PDA

View Full Version : Why Won't Hillary Quit?


Bloggingheads
05-07-2008, 11:32 PM

rubbernecking
05-08-2008, 12:01 AM
she likes it.

rubbernecking
05-08-2008, 12:05 AM
that's why.

Eastwest
05-08-2008, 12:19 AM
Gosh, kind of envy the Village Vanguard date.

Glad Charlie H. is still going strong even after all these years.

Speaking of "still going strong": Yeah, Hillary! Don't give up. Folks are trying to stampede her out of the race simply because she actually still does pose a real threat to Obama's coronation as sure-loser in November.

Nice to see this matchup. Jeralyn got kind of a bad rap for her last pairing with the frothing Obama nut.

Hillary bit Obama's butt in Indiana, territory he was claiming as his own territory till only recently. Votes from Florida and Michigan have not yet been counted.

Primary reason for Obama's winning big in NC was just racial-loyalty voting (98% of blacks). Black racial loyalty voting won't be so pivotal in the General, except insofar as, due to Rev. Wright swiftboating, whites will be running in droves to drive a McCain victory.

Add to that HRC will probably end up with the popular vote.

Then another great joke: If she bows out now, she'll still beat him in both Virginia and Kentucky, thus making Obama even more of a laughing stock.

Ann is just being yet another transparent Obama bully here.

EW

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 12:47 AM
Wright story: What took so long? (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/wright-story-wh.html)"I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."

CanuckLiberal
05-08-2008, 01:03 AM
Get off the "Fighter" vs the "Moderate" meme! Obama has run a more forward looking, adaptable, and moder campaign than Hillary. Her vaste experience came undone against the new media and the new electorate in today's America. Wake up Jeralyn, HRC is hoodwinking you what her "experience".

David Thomson
05-08-2008, 01:07 AM
Will voters think Obama is angry because he’s black?

I don’t really care to speculate whether BO is an “angry candidate.” Let someone else pretend to be his psychiatrist. My only concern is his race card campaign and fellowship with those who will hurt non-Ivy League whites. This man is bad for race relations in the United States. He will unwittingly do much to advance the agenda of David Duke. Those around Obama have every intention to stick it to the typical white person. Self preservation is the first rule of the universe. White people, especially if they are male---are foolish to even consider voting for this race hustler.

One observes the shallow Michelle Obama “earning” roughly $300,000 annually. This is such nonsense---and it will only get a lot worse if her husband gets into the White House.

tarajane
05-08-2008, 01:14 AM
Yes, she should stay in! The media should be kissing her feet -- they are going to miss her so badly. The second she bows out (if it plays out that way) interest in general deflates. If she did it now it would leave us SIX BORING MONTHS of Obama and McCain. I envision televisions being turned off en mass, voter attention wandering as people look around at flowers blooming and the prospects of summer vacations et al.

deecue
05-08-2008, 01:53 AM
This was a really weird first half of the diavlog. It seemed like the two seemed to agree about things on the margin. But when it got to meat and potatoes they seemed to talk past each. The first several minutes were particularly bad. Jeralyn seemed to be partially reporting on the paranoia of voters and seemed to keep her own paranoia in check to the point of simply expessing an understandable frustration if you are a Hillary supporter. Ann's "black-eye" comment seemed to reflect too strong a sensitivity. Beyond the first half, though things started to take shape, which was nice.

Jeralyn's insistence that Hillary seems more likely to deliver the progressive policies seems like a prudent judgement, although maybe Obama's lighter style will be equally as effective in bringing about the same progressive policies. It could be that many Americans, however, really can't understand how non-combative politics can bring real "progressive" change, since that's not the template that most people have been inculcated with, and I don't know what ammunition there is to suggest otherwise.

Interesting observation by Ann about the headline about Michelle Obama. How effective could this angry black meme go when Barack seems so laid-back. After a certain point people just have to trust that he is what he seems he is. He doesn't come off as inauthentic, so I'm not sure where this hesitancy comes from. All this "we don't actually know him" stuff seems to come from people really absorbed in politics. I wonder what the reaction is of people who aren't so obsessed.

hans gruber
05-08-2008, 02:20 AM
I'm glad to see Ann back. I really enjoy her and of course she can sure produce some fireworks and entertainment on occasion (I'm thinking of the Jonah appearance)!

I would disagree that concerns about the Court will really unite the Democrats behind BHO (that's not to say it won't earn BHO some votes, I just don't think it's something rank and file Democrats particularly care about, especially working class white Democrats who BHO has experienced some difficulty with). I think the same is true for my side of the aisle as well but to a lesser extent. Of course judicial liberals and conservatives are important blocs of their respective parties but they aren't the party.

To really animate the masses about the Court, conservative or liberal or moderate, one must engage specific policy issues which judicial intrepretation touch upon. So Democrats scaremonger about a nation with back alley abortions and conservatives bitch about the inexplicability of Roe and point towards the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts which mandated gay marriage as a harbinger of things to come. It's the issues which get votes and not some high-minded concern for "the Court" or modes of judicial interpretation. To a person like myself, who cares deeply about how our Constitution is interpreted, that is a troubling fact. But a fact it is.

As a conservative, the Supreme Court and the rule of law are very important to me. But a whole lot of fellow Republicans talk the talk about originalism or judicial restraint, but I think they are more interested in specific policy disagreements with liberal Supreme Court decisions (abortion, separation of church and state issues, criminal procedure, etc). I would say this effect is quite apparent among Democrats as well, who don't even have an articulated, recognizable judicial philosophy to begin with. Thus any objection to a conservative court is obviously an objection premised on policy difference and not abstract principles of constitutional interpretation.

This may seem like semantics. But I don't think appeals about the coming conservative judicial activism if McCain wins will have the desired effect. With the exception of Roe, most people don't want to wrap their brains around what a court full of Alitos and Roberts would do. And Roe tends to hurt Democrats more than it helps them.

brucds
05-08-2008, 04:21 AM
I'll pass on these two. There are Seinfeld reruns on TV I'd regret missing.

But re: David "Duke" Thomson: "Those around Obama have every intention to stick it to the typical white person."

Listening to "Duke", I can only say that if he's "the typical white person" it can't come soon enough.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-08-2008, 08:18 AM
This one is obviously skippable on its face. When you know Althouse is going to be the sanest, most logical participant and when you know Merritt's position ahead of time, why watch? Yet somehow I can't keep myself from watching. BloggingHeads has gotten to be like American Idol.

But after all, I really could never have predicted Ms. Merritt's righteous indignation at the mayor of Gary for...what? ...keeping her in suspense?

I guess I can see why Ms. Merritt keeps getting invited back -- the same reason that American Idol starts with so many auditions from the William Hungs of the world.
I guess even rational train wrecks bring ratings.

look
05-08-2008, 08:36 AM
I'll pass on these two. There are Seinfeld reruns on TV I'd regret missing.

Oddly enough, you're missing an extremely effective defense of Obama by Ann. You'd think she was gunning for an Administration position.

deebee
05-08-2008, 09:17 AM
I think there is legitimacy to Jeralyn's assessment that Republicans may now view Obama as more beatable in a general election. One rabid Republican Hillary Hater that I know, after watching her O'Reilly performance commented on Hillary's savvy toughness and that they REALLY had to get rid of her now!

Also agree with Jeralyn that Obama's post-Wright rant explanation was not convincing. Hillary has had to practice restraint here, but the Republicans will point out the many contradictions between that and his original actions & remarks. Also 60% of Hillary voters expressed exit poll concern about the episode. That said, I fear that the Democratic party is currently experiencing a group nervous breakdown because of their Byzantine nomination process & I don't see how this gets resolved anytime soon.

Also tend to agree with Ann that McCain is unlikely to appoint extreme judges, having once commented that he saw Alito as too conservative -- he can also fudge his choice based on the "I have a liberal Congress" excuse.

deebee
05-08-2008, 09:39 AM
In a major ironic twist, Obama's campaign has not produced one iota of harmony despite his original exortations. Many will blame Hillary here, but I feel that the intensity of his followers have perpetuated a rabid, dogmatic approach to support for their candidate -- a "you're either with us or you're not one of us" attitude -- not a good way to "bring us together". One concrete example is the many reports of voter intimidation within Caucus settings where this type of thing can easily occur.

The early defection of so many party elders to Obama as well as the Press' kid glove coverage of Obama combined with atrocious bias against Hillary have also lent to divisions that will be hard to heal.

As a result, I predict a strong Democratic Congress coupled with a Republican President. So much for good intentions.....

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 09:50 AM
deebee:

... I feel that the intensity of his [Obama's] followers have perpetuated a rabid, dogmatic approach to support for their candidate ...

How does this jibe with the much larger percentage of Hillary voters who say they won't for Obama in the general? That seems more rabid and dogmatic to me.

Bloggin' Noggin
05-08-2008, 10:01 AM
deebee:



How does this jibe with the much larger percentage of Hillary voters who say they won't for Obama in the general? That seems more rabid and dogmatic to me.

Good question, Brendan! I'm afraid the answer is that if we were not rabid and dogmatic we would obviously have voted for Hillary.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 10:18 AM
Good question, Brendan! I'm afraid the answer is that if we were not rabid and dogmatic we would obviously have voted for Hillary.

I would have, but unfortunately, I was not bitter enough.

Abdicate
05-08-2008, 10:41 AM
Adored your assault on that bug-eyed creep's psychic wedges, Ann. Toward the end you let her filibuster and grandstand in a manner generally viewed as prostitutional among Bloggingheads fans. But your willingness to make plain our discomfort with her 'black eye' remark took real spine, and I loved how brutally you rubbed it in when you noted your insight would have been insta-expunged had you published it on Jeralyn's blog.

rcocean
05-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Excellent, entertaining diavlog. However, Jera's defense of Obama; "he's not an extreme liberal because she - a liberal - considers him not liberal enough" is unpersuasive.

I applaud Jera for deleting posts that charge others with racism. Charging "Racism" has become last refuge of the scoundrel, not to mention tiresome and BORING.

Abdicate
05-08-2008, 11:12 AM
Why would one applaud Jera for preventing people from legitimately calling attention to her repulsive rhetoric?

miocid
05-08-2008, 11:14 AM
I'm guessing we know who Jeralyn is supporting in these primaries. It just doesn't make any sense to think that small Gary, Indiana would tip the scale of the State of Indiana. This is the kind of division that may cause the democrats to lose the general elections, maybe Hillary should just drop out help the Party.

TwinSwords
05-08-2008, 11:35 AM
But after all, I really could never have predicted Ms. Merritt's righteous indignation at the mayor of Gary for...what? ...keeping her in suspense?
Yeah, right. Good point.

Presidential elections make people crazy. I have lost count of all the normally sane people who have gone off the deep end in defense of their preferred candidate.

Of course, the stakes are extremely high, with implications for practically every living thing on the planet. the course of history is determine every time we pick a president. And if there was any doubt about this before the Bush Dystopia, there is none afterwards.

I have a friend who until about 2003 said that the Office of the President was irrelevant and that the president has no real power to change anything. That's the kind of foolishness you don't hear much anymore.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 12:15 PM
An insiders look at leadership style (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602875.html?hpid=topnews)"It wasn't like 'Let's have a discussion.' It was 'One, two, three, four, here's what we're going to do,' " a staffer said. "When things don't go well, he doesn't yell and scream. He's very prescriptive. Everybody understands this isn't about having a discussion. He's got 99 percent of the voting shares. There's no point in taking a vote." Is this a leadership style that promotes coming together? I speak and you obey? Perhaps that helps explain why Michelle Obama is comfortable saying Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed. It all sounds more like some sort of megalomania than healing the divides to me.

brucds
05-08-2008, 12:28 PM
It's pretty clear from that last patch job that you've officially gone off the deep end. Say hello to David "Duke" Thomson on the fringe end of these threads. I'm sure there's room for you to join him hiding under his bed on January 21st.

look
05-08-2008, 12:30 PM
I would have, but unfortunately, I was not bitter enough.
You two should take your act on the road--it's hi-larious.

Brendan, rather than lift a single phrase, which only demonstrates said phrase, why not address deebee's entire post? Your punchy replies aren't nearly as clever to non-Obamaphiles.

deebee
05-08-2008, 12:34 PM
BJ Keefe: How does this jibe with the much larger percentage of Hillary voters who say they won't for Obama in the general? That seems more rabid and dogmatic to me.

One important reason is that before this race took off in earnest and before the bitterness began, a large percentage of Hillary supporters had already declared that McCain would be their second choice. I believe this is because as Jeralyn reiterated they put a premium on experience and are uncomfortable with Obama's lack thereof as well as the type of nouveau vague philosophy that he is so famous for.

Obama seems to be incredibly bored with policy discussions and Clintonistas are looking for substance. Obama shines when he is the only one on the stage but definitely fades when he has to share the spotlight.

look
05-08-2008, 12:43 PM
The early defection of so many party elders to Obama[This the curious thing..did they defect (not a good word, as it implies Hillary had some "right" to them) because they believe Hillary to be rigid and uncompromising and/or because they just can't bear a redux of the Clinton years? Or did they support Obama because they thought he'd be more malleable, or because they think he's the real deal?
as well as the Press' kid glove coverage of Obama combined with atrocious bias against Hillary have also lent to divisions that will be hard to heal.As Pisc's link above stated:First, it took much too long for major news media outlets to appreciate the importance of the Wright connection. (Not that they all do yet; the pummeling of ABC News by commentators for raising this and similar issues in the Pennsylvania debate further illustrated how out of touch some commentators are.)

The record shows that publications such as the Chicago Tribune newspaper and Rolling Stone magazine had detected the controversial nature of Obama's church about the time he entered the presidential race, in early 2007. Soon after the announcement speech, moreover, Wright himself volunteered to The New York Times that he had been disinvited to give the invocation at Obama's presidential launch because of the baggage he would bring to the podium. That set off conservative bloggers and talkers, but little or no follow-up in the regular or so-called mainstream news media.

More than a year passed before ABC News' Brian Ross had the clever idea to purchase videos of Wright's sermons to review them. The most incendiary clips quickly landed on YouTube, and the rest is history. The news media were dragged into the controversy holding their noses, but by then Obama had the goal line in sight.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/wright-story-wh.html

I had voted for Obama, and felt blind-sided and betrayed by the press when this story broke big-time. Yes, I should have researched better myself, as info was out there. That being said, I still think very highly of Obama. I just think our press is in big trouble with things like Ana-Marie Cox all gaga over McCain, the press not scrutinizing Obama more closely, and of course, their complicity in the run-up to the war.

deebee
05-08-2008, 12:48 PM
Abdicate: [Ann's] ...your willingness to make plain our discomfort with her 'black eye' remark took real spine...

I disagree. When Ann first called the black eye comment racist, I thought that she was kidding but then I saw that she was actually serious. To me, this just illustrates how totally unhinged any discussion between the two sides has become. After all, black eye is a commonly used, almost trite phrase.

Regarding the angry black man issue, I understand Ann's chagrin at it's unfairness based on Michelle's quote. Still we have seen flashes of nasty sarcasm from him and his friends say that the private Obama is a lot different from the public one. I seriously feel that we don't really know this guy and that is why these things keep coming up. Because the other two players are so familiar to us, their personal flaws don't seem to be a major concern since we know that the Clintons and McCain know how to govern.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 12:51 PM
Let's see I quote an article highlighting the dictatorial nature of Senator Obama and relate it to a quote from his wife that reenforces that characteristic and all of a sudden I am on par with David Thompson. I see the connection. So let me take another step further along that road.

If I were a member of the left and my concerns were, as I understand them from the vigorous expression of them on the board, getting us out of Iraq, solving an economic mess some, on the left, try to liken to the depression of the 30s, reversing the human caused climate crisis, and various other possibly explosive foreign policy problems, I would pick a presidential candidate whose major attributes seem to be:

1) His unquestioned ability to give inspiring speeches about change and hope
2) Like it or not his race.
a.) It is legitimately prideful to African Americans
b.) It illegitimately makes white liberals feel good about themselves for being so progressive.
3) His hip, trendy, youthful coolness.

Sounds like just the qualities we need to solve our problems.

deebee
05-08-2008, 01:17 PM
Look: did they [party elders] defect (not a good word, as it implies Hillary had some "right" to them) because they believe Hillary to be rigid and uncompromising and/or because they just can't bear a redux of the Clinton years? Or did they support Obama because they thought he'd be more malleable, or because they think he's the real deal?

I generally have no problem with people endorsing whomever they wish. However, it is rare for party leaders like Kennedy, Kerry (and strongly implied by Pelosi) to pick sides so early on because they should be able to serve as future negotiators in cases such as the one we now have. Actually I believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for Senators not to endorse other Senators, since the basis of that body hinges on comity. Think they blew that one! It seems logical that Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Richardson didn't like that the Clintons might get two bites of the apple that had eluded them. I also heard that Teddy saw Hillary's LBJ/MLK comment as a personal affront to his brother's civil rights legacy but who can really say why they all did what they did. All I know is that it did not serve the party well and that they should bear some of the responsibility.

graz
05-08-2008, 01:25 PM
I disagree. When Ann first called the black eye comment racist, I thought that she was kidding but then I saw that she was actually serious. To me, this just illustrates how totally unhinged any discussion between the two sides has become. After all, black eye is a commonly used, almost trite phrase.

I'm with you 100% on this point. Yet this speaks to the wackiness of The Althouse logic system. It doesn't neccesarily reflect the larger segment of each camp's supporters.



Regarding the angry black man issue, I understand Ann's chagrin at it's unfairness based on Michelle's quote. Still we have seen flashes of nasty sarcasm from him and his friends say that the private Obama is a lot different from the public one. I seriously feel that we don't really know this guy and that is why these things keep coming up. Because the other two players are so familiar to us, their personal flaws don't seem to be a major concern since we know that the Clintons and McCain know how to govern.

But here, I would like to offer that you might be less than forthcoming. You give short shrift to denouncing the "angry black man," but show your hand by employing this coded refrain: "I feel that we really don't know this guy."

This phrase is usually followed by: unlike the other candidates, who are clear as crystal. Their flaws don't matter?

A contiguous reading of your posts leads me to believe, that you will not give Obama the same fair assessment that you will McCain. You obviously still hold out some hope for Hillary, but are signaling your likely ballot choice come November.
Don't the issues and policies count as much as the personalities?

brucds
05-08-2008, 01:36 PM
"I quote an article highlighting the dictatorial nature of Senator Obama"

I actually read the article and concluded that only a remarkably biased wackjob would use that snip to try to cobble together such absurdly tendentious crap. The "dictatorial nature" line seals my judgement. Sorry.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 02:00 PM
Typical brcurds attack the messenger instead of refuting the argument. I can see two different directions to use in attacking the argument, but all you can see and do is attack the messenger. Your seemingly complete lack analytical skills never fails to surprise me.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 02:20 PM
look:

Brendan, rather than lift a single phrase, which only demonstrates said phrase, why not address deebee's entire post? Your punchy replies aren't nearly as clever to non-Obamaphiles.

That's a fair question, in general. For this post in particular, here's the short answer:

First, the part I quoted and asked for a response to seemed to me to be to be the gist of deebee's post; i.e., the claim that Obama supporters are more "rabid" and "dogmatic" than Clinton supporters. Much of the rest of the post seemed related to that point, where it wasn't just revisiting themes that we've been talking about for months now, so I thought I'd focus on the one aspect for which there is some new data that might pertain.

Second, my initial response to deebee wasn't intended to be "clever" or snarky or anything like that. I was asking a serious question by way of rebuttal. Sorry if it didn't come across like that, and sorry if the ensuing exchange between BN and me rubbed you the wrong way.

Here's a longer answer.

I suppose I could have also quoted this from deebee:

The early defection of so many party elders to Obama as well as the Press' kid glove coverage of Obama ...

and asked deebee to jibe this with the fact that Clinton started out the campaign with something like 100 superdelegates in the bank, long before Iowa, and continued to hold a significant lead in this category for months. Unless something has changed in the past few hours, she's still got more superdelegates. So much for early defection of party elders.

And as for the press, I could have said, let's not forget that there were only two things that the MSM talked about for months at the start of this race: Clinton's inevitablity and the excitement of the first female president.

And I suppose also I could have responded to this line of deebee's --

One concrete example is the many reports of voter intimidation within Caucus settings where this type of thing can easily occur.

-- by saying: Come on. That's a Hillary Clinton trial balloon-talking point, based on a couple of unconfirmed anecdotes at best, which even she abandoned after it didn't fly. The truth is, the Clinton campaign had no one to blame but themselves for this. They chose a strategy of going for big states and an early knockout. They had no ground game ready for the caucus states. They failed to build up local organizations, they didn't do the advance work, they blew through a lot of money early on, and they had no plan for the day after Super Tuesday in February. They were defeated in the caucus states fair and square by another team with a different strategy that did a better job of preparing for the long haul.

However, these seemed like arguments that have been rehashed for months now. Both candidates have gotten some "kid glove" treatment and have had to endure some media feeding frenzies. Both candidates have had to deal with bias, and have gotten some breaks for not being white men, as well. Someone who can't recognize or admit that both candidates had some things working for them and some things working against them is not going to be swayed by hearing any of this again.

The truth is, I read deebee's post, overall, as borderline crazy talk.

I mean, how do you argue with a claim like "Obama's campaign has not produced one iota of harmony?" By pointing out how many supporters he has, how many separate contributions he's gotten, how many votes and elections he's won? This might mean something to someone who is able to think rationally about this, but it's so self-evident that you wouldn't need to point it out to a person thinking rationally.

And how do you respond to someone who accuses Obama's supporters of "intensity" and a "with us or against us" attitude, when it's obvious that deebee is just as intense and one-sided, and just as dismissive of everyone who doesn't favor Clinton? How do you respond to someone who faults Obama for failing to "bring us together" when it has been Clinton who has spent the last two months doing nothing but attacking her opponent and playing one set of demographics against the others?

Are we to agree that Obama fails if he doesn't achieve unanimity in a political contest? In a country where a 60-40 win is called a landslide? And are all of his supporters supposed to be walking around saying, "Yeah, well, I guess he's all right, but whatever, doesn't really matter to me ...?"

So, anyway, that's why I gave deebee the short response to start.

graz
05-08-2008, 02:24 PM
I cast my ballot for both the longer and shorter you.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 02:36 PM
Pisc:

I gotta go along with brucds on this one: That article is talking about Obama's style of directing campaign strategy, not how he would act as president. It's not reasonable to equate the two the way you did.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 02:39 PM
In the meantime, Paul Begala said nothing offensive. In fact, while Brazile was talking, he helped a little old lady cross the street, taught two underprivileged children how to read, and reunited three stray newborn kittens with their mother.

hans gruber
05-08-2008, 02:41 PM
What is up with it? It's really the only way she remains a 1960's conventional liberal, obsessed with seeing racism in everything. There was the time she was just shocked to the point of tears that some libertarians don't support civil rights legislation (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117540.html). And then there was the "NIG" commercial thing (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html). And now she sees possible racism in the "black eye" comment.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 02:54 PM
deebee:

One important reason is that before this race took off ...

Thanks for replying. I didn't think you were going to, so I already said pretty much all I want to say on this in my reply to look (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76462#post76462), when she joined the thread.

Don't mean to make it sound like a brush-off, but we're not going to make each other budge on any of this.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 02:58 PM
I include the link to the article only to document where the part quoted. i would agree that the article in general is about campaign tactics and strategy. That does not negate the point of a very top down power structure, as the quote highlights, instead of an inclusive one that Senator Obama likes to so pontificate about. Of course I could just have included the quote with no reference to where it came from but then I don't believe that that would be well received either.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 03:19 PM
I include the link to the article only to document where the part quoted. i would agree that the article in general is about campaign tactics and strategy. That does not negate the point of a very top down power structure, as the quote highlights, instead of an inclusive one that Senator Obama likes to so pontificate about. Of course I could just have included the quote with no reference to where it came from but then I don't believe that that would be well received either.

Yes, I meant to acknowledge that it was to your credit to include the link.

I still think you're making a mistake to try to generalize from Obama's manner when he's dealing with one well-defined problem to how he would act as president. Anyone who's good at leading by building bridges and consensus also has to, at times, just be the executive and give his lieutenants the orders, or nothing ever gets done. It's a ridiculous oversimplification to say that because he wants to be something other than a bitterly divisive and partisan politician that he must conduct every small meeting by singing "Kumbaya."

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 03:20 PM
Heh. Thanks.

uncle ebeneezer
05-08-2008, 03:43 PM
Brendan, very well said. I commend your patience to explain your logic (time and again) to those who don't appear very interested in a real discussion (hardcore HRC supporters). One of the things I've learned from this primary is that many Dems can be just as close-minded (once they pick their candidate) as anyone in the GOP.

look
05-08-2008, 03:57 PM
look:
First, the part I quoted and asked for a response to seemed to me to be to be the gist of deebee's post; i.e., the claim that Obama supporters are more "rabid" and "dogmatic" than Clinton supporters. Much of the rest of the post seemed related to that point, where it wasn't just revisiting themes that we've been talking about for months now, so I thought I'd focus on the one aspect for which there is some new data that might pertain.The 'Obama supporters pressuring others at the caucuses' and the 'party elders defecting to Obama' are not recurrent subjects here. Also, deebee tried to answer your original reply to him/her, but you blew him/her off by linking to your reply to me.
Second, my initial response to deebee wasn't intended to be "clever" or snarky or anything like that. I was asking a serious question by way of rebuttal. Sorry if it didn't come across like that, and sorry if the ensuing exchange between BN and me rubbed you the wrong way.It did, because it's part of the ongoing high-fiving-if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us motif that runs through this message board.
I suppose I could have also quoted this from deebeeBut ya didn't.
And I suppose also I could have responded to this line of deebee'sBut ya didn't.
The truth is, I read deebee's post, overall, as borderline crazy talk.Oh, brother. I hope you see the irony in that.
I mean, how do you argue with a claim like "Obama's campaign has not produced one iota of harmony?" By pointing out how many supporters he has, how many separate contributions he's gotten, how many votes and elections he's won? This might mean something to someone who is able to think rationally about this, but it's so self-evident that you wouldn't need to point it out to a person thinking rationally.Because, starting with the deep divisions on this board, the Dem party is turning into a house divided against itself. Obama supporters blowing off sincere Clinton supporters trying to make thoughtful comments are just as culpable.
And how do you respond to someone who accuses Obama's supporters of "intensity" and a "with us or against us" attitude, when it's obvious that deebee is just as intense and one-sided, and just as dismissive of everyone who doesn't favor Clinton? How do you respond to someone who faults Obama for failing to "bring us together" when it has been Clinton who has spent the last two months doing nothing but attacking her opponent and playing one set of demographics against the others?In the spirit of good will. deebee doesn't post that much, and from what I've seen, although obviously a Hillary supporter, isn't hostiley partisan. Maybe you remember something and can link it for me.

look
05-08-2008, 04:02 PM
I commend your patience to explain your logic (time and again) to those who don't appear very interested in a real discussion (hardcore HRC supporters).

Eb, if you're so interested in a real discussion, why do you ignore my posts to you? And for the record, I'm not a hardcore HRC supporter...I voted for Obama.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Yes, I meant to acknowledge that it was to your credit to include the link.

I still think you're making a mistake to try to generalize from Obama's manner when he's dealing with one well-defined problem to how he would act as president. Anyone who's good at leading by building bridges and consensus also has to, at times, just be the executive and give his lieutenants the orders, or nothing ever gets done. It's a ridiculous oversimplification to say that because he wants to be something other than a bitterly divisive and partisan politician that he must conduct every small meeting by singing "Kumbaya." I would generally agree with this but I don't think the affair with Pastor Wright was a matter of a "small meeting" implying a trivial matter. I don't know if this is true in other circumstances, neither do you, but insights behind the well constructed veneers, that all politicians present to the public, are often found in seemingly benign comments of those surrounding them in times of stress.

The Pastor Wright debacle has followed as what I see as a set pattern, of Senator Obama's when confronting a negative issue.

First obfuscation and misdirection
Pastor Wright -- he's just a crazy old uncle ...everybody got on.

William Airs -- He's just a guy that lives in my town....

Tony Rezko --I barely knew the man

When that fails move on to the Second step redirection
Pastor Wright --it is because of his age and we need a dialog about the underlying racial tension that Americans suffer under... I could no more disown him... than my grandmother...

William Airs -- I was 8 when this occurred...

Tony Rezko -- I've been very open about what I have called a bone-headed move. On the other hand, there have been no allegations that I did anything wrong...

The third and final step is to disavow and divorce. So far only the Pastor has progressed to this step. It took a series of three events; which on the face of the available evidence points towards them being contrived, that has allowed Senator Obama to accomplish this divorce. Three high profile events with the Pastor sounding more and more loony in each subsequent outing culminating in a perceived personal attack on the Senator. These three events accomplished three things

1.) Established the original misdirection "crazy uncle" in the minds of the press and the public.

2.) Reenforced the view that some sort of grand dialog is needed on race an that he is the only one that can accomplish this.

3.) Let the Senator divorce his pastor, after saying he couldn't, because you know he attacked me personally.

Pretty much standard lawyer tactics and strategy but that is his training.


P.S. By the way Brendon this is the first of the two ways in which I anticipated my argument would be attacked and is a valid criticism of it.

brucds
05-08-2008, 04:08 PM
"attack the messenger instead of refuting the argument"

You're confusing an unhinged assertion with "argument" in any sense that would require refutation. My reaction that you're simply wacky and remarkably biased and tendentious in trying to cobble this stuff together as an "argument" for Obama's "dictatorial" proclivities is at least as rational and coherent on the face of it as your silly ravings. You flatter yourself when you damand a "refutation" of total nonsense.

look
05-08-2008, 04:09 PM
I generally have no problem with people endorsing whomever they wish. However, it is rare for party leaders like Kennedy, Kerry (and strongly implied by Pelosi) to pick sides so early on because they should be able to serve as future negotiators in cases such as the one we now have. Actually I believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for Senators not to endorse other Senators, since the basis of that body hinges on comity. I think you make a good point about party elders such as Kennedy and Kerry getting in the mix. They have so much power as it is, plus their superdelegate status. The vibe later on, if Clinton loses will be ugly. I thought it was highly irregular for Pelosi to take sides, and she eventually backed down.

graz
05-08-2008, 04:25 PM
I think you make a good point about party elders such as Kennedy and Kerry getting in the mix. They have so much power as it is, plus their superdelegate status. The vibe later on, if Clinton loses will be ugly. I thought it was highly irregular for Pelosi to take sides, and she eventually backed down.

We are talking about politics aren't we?
Forget the vibe.
Put aside the feelings.
What is your goal for election 2008?

bkjazfan
05-08-2008, 04:26 PM
I'm glad that jazz and Charlie Haden were brought into the conversation.

John

look
05-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Nothing. I just wanted to see how it felt to make up a funny name.

Abdicate
05-08-2008, 04:33 PM
Althouse was courageous, calling attention to Merritt's arch usage. Remember, Merritt was contrasting the behavior of the saintly Mayor Thomas McDermott (http://www.gohammond.com/web/index.php?mayor) of Hammond, IN with the ostensibly untoward conduct of the Mayor Rudy Clay (http://www.gary.in.us/mayor.asp) of Gary, IN. On three occasions in the first 5 minutes of the diavlog, Jeralyn Merritt invokes the pejorative use of the word black: 1) 'giving Lake County a black name'; 2) 'gave the city a black eye'; and 3) 'it put a black eye on it'. Merritt's word choice--repeated thrice--was unmistakable, and in my view, quite marked. I admire Althouse for calling attention to Merritt's odd usage.

graz
05-08-2008, 04:36 PM
I'm glad that jazz and Charlie Haden were brought into the conversation.

John

I love Charlie Haden... one of my favorite bassists.
And EW would probably concede that his politics as envinced by his work with the Liberation Orchestra would likely put him in the Obama camp.
But his art proves that he might be worthy of love nonetheless.

look
05-08-2008, 04:36 PM
Put aside the feelings.But graz, Hillary's so meeean. How can we put that aside?
What is your goal for election 2008?Universal coverage, veteran care, world peas.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 04:37 PM
I see that you are still challenged with finding the reply button, so that your negativity, can be contained to one thread but given your proclivity to bloviate and bluster it is not to be unexpected.

graz
05-08-2008, 04:44 PM
What is up with it? It's really the only way she remains a 1960's conventional liberal, obsessed with seeing racism in everything. There was the time she was just shocked to the point of tears that some libertarians don't support civil rights legislation (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117540.html). And then there was the "NIG" commercial thing (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html). And now she sees possible racism in the "black eye" comment.

I think her style is best characterized as schizoid. She argued both sides of the point that we don't know Obama, yet she would support him because she believes him to be MOR... but perhaps too phlegmatic.
I think she is perceptive and better at asking questions than in making coherent points.

uncle ebeneezer
05-08-2008, 04:47 PM
Sorry Look, sometimes I rush through or am using the wrong view and either end up responding to the wrong thread, or just realize that I don't have the time to answer fully (and then forget to go back later.) And sometimes my like-minded colleagues (usually Brendan, Twin, Graz or Bloggin') may jump in and respond far more coherently than I could have, but with the same intended message. For the record, your not one of the posters that I actively avoid engaging with.

graz
05-08-2008, 04:52 PM
"But graz, Hillary's so meeean. How can we put that aside?"


But this makes my point. All the rabid supporters of Obama who cry foul when Hilary vents some spleen, are going to be able to put that in perspective when the time comes. It's not a popularity contest.

"Universal coverage, veteran care, world peas."
O.K. Excuse me for aligning you with DeeBee, but as you were defending her, does this mean that you would seriously vote republican? It's like choosing by style points instead of Universal coverage, veteran care, etc...

look
05-08-2008, 04:55 PM
And then there was the "NIG" commercial thing (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html). And now she sees possible racism in the "black eye" comment.
I don't know hans, that NIG is pretty visible...makes you think. But I don't guess the Clinton campaign would have been that stupid.

As far as Ann, it was the second time Jeralyn had said black, possibly sub-consciously. I kind of wondered if Ann might have been doing a lawyer thing...brushing her back, drawing a line, or getting in her head, maybe.

look
05-08-2008, 04:56 PM
Thanks, Eb, I appreciate your reply. Sorry I spoke so harshly.

graz
05-08-2008, 05:07 PM
I just wanted to remark on the title started by brucds.
Coincidentally, I just returned from lunch at a Peruvian restaurant.
I had ceviche which makes me piscivorous, and I heartily recommend the Pisco sour cocktail.

look
05-08-2008, 05:09 PM
O.K. Excuse me for aligning you with DeeBee, but as you were defending her, does this mean that you would seriously vote republican? It's like choosing by style points instead of Universal coverage, veteran care, etc...Well, you missed my irony...what I meant by my 'mean Hillary' comment was that feelings are on both side of the aisle.

I wasn't aligning with or defending deebee, per se, as much as pointing out that, in my opinion, his/her post was given knee-jerk short shrift.

I never said or intimated I would vote for McCain.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 05:10 PM
I generally prefer Scotch straight up to Brandy but this Pisco Sour cocktail sounds drinkable.

graz
05-08-2008, 05:25 PM
I never said or intimated I would vote for McCain.

I guess I was hoping for you to read her mind (kind of silly, sorry). Her logic does not seem to fit.
Many of these comments reflect emotion or intuition as much as clear-headed thinking.
We are all entitled to free speech, but participating on this board can engender replies ranging from "ditto" to harsh with hilarity in between.
Your irony is not lost on me, but expecting evenhandedness and polite exchange regarding politics is sure to disappoint.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 05:40 PM
look:

The 'Obama supporters pressuring others at the caucuses' and the 'party elders defecting to Obama' are not recurrent subjects here.

Fair enough. But they have been thoroughly chewed over in many other places, both in the news and on the Web.

Also, deebee tried to answer your original reply to him/her, but you blew him/her off by linking to your reply to me.

I don't know why you're being so prickly about this, and I don't know why you're picking fights on other people's behalf. I acknowledged deebee's answer and linked to what I would have said had not your response, on his/her behalf, come first. "Blowing off" would have been not to answer at all, or to write only a line like "I already answered this elsewhere," with no link.

It did, because it's part of the ongoing high-fiving-if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us motif that runs through this message board.

Well, sorry again. I think you're being a little hypersensitive about a couple of idle comments, though. There's also no getting around the fact that we're talking about an either-or choice here, when the discussion concerns the candidates, so that motif is going to be kind of unavoidable. And please don't try to claim the Clinton supporters haven't been just as rigid in this regard.

Because, starting with the deep divisions on this board, the Dem party is turning into a house divided against itself. Obama supporters blowing off sincere Clinton supporters trying to make thoughtful comments are just as culpable.

Sorry, I don't see it this way. I hold Hillary Clinton principally responsible for instigating and aggravating the Democratic Party's divisiveness ever since she made the calculation that her only way to come from behind was to tear down Obama. Her supporters, including many of those on this board, have been all too happy to go along with this. Thoughtfulness has been in scarce supply from this camp lately -- most of what I've been reading lately are the same old pro-Clinton/anti-Obama talking points or outright bashing of Obama supporters.

And besides, Obama supporters aren't blowing off Clinton supporters. They're blowing off her supporters' increasingly implausible arguments about her chances of winning, and expressing irritation at the persistence of the attacks on Obama. If it's not yet time for them to get behind the likely winner, it's certainly time for them to stop doing the Republicans' work for them.

In the spirit of good will. deebee doesn't post that much, and from what I've seen, although obviously a Hillary supporter, isn't hostiley partisan. Maybe you remember something and can link it for me.

I'd refer you to the post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76437#post76437) that started this thread, but evidently, you didn't buy my detailed explanation of what bothered me about it. I will say that I'm a little amazed that you take such quick offense at perceived slights that go in one direction, and yet are unable to see anything similar when they're going in the other.

popcorn_karate
05-08-2008, 05:41 PM
pick a presidential candidate whose major attributes seem to be:

1) His unquestioned ability to give inspiring speeches about change and hope
2) Like it or not his race.
a.) It is legitimately prideful to African Americans
b.) It illegitimately makes white liberals feel good about themselves for being so progressive.
3) His hip, trendy, youthful coolness.

Sounds like just the qualities we need to solve our problems.

No, those attributes are not what make me support Obama.

1) experience.
A - community organizing, senate, teaching constitutional law
B - wife of a politician, senate.

I'll pick A

2) economic philosophy
A - "i don't throw my lot in with economists", command and control tendencies, micro-managed tax cuts to influence peoples behavior and create a byzantine tax structure.
B - progressive economics informed by market based policies. take a look at the stuff coming from people like Cass Sunstein. its powerful stuff that finds a mid-way between the economics of "Big Government vs. Free Market"

I'll pick B

3) style.

A - speaking to me like I am an adult. realizing that "being a fighter" is ok - avoiding the fight but dealing with the issue is even better.

b - pander to me. Fight everybody all the time and demand that everyone see things my way. if that doesn't work accuse them of sexism and cry a little.

I'll pick A


All of those choices lead me to Obama. There is no magic kool-aid being ingested here. He may end-up being just another politician. I am not a believer so much as a hoper.

With Clinton, there is no hope that she is not just another politician. plus the Clintons have a long track record of sticking a knife in the backs of progressives.

SwingStatements
05-08-2008, 05:50 PM
An equitable Florida/Michigan re-vote would be a boon to the party. If Weinstein or somebody like that wants to foot the bill, fine.

But simply seating the delegates based on the B.S. early primaries held there would be completely unreasonable.

ohcomeon
05-08-2008, 05:50 PM
Well, said. And just today I learned that Senator Clinton thinks I am not a hard working American. This must be true because I voted for Obama and am white. She has informed us all that hard working, white Americans have not been won over by Obama.

bjkeefe
05-08-2008, 05:53 PM
pisc:

Seems like you changed the subject on me. I thought we were talking about Obama's manner of conducting a campaign strategy meeting, and what that might or might not say about his leadership style as president overall. I don't see what your reply had to do with this.

Sorry if my reading comprehension failed -- I just can't get interested in anything to do with Wright, Ayers, or Rezko any longer. Either they matter to you and so you won't vote for Obama, or they don't, and you'll make your decision based on other things. But trying to use them as analogies or examples, I'm afraid, is just not something I can get anything out of anymore. I can't get past the feeling that, by this point, they're just an easy way to say "Obama is bad and I don't like him and so you shouldn't either."

I take your point about a politician presenting a different face in public compared to how he or she acts in private, if that's what you were trying to get across.

If you're trying to say something about Obama being not without flaw, I am happy to concede that, too. Obviously, I still think he's the best candidate, but I expect you already know that.

uncle ebeneezer
05-08-2008, 06:10 PM
If you can get the indredients from a Peruvian market, this drink kicks ass (and will knock you on yours):

A native liqueur of the Peruvian Amazon, produced by starting with a careful selection of barks and roots, honey, and sangre de grado [i.e., resin from the medicinal herb Croton lechleri]. Macerated in fine brandy, the result is a perfect elixir. "Traditionally used for its medicinal properties."
Enjoy it: alone, with lemon, ice and in different cocktails.

Algarrobina Cocktail

Ingredients:
4-5 cubes of ice
1 1/2 ounces of pure Pisco
3/4 ounce of Algarrobina
1/2 ounce of gomme syrup
2 ounces of evaporated milk
1 egg yolk

Preparation:
Put the ice in the blender, add the other ingredients and liquefy for 8 seconds. Strain and serve, finishing up with a garnish of ground cinnamon.

It ends up being similiar to a mud-slide or black russian but REALLY potent. I made a bunch for a Super Bowl party a few years back and barely remember the second half. Cheers-- Uncle Eb

thompsaj
05-08-2008, 06:17 PM
I predict that Hillary will be knocked out when she unexpectedly loses Kentucky over "Crown Royal-gate". I mean, seriously, she's going to win points with the hard-drinking blue collars by slamming some CANADIAN blended whiskey? Should have gone with the Wild Turkey. I'm actually incensed that the media isn't giving this big story more attention.

look
05-08-2008, 06:42 PM
look:
Fair enough. But they have been thoroughly chewed over in many other places, both in the news and on the Web.
But not here, which was your original assertion.
I don't know why you're being so prickly about this, and I don't know why you're picking fights on other people's behalf. I acknowledged deebee's answer and linked to what I would have said had not your response, on his/her behalf, come first. "Blowing off" would have been not to answer at all, or to write only a line like "I already answered this elsewhere," with no link.
I'm not picking a fight on another's behalf, I'm stating that your reply was knee-jerk and that you're not as witty as you think you are. Again, you didn't answer deebee's answer to your first post to deebee. That answer wasn't contained in your reply to me.
Well, sorry again. I think you're being a little hypersensitive about a couple of idle comments, though. There's also no getting around the fact that we're talking about an either-or choice here, when the discussion concerns the candidates, so that motif is going to be kind of unavoidable. And please don't try to claim the Clinton supporters haven't been just as rigid in this regard.Why would I?
Sorry, I don't see it this way. I hold Hillary Clinton principally responsible for instigating and aggravating the Democratic Party's divisiveness ever since she made the calculation that her only way to come from behind was to tear down Obama. Her supporters, including many of those on this board, have been all too happy to go along with this. Thoughtfulness has been in scarce supply from this camp lately -- most of what I've been reading lately are the same old pro-Clinton/anti-Obama talking points or outright bashing of Obama supporters. And it cuts both ways.

And Hillary fighting for her political life? That's politics, baby.
And besides, Obama supporters aren't blowing off Clinton supporters. They're blowing off her supporters' increasingly implausible arguments about her chances of winning, and expressing irritation at the persistence of the attacks on Obama. If it's not yet time for them to get behind the likely winner, it's certainly time for them to stop doing the Republicans' work for them.A) it ain't over till it's over. B) the persistence of attacks comes from legitimate concerns of viability and suitability C) if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be doing the very same.
I'd refer you to the post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76437#post76437) that started this thread, but evidently, you didn't buy my detailed explanation of what bothered me about it. I will say that I'm a little amazed that you take such quick offense at perceived slights that go in one direction, and yet are unable to see anything similar when they're going in the other.
deebee said:but I feel that the intensity of his followers have perpetuated a rabid, dogmatic approach to support for their candidate -- a "you're either with us or you're not one of us" attitude -- not a good way to "bring us together".I agree with this statement. And your reply was an example of it. I realize it's a free board, Brendan. I'm just sayin'.

look
05-08-2008, 06:45 PM
Your irony is not lost on me, but expecting evenhandedness and polite exchange regarding politics is sure to disappoint.Well, this is the Bloggingheads comment board, one of the most civil forums....oh, nevermind.

;-)

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 06:55 PM
I was neither trying to revisit the particular controversies mentioned nor to try and switch topics, yes it addresses a different aspect of style, but the comment is directly about his style. I like you don't wish to directly revisit the personal controversies I use them merely to illustrate a pattern I have noticed in the Senator's style of dealing with controversial matters; to me these events point to his way of dealing with them and re consistent with his training as a lawyer and his philosophy of community organizer as taught by his mentor Saul Alinsky. The Senator seem to be merely a creature of his education and mentors and not so much able to think out of the box, but follows a prescribed routine.

P.S. revised I hope make it more understandable as even I had trouble following it on reread.

look
05-08-2008, 07:17 PM
An insiders look at leadership style (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602875.html?hpid=topnews) Is this a leadership style that promotes coming together? I speak and you obey? Perhaps that helps explain why Michelle Obama is comfortable saying It all sounds more like some sort of megalomania than healing the divides to me.It also says in the article that he's a good delegator...the part about if they're going to Indiana, he doesn't care which cities. That seems like a very valuable leadership trait to me.

You just said elsewhere that you've noticed a pattern in his behavior related to his handling of controversial matters that denotes a questionable leadership style and that you think his education has left him unable to think outside the box. Will you please expand upon these observations?

deebee
05-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Graz: You obviously still hold out some hope for Hillary, but are signaling your likely ballot choice come November. Don't the issues and policies count as much as the personalities?

Actually I think that the Primary is over but believe it's important to retrospectively try to see exactly what happened. I'm saving my eventual voting decision for the future but would not rule out McCain, even though I almost never vote Republican. This is based on the fact that Kerry asked him to join his ticket and he once considered joining the Democrats. I also agree with his anti-torture stand, immigration reform, and global warming stance -- his so-called health care reform and the war present major problems though. I really don't see myself as a knee-jerk person but I choose not to follow someone on issues only -- experience, character and other elements are also important. If that is seen as irrational by some, then so be it.

Regarding your Ann comment about taking both sides -- I think she is just weighing Obama's pros and cons before she decides but is generally disposed to the pro side.

I really don't know how to reply to your comment of my "we really don't know this guy" comment as somehow "coded" -- all I meant is that he is new on the scene.

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 08:04 PM
No, those attributes are not what make me support Obama.

1) experience.
A - community organizing, senate, teaching constitutional law
B - wife of a politician, senate.

I'll pick A
Not to draw too fine a point on things but can you point me in the direction of the things that the Senator accomplished as a community organizer. The only real information I have been able to come up with is his involvement with the Altgeld Homes public housing project (successful), an effort at creating more and safer green space (parks) (semi successful) and Roseland community and DCP (no real impact). He also spent quite some time on the Wood Fund, which presents it's own particular problem, worked to reform Chicago Schools both with the local board and through the Chicago Annenburg Plan, which is evaluated here (not faltering) Lessons from Philanthropy: A Case Studies Approach (www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/ExternalProviders.pdf).


2) economic philosophy
A - "i don't throw my lot in with economists", command and control tendencies, micro-managed tax cuts to influence peoples behavior and create a byzantine tax structure.
B - progressive economics informed by market based policies. take a look at the stuff coming from people like Cass Sunstein. its powerful stuff that finds a mid-way between the economics of "Big Government vs. Free Market"

I'll pick B

Can't ever recall having read any of the lawyer Cass Sunstein economic proposals or philosophy, but would appreciate any links you might have that support you supposition, so I can't really comment on this.


3) style.

A - speaking to me like I am an adult. realizing that "being a fighter" is ok - avoiding the fight but dealing with the issue is even better.

b - pander to me. Fight everybody all the time and demand that everyone see things my way. if that doesn't work accuse them of sexism and cry a little.

I'll pick A
I take no issue with his having rhetorical skill and style; I question is that sufficient as that appears to be just about the sum ans substance of his movement.

All of those choices lead me to Obama. There is no magic kool-aid being ingested here. He may end-up being just another politician. I am not a believer so much as a hoper.

With Clinton, there is no hope that she is not just another politician. plus the Clintons have a long track record of sticking a knife in the backs of progressives. I'm glad to see that rationality is behind your choice and not just fawning exuberance, my question is how much actual knowledge, of the Senator and his achievements or lack there of, and substance lies behind the rationality of your choice.

graz
05-08-2008, 08:07 PM
Actually I think that the Primary is over but believe it's important to retrospectively try to see exactly what happened. I'm saving my eventual voting decision for the future but would not rule out McCain, even though I almost never vote Republican. This is based on the fact that Kerry asked him to join his ticket and he once considered joining the Democrats. I also agree with his anti-torture stand, immigration reform, and global warming stance -- his so-called health care reform and the war present major problems though. I really don't see myself as a knee-jerk person but I choose not to follow someone on issues only -- experience, character and other elements are also important. If that is seen as irrational by some, then so be it.

I really don't know how to reply to your comment of my "we really don't know this guy" comment as somehow "coded" -- all I meant is that he is new on the scene.

The nature of the forum allows us to get a better understanding of each other over the course of a thread or series. It doesn't have to be about winning or converting, so I am grateful for your reply. But I also sense that on this hyper-critical issue - which is worthy of solicitation- I will not succeed.
Thanks for addressing my "coded" suggestion.
I do take you at your word that "we really don't know this guy" is just about your unfamiliarity with his core. But seriously, what would it take for you to be satisfied? And are you applying the same standard equally?
I wonder if you know that the right uses that same catch-phrase to keep the Wright story, smear, association -(you choose which)- alive?
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that McCain denied ever seriously joining Kerry; He also has changed his stance on torture; Ditto for immigration reform. So maybe you ought to apply some of that critical examination McCain's way as well. Just suggesting.

graz
05-08-2008, 08:08 PM
[QUOTE=piscivorous;
Can't ever recall having read any of the lawyer Cass Sunstein economic proposals or philosophy, but would appreciate any links you might have that support you supposition, so I can't really comment on this.
[/QUOTE]

He appeared on bhtv

deebee
05-08-2008, 08:17 PM
Just wanted to offer a couple of other examples on how many Obama supporters have a "my way or the highway attitude".

Several black Congressional members who support Hillary reported that they received numerous threats (both physical and electoral) for that support. Some brave souls have stood firm against this onslaught.

When MoveOn.org endorsed Obama, they summarily decided to narrow their group. Those who supported Clinton on Daily Kos, as I understand it, were pretty much harrassed off that site. Huffington Post was fairly even-handed early on but when they decided to champion Obama, they gradually eliminated most pro-Hillary coverage and their headlines became either exclusively Anti-Hillary or McCain or Pro-Obama.

I also recall reading that Hillary supporters on various campuses were continually ridiculed and most decided just to keep quiet rather than subject themselves to constant harassment.

If I think of anything more, I'll let you know....

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 08:18 PM
may have missed that one as I have been in and out of town numerous times in the last few months and tend to ignore the WEB when I am visiting friends and relatives.

graz
05-08-2008, 08:28 PM
Just wanted to offer a couple of other examples on how many Obama supporters have a "my way or the highway attitude".

Several black Congressional members who support Hillary reported that they received numerous threats (both physical and electoral) for that support. Some brave souls have stood firm against this onslaught.

When MoveOn.org endorsed Obama, they summarily decided to narrow their group. Those who supported Clinton on Daily Kos, as I understand it, were pretty much harrassed off that site. Huffington Post was fairly even-handed early on but when they decided to champion Obama, they gradually eliminated most pro-Hillary coverage and their headlines became either exclusively Anti-Hillary or McCain or Pro-Obama.

I also recall reading that Hillary supporters on various campuses were continually ridiculed and most decided just to keep quiet rather than subject themselves to constant harassment.

If I think of anything more, I'll let you know....

And your point is?

Are you considering this an important factor in deciding your vote?
Remember a month or two ago when you promised that you wouldn't take your "marbles" home, but would continue to play?
If I recall correctly, you live in Florida. The dems need all the help they can there. Play on.

graz
05-08-2008, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=deebee; I'm saving my eventual voting decision for the future but would not rule out McCain, even though I almost never vote Republican. [/QUOTE]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2008/05/mccain-and-his-antiislam-extre.html
Just a little food for thought.

deebee
05-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Graz: Are you considering this an important factor in deciding your vote? Remember a month or two ago when you promised that you wouldn't take your "marbles" home, but would continue to play?
If I recall correctly, you live in Florida. The dems need all the help they can there. Play on.

I'm really impressed with your memory since I only comment sporadically. I agree that Florida is not looking good for Obama right now although Hillary would have had a good chance of carrying this state. By the way, Hillary was not my first choice but I was gradually won over by her smarts, stamina and occasional flashes of charm.

In my Obama-follower comments, I'm just trying to let you know why the other half of the is severely annoyed. And I actually just found other examples of why this is so in the following website and why its so hard to be a Democrat right now -- for those who are interested, see topic "My Mother's Dream" at
http://www.taylormarsh.com/

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 09:15 PM
Yea I missed this one but it was an interesting diavlog. However it had little if anything to do with economic policies or philosophy. Perhaps the bit about libertarian paternalism.

Wonderment
05-08-2008, 09:22 PM
I am an Obama supporter, but I do think there are a lot of Clinton-supporting women who are quite upset with the Obama campaign.

Of course, one thing is to not be impressed with Obama. Quite another is to vote for the anti-abortion, right-wing, war-mongering McCain.

The three Latina female voters in my immediate family support(ed) Clinton and all are skeptical of Obama. Still, none will vote for McCain. It's not even a consideration. Off the table.

But the California Latina (young and middle-aged) Clinton demographic is a lot different from the Ohio and Pennsylvania white male Clinton demographic. He's got a lot to worry about in those crucial states.

Clinton can still make a pretty good electoral college argument for November. But it's just that -- a pretty good argument that will be dismissed given Obama's clear victories in elected delegates and popular vote.

The Dems. could solve all their problems by running the Obama-Clinton ticket, but it may be too internally dysfunctional to get off the ground.

graz
05-08-2008, 09:55 PM
In my Obama-follower comments, I'm just trying to let you know why the other half of the is severely annoyed. And I actually just found other examples of why this is so in the following website and why its so hard to be a Democrat right now -- for those who are interested, see topic "My Mother's Dream" at
http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Thanks for the link. I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that your feelings don't matter. Wonderment's comment highlights this fact as well.
It wouldn't be the first time I was insensitive to feelings, when arguing the merits of political point. I'm no less perfect than any candidate might hope to be. I tried this line earlier on look: lets put feelings aside- and focus on the critical job ahead.
But, who am I kidding. This is politics after all.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 12:55 AM
look:

That's politics, baby

That pretty well sums it up.

hans gruber
05-09-2008, 03:18 AM
After 8 years of Bush, it's good to finally see some infighting among Dems. So Dems do have minds of their own! I'm so proud of you all. =) Keep it up.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:48 AM
After 8 years of Bush, it's good to finally see some infighting among Dems. So Dems do have minds of their own! I'm so proud of you all. =) Keep it up.

Cripes, Hans, where have you been? Infighting has been the hallmark of the Democratic Party (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26205.html) for at least a hundred years.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 07:48 AM
Long-time Clinton supporter Todd Beeton, who posts at MyDD, has a good essay up. He wrote it in the early morning hours after the IN and NC results had come in.

With apologies for stepping on his lines, I offer his conclusion here for those who don't want to read the whole thing (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/53225/37686):

Which is why I also believe that Clinton supporters for the most part will join in embracing Obama as the presumptive nominee once he is so designated. It's a difficult transition to make, I know, but I'm finally at peace with it because for the first time I feel tonight delivered a clear verdict that Democratic primary voters have chosen Obama as their nominee; the tie has been broken. And let's be honest here, you and I know he is a far stronger candidate for having had Hillary Clinton as his opponent. And just as hopefully our ultimate Democratic ticket is stronger for having gone through this crazy extended primary season, hopefully the blogosphere can emerge stronger as well for having weathered our own internal battle.

Now, does this mean I am going to take my Hillary Clinton sticker off my bumper? Hell no, but it does mean I've brushed off my old Barack Obama window sign that I picked up at an event last spring and returned it to my window sill, the first of many expressions of support for the man I believe will be the nominee of our party and the next president of the United States.

Nicely said.

Some of my other reactions to Todd's full piece:

I agree with him about Clinton having no real chance to win, but that not being a reason for her to drop out yet. I think she's certainly entitled to stay in the race as long as she wants to. (I hope, of course, that she'll think hard about continuing a central strategy of trying to tear down Obama.) In fact, I think it would be way better for Obama and for the party for her to stay in -- keep the excitement and interest alive in the remaining states, don't make the presumptive nominee look bad by him having him lose when running unopposed in one or two of the next three states, and start rebuilding party unity now. There are also reasons specific to Clinton for her to stay in, even if she thinks she can't win (which I don't think she does): she could keep fundraising going to pay off some of her campaign debts, she could work on rehabilitating her image among Obama supporters now that the VP job is being talked about for her, and she could regain status among her Senate colleagues for the same reason -- working for the good of the party.

Todd thinks there's a good chance that she will drop out soon, though. I don't. I think she's a fighter and I think she truly believes it's not over till it's over, and certainly not before MI and FL have been settled, and many more superdelegates have announced. I think she really believes 2209 is the new 2025, and she's going to stay at least until Obama passes that mark.

Todd thinks an Obama/Clinton ticket is "operative (not to mention best case scenario at this point)." I am not sure if I agree with that, and I'm not ready to have that debate yet. I've read two particularly good essays on this, though, which might be of interest to some of you: Andrew Sullivan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3866584.ece) makes the case for, James Poulos (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_poulos/2008/05/nuclear_option.html) makes the case against. (Sullivan's was written just before IN/NC. Poulos's appeared the day after, but probably was written before, too.)

Pay no attention to the fact that both were published in British newspapers. Purely a coincidence, I assure you.

lamoose
05-09-2008, 11:43 AM
Jeralynn really ought to step back for a second and listen to herself... What planet is she living on? The big story out of last night was some worthless mayor who is now Hill-dog Enemy Number One?

It's exasperating. Not sure how much more of this staggering imbecility I can endure.

lowellfield
05-09-2008, 01:36 PM
I'll take a pass on this one, thanks.

uncle ebeneezer
05-09-2008, 01:49 PM
BK, if I remember correctly you're a Los Angeleno right? Just wanted you to know that Brad Mehldau (jazz pianist) is coming to the El Rey theater in Santa Monica on 6/8. If you've never seen him, check out some youtube clips. Anyways, his trio is amazing live. Definitely worth checking out. Tix come out to nearly $50 (after Ticket-Slave-Master gets their fees), but they really put on a heck of a jazz show. --Uncle Eb

lowellfield
05-09-2008, 01:55 PM
She's a total hypocrite on the subject of comment censorship. I had a series of comments "expunged" from Ann's blog when I pointed out that she had just openly admitted that she didn't know anything about the NSA wiretapping case when she wrote her NYT op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/opinion/23althouse.html) criticizing Judge Taylor for her ruling against the government (titled, amazingly, "A Law Unto Herself").

Glenn Greenwald at the time wrote a post (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/ann-althouse-nyt-legal-expert-on-case.html) entitled "Ann Althouse: NY Times' Legal Expert on Case She Knows Nothing About" which pissed Ann off something fierce.

Time passed, then in a thread about two months ago, Ann offered up her reason for not writing more about the warrantless wiretapping (in her "capacity" as a law professor): Because she didn't have the time to do research on it! As a law professor, she wouldn't be able to opine on legal matters she hadn't studied carefully, she said.

When I pointed out that she had just totally validated Greenwald's criticism of her, she called me a "creep" acting in "bad faith" and she deleted all my comments in the thread and promised to delete all other comments going forward. So I stopped going there and trying to point out all the ways in which she sucks and is a deeply dishonest hack (who Bob nonetheless legitimizes by inviting her on the esteemed BH.tv), and I took her off my RSS reader, and as Charlie Rangel says I haven't had a bad day since.

UPDATE

Here (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/was-barack-obama-law-professor.html#comments) is the link to the thread in which Ann inadvertently admits that Glenn Greenwald was right and she had no business writing an NYT op-ed about the Taylor decision. My comments (those that survived the deletion) are under the name "Doyle".

Ann's money quote at 7:31pm:

"On the FISA question, opining without spending at least a week studying the problem would be nothing more than vouching for the side I want to win. I consider that worse than nothing, so I didn't do it."

By 9:30pm she was very unhappy with me:

"Doyle, you are in bad faith. You have wasted my time. If you have something to say about me, you can say it on your own blog. I am deleting all your posts here and from now on. Go away and don't come back. You are troll [sic]. You are a rude little snot."

So if she has anything to say to Ms. Merritt involving her highminded opposition to blog censorship, keep this incident in mind. You'll just have to take my word for it that none of my comments involved any kind of profanity or tone that I hadn't used many times before on her blog. I just had very good proof that she's a complete intellectual fraud.

dankingbooks
05-09-2008, 09:10 PM
Listening to Ms. Merritt convinces me that we all need to vote for John McCain. Hillary apparently promises abject surrender, socialized medicine, higher taxes, more crime, less business, rank xenophobia on trade issues, and dictatorial judges.

Not a campaign platform for success.

http://www.dankingbooks.com

graz
05-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Listening to Ms. Merritt convinces me that we all need to vote for John McCain. Hillary apparently promises abject surrender, socialized medicine, higher taxes, more crime, less business, rank xenophobia on trade issues, and dictatorial judges.

Not a campaign platform for success.

http://www.dankingbooks.com

Buy your own book.

del
05-10-2008, 12:47 PM
Hi All,

My two cents;

Jeralynn's remarks were indeed racist, and Ann was merciful to wait until her third iteration of "black name"/"black mark"/"black eye" to call her on it . . . Back when everyone was attacking Ann for being "hysterical' and making them ashamed to be women, etc., etc., I couldn't quite articulate why I didn't think that was quite right . . . I remember saying she had a "beautiful mind' in the sense that crazy John Nash has a beautiful mind, and I think implicit in that is that nothing Ann has ever said would make me as a nasty rationalist man-monkey ever think less of women . . . I'm sorry to say that I fear that listening to Jeralynn, on the other hand, is at least subconsciously making me more sexist . . . while I can /sort of/ see a testosteroned-up Andrew Sullivan making the same comment about just deleting all allegations of racism from his blog, I somehow at least think he'd be aware of how combative he's being in so doing.

Del

del
05-10-2008, 01:47 PM
hmmm . . . i think i had an admittedly controversial post deleted before so let me try sticking to the transcript;

the below remarks about the black mayor of gary by jeralyn sounded "questionable' to me (as they did to ann);

"it was giving the county a black name"

"He just got a black eye . . . he gave the city a black eye last night."

'it put a black eye on it."

by contrast, jeralyn characterizes mayor tom macdermott of hammond as follows;

"who was such a mensch,"

'who was it for me and my readers,"

"one of my readers said -- 'oh my god i want to marry this mayor' -- he was so great"

i guess i won't offer any interpretation myself, but suffice it to say i'm glad ann's commentary wasn't itself deleted.

all best,
del

bjkeefe
05-10-2008, 03:24 PM
Test message (related to (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=76740#post76740)).

pod2
05-11-2008, 12:18 AM
If I were a member of the left and my concerns were, as I understand them from the vigorous expression of them on the board, getting us out of Iraq, solving an economic mess some, on the left, try to liken to the depression of the 30s, reversing the human caused climate crisis, and various other possibly explosive foreign policy problems, I would pick a presidential candidate whose major attributes seem to be:

1) His unquestioned ability to give inspiring speeches about change and hope
2) Like it or not his race.
a.) It is legitimately prideful to African Americans
b.) It illegitimately makes white liberals feel good about themselves for being so progressive.
3) His hip, trendy, youthful coolness.

Sounds like just the qualities we need to solve our problems.

I hear you on 1-3. Giving speeches is an important function of any executive. It is particularly useful in rallying support for political agendas, whether it be convincing shareholders, boards, or electorates. Deriding it it kind of strange. Why is inspiring speechmaking widely celebrated in presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Reagan, but it's the number one sign of superficiality in Obama?

Electing a president who makes black America proud is not ipso facto a ridiculous idea, any more than electing a president that makes white AMerica proud would be. Being cool may not be a great reason to elect someone, but it hardly disqualifies a candidate.

For me, the reasons to support Obama might also include:

4. Unprecedented mobilization of the electorate, particularly young voters, who are more valuable to a progressive movement, as they have many more election cycles ahead of them.

5. Impressive ability to build decentralized, highly effective popular mechanisms that have out-hustled, out-mobilized, and out-voted a candidate with all of the assets that the Clinton machine brings to the race. Mobilizing the number of volunteers, donors, and new voters is unprecedented, and is even more impressive because of the lack of presence Obama had in mainstream Democratic party circles at the beginning of the race. The ability to inspire, and to follow through with mobilization and organization is exactly what may just lead to significant change. Clinton brings none of this.

6. Intelligence and resistance to using cheap political ruses. This one is not that impressive in and of itself, but it bears mentioning, given the current administration.

These are the reasons that progressive may see something more to support in Obama than a Clinton candidacy that we all know will not be able to mobilize a significant progressive coalition.

bjkeefe
05-11-2008, 12:47 AM
I vote pod2 to be on the Obama White House Communications staff.

Nice.

look
05-11-2008, 01:09 AM
5. Impressive ability to build decentralized, highly effective popular mechanisms that have out-hustled, out-mobilized, and out-voted a candidate with all of the assets that the Clinton machine brings to the race. Mobilizing the number of volunteers, donors, and new voters is unprecedented, and is even more impressive because of the lack of presence Obama had in mainstream Democratic party circles at the beginning of the race. The ability to inspire, and to follow through with mobilization and organization is exactly what may just lead to significant change. Clinton brings none of this.
This is fascinating food for thought. Also, kidneystones posted this in another thread:
How sophisticated is Barack Obama's voter database and contact mining? Testimony from reader TDE:

"I donated a small amount and supplied my work contact information below before the California primary. A few days later, I get a message on my home answering machine – not the numbers below and _not_ a listed number – thanking me for my support and inviting me to an event “at a neighbor’s house” two blocks from my house (miles away from the information I supplied below). I was not contacted at my work address. So they took my name from the donation and then located my unlisted home phone number and unprovided home address and put it in their database so they could contact me for a neighborhood meet up. "

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obamas_massive_voter_registrat.php

Within the link is an example of a call from an Obama phone bank. This is the level of organization I've read that the NRA has. Will it stay in place so that there will be a jumping-off point to enact legislation resulting from grassroots groundswells?

The quote above is definitely creepy, and for all I know hearsay. But if true, disturbing.

Finally, IIRC, Pinkerton said in his last DV that one big reason for the superdelegates to choose Obama would be access to his supporter list by other politicians in the Party.

Wonderment
05-11-2008, 01:58 AM
The Obama website is very impressive. I strongly recommend that anyone who hasn't checked it out do so.

I went and signed up yesterday. I'm planning on volunteering for Obama, doing phone calls in Spanish and outreach to Jewish voters. I'll probably get started after Labor Day.

I have some serious reservations about Obama, but I will do anything to prevent John McCain from becoming president.

piscivorous
05-11-2008, 03:03 AM
Been to his WEB site a time or two and have read most of his positions at least a time or two. Two me the seem well written and thoughtful exercises in generality and lawyerly word with plenty of elbow room to move in which ever direction the wind is blowing when he sticks his finger into the wind and gauges which way it is blowing.

YouppiMontreal
05-12-2008, 04:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKuwel6CVg

Brilliant!!!