siamesedreamer
Banned
Nice analogy Astro.
thegreyfox said:
thegreyfox said:yeah i put it on mute once he said he was running. did he say anything important?
Clinton fans dont see their standard-bearers troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Joness Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.
But its the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; its a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidates message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
Words are fun to say.AstroLad said:impossible the whole media is completely in love with obama and does everything they can to help him. i mean we're at bush-pitching-the-iraq-war-war levels of unquestioning adulation here people.
Diablos said:Nader is running. :\
All he's gonna do is steal votes from Hillary and Obama.
Diablos said:Nader is running. :\
All he's gonna do is steal votes from Hillary and Obama.
Manmademan 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.
Good point.Manmademan 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.
The fact that he admitted it was a mistake and retracted it says a lot to his character.Diablos said:But I wonder if Obama will be hurt by the fact that he sent out flyers with a statement on them that was later retracted? That's not smart politics.
Amir0x said:Did anyone read that NYT article yesterday about Clinton's increasing realization that she is getting less and less likely to win? I thought it was pretty enlightening. The illumination on the in-fighting going on within her camp is quite fascinating.
PhoenixDark 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
Juice said:Truth. Unless Hillary gets the nomination. If she squeaks it out, I would expect Nader to get 2-4% and spoil it for her.
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:I mean, it makes sense to throw out actual quantifiable data by reputable impartial organizations because of two transcription mistakes.
Amir0x 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?
Deku said:Bill Schneider just said on CNN Nader got less than 500,000 votes in the 2004 election.
But still, in swing states it could make a difference. I could also see Nader getting protest votes from Hillary or Obama supporters as one of them will ultimately have to lose this race.
Diablos said:Nader is running. :\
All he's gonna do is steal votes from Hillary and Obama.
Amir0x said:Did anyone read that NYT article yesterday about Clinton's increasing realization that she is getting less and less likely to win? I thought it was pretty enlightening. The illumination on the in-fighting going on within her camp is quite fascinating.
Instigator said:No because it is one of those silly news sites demanding registration.
Atrus said: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.
Atrus said: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.
PhoenixDark 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.
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: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.
"Some would say, let's get everybody together, let's get unified.
The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing. And everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."
sangreal said:Hillary today:
Meltdown continuing at a good pace
scorcho 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.