You see, once the adults give kids a safe space to discuss politics, they have no desire to do so anymore.
You know this isn't going to help our case that we're not crazed with lust when deciding for whom to vote.
You see, once the adults give kids a safe space to discuss politics, they have no desire to do so anymore.
That's the plan, anyway.
Gobama?
Looks like he's gone pretty far already.
You know this isn't going to help our case that we're not crazed with lust when deciding for whom to vote.
But the accusation about voting with your vagina has been that it causes people to vote for Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama.
2: Yeah, that picture is making me question whether I am in fact 110% heterosexual--which probably means I'm not, since 110ph'ers by definition don't question.
But the accusation about voting with your vagina has been that it causes people to vote for Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama.
The clitorises and the ovaries are waging a civil war.
Battle cry: for orgasms and babies!
Note for the "antichrist" theory that he's wearing a black hat.
DC polls closed an hour ago. DC's tiny! How does it take them so long to count the votes!
Then again, my recent interactions with DC Board Of Elections do not inspire confidence.
1- I think we might be seeing the first political thread hijacked by Modern Love.
There's a joke to be made here about trench warfare.
The clitorises and the ovaries are waging a civil war.
Roll-over text?
I'm conflicted on linking to the picture of McCain on the CNN frontpage right now. On the one hand, the number of folds in the skin on his neck is ridiculous. On the other, I remember being disgusted once by noticing that National Review as using unattractive pictures of Hillary to fund raise, and this feels similar. But I just did it.
Someday, our children will have occasion to be really embarrassed for us that we lusted after dorky old President Obama.
McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid. Perhaps that is what Bush warned us about in that State of the Union address.
McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid.
He's an uncut foreskin-head!
7- Obama got 98% of the bi vote in Virginia.
21: He's scarier looking than that. The day that a member of the press corps deviates from the Straight Talk line and asks McCain a tough question, I fully expect him to pull off his head and shed his exo-flesh and reveal himself to be a giant warmongering preying mantis.
Can the bi vote be bought?
How many bi could the 'Bama buy
if the bi vote could be bought?
He's a war mongering uncut foreskin-head!
and reveal himself to be a giant warmongering preying mantis
It's the Potomac Primary, by the way.
BR and I voted for Obama!!
My son and I semi-silently booed whenever someone in front of us identified themselves as Republican to the election official.
It's the Potomac Primary, by the way.
DC doesn't count, silly. Too many black people.
None of these contests count, of course.
Can the bi vote be bought?
Bought? No.
Titillated? Absolutely.
Why don't they count this time? I can never keep track.
Jesus, it was hard to get to the MD polls tonight. The polling place was surrounded by uncleared ice, making everybody shuffle - I trod on flowers to avoid some of it. Glad to hear they've at least extended the close to 9:30.
34- Because Virginia is for Lovers and that favors the Messiah.
Why don't they count this time?
Because Obama's winning. The only states that count are now Texas and Ohio. Whoever wins those automatically gets the nomination, unless it's Obama, in which case Michigan and Florida are the only states that count. This is all explained in Mark Penn's book.
Texas has always been the only state that counts, but nevertheless.
Why are they airing Clinton's campaign event when she's not going to give anything resembling a concession speech?
They didn't take exit polls in DC? Why not?
I can never keep up. Probably because I don't remember the 1968 convention. Does Pennsylvania count?
19: It was especially cruel of them to juxtapose it with a picture of Obama's normal, human-scale rolls.
Texas has always been the only state that counts, but nevertheless is functionally illiterate?
(As of January 18. Further polling data unavailable. Pennsylvania's count-iness subject to change.)
McCain is the first successful turtle-human hybrid.
Nope.
When I see photos of McCain I think, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the jowls of war."
Because Obama's winning. The only states that count are now Texas and Ohio. Whoever wins those automatically gets the nomination, unless it's Obama, in which case Michigan and Florida are the only states that count. This is all explained in Mark Penn's book.
I don't really understand why people are getting bent out of shape about this claim. Obama's doing well, and, nonetheless, it isn't over. If he loses both Ohio and Texas,it still probably won't be over. If people are discounting the Obama wins, it's because it doesn't seem to settle anything.
50: I think the meme about states "counting" has more to do with the Clinton campaign's apologetics about Obama's victories, which have been not merely wins but blowouts.
I'm not actually bent out of shape about it. Just riffing on a theme.
The standard isn't whether it's 'over', it's whether it 'counts', and the joke is that nearly every state Obama's won has been described as 'doesn't count' because a) there are too many black people or b) too many educated people or c) too many rural people or d) too many young people or e) too many white people under 50 or f) because caucuses don't count.
I just needed to get my story straight.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." Pennsylvania counts!
I think Pennsylvania's going to surprise us. And thus not count.
I just needed to get my story straight.
Tonight's contests don't count mainly because of your (a), with (b) and possibly (d) invoked to explain Virginia.
Virginia really, really doesn't count.
54- So do I have this right? Pennsylvania counts as long as white people vote white? Math is hard!
50: If tonight goes like it looks like it's going, it's time to start warming up the fat lady.
59: 17% of Clinton voters think Obama is most qualified to be Commander in Chief, but only 1% of Obama voters think Clinton is. Venom!
Pennsylvania counts as long as white people vote right.
54: Eh. Lots of people say of Pennsylvania: Philly and Pittsburgh, and the rest is Alabama. So he might be right. And isn't he an HRC supporter?
Barring a big surprise, it doesn't seem likely that either candidate can put it away anytime soon. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
59: So Clinton won lapsed Catholics and people who think she's most qualified, and Obama won everyone else. Yep, doesn't count.
54: Rendell's angling for a slot in the Clinton administration. You have to discount anything he says.
(Seriously: He's in his second term as governor and he doesn't have anything left to run for.)
62: No, no. Seventeen percent of voters think that Clinton is more fit to serve as commander in chief but voted for Obama notwithstanding.
I can see Mark Penn now: "The key demographic in this election is lapsed Catholics. I know this through the magic of Microtrendonomics. Buy my book."
NYTimes is showing Maryland called for Obama.
69: I think there's an argument that he'd be right, but I think they break Obama.
And which way did Alabama go?
No, no. It's like Alabama if it didn't have any black people. Which, admittedly, is pretty hard to imagine.
Maryland, Virginia, and the District have all been called for Obama.
I think there's an argument that he'd be right, but I think they break Obama.
Just promise me you won't buy his book.
64.2: One candidate has won several landslides in a row and looks to come out of tonight with a solid lead in pledged delegates. The other candidate has money problems and a campaign that's coming apart at the seams. It's not over yet, but doesn't it end March 4 if Clinton fails to win Texas and Ohio both by big margins?
Heh. With almost half of the votes counted in DC: 76% Obama to 24% Clinton
The more I think about it, the more 54 doesn't make any sense at all. There are tons of conservative white people in PA (not even just central PA), but, um, a lot of them are registered Republican. Don't forget, Rick Santorum had two terms, and Casey's about as watered-down a Democrat as you can imagine.
So he's got a point in November, but in April? Dude, Rendell, give it up.
put it away anytime soon
I'm not looking at any numbers as I write this, but I think an Obama win in Wisconsin and losses on the order of 5% in Pa., Oh., and Tx. give him a reasonable (30-40 delegates) pledged delegate lead. Does anyone know if that's close to true or feel like actually checking? If so I think that's putting it away, kinda.
68: Dammit.
64: And which way did Alabama go?
Fair point. It's interesting to see that 32% of the voters were prior election voters but first time primary voters.
77: I'd have to check the election results, and I don't care that much, but didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?
With almost half of the votes counted in DC: 76% Obama to 24% Clinton
What a shock. Anyone know what his margin was in the Virgin Islands?
Nothing matters. We are but dust in the wind.
82: This is all but a painful dream from which we awake at death. None of it matters.
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.
didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?
A fair number, anyway. But they crossed over for a white, socially conservative, not-pro-choice Democrat. And there were several scandals involving Santorum getting major tax dollars to pay for his kids' cyberschooling. That didn't play well with his crowd.
But eh. By April 22, PA won't matter. And November is way too far away to predict.
86: Yeah, I just found it myself. I doubt he'll beat that in DC.
That Obamican line was funny, though it's better when he follows it up with, "Why are we whispering?"
didn't Santorum lose because a lot of Republicans crossed over?
Was this some kind of paranormal event?
Actually 90-8. He got all three pledged delegates.
92: Yes, but you furriners wouldn't understand.
The Obama show in Wisconsin now is so-so. The one in South Carolina was so much better.
The dig on McCain's tax cut flip-flop was good...
This is also good because now I can call my DC superdelegates and ask them to vote the will of the people. DC:
Brown, Michael (202) 741-5019
Strauss, Paul (202) 727-7890
Was this some kind of paranormal event?
It was sort of a rehearsal for the Rapture. Bad timing, though.
back off people. Virginia is EVERYTHING!
Dont you know how many Presidents came from Virginia?!?!??!
97- I'll hold off for now as it would be a drunk dial.
Dont you know how many Presidents came from Virginia?!?!??!
Somehow I doubt any of them would have voted for Obama.
That Obamican line was funny, though it's better when he follows it up with, "Why are we whispering?"
What are you talking about?
78:I think more like a couple hundred after tonight, and I think it is over.
Chris Bowers at OpenLeft is keeping a running chart.
Umm, if it does go down to 50-60 pledged delegate difference at the convention, Clinton will seat MI & FL and is the more likely nominee by any means possible.
But I don't think it will get that close, and I expect to see the superdelegates start committing en masse after Wisconsin. Clinton's toast.
where is the superdelegate list?
On the roof, taped to the weathervane. They're not going to turn this around for her.
Interesting about that current DC figure - if I heard the radio right, getting more than 75% of the vote there gets you all the [pledged?] delegates.
83: A Cue!
Futility theorists share [Mosca, Pareto, Michels] with Marxists a malicious determination to uncover basic structural 'laws' that puncture the illusions of smug and complacent 'progressives'.
Against the Masses:Varieties of Anti-Democratic Thought Since the French Revolution Joseph V Femia, Oxford University Press, 2001
...because I thought the "malicious" was interesting, although perhaps unfair since the "futility thesis" is empirical. Funny which sentences grab ya.
...because I have little else to say. Looks like Obama has got the nomination, and my Texas vote won't stop him
...for everything there is a season...
Bah, CNN just preempted the Hope for the Fear speech.
Interesting about that current DC figure - if I heard the radio right, getting more than 75% of the vote there gets you all the [pledged?] delegates.
That's not how the NYT explains it. Sounds like pretty typical proportional apportionment. On the other hand, according to Yglesias CNN was wrong in their explanation of how the delegate system works, so who knows.
109: D.C. has 38 delegates, though 23 of them are unpledged.
Man, talk about contrasts - they cut from Obama speaking to thousands of college students to McCain speaking to dozens in a conference room, with the ancient John Warner looking on.
I'm made somewhat uncomfortable that the Times and CQ don't even agree on how many delegates D.C. awards.
OK, that might have been completely wrong.
112: Surely you're familiar with John McCain's rhetorical style.
Jesus Christ. And now, for the Dark Lords of the Sith (DLS), John McCain. He's going to break into Force lightning at any minute.
McCain looking at the teleprompter hard.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to victory.
Vote fear. Vote John McCain.
Huh, I've actually never heard McCain speak in more than soundbites before. He's working the elder father routine.
Vote fear. Vote John McCain.
Vote baby bitin'!
He's working the elder father routine.
Gawd, I hope the "elder" part comes through from now until November 5.
Andy Hamilton on Radio 4 this week says, "Does America want someone in the White House whose campaign slogan is 'Now why did I come in here?'"
Vote Diehard. Vote John McClain.
God, the debates are going to be so so awesome.
The picture one of the cable news networks uses for mccain victory states looks like him about 20 years younger.
I'm disappointed to see that John McCain added color to his Web site. It was a real sight when it was stark militant black and white.
The delegate counts never cease to amaze me. Puerto Rico gets as big of a say as Oregon?
Yeah mccain looks like he's running for school board or something with that crowd
Ok, I'm am partly guessing, because all results aren't in, but I am seeing at Bowers something like a 120-150 Obama pledged delegate lead after tonight. That is more than combined Michigan & Florida.
If HRC wins Wisonsin, she can shift the momentum. If HRC loses WI, I doubt it gets to Pennsylvania.
If it gets to the convention under 100 votes, we are in hell.
I'm sorry. Did Chris Mathews just say that electricity is runs up his leg when Obama speaks?
Puerto Rico has more people than Oregon.
If it gets to the convention under 100 votes, we are in hell.
Calm down, mcmanus. It's going to be fine. The superdelegates aren't going to throw the election. The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.
Gawd, I hope the "elder" part comes through from now until November 5.
Sure, but I mean that if Obama's our candidate, trashing his youthfulness will be a big thing.
Yeah, I can't wait for the general debates.
The plural of "clitoris" is "clitorides", people.
The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.
Famous last words. Worides.
The Democratic Party is no longer that stupid.
You're funny.
clitorides
This is a constellation, right? In the Southern Hemisphere?
Plenty to hate in this quote, but Hey! ring another vote up for Obama.*
"I'm a staunch Republican. I wanted to vote for McCain," said Paul Sutton, 67, of Falls Church, voting at J.E.B. Stuart High School. But he voted for Obama instead, because "I consider Hillary evil. She and her husband are close to socialists. Government should be small and inexpensive. She stands for government that is in everybody's business."
*'Cuz ain't that America ... whacked out nutcases voting for Barack Obama at J.E.B. Stuart High School.
So has anyone trademarked "The Clintoris" yet?
A friend of mine and I recently talked about this giant party celebrating the last year of the Bush administration, and it was really dumb, like a party in a high school gym. Now that liberals are ascendant, I'm afraid, they're no longer cool.
Speaking of clitorides, I seem to remember the Bad Sex Awards being a lot of fun the last time around.
That's an interesting quote. "She and her husband are cllose to socialists": You are from the planet Zerxon. "Government should be small and inexpensive": Good luck with that in combination with any candidate on offer. "She stands for government that is everybody's business": Why yes, I agree!
137:Well, whatever about "throwing the election" since premature optimism ain't my thing, but otherwise I agree with Tim.
The Superdelegates are going to decide the nomination, as is right and just and true. This is why the Superdelegates are there. And now I expect it to happen before Pennsylvania (6 fucking weeks!), if not before Texas/Ohio. 200-400 of them will declare for Obama and HRC will suspend.
I agree with McManus.
Hee!
It's fun to say that!
I just want to say that I love the "doesn't count" joke. From Yglesias's comment threads:
Hawaii doesn't count because it has volcanos.
Wisconsin doesn't count because it wears part of Michigan like a hat.
These could go on forever and I would die of laughter.
Now that liberals are ascendant
I'm not sure that's true. But with a Dem in the WH, the liberals that still exist will have a friendlier partner to negotiate with.
Washington doesn't count. They just plain don't. Count.
But with a Dem in the WH, the liberals that still exist will have a friendlier partner to negotiate with.
A glimmer of the Obamacklash to come.
I mean, just wait till he starts letting everyone down. It'll be ugly. "Can we stay in Iraq the whole of my first term? Yes we can!"
There's a big different between the superdelegates throwing the nomination to the person who didn't win the most dleelgates, and the nominee needing a few dozen supervotes to get over the hump. i think that gets confused.
147: And that's roughly the reasoning people are using in voting, as far as the 'random' interviews on the radio indicate: Obama good, is change, not in government very long! Clinton good, is woman, has worked hard!
Feck, man, Obama's lead is great, but the electoral process is still a spin and popularity contest, a little hard to distinguish from American Idol.
But, you know, gobama. It still counts.
well regan had morning in american after the nastiest recession in 50 years (although, that was mostly nixon's fault)
153: Yep, Delaware doesn't count because she wore her New Jersey. This stuff never gets old.
A glimmer of the Obamacklash to come.
Eh. Into every life, a little rain must fall. His and theirs.
And, AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday. If it wasn't over for HRC then--it wasn't, and I thought she was still likely to win--it isn't over for her until after TX and OH, if then.
157:The Supers can do what they think is best.
The last time the Supers were important was in 1984, when Gary Hart was damaged goods. If the candidate is found in bed with a dead boy during the convention, the Supers better save our asses.
Anything can happen.
Tim that's assuming momentum plays no role, which, who knows.
Also the scale of the wins is pretty damn significant.
"Can we stay in Iraq the whole of my first term? Yes we can!"
Yeah, I think that may be a done deal. (Though, obviously, I know nothing on which I could base such an opinion.) But it isn't going to be any better with any of the other candidates. "Learn to live with disappointment" is a good life lesson, I guess.
161:Tim, the margins and demographics and trendlines are much worse than expected.
From CNN's VA Republican exit poll page: Now that he's dropped his presidential bid, Romney feels secure enough to come out of the closet.
How like Bob to make a big deal out of a dead boy!
Boys die all the time. Probably it was the boy's own fault because of some damn fool thing he did. Liberals don't believe in consequences.
Also the scale of the wins is pretty damn significant.
Yeah, I don't think the Clinton campaign was anticipating this kind of massacre.
Size of the state matters not.
Step aside, Ohio and Texas. Vermont's gonna decide this thing.
AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday.
It isn't, though. Obama was favorable in these states/districts, but it was probably 6 out of 7 favorable, or 5 out of 7 favorable. Sweeping the board, and with these kinds of margins, was just not foreseen.
This changes a lot, especially because of the way that the delegates are assigned. Obama's been picking up huge delegate margins in these smaller states from his big leads and smart ground game (concentrate in districts with an odd number of delegates, etc.). Assumptions about Clinton not being sunk were based on the idea that she'd at least remain competitive in most of these races.
Obama's starting to develop a pledged delegate lead that would require absolutely huge wins, like 20%+ wins, in Ohio and Texas to beat him.
Obviously, if Obama achieves anything less than Free Monthly Presidential Make-Outs within his first hundred days, we'll all be disappointed, but that's no reason not to love him as intensely as we can before the new-presidential-candidate smell wears off.
Did Chris Mathews just say that electricity runs up his leg when Obama speaks?
Urine, down.
167: I especially like that the picture appears next to the polling category "Vote by Gender".
And, AFAIK, the race is more or less shaking out as expected post Super Tuesday. If it wasn't over for HRC then--it wasn't, and I thought she was still likely to win--it isn't over for her until after TX and OH, if then.
Say what? She was expected to lose most or all of the February primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday. She wasn't expected to get hammered like this.
I listened to the McCain speech driving home from work. Is he saying "my friends" even more often now? I think he is. It's kind of grating.
Talking about it with some super horse-race following friends, our conclusion was that Hillary's strategy was predicated on winning Iowa (or perhaps finishing second to the underfunded Edwards), and she was completely gobsmacked by the caucus turnout Obama's people pulled off and has been playing catchup ever since.
Also, the revelation in The Atlantic that her recently fired campaign manager/confidante blew through an almost $30 million warchest to run her Senate re-election campaign against... I'm guessing the desiccated corpse of Robert Moses, but I have no idea... was fascinating. She seems to have had some genuine trouble adjusting to the post-Dean realities of fundraising for a national election.
I'm guessing the desiccated corpse of Robert Moses, but I have no idea
A Republican woman whose husband appeared to be, IIRC, very, very shady. Shades of Gerraldine Ferraro. I think her name was Piro or Pirro.
She seems to have had some genuine trouble adjusting to the post-Dean realities of fundraising for a national election.
I think, also, the distinction between "Democrat" and "Clinton supporter." They've been a/the power in DC for 16 years, so that seems somewhat understandable.
179: That was a particularly bitter Senate race, actually.
Also, with 16% of the vote in, Donna "Kittens" Edwards is beating machine plutocrat Al Wynn.
180 - That woman was a DA in Westchester County and dropped out, I think -- the Kerik wiretapping thing ended her political career. I have literally no idea who Clinton actually beat, unless it was actually the Undead Power Broker himself.
the Kerik wiretapping thing ended her political career.
Yes, but this was well after ridiculous amounts of money were spent on both sides. It was front page Post and Daily News fodder for ages. I'm just saying, Clinton wasn't spending that money for no reason at the time. It turned out to be a waste, but it was touch-and-go for a while.
To follow up on 183, if I'm remembering this correctly, the Piro/Pirro/Zombiemoses woman -- whom we will recall was a prosecutor -- asked Bernie Kerik to put her in touch with someone who could plant an illegal listening device on her her maybe-mob-connected husband's houseboat so she could prove that he was cheating on her. Thirty million was clearly required to beat her.
Oh yeah, the other thing I remember about her is that she was missing half the pages of her first big speech, so there was television coverage out there and then she spent a minute silently dying on camera. I feel for her on that one.
184 - From outside the tri-state area, what I knew about the woman was that her husband was mobbed up, she asked a mobbed-up Giuliani hatchetman to spy on him illegally, and she humiliated herself in her first big speech, but you were there and I wasn't. Maybe I'm underestimating the Republican upstate machine or something. It sure looks like HRC could have used an extra fifteen or twenty million at the beginning of this race, though.
183: Wiki says John Spencer, Mayor of Yonkers. And how great is this: had two kids by his second wife while married to his first. Man, NY really is Gomorrah. HRC has the most famous troubled marriage in history, and the Republicans can't find a candidate with a better "family values" resume to oppose her?
185.2: ooh I remember that! Holy shit that was hilarious! Improv much, zombie lady?
I don't have a TV and wasn't following the coverage beyond the local newspaper treatments of it, but it seemed like Pirro was somewhat in it until the Kerik revelations. Also, they did get a lot of serious-sounding digs in on HRC before they exploded in flames. But yeah, I'm guessing HRC's kicking herself about that now.
I'm pretty sure Clinton ended up running against John Spencer, who wasn't much of a political powerhouse either.
Pirro was pretty hott for a corrupt Mafiosa lady.
One of People's 50 Most Beautiful People for 1997.
Also, being favored in a number of races isn't the same as being favored to win all of them. I think he was expected to get tripped up somewhere.
There's not enough venom and discord in this thread. Has anyone linked to this this hilariously petulant Krugman piece? Sympathy: waning.
178: It's true. Sounds hostile when he says it.
Venom and discord can be found here.
Whoops. I didn't realize that was the column that actually kicked it all off. I am a serpent eating its own tail.
I know that I'm very late to the party, but holy crap, this is a really great speech (on tivo).
Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary. People like him and Connie Morella (the last Republican I voted for) aren't going to be making it through Republican primaries for the foreseeable future, I guess.
You know, it really is weird to think that McCain now has the nomination practically cinched when the map of primary results so far looks like this.
I wonder if anyone's done the calculation for (approximately) what the delegate split would be if the R's awarded them proportionally.
I wonder if anyone's done the calculation for (approximately) what the delegate split would be if the R's awarded them proportionally.
That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.
200: Good to see that McCain has the support of the latte-sipping coastal elites.
Again I say: holy crap. They just juxtaposed Obama's speech with McCain's. It just wasn't fair. McCain is a very small, very old man.
Good to see that McCain has the support of the latte-sipping coastal elites.
Ironic, isn't it? Explains why Huckabee's still in the race.
He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.
He must love the electoral college.
That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.
Bear in mind that the UK has FPTP elections.
200: Romney is favored by places of great emptiness, and Massachusetts.
I had a dream last night that I went to vote in our so-late-it-might-as-well-be-after-the-general primary, and when I asked "where's Obama?" (because for some dream reason he was supposed to be there), the guy behind me said "he's out, he lost." I was all :(. McManus, stay out of my dreams.
They just juxtaposed Obama's speech with McCain's. It just wasn't fair.
But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!
McCain = Andy Rooney. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!
No, his friends are the people in that conference room. See comment 115.
200- I think the winner should be the first person who can walk coast to coast only in states they've won. Obama: I'll take NC for the block!
Compare Missing Pages Lady to Bill:
Bill Clinton in his first State of the Union address was forced to ad-lib when the teleprompter actually carried an old speech draft. The wrong speech was put up there and it was a measure of his skills as an impromptu speaker and no one ever guessed what was going on until later.
But, but, we're McCain's friends! He said so! Multiple times!
double thumbs-up wink!
Also, here's what was up with DC and the delayed results: the weather was preventing people from delivering the machine cartridges to the polling places.
Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary. People like him and Connie Morella (the last Republican I voted for) aren't going to be making it through Republican primaries for the foreseeable future, I guess.
On the bright side, Al Wynn lost his primary too.
Maybe with all this polarization going on the Democratic party leaders will someday be the people who don't constantly compromise on things nobody but Republicans wants them to compromise on.
Here's the Wa Post on Ms. Edwards' victory. A wonderful, wonderful thing.
Aw, pro-choice war sceptic Republican Wayne Gilchrest is losing his primary.
Woohoo ! Another great result, if it holds up. This is a seat the Dems have a real shot at - but a moderate like Gilchrest kept it from happening. There's a reason he got Bush's endorsement.
whups 222 was me. browser is randomly forgetting me.
Gilchrest/Wynn: heighten the fuck out of them contradictions.
Upcoming Clinton campaign announcement?:
Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our media and fundraising forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the Senator and the devoted service of our 100,000 contributors--the campaign situation has developed not necessarily to Hillary's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Big News Update: Obama beats the fuck out of everybody. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to dig my apartment out of icy oblivion.
235 makes sense in the light O BOMB A.
I'm done shoveling, and he's still ahead. My anti-jinx worked!
Can't wait for 235, then.
Is this a political thread? Because I have a question: is Florida in play at all in November? I ask because my swing voting b-i-l, who will probably go Democrat this time, is saying there are enough Dems who won't vote for a black man or a white woman to swing it for McCain (but not Huckabee).
He may be full of shit, but I'd be interested in a response to that which doesn't rely mainly on wishful thinking.
That reminds me of a BBC analyst I heard explaining the differences between the two parties' primaries. He said something "The Republicans on the other hand use winner-take-all primaries. Very efficient, and very unfair." But he said it almost as if it were a compliment.
If that was their chief political correspondent in Washington, Justin Webb, he probably did mean it as a compliment. Now there's a guy who drank the kool-aide. He can always count upon to put forth not so much the American, as the Republican spin on any news.
re: 230. The BBC correspondents in Washington have been dire in recent years - Matt Frei was a particular low point. I think they see their role as being to pass on a simplified version of the Washingtonian conventional wisdom. The problem is that the W.c.w. is itself so utterly misguided much of the time that what the BBC reports ends up being completely empty, like a description of the Derby without the names of the horses. It's always godawful in primary season, and was particularly unspeakable during the Lewinsky saga. (Hundreds of hours of Andrew Sullivan being touted as a particular expert on the American psyche. Gah.) The British papers are often no better; the Sunday Telegraph had Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who wrote vast numbers of utterly deranged Clinton conspiracy theory stories in the early 1990s, while one of the other broadsheets' chief correspondent on the United States had frequent and notable difficulty distinguishing the Senate from the House. And dont get me onto Gerard Baker or the fact that the FT had a column from Amity bloody Shlaes which *won awards*. It's an uphill fucking struggle teaching American politics to British kids who've only been exposed to this sort of crap, I can tell you. Reanimate the (possible) corpse of Charles Wheeler!
10, 11, 12, and 14 made me laugh. Good job Heebie, Merganser, and Cala.
They waive tiny flags. love it
I wouldn't write off Florida, but then I also wouldn't build a general election strategy based on winning it.
233. So is this a real problem, or is the b-i-l paranoid?
229: Because I have a question: is Florida in play at all in November?
My anecdata based on some family and friends currently in/or originally from Florida with family living there. Florida will be a challenge this fall, and is maybe the one potential swing state that is tougher for Obama than Hillary (a combo of the age and other demographics and the fears of the sad "can't vote for a black person" effect.) I would love it if this is merely their fears talking and they are proved wrong.
But your anecdata and mine is moving towards a sample.
A real problem, IMO. I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states. Florida, Virginia, and Arkansas seem barely possible. There are also half a dozen or more overrepresented plains and mountain states that might be out of reach. Obama doesn't really change anything, though. Since very few of these states have gone D over the last couple of decades. There are plenty of other places where the Democrats can pick up votes.
I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states.
So? Democrats can win the White House without the south. Add Ohio to the states Kerry won, or New Hampshire to the states Gore won, and you've got the presidency.
As for whether or not Obama can win State X or State Y, I'd wait until there's actual data on this - like state-level general election match-up polling - before making those kinds of pronouncements.
238: That's pretty much exactly what I said. Why the "So?"?
239: I'm sure that there are lots and lots of things you'd do, Stras, but I make a point of not concerning myself with them. OFE asked our opinion about something, and I gave mine.
Add Ohio to the states Kerry won, or New Hampshire to the states Gore won, and you've got the presidency.
I agree with the general sentiment, but the latter clause is no longer quite true. Thanks to the reapportionment folllowing the 2000 census, the Gore states + NH no longer yields 270 electoral votes. The Dems need to win the Kerry states plus either Florida, Ohio, or some combination of Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia. The math is possible, but uncomfortably risky if you write off all the Southern states.
I've often thought that Florida would make a particularly fine State of Israel.
221 - Eh, I have my doubts about a Democrat's ability to take the seat and Gilchrest was really a fighter for environmental/sportsmen's-caucus type issues. If he were a Democrat, he wouldn't even have been in the top quintile of conservatives in the party; I believe in 2006 and 2007 he had the voting record most like a Democrat of any Republican in the House. It's a shame to see him go out to a conservobot fueled by Gilchrest's apostasy on Iraq, since it discourages other Republicans from being sensible on the issues. (I recognize that this is the flip side of primarying Wynn because of his bad record on labor issues and privacy laws, but certainly from my perspective it'd be good to have Gilchrest over whomever beat him.) Reading up on the race quickly last night, the only way I think a Democrat can take it is by really hammering the regional split -- the guy who beat him in the primary is from across the bridge, and the Dem is from Queen Anne's County -- and I don't know if he's well-known/well-funded enough to pull that off.
Again, yay Donna Edwards!
OFE, I think this is a great question - THE question, writ nationwide - and I honestly don't have an opinion. My life experience suggests to me that the Democratic Party is too racist to nominate any black man, so that shows you what I know.
This is a weird, weird year, and McCain looks like a weak candidate. Obama is necessarily going to lose a significant number of votes to racism, but he doesn't seem to generate the kind of overt race hatred that will motivate people to come to the polls just to vote against him.
And without that kind of animosity, the Republican turn-out-the-base strategy is in tatters. McCain just doesn't whup up the howling freaks the way that Bush did in 2004 - and the way that Hillary conceivably might, on behalf of the Republicans, this year.
243: I hear ya. I've become a single-issue voter, though. The issue: Which party are you going to caucus with?
If you don't answer that question correctly, the rest is just details. You want to be a sensible Republican? Fine. Switch parties.
Back to the important part of the post, the cowboy hat picture: does this picture of Obama looking attractive and electable in a ridiculous hat finally exorcise the ghost of Mike Dukakis looking like Snoopy driving a tank?
Not when you call it 'Snoopy driving a tank' because now I'm laughing. And wearing Michigan like a hat!
194 simply begged fot the return of the repressed
Thou shalt not diss the Krug
I think we will desperately need Krugman next spring, for I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals even if they were strict sharia.
even if they were strict sharia
Stay classy, Bob.
Soon, Strasmangelo and I will reach comity on other issues of import, like rye in a Manhattan, "Frank's Wild Years" as Tom Waits' best album, and V. as Pynchon's best novel.
I don't drink Manhattans, but that's scarily close.
You know, I think Krugman's lost it a little -- he got so wrapped up in the mandate argument that he's now just pissed at Obama and anyone he suspects of liking him. I kind of think that's a good thing, though: I'd rather have him writing economic criticism of a Democratic president from the left, which is the position I think he's talked himself into with Obama, than either cheerleading or criticism from the right.
(Again, I find myself not exactly agreeing with McManus's crazytalk, but thinking there's a useful point somewhere right nearby it.)
252: You should start, at least in the winter. The finest of cocktails.
253: Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm happy to see Dems criticizing Dems. But what's totally nuts about Krugman's progression over the last several months is how ludicrously out of proportion he's gotten. Even if individual mandates were the absolutely right position to take on this issue - and I don't think they are, and apparently I'm not the only one - it's such a small issue in the larger context of health care reform, which itself is not the end-all and be-all of policy concerns.
There are definite distinctions between Clinton and Obama on the war, on foreign policy and diplomacy, on torture and extraordinary rendition, on open government, on civil liberties - issues to which Krugman has devoted a fair portion of his attention over the past seven years, but apparently have lost all significance to him within the context of the Democratic primary. To listen to Paul Krugman, you'd think the biggest issue facing the American government was the presence or absence of individual mandates in a potential national health care plan, and that's simply not the case. He appears to have rather blithely dismissed the multiple foreign wars this country is currently engaged in, and which have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That's an issue he seemed to care about a great deal not that long ago. But now? Mass slaughter in the Mideast is nothing compared to the evil that would come from a possibly less efficient health care proposal.
re: 251
Not sure about Frank's Wild Years [well, I am sure that it's not his best album, but it does contain two of my favourite Waits tracks]. But V definitely is Pynchon's best.*
* although I have an affection for Vineland that serious literary types don't seem to share.
255:Mass slaughter in the Mideast is nothing compared to the evil that would come from a possibly less efficient health care proposal.
Krugman is an economist. All his equations swim in liquid helium.
Franks Wild Years has some great tracks, but just within the `trilogy', it's weaker as an album than Rain Dogs, and probaly Swordfish Trombones too.
Well, Krugman's an economist. That doesn't mean he's setting his priorities right (that is, I'm guessing that he's right about the mandate issue, but that doesn't mean that it's a big enough issue to override the differences on foreign policy, which is why I voted for Obama), he's obviously going to (a) care a lot more about economic issues, and (b) get more personally emotionally invested in people not listening to him about economic issues (which I think is what happened here. He pronounced, on an issue where he's got expertise, and is irrationally pissed that people who have been agreeing with him generally didn't fall into line.)
With Bush, the economic idiocy and dishonesty lined up with the political evil, so Krugman got interested in both. But he's really focused on the economics, and that's not a bad thing -- it's a reason to listen more to what he's particularly saying than to his general advice on how to vote, but his column's still useful.
Arguments about mandates or no mandates that I've seen all start with the assumption that the real problems in health care are unfixable. Hard to get to enthusiastic about that, really.
256 what a painful video
and shouldn't you be pro-Obama, not against?
after watching this
260: That doesn't wash with me. Krugman departed from writing strictly about economics fairly shortly into Bush's term. He didn't just write about tax cuts and the prescription drug bill, he railed against the war and torture and warrantless wiretapping and the general corruption and secrecy surrounding the Bush administration. This is, in fact, what made him such an icon in the liberal blogosphere: that he used his platform at the New York Times to sharply criticize Bush on a host of issues, that he wasn't afraid to venture out from the circumscribed area he was expected to stay in, that he was willing to cry foul on matters of warfare just as quickly as on matters of welfare.
That's what makes this turn so especially galling. For Krugman to retreat to an economics-only approach to analyzing polics - and to particularly become an obsessive about one particular facet of one area of economic policy - and then use that minute focus, excluding everything else, as a rationale to exhaustively demonize one candidate while ignoring all the myriad flaws of another, is offensively hypocritical. It makes it appear that Krugman has either lost it entirely and has turned his column into a personal vendetta against one candidate, or that he never cared all that much about war and torture in the first place, but used them as a handy cudgel to bash an administration who's tax policy he found unpleasant - which would be truly fucked up.
As for whether or not Obama can win State X or State Y, I'd wait until there's actual data on this - like state-level general election match-up polling - before making those kinds of pronouncements.
I have to agree with stras. I think the question of how deeply racism will affect voting is an interesting and significant question, but I also think it's both unreliable and damaging to speculate based on a bunch of anecdata from personal experience. At some point, all this talk about how the racist south could never elect a black man becomes self-fulfilling prophecy -- reassuring people who do think that way that it's a normal/popular position and perhaps discouraging people who think otherwise from voting for Obama because they've already been persuaded it's futile.
I don't suppose it would be very easy to get reliable poll data asking "Are you too racist to vote for a black man?" But I have to think there's polling data out there for any of these southern states comparing how Obama or Clinton would match up against McCain in the general.
Well, he's not a saint, he's an information source. He doesn't seem to lie much compared to most media figures (I'm counting the current anti-Obamizing as nuttily overblown opinion-stating rather than lying), which makes him useful.
But fucked up or not, I'm pretty sure that he had his attention drawn to war and torture because he had strong opinions about Bush on economics -- without the econ hook, he'd probably have been murmuring sadly about how terrible things happen in a vaguely liberal way, rather than stating forceful opinions.
People care about their area of expertise: I find Mukasey's statement that it would be wrong to prosecute someone who relied on the DOJ's statements that waterboarding was legal filthily disgusting, in a way that makes me personally angry. And that should be all about the actual torture, but a fair amount of my emotional energy is that I know Mukasey's talking crap, and that he knows he's talking crap, in an area where I know what I'm talking about. I'm not right to care for those reasons rather than because people were actually tortured, but I do. And I expect Krugman's the same.
Doesn't mean he's a good person in any global sense, but he's still a useful columnist.
248: I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals
This is like all that rather mythical hero-worship that Bill Clinton got.
253: he got so wrapped up in the mandate argument that he's now just pissed at Obama and anyone he suspects of liking him.
Ayup. He can't even get his insults straight: Nixon's cult of personality? Wha?
(Oh, sorry, he was comparing Obama's nasty dirty politics of hate to Nixon. Again, wha?)
. I doubt that Obama could win any of about 10 Southern states. Florida, Virginia, and Arkansas seem barely possible.
Gawd knows I love bashing Dixie, but VA elected a black governor before anyone else did, and has started trending blue. I don't know that the Solid South is all that solid.
Well, Krugman's an economist.
Too, Krugman's a dick when he disagrees with you. This is a longstanding criticism of him, but it's also why I love him. Further, he's an academic, and criticism in that arena--an opinion based on gawd knows what--skews harsh. I think that's truer in economics, and truer as you move up the food chain. This is just how he fights. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had a predilection for (and more trust in) a candidate with a similar fighting style: HRC. Also, I think Obama's rhetoric is precisely the sort sets his teeth on edge. Krugman wrote a whole book trashing people like Reich for (IIRC) "policy entrepreneurship" which valued rhetoric and happy-pappy B-school-like theories over anything that he felt he could recognize as scholarship.
I genuinely love the guy--I think one of his books pulled me out of a fugue--but that doesn't mean he's right about everything.
and shouldn't you be pro-Obama, not against?
I am pro-Mavis Staples, I am pro-Ry Cooder, I am pro-Ladysmith Black Mambasa. Obama is not The Prize.
Obama in his speech last night gave hints that this will be Guns-vs-Butter campaign against McCain.
Economists, since and including Adam Smith, believe that The War won't stop because the hearts of people change, but when people are forced into a rational choice of what they can afford.
It has to be "Either Health Care or War" in a context of not affording both.
Mandates are a harder sale, but will force people to check their personal budgets and look for some source of money. We must start now, so the War can be reversed in the spring. And with something approaching single-payer, Iraq could be the last War.
269: This is just how he fights.
See, I love the guy when he fights smart and hammers you relentlessly over the head with the facts, whether he's being dickish or no. His criticisms of Obama's health-care plan are right. I can respect that. But stras hits the nail on the head; pretending the theoretical health care plans of the two candidates are the make-or-break issue is stupid. Vaguely comparing people to Republican bogeymen while issuing the standard Plea for Civility (translation: "please shut up while I call you names") is stupid. That's not the Krugman I respect. If that's what passes for fighting like Hillary, that's not an encouraging sign.
Too, Krugman's a dick when he disagrees with you.
Yep, and in a smart, mostly honest guy (that is, he's throwing undeserved epithets around, but I don't think he's saying factual stuff about Obama's policies that's untrue), I like that, particularly when we're in power (yes, I have counted my chickens. There are six.).
256: Thank you very much for posting that. It was really gripping, and I'd never heard anything of Staples's before.
263: Speaking as an Obama supporter who's given him money, phone banked, and driven friends to the polls on Super Tuesday, I don't think that anyone is obligated to vote for Obama because Obama's black.
There's definitely at least some racist vote out there that would have gone Hillary and won't go Obama -- ran into an example yesterday, under circumstances I'd prefer not to describe. But hopefully not too big.
I don't think that anyone is obligated to vote for Obama because Obama's black.
It's the hat that compels the vote.
273:Geez, nitpicker
"I will get you Health Care. But it will cost you $5000. Unless I can find some money in our bankruptcy budget. Anybody out there got a suggestion?"
Krugman is the only one doing it right.
On another note, what Staples album would McManus and others recommend buying? I'm thinking of getting 'We'll Never Turn Back', but I was wondering if anyone had other suggestions.
272: Krugman's been far from honest in his latest round of Obama-bashing. His Ahab schtick is turning him into a hack.
If Krugman were some kind of staunch lefty motivated by a need to criticize a party that had moved too far to the right, I'd cheer him on. But that's not what's going on here. This is a centrist economist who's more or less happy with the Democratic Party's centrist, conventional economic wisdom, and who happens to be nursing a bitter grudge over one facet of one area of economic policy that's far from a settled issue, even among centrist Democratic economists. The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man, and it doesn't say much that's good.
And again, it's not cool that he spent years following the war, torture, foreign policy, etc. and suddenly drops them when bringing them up wouldn't help his anti-Obama crusade.
. The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man, and it doesn't say much that's good.
Don't have his baby, then.
The fact that he started going bonkers about Obama - and stopped caring about Clinton's record on the war - around the time the Obama campaign put out that memo contrasting his columns says a lot about the man,
Like, that he got hostile in response to something he percieved as an attack? My smelling salts, please. He's not an oracle, but getting aggressive and nasty in a policy argument doesn't suddenly make him worthless.
279:Eyes is very good, Ry Cooder produced it. I can hear Steve Cropper in his lines. Damn, Cooder is good at support.
But I think I would look for a Staples Singers compilation. At her prime, IMHO, Mavis was better at sexy soulgospel than Aretha, which means the best.
279: I'm told her original self-titled album from '69 and "A Piece of the Action" from '77 (produced by Curtis Mayfield!) are both classics.
Stras, it behooves you not to mention Ahab.
At some point, all this talk about how the racist south could never elect a black man becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm reasonably confident that there are not millions of voters hanging on my words, and even more confident that the Democratic strategists will ignore my opinions.
The only Southern states that might possibly go Democratic, by my guess, are Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas. Louisiana might have, before the Katrina depopulation. That leaves eight hopeless Southern states (counting Texas).
The plains and mountain states are actually worse for Democrats, but they're probably less racist so Obama may have a chance. (Another 10 states there, including Alaska).
That still leaves the SW, Midwest, and border states to work on. It's sure a hell of a lot better than having to write off the West Coast and the NE, which the Republicans have to do.
It looks like a bad Republican year, and Obama might run a great campaign. So I'm not ruling out winning these states, but we shouldn't strategize them. Even winning 3 to 5 of the hopless states would be a historic watershed, and would almost certainly bring with it a strongly Democratic Congress.
Ry Cooder had the same piano teacher as me. He was already a professional musician while he was still in HS. He couldn't see going to college and only lasted a year or so. never met him, alas.
He's not an oracle, but getting aggressive and nasty in a policy argument doesn't suddenly make him worthless.
It makes him massively unreliable. Look: picking who you want to nominate to be the Democratic Party's candidate for president isn't a small thing. The president is a big job. Part of that job - in fact, a huge part of that job - is foreign policy. Krugman used to seem to care about that, and in particular, about the Iraq war. But the most pro-war candidate for president in the Democratic field has gotten his endorsement because he's nursing a petty grudge. This isn't some tiny "oops" here. Krugman is selling the conservative hawk as the more liberal alternative - and aggressively so - in every column he writes. And yet that doesn't make him worthless? The guy's a pundit. He's only as good as his analysis, and he's spent the last couple months making a very bad one, over and over again, for what look like very bad reasons.
Melville's Law?
I'm going to be snickering for a long time over this one.
Stras, it behooves you not to mention Ahab.
Why?
291: Look, you disagree with his judgment about what the most important issues are. I agree with you, rather than him at this point. But that's the sort of error that's easy to correct for -- if you know you think lunchbox issues aren't as big a deal as he thinks they are, you don't listen to him when that's what's at stake.
Because if there's anyone as obsessive as Bob here, it's you.
293: Because much as I generally agree with you about stuff, you've got a distinctly monomaniacal demeanor about you.
Look, you disagree with his judgment about what the most important issues are.
It's not just that I disagree with him. It's that the Paul Krugman of two or three years ago disagrees with him. It's not just that his priorities are out of wack, it's that he's a hypocrite.
stras views the future of the progressive agenda through the lens of Iraq and other foreign adventurism. Krugman sees the future of the progressive agenda as being largely a function of the Democrats' success on healthcare. Each makes a solid case and I don't find either of these views ridiculous.
I will say that I agree with stras that Krugman has chosen to magnify differences that aren't hugely meaningful in the end. But then, I also think that stras magnifies differences on Iraq that aren't very meaningful in the end.
And: It is useful to have people calling bullshit on minor differences, because it keeps the pressure on. Obama is disincentivized from engaging in bullshit healthcare politics because he gets called on it. Hillary promises to end the war because of the pressure put on her by folks like stras.
It's all good.
295, 296: What can I possibly say in response to something like that? Katherine doesn't get this shit for caring about torture. Whenever I put down more than three comments in a politics thread, clearly there's something wrong with me, because I should be telling cock jokes instead of worrying about the war.
Stras is the Rainbow Warrior harassing Krugman's Pequod.
And Gérard Royal of the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure is on his ass.
Katherine is sensible, often has something new or informative to say, and doesn't repeat herself.
297: Oh, please. If you take every possible political ambiguity and piece of context and resolve it in the way that you think is most plausible, he looks like a hypocrite to you. He wasn't writing columns two years ago saying "The difference between Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's records on foreign policy is more important than the differences between their healthcare policies."
299: Katherine manages to be remarkably sanctimony-free, given her strong opinions and the subject matter she deals with. If you're going to engage in that sort of comparison, I think you ought to pick one that reflects more favorably on you. (e.g., politicalfootball is obnoxious and gets pissed off all the time, and people are nice to him ...)
302: No, it's that two years ago the war, etc. was more important to him than individual health care mandates.
What can I possibly say in response to something like that?
Probably nothing.
I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude toward Obama and the war. You seem to take him at face value. I didn't even trust Edwards; all of the mainstream candidates except Dodd were elusive on the issue -- if he was mainstream.
So I care less about the differences between Hillary and Obama on the war, and at the same time I'm very suspicious of Obama's centrist bipartisan noises, including what he said on health care.
299:I can't easily connect torture to economics, but war as an economic activity is at the core of most leftism. Read some Luxemberg or Lenin or Power Eite
I don't know, stras, it looks to me that you just can't forgive Krugman for not attacking Clinton enough rather than engaging in an objective analysis yourself.
Krugman using the phrase "cult of personality" tells me he is more to the left now than he was ten years ago, and more left than you give him credit for.
304: Two years ago, he didn't have any reason to be weighing one against the other. The war was happening, and no one was offering a health care plan in any immediate sense. That's not hypocrisy.
295, 296, 301: You know, I have actually made an effort to try to be less aggressive in my tone and in the way I respond to people here lately, and it clearly doesn't matter, because I'm always going to be known as the one who has Issues.
It's fairly clear to me that every regular commenter here has their own pet issues, and their own ways of being boring and repetitive, but you're all comfortable with each other, and it's very evident that you're not, and have never been, comfortable with me, and I've wasted a long, long, long time here as it is.
308: Dude, I agree with you about nine out of ten things you say. Politically, you're mostly preaching to the choir here. I'm going to make fun of you about your tone some, because you come off as really really tightly wound, and I don't think it's rhetorically effective when someone who could use some convincing shows up.
But I don't want to drive you away, and while I don't have a least favorite steady commenter, you wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.
You know, I have actually made an effort to try to be less aggressive in my tone and in the way I respond to people here lately, and it clearly doesn't matter, because I'm always going to be known as the one who has Issues.
"I worked hard, graduated from med school, spent my off hours tutoring the underprivileged. I raised five kids, and ran for election twice. I patented a novel surgical technique. But fuck one goat...."
Stras, much of the time I like you fine, but you go on these tears. People razz Bob all the time too, and Megan sometimes, and B a lot.
I don't share your committment to Obama, and I'm an Obama delegate to the county convention. I've been a Hillary-hater for years, but in 2000 I did figure out that most of the US disagrees with me about a lot of important things. Beggars can't be choosers.
Krugman using the phrase "cult of personality" tells me he is more to the left now than he was ten years ago, and more left than you give him credit for.
I may be projecting here, but I don't think Krugman has changed all that much. He's modestly less hawkish on the whole free trade thing, but that's just an adjustment to the facts on the ground. I can't think of any other significant changes.
For my part, I think this country will be a better place when people like Krugman are once again rightly considered tepid center-leftists.
and while I don't have a least favorite steady commenter, you wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.
Awesome. While I don't have a most exaggerated compliments category, this comment wouldn't be close to being in the running for it if I had one.
I'd call him a passionately committed center-leftist. You get a lot of confusion when you confuse the intensity of someone's commitment to their positions with the extremity of those positions.
313: The amount of effort it took to keep the negatives straight in that was non-trivial.
That still leaves the SW, Midwest, and border states to work on.
Look for Ohio governor Ted Strickland to start vaulting up the VP shortlist.
313: And while I don't have a "comment like the one Heebie just made" category, #313 would be the sole member of that category, if I did have one.
I'd call him a passionately committed center-leftist.
Hmm. Good point. How about this: This country will be a better place when center-leftists can afford to be tepid again.
275- Of course, they're out there. But it's almost impossible at this point to gauge their impact on the general. There's no accurate way to poll 'Would you vote for a black man?'
So to get any kind of indication, you need to look at primary results thus far, which obviously has its limits in projecting to the general.
However, the open Virginia primary is the best indicator. It is the closest state we have to be able to geographically split into 'red' and 'blue' (maybe Richmond?), a general election 'toss up' state. If we assume that white male demographic most likely to have a 'racist' impact, then you'll be encouraged to see how well Obama did well here.
If you believe Hispanics are significantly racist against blacks (which I dispute), you are again encouraged by the results. I'll be drilling down to see how the white male vote breaks down by party and geography.
But what likely trumps all of this is the turnout. The Democratic turnout of 625K to Republican 245K in an open primary in a state where there's a fair Democratic/Republican balance. That's insane.
You can argue that the Republican side has an inevitable candidate, but even that is arguable with the in-party contentiousness. It shows tremendous crossover, which is a much more important factor than whatever racist element is out there (which I happen to be optimistic on).
308.1: I, for one, have noted and appreciated it, although I did think at first that maybe it was me getting more charged up rather than you getting mellower.
But what likely trumps all of this is the turnout. The Democratic turnout of 625K to Republican 245K in an open primary in a state where there's a fair Democratic/Republican balance. That's insane.
While I think we're going to have an advantage, isn't this sort of comparison going to be overstated in any primary after Romney dropped out? Huck or no Huck, the Republican nominee's been picked, and that has to drive down turnout.
Look for Ohio governor Ted Strickland to start vaulting up the VP shortlist.
Increasingly, I realize that I'm going to be pretty angry if there isn't a woman on the ticket. I'll vote for Obama anyway, and I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case.
I'm sure the various women's groups are still focused on the HRC campaign, but I hope some of them are putting together the case for a female VP, just in case Obama wins.
312:Krugman has also changed on inequality/distribution issues, and like DeLong, changed on the relation of the political and economic. He has become hyper-partisan.
Those are radical changes. What looks like a simple empirical conclusion that the inequality has political rather than economic causes is actually a full move to social democracy or socialism from neo-liberalism.
And Stras, I'm feeling mean, which I didn't intend to be. Just to poke a little fun.
Seriously, your politics are exactly the sort I wish more people had, and I'm not asking for you to tone anything down, just giving you shit for your level of excitement. You're not wrong about much of any import.
Increasingly, I realize that I'm going to be pretty angry if there isn't a woman on the ticket. I'll vote for Obama anyway, and I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case.
You've said this a couple of times, and I'm not getting it. I'd like to see it too, but what makes it a matter of anger this year rather than another?
(324 was meant as an apology, but on rereading doesn't actually contain one. Sorry for teasing you in a way that made you feel unwelcome, Stras.)
326 - I'm with SCMT on this. Because if it isn't this year, it is likely to be another eight years. Sixteen years isn't impossible either, and that means I'd be in my fifties before a woman was Pres or VP? It isn't the dominant factor, but the thought makes me sad.
I guess people didn't recognize that earthquake, tho the economic world did. When Krugman did his study, and discarded education as the source of rising inequality and accepted Republican policies as the cause...
Krugman was declaring class war.
323: That's interesting. I'll have to ponder that.
I'll give the whole matter a pass if there is a strong explicit case against it. But I just don't believe there is such a case
The strong case is that there just aren't many established female candidates who would add much to the ticket. Beyond Clinton (who I kinda doubt would get an offer or take it), there's who? Sibelius? Sharp woman, to be sure, but she's from a state where Bush beat Gore by 21 points and Kerry by 26 points and largely unknown outside of it.
321- Granted, and that is certainly the argument against. But presumably Huck's competitiveness comes from a conservative, significantly evangelical, protest vote. And McCain wins the 'anti-war' vote (wtf!)?
So independents who care about health care (polls as #2 most important issue) and against the war (polls less importantly than most think, but is significantly more anti-war) will flock to the Democrat. All this bodes so poorly for McCain. I've tried to come up with a scenario in which McCain wins the general and have yet to.
bob, via Yglesias, I think you have to reconsider your position on Obama when you start soundling like Jonah Goldberg.
Paul Krugman Feb 12
As I've said, you've been played like a fiddle by journalists who hate the Clintons, and just make stuff up about how evil they are. And while this may help Obama for now, these people are ultimately not your friends.2. The general election and after
All my criticisms of Obama have been from a progressive direction. I don't think I've said anything that conservatives could use against him in the general election, or use to undermine his efforts if he makes it to the White House.
Can you say the same about progressive columnists who attack the Clintons, claiming that they're ruthless, that they'll do anything to win, etc. etc? I don't think so.
Again, try to think beyond the intraparty struggle, and realize who your friends really are.
321- And those turnout numbers are so ridiculous for almost any context in a state with its demographics
313:
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. "
This was unexpected and rather difficult. There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.
I've tried to come up with a scenario in which McCain wins the general and have yet to.
It isn't crazy to think that he could take the same states Bush carried.
336- Gonna need more than that to sway me, my friend. But I'm not a Southerner.
I've been sort of annoyed by Krugman's caricaturing of Obama supporters. I was tempted to e-mail him to say that I was an Edwards supporter who really preferred Edwards' health plan, and that I agree with Krugman about the importance of a mandate. (I skimmed Krugman's most recent book, and he actually supports a single payer plan, but he doesn't believe that the tax increases required to institute a single payer plan are politically feasible.)
I just also happen to think that foreign policy considerations outweigh the details of a specific health care plan, since health care is something that will be hashed out in Congress and the president has a much freer hand in foreign policy.
I'm just repeating what everyone else has said here, but I do hate being told that I'm the political equivalent of a teenage Beetles fan during their first American tour.
Any group or individual who believed that their interests were served by America remaining weak, divided and bankrupt could arrange for McCain to win by blowing something up in Chicago or LA. You think Homeland Security's going to stop them if they're serious?
I'd like to see it too, but what makes it a matter of anger this year rather than another?
Because we can, because it's owed, and because I think it would be irredeemably stupid not to.
We can: I have a hard time believing that people willing to vote for an African-American President won't be fine with a female VP. I don't think ticket balancing matters that much. And if there's an option from a red state that we could turn, all the better. Furthermore, it would help establish a baseline. Most Democratic candidates for President are going to be white. There just aren't that many not-white politicians. I'd like it if we could, somehow, establish an expectation going forward--one that might get violated now and again, admittedly--that there will always be a woman on the Dem ticket from now on. For a constellation of things I care about (and for reasons that are, I think, sort of accidental), women are the best available guarantors. A party in which women have a/the big seat at the table is one which I trust more.
It's owed: women are, I think, the biggest part of the Democratic Party by about seven million. And the world has changed: I think people would be fine with a female President. It's time to get paid. It offends my sense of...I dunno, "deal"...not to have a woman on the ticket.
Because it would be stupid not to: if there is a benefit from electing the first woman to the Executive--and I suspect there is, even if it only pays off down the line somewhere--I'd like it to be the Democrats that lock that in. The Republicans aren't going to have a problem running a woman in the general. Liddy Dole was a serious candidate. Might as well beat them to the punch.
but she's from a state where Bush beat Gore by 21 points and Kerry by 26 points and largely unknown outside of it.
That's the case for her, isn't it?
None of that's crazy. I may be overly cautious about putting myself in a position where I could be accused of voting my gender -- I just keep thinking while it's something I'd like, I wouldn't exchange it for even a 5% swing in the chances that we'd lose the election.
342: I guess I'm saying that, in the absence of a really strong case to the contrary, and assuming Obama's the nominee, I just don't think that worry is well-founded.
340: Tim, do you think that Obama ought to offer the job to Hillary?
332:bob, via Yglesias, I think you have to reconsider your position on Obama when you start soundling like Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg, like most Republicans, doesn't exist to me. I can't even imagine putting the arguments of Luxemberg vs Lenin into some kind of dialectic with Goldberg. Life's too short.
I am always reconsidering my positions. I may postpone or mute my criticisms until after the election. Obama is changing his campaign in ways I like. But I see no harm in reminding people that the focus should be on the programs and policies rather than the candidate. There are after all, ~470 other important elections happening this year. (Not really, too many uncontested races, and myriad local races)
301: thanks, but are you joking?
I think most of Krugman's attacks on Obama are motivated by the "omg he said nice things about republicans, Hillary must hate them more & is therefore more reliable" line of reasoning which I think is utterly false. They really do not seem driven by the economic policy. My husband the liberal economist thinks mandates are good but also thinks that Krugman's going off the rails, & to treat a mandate as THE shining beacon of universal coverage is misleading (as is Krugman's portrayal of some of the recent studies). It's a way to deal with the free-rider problem, & since neither have provided enough details it's hard to know how much better her way really is, let alone all the uncertainty in Cognress.
And some attacks on candidates are just attacks, w/o ideological content: "Obama is a lightweight with a cult of personality following" is no more "from the left" than "Hillary is cakculating & will sell out anyone and everyone to get elected".
Plus, he's a stubborn bastard, & I'm sure he;s getting a lot of nasty email. Which is a very stupid basis indeed for op ed columns, but it's also very stupid for Obama supporters to add to the pissing contest.
As far as electoral math: first of all, in a popular vote landslide, who knows. I don't think that's especially likely but it's not crazy. Second, I think Obama could run worse than Clinton in a couple states--Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, the rust belt's a question mark. But it seems like he's got a better shot in at least as many states. I am not so worried about latino voters supporting McCain: the whole reason Obama lost to Clinton was that: (1) latinos, esp. women, really personally like her; (2) many of them didn't know who Obama was; (3) they preferred Clinton bec. of health care & education & what she said about the economy. McCain will have none of those things going for him. All he has is "not a jerk about immigration" and "white"--and Obama's better about immigration.
Obama is much better as far as state w/ important Senate races.
345: uh huh. Republicans don't exist for you except when their saying nice things about Obama proves that they're smarter than liberals & he's a Trojan horse.
339:You're poaching my turf, dude.
That's the case for her, isn't it?
No, it isn't. Kansas isn't turning blue this election, regardless of whether she's on the ticket. Mississippi and South Carolina were closer races than Kansas and nobody thinks it's possible to flip them. So again, I understand your arguments about having a woman on the ticket but you still haven't named anybody.
I'm neither black nor female, but I object to setting this up as a referendum on whether a woman or a black man can be President. At the moment there's one woman and one black man in the race, and one of them has to lose. Isn't that as bad a lose-lose situation for the Democrats as could be invented? Shouldn't we be doing what we can to preclude that framing?
350: Yes. Particularly now when it is so close, it seems like the better take away message is that neither gender nor race is going to hold back a good candidate. (In the Democratic party.)
346:The argument against the "cult of personality" is inarguably a leftish argument, except possibly at the extreme where libertarians meet communists.
Like "Don't follow leaders" it is an impossible conservative position.
Yeah, but we've already seen it framed as blacks vs. women (and sometimes vs. Hispanics too), and not just by media and Republican concern trolls. That's worse than just wrong, it's inevitably wrong and close to sabotage.
Slightly OT anecdatum of the Ick variety: My work partner tells me that his 20-year-old (allegedly Democrat) daughter intends to vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination. She doesn't trust Clinton as far as she can throw her, but does find McCain likeable and trustworthy, and trust is the most important issue for her. So if it's not Obama, it's McCain.
I'm very slightly surprised at how angry I got over this.
353: I agree 100%. Personally, I'd like to hear both Obama and Clinton use a little bit of the spotlight they both now have and start talking about how the closeness of this race between a black man and a white woman says really amazing things about how far we have come as a nation. It's not a message that puts either one over the top now, but could really do alot for generating momentum behind whoever the ultimate candidate is.
Individually, the only audience I even potentially have is a handful of friends and relatives -- but your comment does motivate me to work on talking up this idea among those few but proud who pay me any mind.
My mom has also decided that she won't vote if Clinton is the nominee. She thinks that there's no chance that Obama will attack Iran, but some slight chance that Clinton will, and says she couldn't live with herself if she voted for someone who did that. That makes sense to me, even in the face of the increased chance that McCain will attack Iran. Anyway, my mom lives in Illinois, so it doesn't matter, and I doubt many people are deciding on the same basis.
Slightly OT anecdatum
I have a good friend, a 40-year-old, strongly feminist, white woman who pays very close attention to politics and is decidedly to the left of most of the Democratic Party. She has said for two years that she'd vote third party if HRC were the nominee. This is based almost entirely on foreign policy. Now, that's just one vote in a state that's likely headed to McCain's column anyhow and I have no idea whether she represents a constituency larger than could fit in a phone booth, but it's another anecdatal point on the map.
350:
1) It is the fact, and the defining fact of the race for the nomination.
2) We should be delirious that this year the candidates were from three factions of the Party, and not three bland white DLC males.
3) Identity politics can both heighten and diffuse identity politics. That I accept that a populist or a woman can represent my interests is a major step in understanding the way interests intersect.
4) All else being equal, I would rather, on class war grounds, have a black President than a woman. Obama may prove me wrong.
Mississippi and South Carolina were closer races than Kansas and nobody thinks it's possible to flip them.
Neither have a two-term Democratic governor. I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.
Tim, do you think that Obama ought to offer the job to Hillary?
No, because (a) I can't imagine her taking it, and (b) she's too powerful a figure, with too big an intraparty base, for anyone to trust her to act as a second.
Particularly now when it is so close, it seems like the better take away message is that neither gender nor race is going to hold back a good candidate.
Even better: a general election in which we demonstrate both.
Anyway, my mom lives in Illinois, so it doesn't matter.
Living in Illinois as well, this depresses me. You're right, of course. But I hate that it makes my vote feel so meaningless.
Yeah, but we've already seen it framed as blacks vs. women (and sometimes vs. Hispanics too), and not just by media and Republican concern trolls.
I'm not sure that many people are buying it. Even excluding African-Americans, Obama's doing OK with women.
354- There's a ridiculous media narrative on McCain that's bound to leak, if not burst, during the general campaign.
decidedly to the left of most of the Democratic Party
Not difficult after the party triangulated itself solidly center-right (in absolute terms, if not US voter terms). This has to be a difficult thing for anyone who is at all `left' in absolute terms. Do you continue to vote for a party that has fucked you over before and shows every intention of doing it again? But one that is marginally better than the alternative (which is getting worse) and locked in on a small number of key issues you care about . Or `throw your vote away' on a third party?
Even excluding African-Americans, Obama's doing OK with women.
Photos like the one Becks posted don't hurt.
I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.
We don't have separate elections for President and VP.
363: What makes that one any more likely to be destroyed? The media won't turn on him. He's had plenty of previous exposure.
We don't have separate elections for President and VP.
No, but that's just an argument that the VP slot doesn't matter--a view to which I'm sympathetic--but not that there's a better choice out there. (I think it suggests that "better choice" is not an appropriate term.) And given that Sebelius would be, one assumes, the face of the ticket in Kansas, I'm fine with an election in which Kansas picks a VP and gets the President as an add-on.
The VP slot matters, all else being equal, but not enough to sway any election anywhere from a 23-point loss to a victory.
361: but doesn't that make this primary delightful? Everybody counts!
I was realizing, those ridiculous Obama crowds--get 10,000 or 20,000 people enough times, assume some of them tell their friends or families about it, & that you get glowing press coverage from the local press excited to have a presidential candidate come to town--that's not just a photo op. That seriously get votes, in a way that whatever MSNBC wants to obsess about today won't. Particularly in smaller states; we'll see if this works in Ohio & Texas--certainly you've got to throw in a bunch of more modest events not to look like an egomaniac, whereas if you've got 25 states in a week fly-in-big-rally-fly-out is totally understandab;e.
Far better for Obama to ask a different woman to be VP. If Hillary isn't the candidate, one of the best fallouts would be a good slapping to the DLC etc. core that produced her (and her husband).
367- Mine's not a terribly strong argument, but my thinking is that he'll be challenged by Dems much stronger than Republicans on war issues and economic issues.
Obama can choose his own bucket of warm piss. He'll know better than I what he needs.
And yeah, no woman president in my lifetime makes me very sad.
I guess I don't understand the argument that Sebelius can win a statewide election twice, and recently, but not thrice.
1952 69-31 Eisenhower
1956 65-34 Eisenhower
1960 60-39 Nixon
*1964 54-45 LBJ (v Goldwater)
1968 54-34 Nixon
1972 67-29 Nixon
1976 52-45 Ford
1980 57-33 Reagan
1984 66-32 Reagan
1988 55-42 Bush
1992 33-29-27 Bush (3rd is Perot)
1996 54-36-9 Dole (3rd is Perot)
2000 58-37 Bush
2004 62-36 Bush
Very few states in the country have been safer Republican territory in presidential elections than Kansas.
I don't get how a progressive can have such strong confidence in either Obama or Clinton. The latter's a long time DLC type, foreign policy - well we all know, moved to the left on econ for the campaign, but then Bill did too back in '92 and governed from the center. Obama has a long left leaning past but has moved DLCish on econ for the campaign, plus with the bipartisanship stuff. For me the tiebreaker was the past - I see Clinton as more likely to move rightwards as president, and Obama as the reverse, but that's just an educated guess. I miss Edwards. Oh well.
As for the VP: Clinton is driving excellent female turnout in many places. If placing a woman on the ticket could help keep & build that turnout, it might swing some close states. I'm not sure it could, though: did Geraldine Ferraro? The excitement is over a female PRESIDENT, so for a female VP to help she'd have to be a compelling enough figure to imagine as the next president after Obama. Sebelius didn't look like that, in her SOTU response, but I know a lot of people look terrible in that format so I'd have to see more of her to know what I thought.
I don't think Clinton as VP makes sense, for various reasons, but I don't think you can just sub in another woman & get the same benefits. I can imagine how annoyed I would be if Clinton picked Harold Ford as VP (I think Sebelius is otherwise a much better choice--I'm just saying, politicians aren't interchangeable).
354, 357: If you're looking for voter rationales that make no sense, there's this. My first Unfogged comment, IIRC.
I don't get how a progressive can have such strong confidence in either Obama or Clinton.
Context matters. Either would be better than McCain.
374: Look, if you're going to cheat by introducing evidence.... I'm not sure Sebelius could swing Kansas, but I don't think it's clear that she wouldn't be the biggest available plus, state by state.
I think Sebelius is otherwise a much better choice--I'm just saying, politicians aren't interchangeable
But this is the important point, I think. Sebelius--two term gov. in reliable red state who pulls Republican politicians across the line--would have to be shortlisted for potential Dem. Presidential candidates, wouldn't she? And there are other women out there that similarly matchup. If there aren't, and if there's a good case against, then fine. But I'm not accepting "we can win with a black guy or with a woman, but not with a black guy and a woman." At least not without a strong argument backing it up.
Also: Obama/Sebelius is the best looking ticket in the history of the world.
Context matters. Either would be better than McCain.
That's a reason for voting for [whichever of them gets the nod] in the general. It is no reason at all for having much confidence it either.
trust is the most important issue for her
I don't know how many sensible liberals I've spoken to who consider voting for McCain on this issue.
I have found that "oh, you're a jackass" is not a convincing rebuttal.
Living in Illinois as well, this depresses me. You're right, of course. But I hate that it makes my vote feel so meaningless.
This logic always surprises me. People who vote because they think their vote will sway the outcome of a presidential election are voting for the wrong reason.
379: Sure, she's on everybody's short list. But after Sebelius, it's a pretty big drop to the next available female candidate.
380- Maybe. But Democratic proposals are now much more progressive than four years ago. Isn't that a reason for confidence?
384: Not really, when you're talking about serious triangulators (which has become the lifes blood of the D party). It's unclear which way they'll actually run. I can see why people wouldn't have much confidence in either, and are looking at this as `who do I have to hold my nose least for'
379 is true.
shorter 385: confidence, no. hope maybe.
382: Really? What's the right reason to vote?
381: I have found that "oh, you're a jackass" is not a convincing rebuttal.
Yeah. Damn, but this is bothering me. I feel I should talk to the workmate's daughter (or to him, to get to her), but I begin to see red when I contemplate it: "Sure, absolutely, better to trust someone to (say) attack Iran than be unsure whether Clinton will or won't, she's so wily that way."
Megan's listening to this speech and she [= McArdle] doesn't really agree with what he's saying, but she's not snorting with derision.
Stop the presses! The Schmibitarians are coming on board.
391 - While it won't last, it does say something surprising about Obama's charisma.
Cult of Personality ...just a national blogger's report on attending an Obama rally. I don't know the guy; via the Agonist (who alo see the cult.) But this was very interesting:
Frozen, I headed down to the convention floor. While I won't go into details (I hate process stories), I'll simply say the Obama volunteers pushed the local press around. I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all.In comparison to how the Clintons treated the press, the Obama people treated the press disrespectfully and arrogantly. Furthermore, they didn't have anyone available to us except starry-eyed volunteers.
Shorter me: the Clinton camp was respectful of me and other press. The Obama camp was arrogant as all hell (with the exception of national web-guy Sam.) HUGE difference, and differences like this in my experience come from the top down
Let me see here, the Leader preaches Love & Peace while his subordinates act like thugs; have I ever seen this before? Evidence is accumulating.
Shorter me: the Clinton camp was respectful of me and other press.
This is contra almost everything written to date about the Clintons and the press, inc. the killing of the GQ (or Esquire) piece. Shorter me: Given that, and that the author doesn't (in the quoted bit, anyway) acknowledge that narrative, I have no idea why I'd trust anything he says. Irrespective of bad motivations.
Matt Yglesias on an Edwards Endorsement ...shorter Matt, don't do it, John
John Edwards. A nobody. No first place in any primary or caucus. Why should we care who he endorses? And if he endorses Hillary, it'll make him look only like a angry loser. John, don't go away angry because you lost to Barack, the better man. Just go away.Posted by TLM | February 13, 2008 3:44 PM
395:shorter Tim
Look over there, Clinton's worse. And I don't trust people who aren't for Obama.
"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all." This line by itself is not terribly confidence inspiring.
"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all."
Yeah, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are there parts of the Internet that only reach certain states?
"I made it clear as a national blogger I wasn't going to put up with crap at all."
hahaha
Holy Crap.
I'd say I'm fundamentally in agreement with William Julius Wilson's rejoinder to Paul Krugman on the NYT letter page, but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count.
but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count
I can't believe Matt put that so close to a criticism of Krugman. Contemptible. Thuggish and despicable. Cultish.
Fuck it.
Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy.
402:John, what do you think MY is doing there? Why that last phrase in a post about Krugman?
Don't tell me to chill. I used to like and care about these people. I used to respect and admire them. They used to be fair and honest.
Matt's post was the absolute worst kind of garbage, without even the courage to call Krugman "racist"
Fuck him.
X is Y so it doesn't count is a running (since South Carolina, and more so since Super Tuesday) joke about the Clinton campaign's arguments for discounting Obama wins. This is especially true where Y=black. If you want to, consider asking Paul Krugman if you think Matt Yglesias was calling him a racist, or ask Matt what his intention was there, or both.
what do you think MY is doing there?
Playing off the Clinton camp's claims that Obama's wins in SC and other states don't count because the Democratic Party in those states is heavily black. I can't figure out what in the world you are seeing in the sentence.
Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy.
Chill? I'm not even commenting here anymore. How much more chill can I get?
404:Matt is being called on it in the thread by the few commenters left who aren't Obamabots. I wouldn't believe anything Matt said, and of course it is the kind of sleazoid dog-whistle that Krugman daren't be offended by.
I really need it explained why the ending phrase was necessary to the post. It sure ain't funny.
405:Playing off the Clinton camp's claims that Obama's wins in SC and other states don't count because the Democratic Party in those states is heavily black.
Oh, that was the subject of the post? I guess I misread it.
Bob -- look, stupid idiots on the internet
"Jesus -- Bob, Stras, chill. You're being crazy."
Seriously, who are you, David Broder? It's not surprising when people get annoyed & hostile at repeatedly being called fascist cult members for three weeks straight. Not that there's any POINT to being trolled, but it's not a surprising phenomenon.
BTW, the criticisms that Obama is "popular" and "liked even by people who don't follow politics closely" and "acts like he's running for President" and as if he "wants a lot of people to vote for him" are getting pretty funny.
I'm David Broder as far as the Krugman-Obama-Clinton fight goes. People are pumping up the intensity way too far. I expect to vote for one of them, and neither one of them is my first or second choice, and I'd rather not see an Obama-hater (Bob) or a Hillary-hater (Stras) screw things up.
Yeah when I see 12 troll comments in a row from McManus, my immediate reaction is to tell Stras to chill out too.
Stras, no one asked you to leave, but you made unnecessarily snarky remarks to me (238 and 239) and I made snarky remarks back. Then you accused Krugman of being Captain Ahab about Obama and I pointed out that you are a captain Ahab about Krugman. As far as I'm concerned not of that was out of line.
There's a history with Stras too. I was trying to kill two birds with one stone.
If I were the only one calling "cult of personality", or if I didn't see evidence in every thread in the fricking blogosphere, and if I weren't called insane for seeing a "cult of personality", I wouldn't be so bothered.
All you have to do is go thru one long Yglesias thread, and notice the people amazed at the tone of the pro-Obama comments. Just one.
Krugman is dead-on.
Stras has the unfortunate tendency of being mostly right about what he is saying, while McManus is a crazy person. I mean I cringe when I see Stras getting upset about Bob not seeing his point, but still.
Like I said, the venom unleashed at Krugman is one of the more amazing events of my political life, and very very disturbing.
Yes, "people" are pumping of the intensity. Let's not discuss exactly how it happens, sure both sides of the argument are equally to blame.
416: If I were the only one calling "cult of personality",
Oh, you're not, Bob. It's a very fashionable bullshit line of attack that will no doubt be heavily mobilized by the GOP in the general if Obama gets the nomination. Well done pushing the ball down the field.
the venom unleashed at Krugman
Yes, so venomous of people to disagree with him when he's wrong. Terrible. Awful. Blogofascists to a one.
Jesus, Bob, go kick a puppy or something. This stopped being entertaining several threads ago.
Bob, if you go back to those ancient days before Obama v. Clinton became the defining battle of history, you'll find lots of people saying crazy things in Yglesias's comment threads. The fact that there are now lots of people saying crazy things about Obama and Hillary in Yglesias's comment threads is not very interesting.
Like I said, the venom unleashed at Krugman is one of the more amazing events of my political life...
Really? It looks fairly banal from here. Columnist criticizes candidate, candidate's supporters criticize columnist.
I've had some serious problems with Stras too, even though my candidate is the same as his at the moment.
He vastly overestimates the Obama-Hillary difference based on a grudge against Clinton, and he goes into his rants even if Bob isn't there.
I'm not really a member of this community to so I feel wierd asking this but, is there a reason you all assume Bob McManus hates Obama because McManus is crazy not because McManus is a racist?
426: There's not much evidence that McManus is racist, but plenty that he's eccentric. He's being plain stupid about the Krugman thing, though.
Well, the crazy is already established, see.
I think we will desperately need Krugman next spring, for I definitely believe the Obamabots wouldn't criticize President Obama's legislative proposals even if they were strict sharia.
He's said plenty of things unrelated to Obama/Clinton which I think are crazy*, and none that I think are racist.
*In particular, I'm thinking of his plans to send at least 500,000 American soldiers to the Middle East to advance the cause of women's rights and allow the Democratic party to enact a progressive agenda, as well as regular predictions of civil war against the Republicans.
426, 427: Right. Plenty of evidence of being somewhere between charmingly eccentric and batshit loony, none of being racist.
429: In context of the McManuns oeuvre, likelier to be trolling. But an idiotic comment to be sure.
Fair enough.
I hope that wasn't seen as a criticism of your community. I think you guys are swell!
426:Welcome to the Unfoggedetariat! All fair-minded Obamabots have a home here.
All fair-minded Obamabots have a home here.
As long as they attend to basic hygiene conventions.
426: My diagnosis is primarily crazy; I think I remember you pointing out his position on the Iraq War, for example, and his response was simply crazy. Basically he can take political polarization or political harmony and either way he'll have some sense of impending apocalyptic doom.
His Obama reaction strikes me as very similar to the whole "Is Obama the antichrist?" phenomenon, which surely is related to race but I think is more about general paranoia. I would reserve the term racist for some of the commenters at Yglesias (you know who I mean); these guys are also crazy as well, but the obsession with race shows through and through.
All your nomination are belong to us, Bob.
His Obama reaction strikes me as very similar to the whole "Is Obama the antichrist?" phenomenon
Just so.
Just left yesterday on the Obama Antichrist thread (comment #1234!) at my place:
Obama is not the anti-christ. I feel that he will be assasanated if he wins in '08. He said that he will have Oprah for VP. Can you think of a more influential person to get into politics? She has millions upon millions of people doing her every word. If Obama gets assasinated she will step in. Oprah will lead this world to the ground, not Obama. She has already said that all religions are equal. If that is so then she will try to make all people try to go under one religion. And doesn't anyone else think that the Pope will be an antichrist one day? He also has billions of people following him. I've heard that this is the last pope. If Oprah and the Pope step in together then the world is over.
Heh.
Yes, I am apocalyptic, because the macroeconomics of America are apocalyptic. I am far from the only calling us "Weimerica"
And what will the "Knight on Horseback" look like? He won't be 50%+1, he/she will be a uniter not a divider, and mean it, and do it. He/she will have 70% approval and a positive message.
FDR was hated by a good and very visible chunk of the country.
And yes, when we get our Beloved Leader, I will be called crazy. But "madness is rare in individuals..."
(1) And the difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John McCain and Mike Huckabee on the key issues of apocalyptic macroeconomics is...
(2) Exactly my point: whether the Democratic nominee was approved by 70%, 50%+1, 50%-1, or 30% of the population, you'd see something wrong with it. We either need to heighten the contradictions or the Republicans are playing divide and conquer or America is too right-wing or whatever; no matter what the story is, there's a historical parallel to suggest doom. From my point of view a more popular Democratic nominee is a better Democratic nominee.
(3) I am crazy for spending this much time on this thread.
And I know it wouldn't be a Nixon or a Reagan or a Bush that presides over the beginning of police state America. Couldn't happen.
It will be a very popular Democrat.
441: See, that's the Bob I've come to know and love, where it's impossible to tell if you're making an insane joke or an insane serious point. Stick to the classics.
And what will the "Knight on Horseback" look like? He won't be 50%+1, he/she will be a uniter not a divider, and mean it, and do it. He/she will have 70% approval and a positive message.
FDR was hated by a good and very visible chunk of the country.
Not sure I'm following you here. Obama is the second coming of FDR, and this is a bad thing?
No, everyone hated FDR. Also, the Republican hate machine hasn't gotten a shot at Obama yet, so he hasn't been tested in a general election, so he'll probably lose to McCain. Or everyone will rally around him as the American economy collapses this year and the Cult President with the 99% approval rating will invade Poland and start World War III in 2010. All I know is that Obama is bad news.
Not sure I'm following you here. Obama is the second coming of FDR, and this is a bad thing?
No Obama is definitely not the 2nd coming of FDR. FDR was always fiercely partisan and divisive in his rhetoric, comparable to the Edwards campaign.
And it really is hard to discuss in the context of American politics, without reference to historical and overseas evidence, because America hasn't had anything that looks like a dictator since Andrew Jackson. Even Lincoln had strong Union opposition, and barely got re-elected in 1864.
Dictators are very often popular.
445: because America hasn't had anything that looks like a dictator since Andrew Jackson.
Except for the dubiously-elected leader of the last eight years, the one with an actual cult following, but of course compared to that Obama is a rough beast slouching toward Jerusalem, his hour come round at last.
The unpopular FDR:
1932 ELECTION
popular vote:
57.4% (D), 39.7% (R)
42 states D, 6 states R
1936 ELECTION
popular vote:
60.8% (D), 36.5% (R)
46 states D, 2 states R
1940 ELECTION
popular vote:
54.7% (D), 44.8% (R)
38 states D, 10 states R
1944 ELECTION
popular vote:
53.4% (D), 45.9% (R)
36 states D, 12 states R
When the Bradley effect comes into play and McCain wins 49 states, you guys will finally admit Bob was right all along.
If Oprah and the Pope step in together then the world is over.
Can't we all agree on this much?
449: The world only technically ends if they do the hokey-pokey and turn themselves around.
450: But first they each have to say: "Mother May We step in together and end the world."
