign. He COULD win.
It's interesting, how all that grassroots-involvement-we-have-the-power-democracy! enthusiasm has faded in the blogosphere. People were so excited about that during the Dean campaign--Obama's executing the same organizing strategy much, much better. But we're so used to the crazy-making back and forth with Congress & the heathers in D.C. that we can't get it out of our heads for the presidential race.
Don't remember who linked to this, but:
In the past, our research shows, most libertarians voted Republican--72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000, for instance, with only 20 percent for Al Gore, and 70 percent for Republican congressional candidates in 2002. But in 2004, presumably turned off by war, wiretapping, and welfare-state spending sprees, they shifted sharply toward the Democrats. John F. Kerry got 38 percent of the libertarian vote. ....In 2006, libertarians voted 59-36 for Republican congressional candidates--a 24-point swing from the 2002 mid-term election.
In other words, libertarians (15% of the vote according to the study, based on sympathies and beliefs rather than party membership) went from overwhelmingly Republican to solidly Republican. 59-36 Republican is very solid.
A new/old obesity remedy. You there, Apo?
Party primaries can fail to put up the best general election candidate, but in presidential politics, I don't think it happens often.
When was the last time it happened? People who think Dean would have made a better general election candidate than Kerry are dreaming.
I'm thinking Kennedy may have done better than Carter in 1980 - but I don't say that with any confidence.
I think Obama has run something close to an ideal campaign, given his political liabilities deep, chocolatey blackness.
171: I think Edwards would've been better than Kerry in 2004. I think McCain would've been better than Bush in 2000. The GOP could easily go for Mondale now.
You know, I am at this point & pessimistic & used to losing, to the point where I was basically sitting this one out. What drives me *insane* is when people tries to convince me that crappy outcomes were inevitable.
172: Me and Bill can't talk about that stuff, lest we get accused of race-baiting. But yeah.
Republicans like to pretend we are in a post-racial society, but it ain't so. And the Republicans know it. David Brooks and George Will aren't talking up Obama because they think he should be president.
171 seems very silly to me. As if things like Republican Money (and for that matter, Democratic Money) didn't have an enormous amount of power to define so-called "public opinion." If what you mean by "the best candidate" is "the candidate most likely to win," then I think you're grossly underestimating the way that money can affect that. Look at the Swift boat thing. There was no way that was predictable, that the Rs would literally make shit up and be able to throw it and keep it on the front pages.
And think of the impeachment. They tried to basically Swift boat Clinton with the Gennifer Flowers thing during the first election, and failed. Seven years later they tried again, and succeeded.
177: Seven years later they tried again, and succeeded.
They failed with the voters, just like in '92, but unfortunately they were able to sway a much less honorable group, the Washington Press Corps.
the main thing clintn's competitiveness causes me to do is hate old people a lot.
I mean, people aren't even conceding the possibility that Democratic voters might systematically have an irrational positive emotional reaction Clinton not dependent on policy, & GOP voters might have the reverse?
politicalfootball, for fuck's sake, this is the one time when the voters have more say in this than the D.C. press corps. Get David Brooks & George Will & Maureen Dowd out of your head. It doesn't matter what their motives are. Most people in the country don't think like them & don't read them.
Party primaries can fail to put up the best general election candidate, but in presidential politics, I don't think it happens often.
Is you ass telling you anything else? McCain would have been a better candidate in 2000 than GWB.
176 is goofy voodoo; actually you don't know how his race would play out, and neither do Brooks and Will. Sure it'll play some role, and sure people have (and will continue to) say and do ugly things to try and play off it, but assuming it's this giant, poisonous negative is absolutely the way to get us measures and assedness by the half.
What drives me *insane* is when people tries to convince me that crappy outcomes were inevitable.
Sadly, crappy outcomes are not inevitable. We can always have disastrous outcomes instead.
In the last two presidential elections, I would have been overjoyed to get a crappy outcome, and I'm very optimistic that we can get a crappy outcome this time.
It is tough to read a McCain candidacy, he certainly does have an ugly side that could backfire with the "decent" Republicans and indies who are his strength right now. (Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father." ) What I fear with HRC/McCain is that Hilary gives Limbaugh et al better cover for doing a 180 than Obama. "OK McCain sucks, but at least he didn't kill Vince Foster".
In other words, libertarians (15% of the vote according to the study, based on sympathies and beliefs rather than party membership) went from overwhelmingly Republican to solidly Republican. 59-36 Republican is very solid.
What is a libertarian, if not a college-educated narcissist whose commitment to liberty extends as far as, but no farther than, the walls of the gated community within which one can enjoy the finer things in life, provided someone, or rather, some governmental agency, can take care of those pesky barbarians who are always gathering outside at the gate? Screw the poor. And pass the (organically grown and artisanally flavoured) popcorn.
177: Perhaps I wasn't clear. In 171, I was more or less trying to say what you are saying here. By "best," I meant "most electable." Obviously, I don't think that the Republicans put up the best candidates on merits - quite the reverse.
I am actually reasonably confident that Rush Limbaugh will support the GOP nominee. Call me crazy.
What is a libertarian, if not a college-educated narcissist whose commitment to liberty extends as far as, but no farther than, the walls of the gated community within which one can enjoy the finer things in life, provided someone, or rather, some governmental agency, can take care of those pesky barbarians who are always gathering outside at the gate? Screw the poor. And pass the (organically grown and artisanally flavoured) popcorn.
There's also the working-class Montana-style libertarians.
Another source of my frustration, is that I think liberal bloggers in particular are blowing it this time.
187: I think when someone said McCain would have been the best candidate in 2000, they meant he would have been the most electable one.
Also probably true of Estes Kefauver when he was running against Adlai Stevenson for the Dem nomination (how do I know this? long story). He actually won most of the primaries that existed at the time, but that wasn't the main way the nominee was chosen.
If RFK had not died & we had still nominated Humphrey in '68--the most likely outcome, a lot of historians say--that would have also been dumb.
191: How so? Because they're being fair and balanced? Not choosing sides? Trying keep their powder dry for the general? Yglesias has broken that mold the past few days. I think others will follow.
Another source of my frustration, is that I think liberal bloggers in particular are blowing it this time.
Yeah, I kind of think the left blogosphere got rolled. But what are you going to do? Can't learn without mistakes. On the plus side, I think we might be seeing the emergence of a not-Clinton block among the Dems that should subsist past the election.
the most likely outcome, a lot of historians say
I've seen arguments the other way, too. He wasn't closing fast enough, the argument goes.
I am actually reasonably confident that Rush Limbaugh will support the GOP nominee. Call me crazy.
There's something really weird going on this year. Limbaugh struck out against Huckabee in a fashion that would have been almost impossible to walk back. And his attitude about McCain isn't much different.
The difference between enthusiastic support and tepid support is crucial. And I think Limbaugh will enthusiastically support the Republican nominee, but only because I still think the Republican nominee will be Romney.
If it's not Romney, Limbaugh will spend his airtime talking about how horrible the Democratic nominee is, not how virtuous the Repubilcan is. And that makes a difference.
Don't 193 and 195.2 agree? I ask only because I'd like to weigh in. But now I'm confused.
Allow me to say that I think that there's a very good chance that We'll have a Democratic President and a solidly Democratic Congress a year from now. Hopefully so solidly Democratic that the Blue Dogs can be marginalized.
I'll still grumble, because the Democrats are only so good. But better than the alternative.
I don't think that pessimism about the election is justified, which doesn't mean that I think that victory is inevitale.
194: no, it's the plain inability to get what Obama's trying to do. The Nation magazine gets it, & the supposedly savvy-with-it netroots lacks the imagination to conceive of his campaign as an attempt to appeal to *independent voters* rather than David Brooks & David Broder. The OpenLeft crowd, etc. They're driving me crazy.
I don't understand what I'm looking at in 183.
that would have been almost impossible to walk back
We're talking about RUSH LIMBAUGH here. The man is not constrained by things like "coherence" or "facts" or "the record."
194: well, TPM Election Central is about useless & is actually doing a worse job of horse race coverage than the damn New Republic, but that's just because I hate D.C. horse race coverage in general and just shouldn't read it. Don't really know why Marshall bothers, but he's doing a fine job, & Muckraker etc. are good.
They're driving me crazy.
Do you think liberal bloggers move enough votes to make the difference? I'm not asking rhetorically.
I think it's possible that McCain would have made a more electable general election candidate than Bush in 2000 (though I think it's unlikely). This counterfactual stuff is always arguable, and arguments are necessarily made ex recto.
But I still think it's a general rule that the parties pick their most electable candidate. There's always this pro-Lieberman or pro-McCain argument floating out there, but if you can't get your own party to support you, then you're going to be fucked in the general election.
McCain has spent the last four years sucking up to the Republican Establishment AND the evangelicals, and it hasn't been enough. That doesn't bode well for him in the general election, in large part because it doesn't bode well for him in the primary.
Look at the Swift boat thing. There was no way that was predictable
That Kerry was hated by some right-leaning Vietnam vets shouldn't have been hard to figure out, nor that the Bush campaign would make hay about that. Which is not to say that I did figure it out, but I'm not being paid to be smart about that sort of stuff.
204: probably not--there's not much correlation between that demographic & Obama's electoral problems. But when it's this close, who knows?
I'm also just really thrown by NY & Massachusetts being terrible states for my candidate & Iowa & South Carolina being the big sources of support.
Well, let's break it down.
Kos moves 21,000 votes, but then Meteor Blades knocks 3,000 off that and between them the rest of the main page posters are kind of a wash.
Atrios moves 8312 votes -- that goes up to 8402 if he posts some non-sucky music in the next week.
Yglesias moves 3205 votes, but...
Wait, what the heck are you asking, Apo?
"This counterfactual stuff is always arguable, and arguments are necessarily made ex recto"
yeah, no kidding, that's why your original statement was so annoying.
I'm also just really thrown by NY & Massachusetts being terrible states for my candidate
Seems like there's a pretty obvious problem with NY, at least.
199: I think it depends on who you're identifying as the guilty bloggers. But my sense is that TPM, Alterman, and a few others are all making it easy for themselves to back whichever Dem wins the nomination. In other words, it may be that they *get* Obama in their heart of hearts, but they're being pragmatic on their blogs. Certainly, that's what Josh Marshall and Eric Alterman have said -- the pragmatic part, not the Obama part. Which isn't to say that they're not making a mistake.
There's another part of the above, I suppose. And that's that certain bloggers may now see themselves as being more part of the establishment than they used to. If that's right, they have more to lose if they back the wrong horse and get shut out later. If you see what I mean.
I mean, somehow I doubt Romney's going to win Arizona.
Buh-bye, Rudy. And, I suspect, buh-bye Romney.
Like Napi, I'm doubtful my man Obama can pull it off. The disappointment is still going to kill me.
However! Just today I walked by some TWENTY Obama supporters who were spread out along the tunnel between the subway at Atlantic Ave. and the Long Island RR (I was lost); they were reminding people to vote on the 5th, encouraging them to sign a petition of support (?), and generally making idiots of themselves at rush hour in a very inspiring fashion. I haven't seen anything like that for Clinton around here, that's for sure.
I think Ari's right about the liberal bloggers trying to maintain their ability to strongly back whichever candidate we end up with; unlike Rush Limbaugh, most of us do care about the record. This is why I've been arguing all along nooooo, don't bitch too loud about Clinton. (Which you guys all thought for the longest time meant I was all yay Hillary.)
See, B is part of the establishment. I told ya so.
Oh crap, sorry about that link. It does seem to work, though.
211: there's two things going on. Official neutrality that is going over from "not being a hack" into
annoying he-said she-said style objectivity in some cases, among the more journalistic types. And more grassroots types who don't see something I think is obvious, because they are far too intensely focused on the D.C. punditocracy. Digby for instance--she's trying really hard to be fair to Obama, but when she writes about him it's a caricature.
215: Oh, totally. Me and the inside-the-beltway folks are like *this*.
Wait, what the heck are you asking, Apo?
Whether bloggers really make a noticeable difference in Democratic primaries, or if it just seems that way because that's who we spend most of our time talking to and reading. I honestly don't have any idea.
Digby for instance--she's trying really hard to be fair to Obama,
Oh please.
214: probably accurate, but that's not what I like about the organization. I'm thinking about things like the Wall Street Journal article on organizing South Carolina, & this one.
220: me either. No idea how we'd know.
201:Bank Reserves Go Negative is what you are looking at in 183.
Or an event or condition different from any other since the 1950s
don't bitch too loud about Clinton
I'm gonna bitch all the way through an HRC presidency. Practicing now seems prudent.
218: Oh, Digby: yes, very annoying lately. I've stopped reading her because of her weird-ass Obama coverage. Is she trying to be fair? I hadn't noticed.
224: Why does it spike so high in 2001-2002?
220: Neither does anyone else. Yet. But there are plenty of people trying to figure this out.
I think Obama's running a much better campaign than the media narrative of 'inevitability vs. hope' is giving him credit for. I think, to a lesser extent, the same is true of Clinton.
205: Lieberman won his Senate seat in 2006 having lost the primary by appealing to Connecticut independents and Republicans. I think the primaries generally produce the most electable candidate in years when there isn't someone running who tends to alienate the base or doesn't have it (pissing off the religious right, not being the establishment candidate), but picks up a lot of the middle for whatever reason (being a straightshooter, audacious hope, really a Republican.)
Examples of Digby being weird about Obama? I don't generally read her blog but am now interested.
229: I think, as I've noted elsewhere, Clinton's campaign has only been good when she's been getting kicked around. And then it has been very good. Until Bill got too involved. Otherwise, though, hasn't it been pretty milquetoast: inevitable, experience, inevitable, zzzz. Those aren't critiques of her*, by the way, but of the campaign.
* I keep my critiques of her elsewhere.
* I keep my critiques of her elsewhere.
In the duck?
Also: shouldn't you be linking to your blog? (Which I love.)
Giuliani endorsing McCain tomorrow. He's been such a failure, it won't mean anything.
229: I entirely accept this counterargument - but would argue that Lieberman is the exception the proves the rule.
235: Strongly disagree. Giuliani stumping for himself -- all 9/11 all the time -- seemed self-serving and crass. But, using national tragedy and leveraging the memory of that horrible day in service of someone else? Patriotic gold.
235: I don't know that the endorsement matters much, but Giuliani voters surely break more to McCain than anybody else. They're occupying more or less the same ideological niche.
Apo, you ought not look at blogger influence too narrowly. It's not that they persuade voters, it's that they change the narrative by bringing different ideas into circulation.
It's hard to know how to measure these things, but I think web-types essentially created Ned Lamont. And I would argue that Ned Lamont made a big difference in how the political narrative played out, even though that's a tough thing to measure.
Katherine's idea that web types are fundamentally not aligned with Obama seems factually incorrect. Granted, Edwards gets a lot of love from the netroots, but lord knows Hillary does not.
Interesting fact: More Democrats turned out in Florida than Republicans.
227:Why does it spike so high in 2001-2002?
My guess? Pre-emptive cash infusions by the Fed after 9/11 to cover bankruns that never happened. That would be data somewhere.
There are dark conspiratorial mutterings in Mish's comments about that spike, but not many.
I don't know that the endorsement matters much, but Giuliani voters surely break more to McCain than anybody else. They're occupying more or less the same ideological niche.
You'd think so, but may I redundantly reiterate once more that McCain has actually been attracting what Republicans DON'T believe in perpetual war. Who knows where Giuliani's voters will go?
He and Paul are the only Republicans I've ever heard any of my under-30 friends express any fondness for, certainly.
Looking at the demographics of the Florida exit polls & considering the lack of campaigning & the polls beforehand, I'm surprised Obama didn't lose worse. And it looks like Teddy does help.
238- McCain has all the patriotic creds he needs. Giuliani has next to no voter base. What McCain needs is Huckabee, preferably to stay in the race but if not, his endorsement.
McCain has all the patriotic creds he needs.
Sure, but all the Republican voters consider themselves patriots. I mean that both McCain and Giuliani maintain an image of being "mavericks" in the party, and their voters are responding more to that than their actual stances (like McCain's Iraq Forever plan). Which I guess to be more precise is not so much an ideological niche as a marketing one.
Katherine, your comments on Obama are beginning to enrage me. I don't support Obama because I'm traumatized? Clearly I just lack your greatness of spirit.
From my purely subjective point of view, Obama has run a shitty campaign. Maybe from the Sifu-forbidden electability viewpoint it's been a good campaign, but personally, the more I hear, the less I like him. (Not that this will make much difference come November.)
Giuliani will help with low-information voters and independents in the general. The vast majority of people in this country have paid no attention to the primaries and have no idea that he made a fool of himself. So, he'll have another act, returning to his role as America's mayor. And again, once back in that role, as opposed to campaigning for himself, 9/11 will be a powerful symbol. He'll wield it well and credibly when it no longer looks hypocritcal to put back on his FDNY hat. "My friend John McCain will keep us safe from the terrorists (including Senator Obama) who tried to break our will and who hate our freedom." Just watch. And gag.
There are plenty of good reasons to not support Obama. What specifically drives me crazy is supporting Clinton over Obama because she can be trusted to fight the GOP.
Also, my comments are a source of being patronized repeatedly about how I think that speeches about hope & unity will magically melt away all obstacles and Republicans and Democrats will frolic in the fields together.
Walt, I hope you won't mind if I ask what's the "more" you're hearing that's making you like him less? Or is it just the passion of his partisans that's turning you off?
Also, my comments are a source of being patronized repeatedly about how I think that speeches about hope & unity will magically melt away all obstacles and Republicans and Democrats will frolic in the fields together.
Word.
But god forbid the liberals get a Reagan type figure to inflict a crushing defeat to the opposition in the general and then use that popularity to advance his party's agenda. The horror.
252b see 253b
Oh yeah, right, he'll actually advance the other party's agenda, forgot.
Yes, Bob, I already know that us Obamabots, with our lack of appropriate cynicism and occasional hope for a better day, make your blood boil. I was just trying to figure out how widespread such sentiment had become.
But god forbid the liberals get a Reagan type figure to inflict a crushing defeat to the opposition in the general and then use that popularity to advance his party's agenda. The horror.
I shouldn't feel insulted by this?
I remove myself from the pom-poms and midairsplits of the angry claplouder crowd.
254 is funny.
252 - Speaking on a purely personal level (i.e. putting aside any speculation about strategy), I dislike the whole tone of his campaign. The most important issue, to me, is smashing the Republican party before they get another chance to destroy the country. This time, the guilty must be punished. To me, bipartisanship suggests we're just going to try to forget the last eight years.
253: I haven't seen that candidate. Have you?
I take it back. It's not just the preference for Clinton that bothers me.
I would argue that his campaign strategy is, in a couple words, trying to community-organize the country. As such, it involves quite a lot of faith in American voters being more open to liberal ideas, liberal policies, a black candidate, a candidate whose middle name is Hussein, etc.
I think some people view THAT as ridiculously naive, because the American people actually just suck too much for it to ever work & they always will. I think for other people, the idea of a candidate trying to do that doesn't even occur to them, & they just assume that Obama is either ridiculously naive or is sucking up to the D.C. press corps & the Republican party. Both attitudes frustrate me quite a lot.
Now, I recognize that this interpretation involves placing quite a bit of hope in both Obama & the American electorate. Maybe he's just a fairly ordinary political strategist who's an unusually good writer & speaker. Maybe you just prioritize different issues from me which lead to a different evaluation of the candidates, & you'll take Hillary's stance on women's rights & mastery of economic wonkery, or Edwards' ambitious domestic policy agenda & commitment to fighting poverty, over this sort of thing. But don't treat me like an idiot for drawing a different conclusion. I've followed politics in general & his campaign in particular as closely as you have. You prioritize your issues & make your strategic call, and I'll make mine.
256:with our lack of appropriate cynicism and occasional hope for a better day
Read the comments of the pro-Obama supporters just in this thread. The rage is palpable. Rage at Clinton, rage at anybody available. You are angry people. Lack of cynicism and hope and magnanimity is not what I am feeling from y'all. Sorry.
That said, I think Hillary has already blown it, and Obama cleans up on Super Tuesday. I haven't seen any polls, though.
258 is roughly why I can't get enthusiastic about any of this lot. Any plausible candidate looks likely to piss away an opportunity for real progress. Maybe I'm still bitter about 2004 though.
Rasmussen has Clinton and Obama tied in Connecticut.
I'm not sure any of our candidates should really be running on "smashing the republicans into oblivion and sending their widows shrieking into the wilderness." That's for the Democratic-majority Congress to deal with, after the election.
258: Thanks, Walt, I really was curious.
And it's a phenomenon remarked on all over the blogosphere. The Obama supporters are among the nastiest commenters I have ever seen in the left blogosphere. I can get plenty of supporting opinions just from Yggles threads.
Now a leader preaching hope, love, and charity while his followers are insular, narrow-minded, and rageful is not a new & unique story.
It's classic cult.
266: No, not running on it. But some sort of clear acknowledgment that there are several serious clusterfucks to deal with as legacy of the Bush years, and some idea of reversals that are needed would be nice.
instead? endless mincing.
261: Bob, you totally slay me with your pot-calling-the-kettle-black hijinks. That said, there's plenty of anger among Democratic voters to go around. Let's just hope that it keeps the good guys fired up, energized for whichever candidate emerges from the primaries, through November.
obvliusly the openleft/mydd people hate obama. They're in it for the republican hating. That is their whole deal, that democrats aren't partisan enough. They don't give a fuck about policy and never have. plus the 'rather control a losing ship than not control a winning one"
252 - Speaking on a purely personal level (i.e. putting aside any speculation about strategy), I dislike the whole tone of his campaign. The most important issue, to me, is smashing the Republican party before they get another chance to destroy the country. This time, the guilty must be punished. To me, bipartisanship suggests we're just going to try to forget the last eight years.
You seriously want him to go out there and say these things on the campaign trail?
Look, the way we smash the opposition is to get in office. Like I said above, the Presidential candidate can help us with this by getting a shitload of the popular vote. Someone who's coattails can be ridden to bigger majorities in both houses in Congress. Why did the Republicans back down from the Social Security fight? Because the people were pissed. Republicans backed off because they would face consequences at the ballot box.
The President needs to be someone who mobilizes support for issues. The actual dirty fighting is all in Congress. I'm increasingly liking Obama because he's showing an ability to mobilize people, to get them to the polls.
bob for someone who doesn't trust his own judgment about what candidates are going to do (and relies on what george will thinks) you sure spend a lot of time navel gazing.
Now a leader preaching hope, love, and charity while his followers are insular, narrow-minded, and rageful is not a new & unique story.
Sounds like you're describing Obama in the same Reaganesque terms as his supporters are. And Reagan didn't turn out to be a sellout to the liberals, which is the whole point.
I do agree that Saisglsy has now written enough snipes at Clinton this week that he can take off the next couple months. However, I guess it'll keep up until Super Duper Tuesday.
The Obama supporters are among the nastiest commenters I have ever seen in the left blogosphere.
Cry me a river. Ask Marshall Whitman to give you a hug and make it all better.
I'm increasingly liking Obama because he's showing an ability to mobilize people, to get them to the polls.
I am too, though I'm still not completely sold on him. He's shown some impressive mobilizing ability, but it hasn't been consistent.
268: Sorry, I hadn't seen 268 when I wrote 270.
Y'see I've just always wanted to be part of something. But I've never really fit in anywhere. I've had this emptiness in my life, like a tear in the fiber of my being. So I tried est, but that didn't work. Then I went to Nepal, where I touched the hem of the Dalia Lama's garment. But the glow wore off by the time I got back to the States. Ogged suggested I take up swimming. And that was great for awhile. But the chlorine made my eyes hurt. I was really bummed then. It was a low point. Until, one day, I heard this man on the teevee. He was black. And skinny. And had a funny name. But somehow a wave of hope just washed over me. And nothing has been the same since. My wife is a bit bummed that I don't go to work anymore. And that I gave all my clothes away and war only Obama bumper stickers. But I think she'll understand in the end. Don't you? Not that it matters. Because Barack just gets me. Better than she ever did.
277 doesn't surprise me at all.
You never watched that show on MTV, B? It was tres awesome.
I have seen about three speeches that Obama begins with:
"They said it couldn't be done."
The first thing Obama does is create & define a vague amorphous enemy, "them." Not like us. The Other.
Then Obama begins to define who "We" are. Why we aren't like THEM. We're different. We're better. We hope and believe and listen. NOT LIKE THEM.
Classic technique.
What? You don't embrace the teachings of the Dalia Lama?
Bob, you're in top form tonight, trolling-wise.
The vaguer and more ill-defined the enemy the more intense the loyalty and identification with the Leader.
Wallace ran against pointy-headed intelektuals.
Obama is running aganst THEM.
281: And suggesting that people who disagree with you are part of a cult is what? Also "classic technique"? Seriously, Bob, this seems to happen over and over again. I was trying to ask Walt a question, about the nature of his disdain for Obama, and then you bring the slurs. But, more frustrating even than that, your insults include this hand-wringing about how Obama's supporters are so angry. It just doesn't add up for me. It really doesn't. Particularly given that I share many of the misgivings that Obama's destractors raise here and elsewhere. Your position, though, is something else again: seemingly unexamined, visceral, and very slippery.
Fucking right I'm angry. Basically: on the ploicy issues that I tend to prioritize,
(1) Obama has a very noticeably better record than Clinton & I'd argue a better record than Edwards;
(2) in the long run, we're completely fucked unless politicians are willing to ocasionally take a gamble on the electorate not being as bad as most people in D.C. assume they are. Obama seems to me to have the best combination of willingness & ability to this that I can remember seeing in a while. I could be wrong about that--you can argue that for all his ability he's much too cautious, at least compared to Edwards. But in any case, the Clintons have proved over & over & over that they aren't willing to try this.
(3) but: he doesn't seem to hate Republicans enough, and they don't seem to hate him enough. Whereas they certainly hate Clinton, & she's got to hate them after what they put her through. A fair # of people seem to have decided that's more important than policy considerations, &/or haven't bothered looking closely at the policy stuff.
(4) and they tell ME I'm voting irrationally & voting my feelings instead of substance. And they act like *I* don't get the abuses of the Bush administration. Well, I do.
This is intensely frustrating. & it's not because I'm a longstanding Obama worshipper, because I was quite skeptical of him for a long time.
Of course, the # of people who think this are probably insignificant. And a lot of other people just have different priorities--who the hell am I to tell a 70 year old woman who wants a woman president in her lifetime & thinks Hillary's fantastic on education & health care to vote for my reasons instead of hers? Who the hell am I to tell a union member not to support Edwards? But the people who I perceive as: (1) claiming to share my priorities & constantly using those as their rhetorical moral justification; (2) making a very bad strategic mistake because they prioritize crushing the Republicans over policy; (3) treating me like I'm some stupid dumb naive Obamabot cultist who prioritizes my feelings over the issues--drive me up. a. wall.
I should, honestly, just avoid this, & avoid blogs until Tues at least.
Your position, though, is something else again: seemingly unexamined, visceral, and very slippery.
Wait till you see what happens when he takes the green pill.
Also, part of the problem is that mcmanus, personally, gets under my skin. I suspect I get under his just as much & a lot of the generalized hostility towards "obamabots" is actually particularlized than that because we have been having hostile conversations about this for years. See, e.g., this post, & this comment. But whenever I say that he says I'm being paranoid & defensive & taking it too personally, of which the last is certainly true.
Like Katherine, I should just probably avoid Unfogged for a few days. But nobody gets my goat other than Bob. Everyone else, even when they're angry or I am, make points I can understand. And usually respect. At least a little.
And now I've gone and misspelled "Dalai Lama" and "wear." In one comment. Not a good night. I should have stayed under the bed, curled up with my dust-bunny pillow.
It's fine for you to be angry at specific people who are pissing you off, katherine. It's the scattershot, "oh, everyone who doesn't support Obama just doesn't get it, because they are emotionally cripped" that bugs me.
The fact that the Republican party is infested with war criminals and corrupt feather-bedders, and the weight of them is undermining our political system counts as an issue, just as surely as health care does. And the solution to this issue, to my mind, is that this time we punish them for their crimes. Washington is eager to forgive itself for its excesses. There is nothing in Obama's campaign that makes me think he will do anything other than go along with that forgiveness.
288: Y'think? Huh.
And also: pwned by 289. Kind of.
291: What about his apparent respect for the rule of law? Don't you think it's possible that he'll demand that, as a nation, we follow our own laws?
Primary season brings out the worst in people. I find it a little hard to understand, since I never find myself with unmixed affection for any candidate, but it's something I've certainly seen every contested election cycle. 2004 was probably more heated than this time around.
Lost my connection, sorry. I guess the comment where I was going to get quotes from Katherine got lost. I said I would fill a page and be back. As I was waiting for the comment to post I found personal attacks on TPM Central and Digby. I'll get more.
294: I think this is true. Someone recently argued that the Dean-Kerry fight was brutal and left lots of bruised feelings. Lamont-Lieberman made things worse, I think. And the stakes are now very high. Or at least they feel that way to me.
289, 290: In all seriousness, I would say that avoiding Unfogged, or at least the political threads, for the next week or so is probably a good idea. I've been avoiding the political threads for months now (with occasional exceptions like this one), and I'm much happier for it. Especially in a context like this where everyone's positions are known and more or less fixed, we tend to see the same arguments over and over, with just as much heat but even less light on each repetition. Diminishing returns set in very quickly.
Everyone else, even when they're angry or I am, make points I can understand.
You've been attempting to understand Bob? n00b.
Yeah, taking bob seriously is probably the single biggest source of aggravation in these threads. Definitely not worth the trouble. He's usually trolling, anyway, and even if he might not be it's easiest to just tell yourself that he is and that there's no point in responding.
I bet you were lurking in this thread for hours, just waiting to pounce.
Just doing my part to keep you cheesed in the politics thread. Things were winding down.
Some combination of 297-299 are clearly right.
Unfortunately for you, I'm both at ease and about to go to bed.
Walt--the "war crimes" stuff is actually precisely why I support Obama but it'd take a long time to explain & teo's totally right.
Lost my connection again, and all of the comments I'd collected damn.
But the attacks on Digby in 218 and 226 were enough to piss me off.
Digby is an award-winning highlight of the left blogosphere, and there is no more loyal Democrat or opponent of Bushism and the right.
She does not deserve this:
"I've stopped reading her because of her weird-ass Obama coverage. Is she trying to be fair? I hadn't noticed." ...ari in 226
But I am the bad and crazy guy.
Bob, the quotes are fine, of course. But please don't put words in my mouth. And good night.
I find arrogance works well to keep people from getting under your skin.
"But please don't put words in my mouth"
cite, liar
But I am the bad and crazy guy.
I never said either "bad or "crazy." Though, come to think of it, I did imply the latter another night. "Bad," though, I don't recall ever using to describe you or anyone else here or on any other blog. That's a pretty strong word; I think I'd remember.
I am the bad and crazy guy.
Just the crazy guy, Bob. If it's any consolation, you fascinate me, as I suspect that in about fifteen years' time I'll be incomprehensible and provocative in roughly similar measures.
Allow me to demonstrate.
Topic change; I've finally stumbled in from the howling Canadian wilderness and everybody's going to bed, but I've got whiskey to finish, some Alborosie to listen to, and no interest in any elections talk that doesn't start "what the fuck is up with the damned vote-fraud machines," so I'm going to attempt a completely ridiculous threadjack. Who's a better film villain?
a) Alonso Harris in Training Day
b) Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York
c) The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman
d) Damien in The Omen
e) Trupo in American Gangster
Or does the dude in There Will Be Blood trump them all?
289:Okay, and the problem I have had with Katherine ever since I have known her is the contrast between her professed idealism and the anger & pettiness in her comments.
I am not the only one she expresses frustration with or "gets under her skin". In this thread alone there are TPM Central, OpenLeft, Digby, the left bloggers not with the program, political football and many more.
Ar least I don't pretend to be anything but an asshole.
Addendum:
f) Bob McManus in The Endless Blogfight
Bob, I think she's gone. But I'll keep checking back as long as I'm up writing. And DS, if the previews are any indication, the Joker from the new Dark Knight, tragically, appears like a contender for the throne.
Slack, I'd love to play this game, but I don't know any of those villains. Let's say Damien, because I've seen that movie.
As it happens, Damien would be my pick, too. The ayes have it. Even though I conspicuously left out Anton Chigurh.
I'll cop to a fairly nasty temper, but I don't usually hold grudges. Until I have the same argument with someone about 85 times.
321: And I think you're right about Ledger's Joker, BTW. But I'm waiting for the whole movie.
a) Alonso Harris in Training Day
b) Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York
c) The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman
d) Damien in The Omen
e) Trupo in American Gangster
A or B.
I never thought C was that great, because I didn't like Burton's version of Gotham, Batman, etc. Nolan's version blows Burton out of the water.
318:Whatever "better villain" might mean.
Most entertaining or scariest? Or both?
Scariest because most functional and better at disguising themselves? The charming sociopath?
Washington in training day possibly, from the list.
But my connection sucks, and I also sleep on rare occasions.
I really did try to keep out of this thread tonight. But 253 was just wrong in so many ways.
(the problem with digby etc. is another one--the closer I am to someone politicially, the more likely I am to get mad in the conversations when we're really far apart. For example: I was banned from talking about the electoral college with my husband for 4 mos. after the 2000 election. This is why primary discussions among political junkies tend to suck, I suppose. I'm not sure why anyone thinks an insufferable stubbornness & need to be right is *inconsistent* w/ idealism.)
Michael Keaton was an awesome Batman and don't you punks forget it.
Michael Keaton was an awesome Batman and don't you punks forget it.
Oh, HELL NO.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks an insufferable stubbornness & need to be right is *inconsistent* w/ idealism.
Not inconsistent in any way; quite likely self-defeating, though.
328: Scariest because most functional and better at disguising themselves? The charming sociopath?
I'd vote for Alonso on these grounds, too.
Nicholson was the best part of Burton's Batman. The Nolan version was better overall, true, partly because Batman actually got to be the central and most interesting character.
I'll cop to a fairly nasty temper
Soulmate! Also the closer I am to someone politicially, the more likely I am to get mad in the conversations when we're really far apart. Yeah, that too.
325:Until I have the same argument with someone about 85 times
And which argument is that? That I am not as magnanimous and generous as yourself?
Using the Douglas post as a weapon is pretty funny.
314 is awesome and don't you punks overlook it.
quite likely self-defeating, though
Oh great, now we're back to the argument about whether it's best to play politics or to stick to one's principles.
Burton's Batman sucked. Then again, I tend to really hate movies based on comic strips or cartoons.
All of modern rock is based on the Velvet Underground, Fela Kuti, and Michael Keaton's Batman. Deal with it.
Jesus Christ. No, procedural liberalism v. the revolution etc. etc.
Michael Keaton as Batman delivered, from memory, a awesome poem at John F. Kennedy's inauguration. Had it been any warmer out, he would have read a prepared text that would have turned Gotham into bread pudding. There's a post up right now at Edge of the American West about it.
Modern rock is based on procedural liberalism? I'm sorry, I really don't think I can buy that argument.
Also: Keaton's Batman? Took Alfred's name when they got married.
I heard Michael Keaton fixed the New Hampshire primaries as Batman. I disapprove.
Oh hell, Katherine. I have said often enough that you & hilzoy are the people I admire most in the blogosphere.
And the rest is never mind
DS's question, but re-posed for made-for-TV movies/miniseries:
1) Pennywise in The Stand
2) Michael Gross as The Out Of Shape Madman in that thing I saw on Lifetime in 1997
3) The letter 'K' in Amerika
4) Mikey from the Life commercials
5) Tully from "Sesame Street"
346: And the rest is never mind You leave Kurt Cobain out of this.
Batman, in addition to being kind of nuts, goes around and kicks the living shit out of criminals. No one prior to Bale was even remotely believable as Batman.
Obviously 4, although 2 is hilarious.
And I gotta say, 346 is one of the nicest attempts to end an argument I've seen online.
The letter 'K' in Amerika
Clear winner. It even came back, as a series of clones, on a later Ice Cube album.
Agreed. 346 is genuinely gracious. I applaud the sentiment and agree with the content.
Poor Tully. How much did it suck to be Tully once Elmo came along? Is there even still a Tully?
Man, I miss that guy.
Like a crazy hobo waiting to stab you in the neck with an icepick, Bob's just trying to lure you into complacency.
Oh -- does anyone remember that time we were having a discussion about manners and etiquette and what you shouldn't do, and someone -- nattarGcM, maybe? came along and said, "we're all sacks of meat who go around emitting gas and snot, and manners is not letting other people feel self-conscious about that?"
I wanted to quote it to someone, but the archives would not yield their precious secrets.
354 is funny. But mean. Bob's all being nice, and you gotta just kick the man when his belly's exposed.
I bet you stomp on innocent defenseless mice, too. Asshole.
355 sounds like something Apo would say, except that Apo doesn't care about manners.
346: thanks. But we also, for whatever reason, predictably annoy the crap out of each other when we discuss certain topics, no? I'm not discussing them until after Tues. at least & maybe until the nomination is decided.
re: 355
I don't think that was me. But it might have been, I genuinely don't remember.
How do the "conservatives" play their inevitable flip-flop on McCain? John Holbo has some thoughts at CT, playing off this satisfyingly bitter post at The Corner (McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.)
His three proposals:
1) McCain as maverick liberal goes down the memory hole. Don't look back. We have always been at peace with McCainia.
2) McCain as new direction. So far, there is zero evidence of this sort of framing. But there is obvious desire to get the Republican party back on track, after Bush. So, if McCain is it, there is an advantage to brandishing his former maverick status as evidence that real change has been achieved.
3) It was personal, not political. It will be discovered that McCain's maverick status was just a function of his personal rivalry with Bush. We're done with Bush, so we're over that.
I'd say 1), but with a healthy dollop of demonization of the Dem. And per discussion earlier, of course Rush Limbaugh will support McCain in the end, but I believe he and others can more easily execute that strategy with HRC to rally around. It will happen if it is Obama as well, but it will be trickier to execute and require the whole coded racism gambit (I'm guessing the drugs will either be the explicit or whispered "Swift Boat"), which might backfire, or at a minimum require them to pretend to like their candidate more.
I realize that I am basically discussing the dreaded "e" word here, but in the event of a Dem win, I think it also extends beyond the election to each candidate's potential effectiveness in office. Hmmm, I guess I am saying that Obama could be described as a "bringer togetherer" not a "puller aparter" ... or some pithy restatement of that sentiment (please don't kill me).
Avoiding the entirely provocations seems really smart right now. It's easy to lose track of how many things a group like this actually does agree on, with more disagreements about the order of priorities and specific methods than about the broad targets.
And even when ends as well as means are up for debate, sometimes it's just nice not to have the same argument once more.
Has Unfogged debated bimetallism, Biblical canon formation before Constantine, or n-brane models lately?
Bob, I know you ended the night on a very gracious note, but here would be my question to you that captures why I am a bit puzzled about your take on Obama. I have not been around here that long, but my observation is that you generally do a good job of voicing various worst-case scenario fears. What I don't see is why you are so focused on the ones associated with Obama. Sure, I can imagine scenarios where a combination of events and his own rhetoric might force Obama to do things I wouldn't like with Social Security etc., but I can see equally negative things playing out for the other candidates. So why are you a canary only in Obama's coal-mine? (To phrase it in a way that is bound to end badly.)
JP: I think I'm representing Bob fairly accurately when I say that he often displays a particular concern with the potential downsides of whatever seems to him to be trendy at the moment in the blogosphere from center to left. Bob has a really, really, really deep distrust of the blogospheric version of Dickens' "fashionable attention" and its wisdom (or lack thereof), and a general sense of calamity around pretty much every corner. But he'll usually be found calling out the warnings where he sees the greatest need at the moment. It's also worth noting that Bob's frame of reference is in some ways wildly different from that of almost anyone else whose posts you're likely to read. Bob has a sense of the relevance of history and the participation in very large-scale evolutions, and things like late 19th and early 20th century European unionism are directly and immediately relevant to his commentary in a lot of ways. It seems to me that he feels the immediacy of past struggles for and against social justice very deeply, and is therefore more likely to see current developments as the latest manifestations of stuff he's seen before.
I'm hoping here to actually be informative, and am therefore shooting for description rather than analysis or commentary.
Darn it, hit post when I meant preview. I should qualify the "almost anyone else whose posts you're likely to read" part to add "unless you read a lot of weblogs by serious Marxists, fascists, deep ecologists, genuinely anarchistic capitalists and anarchosyndicalists, and others with visions of history and society outside both American and European consensus".
Biblical canon formation before Constantine
That has come up. Kotsko even recommended a book on the topic [which I bought].
361: Has Unfogged debated bimetallism, Biblical canon formation before Constantine, or n-brane models lately?
Or maybe battle tactics during the Siege of Namur?
361: How about we debate:
-The possible historical outcomes had Bakunin been able to wrest control of the First International from Marx
-The cultural and socio-political effects of the "rude boy" sub-genre in Jamaican popular music of the mid-1960s
-What the hell we're all going to do in a year when there's no more popular front against Bush & Co. and everyone left of George F. Will has to go back to the dry bagel of constant infighting without even the schmear of comity that we now enjoy?
As Segolene Royal so wisely said: Il y a des coleres qui sont parfaitement saines.
But the lovely Segolene comes from a terrorist family. Her house should be bulldozed. My shortest-lived politico fantasy object, and she lost the election anyway.
But Yulia Tymoshenko will live in my heart forever.
Profoundly unserious, Emerson. Go away and change your name, or something.
Or maybe battle tactics during the Siege of Namur?
The 1692 one or the 1914 one?
What the hell we're all going to do in a year when there's no more popular front against Bush & Co. and everyone left of George F. Will has to go back to the dry bagel of constant infighting without even the schmear of comity that we now enjoy?
Much what you're doing now?
Alex is objectively, subjectively, and in every other way pro-terrorist, just because Segolene is hot.
Not as hot as Yulia, though.
We could do Tannenburg 1410. Did the Lithuanians retreat, as the Poles say, or was it a feigned retreat like the Breton retreat at Hastings? (Tannenberg 1914 doesn't count; it was not fought at Tannenberg and the name was a propaganda label.)
Or the Battle of Adrianople: choice of 313, 324, 378, 718, 813, 972, 1205, 1254, 1365, or 1913. (Why the 550-year break? Probably the Ottoman Empire.)
Lets hear it for Canon formation before Constantine!
Phil Harland suggests that the whole idea of a canon arose from a response to Marcion attempting to limit authoritative texts to 10 Pauline epistles and a heavily edited version of Luke. Discuss.
That quote was an epically hot moment...must be on youtube somewhere, or else dailymotion (francotube).
Meanwhile, 372, do you reckon it was the monster Krupp and Skoda pieces (380s and 420s) what done it in 1914 or the quickfiring medium/quick manoeuvre stuff?
375. I'll go with 378. It was fought on my birthday.
372/375: Well if this Wikipedia entry is accurate, there are more Namur sieges than dreamed of in Uncle Toby's philosophy.
1488 The people of Namur against the States of Burgundy.
1577 Don John takes the Citadel by surprise.
1692 by the French (Louis XIV and Vauban).
1695 by the Allies (Dutch + English + Brandenburgers + ...).
1746 by the French.
1792 by the French.
1794 by the French.
1830 by the Belgian revolutionaries.
1914 by the Germans
378- OFE chooses year 378 with comment #378. Tubular.
According to Wiki, that battle was the last gasp of the Roman infantry. Cavalry became the dominant or at least decisive branch for centuries.
Victor Davis Hansen's "The Western Way of War" glorifies infantry and hand-to-hand-combat, and for this reason has a long long blank spot during the cavalry era. He also fails to note that American warfare nowadays overwhelmingly stresses firepower and mobility, with hoplite, phalanx, bayonet-charge type warfare very secondary.
And also, that we now have a professional / mercenary army rather than a civilian army.
In other words, nothing whatsowevr conforms to his ideal, but he doesn't let that slow him down a bit.
372- Oh, come on now, KR. 17th Century French versus 20th Century German? Louis XIV, better food and the fascination of a French military power.
The Twentieth Century battles suck.
Most Adrianople battles involved Bulgarians.
Why are there not more war-reenactors in Europe? They have so much more to work with! Wimps.
It's funny, though. In 1913-4 there were live-ammunition reenactments of the battles of Namur, Tannenburg, and Adrianople. How many others?
382: Come on. Skoda mortars! On trains! Eccentric Brits with machine-guns mounted on Rolls Royces!
Why are there not more war-reenactors in Europe?
There aren't? Britain is stiff with them, from Roman to Napoleonic. Scarcely a village fete without a bunch of accountants pretending to knock lumps off each other with period weapons.
360: Let us not forget the happy fact that the Republicans sometimes turn against their own. George HW was treated very poorly by his own party - including Limbaugh, if memory serves.
386: Good to know!
What about Poland?
Why are there not more war-reenactors in Europe?
They liked World War I so much, they re-enacted it.
388. This outfit is huge, and can be very impressive with attention to detail etc. I used to know a guy who was involved - it was a serious commitment.
386- Don't forget the skinheads of Germany.
that battle was the last gasp of the Roman infantry. Cavalry became the dominant or at least decisive branch for centuries.
For more than a millenium, in fact. The turning point was arguably the Battle of Nancy in 1477.
Fleur's maiden name former surname probably has its roots in the name of the Duke of Lorraine who triumphed in that battle.
Did this somehow become a military history thread?
Why are there not more war-reenactors in Europe?
I was on an army exercise once in southern England in an area which (unknown to me) was also being used by WW2 re-enactors. Led my patrol up over a ridge and was confronted by the sight of six Waffen-SS troops having a coffee break.
I managed to resist the impulse to charge. Very odd moment, though.
Holy whoah: Edwards is out.
Raise the siege machines!
Who won the Battle of Nancy? They drew.
KR, there's a strong argument that with good generalship archery (light artillery?) had the edge on cavalry for most of the "high middle ages". William of Normandy, who got the "Conqueror" nick from his wars in France, not his invasion of England, heavily relied on it, and the English longbow beat armoured cavalry throughout the hundred years war. The noble classes who formed the cavalry did not, of course, generally admit this.
396: it was inevitable, but still saddens me.
396: Wow. There's probably a case to be made that this is the best thing for the Party. But wow.
Don't make no difference to VD Hanson. Cavalry and archery are both not infantry. The mounted archers of the steppe were very, very not infantry.
OK, Obama and Clinton will commence to beg for my support. The motherfuckers.
Who won the Battle of Nancy? They drew.
Nancy Drew? Tee-hee!
Seriously, I meant the one commander who emerged from the battle with his head still attached.
there's a strong argument that with good generalship archery (light artillery?) had the edge on cavalry for most of the "high middle ages".
Fair point. A better way of stating my point is that the debut of the Swiss pike square spelled the beginning of the end of the era of the cavalry charge as a decisive offensive tactic (although, obviously, it survived in some form well into the modern era).
God fuck it.
Question is, will he endorse anyone? And by "anyone," I mean "certain people whose names may begin with 'B' and end with 'arack Obama.'"
403: I'm rather curious as well.
If he'd like to be veep, he'll endorse. If not, it's hard to say.
If he does endorse Obama, will McManus shut up?
Excuse me Sifu, Stras, this is the military history thread.
Edwards camp says he won't endorse today, but my bet: Hillary benefits.
will McManus shut up?
The probability is vanishingly small.
405: Incorrect, I think - whatever scenario Edwards is contemplating isn't served well by an endorsement - unless that scenario is that he really, really wants to give one candidate a boost.
I know most of the Edwards folks here think of Obama as their clear second choice, but I don't see any reason to believe that Edwards thinks this.
From TPM: Edwards will be joined by Elizabeth and their children today for his dropout speech, and after that they will go to Musicians Village and do some work on NOLA Habitat for Humanity houses
Of course, he's only doing that because he wants to be VP and has to continue to maintain the illusion of caring about poverty.
politcalfootball you crack me up, with your authoritative soundin' prognosticatin'. You should be on cable.
(1) I will vote for Obama *or* Clinton in November, and I will work hard to get others to do so.
(2) Anyone who would vote for one, but not the other, would rather whinge about Republicans in office than try to get them out of office.
(3) Plenty of Obamaphile commenters around the lib blogs say they won't vote for Clinton in November if she gets the nomination.
(4) My utter contempt for those Obama supporters is doing a lot to mitigate my contempt for the Clintons' sleazy campaigning here of late.
That is all.
I haven't seen (2, 3) here at all.
411: I like to predict things - and put them on the record - because I like to test my own theories. It's very easy, after the fact, to say: "I knew it all along ..." It's very easy to say this even to oneself.
There's a lot of disagreement on this thread about the nature of American politics and polity, and I think how Edwards' departure plays with the public will say a lot about the nature of America and the Democrats.
You should be on cable.
I didn't respond to this vicious insult, by the way, because I admit it's probably deserved.
Heh, now I feel bad. I'm sure you aren't megacephalic and blowdried in real life.
how Edwards' departure plays with the public will say a lot about the nature of America and the Democrats.
Most of the public will hardly notice, which will indicate that they haven't been paying attention, as usual.
I haven't seen (2, 3) here at all.
Unfogged commenters are too smart for (2) and (3), and would rather be doing (C), (A), or (W).
Mostly (W), as far as I can ascertain. Except for LB, who's got alphabet soup going on every night.
Unfogged commenters are too smart for (2) and (3), and would rather be doing (C), (A), or (W).
While Americans and Canadians are well-represented, we've only got on Welshman and he'd get chafed.
An old page, and many of the links are broken, but the two 1999 papers by House are alive and interesting. There is a summation of Weber, but he is a little dated, charisma has been studied extensively since his time as a management technique.
Bummer about Edwards, of course. My guess is that his internal polls didn't show him above double-digits in the Super Tuesday states.
A real bummer. No, I have no clear idea to whom his delegates or superdelegates will go, or how this will effect Super Tuesday. I would guess the Edwards campaign does have better information, and is dropping out now with a purpose.
405:If [Edwards] does endorse Obama, will McManus shut up?
I am not a follower. If Obama gets the nomination or clearly looks like he will get the nomination, I will then stop criticizing Obama (to the extent I have been criticizing Obama, which is much less than what is reputed to me), and then perhaps begin again after inauguration. Although there will be little point, because Obama would have a juggernaut honeymoon. I might attempt to illuminate some of the adverse consequences of his initiatives, like FICA tax increases and mandateless Health Care.
But, again, won't be much point.
Gotta figure that Edwards thinks dropping out now will help Obama, & at the same time doesn't want to jinx any largesse from Hillary if she sweeps Super Tuesday.
102: I'd like to believe that McCain's age will give voters pause, but I haven't seen it mentioned by anybody except people who would never vote for him anyhow for altogether unrelated reasons.
I haven't read the whole thread but I did search the thread window and didn't see him mentioned: apparently in recent days Chuck Norris (smell the tired irony) was openly attacking McCain for his age as a proxy for Huckabee. Here's Fox News' coverage of it, including this exchange:
"If (he) takes over the presidency how much will he age in four years? He'll be 84 years old," Norris told reporters.
Asked about McCain's age, Huckabee, 52, kidded, "Only John McCain and his hairdresser know for sure."
"I think he's got a lot of vigor," Huckabee continued. "I think, you know, Chuck's point is, it is a very stressful position. ... I'm not going to say he's too old. I think he has a lot of strength, good genetic factors from his mom. So you know, I don't know. I know more about whether I'm fit to do it, and I think I am."
Personally, I would really like to see Huckabee make a personal enemy of McCain. A McCain-Huckabee ticket absofuckinglutely terrifies me. I start rummaging around for my passport every time I think about it.
I should note that earlier in that linked article Norris explains that Presidents age 3 years for every 1 calendar year. This is, I'm sure, extremely scientific. Anyway, thus the conclusion that McCain would be 84.
Anderson: That happens every election cycle. Right after your preferred candidate loses, you're pissed off at the winner, and curse their black heart to hell. Come November, and it's all forgotten.
425: Except dog presidents, which age 21 years for every human year.
Cat presidents, of course, are much harder to translate via formula in this regard. If we learn that McCain is a Felinoid then we're going to have to check his teeth and kidneys to really be sure. He probably gets his hairdresser to do that already.
I have to say, no pun intended, the hairdresser remark is a little cattier than I would have expected and I expect Republicans to be extremely catty.
428: I expect Republican cattiness to continue to dog the Democrats.
