nimh, I don't know about you, but I would believe a hundred Novaks before I would believe one Hillary Clinton. Her denials about the planted questions just a week or so ago was a recent example of how dumb she must think we all are.
Novak hears stuff in Washington. I think he knows what he is talking about, and we all know the Clinton machine has investigators digging up dirt on everybody. That is well known, nimh, good grief, I find it incredulous that you would doubt what Novak says on this. You are either naive or living in denial.
okie wrote:That is well known, nimh, good grief, I find it incredulous that you would doubt what Novak says on this. You are either naive or living in denial.
Oh I think Hillary's campaigners are doing oppo research all right - just like all the campaigns surely are doing. And she knows how to play hardball. But Novak is about the last person I'd believe about anything. He's a notorious peddler of malicious bullshit, and has been wrong about so many things he should rightly be out of a job by now.
nimh wrote:okie wrote:That is well known, nimh, good grief, I find it incredulous that you would doubt what Novak says on this. You are either naive or living in denial.
Oh I think Hillary's campaigners are doing oppo research all right - just like all the campaigns surely are doing. And she knows how to play hardball. But Novak is about the last person I'd believe about anything. He's a notorious peddler of malicious bullshit, and has been wrong about so many things he should rightly be out of a job by now.
I'm also surprised Novak still has a job.
Novak is now a rather tragic figure. His physical condition is quite poor and for that I have nothing but sympathy. But his profile within the Washington punditocrasy has fallen steeply. For a couple of decades, one couldn't turn on the high-status sunday political shows without seeing him featured on at least one, usually a couple. No longer. Nobody much wants him in front of their cameras now. In part, of course, that is because he is old and old doesn't draw the desired demographic. And in part is is because he's become a visibly unhappy man. And that has a lot to do with his loyalty to the Rove/Bush camp and the new conservative movement, a loyalty which finally gained little in the way of return. His lot now is disdain from almost every corner.
okie wrote:Novak hears stuff in Washington.
my understanding is that they now have medications for that.
okie wrote:You obviously don't get it, blatham. What do lepers have to do with it? Don't get me wrong, I do understand exactly what you are insinuating, but sadly it has nothing to do with the point, and what you are insinuating is nothing but nonsense. You have missed the point altogether.
What's so sad about it oakie? I'm not crying, especially since Bernie's analogy is right on the point. Richardson also said, "we have to stop demonizing illegal immigrants." That's not an exact quote, but close enough. It's to the point alright. You just don't like the the point reflecting on you and your attitudes. Step back and take a look. See what you see.
P. S. One is not "on" LSD. One is lots of things in relation to having ingested it, but not "on" it. Something like "Maybe he was still being influenced by it." or "maybe he was again under the influence of LSD" but not "on." Being "on" a drug is associated with being addicted to it. One does not become addicted to LSD. Acid is an hallucinogen, not a narcotic.
okie wrote:Interesting development between Obama and Hillary, in regard to the Novak column.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/11/17/hillary_vs_obama
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312063,00.html
I think Obama has about had it with Hillary, and from his response, I think he tends to believe that the Clinton campaign is involved with digging up dirt on him. He may know alot of things that not everyone knows, if you read between the lines of what he said. I think he is pretty edgy right now and somewhat fed up with the Clintons. This from the Fox story:
"But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Sen. Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none. She of all people, having complained so often about the politics of personal destruction, should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics."
Well oakie, it looks like you are "on" Robert Novak and Townhall.
Your choice of quotation from the Fox News article says it all.........the entire point of the article was that Obama spoke too soon. Really, didn't you understand the article you posted yourself? Or was it a deliberate attempt to distort the point of the story? If so, it's a fine example of the silly gotcha tactics we've seen in the last two Democratic debates. Tell me it ain't so. Surely you understood the article, it was so simply and clearly laid out. Nobody listens to Novak anymore. He wasn't credible before the Plame fiasco, but even a misinformed Townhall news junkie like yourself should know better by now.
It does look like Obama slipped up. I hope he has the opportunity to make up for it.
Lola wrote-
Quote:P. S. One is not "on" LSD. One is lots of things in relation to having ingested it, but not "on" it. Something like "Maybe he was still being influenced by it." or "maybe he was again under the influence of LSD" but not "on." Being "on" a drug is associated with being addicted to it. One does not become addicted to LSD. Acid is an hallucinogen, not a narcotic.
Is that para. an attempt to deal with my 7.07 a.m. post of 17/11?
If so it is woeful. If not so I will assume that my post has been consigned to oblivion. Like the exhausts from the jet engines.
Quote:I will assume that my post has been consigned to oblivion. Like the exhausts from the jet engines.
Or perhaps like the wind from the tummy of an overfed budgy.
You can't overfeed budgies. Unlike humans they know when to stop.
Prudence schumdence. Ya ever met a budgy mother?
"You call that a meal?! Look at you. I pray every night a hummingbird doesn't kick sand in your face. You wonder why you don't have a girlfriend?! Oy. Grandchildren...I should be so lucky. If god wanted everyone to see our bones he would have put them on the outside. A mosquito would starve on what you eat."
You should work for Burger King Bernie.
You have a great ad there. Use a vulture. Oral fixations are into to vultures.
spendius wrote:You should work for Burger King Bernie.
You have a great ad there. Use a vulture. Oral fixations are into to vultures.
Far too grand a dream for me. I'd be happy to merely invent a new sort of soap bubble.
OK a mini-screed.
I laid out my case for Obama back in the first post on this thread, which was something like a year and a half ago now. [Checked, started it March 2006, so about 20 months ago.] I've responded to specifics here often enough, but I don't think I've given an overview of why I support him since.
First, I like him. That's not a good reason, but it's a starting point. I first noticed him in Chicago, I liked what I saw, I researched more, I kept liking what I saw, and then when I read his books I not only liked what I saw but identified with him a great deal. Most of that is the cultural duality he experienced -- black but not-black, as I have experienced deaf but not-deaf. There are a whole lot of parallels. I think there is a way of thinking that comes out of having experienced that duality that I also identify with a great deal.
Second, I was appalled at the job Kerry did in 2004, and the ways in which he was selected, and I became convinced at that point that the next Democratic candidate needs to have charisma. The Swiftboating stuff sucked in several thousand ways, but at the end of the day, it stuck. And it stuck because it resonated with a gut reaction that a lot of people had to Kerry. I think we need to pay attention to gut reactions, because of course stuff will be launched at the candidate -- any candidate. Does the candidate have gut-reaction weaknesses that will allow that stuff to stick?
I think the 2008 Democratic candidate -- a qualified, intelligent, capable candidate, which I think all three top contenders are -- should exhibit the following characteristics:
Charisma
Trustworthiness
Toughness
I think all three candidates have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to those three characteristics. I think Obama scores highest on the top two now. I think Hillary has real deficits on the top two, but is by far the strongest on the third right now. I think Edwards has a major problem with the second one, and that he has some problems with the third, also.
Obama's current weakness is the third one, but I think that he has purposely held back there -- he's said as much, I can go and find that quote on request -- and is going to keep hitting that one harder and harder as the campaign goes on. I think he has the best potential to fulfill all three requirements and get the positive gut reactions that will allow the inevitable attacks to fall by the wayside, and for him to win the presidency in 2008.
I know that it seems unlikely that a black man can outshine a white woman and a white man in positive gut reactions, but that's what I've seen, over and over again. People like him. People you wouldn't expect to like him, like white farmers.
Meanwhile, what I've seen over and over again is that people dislike Hillary. I think that makes her vulnerable to the inevitable attacks -- more vulnerable than Obama. People get excited about Obama, they get fired up (remember that article from nimh recently, that guy Tracy [?] who was caucusing for the first time?) while they tend to be more pragmatic about Hillary (same article). This reminds me a lot of Kerry's support in 2004.
That's my current thinking, anyway. It depends on Obama continuing to up the toughness quotient, which I think could happen easily (I think he IS plenty tough, and IS plenty willing to be confrontational when necessary, but has been laying back up until recently for strategic reasons, as referred to above), but it might not. Or it might already be too late.
blatham wrote:Novak is now a rather tragic figure. His physical condition is quite poor and for that I have nothing but sympathy. But his profile within the Washington punditocrasy has fallen steeply. For a couple of decades, one couldn't turn on the high-status sunday political shows without seeing him featured on at least one, usually a couple. No longer. Nobody much wants him in front of their cameras now. In part, of course, that is because he is old and old doesn't draw the desired demographic. And in part is is because he's become a visibly unhappy man. And that has a lot to do with his loyalty to the Rove/Bush camp and the new conservative movement, a loyalty which finally gained little in the way of return. His lot now is disdain from almost every corner.
None of what you said indicates the man is wrong. He isn't trendy in Washington now, so what? His credibility just went up in my opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312153,00.html
Do you believe Novak or the Clinton campaign? No contest in my opinion.
sozobe wrote: I think we need to pay attention to gut reactions, because of course stuff will be launched at the candidate -- any candidate. Does the candidate have gut-reaction weaknesses that will allow that stuff to stick?
Gut reactions may be worth paying attention to
after you've picked your favorite candidates, when you're trying to sell them to your friends and internet correspondents. But I think it's a seriously flawed criterion to pick ones favorite candidates by in the first place. America is at war. It is probably headed towards recession -- at the very least, Americans are losing their homes in foreclosures at unprecedented rates. Your country's health care system is badly broken. Lucky you! You hit the trifecta.
In times like this, I think the way to choose a president is to ask what he or she would do about these problems. It's a terrible idea to pick candidates by asking how they appeal to other people's gut feelings, which in hindsight we've been historically bad at judging. Remember "the word-mangling but honest and plain-spoken Mr. Bush?" "The arrogant and professorial Al Gore?". Squadrons of professional character judges have tried their hand at this gut feelings business. Look at their overall record in hindsight, and you'll find it a big, steaming pile of bullshît. I have no confidence at all I would do a better job if I tried this myself. What makes you so sure that you would?
Sozobe wrote:I think the 2008 Democratic candidate -- a qualified, intelligent, capable candidate, which I think all three top contenders are -- should exhibit the following characteristics:
Charisma
Trustworthiness
Toughness
You mean like Howard Dean? He had all of these, for whatever good they did to his candidacy.
(Sorry about the sarcasm. For some reason I'm cranky today.)
I agree, but I did say this:
Quote: a qualified, intelligent, capable candidate, which I think all three top contenders are
I have my reservations about Hillary-as-president, but I think the top three are really pretty close, policy-wise.
I started this line of thinking after Blatham commented on McGentrix's article on the other thread, and about the inevitable attacks. Yes, the attacks are inevitable, for anyone who becomes the Democratic nominee. I think the gut-reaction thing becomes important, there, in terms of whether the attacks are
effective or not.
I never supported Dean, and I always thought his support was overestimated. At any rate, he wasn't the nominee, and I think Kerry's lack of charisma and lack of perceived trustworthiness, as well as not-so-great in the toughness department, had a lot to do with why he lost.
I'd love it if everyone paid attention to policy, and I'm glad that we have three potential nominees who have proposed some pretty great policies. But I think we ignore the gut-reaction component at our peril.
sozobe wrote:But I think we ignore the gut-reaction component at our peril.
I don't. We're bad at judging other people's gut feelings, so we may as well ignore them. But that's okay -- I grant you permission to disagree with me.
There have been polls about this too though, I can go find them. That Obama rates high on "sincerity," Hillary rates high on "toughness" (or some synonym), etc.
While I've based my speculation on such things -- and my experience with the Kerry campaign in '04 -- of course it's speculation, yes. Just had the thought as I read blatham's posts and thought I'd complete it here.
I don't totally get the "bad at reading gut feelings" part though. The fact that Gore was perceived as "arrogant and professorial" may well have cost him the election. The fact that Bush was perceived as "honest and plain-spoken" may well have been why he did so well. Those examples seem to support that you CAN predict it, not that you can't.
sozobe wrote:I don't totally get the "bad at reading gut feelings" part though. The fact that Gore was perceived as "arrogant and professorial" may well have cost him the election. The fact that Bush was perceived as "honest and plain-spoken" may well have been why he did so well. Those examples seem to support that you CAN predict it, not that you can't.
Both images were marketing fabrications. Granted, they were good marketing fabrications, so they stuck -- but they weren't anything real enough to pick a president by.
