Hard News: Another Big Day
157 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
The Lessig endorsement, I confess, did make me sit up and take notice.
Having just watched it - and being impressed with the methodology of his comparison - it made me think how useful it could be to see a similar effort made to compare Key and Clark in the lead-up to the election.
Also...I guess the most depressing thing I am reflecting on from watching that - and from following the US race unfold - is that we have no-one in our own political leadership ranks who has the ability to inspire us to forge fundamental changes in our domestic and foreign policy that would priortise peace and justice over growth and profit. We just play follow the leader and try not to rock the boat...
Having said that, I always feel better after listening to Jeanette Fitzsimons...thanks Aunty J.
-
However, like a couple of posters here, he does leave me a bit cold – the charisma thing slightly misses me.
Well, I always found the charms of JFK, Princess Di and Winston Peters rather opaque. So I don't think its 'charisma' I respond to in Obama. "Behaves like a gown-up" and "talks in complete, complex sentences that haven't been focus-grouped into pap" -- two qualities I don't regard as irrefutable evidence of vacuity or insincerity.
-
From Brad Kelley -
Paul Krugman wrote a series of editorials a few months back about how Obama was adopting criticisms of the health care plans right out of the Republican play book, as if there was some merit to these criticisms, and as if they needed to be met (“The Mandate Muddle,” Dec. 7, 2007, and “Mandates and Mudslinging,” Nov. 30, 2007). These articles are distressing as well. I won’t belabor the issues here, but you should read these for yourselves before deciding to be moved by Obama’s populist rhetoric.
What Obama has also done is directly copy the 1990s TV ads made by the insurance industry used to attack Hillary's health reforms. He used Republican arguments to drum up fear that her system would be too complex and costly. He's really on the back foot on this issue and has respoded with dirty tricks.
Politics as normal. And Clinton is not innocent of this sort of thing.
But health reform is one of the major goals of any future Democart admistration. If Obama is trying to scare Dems away from what is considerede by most people the best set of reforms - Clinton's - by using Republican and insurance industry mis-information then it's not really consitant with his Geat Uniter, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth image.
-
And then?
A really big party.
For instance, how was it decided that Obama was to speak for Kerrry’s campaign?
If you mean at the 2004 convention - everyone at the convention would have been speaking for the campaign - or for the party, which had pretty much become the same thing by then. When the nomination is decided before the convention, that's all it is - a big televised launch when everyone important wipes out what they said months ago at the primaries and lauds the (distinctly average) candidate :)
-
With Michigan and Florida, fingers crossed it doesn't come down to a battle between lawyers. I gather there are about 3 committees that would have to look at what to do about rule changes.
But if Obama had one these don't you think he'd be rather keen to have those delegates counted?
And for Hillary - of the 1.7 million democrat voters in Florida a large majority voted for her. She does well with the Latino vote as we’ve seen in California. If the results of the nomination were to rest on whether or not those votes should counted it would be hard to argue that they shouldn't.
-
But if Obama had one these don't you think he'd be rather keen to have those delegates counted?
We don't know, but in all probability yes. We do know that all the candidates agreed before the vote that the delegates should not be seated.
I've read speculation that Howard Dean is having some fairly intense talks with as many super delegates as he can find in order to get them to back the candidate with the most ordinary delegates. (He says he's got a plan to avoid blood on the floor in Denver). Hopefully they see sense.
-
If the results of the nomination were to rest on whether or not those votes should counted it would be hard to argue that they shouldn't.
I'd have thought it very easy. There was a rule that said anyone who campaigns in Florida gets no delegates at all at the convention. Obama, who wants some delegates, followed this ruling, didn't campaign, and wasn't able to let Floridians know about his great plans for the future etc. They knew very little about him, and thus few voted for him.
Rather unfair on him now to say, "yes, I know we told you you couldn't campaign in Florida, but we're counting their delegates anyway." Obama: "you can't get rid of only half your ruling - give me a time machine so I can go back and campaign and you've got a deal"
Everyone knew the rules - no candidate seriously objected to them before the vote - too damn late now, Hillary.
-
Mitt Romney pulled out today citing "for the good of the party". I doubt the GOP was being torn asunder but it was a smart move on his part (it's easy to be smart when you know you won't win). Meanwhile it's still neck and neck with the Democrats, with Hillary still out front. And Obama gaining.
What I'm really picking up on now is a whispering campaign (building to a crescendo) for the Democrats to seal the dream ticket ie Hillary Obama 2008. It's being said by everyone, esp pundits who have been espousing Hillary previously. I get a sense that it's being driven by Hillary supporters who have realised they can't beat Obama outright and know that if they 'go all out' to destroy his chances then they risk kneecapping the democratic party for the real battle in November.
The problem for the Dems is that Obama doesn't want to be VP and knows that if he takes that job he will be sidelined completely. Obama stands for a different kind of democrat ie the opposite of Hillary, so it would be bizzare for him to accept VP. (Which probably means they'll do a deal before the next big primary in March)
-
Numbers seem to close for a unity campaign - aside from party unity where is the incentive to be the compromising party?
Re someone's (Craig?) comment about bringing back the party of Regean or Goldwater, screw that, lets bring back Rockefeller Republicans.
-
I wonder what the modern GOP would say about the actual Reagan if he was running today?
You couldn't vote for him cause the terrorists would win. He was a defeatist Cutter and Runner who made America look like a weak horse in Lebanon.
He raised taxes, not knowin' that deficits don't matter on account of the Laughter Curve. That makes him a communist at heart.
Speaking of which, he talked to Communists. Actual real live Communist dictators with actual nuclear warheads pointed at the US. And he actually talked to them. At summits. And made arms Limitation deals. That is treason plain and simple. And Appeasement.
internationalO, you left out the part of Romney's speech where he said <i>why</i> it was for the good of the party. Romney reckons the GOP needs to begin it's national campaign to defeat the Dem's, because otherwise the terrorists will win.
Classy guy.
-
Surely he is just posturing for VP/cabinet positions now. Who really knows what he actually believes?
-
Sure. But saying that the dem candidates would surrender to the terrorists is a bit much.
I know it's just rhetoric, yada yada, and everyone is used to the fact the Repub's regularly accuse Democrats, academics, journalists and so forth of treason, even they they don't really mean it, much.
But treason is an actual crime that carries the death penalty.
-
There was a rule that said anyone who campaigns in Florida gets no delegates at all at the convention. Obama, who wants some delegates, followed this ruling, didn't campaign,
err, he did camaign, he ran TV adds (they were national which included Florida). Hillary didn't, although she did show at a non-public fundraiser. So Obama not quite the Saint, he didn't follow the rules - or at least he didn't follow the spirit of the rules.
Hillary got the vote even though no one campained. And she's always going to do well there because of the demographics. Internal Democat feuding means the Florida vote doesn't count a present but there is no reason that the party can't reconsider that.
If Florida had gone for Obama he would be arguing that those delegates be included.
I'm continually surprised at strenght of the Saint Obama vs Evil Hillary meme.
-
But its not internal democrat feuding, its the rules that they all agreed upon that were clearly based upon their party constitution. That is the thing I like about US political parties, at least they make some pretense as to having respect for constitutions and keeping decisions in the public eye.
-
But its not internal democrat feuding, its the rules that they all agreed upon that were clearly based upon their party constitution.
I was thinking more of the spat between the DNC and the Florida Dem Party which left the delegates not counted. It's one of those chance events that can change things dramatically. The outcome of the contest might come down to such vagaries of the process.
But expect both candidates to work the rules to their advantage. I heard no complaints from the Obama camp that with 65,000 fewer votes than HRC on Super Tuesday Obama got a handful more delegates.
It's a bit hard to get any real indication of what an Obama administration would look like compared to a Hillary one but looking at their advisors is one possible way - The War Over the Wonks. Check out how many of Obama's crew used to work for Bill Clinton. Makes the whole campaign look like a family squabble.
-
WH,
And then
The very real threat of the Democratic nominee losing to McCain is IMO more important that the differences between Obama and Clinton.
As a couple of others have alluded to, the US legislative system incorporates a number of checks and balances. Legislation has to passed by both the Congress and the Senate, and in reality it is negotiated between a number of powerbrokers, and subject to the influences of interest groups. A Republican President would wield signifiance influence on the national agenda and retain the ability to veto and discredit Democratic legislative initiatives.
The task of the next President is going to be difficult. The US economy is facing recession, real wages are falling, the federal government is spending more money than it collects in taxes and has spending commitments up the wazoo, it is facing a number of very significant foreign policy difficulties, and the President will have to negotiate an intractable and bitter ideological divide that is aggressively fanned by well financed partisans on both sides. No meaningful change will go unopposed, and it is likely that a Democratic President will be subjected to a sustained and well coordinated hate campaign of the type deployed against Clinton.
So yeah, Obama speaks really well and with Clinton you get the devil you know. Neither is the devil and neither is the messiah. As GWB showed, the President is merely a figurehead, a symbol, around which the Executive branch is organised.
-
WH,
As GWB showed, the President is merely a figurehead, a symbol, around which the Executive branch is organised.
If you´ll excuse my exaggeration.
-
So Obama not quite the Saint, he didn't follow the rules - or at least he didn't follow the spirit of the rules.
Um... I don't recall anyone signing up to a pledge to stop campaigning. (Otherwise, I guess both Obama and Clinton "didn't follow the spirit" of the decision by campaigning in any way that was reported in a newspaper or made the network news.)
Hillary got the vote even though no one campained. And she's always going to do well there because of the demographics.
Really? Even Obama himself has said that 'Hilary Clinton' started off with enormous name recognition -- and while I think that's equally open to over-statement (after all, I wouldn't think that's entirely a positive), it's not pure spin either.
I heard no complaints from the Obama camp that with 65,000 fewer votes than HRC on Super Tuesday Obama got a handful more delegates.
And I don't hear anyone in the Clinton campaign muttering that the delegate allocation formulas 'disenfranchise' voters, or should be over-turned. So, let's call that one a draw.
Internal Democat feuding means the Florida vote doesn't count a present but there is no reason that the party can't reconsider that.
And who said that wasn't the case? But unless the Democrats are planning to throw the media out of the convention, by my understanding of the recondite convention rules the Michigan and Florida delegations are only going to be 'seated' with a very public, and heated, floor vote. I'm sorry, Neil, but stating the bleeding obvious -- that it has the potential to turn into a shitstorm that splatters everyone -- isn't buying into the "Saint Obama vs Evil Hillary meme".
If Florida had gone for Obama he would be arguing that those delegates be included.
Perhaps, then again someone might have pointed out that such a move stunk of hypocrisy and if he had any problem with the DNC's call he should have made the argument when it was strategically and politically inconvenient to do so. You know, unlike Clinton's issues with caucuses 'disenfranchising' voters in the days leading up to the Nevada vote evaporating when she won.
-
A Republican President would wield signifiance influence on the national agenda and retain the ability to veto and discredit Democratic legislative initiatives.
So, instead you want a single party with a lock on the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Remind me how well those checks and balances worked the last time that scenario played out.
Because I've got a sneaking suspicion most Democrats would say "not at all".
and it is likely that a Democratic President will be subjected to a sustained and well coordinated hate campaign of the type deployed against Clinton.
While a McCain Administration would be showered with rose petals on a daily basis by a Democrat-controlled Congress? The usual suspects among the left-wingnutterati and on talk radio would suddenly decide he's not such a bad chap after all?
Hum... "Wouldn't it be nice..."
-
I doubt the Democrats would be interested in stuffing up a McCain presidency from day one. They probably remember how well that played out for the Republican congress under Clinton in the 1990s - the GOP in Congress were so uncooperative that Clinton successfully painted them as arseholes and rocked up to another term. And he didn't even have the option of making accusations about "betraying the troops", as McCain certainly would ...
My bet for Dems under a McCain presidency would be pretty much what we're getting now: occasional vocal protests against a background of supine bipartisanship.
-
While a McCain Administration would be showered with rose petals on a daily basis by a Democrat-controlled Congress? The usual suspects among the left-wingnutterati and on talk radio would suddenly decide he's not such a bad chap after all?
Craig, you're assuming an equivalence in 'on-messageness' and power which simply doesn't exist in the USA. There are not equal numbers of left-wingnutterati listening to Air America, or equal numbers of lefty peeps calling talk radio. The right has had a fairly comprehensive lock on framing the issues for years and years now, and the Democrats have been a bunch of triangulating wimps scrabbling for a rhetorical toehold. It's not the same thing.
-
Craig, you're assuming an equivalence in 'on-messageness' and power which simply doesn't exist in the USA.
I'm assuming that the left-wing of a turkey is much of a muchness as the right one. And I also think it's just a wee bit naive to assume that if McCain secures the nomination, let alone wins the election, he's getting any kind of free ride.
-
So a group of veterans have started swiftboating McCain's Vietnam experience. That sure didn't take long
-
I don't recall anyone signing up to a pledge to stop campaigning.
In fact they did and they mostly kept to that pledge. But then they are both lawyers - whose envelope pushing abilities put a lot of posties to shame.
I've got no idea how this issue will play out - Obama may trounce Her Royal Clintoness in the up-coming primaries. But I think the Dems will have to consider the will of a large number of voters in a state that has played a pivotal role in the past (remember 2000).
Obama wins Washington state but Clinton wins California - so in fact Obama is Microsoft and HRC is Apple.
-
And I also think it's just a wee bit naive to assume that if McCain secures the nomination, let alone wins the election, he's getting any kind of free ride.
He's more likely to catch shit from his own party!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.