Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2017, 08:30:14 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 709
12201  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / The Axelrods Thank Hillary on: March 27, 2008, 09:12:54 pm
[David] Axelrod's willingness to tear down Hillary Clinton in order to pump up his own client is especially appalling given the compassionate commitment Hillary selflessly displayed during the Axelrod family's time of need. Joseph Wilson explains:

He and his wife were direct beneficiaries of Hillary Clinton's personal kindness and public policy experience when, in the midst of the impeachment trial of her husband, she travelled to Chicago to support Susan Axelrod's efforts to raise money for her foundation, Citizens United for Research on Epilepsy (CURE), established by her after one of the Axelrod children was afflicted with the malady.

12202  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Double Negative: The Return of Doughface Liberalism on: March 27, 2008, 08:58:04 pm
by David Greenberg

The issue of negative campaigning and its proper bounds is now dominating the Democratic campaign. In recent weeks, the neck-and-neck race has degenerated into a miasma of trivial flaps--the source of that photo of Barack Obama in Somali garb, the "gaffes" of Samantha Power and Geraldine Ferraro, and so on--only tenuously related to the question of whether Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a better president. Each side, angling for any edge, gins up pseudo-controversies. In response, each feigns indignation, claiming the other is hitting below the belt.

These skirmishes have yielded no discernible advantage. But the bickering has, troublingly, validated a piece of conventional wisdom among a liberal commentariat that was already tilting heavily toward Obama: that Clinton is "ruthless," "vicious," even "Nixonian"--an unscrupulous appendage of her husband's "machine" (a word seldom used about the far better oiled Obama apparatus). As Obama's guru David Axelrod would have it, "They are literally trying to do anything to win this nomination." You hear it said everywhere, from blogs to high-toned op-ed pages. But this virulent meme is untrue, and--quite apart from the current contest--anyone who cares about liberalism and its future should be worried by its spread.

To begin with, the charge that Clinton is Nixonian is as scurrilous as the smears that Obama is a closet Muslim or that John McCain sired a bastard child. Her campaign, simply put, is not categorically different from any other hard-driving presidential bid, including Obama's own. It should be recalled that, back in the fall, when Obama trailed in the polls by double digits, friendly columnists positively begged him to go after the front-runner. In an October 30 debate, Obama charged that Clinton was "changing positions whenever it's politically convenient" and that "she has not been truthful" about her Social Security plans. The jibes grew so strident that Bill Richardson called a time-out in the middle of the debate, declaring, "It's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need."

The point isn't to taunt, as if in the schoolyard, that Obama "started it"; the point is that no presidential aspirant enters the arena an innocent. Both candidates have flip-flopped, ducked questions, taken potshots, made dubious campaign promises, and spun the facts in disingenuous ways. They have done so for the same reason that fish swim and birds fly: It's in the nature and job description of politicians to do so. To plead that one or the other has done these things more, or more nefariously, is to launch a litany of tit-for-tat charges that would outrun the pages of this magazine.

Besides, objectively quantifying the cheap shots is impossible at this fraught moment, when any incident is read through the distorting lens of candidate preference. In a famous experiment from the 1950s, the public opinion analysts Hadley Cantril and Albert Hastorf had fans of Princeton and Dartmouth's football teams watch a film of a rough game between the two--in which, most egregiously, Princeton's star player was injured--and tally up the penalties. Dartmouth fans were more likely to judge the game as rough but fair, with penalties committed almost equally on both sides. Princeton fans said Dartmouth was responsible for more than two-thirds of the infractions. Team loyalty shaped or dictated perceptions. It is doing so today among Democrats and pundits.

Take a test: Did you think Clinton's "3 a.m." ad doubting Obama's readiness to handle crises was fear-mongering, rather than a valid, if slightly lurid, gambit? Did you read her "as far as I know" response to a question about Obama's religion as a shameful effort to stoke rumors rather than an unfortunate verbal tic amid a firm slap-down of those rumors? If so, you probably voted for Obama.

On the other hand, did you think Obama's health care mailers that echoed the old "Harry and Louise" ads were following the Republican playbook rather than "drawing distinctions" on the issues? Did you hear sexism when Obama spoke of Hillary's "claws com[ing] out," rather than an innocent remark? If so, you no doubt prefer Clinton.

This (very) partial list of mini-controversies may not persuade either aspirant's enthusiasts that this year's contest does not exactly pit Richard Nixon against Mahatma Gandhi, whomever you would cast in either role. But it should lead us all to think twice about feeling confident in our candidate's moral superiority--and especially about slinging terms like "Nixonian." Lines exist in politics that shouldn't be crossed, but, unlike Tricky Dick, Hillary Clinton hasn't tapped her rival's phones or broken into his psychiatrist's office. She hasn't stolen his debate briefing book or convened a mob of rioters to shut down a vote count. She hasn't used the machinery of impeachment for partisan gain. It's been just words.

None of Clinton's alleged offenses even departs from historical norms. Some detractors have cried foul at her hints--and they've been only hints--that she might woo some of Obama's pledged delegates. But, until recently, when primaries and caucuses became the norm, jockeying for delegates was standard practice, and, even in recent decades, it's hardly been unheard of. Late in the 1980 primaries, President Jimmy Carter had all but sewn up the nomination, but challenger Ted Kennedy stayed in the race, hoping that, if he won some key primaries--as he did--he could peel off Carter's supporters, who might not want to back a likely loser in the fall. Kennedy continued to pursue delegates even after the party rules committee barred first-ballot switching at the convention. In 1984, Gary Hart, despite losing in the primaries, planned a challenge to the legitimacy of roughly 500 of front-runner Walter Mondale's delegates, though he ultimately relented. If no Democrat has tried flipping delegates since then, it's only because the races haven't been close enough for the option to be worth considering.

Nor should Clinton's tactics be faulted for giving ammunition to the Republicans for the fall campaign. Harping on a rival's weaknesses is part and parcel of any campaign. Al Gore denounced Michael Dukakis's prison furlough program in 1988. Bill Bradley branded Gore a serial exaggerator in 2000. Whether these attacks serve to toughen or soften up the eventual nominee can't be proved either way. But historically Republicans have needed no help in finding ways to bash Democrats. And, while it's not the job of journalists and intellectuals to look after the Democrats' interests, a single standard should prevail. If questioning Obama's readiness for prime time is to be shunned lest it abet John McCain, Democrats should likewise avoid the potentially destructive notion that Clinton is an unusually dirty campaigner.


None of this is to celebrate the current tenor of the race. Good people on both sides have been needlessly caught in the crossfire. The demand for heads to roll whenever an aide misspeaks has reached a pitch that is dangerous, not for any singular ugliness but for its pettiness. And the press, to its discredit, lets these campaign-generated pseudo-events shape its coverage. But, as noted recently by James Carville--no stranger to political combat--campaigning is training for governing, preparing candidates to "get hit, stand strong, and, if necessary, hit back." Without a certain humility and hesitation about hitting back, neither Clinton nor Obama would be a good liberal. But, without the requisite readiness to do so, neither would be a very good politician either--or, more to the point, a very good president.
12203  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: kansas? on: March 27, 2008, 08:21:36 pm
What makes Obama so strong in Kansas anyway?  Independents and disaffected Republicans in KC suburbs?

Obama seems to be awfully strong in areas that have been traditionally strong for the GOP over the long run, not just in the past several cycles. One can't help but the word "mugwump" come up in regards to Obama, as well as images of other 19th century Republican social reformers.
12204  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Beautiful Hillary helped promote hospital aid & landmine awareness in Bosnia on: March 27, 2008, 08:11:14 pm
Monday, 21 October 1996: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman to the rescue of children threatened by landmines! United States First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton launched Superman: Deadly Legacy at a White House ceremony today featuring the Man of Steel promoting landmine awareness in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"Landmines have inflicted death and enormous pain and suffering on hundreds of thousands of children over the last several decades," says UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy. "We must do everything in our power to protect them from these deadly weapons."

DC Comics published the comic book in cooperation with the US Department of Defense and UNICEF.

Closer to the ground and smaller, children suffer greater injury and are more likely to be killed by mines than adults. Such devices as the 'butterfly' mine lure children with their attractive, toy-like appearance. In 68 countries, where an estimated 110 million landmines are lodged in the ground, often long after hostilities have ended, children pick up or step on the devices every day while herding animals, working in the fields or just playing.

"I know they look like fun," says Superman as he sweeps up two boys before they can pick up a couple of mines. "But even if they haven't gone off doesn't mean they won't -- at any time!"

And they do, with appalling frequency. About 800 people are killed by landmines every month, 30-40 per cent of them children. "A landmine is a perfect soldier," the UNICEF State of the World's Children 1996 report quotes a Khmer Rouge general as saying. "Ever courageous, never sleeps, never misses."

Once laid, an anti-personnel mine can remain active for as long as 50 years. And clearing them is no easy task. It's a laborious, expensive process, with each mine costing between $300 and $1,000 a day to clear. Trained workers have to crawl their way along, probing the soil inch by inch.

Between four and six million land mines were laid in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia during the recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

The White House event also highlighted another project aimed at improving the lives of children and people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A new US Agency for International Development (USAID) hospital partnership will link the Buffalo General Hospital in Buffalo, New York, with the Tuzla Clinical Centre in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the exchange of information on effective medical strategies.

The message of Superman: Deadly Legacy, available in English as well as in the local scripts of Cyrillic and Latin, is simple, yet forceful: Children must learn how to avoid danger zones where anti-personnel mines are hidden -- and they don't need Superman to keep them safe.

"They still can be heroes, even without superpowers," the Man of Steel tells a crowd of adults and children in the last frame of the comic book, as he lifts off for adventures unknown. "The only superpower they need is the power of knowledge."


Hillary writes about helping to unveil comic book awareness program

The newest comic book to hit the streets in Sarajevo is an American classic with a modern twist. Predictably, the hero wears a red cape and has a large "S" emblazoned across his chest. He has special vision, supernatural powers and a big heart.

But this Superman doesn't just fight villains in a mythical Metropolis. He is crossing the Atlantic to warn children in Bosnia and Herzegovina about the dangers of land mines in a region still emerging from the darkness of war.

Superman's arrival in Bosnia is the result of a public and private partnership involving our Defense Department, United Nations Ambassador Madeleine Albright, UNICEF and its special representative Judy Collins, Warner Bros. and DC Comics. The comic book will be a vital educational tool in a country where millions of land mines currently lie in wait for vulnerable children and civilians.

I was honored to help unveil the comic book at the White House this week and to announce a new American hospital partnership that will help boost the recovery effort in Bosnia.

Standing in the East Room with children from Bosnia — some of them war refugees — and watching the mayors of Tuzla, Bosnia, and Buffalo, N.Y., sign the hospital agreement, I felt pride in our nation's tradition of humanitarian assistance and our commitment to democracy in the former Yugoslavia and around the world.

The hospital partnership, sponsored by our government through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the American International Health Alliance, will involve Buffalo General Hospital and the Tuzla Clinical Center. Like other hospital partnerships that I've visited in Russia, Estonia, Ukraine and Belarus, this one will benefit both hospitals and countries involved.

Not only will American physicians and nurses be exposed to new and different medical challenges, the resources, expertise and technology they bring to Bosnia will improve the availability and quality of medical care for tens of thousands of people there.
Many of those needing care are women, children and refugees suffering from physical and emotional traumas associated with years of violence and war.

Already, American medical personnel from Buffalo have traveled to Tuzla and worked side by side with their Bosnian colleagues, even in the midst of war and violence. They have procured $1.5 million in supplies for use in Tuzla. And Eli Lilly & Co. has committed $250,000 in donations for next year.

In addition to expanding pediatric services, improving pre-natal care and the treatment of chronic diseases, the hospital partnership will enable the Tuzla Clinical Center to improve its care of children maimed and injured by land mines, many of whom are taken there.

Today, one out of every eight homes in Bosnia is endangered because of a proximity to mines. In central Bosnia, one of every three acres of land is unusable because of mines. And even though the fighting is over and peace has taken hold, the detonation of land mines has become the most common cause of serious injury in the country.

The prevalence of mines prompted UNICEF to launch a mine-awareness campaign for children and civilians. Superman seemed just the sort of person to help get the message across.

The comic book, called "Superman: Deadly Legacy," tells the story of two boys in Bosnia. They are walking along a road looking for a friend when one bends down to pick up some debris from a mortar. Quickly, Superman pulls him away, and the boy narrowly misses stepping on a mine concealed underground.

As the boys continue to search for their friend, Superman teaches them how to avoid places where land mines might be hidden: bombed-out houses, abandoned buildings, old checkpoints and trench lines. Even paths and bridges are sometimes littered with land mines, Superman explains.

With Superman's help, the boys eventually find their friend but not before happening upon a wounded dog (who dies) and a playmate who has lost a leg and is wrapped in bandages. He tripped a mine while practicing soccer in an open field.

It is a chilling tale, one that reflects the chilling reality of children's lives in Bosnia. But it is also a tale of hope for the people of Bosnia who, with our help, will be able to take one more step to a stable, peaceful and democratic future.

There's more to qualifications for being President than being shot at!
12205  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Has Dailykos started purging Clinton supporters? on: March 27, 2008, 07:46:04 pm
The DailyKos is a mindless propaganda site when it comes the primaries. I don't know why anyone would want to read it.
12206  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary's list of lies on: March 27, 2008, 02:57:24 pm
John McCain:
* Lied about meeting with Lowell "Bud" Paxson and his lobbyist before sending letters to the FCC on Paxon's behalf. * Lies about there being neighborhoods in Baghdad where "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today" * Lied about 'every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues' * Lied about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan * Lied about Clinton and Obama wanting to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA * Lied about Iran backing al Qaeda

That took me about 10 minutes. See how easy this is?

And those are all correct and actual McCain lies. Just as all of the listed lies from Hillary are correct. What's the problem here?

No, of the "lies from Hillary", many of them are disputed as to what really happened and others are just speculation. It's easy to get a list of statements from someone who has been in the public spotlight for over 16 years, including all misstatements and mistakes, and label them "lies". You can do it for anyone.

We should not be choosing a President not based on whether we got find some list of 'gotchas' on them-- you can find such a list for all politicians who have a realistic shot, particularly one who has faced as much scrutiny as Senator Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a strong leader, who has adopted pragmatic positions, led in the area of health care and had accomplishments there, worked across the aisle with conservative Republicans, and surprised many people who she has worked with and many people in New York with her ability to unite Republicans and Democrats. She inspires people by her sacrifice and strength. She could have picked a better message man than Mark Penn, and she could work on being more charismatic in speeches, but she has for the most part run a pretty positive campaign. She did not attack Obama all of last year. I don't believe that she tried to play the race card against him, I believe it was played against her by the media and some of Obama's supporters. She is likeable. She has showed humor, frustration, graciousness, and strength throughout this campaign. We should look beyond the fluff and emotions of the campaign, which is a great game, but which ultimately does not address the issues and problems facing our nation-- we should look at who we think would make the best leader. Everything Hillary has done substantively suggests she would make a great leader.
12207  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: 28% of Clinton backers to go to McCain if she loses on: March 26, 2008, 08:53:37 pm
It's so easy to tell a pollster something.
12208  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Obama: Cousin of Six American Presidents on: March 26, 2008, 05:00:29 pm
The interesting part is that America does clearly have an upper class/aristocracy from which They normally draw 'our leaders'.

Legend has it that, in a presidential election, the candidate most closely related to the British royal family wins.  Apparently Dubya broke that trend.

It's still statistically significant /snark
12209  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary's list of lies on: March 26, 2008, 03:58:24 pm
The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Clinton is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. McCain won with 67 percent, with Sen. Obama right behind him at 63. Hillary scored 44 percent....Here’s her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed) • Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Everest five years after her birth.) • She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the ramp.) • She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market.

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons. • She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted. • Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error. • She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so. • She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had. • She opposed NAFTA at the time. • She was instrumental in the Irish peace process. • She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda. • She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery. • The billing records showed up on their own. • She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke. • She was always a Yankees fan. • She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons). • She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (released the day before she got there).

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com

Many of these are in dispute. For example, accounts from people inside the administration suggest she opposed NAFTA in private but supported it as an initiative of her husband's administration.

Words like "instrumental" are subjective- George Mitchell said that ""She was very much involved in encouraging the emergence of women in the political process in Northern Ireland, which was a significant factor in ultimately getting an agreement.", and John Hume wrote that "I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland."

The worst she can be accused of is presenting the side of the issue that helps her the most. But that is also the worst that any politician or person applying for a job can be accused of.

John McCain:
* Lied about meeting with Lowell "Bud" Paxson and his lobbyist before sending letters to the FCC on Paxon's behalf. * Lies about there being neighborhoods in Baghdad where "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today" * Lied about 'every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues' * Lied about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan * Lied about Clinton and Obama wanting to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA * Lied about Iran backing al Qaeda

That took me about 10 minutes. See how easy this is?
12210  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / The "marketplace of ideas" on: March 26, 2008, 04:22:04 am
No. There are numerous problems with this theory, whose well known proponents are probably J.S. Mill and Mr. Justice Holmes. It tends to assume, for one, that a free press will result in a multiplicity of viewpoints contending on relatively even ground, and that they will be judged objectively, as in a market under conditions similar to the neoclassical model's 'perfect competition'. There are an infinite number of ways to undermine this assumption without even thinking of governmental controls.

It does not take into account, for example, the notion of a "conventional wisdom" or the possibility that 10,000 different voices and 10,000 different sources could all be feeding off the same information sink, created by certain "information gatekeepers", while presenting an illusion of diversity.

But does the forum have any thoughts on this?
12211  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary tries to steal pledged delegates. AGAIN! on: March 26, 2008, 01:58:39 am
Nice to see another Clinton supporter here conan.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Obama is 'unqualified' however, given that he will have had more elective experience at the federal level than the last 5 Presidents. In his admittedly brief tenure in the Senate he cosponsored major ethics legislation and worked across the aisle with conservative Republicans. Obama had 10 years of elective experience before the campaign began.

Clinton simply has more experience. She is like the soup that is just right in the Story of the Three Bears. Barack Obama was "too hot": a lot of change, but could use more experience. John McCain was "too cold": a lot of experience, but not enough change. Hillary Clinton was "just right": more change than McCain, more experience than Obama. I generally think balance is a good thing in life, as well as politics...
12212  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate? on: March 26, 2008, 01:26:53 am
I guess that's a fair assessment. I agree that it's important that the fewest voters are disenfranchised.

I disagree entirely with this statement.  Let's consider two hypothetical scenarios for the the general election in a state. 

(1) As each voter enters the polling station, they must roll a 6 sided die.  Only the people who roll a 5 get to vote.

(2)  All registered Republicans are forbidden to vote.

Obviously both of these are horrible ways to hold an election.  But if I was only allowed to choose between these two options, I'd prefer (1) to (2) by a longshot, even though (2) causes "the fewest voters to be disenfranchised".  Why is this?  Because the disenfranchisement in (1) is uniform, while that in (2) is biased towards one candidate's supporters.

This introduces a new measure (systemic bias) to the argument. It's important to keep separate several issues that are at contention so that each can be addressed in isolation. All other things equal, disenfranchising a smaller number of people is preferable to disenfranching a larger number. In your dice example, allowing any voter who rolled anything other than 5 to vote, would be preferable to allowing any voter who rolled a 5 only, to vote.

This is exactly why the original election failed to be legitimate, and why seating the delegates without a revote is such a horrid idea.  The voters who would be disenfranchised (those who stayed home because they were told that the election wouldn't count and possibly as well because their candidate wasn't on the ballot) would be heavily tilted towards those who favored Obama.   

Clinton's favored plan (barring voters from the polls based on how they voted in the "primary" earlier) has the identical problem.  Not only does it disenfranchise a large class of voters, but the ones it does are tilted so far towards one candidate over the other that it effectively would delegitimize the results.   The scale of disenfranchisement is smaller, but the effect is the same. 

The source of this "identical problem" however, traces back to Obama's name not appearing on the ballot, due to his voluntary decision to remove his name from the ballot. The election itself cannot be said to have systemic bias if one candidate voluntarily removes their name. At the time the Obama campaign made this decision they were basically agreeing to take the risk that the Michigan delegates would be seated without their own representation, in exchange for further delegitimizing the vote in the eyes of the media. It was a smart campaign strategy, but they cannot say that they were biased against from the election setup itself.
12213  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate? on: March 26, 2008, 12:31:57 am
It's the Democrat's fault for this disaster.

Which Democrat? Huh
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards.  If they had all campaigned in Florida and Michigan, do you think that the DNC would have backed down?

If Barack Obama had campaigned in those states, so would Hillary Clinton and he would have lost the nomination. If Hillary Clinton had campaigned in those states, she'd be mocked mercilessly by for being the only candidate to do so, and for defying the DNC, while losing focus on states unaffected by controversy. If John Edwards had campaigned in those states... well John Edwards had no chance after Iowa anyway, but perhaps if he and Hillary had both campaigned something of an interesting power struggle might have occured.
12214  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: what if hillary said.... on: March 25, 2008, 10:48:27 pm
what if hillary said... I was mugged by Barack Obama, who may or may not have sold drugs in the ghetto, and may or may not be a Muslim, but will likely match the results of Jesse Jackson when he ran, and who will shuck and jive at his news conferences because he is where and what he is because he's black. But for the record, I hadn't really noticed that his skin is different; didn't he try to pass as white on SNL? Why hasn't the media gotten to the bottom of this?

That's very clever, string together a lot of comments from a huge campaign of over a year from anyone who is supporting it in any medium or format, in any context, and use this to prove that the head of that campaign is a dirty racist.

For the record, look at the transcript of Andrew Cuomo's remarks on Albany Talk 1300, a small local radio state in a non-battleground primary state which would never have come into the campaign at all if Obama's campaign had not chosen to highlight it. It is clear that he is talking about all the candidates in the primary process in general. The phrase is never in good taste, but the words were completely taken out of context:

Question: "You know I’ve said this on my show before, I think the American people are very lucky to have most these candidates, the major party candidates, I think they’re all quality people, they have disagreements, but they’re all quite talented, and I think the people of Iowa and now New Hampshire really have allowed the rest of America to see much of this because I think to their great credit it requires politicians to kind of get down, not kind of, get down in the grassroots, I think I heard John McCain say he had something like 110 community meeting before the primaries - fabulous - you know, I wish we could see that here in New York."

Andrew Cuomo: "You know I’ve spent a lot of time in other races, especially in Iowa and in New Hampshire, back with Gore and back with Clinton. Those races require you to do something no other race does, you know, and I like it, and I agree with you, it’s a good thing.
"It’s not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can’t just buy your way through that race ...It doesn’t work that way, it’s frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with ten people in a living room.
"You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, you can’t just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.
"And I think it’s good for the candidates, I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you’re communicating, and I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good, so you can, you can say they’re small states and they get a lot of attention -- they are very good for the process, I believe that."
12215  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Democrats: If you lose Florida and Ohio, do you still feel confident of vict on: March 25, 2008, 09:55:37 pm

It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy. Roll Eyes
The above map is not my prediction, just one of the (likely) permutations that would result in an Obama victory sans Ohio and Florida.

But that's basically what most of the most vocal Obama supporter's here have been pushing. You guys don't see the irony of attacking Hillary as the 50+1% strategy candidate and then advocating an Electoral College strategy which is the most narrow and specific, with the least room for error, of probably any Presidential campaign in history.

Narrow, specific, and no room for error?  Not exactly.

If Obama wins VA he needs to take only one of CO, IA, NV, or NM to win.
If he wins CO he needs to take VA or take two of IA, NV, or NM.
If he wins IA, NV, and NM then its a tie which he'd win in the House.

So there are multiple combinations with which Obama could win involving those 5 states.  Plus, most people assume IA and NM are leaning strongly towards him so that means he only needs to take one of the other three to win.

I think what it comes down to really is how you define risk.  Most people assume that its safer and easier to just go after Ohio but is it really all that safe to bank you entire campaign on one state?  Before 2000, the most recent election in which switching Ohio would change the outcome was 1916.  2000 and 2004 are anomalies in recent presidential history in that neither candidate receive more than 300 electoral votes.  That means that nearly every president was elected, not because of one crucial "swing state" but rather because he won a multitude of states by building a broad based coalition of voters.  I think that is something which plays greatly to Obama's strengths.  His whole campaign has been about building grassroots support across the country.  Couple that with Dean's 50-state strategy and you have a winning combination.

Hypocrisy doesn't help you 'build grassroots support around the country'. In fact, it doesn't endear you to much of anything. When your supporters dance on the grave of the Florida Democratic party and your candidate makes up excuses to prevent the state of Michigan a chance to vote again, you don't have any credibility to talk about a "50-state strategy". The whole concept is now completely bankrupt, completely regardless of its merits,  based on the actions of this champions. Rather than unite the party, the injection of Deaniac politics in the Democratic party has divided it against itself. The problem with our party today is that our party chairman made his career in national politics not by attacking Republicans but by attacking members of his own party. Rather than expand our reach to all 50 states, it is merely just another attempt to open up a mini "culture war" within the party between "good Democrats" and "bad Democrats", with a kind of unbending orthodoxy that will destroy it.

Buried beneath of all that analysis, which, scarily, mirrors perfectly the "Left Activist Line" that exists online, is the cold hard fact that your candidate is relying on a strategy where at most he could get 278-291 electoral votes, based on the states you mentioned. That is his max, based on this strategy. Your coalition is not any more 'broad based' than the coalition who you seek to replace. The fact that it is based on smaller states does not change that. The "Left Activist Line" takes a very subjective view of the size of states, a kind of bigotry which was born of insecurity but of late has gotten absurd.
12216  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary tries to steal pledged delegates. AGAIN! on: March 25, 2008, 09:28:29 pm
In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.

That'd be great except for the caucuses. There is no popular vote.

There are only 4 states where the popular vote for the caucuses was not reported and in those cases it can be estimated.
12217  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary tries to steal pledged delegates. AGAIN! on: March 25, 2008, 09:09:23 pm
Um, the reason why she made this remark is clear. It's not that she actually wants to try to convince pledged delegates to switch over to her. Her campaign has repeatedly denied that. Nor is there any evidence that they are actually campaigning to convince pledged delegates to switch. Therefore, the title of this thread is a complete lie.

The reason she made the comment is that the media have been spinning fuzzy logic about how the "math" makes it "impossible" for her to win and that the "race is over." The average voter sees this and he or she will think "oh the race is over might as well not vote/support Obama even though I prefer Clinton." If they hear something like 'oh no one's really pledged' that does more to keep it open. Not sure how good it is as a strategy, since it generates negative coverage like this, but apparently it's what they've decided to go for.

The media is now comparing this factual comment to physical violence, when it is a far cry from that, but which says a lot about the media.
12218  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Hillary tries to steal pledged delegates. AGAIN! on: March 25, 2008, 08:44:01 pm
In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.
12219  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Is Obama the Frankenstein of Karl Rove? on: March 25, 2008, 07:38:23 pm
I'm not endorsing this article, but...

Bamboozling the American electorate again
The strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama, stripping battleground delegates, and (if necessary) inciting a riot at the convention or declaring martial law...

Revised and Updated March 25, 2008

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democratic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy, and the Obama campaign launched its own "Be a Democrat For a Day" campaign in 2007. (A campaign video distributed in Florida, Nevada and Vermont explains the procedure.) Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. In Pennsylvania, Time reported on March 19th that Obama was running radio ads in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia calling on voters to register as Democrats.

The tactic, called crossover voting, appears to be part of a Rove-supported effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination. Republicans For Obama, for one, was not bashful in an email appeal linked to its home page before the March 4th contests. "Since Texas has an open primary," the appeal read, "Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama... Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!"

Rove has certainly done his homework. Even with the full monte of election-scamming tools available to him - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - he would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November. That's because she's popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter. Several influential Republicans admitted as much in a February 11th story for Politico.

If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably....

12220  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: what if hillary said.... on: March 25, 2008, 07:25:35 pm
Everyone has been getting too offended in the primary cycle.

The Obama supporters discovered early on that false outrage and petulance and get you a long way because it reinforces Hillary's negatives. Thus whenever anything comes out of her mouth or the mouth of anyone in any way associated with her campaign that could possibly be construed as offensive, she's the next Grand Wizard of the KKK.
12221  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Democrats: If you lose Florida and Ohio, do you still feel confident of vict on: March 25, 2008, 07:12:53 pm

It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy. Roll Eyes
The above map is not my prediction, just one of the (likely) permutations that would result in an Obama victory sans Ohio and Florida.

But that's basically what most of the most vocal Obama supporter's here have been pushing. You guys don't see the irony of attacking Hillary as the 50+1% strategy candidate and then advocating an Electoral College strategy which is the most narrow and specific, with the least room for error, of probably any Presidential campaign in history.
12222  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Fascist Scumbag Pieces of sh**t Lack Humanity on: March 25, 2008, 07:07:51 pm
Bono is steadily improving my views towards libertarians, but I really wished he'd stayed an independent.
12223  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: PA-Rasmussen: Clinton's lead down to 10 on: March 25, 2008, 07:06:07 pm
My dad has done the unthinkable and re-registered as a democrat to vote for Obama.

Hell hath officially frozen over.

But he has no chance of getting  your dad's vote in the general, I presume?
12224  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: What the hell is so inspiring about Obama anyway? on: March 25, 2008, 07:02:04 pm
I just don't understand why everyone is flocking to Obama.  He's done nothing.

You've read the thread, right? There are a few people that offer their views and opnions of why people like Obama so much. But two reasons are that he's a fresh face compared to the rest of Washington, and he seems more trustworthy than Hillary.

Not everyone is flocking to Obama. If you'll look at the polls, you'll see the country is currently split about 50 McCain, 25 Clinton, 25 Obama.

However, one could certainly get the impression that everyone is flocking to Obama. How could one get this impression, asks little red riding hood? Well, my dear, one can watch the television, read newspapers and magazines, listen to distinguished politicians, or surf the tubes.

It is clear that a certain group of people are flocking to Obama, though it certainly is not 'everyone'.
12225  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Democrats: If you lose Florida and Ohio, do you still feel confident of vict on: March 25, 2008, 05:33:39 pm

It's really not that difficult for Obama to win without Florida and one of either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Thank got we didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 50+1% strategy. Roll Eyes
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 709

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines