Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Ironically, almost every one of the Presidents that served during my lifetime used the "agent of change" campaign angle. It's complete BS, of course, but people still fall for it.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

the ted kennedy endorsement (allegedly) would be good as a counter to the clinton's attempt to spin a florida "victory"

I was thinking about it and she's going to get a lot of milage out of that, playing the Disenfranchisement of an Entire State card. Hopefully someone from the DNC will speak out about it when she tries.

 

[Stoney Mason]

It's been running on the MSNBC ticker all morning. So it's a pretty loud nothing.

Yeah. I'll stick with my statement. Non-story.

 

[teruterubozu]

Ironically, almost every one of the Presidents that served during my lifetime used the "agent of change" campaign angle. It's complete BS, of course, but people still fall for it.

...and very rarely do presidents actually do what they promised during the campaign trail.

 

[thefit]

Politician lies. News at 11:00.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Ironically, almost every one of the Presidents that served during my lifetime used the "agent of change" campaign angle. It's complete BS, of course, but people still fall for it.

Well you always run as the "insider" or the "outsider" so these same memes get repeated every 4 years on either side.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Yeah. I'll stick with my statement. Non-story.

A non-story on an MSNBC ticker? I doubt it, buddy.

Oh, wow. Did you know Heath Ledger's family referred to him as both Beef and Roast as nicknames? Thanks MSNBC!

 

[APF]

The point is, it's all marketing BS, so it's disingenuous to base an entire campaign around it, especially when you're trying to "straight-talk express" your way into the nomination.

Edit: and if people /actually wanted/ change, rather than lip-service to the same, they'd call their own party's Presidents out on it, rather than cowardly spin their politics-as-usual because they're afraid of losing power.

 

[Frank the Great]

now im as big of an obama fan as anybody, but does anyone notice the ridiculous way the media has been handling this race?

for example, on MSNBC for the past week, they constantly talked about obama's race, but to make it look like they weren't talking about race, they had a rotating group of pundits answering the benign question "is race a factor?" yet by their constant discussion of it, is it not possible that they MADE race a factor themselves?

further, all the news tickers and all the headlines yesterday read something to the effect of "obama gains momentum after SC victory." no shit, of course he gains momentum if the media constantly talks about him gaining momentum. if the media didn't make a big deal out of the SC victory, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal.

the media seems like its conducting this primary season according to its own whims in order to get massive ratings. it sickens me how much power they have over these things.

 

[APF]

Welcome to the world.

 

[Frank the Great]

Welcome to the world.

oh man, i thought it was just an american thing

 

[teruterubozu]

Well to be fair, we've never had a black or female president, so yeah, these primaries are prime media fodder.

 

[harSon]

The point is, it's all marketing BS, so it's disingenuous to base an entire campaign around it, especially when you're trying to "straight-talk express" your way into the nomination.

Edit: and if people /actually wanted/ change, rather than lip-service to the same, they'd call their own party's Presidents out on it, rather than cowardly spin their politics-as-usual because they're afraid of losing power.

So, are you voting for anyone?

 

[Stoney Mason]

The point is, it's all marketing BS, so it's disingenuous to base an entire campaign around it, especially when you're trying to "straight-talk express" your way into the nomination.

 

[Seth C]

now im as big of an obama fan as anybody, but does anyone notice the ridiculous way the media has been handling this race?

for example, on MSNBC for the past week, they constantly talked about obama's race, but to make it look like they weren't talking about race, they had a rotating group of pundits answering the benign question "is race a factor?" yet by their constant discussion of it, is it not possible that they MADE race a factor themselves?

further, all the news tickers and all the headlines yesterday read something to the effect of "obama gains momentum after SC victory." no shit, of course he gains momentum if the media constantly talks about him gaining momentum. if the media didn't make a big deal out of the SC victory, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal.

the media seems like its conducting this primary season according to its own whims in order to get massive ratings. it sickens me how much power they have over these things.

The days of the media just reporting the news are long over. Not surprisingly, so are the chances of electing a president who actually has any real "Change" in mind.

 

[APF]

Yes, I'm familiar with the marketing, thanks.

Here's a thought though: if most Presidents in your lifetime ran as "outsiders," and if what you really want is change from most Presidents' terms, then perhaps you should stop voting for the "outsiders?" Or at the very least, stop supporting them when they violate their principles in order to hold-on to power? If you don't choose to do this, do you not therefore see why being an "outsider" working for "change" is a meaningless distinction?

 

[harSon]

If you're going to go by that then several of those points don't pertain to him

 

[Stoney Mason]

Yes, I'm familiar with the marketing, thanks.

Here's a thought though: if most Presidents in your lifetime ran as "outsiders," and if what you really want is change from most Presidents' terms, then perhaps you should stop voting for the "outsiders?" Or at the very least, stop supporting them when they violate their principles in order to hold-on to power? If you don't choose to do this, do you not therefore see why being an "outsider" working for "change" is a meaningless distinction?

I don't disagree. Of course following this our current president would have been booted out in 2004.

 

[APF]

I don't disagree. Of course following this our current president would have been booted out in 2004.

You don't think he should have? Bush didn't deserve to win that election, and not just because he wasn't a "uniter" or "outsider." Although he definitely violated those goals.

 

[harSon]

Yes, I'm familiar with the marketing, thanks.

Here's a thought though: if most Presidents in your lifetime ran as "outsiders," and if what you really want is change from most Presidents' terms, then perhaps you should stop voting for the "outsiders?" Or at the very least, stop supporting them when they violate their principles in order to hold-on to power? If you don't choose to do this, do you not therefore see why being an "outsider" working for "change" is a meaningless distinction?

It's a non issue considering we haven't had much luck with the "Business as usual" candidates either. If there was an actual choice outside of the few hyped candidates I'd be inclined to agree but there isn't.

 

[Stoney Mason]

You don't think he should have? Bush didn't deserve to win that election, and not just because he wasn't a "uniter" or "outsider." Although he definitely violated those goals.

Well I do but I'm don't really believe politics changes all that much. You run as an outsider and if you win then 4 years later you run as an insider who has important work to complete. It is what it is. Politicians are pretty good at working these labels and angles which is why they keep returning to them.

 

[APF]

Well I do but I'm don't really believe politics changes all that much. You run as an outsider and if you win then 4 years later you run as an insider who has important work to complete. It is what it is. Politicians are pretty good at working these labels and angles which is why they keep returning to them.

It keeps working because people keep falling for them. Plus folks need to draw some sort of distinction between themselves, since in order to be elected you pretty much need to have essentially the same policies. The overall point though, is that people really don't want "change" to the point where they're willing to sacrifice their hold on political power, which in turn mitigates the whole concept in the first place.

 

[Stoney Mason]

It keeps working because people keep falling for them. Plus folks need to draw some sort of distinction between themselves, since in order to be elected you pretty much need to have essentially the same policies. The overall point though, is that people really don't want "change" to the point where they're willing to sacrifice their hold on political power, which in turn mitigates the whole concept in the first place.

People equate personality with change or mix up their personality with their politics. While I seem to like Obama more than you my complaints with him (or more so his image) are probably roughly the same as yours.

 

[APF]

People equate personality with change or mix up their personality with their politics. While I seem to like Obama more than you my complaints with him (or more so his image) are probably roughly the same as yours.

Part of the reason I harp on this point--that "hope" and "change" are not platform positions, but are empty marketing slogans--is to remind people that despite their self-righteous bleating to the contrary, they're voting purely on perceived personality, which really *is* "politics as usual" on a very fundamental level, and really *has* given us awful results (see GWB f/e).

 

[harSon]

Part of the reason I harp on this point--that "hope" and "change" are not platform positions, but are empty marketing slogans--is to remind people that despite their self-righteous bleating to the contrary, they're voting purely on perceived personality, which really *is* "politics as usual" on a very fundamental level, and really *has* given us awful results (see GWB f/e).

For the democratic side, the differences between Hillary and Obama policy wise are quite nil outside of a few things (The two biggest being health care and solutions to foreign conflicts). While unfortunate, there is not much outside of race/gener, personality, character, experience, etc. to base your vote on. Scolding those voting for Obama for these reasons is completely irrelevant this time around considering it's one of the few clear cut differences between the two candidates.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Part of the reason I harp on this point--that "hope" and "change" are not platform positions, but are empty marketing slogans--is to remind people that despite their self-righteous bleating to the contrary, they're voting purely on perceived personality, which really *is* "politics as usual" on a very fundamental level, and really *has* given us awful results (see GWB f/e).

I don't disagree although to be completely fair I think people generally will take anything and rationalize it as the reason for their voting process when it sort of really doesn't work that way. The average person doesn't sift through position statements and policy issues nor is it as completely inane as who would you like to have a beer with that some people imply. It's something more akin to people looking to the field of candidates with however much exposure they have and then making a judgment call based on that as to which candidate they sort of trust or believe in the most. So personality always plays a part in it for the majority of folks. Only after the fact do they graft on a lot of other reasons to politically support somebody.

 

[APF]

And that's no reason to start saying things like "fuck women" or "fuck that cunt" or "fuck this country," etc, like many of the Obama Nation fanboys have done whenever Hillary has gotten any traction. I mean, there really are "change" candidates. They're the ones with the least support. They're the Ron Pauls and the Sue-ciniches. There's a reason few people support them.

 

[harSon]

And that's no reason to start saying things like "fuck women" or "fuck that cunt" or "fuck this country," etc, like many of the Obama Nation fanboys have done whenever Hillary has gotten any traction. I mean, there really are "change" candidates. They're the ones with the least support. They're the Ron Pauls and the Sue-ciniches. There's a reason few people support them.

People scold things they dislike, this notion holds true for nearly anything competitive (Sports, Video Games, etc.).

 

[Stoney Mason]

And that's no reason to start saying things like "fuck women" or "fuck that cunt" or "fuck this country," etc, like many of the Obama Nation fanboys have done whenever Hillary has gotten any traction. I mean, there really are "change" candidates. They're the ones with the least support. They're the Ron Pauls and the Sue-ciniches. There's a reason few people support them.

Well I'm going to take the high road from here on out and resist the temptation to get drawn into a war with the Obama supporters. I'm turning over a new leaf


That being said I've freely admitted to anyone who has asked over Pm's that the behavior of some people I thought were liberals has been pretty embarrassing to me. That's not the majority of Obama supporters on the board who I feel honestly just really like their candidate but their was a level of sexism and hostility from a vocal minority that had me debating whether to post here or not anymore not that anyone would care if I was up and gone.

 

[Cheebs]

This is all so funny now. I mean seriously in October everyone will be posting anti-McCain topics and come election night will be hoping beyond hope for a Hillary win. This all petty nonsense right now.

If Hillary is the nominee and the black turnout is at all LESS than 2004 I'd be willing to get permabanned. It wont have any effect whatsoever in the end.

 

[Hootie]

If Hillary is the nominee and the black turnout is at all LESS than 2004 I'd be willing to get permabanned. It wont have any effect whatsoever in the end.

Ban-bet!!

 

[Cheebs]

I also fully expect the DNC to basically force her to make Obama her running mate.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I also fully expect the DNC to basically force her to make Obama her running mate.

I've always said if the Dems really want the presidency that is the obvious ticket although there has been so much hostility I find it kind of harder to imagine than even back a few months ago.

 

[harSon]

I also fully expect the DNC to basically force her to make Obama her running mate.

I'm not so sure that having Obama as a running mate would work all that well...

 

[Cooter]

I also fully expect the DNC to basically force her to make Obama her running mate.

I don't think he would accept.

 

[Cheebs]

I don't think he would accept.

as said on chris matthews show this morning he'd be foolish not to if he wanted to be president down the line. Its safer as VP then sitting in the senate for 8 more years.

 

[nerbo]

Clinton/Richardson ticket in '08.... Believe.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't know what's going to be the DNC ticket, but people who thinks that this is the most heated primary in history, or even an unusual one for a non-incumbent election year, have not been following American politics very long.

 

[harSon]

as said on chris matthews show this morning he'd be foolish not to if he wanted to be president down the line. Its safer as VP then sitting in the senate for 8 more years.

He could run for Governor of Illinois

 

[Cooter]

as said on chris matthews show this morning he'd be foolish not to if he wanted to be president down the line. Its safer as VP then sitting in the senate for 8 more years.

It would sure make this entire campaign of his seem phony if he accepted.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I don't know what's going to be the DNC ticket, but people who thinks that this is the most heated primary in history, or even an unusual one for a non-incumbent election year, have not been following American politics very long.

For the record I don't think it is the most heated in history but what I do think is different is the amount of media coverage which creates a bigger echo chamber. The Jesse Jackson Dukakis nomination was more nasty and divisive for example (Mainly in the wrangling by the underlings and at the convention rather than anything nasty they said to each other to give complete context).

 

[APF]

I don't know what's going to be the DNC ticket, but people who thinks that this is the most heated primary in history, or even an unusual one for a non-incumbent election year, have not been following American politics very long.

Most people posting here appear to be eight years old.

 

[Hootie]

Clinton/Richardson ticket in '08.... Believe.

The perfect combo for taking down the Soviet Union! *bangs desk*

 

[Tamanon]

Since we're in an age of an unprecedented amount of media, both over the airwaves and the internet, all races will be generally viewed as more divisive and vicious. Just because every little thing gets more exposure.

 

[Piper Az]

http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0

Hour long interview with Obama with San Francisco Chronicles. Really good stuff.

 

[nerbo]

I don't think he would accept.

If offered (which is unlikely), of course he would accept. He would be silly stupid not to if he wanted to have a continued political career. Passing that up when offered would paint him as a divider of the Democratic party, which he is not dumb enough to do. Still, Clinton has no good reason to tug Obama along with her as VP if she wins. Most anyone that supports Obama now will support Clinton anyway over any of the Republicans (except for a select few, bitter tear crying nut jobs lurking around here). It is likely that Clinton will want someone with prior, strong policy experience on board, which is not Obama (and IS a commonly ignored big difference between her and Obama), as well as someone who can sway the hispanic vote away from the GOP. Note that it was the hispanic turnout that by large supported Bush in the last two elections. Richardson is that man.

 

[Chichikov]

For the record I don't think it is the most heated in history but what I do think is different is the amount of media coverage which creates a bigger echo chamber. The Jesse Jackson Dukakis nomination was more nasty and divisive for example.

True.
It's also much longer (not necessarily in time, but in number of states involved) than your average primary.
I was just trying to disagree with the thinking that the bad blood between the candidates is something that cannot be overcome when it's convention time (unless we have a brokered one, and in that case, oh boy...).

I still think that Obama will refuse to be Hillary's running mate if she wins, but that's because of his own long term political considerations, not because Bill called him names.

 

[harSon]

If offered (which is unlikely), of course he would accept. He would be silly stupid not to if he wanted to have a continued political career. Passing that up when offered would paint him as a divider of the Democratic party, which he is not dumb enough to do. Still, Clinton has no good reason to tug Obama along with her as VP if she wins. Most anyone that supports Obama now will support Clinton anyway over any of the Republicans (except for a select few, bitter tear crying nut jobs lurking around here). It is likely that Clinton will want someone with prior, strong policy experience on board, which is not Obama (and IS a commonly ignored big difference between her and Obama), as well as someone who can sway the hispanic vote away from the GOP. Note that it was the hispanic turnout that by large supported Bush in the last two elections. Richardson is that man.

A common misconception is the fact being the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States count as experience. Theres no doubt that she has more experience than Obama, but the Gap is not as wide as she'd like us to believe.

And the Clinton's already have a strong following in the Latino community, the majority Latino's are not going to vote Republican. Richardson, while a viable candidate, is not going to be chosen for the Latino vote.

 

[thefro]

Kennedy endorsement is official... happening tomorrow (and JFK's daughter who wrote the NYT article will be there too).

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

 

[Stoney Mason]

True.
It's also much longer (not necessarily in time, but in number of states involved) than your average primary.
I was just trying to disagree with the thinking that the bad blood between the candidates is something that cannot be overcome when it's convention time (unless we have a brokered one, and in that case, oh boy...).

I still think that Obama will refuse to be Hillary's running mate if she wins, but that's because of his own long term political considerations, not because Bill called him names.

Anything is possible. I still don't discount that Obama could just win the nomination although he has some long odds. I think Hillary wouldn't be making a smart move if she didn't offer it to him if she receives the nomination. If Obama turned it down that also wouldn't be a smart move in my book as who knows what the future holds and being the VP is the most sure slot to becoming a president. But whatever happens I'm sure it will be interesting.