This is a pretty fresh speech for no teleprompter.
MICHIGAN LIKE A HAT!
Is that joke old? Yes it is. Do I care? No I don't.
I was thinking earlier today that not only should Sen. Obama announce a reasonably detailed good (embargo-ending, normalization of trade, etc.) Cuba policy he should also publicly call on John McCain to put the country ahead of politics by joining in with him on his good reasonably detailed Cuba policy. And a pony. This 1) might lead to good policy being enacted 2) shows Sen. Obama acting like he's running in the general against Sen. McCain, not the primary against Sen. Clinton, 3) follows through on his unity rhetoric, 4) might get some attention the fact that McCain isn't a principled maverick if McCain says no. On the downside, if McCain says no, it presumably loses Fla.
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing Obama winning Florida in any event. Also, I doubt McCain hewing to the standard line on Cuba would hurt him, as it's not one of the issues where he's even reputed to be a straight-talking maverick, and I think the current US Cuba policy, while incredibly stupid, is actually pretty popular even outside of Cuba (is there any data on this?).
MICHIGAN LIKE A HAT!
I don't get it.
4: I had to tell my friend from Wisconsin that when we were hanging out on Sunday and her absentee voting came up. She wants it in t-shirt form.
5: I was so completely delighted that Obama called for the embargo to be ended, so I was really disappointed when he more recently laid out a much more typical, crappy Cuba policy. I share your hope, but I really don't know if that's considered to be too much of a third rail for Obama to bother with since trade agreements aren't exactly a centerpiece of his campaign. If nothing else, at least he's explicitly backed the right positions in the past, and many of the things he says suggest he still suggest he believes in them, even if he can't outright say anything so liberal.
6: It may be popular, but it's almost certainly a very very weak popularity. I doubt anyone outside of Florida's former Cubans cares enough to let it tilt their vote.
After 50 years, I really don't get why that group can't let it go. It's not like the Viet Kieu kicked and screamed when that embargo was dropped in 1994. Hell, they had the good sense to welcome the opportunity for wealth and a better life it was giving to their relatives back home.
It may be popular, but it's almost certainly a very very weak popularity. I doubt anyone outside of Florida's former Cubans cares enough to let it tilt their vote.
Probably, but I can see the McCain campaign trying to use Obama's past statements to demagogue, and I can definitely see the media playing along.
So tomorrow he says, "I've had more of a chance to talk about what Fidel Castro stepping down means with my advisers, and I've also had a chance to see how other Presidential candidates reacted. In light of this I [announce good policy] and [call on John McCain to endorse good policy] and [put a pony in every garage]. Those of you lacking garages will have to present proof-of-stabling before I give you your pony."
In honor of Castro's resignation I do believe Obama has an 8 hour speech planned.
16:It is a long speech.
Clinton should withdraw from the race now.
We are doomed.
That is all.
16: Funny.
I've adopted Iowa night's WOOOOBAMA! as my personal cheer.
Obama hires Jim Cooper as his health care spokesman. Krugman says the dream is dying. Ezra Klein (blogosphere health care conscience) says, yeah, Cooper is very bad news and adds nothing further. Nothing critical of Obama.
This is the kind of stuff I expect out of the left blogosphere for the next fucking eight years. Bastards.
The Clinton campaign is starting to remind me of "Casey at the Bat".
5: Florida completely aside, clever schemes like this are really starting to grate on me. The "oh, I can be nice and reasonable, why can't you?" play seems to me just an extension of congressional Democrats' "bipartisan always and forever" meme. I realize that's not your mindset - you present it mostly as showing McCain up with reasonableness - but when did that last work, 1948 maybe? Republicans keep on charging bullheaded toward their goals, and it somehow never seems to register with the public that Democrats are trying to be reasonable, just that they're failing.
I think the time for bipartisanship, even as a comforting, occasional principle, is over - we need British-style "Hear hear! Oh oh!" discipline, stock oppositional responses to everything they say, and a determination to show them up not for their unreasonableness or unfairness but for their bad ideas and bad results.
Of course, that's also why I'm not so enthusiastic about Obama as a brand.
Almost every day, day after day, for 6 years I have given my time and attention to a group of writers. I trusted them. I don't feel I can put any faith in those bloggers anymore. Umm, like a "major disappointment" doesn't really cover it.
I guess I'll go back to novels or games or something. Get my news from Reuters.
22: Bush is also a big proponent of bipartisanship. Obama shows every evidence of having learned the correct lesson from this.
Yes, to Obama's credit, he has not actually been making proposals like w/d's 5.
Krugman says the dream is dying. DeLong disagrees. Ezra says DeLong is wrong (meaning Krugman is right, and that he agrees Sen. Obama is doing a bad thing) and notes, at the bottom of his post, that the relevance is that Obama hired Cooper. He probably should have said something stronger against Obama here, though maybe he just didn't feel like repeating that Sen. Clinton has a better health care plan (Ezra's position on mandates is totally clear, so he surely does think Clinton's plan is better), but it's inaccurate to say that he says nothing. See also Ezra in comments to that post, making clear that he's defending Krugman's view.
One question now is what else the Clinton's will try to use against Obama, or whether they have something up their sleeve for the debates. Last chance now.
Wisconsin
If you must
Is that what's on the license plates up there?
Bob, everyone goes crazy during the primaries. This is the one time where political opinion-making becomes indistinguishable from sports fandom. It amazes me how cretinous the Lawyers, Guns, and Money bloggers have become, for example. But it will end, by January at the very latest.
29: I think it's something like "Tundra/With More Cheese."
I think the only way you get UHC quickly is massive economic turmoil. I really, really don't want to see that. It'll come incrementally, as Dr. Dean suggested. HRC wasn't going to get it, either.
29, 31: No, no, it's "Michigan is a hat."
Oh good God, what whiners. No health care bill gets anywhere close to enactment without passing the Senate. Who will lead the Senate majority in negotiating this issue? Sen. Clinton.
This is the one issue where there really is another bite, and in a much more effective forum than a political campaign.
She can be much more effective in the Senate, once she's rid of the ambition that's made her overcautious. On this and other issues.
28: Clinton apostrophe s?
I think the thing now is to figure out how well Obama's going to handle the emerging media framing of him, which looks like it'll be "has no experience, a lightweight--who knows what we're really getting?" vs. McCain as the "experienced straight-shooter."
I think people are writing off HRC much too soon. I get that things look good for Obama right now, but they were supposed to look good for Obama right now.
I would like this primary to be over so I can go on to thinking mostly about how much better the Democratic candidate is than the Republican, and less about which Democratic candidate's positions are disappointing on what issues.
Clinton apostrophe s?
Why must you be such a little . . . oh.
34: what do you mean by "another bite"?
I think the thing now is to figure out how well Obama's going to handle the emerging media framing of him, which looks like it'll be "has no experience, a lightweight--who knows what we're really getting?" vs. McCain as the "experienced straight-shooter."
It'll basically be "You are a jowly old fart" --- though perhaps not in those exact words. Presumably Obama's writers can come up with something as devastating as the line from Kennedy's inauguration: people remember "the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--" but it's the next bit that was the kicker: :"born in this century ..." Obama can effectively neutralize the whole McCain "I am an outsider, a maverick" bullshit, because now the latter will have to campaign on the virtues of being an old, old man.
This will set Obama up nicely for his 100 Days post-inauguration, and a generally ineffective, disillusioning presidency thereafter, increasingly bogged down in Iraq and facing intransigent Republicans in congress -- unless he gets lucky and ... well, you know.
It amazes me how cretinous the Lawyers, Guns, and Money bloggers have become
Glad I wasn't the only one noticing this. Before I just hated when they posted on steroids; now it's half the posts I hate. If it weren't for the Deposed Monarch blogging, I'd probably delete their bookmark.
33: According to Google, no one - not even you - has ever said this on the internet.
I can't quite make out why you're anti-Obama, Gonerill. What about him is it that bothers you?
32: I find myself ingesting the Obama kool-aid, and my eyes begin to whirl. America has been so stupid relative to other Western countries in large part because of our history of crazy racism. (Why has there been no national healthcare here? Because it would be providing yet another benefit to lazy black people whose premature deaths aren't particularly tragic.)
We elect a black president, and it will be both a result of people thinking differently, and a catalyst for (gulp!) change.
I can't quite make out why you're anti-Obama, Gonerill. What about him is it that bothers you?
I'm not anti-Obama.
One question now is what else the Clinton's will try to use against Obama, or whether they have something up their sleeve for the debates. Last chance now.
A worthwhile thought—or worry, even, since O-man's my man—but I can't imagine what they might have that they'd wait until desperate o'clock to use. I have to admit that I thought he was lost a long time ago after some early missteps, but the Obama campaign has been devastatingly good. I wouldn't write Clinton off yet, but Obama's margins in states which were considered toss-ups just a couple of weeks ago are heartening.
Tim - it's hard to see how things get better for Clinton from here on out.
Her Texas lead looks tenuous, at best, and the latest SUSA poll shows her Ohio lead beginning to evaporate as well. Obviously, two weeks is an eternity, but the latest trends are all against Clinton - she's done badly in both Virginia and in Wisconsin now with groups that she is supposed to do well with.
After tonight, assuming he wins Hawaii as well, Obama will probably be up by at least 150 pledged delegates. It doesn't look like she can expect to net very many out of March 4, unless there's some major momentum changer in the next two weeks. After that come two states where Obama will almost certainly win big victories, and then six weeks of nothing before Pennsylvania.
It's just becoming harder and harder to see how Clinton is even going to make the pledged delegate count even at all close.
According to Google, no one - not even you - has ever said this on the internet.
Not in those words, no.
34 -- Sen. Clinton gets to rewrite whatever health care proposal Pres. Obama send over. She can put in all the stuff the absence of which from Sen. Obama's campaign proposal is the source of all that tearing of hair and rending of garments right now.
36 -- Yeah, that's the prudent course. She was supposed to do better than this in Wisconsin, though. 16 points is a big deal.
50: And where is the Bradley effect? Clinton and Obama were essentially supposed to be in a dead heat in Wisconsin.
44: I prefer Obama, but I'll feel sad on HRC's behalf if she loses. I really do think a longer primary has been useful, and I do think she's much less badly placed than others believe, and I do, even, vacillate on whether he or she would be better for the party. But, if she's going to lose, I think, a little bit, I also want to delay the moment she quits.
And we better have a female VP.
51: Didn't someone argue that there never was a Bradley effect?
52: A female, black, atheist, midget VP.
53
I was living in California at the time and as I recall the Field Poll attributed their bad call to the fact that the Republican party had "secretly" mailed absentee ballots to every Republican in the state which I thought was a pretty lame excuse.
52 -- Wes Clark has to have the inside track, if there's any chemistry with Sen. Obama.
I think Obama can give a great and gracious speech when Sen. Clinton bows out about how none of the things he's been talking about can be accomplished without her help in the Senate, and mean it. And she's really got the opportunity to take the mantle from Sen. Kennedy as the national leader of mainstream liberalism, a role I think will come more natural to her once the need to trim and triangulate has dropped away. I really think she'll accomplish more in 12 more years in the Senate than in the single ugly term she could get in the White House.
Obama is just so much more compelling and charismatic than Hillary on a basic personal level. I mean, he's a movie star, the camera loves him, plus he's a fantastic orator. And more than smart enough not to screw up when the talk gets substantial. The pattern has been clear for months now: as people are exposed to both Hillary and Obama for longer periods of time, they gravitate toward him. All that's been happening is that more and more demographic groups have been soaking in the Obama aura.
He should select a white male VP candidate, two firsts on a ticket is too big a risk. I guess the exception might be if Hillary wanted VP, but she won't. She might end up Senate majority leader, that would be a more powerful role.
52: I thought that was a great pairing too, but Clark endorsed Sen. Clinton.
59: Does that matter if the proffer comes at the convention, assuming there is no cutthroat delegate wrangle going on?
Yeah, Edwards endorsed Edwards in 2004, but he and Kerry made up.
I think there's little doubt Clark would accept a VP nomination, he's quite ambitious. Question is whether Obama would extend.
47: Yeah, he was the favored candidate in these races, but certainly not for a sweep and his victory margins are pretty staggering compared to what was expected. Unless Clinton has a huge number of votes in the remaining districts, it looks like he took Wisconsin by about 17%, which is just a little higher than the exit polls said. That's pretty amazing for a state where the most recent polls were near a statistical dead heat.
The surge in Texas in the last week also looked freaky big and freaky fast. This could get ugly pretty soon for Clinton.
White, male, military background: I think these are requirements for the campaign against McCain. From a state that went Bush over Kerry is a bonus. This isn't that big a group of people.
59: I'm not sure that rules out the possibility, unless Clark is on the record as not willing to run with Obama. It would be a killer ticket. I would love to see a woman as the VP candidate should Obama win the nomination, but the most prominent female Democrat is running against him, and as discussed in a previous thread, there just aren't that many other options.
she's really got the opportunity to take the mantle from Sen. Kennedy as the national leader of mainstream liberalism
That's my hope, too, if Obama wins. (Which, again, is hardly guaranteed. I think that because--for understandable, anti-war reasons--the blogosphere prefers Obama, there's a tendency among its denizens (self included) to oscillate wildly with each new primary win or loss.)
67: what about his role in the Senate?
67: If you can't manage to bite your tongue, grin, and bear it as Sec. of Navy, I'm not sure I want you as my VP.
On the not-counting-chickens front: whom would you pair with Clinton should she be the nominee?
There's a little devil on my shoulder whispering about what a satisfying thing it would be to have Max Cleland on the ticket, assuming some serious asskicking is going to go on.
Not a safe assumption of course, but a sweet sweet thought nonetheless.
I've seen talk here about Clinton become Senate Majority leader, but is that at all likely? Aren't there a lot of people who are essentially ahead of her in line?
70: Obama, if he'd take it. That would just be a crushing ticket, I think.
70 -- Wes Clark has to have the inside track. Funny how that works.
72: yes. And I really, really, really like Durbin. Illinois has amazing Senators.
Anyway, you don't need to be majority leader to be an effective legislator. What you need are seniority & a key chairmanship (& the skills).
But! This isn't over. I don't even take Hawaii for granted. No way I'm talking about VP choices.
70:It's over. You don't want to think about scenarios where it isn't over:they will look like 1968 (riots, not assassinations, or the live girl/dead boy, or you don't want to think about it.
Okay, this is the truth, I swear on me sainted mother's ashes. I dreamed about Obama. There was other stuff I won't go into. But my wrist is always mildly hurting, and in the last part of the dream I fell off a bicycle (I haven't ridden in thirty years) and compound fractured my wrist. I was holding white pieces of bone in my good hand.
And Obama performed a miracle and healed my wrist.
64: White, male, military background: I think these are requirements for the campaign against McCain.
It's sure been a winning formula before.
The news is encouraging. I've mildly wanted Obama to win for some time now, but after that Rezco bullshit and the "plagiarism" nonsense I think I really do want HRC to lose, after all. For that reason I hope she keeps trying to go negative, a tactic that's plainly and deservedly backfiring.
And Obama performed a miracle and healed my wrist.
That's why we don't need mandates, mcmanus.
He also made you an origami crane.
The VP choice is probably going to be the governor of Ohio.
The VP choice is probably going to be the governor of Ohio.
Whoever that turns out to be!
You probably don't believe 76, but it really was a dream.
Seemed to me Obama was a lot stronger about Iraq tonight. Now the hiring of Jim Cooper means a lot more than just no mandates or a little worse than Clinton. Putting a John Breaux Democrat in a major position is a serious signal.
So what I am figgering is that Obama is going to be a reverse LBJ. He will pull out of Iraq much faster and more completely than we are currently expecting, and for fiscal reasons slash the defense budget. This will keep the left very pleased.
But in order to keep Washington a sane place and get some swing votes Obama is going to govern on domestic issues much more to the right than anyone has been expecting. Obama having lost Iraq and being weak on security Collins & Snow & Ben Nelson are going to need a lot, a whole lot, to take to their constituencies as compensation, as reasons they worked with Obama. The liberals will accept a right-center domestic policy as a worthwhile price for peace.
So it will be a health-care reform and tax reform etc much closer to Ben Nelson than to John Edwards or Clinton. Clinton or Kennedy won't stop it, Obama will have the votes.
I don't even take Hawaii for granted.
Report from the Chopped Liver State: The paper this morning said that the turnout record for a Hawaii caucus was less than 5000. We were north of half of that in my district. There are 51 districts. Turnout elsewhere probably won't be as high as it is here (older folks, affluent folks, University of Hawaii faculty, etc.), but I don't see Obama losing this one.
The joys of not having your favored candidate anymore - you can already concentrate on how much better than McCain both Obama and HRC are and not get too worked up over the horserace.
NPH, I'm actually really looking forward to seeing the HI results.
That said, chopped liver is a lot like spam, right? I hear you people like that shit.
84 see 20 and go to Klein's. Or not.
You know what pisses me off in this world? The rugrats on my lawn, the awful innocence of those who think with hard work and good intentions you can have it all and keep your self-respect and pride and the pony.
You can't. There is always a boss whose ass you have to kiss, there are always the innocents you have to throw overboard, there is always a fucking horrible price you have to pay.
You wanna end the war? It's gonna cost ya something y'all will hate yourselves for giving up. That's life. Idealistic kids should be kept outa politics.
I don't know what chopped liver is like. Liver and onions is fine. Spam is more or less edible if you cook enough of the grease out of it, but I'm not a big fan.
I'd like to see us beat DC's spread, and I'd really like to see a wide enough margin to give Obama 5/6 delegates in my Congressional district, but I'm not betting on that. I'm optimistic that we'll hit 67% for 4/6, but 80-whatever still seems like an uphill fight. OTOH there were a hell of a lot of Obama stickers, pins, etc. in that crowd.
89: Look, we accept equally ridiculous shit for the sake of *your* stupid jokes.
I did look at Klein's before I asked the question. ""Surrogate" means "public supporter"; it is not something you're hired as, & how important your role is varies wildly. Maybe I was just being over-literal, but if "surrogate" means what I think it does it's not that big a deal. He is probably also a "campaign chairman" in whatever state he's from but that's not a "major position" either.
We have to accept ridiculous shit for the sake of ben's jokes? I don't remember that clause on the clickthrough agreement.
93: Do we have any actual evidence of that?
I did notice Katherine and Tim Burke over at Chris Bertram's Castro thread. They kinda, well, at least show the difference between liberals and the left. I won't link, probably at 200 comments by now.
God bless Chris Bertram.
93: Do we have any actual evidence of that?
I have photographic representations of several penises; does that count?
I can't bring myself to read that Castro thread. I just clicked on it, and then closed it after reading one comment.
""Idealistic kids should be kept outa politics"
Yeah, that about sums it up.
You didn't notice this Katherine at CT, but I was with Randy Paul.
98: Have we seen this evidence? Are any of them demonstrably yours?
If you keep this up, B, you're going to be getting one of them in the mail.
96: It's considered unsporting to check. Unless you're into that.
(and crediting Castro w/ the end of apartheid is truly assinine.)
102: Picture, or severed cock? Because it's not like the one is hard to find, and I'm not really short on the other.
Whoa--Lawrence Lessig has formed an exploratory committee for a possible run for Lantos's seat.
You're not short on severed cock?
98: Have we seen this evidence? Are any of them demonstrably yours?
None of them is mine. They were sent to c0ck@unfogged.com, lo these many years ago.
Oh shit, I hope Apo's gone to bed already.
Since when did it become unfogged policy to spell out every goddamn joke?
106: Huh. That could get us 1/515th of the way there, I guess.
Does anyone know when the HI polls close? I should be asleep by now.
Since when did it become unfogged policy to spell out every goddamn joke?
Since all these n00bs showed up, of course.
108: This still doesn't answer the original question.
Actually there's probably still a ton of people in line. About the time I was leaving ours they were changing the procedure to speed things up a bit, but there were still long lines outside. The Advertiser quotes an official from another site who said they'd probably be voting until 10:00 or so there.
113: But Hawaiidemocrats.org says results should be coming about now at the earliest, so it could be a while.
There have been no independently confirmed sightings of my cock for far too long, I'm afraid. If you're interested in settling the matter, you know (roughly) where I live.
None of them is mine.
Praise you, w-lfs-n. I count this as a rare sighting of the correct use of the singular with 'none,' like a painted bunting in Canada.
I know exactly where you live, but I'm not the person who's giving you credit for stupid jokes just because you have a dick. Supposedly.
97 Damn, and I thought the right could be a bit crazy about HRC - but here we have a diehard supporter saying she'll make Bush look like the ACLU's dream president, just with universal health care.
Some laugh at w-lfs-n's jokes out of a sense of duty and gratitude. I say there is no love but duty and gratitude.
I spelled it out because I knew it would give someone an opportunity to make a joke like 110. It's called being a straight man, B, the role in life you are probably least qualified to understand.
123: Gah, people just don't believe in right and wrong anymore.
Whoa: Only 8% reporting as of around midnight Pacific time, but msnbc.com has Obama ahead in Hawaii 77% to 23%.
Incidentally, I was meaning to ask about this is 30: It amazes me how cretinous the Lawyers, Guns, and Money bloggers have become, for example.
What on Earth is this a reference to? I took a trip over to LGM special on account of it and can't see anything out of the ordinary. Except that they're pro-Obama, which is presumably cretinous, or something?
What on Earth is this a reference to? I took a trip over to LGM special on account of it and can't see anything out of the ordinary. Except that they're pro-Obama, which is presumably cretinous, or something?
They're really sneering at the HRC campaign now, which I even kind of understand (I think HRC is a good candidate, but it's clear that she's run a disastrous campaign that wasn't prepared to last past Super Tuesday). Just like with the Jeter stuff "mocking credulous press and supporter comments" is a fun game, but I'm not sure the daily bash-Mark-Penn posts are really worthwhile at this point. I think some of the LGM trolls may have baited them into this, but hopefully they'll scale it back soon.
I don't blame LGM; there are *still* people arguing (at Yglesias, Ambinder, etc.) that Obama's demographics look poor (see the Wisconsin primary, where he loses the white Democrat vote to Hillary -- the horror!) There is an underlying argument that white voters are racist and willing to vote for Clinton but not Obama but it's never explicitly brought up.
And does anyone else look at Taylor Marsh's site and think, "What this country desperately needs is a new face, a new kind of politics of unity and hope." Seriously, it makes me start re-creating Obama's campaign message entirely on my own.
Y'all will be calling for a "new politics of unity and hope" in 2015.
"We need more Hope. We just haven't Hoped hard enough. And Unity. Massive amounts of Unity."
I have to say the gnashing of teeth about Obama (apparently he is either too left to be elected, or too right to be any good) in defense of *Hillary Clinton* is one of the most bizarre things I've seen. I've only been able to conclude that the Bush presidency has caused me to overestimate the intelligence of a lot of Democrats.
They're really sneering at the HRC campaign now, which I even kind of understand
But that's the thing, they're not, really. Or at least not disproportionately so. Just surveying the primary-related posts on the front page post-Feb. 15: there's some mockery and some conditional approval of the "plagiarism" meme, a couple of complaints about Clinton Rulz shenanigans, a couple of posts marvelling at the boneheadedness of Mark Penn in Texas, an exhortation to HRC supporters not to be desperately jury-rigging the data at this stage of the game (your candidate's not out yet), and a demurral from the "ZOMG he said 'periodically'" meme. And a few posts about primaries-related miscellany.
One can agree or disagree with any of these points, and the overall drift is pretty pro-Obama, but they're all at least arguable and defensible. I don't see any reason to regard any of them, or the general drift of LGM, as "cretinous."
(I did roll my eyes at the Bob Farley post on Kosovo, but that's more of a "don't quit your day job" kind of thing.)
131:Absolutely right. Those people not wishing really really hard for more Hope and more Unity are just stupids.
133: Those people still knocking down strawmen and pretending they're being the realists are stupid, I think is Barbar's point. And he's right.
Bob, you don't even know if Obama will unite the country disastrously or if he will divide the country disastrously or if he will get crushed by McCain disastrously; you just know he's the anti-Christ. And you forgot to mention how proud of the USA you are and how offended you were by Michelle Obama's comments.
Unity, now in convenient capsule form.
DS, it's not their pro-Obama bias (they're entitled to have a preferred candidate). The primary has completely destroyed their ability to say anything insightful. They just keep picking at the same scabs over and over: Mark Penn, superdelegates, Michigan and Florida. The site isn't any fun to read, and I don't learn anything from reading it: I wouldn't have said either of those things two months ago. Part of it is that the regulars in their comment section have been replaced with escapees from an insane asylum writing under the same names, so I'm sure they're pissed off and in the mood to pick fights.
Plus, they've each announced that the election is over 15 different times, and that whatever candidate did best in the last 24 hours has the nomination all wrapped up. It's like watching a football game, and every time a team gets a first down the guy next to you announces "it's over".
135:Obama is just another politician, spewing bullshit to mollify his voters and get pork to his corporate clients. Nothing new, nothing especially good, nothing unusually bad.
It's his supporters that get on my nerves. It's like I have been transported to an alternate reality where everybody takes TV soap commercials as Gospel Truth. "Charmin!! Squeezably Soft!! It's True"
And skepticism, analysis, caution, favoring rationality over emotion are signs of a low intelligence. Got it.
The primary has completely destroyed their ability to say anything insightful. They just keep picking at the same scabs over and over: Mark Penn, superdelegates, Michigan and Florida.
In defense of LGM, they're far from alone. I've been commenting a lot less over the past couple months as I read the endless, pointless back-and-forth between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. A pox on both their houses, even though I do hate to hear that same thing from centrists.
137: Bob, have you read Taylor Marsh's website? If not, STFU. If you have and you think she represents "skepticism, analysis, caution, favoring rationality over emotion" then STFU again.
Oops I think I just "pulled a stras."
It doesn't matter -- one annoying Clinton supporter can be dismissed but one annoying Obama supporter is the avatar of the entire campaign. That's cautious, skeptical analysis for you.
Not to take this too seriously, but also -- McManus got excited because *I made a comment about how I reacted to the TM website*, and the irony went completely over his head. "Oh wishing for Hope and Unity is sooo dumb and naive! Listen to me: Obama is going to get 99% of the vote and then invade Canada in 2009!" Troll.
Also, McManus complaining about people lowering the level of rational discourse.
I admit it, my buttons have been pushed.
138, 139, 141: I'm, at this point (started with Edwards), an Obama supporter, so I'm willing to concede that I may not find LGM at all an egregious example for that reason. But TM and TalkLeft have, I think, fully gone round the bend, in a fashion that I just haven't seen on the Obama end of things (not that such sites don't exist, just that I haven't seen them). I whinged about this elsewhere, but yesterday Jeralyn at TalkLeft paraphrased this bit from Obama's speech last night:
I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. But I also know this. I know this because I have fought on the streets as an organizer, I have fought in the courts as a civil rights attorney, I have fought in the legislature, and I've won some battles, but I've also lost some, because good intentions aren't always enough. They have to be fortified by political will and political power.
In ways small and large, from Ezra Klein "Obama is the Word made Flesh" to LGM to ObsWi to MY, most of the blogosphere have completely abandoned the standards they used to hold themselves to.
But you're right. I am just trolling and it isn't even fun anymore. Where is the plane? I need to get the fuck out of Jonestown.
136: The primary has completely destroyed their ability to say anything insightful.
I thought the post about why ex-Republicans seem to favor Obama was pretty interesting. Their posts on other topics (the Federalism dodge, anti-abortionism in Italy, the v-2) still seem pretty interesting. The primary posts seem to consist mainly of pointing out the glaringly obvious, but arguably this isn't exactly their fault, since so much of the audience seems suddenly to need the glaringly obvious pointed out, like maybe trying to hang charges of misogyny on the word "periodically" isn't that impressive. I've never been a regular LGM reader, granted, but I really just don't see where this complaint is coming from.
Plus, they've each announced that the election is over 15 different times
Is this all happening in the comments threads? I don't see any evidence of this on the main page.
137: It's his supporters that get on my nerves.
Your strawman version of his supporters, you mean. All those supposed mindless fascist hordes who think he's the Second Coming, right? Obama is still supposed to be the Fascist Threat and his followers a killer robot army, isn't he? Do tell us about it again, Bob. We're dying for another display of your legendary skepticism, rationality and caution.
138: And having been drawn out by a McManus trolling yet again, yes, I do see what you mean.
146 - I think it's more evident if you're a regular reader; this is like the boring and endless rehashes they've done of Nader's candidacy, only every other day for two months. (For much the same reason; they really like winning arguments with some of their trollier commenters, at least one of which has flipped seamlessly from defending Nader, the candidate of the sensible left, to attacking Obama, the candidate of sneaky undercover Republicanism.) I really like the blog, and I hope this phase wraps up soon.
TL and MyDD have both pretty much gone batshit -- I was digging through comments when people were bothering to try to refute the whirly-eyed Kool-Aid Obama cult nonsense. I've never read Taylor Marsh, and drop in on HillaryIs44 occasionally on the same principle that people go to the monkey house at the zoo. There's a lot of contemptuous dismissal for Clinton among Obama-backers, some of it probably based in underlying sexism, some of it based on bad feelings lingering from the WJC administration, and some of it based on well-earned schadenfreude for the incompetent shitheel Mark Penn, but Obama is currently winning, so his supporters don't have to be insane.
The problem is, while the differences between them aren't insignificant at all, they're not huge. Even though I picked a candidate, Obama, for what seem to me to be solid, fact based reasons that mean he's likely to be the better President, everything's close enough that I wouldn't be shocked if someone omniscient told me that actually, Clinton would turn out to accomplish more of the sorts of things I want done -- not the sort of thing I could have been convinced of between, say, Bush and pretty much anyone else on the planet.
And arguing over fine differences for high stakes will make anyone crazy.
I don't get it, Bob. It seems to me like the tone of the liberal bloggers over the last 8 years has been "Why aren't our Democrats standing up against the Republicans for liberal values? Why are our Democrats ceding all the fights they think they can't win?" And now you're surprised that they're by and large rejecting the candidate who's running as an explicit continuation of the equivocating Democratic dynasty from the '90s to today, who's widely expected to put blogosphere hero Howard Dean's head on a pike for his 50-state heresies if she gets to lead the party, in favor of the fresh face who isn't complicit in all the humiliating failures of the past couple of decades? I think it's your standards that they're failing to live up to rather than your own.
Sorry if this ground has been trodden to death. I am actually a big fan of mcmanus and am not trying to shout him down -- on the contrary, I want to see a fairer exposition of his ideas than the snippy sarcasm that is a natural reaction to constant accusations of trolling. I guess I should've been reading the last couple months of primary threads.
147: There's a lot of contemptuous dismissal for Clinton among Obama-backers, some of it probably based in underlying sexism, some of it based on bad feelings lingering from the WJC administration, and some of it based on well-earned schadenfreude for the incompetent shitheel Mark Penn
And a lot of it based on weeks of being beaten over the head incessantly with unearned charges of thoroughgoing misogyny, superficiality and irrationalism from unnecessarily desperate HRC partisans. It is, one might argue, not "insane" to dismiss this sort of treatment -- and the "he's running on his rhetoric and didja hear about Rezco?" campaign deliberately driving it -- with some degree of contempt.
(Or maybe it's good that I wasn't because they've just been snippy sarcasm and accusations of trolling.)
It was not my intention to do the snippy sarcasm in front of you, mano. For that, I am sorry. But you can take my word for it, McManus has it coming.
Oddly enough, the anti-Obama hysteria kind of reminds me of the anti-Clinton hysteria from the left in the 1990s, the stuff about the Clintons being power-hungry demons who would do anything to further their own interests. You know, like that Village Voice piece on Wayne DuMond from 2001 (the one oh-so-sympathetic to a *murderer-rapist* because Clinton was EVIL!) There are grievances that just seem to be made up out of thin air.
Pointing out that Obama's just a human politician doesn't make anyone go batshit crazy.
No, it was bob who I meant was being snippy and sarcastic.
Anyone who can manage to be thought positively of by over half of voting America is going to be someone capable of producing some pretty whirly fucking eyes. Yes, it's embarrassing that so many Clinton and Obama supporters can't name one difference in their positions, and that people are voting based on demographics and buzzwords. But it's really not like this is a nation of policy wonks. The Republican race looks a little more considered, from a distance, just because all their candidates are deadbeat idiots next to whom the average voter looks pretty reasonable and sane, especially when they're not inspired to have any kind of otherworldly experience about them.
But bob, your tears-to-the-heavens Cassandra routine is getting really on my nerves. Point taken: you hate crowds of people who like stuff and have some quibbles on political approaches with Obama. It doesn't make you a fucking martyr to be disagreed with. The streets will probably not run with our blood this time next year. No matter who gets elected, some stuff will still suck and things won't get done. We do know this.
I think a lot of the whirly-eyedness about Obama is about race, and I think that's fine. He's a good and interesting candidate in a lot of ways (sez me, not that Clinton is a horrible one), but a lot of the people shaking their banners in the sky are pretty excited to see an African-American guy as President of the country for a while. There is a lot of hopelessness in certain corners of minority America, and it really is on the level of "What can a black man actually ever achieve?" I heard this pretty much every day when I was teaching at a Tech college in Brooklyn. And those guys didn't vote in 2004; they talked about not voting as a conscious decision made out of despair. A candidate who gets underrepresented populations of people to the polls is good for America, even if there's some whirly-eyedness involved. There always is for first-time voters.
the streets will probably not run with our blood this time next year
Come on -- why do you hate cautious, rational analysis?
155: I think a lot of the whirly-eyedness about Obama is about race,
Exactly, and in both directions. A lot of the distrust of Obama's popular appeal is really distrust of his ability to bring out all those under-educated Negroes, and the associated convictions that either (charitably) a) white America will thus steer clear of him, or (less charitably) b) that the presence of these people in his base inherently makes his seriousness suspect. I (like to) think it's more of column A than column B.
And a lot of it based on weeks of being beaten over the head incessantly with unearned charges of thoroughgoing misogyny, superficiality and irrationalism from unnecessarily desperate HRC partisans.
Depends on the blogs you read, I guess. (My personal opinion is that a lot of that penny-ante "cult leader! he said periodically!" nonsense spens from Penn and her campaign staff being absolutely unprepared the one-two punch of Edwards not winning Iowa, which I think they prepared for, and then not finishing Obama out on Super Tuesday. Her campaign and her campaign's supporters have been spinning helplessly, both in the -doctoring sense and in the sense of someone learning to ice skate and stuck in the middle of the rink.)
FWIW, I'm going to vote for Obama in the Ohio primaries. I'm just kind of sick of talking about HRC vs. BHO at this point.
149:1) I don't know how often I have to repeat it, but I am not a fan of the Clintons. You are going to have to search far & wide to find any comments where I slipped in the heat of the moment and said something nice about Hillary. That Obama supporters assume that because I am not with their program I must be a Clintonista is adequate proof that Obamism is a Manichaean mindset. "With us or against us" "Good or evil" "Hoper or loser."
2)I don't consider it my job, or the job of the left blogosphere to be cheerleaders. The blogosphere, on balance, should always be to the left of any plausible Presidential candidate, and act like it.
3) I am starting to fear a huge "sunk-cost" problem coming up. Not only will there not be time during the honeymoon to move Obama to the left or push Senators to amend his program, but the blogosphere, having invested so very much in an Obama Presidency, will be absolutely incapable of admitting any degree of error or overestimation of the Obama perfection.
There will be "health care reform", it may be a really crummy corporate Christmas tree, and I expect Ezra Klein to work hard to sell it and get it passed anyway. There is no way Ezra Klein will try to block the Obama health care program.
And it is definitely worth repeating that Clinton has been basically running on the platform that she is a good campaigner, while in the meantime running a really sad and ineffective campaign. Watching her pull out all her best daggers, and every single one of them cutting her more deeply than it cuts him, is really depressing. It makes her very hard to get behind for the general, since her being a wickedly smart campaigner was the only thing that made me want to support her.
The left blogosphere is much more likely to cheerlead for their preferred candidate during the height of campaign season than in offfice.
i know it's not my business at all, just thought that BMcM contributes to Obama's wins a lot
it's like Jamukha and Temujin tactics
i hope JE'd explain that popularly :)
158: I'm just kind of sick of talking about HRC vs. BHO at this point.
I hear that.
the blogosphere, having invested so very much in an Obama Presidency, will be absolutely incapable of admitting any degree of error or overestimation of the Obama perfection.
Bullshit, bob. The blogosphere is a fickle bitch and you know it.
149: I guess that's the only really confusing thing, and the only reason I haven't been vociferously defending bob when other people pile on recently. He seems like a nice guy who usually has a good sense of humor about himself and provides a valuable perspective from way out in left field, but I just don't get where he is coming from here. I can understand not thinking much of Obama for several different reasons. What I can't understand is not thinking much of Obama because he's insufficiently left-wing or insufficiently pugilistic, and preferring Clinton to him on those same grounds.
I am really not that hard to understand in the election year.
I fucking hate Republicans. I think that all 50 million or whatever of them are evil to the core. I have spent 40 years watching Joe and Mary Republican elect fucking monsters and say "Hey, not our fault. We're nice people." I hate 'em.
I don't necessarily need my Democratic candidates to express my views, but I puke at calls for Unity.And worse, I think that son-of-a-bitch is sincere.
Except I never tire of stuff like 159.3: I am starting to fear a huge "sunk-cost" problem coming up.
Yes, do beat us about the head with a strawman version of ourselves, Bob! How could anyone actually like Obama and not have totally abandoned all their rational faculties? It's unpossible, Bob! You're great, Bob.
I am really not that hard to understand in the election year.
I am really not that hard to understand in the election year.
This is like Clinton's "Vote for me because I'm a good campaigner" schtick. It only works if people don't find you hard to understand in the election year.
Huh. My 165 was pwned by 159.1, apparently. I still don't think I'm totally off-base, though, because candidates aren't always considered in a vacuum. I don't think it's too Manichean to believe that in a zero-sum, two-person race, criticizing one side often does amount to supporting the other. However, assuming that you're a fan of the Clintons probably is unfair. Sorry.
What I can't understand is not thinking much of Obama because he's insufficiently left-wing or insufficiently pugilistic, and preferring Clinton to him on those same grounds.
There's a difference between insufficiently left-wing and insufficiently pugilistic, and while anyone arguing that HRC was unambiguously preferable to Obama on the first metric would be wrong, I've got some worries (not enough to keep me from voting for him) on the second front. Unity is great, but if it turns into compromise with people who can't be compromised with, that's a problem.
BREAKING NEWS!! MUST CREDIT THIS COMMENT!!!
Increment the number of superdelegates who've said they'll vote for Obama by... one!
I thought I remembered mcmanus saying something nice about Clinton but I can't find it. I did find this, which satisfies me fully as to b. mcm.'s viewpoint. In particular, it explains the sense I get that bob's greatest fear about Obama is that he actually will live up to his 'healing America's wounds' rhetoric.
It's really an interesting phenomenon that the genuinely pro-Hillary people use the same general line of argument, though.
168:You have two possible situations where a President has very high cross-party popularity. 70%
1) Where the Republican marginalizes itself in its rabid mode during generally good times. See Clinton, late 90s.
2) See George Bush early 2002. Patriot act, aggressive wars, oligarchic domestic politics. Fascism.
3) Because of his special advantages, no matter how far to the right Obama goes, the Democrats will not abandon him. No matter how far. There is no way in hell this young charismatic black President will be called a fascist betrayer. It can't happen.
The Republicans understand this.
I can explain:
McManus is just worried that Obama will try to unify the country by selling out key liberal principles. That's why he's so disturbed that Obama's beating one of the most principled left-wing politicians in the primaries. If Hillary can't win the nomination, the anti-war movement will never succeed.
Secondly, there's the worry that Obama will unify the country and everyone will fall in line with an overwhelming cult of personality, kind of like this guy named Hitler in the 1930s in Germany. This is a concern because authoritarian cults are very dangerous and the last thing the world needs is a unified American populace slavishly following a charismatic leader. The likely consequence is that the US starts World War VI before the end of Obama's sixth term as President (this guy is very young).
Third, there's the worry that this racist country is not ready to elect a black President, and that all the conservatives giving lip service about Obama will of course fall back in line by November. Obama will probably lose in a landslide of epic proportions, giving McCain the Presidency and ensuring a continuation of America's disastrous Middle East policies.
174: Because of his special advantages, no matter how far to the right Obama goes, the Democrats will not abandon him.
Good God, this really is just a "reverse racism" schtick. That's fucking sad, Bob. Even having harshed on you, I thought better of you than that.
I remain amazed, a year (more?) later, that people read mcmanus's comments, nevermind responding to them.
I mean George Bush was a sleazoid piece of shit, but Obama is really a good person, tight? He is just good.
So if Obama goes Patriot act times two, it must be for the good of the nation, because Obama is good.
I don't know what will happen, but I am pretty sure about what is possible.
Because of his special advantages, no matter how far to the right Obama goes, the Democrats will not abandon him.
See, this seems to capture the key difference between our perceptions of the liberal blogosphere. The single unified goal of the liberal blogosphere, without exception, is to promote Democratic politicians. Is there ever a situation where a Republican challenger is preferable to a Democrat? There is not. Will there ever a situation where a third-party challenger is preferable to a Democrat? There will not. Can the Democrats screw up anything so bad that the liberal blogs will abandon them? They can not. So, no, they will not abandon President Obama no matter what he did, just as the conservative blogs didn't abandon President Bush until he genuinely began to hurt his party, not when he began to destroy his presidency and hurt the country, because that's what it means to be a partisan. Can't ever trust 'em.
So if when Obama goes Patriot act times two, because he's just like Hitler, but with blacks...
I don't know how often I have to repeat it, but I am not a fan of the Clintons.
Rats, ship.
"So it will be a health-care reform and tax reform etc much closer to Ben Nelson than to John Edwards or Clinton. Clinton or Kennedy won't stop it, Obama will have the votes."
of course it will. The bill will be what the 60th vote wants it to be. But continue on with your 'cautious, rational, analysis'
I remain amazed, a year (more?) later, that people read mcmanus's comments, nevermind responding to them.
Because while he's an insane troll, his politics are at the very least anti-Republican, so liberal guilt prevents the usual troll-shunning reaction from engaging?
The single unified goal of the liberal blogosphere, without exception, is to promote Democratic politicians liberal policies
We apparently have a difference of opinion, or I have been confused.
171: I have that worry, too, but so far, "unity" doesn't seem to mean "compromise like Lieberman" but "bring people around to my view, and if they can't be brought around, too bad for them because my view won."
155: The other thing is, this is nothing new. The excited supporters of any candidate are never going to be there just due to the purity of their positions and the content of their character. This is not true only of Obama. Most people don't vote just on the issues. How many people think Bush is a good guy to have a beer with? McCain is a straight shooter? Clinton will bring back the 90s? So why is it so threatening when Obama has passionate supporters? Well, they're either black (and thus scary), or young (and thus under 65 and naive), or female (and thus, oh, teehee.)
It's like all the Obama candidacy did was point out to the blogosphere that sometimes people's excitement isn't about white papers. Oh noes kool-aid! No shit, guys. And every other time a candidate hasn't lived up to expectations, there hasn't been even a trickle of blood in the streets to comment about/masturbate to. There is no way Obama will live up to the expectations of some. Still, why not get disappointed by someone new?
183: Because he's usually at least an entertaining troll whose off-kilter posts often contain a kernel of truth, or something interesting. With this new Bob, some of us feel like Sammy Jankis' wife trying to adjust to his condition.
Well, they're either black (and thus scary), or young (and thus under 65 and naive), or female (and thus, oh, teehee.)
Not anymore. Check out the Wisconsin exit polls, Obama has vastly broadened his demographics.
#183. Exactly. In the same way that I daren't criticize Obama, my white liberal guilt compels me to read McManus.
186: Provides endless fodder for 'well, basically...' sorts of comments, which bear no relationship to the original, but make people feel good about being inclusive.
I understand that my opinion isn't going to help Bob any, but I say that he's never crazy, though often wrong. And being trolled is what Unfogged is for.
190. John, you're a sensible man. Can you explain to a mere foreigner what it is about this rather predictable centre-right pretty boy politician that has unhinged everybody?
I do think mcmanus has a relatively consistent point of view which is edifying to understand, and that's why I've been so disappointed at this recent spate of comments which are easy to misinterpret as cryptoracism or something. I admit that even I had that theory going for a while, but now I see his rational dislike of the man. And it makes sense -- if your goal is a true third way, then you've got to be seething over someone who uses uplifting rhetoric of a third way to become the leader of one of the preexisting two ways. He's stealing the thunder of true change, if you look at it that way.
175.2:It is hard to understand the dynamics of dictatorhip and authoritarianism, because most of the time the charismatic Leader just seem to appear. The French Third Republic is an exception. Castro may be another exception, someone who just grabbed power.
But in the examples Bonaparte, Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Hitler...and the milder forms like Alcibiades, Caesar, Lincoln, DeGaulle's Fourth Republic, and FDR...the material conditions that lead the people to demand centralization of power seems to be the necessary condition. Maybe even sufficient, I can't think of many horrible times that moved into more democratic conditions.
I expect horrible times. I do not expect, I have no reason to believe that Obama will be the partisan populist warrior that FDR was.
193: More generally, I have the sense that people are pissed that people got interested in politics and didn't do it their way.
194: It is hard to understand the dynamics of dictatorship and authoritarianism
Not hard at all, the last eight years have been a masterful preview of what they'll look like in an American context. What's hard to understand is how anyone with a functioning brain stem believes Obama is the threat in this regard. But you don't sincerely believe that, do you?
mcmanus has a relatively consistent point of view
Mmm, no. Not anymore.
192 pisses me off more than mcmanus has managed to in this thread. Condescending much?
He hasn't spelled it out in so many words in this thread, but from what I gather, mcm prefers Hillary because she heightens the contradictions and will unite the people, not in kumbaya post-racial bipartisan bliss, but in seething anti-government outrage, at which point things will seriously blow up in a way which will deliver more of the right kind of change than Obama has the power or the desire to bring through unity. And that moreover, through his gap-bridging calls to togetherness Obama might bring about change, all right, but change on the terms of the existing power structure, which is not the sort of change he thinks we need.
I don't agree, but only because I'm more of a pessimist. I think Obama represents the best we can do, and he's got the promise to be a lot better than the alternatives. But from me, this is faint praise indeed. I do find bob's vision to be more compelling in a certain special way. I'd probably rather raise my kid in bob's future America than my own, especially after the shooting stops.
Why root for change when you can root for other people bleeding?
192:It's the war, and the lack of a social-democratic tradition or socialistic base in America.
Americans haven't connected our militarism to our capitalism.
because most of the time the charismatic Leader just seem to appear
Yes, I think the prophecy also suggests this.
196. Don't know, don't much care, but the generous reading would be that he's thinking of this sort of stuff:
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
...snip...
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.
My parents are really really spooked that a black guy has a real shot at becoming President. Interestingly enough it's made their somewhat paranoid politics even more paranoid.
Bob is pissed out that Obama knocked out Edwards, and he's pissed at the liberal blogosphere for supporting Obama over Edwards. And if you strongly prioritize economic issues over social ones, it probably makes sense to be pissed.
But it doesn't make sense to worry about fascism and the anti-Christ, does it?
DS, oudemia: My LGM comments should not be construed as suggesting that every other site has become more cretinous. (I've carefully curtailed by political blog reading, so that I retain some tiny ability to still enjoy life.)
I understand the reasons why they feel compelled to pick at the same scabs over and over again: their commenters have gone freaky. But really, fuck their commenters. If I wanted to read somone arguing with morons, I have the whole fucking rest of the Internet for that. This is why primary season sucks: Everyone remembers every dumb thing everyone else ever says, every supporter of a candidate ritually explains how supporters of that other candidate are worse, everyone imagines they know what lifelong career politicians who are competing to be handed immense power just short of Roman emperors will do when they are handed that power. At this point, I'm just trying to be philosophical about it.
The liberal blogosphere didn't support Obama over Edwards. It mainly vacillated between them until Obama started winning, at which point a very large % of it jumped on the bandwagon & supported him over Clinton.
199 is pretty close. But even under the best of conditions, I view many of Obama's proposals with deep suspicion.
The basic point is that if Obama raises the SS cap, we will find it politically impossible to let the Bush tax cuts expire. For a family of say $150-200, both tax increases will amount to a $10-20k bump, while the richest 1% are hardly hurt at all. The professional class is not the one you want to try this on.
Since raising the SS cap really isn't necessary at all, this is the kind of thing that makes me worry about where Obama is coming from. If he wants Republicans to love his "new tone", renewing the Bush tax cuts will do it.
208's right. Edwards was the wonk of choice for choosy wonks; then Obama won Iowa.
Obama is the anti-Christ. That is the clearest thing in the world. How else do you explain the Republicans running Alan Keyes against him for the Senate? How do you explain that Bill Clinton, famously clever political tactician, bringing up Obama's race just before a primary with a large black population? Obama is using the powers granted him by his father, Satan. I'm not a Christian, though, so it's okay with me.
The dogs have come in to lick my face. Time to go.
But I do have to say, in response to something Senator Clinton said just a minute ago, both Senator Obama and I have said Social Security needs a solution. And we have said we won't privatize, we won't cut benefits, we won't raise the retirement age. Same thing that Hillary has said.
But she has proposed nothing about how we're going to create revenue to keep Social Security alive and talked about fiscal responsibility. Here's the problem: If you don't have -- this is not complicated. The American people understand it. If you've got more money going out than is coming in, you're going to eventually run out of money.
And you've got to have a way to pay for it, which is why -- now, let me finish this. Lord knows you let them go on forever.
(APPLAUSE)
What I'm saying is we have to be consistent in what we're saying. I have said I think Hillary doesn't want to talk about raising taxes. Let's just be honest about that.
Barack and I have both said that you've got to do something about the cap on Social Security taxes, which is now capped at $97,000. It means if somebody is making $80,000 a year, every dime of their income is taxed for Social Security. But if you are making $50 million a year, only the first $97,000 is taxed.
That's not right. And people ought to be paying their Social Security taxes. But the American people deserve to know what we're going to do.
We can disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, so they can make an informed choice, but they at least deserve to know where they stand and what we'd do.
211: Don't forget Jack Ryan, who was running against Obama until it turned out that he had a habit of browbeating his wife (who played Seven of Nine) into going to sex clubs so he could show her off.