siamesedreamer
Banned
Nice analogy Astro.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official CNN Democratic Presidential Debate Thread of CHANGE you can XEROX
- Thread starter Triumph
- Start date
- Status
thegreyfox
Member
thegreyfox
Member
yeah i put it on mute once he said he was running. did he say anything important?
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=73681665-b56c-4da2-9855-71365d17e2f8
Al Sharpton on superdelegates.
He was pretty good at this State of the Black Union.
Al Sharpton on superdelegates.
He was pretty good at this State of the Black Union.
I think the flaw in this quote is the suggestion that the Clinton camp's characterization of their opposition is not, indeed, true; IMO both descriptions are pretty accurate.
The idea--as one poster put it--that Hillary's campaign has been brilliant, is a bizarre notion; although I guess if you were very desperate to be iconoclastic you could suggest it was brilliant in not losing too much ground from numerous blunders and a general inability to adapt to circumstances. How you can separate that "success" from the name and power of the candidate herself--as opposed to the organization--is a mystery to me however. Further, to suggest that pointing-out the overall strength of Obama's organization is a matter of pinning unwarranted accolades upon the winner in order to explain the result, misses the mark as well, IMO.
Frank the Great
Banned
isnt nader the seatbelt law guy? fuck him
typhonsentra
Banned
Words are fun to say.AstroLad said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnn4Crftk0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvkghglXMmE
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
I doubt it'll hurt Obama or even Hillary in the long run. Both are superior candidates to Gore in 2000 although Hillary has made some baffling mistakes that remind me of 2000.
Manmademan
Member
Diablos said:
ignoring for a second the highly unlikely probability at this point that hillary pulls a miracle and wins Ohio and Texas by the large margins she needs to stay in this race...all signs are pointing to Obama being the democratic nominee.
As of this morning on meet the press he led McCain by a full 8 points in two different polls, and participation of new, independent, and minority voters that typically don't vote is at record breaking levels. any support Nader could possibly generate would be practically insignificant in comparison.
Let nader run as much as he wants. The argument that "both candidates are establishment tools and the same anyway, I'll just vote nader" obviously has been proven false by the bush regime and will not work in 2008. I'd be shocked if his support hit more than 1-2% of the popular vote nationwide, and the general will most certainly not be decided by such slim margins.
nader is a non issue.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
The fact that he admitted it was a mistake and retracted it says a lot to his character.Diablos said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
Amir0x said:
Truly a sad article, although at the end of the day she brought this on herself. The negative ads and spin didn't ruin her campaign in my estimate, it was the strategy of running as an incumbent. She seemed more like she was HW Bush running for re-election against Bill Clinton, and it just didn't work; rising stars of Bill and Obama's magnitudes can't be dampened by arguments of "experience" when the common people connect to the star, and/or enter a cult of personality following.
I still think she'll win Texas and can win Ohio, but perhaps it's time to think about how she'll be accepted back into the senate. Now that her presidential possibilities are nigh over unless she can make a Gore-esque change in personality over the next 4 years...how will the various power brokers in the senate treat her? There's talk she'll be senate majority leader, but is she liked enough to get that role? Or will her celebrity fade out as the other members of the party bury the Clinton legacy and move on
Deus Ex Machina
Member
PhoenixDark said:
In the end, let's face it, in any other year we'd probably all be voting for Hillary (well, I'd have voted Nader or not voted at all, but you get the point). It's an interesting dynamic to me, to see the number of ways they went wrong still.
If we had a top three list, what would people write? The obituary of her campaign is still too early to write, but I am definitely curious to see what people write about it in the coming months.
1. No contingency plan. They didn't plan for after Feb 5. So after Super Tuesday, all their strategy evaporated. No money, no plan for ground work. Just "give it to Obama until Ohio and Texas." I think this is the number one or number two failure, depending on the hour.
2. Dismissing the voters. Caucus don't matter. Proud African-American electorates don't matter. Open primaries don't matter. Illinois doesn't matter. She dismissed so many voters, that I can't help but feel it had some major effect on the races that followed. Before that, she was the INEVITABLE candidate. She rejected the idea that anyone else would be the candidate. In its own way, also a dismissal of voters.
3. Bill Clinton on the warpath. Obama = Jesse Jackson? Martin Luther King disses? Whether or not they were meant negatively, it single handedly lost them the entire African American electorate and they have never been able to remotely win it back. Later on still, Clinton explodes at pro-abortion hecklers and more. He just seems to be a burden, and the idea of the "co-presidency" (ho ho ho, political buzzword) has made some nervous because of it.
What do you think?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
what exactly is nader trying to accomplish? isnt this like the 4th or 5th time he has run? give it up man.!!
Manmademan
Member
Juice said:
true. IF hillary ends up as the nominee..her margin over mccain (and in some polls, such as the one this morning she's substantially BEHIND) is so slim that 1-2% would make a difference and nader could screw it up.
The idea that nader could "split" much of obama's support on the left is nonsense though. :lol
Obama is bringing out young voters in percentages equal to or greater than the 55+ vote in some states. Nader never had a fraction of that kind of pull.
typhonsentra
Banned
And uh, what might those be? I can provide hundreds of examples of people in the media comparing Obama to Hitler, Chairman Mao, anti-American, bin Laden, a cult leader, even the anti-Christ. If anything coverage for him is more negative than it should be given the circumstances. The only negatives against him playing right now are that his supporters are too enthusiastic and his wife's "Really" proud of America? Compare that to a woman screaming until she's hoarse about "Rove-style smears" in the form of mailers when at the same time she's putting out shit like this:APF said:
There's so much going wrong with the Clinton campaign it's hard to keep up, yet the media keeps pushing bogus fluff pieces to "Keep it even". Examples being the above mentioned stories. And when discussing Obama's "Shameful" mailer, how many news reports have brought up her own attack mailers against him? Not my local paper, nor any of the reports on CNN I've seen so far. It's strictly her accusation and his response, he-said/she-said.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Amir0x said:
I'd also ad the media up there, which gave Obama a free pass. Especially on Clinton, who never dissed MLK but that perception was left unchallenged.
Bill Clinton was extremely disappointing though, and didn't help Hillary outside of Nevada (well that's the spin coming from the camp). While accusations about racism were unfair, he brought much of the heat on himself by attacking so fiercely. To me, perhaps the biggest point is how he seemed to piss away more than a decade worth of black loyalty/support in less than a month. He harmed his legacy while trying to cement it with a Hillary win imo.
Manmademan
Member
Deku said:
The obama campaign isn't running on the "Swing state" strategy. look at how the primary campaign is being run. EVERY state matters and will be campaigned in, and he has MORE than enough funds to make this happen- February ALONE is on track for somewhere around $50 million. and this is the PRIMARY. Add hillary's supporters to that and...well, you get the picture.
Mccain is actually legally restricted from fundraising in the same manner that's made obama successful, and as a result he's going to get steamrolled in terms of advertising in a lot of crucial states.
Add on top of that Obama's ludicrious support among african americans that can and will turn traditionally "red" states like virginia or south carolina into "swing" or even solidly democratic states for the general, and you'll see that nader's support is again a non issue.
500,000 voters nationwide in '04? the amount of new voters supporting obama will be in the millions, if not tens of millions.
forget about nader. :lol
Man, this NAFTA thing has really pissed off Hillary.
I'm in Ohio, and I just got a phone call with a recording from her, telling me about how Obama is running a dirty campaign, about how she's helping Ohioans, about how she's gonna set the record straight... then she babbled for a while, told me about how Obama is acting like a republican or something (I was only half-listening, and her voice was pretty raspy), and then she told me to vote for her.
That's the second call I've got from her since thursday (none from Obama.) Too bad I still think she's full of shit.
I'm in Ohio, and I just got a phone call with a recording from her, telling me about how Obama is running a dirty campaign, about how she's helping Ohioans, about how she's gonna set the record straight... then she babbled for a while, told me about how Obama is acting like a republican or something (I was only half-listening, and her voice was pretty raspy), and then she told me to vote for her.
That's the second call I've got from her since thursday (none from Obama.) Too bad I still think she's full of shit.
Calls of media bias is of course one of the last refuges of those who support a weak candidate. It's not that they've run an incompetent campaign unable to win on their own merits, it's 'the medias fault'.
Strange, one would think that if the media were truly bias they'd have investigated more into the Clinton campaign. After all, lets out some photos of the Clinton campaign's association with Rezko as well, not to mention dwelling on several dubious financiers she's been associated with (Norman Hsiu, Charlie Trie, etc.).
Not to mention no attention would have been paid on negatives against Obama if that claim were true. No need to go after his brief meeting with former 60's radicals, or portraying his wife as an American hater, whether or not he's black or too black, or that he's just 'empty' rhetoric.
What did happen though was that a more worthy candidate ended up being more likable as well. When that happens, the weak lose. If someone can't overcome a media despite claims of being ready and vetted to take on the Republican spin machine, they're a demonstrable loser, unworthy of substantiating that claim.
Strange, one would think that if the media were truly bias they'd have investigated more into the Clinton campaign. After all, lets out some photos of the Clinton campaign's association with Rezko as well, not to mention dwelling on several dubious financiers she's been associated with (Norman Hsiu, Charlie Trie, etc.).
Not to mention no attention would have been paid on negatives against Obama if that claim were true. No need to go after his brief meeting with former 60's radicals, or portraying his wife as an American hater, whether or not he's black or too black, or that he's just 'empty' rhetoric.
What did happen though was that a more worthy candidate ended up being more likable as well. When that happens, the weak lose. If someone can't overcome a media despite claims of being ready and vetted to take on the Republican spin machine, they're a demonstrable loser, unworthy of substantiating that claim.
Instigator
Banned
Amir0x said:
No because it is one of those silly news sites demanding registration.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Atrus said:
wow. she is so slimy. i have really lost all respect for her.
Matt Taibi of Rolling Stones has been doing some leg-work for Real Time With Bill Maher, and he was at the Clinton rally in Ohio.
He basically pointed out how Hillary was all anti-NAFTA now, eventhough NAFTA was synonymous with the name Clinton. The crowd ate it up whenever she said that it was a failed policy and needed to be re-examined... despite the fact she voted to expand the act the past several years.
He proceeded to interview some of the people there and asked them what they thought about NAFTA, and they said they hated it because it was killing their local economy and that, you got it, Hillary was best suited to fix it.
He basically pointed out how Hillary was all anti-NAFTA now, eventhough NAFTA was synonymous with the name Clinton. The crowd ate it up whenever she said that it was a failed policy and needed to be re-examined... despite the fact she voted to expand the act the past several years.
He proceeded to interview some of the people there and asked them what they thought about NAFTA, and they said they hated it because it was killing their local economy and that, you got it, Hillary was best suited to fix it.
Can't you get through the NYT registration thing via Google News?
edit: I love the fact that people are actually trying to say that the media has been too rough on Obama, and giving Hillary a pass, despite--as I and others have posted numerous times (do the search)--actual research crunching the numbers and coming to the exact opposite conclusion.
edit: I love the fact that people are actually trying to say that the media has been too rough on Obama, and giving Hillary a pass, despite--as I and others have posted numerous times (do the search)--actual research crunching the numbers and coming to the exact opposite conclusion.
You don't have to register http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24mood.html?ref=todayspaper
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
PhoenixDark
Banned
Atrus said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but it's impossible to deny that the media has literally gone to bat for Obama constantly. Which is a shame because they're letting him walk through the election without taking a critical look at him, perhaps to avoid the calls of prejudice and racism his campaign has been effective at using to their advantage.
PhoenixDark said:
Nah, neither candidate has put put through the critical eye. The media refuses to press Clinton on why she refuses to reveal her taxes as Obama has.
Rather the media would rather engage in entertaining news stories about the 'race' to the while house, super delegates, momentum, Obama's blackness or whiteness and Hillary's tears
Obama is the candidate that is winning now, that in itself will generate positive media coverage. This is not rocket science. Calling it bias is akin to saying the media is biased towards the gold medal winners in the Olympics.
The Hillary camp appears to be so delusional they'll blame anything but the candidate at this point. And I don't blame them. The coronation has probably been derailed for good this season.
your white guilt intonations aside, when has the Obama campaign used cries of prejudice and racism when it wasn't valid? from what i recall, and it may be sketchy since i don't follow politics at all, the Clintons and their surrogates "shuck and jived" down that path sometime after Iowa and New Hampshire.PhoenixDark said:
otherwise i agree wholeheartedly with you and APF - Obama has been treated with kiddie gloves nearly this entire campaign (McCain too up till the NYT story). anyone who thinks otherwise has their blinders on.
edit: at this point, who the hell doesn't have a NYT registration? sad, silly people with odd convictions it seems.
McCain has has a parabolic relationship with the press, and by that I mean he's historically been their friend but after the 2004 Republican convention, that campaign, and his first steps into his current run, he really got hammered by them, to the extent that he was like the anti-Obama (his coverage skewed the results to the negative for Republicans in general) for a *long* time, then essentially ignored, and now he's more-or-less back on the upswing. It'll be interesting to see how press coverage leads in the future, with The Press--to the extent that it can be anthropomorphized--perhaps feeling they have been a little star-struck by Obama's candidacy and not providing a necessary objective balance to that, combined with McCain's much-discussed accessibility marking another clear distinction from the again much-discussed clamped-down on-message distant-to-the-point-of-disdain nature of the Obama camp.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked