maximum360
Member
Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The South Carolina Democratic Primary thread (Obama 2:1 over Clinton)
- Thread starter VALIS
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
In a way, they're beginning answer the question of whether or not Obama can handle the "Republican attack machine". Last week had a lot of nasty accusations, with two people with big media microphones attacking Obama. It seems like if the Clintons keep testing him like this, then this one argument against Obama begins to fade.maximum360 said:Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
ToxicAdam said:You clearly blamed the Lewinsky affair for (the main reason) Gore distanced himself from the Clinton regime.
It was more complicated than that. Gore had an image problem as being a "second fiddle" (much like Bush Sr. had to fight in 88). His campaign felt the best way to do that was to completely break away from that timespan. It wasn't a big deal, because Gore hadn't done anything remarkable during his tenure as vice president anyways (you could make the argument that Hillary had done more in 8 years than Gore had). You couple that, along with the recent spate of other scandals (Eli Gonzalez, Chinese Donors, etc) and it wasn't that hard of a choice. Gore needed the independent vote and there were still many independent voters (in states like Ohio and Florida) that had negative impressions of the morality of the Clintons.
Picking Joe Lieberman (a Clinton critic at the time) was another sign of "breaking free" from the past.
I never said it was the only reason for Gore's failure to lock up the presidency, I simply said it attributed to it.
APF said:As I've pointed-out many times, Obama's Pakistan comments, plus some of his major foreign policy and terrorism advisors, don't strike me as any less "belligerent" than Hillary by any means, and in fact make him arguably further to the "right" than actual, living, breathing Neoconservatives in some cases. You can argue this is all reactionary--and I'd largely agree with you--but that assertion doesn't cast him in any particularly good light. The evidence suggests Obama would be an awful foreign policy President.
Jesus Christ :lol You're leagues more negative than those you scold for hating Hillary.
Anyone think Obama could win traditionally the red states (i.e. South Carolina)? His number of votes more than doubled any republicans on the ballot. Now, obviously more people will vote in the general election, but with Obama's broad appeal, I think he might be able to do it. Hillary...not so much.
Stoney Mason
Banned
alr1ghtstart said:Anyone think Obama could win traditionally the red states (i.e. South Carolina)? His number of votes more than doubled any republicans on the ballot. Now, obviously more people will vote in the general election, but with Obama's broad appeal, I think he might be able to do it. Hillary...not so much.
There is some belief and some polling that says he could however personally I'm distrusting of such data until it happens for various reasons including how he currently polls with white women and white men just on the Democratic side.
KilledByBill
Member
maximum360 said:Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
It was the New York Times: "The Billary Road to Republican Victory" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
A very good article which points out the polarizing nature of the Clintons and that Bill's big time surge in involvement in the campaign would help rally Republicans against "Billary" in a general election. It also hits home that if it ends up being McCain v. Hillary (ugh) then McCain can parry or neutralize many of the taking points Hillary has been churning out against Obama (experience, ready to lead on day one, etc.).
As disastrous as the Bush years have been the general election is no lock for the Democrats and I think Obama matches up better against any Republican candidate than Hillary and her tag-along husband. Kudos to him for weathering the storm of the Clintionian hatchet men in S.C., I agree that a nastier campaign will only strengthen him.
As for Obama as a potential VP to Hillary , I highly doubt it because A) the Clintons are most-likely gonna use that position to reward one of their longtime supporters, B) because Bill Clinton's active participation in stumping for Hillary shows he would be the de-facto VP in a Hillary Whitehouse--no one wants to be the third wheel in that situation.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tamanon said:The Republicans should just fuck with everybody's storylines and make Condi a Veep candidate.
If Bush wasn't so hated I could actually see them doing something like that.
Stoney Mason said:If Bush wasn't so hated I could actually see them doing something like that.
I think she's actually come out of the Bush presidency ok, she doesn't seem to have the stink on her.
Hellsing321
Member
If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.APF said:If McCain "neutralizes" the experience factor, then this only means it's an additional line of argument he can use against Obama in the GE, only to a greater extent, and with the benefit of being a "less-polarizing" opponent who also has a high independent and cross-party appeal.
Hellsing321 said:If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.
To be fair, in the general election, you never win with just the party vote.
Tamanon said:I think she's actually come out of the Bush presidency ok, she doesn't seem to have the stink on her.
Don't know which Bush presidency you're referring to. She's been a colossal failure both as a National Security Advisor in which she let Cheney and Rumsfeld run laps around her and as Secretary of State where absolutely nothing has been accomplished. It's a little late in the ballgame to start pushing for peace in the Middle East via Israel and Palestine.
Hellsing321
Member
True, but if he was able to fight off that stigma in the primaries I don't think it would be a problem in the GE.Tamanon said:To be fair, in the general election, you never win with just the party vote.
APF said:It's got less to do with Dems than with independents; if Obama's biggest draw is courting independents and centrist Republicans, this would be mitigated by a McCain run.
I don't see how under any scenario a McCain nomination mitigates the impact of independent and centrist Republicans flocking to Obama. If that were the case, polling, primaries and caucuses would have already borne that out.
maximum360
Member
Incognito said:Don't know which Bush presidency you're referring to. She's been a colossal failure both as a National Security Advisor in which she let Cheney and Rumsfeld run laps around her and as Secretary of State where absolutely nothing has been accomplished. It's a little late in the ballgame to start pushing for peace in the Middle East via Israel and Palestine.
I think this has more to do with the stink of the Bush presidential aura. Bush is already disliked worldwide and couple that with the fact that she's a woman trying to work with leaders in the middle east = failure complete.
Even despite her efforts agains the things I mentioned above she has to contend with Cheney which has Bush's ear on everything and uses his political maneuvering to derail her efforts to do anything substantial.
Cheney is the puppetmaster of the current white house.
APF said:As I've pointed-out many times, Obama's Pakistan comments, plus some of his major foreign policy and terrorism advisors, don't strike me as any less "belligerent" than Hillary by any means, and in fact make him arguably further to the "right" than actual, living, breathing Neoconservatives in some cases. You can argue this is all reactionary--and I'd largely agree with you--but that assertion doesn't cast him in any particularly good light. The evidence suggests Obama would be an awful foreign policy President.
The notion that Obama's foreign policy was poor held some credit, but that was past tense.
Brzezinski has since not only advised Obama on foreign policy issues, but he's also officially supported Obama's foreign policy positions as well as endorsed him as a candidate. This is a man who is still one of the eminent experts on foreign policy in the world.
If anyone had a council of the best to put together in relations to foreign policy, Brzezinski would be a definite fixture.
APF said:Incognito: come back to me when they're actually directly competing.
How about you do that since you brought it up.
because it pretty exactly fits with what my intended meaning was here?
The word wasn't pulled out of thin air, it was easily the most perfect one for the situation.
The word wasn't pulled out of thin air, it was easily the most perfect one for the situation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=shyster+jewish
Incognito: actually I was responding to another person's post in "bringing that up," so no.
Incognito: actually I was responding to another person's post in "bringing that up," so no.
APF said:Amir0x: Just not sure why you're using such a loaded term
Atrus: Oh, the notorious Iran hawk who orchestrated our involvement in the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict?
Yes, and if you aren't disingenuous you would list his long list of positive accolades as well which points him as a de facto expert on foreign policy over just about anyone else.
It's not as if you meant it.Amir0x said:*rubs forehead*
Enough of this PC bullshit, please.
APF said:I very much disagree that he's an expert above anyone else, but more importantly don't avoid his record in those very extremely key instances, both of which led to the major international crises we're dealing with today.
Why should I give a damn whether you disagree whether an expert is an expert. I mean who the hell are you?
He's also a man who warned against entering the Iraq war, against a future military conflict in Iran and numerous ongoing policies in relation to matters very relevant today. I read up on his book Second Chance after I saw him talk on the Daily Show and that in itself is a foreign policy outlook relevant to the post-Bush administration era.
Oh yeah? Well the minish cap sucked!APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
14,300APF said:http://www.google.com/search?q=shyster+jewish
Incognito: actually I was responding to another person's post in "bringing that up," so no.
Ooo! Let me try!
http://www.google.com/search?q=shyster+black
124,000
!!!
APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
I've yet to see anyone 'attack' you today, I think you're in need of brushing up on the words definition. Just because you were given a short ban for personal attacks does not mean you need to try and egg on conflict that is not currently present.
APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
Don't avoid the issue, why should your opinion be regarded as valuable over the many accolades and positions he's been given as an expert on the subject matter.
Suddenly he's not an eminent expert because YOU say so? I didn't inject an opinion, he is an an established expert. Your only defense was that YOU don't think so, about the man who was involved in US foreign policies to various extents for decades, whose student became the Secretary of State of Bill Clinton's administration and whose son advised them in foreign policy.
It seems that you're the one on a high horse.
To think many of us used to defend these guys...sangreal said:
sangreal said:
...
APF said:
Even more nonsense and evasion from you. This is a situation relating to foreign policy expertise, the topical subject matter cannot by definition be an appeal to authority.
Furthermore, you only hinged your argument on the relevance of your unsubstantiated opinion.
You're making a fairly circular argument here. You question my ability to have an opinion because I'm not an old foreign-policy hand, then when I say you're making an appeal to authority you suggest that's invalid because we're talking about authorities? What you're missing is, if we're not allowed to judge an expert because they're an expert and we're not, then we can't judge them positively or negatively. So bringing him up would do nothing to support your idea that he's a reason to vote for Obama. The larger point is that he helped orchestrate events that led to some of the major foreign policy crises we've been facing for the last decade, a point you continue to resist admitting because it runs counter to your appeals to his authority as a holy expert no one can criticize. Sorry, but I don't buy it, and I have the right to say so.
Note also that he's yet another Bush hand Obama has decided to bring into his inner-circle.
Note also that he's yet another Bush hand Obama has decided to bring into his inner-circle.
KilledByBill
Member
Hellsing321 said:If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.
Exactly, a McCain/Obama general election would merely continue the "institution/experience v. outsider/change" debate that's been raging since the start of the Democratic primary. If McCain emerges as the GOP nom then his claims of being a "maverick" and "independent" will be scrutinized heavily by the Democrats especially due to his cuddling with Bush in recent years. Obama can exploit that much better than Hillary.
alr1ghtstart said:Anyone think Obama could win traditionally the red states (i.e. South Carolina)? His number of votes more than doubled any republicans on the ballot. Now, obviously more people will vote in the general election, but with Obama's broad appeal, I think he might be able to do it. Hillary...not so much.
The Republican turnout was low because it was a snow storm or some shitty weather while the Democrats had nice weather. I'm pretty sure that accounted for the low turnout because when I watched the Republican SC outcome they mentioned the bad weather making the turnout low several times.
Also all you need is OH or FL to go blue and its over if all the blue states stay blue. I haven't seen any data for Ohio that is recent but Clinton beats McCain by a good margin in Florida while Obama loses to him by only a few points. OH, PA, and FL are really the only states that matter because if they all go Republican then its basically over for the Democrats anyway.
APF said:You're making a fairly circular argument here. You question my ability to have an opinion because I'm not an old foreign-policy hand, then when I say you're making an appeal to authority you suggest that's invalid because we're talking about authorities? What you're missing is, if we're not allowed to judge an expert because they're an expert and we're not, then we can't judge them positively or negatively. The larger point is that he helped orchestrate events that led to some of the major foreign policy crises we've been facing for the last decade, a point you continue to resist admitting because it runs counter to your appeals to his authority as a holy expert no one can criticize. Sorry, but I don't buy it, and I have the right to say so.
You focus on one event in a long list of accolades and refusal to acknowledge that makes you a disingenuous shill in this argument. Prone to the Cartesian demon of acknowledging only what you want and rejecting all the rest.
You also didn't provide a judgment on the issue, just usurped your own opinion over established fact. All you've given are amateurish excuses as if no one as vested in politics as he was for so long won't have both good and bad decisions which are all too dependent on the circumstances surrounding them rather than the immediate coloring of black and white.
I'm sure we could go on and on about how your opinion means something, but it doesn't. No matter how long you type it will not change established fact of a man who began advising John F. Kennedy and several presidents since then is not a leader of foreign policy, and it won't change the fact he advised and supports Obama.
i'm interested in knowing the book, if you'd care to shareAPF said:I should also point-out that a book I was a technical consultant on--one which highly-spoke to issues with foreign policy relevance, and is regularly cited here in "what are you reading" threads--AFAIK gained more awards and critical-acclaim than the one you're talking about.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.