Obama '08?

No prob.

One thing that I think is in what I wrote already but I want to highlight is that this is more about viability (how this discussion started) than third-party candidacies. Jesse Ventura was both a third-party candidate and viable. A vote for him was not a wasted vote. If there are more viable third-party candidates, I wouldn't mind at all.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I would also enjoy a 3rd being someone like Ron Paul.

I'm still mystified how someone can simultaneously be a big fan of Kucinich, the isolationist who's made opposition to NAFTA and the like a central plank of his political platform, and Ron Paul - the agressive libertarian. I think that, apart from Iraq, there isnt a single issue between them they could agree on!

(Me, I dont like either ;-)

0 Replies

Thanks JPB, that's quite a bit that was missing.

I'm disappointed Obama is taking this position, especially after reading this quote of his regarding affirmative action:

"Barack Obama - "This administration sought to slam the doors of higher education in the face of African Americans and other minorities. It's a sad day for the cause of equal opportunity when the President of the United States, the land of opportunity, calls for the Supreme Court to rule against policies that seek to open institutions for historically excluded racial minorities,"

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
And I think it's irresponsible to support (in the sense of vote for or leach resources from other viable candidates) a non-viable candidate, unless there is nothing in particular at stake.

Are you sure you think that as a matter of principle? For example, suppose Phoenix showed up in a political thread. Suppose she announced that she didn't like any Republican candidate so she'd vote for a Libertarian guy instead. Would you post a response saying "But Phoenix, that's so irresponsible -- the Libertarian candidate just isn't viable! By all means, do hold your nose and vote for the Republican candidate, Rudjon McGiuliani instead!" I would bet against you posting such a response.

But one can have principles yet still not always act according to them... its only human ;-)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I would also enjoy a 3rd being someone like Ron Paul.

I'm still mystified how someone can simultaneously be a big fan of Kucinich, the isolationist who's made opposition to NAFTA and the like a central plank of his political platform, and Ron Paul - the agressive libertarian. I think that, apart from Iraq, there isnt a single issue between them they could agree on!

(Me, I dont like either ;-)

Yeah, I'm for sure an enigma, I really like integrity no matter what side of the fence. I also like the exchange of ideas.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Yeah, I'm for sure an enigma, I really like integrity no matter what side of the fence. I also like the exchange of ideas.

Right...

I was wondering rather about how youve said before (I think) that you could support a guy like Ron Paul - and that goes a bit beyond just wanting him to be part of an "exchange of ideas".

0 Replies

Sozobe wrote:

Will you be getting the unorthodox positions of all the other viable candidates, too?

Some of the things that I think make Obama un-mayonnaise-y (which was my original claim, not orthodoxy or lack thereof):

<snip>

Just adding to this that Obama also sure didnt shy away from criticising his hosts in Kenya, and from taking an explicitly critical stand on the aid vs reform question towards the very Kenyans who were hailing him as a lost son. (See here.)

He could have easily avoided such open questioning for the sake of his Kenyan hosts, and still not have paid much in terms of the coverage he received in US media.

0 Replies

Remember this conversation?

snood wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If Obama is able to bring that sort of thing to a halt and actually effect open, honest, and civil debate on the issues, however, I'll vote for him for President or King or head angel. I'm not going to hold my breath, however, nor should anybody be surprised if he is persuaded to resort to some negative campaigning himself.

"Bring that sort of thing to a halt"? A halt? Pretty tall order there- and unrealistic to put at the feet of any one person. If Obama can sucessfully wage a whole campaign without himself being sucked into the smearing of opponents would be a big enough accomplishment.

and

snood wrote:

nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The most compelling message in that movie, however, was what happened between Macy's and Bloomingdales. But one of them had to start it.

And since we all know that the Republicans wont be the first to clean up their act...

Amazing, isn't it? Who, among the Republican hopefuls, would Foxfyre deem capable of carrying off this thing she so freely suggests Obama might take on?

Well, on the latter question, you can count John McCain out, for one:

Quote:

MCCAIN RELOADED:

Earlier this year, John McCain started prepping for his presidential run by hiring Terry Nelson as his national campaign manager. Nelson, recall, was deputy chief of staff for the Republican National Committee back in 2002-03, when the RNC was illegally jamming phone lines in New Hampshire to block Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. (One of Nelson's immediate underlings, James Tobin, was eventually sent to jail over the whole thing.) Nelson also helped craft the infamous "Call me, Harold" ad in this year's Tennessee Senate race.

And now McCain has hired Jill Hazelbaker to be his communications director in New Hampshire. Hazelbaker got press for engaging in a bit of sock-puppetry while she worked for Thomas Kean's New Jersey Senate campaign earlier this year, commenting on liberal blogs under a variety of aliases--including "cleanupnj" and "usedtobeblue"--and attacking Kean's opponent, Senator Robert Menendez. When reporters started asking around, she called the allegations "nonsense"--even after the comments had been traced to her IP address. Oops.

There's no use pretending that childish tricks and ruthless operatives are something new and shocking in the world of campaigns. Mostly this is just another routine (and probably futile) plea for the press to stop pretending that McCain's presidential run is somehow going to be "above politics," or that he's "the last honest man" in Washington. Last week Robert Novak reported that McCain is currently being sold "to establishment Republicans as the establishment's candidate." Novak's not exactly the most, um, impartial McCain-watcher around, but this sounds a bit more accurate.

--Bradford Plumer

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, on the latter question, you can count John McCain out, for one:

Yeah. I started a thread about a year ago on McCain selling his soul. It's been clear for a long time now (I guess, since the hugs and kisses with Bush) that he's willing to sacrifice his "maverickhood" for ascention to power. For those of us who cheered his statements on the religious right extremists during his earlier primary run, what he's up to now comes as a real disappointment.

But there's the argument to be made for realism here. Whatever your real ideas and intentions, if you wish to lead the Republican party, you have to play it this way. There is, it seems, simply no other option.

That also entails that someone who IS a real reformer, who wishes to ameliorate the extremism that the religious right has brought to the Republican Party, will have to play the present game, at least initially.

The transparency of McCain's efforts are transparent to the religious right as well as to us. That's a problem for all sides, including us. No one really knows what he might intend to do if he wins the primary, then presidency. He may well not be sure either.

But from my viewpoint, McCain's presence in this mix is a serious positive. Anything which serves to isolate the religious right as a unique and extremist interest group/movement within the party and more broadly in the perception of the electorate seems a necessary step turning american politics back towards a direction less pathological.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Yeah, I'm for sure an enigma, I really like integrity no matter what side of the fence. I also like the exchange of ideas.

Right...

I was wondering rather about how youve said before (I think) that you could support a guy like Ron Paul - and that goes a bit beyond just wanting him to be part of an "exchange of ideas".

Well, I wouldn't vote for him for president but I like having him in congress.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

It is perhaps a sad comment on my reasoning but, if it came down to the real nitty gritty, I would vote for Obama simply because he is african american. It's time this watermellon was busted open.
Vote early
vote often
vote Kucinich.

Yo momma's a watermelon.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hannity accused Clinton of "leaking" Obama drug story from Obama memoir

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011

Phuck, I really hate these people.

0 Replies

I think that there are three issues here, whether the story of the "leak" was true or not. First, it is not very nice, but politicians from time immemorial have used the "dirty linen" of their competition in order to make political hay. Second, what's the big deal? People of Obama's generation experimented with all sorts of drugs. Third, he admitted the drug use in his memoir, so it was no deep, dark secret.

I think that there are many people, both Democrats and Republicans, who are scared shitless by the popularity of Obama. And like all "good politicians", many will do whatever they can to knock an opponent off his pedestal.

I think, that for people who are in the Obama "camp", the less said the better. If a cause celebre is made about this, it will only hurt, and not help the man.

0 Replies

Whatever. We ain't starting this ****. Just like the name thing. Obama wrote the drug thing into his freaking 11 year old memoirs, and the right is trying to make hay with what thin negatives they can scrape up.

Blatham is spot on about the innuendo-posing-as-sage-advice from the Novaks of the world, and about the suggestions that Hillary is the culprit.

I phucking hate them, too.

0 Replies

I personally don't think you're smart enough to know who the phuck to hate, so you just hate phucking everybody.

0 Replies

hypersmarty wrote:

I personally don't think you're smart enough to know who the phuck to hate, so you just hate phucking everybody.

0 Replies

Perhaps naively, my overriding reaction to this stuff is "better now than later." Maybe it's part of Obama's strategy in dragging out the announcement, I dunno. Get them to lob this stuff now in hopes of keeping him out of the race entirely, and thereby deplete the available ammunition.

(I mean really, how can you "leak" information contained in a 12-year-old best-seller, with 800,000 copies in print?)

I do love the little double-dig thing Hannity managed there -- did you know Obama admitted to taking drugs? No? Well I never would've mentioned it, but Hillary leaked it, doncha know.

0 Replies

I think it's a waste of time to stir this ****. Nobody really cares about it except Republicans anyway, and they won't be voting in the primary. Neither will I, of course, so I'll just be watching the fun.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Perhaps naively, my overriding reaction to this stuff is "better now than later." Maybe it's part of Obama's strategy in dragging out the announcement, I dunno. Get them to lob this stuff now in hopes of keeping him out of the race entirely, and thereby deplete the available ammunition.

Also, what endlessly multiplies the TV time of such a "scandal" is rarely the initial revelation. It's the back-and-forth between increasingly desparate stonewalling on the "sinner's" part and the increasingly triumphant gotchas on the "investigator's" part. In this case, there is nothing left to stonewall, and no triumph to get out of any revelation. I expect this stuff to die soon.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Perhaps naively, my overriding reaction to this stuff is "better now than later." Maybe it's part of Obama's strategy in dragging out the announcement, I dunno. Get them to lob this stuff now in hopes of keeping him out of the race entirely, and thereby deplete the available ammunition.

Also, what endlessly multiplies the TV time of such a "scandal" is rarely the initial revelation. It's the back-and-forth between increasingly desparate stonewalling on the "sinner's" part and the increasingly triumphant gotchas on the "investigator's" part. In this case, there is nothing left to stonewall, and no triumph to get out of any revelation. I expect this stuff to die soon.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know