USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

Calling his political projectory "a fairy tale" is negative.
Demeaning Obama's surge as a pipe dream is negative.

Conversely, Obama's camp does need to acknowledge his vulnerability and find ways to show him a politician of concrete action.

Bill did not call his political "projectory" a fairy tale.

My memory is that he called Obama's characterization of his Iraq record a fairy tale.

We could look at the video, though, and check whose memory is accurate.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Liberals and elections...sheesh!

You're making me tear up

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I agree and I'm also uncomfortable with it being Bill who's going on the attack. She should be making these claims herself, otherwise it plays like having your hothead husband show up at a job interview and ask "Ya'll being mean to my woman?"

In politics it has always been surrogates and then Vice-Presidential candidates who go on the attack. You are suggesting that one campaign do this differently.

Does that also mean that Barack should stop his operatives from shopping distorted and negative stories about Hillary?

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

In politics it has always been surrogates and then Vice-Presidential candidates who go on the attack. You are suggesting that one campaign do this differently.

Does that also mean that Barack should stop his operatives from shopping distorted and negative stories about Hillary?

It's uneasy territory, and I don't know if there is an answer. If Hillary is going to ride the wave of being the first woman to be a viable candidate for president, there is ground to be broken ...

In politics it has always been men running ...
In politics it has always been not a former president's spouse running ...

Again, I don't know what the answer is; but Hillary's campaign should demonstrate some awareness of the problems people might have with having
with Bill on the attack.

[ryberg]

Sorry, but if King's dream only began to be realized with LBJ's politicking, then I guess that by the same token...

America's dream of winning WWII began to be realized only when Truman went ahead with the decision to use nuclear explosives on Japan.

Man's dream of walking on the moon began to be realized only when the powers that be authorized the Apollo 11 mission.

Islamic terrorists' dream doing harm to evil America began to be realized only when Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks.

The International dream of connecting the world via the Internet began to be realized only after Al Gore got involved in the matter.

(Thought some of you might like that last one. )

Her view is disturbing because it shows a major failure -- and obviously a dangerous one, as well, in some contexts -- to recognize and begin to understand processes of real change in our society, apart from any of its potential to insult those who so clearly worked hard and long to bring it about.

Her criticism of Obama's view as being too naive in terms of change through bottom-up, grassroots-style movements usually led by non-politicians is countered by the rather naive-r view that change is only accomplished from the top down...

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

It's uneasy territory, and I don't know if there is an answer. If Hillary is going to ride the wave of being the first woman to be a viable candidate for president, there is ground to be broken ...

In politics it has always been men running ...
In politics it has always been not a former president's spouse running ...

Again, I don't know what the answer is; but Hillary's campaign should demonstrate some awareness of the problems people might have with having
with Bill on the attack.

I think we will see less of Bill, though I think we'll see plenty of him in South Carolina.

It matters when a popular, former President says something. That was part of the story yesterday. Save him for the cases where the bases are loaded and there are two outs and you're 3 runs behind in extra innings. That is how I view what President Clinton did in New Hampshire - and I do not think it was a off the chart negative attack - it was in large part self-defense

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sorry, but if King's dream only began to be realized with LBJ's politicking, then I guess that by the same token...

America's dream of winning WWII began to be realized only when Truman went ahead with the decision to use nuclear explosives on Japan.

Man's dream of walking on the moon began to be realized only when the powers that be authorized the Apollo 11 mission.

Islamic terrorists' dream doing harm to evil America began to be realized only when Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks.

The International dream of connecting the world via the Internet began to be realized only after Al Gore got involved in the matter.

(Thought some of you might like that last one. )

Her view is disturbing because it shows a major failure -- and obviously a dangerous one, as well, in some contexts -- to recognize and begin to understand processes of real change in our society, apart from any of its potential to insult those who so clearly worked hard and long to bring it about.

Her criticism of Obama's view as being too naive in terms of change through bottom-up, grassroots-style movements usually led by non-politicians is countered by the rather naive-r view that change is only accomplished from the top down...

Steve

We'll see if this criticism has legs; IMHO, I'm prepared to chalk it up to poor semantics on Hillary's part -- and I'm normally one to jump all over her mistakes and miscues.

The Clintons have a strong following in the African-American community; we'll see what those folks have to say -- in the end, it's their take on it that will be more significant, not whitebread you and me .

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by Jacko

This is not your normal wife/husband team....for me, its hard to say what is best in these particular circumstances...there are two very compelling sides to this particular argument imo.....

I guess my question is who really got the votes? Hillary or Bill?

[roni]

Originally Posted by horizon200

I guess my question is who really got the votes? Hillary or Bill?

That is easy. Hillary really got the votes.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

We'll see if this criticism has legs; IMHO, I'm prepared to chalk it up to poor semantics on Hillary's part -- and I'm normally one to jump all over her mistakes and miscues.

The Clintons have a strong following in the African-American community; we'll see what those folks have to say -- in the end, it's their take on it that will be more significant, not whitebread you and me .

True enough, and I also wonder if it isn't poor word choice, too (though that in itself gets to the context/judgment issue, again). But I"m not sure -- she might actually believe what the words say, there. That is a concern for every voter, regardless of race of this specific example. I cannot see how the heavy top-down view fits with any view I have of this country...

Steve

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by roni

That is easy. Hillary really got the votes.

Well, if you believe the end justifies the means.

[roni]

Moving on to Nevada

Here is a good article in the Las Vegas Sun

Las Vegas SUN: Clinton's surprise win sets up Nevada scorcher

And another story on the SEIU Nevada endorsement. Still waiting to hear from the Culinary Union.

Las Vegas SUN: SEIU rises above chaos for Obama

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

Moving on to Nevada

Here is a good article in the Las Vegas Sun

Las Vegas SUN: Clinton's surprise win sets up Nevada scorcher

And another story on the SEIU Nevada endorsement. Still waiting to hear from the Culinary Union.

Las Vegas SUN: SEIU rises above chaos for Obama

Anybody want to place bets on whose camp uses "Viva Las Vegas" for a theme -- forgetting that Viagra is also currently using it for its advertising?

[roni]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Well, if you believe the end justifies the means.

Are you referring to the Obama Attack Machine?

Look folks, I will happily vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee. I will happily vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I will vote for John Edwards if he is the nominee.

On the Repub side it looks like the nominee will be either Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney or McCain - or Gingrich.

I won't vote for any of those guys.

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

Anybody want to place bets on whose camp uses "Viva Las Vegas" for a theme -- forgetting that Viagra is also currently using it for its advertising?

Hopefully none of them, but if I had to bet, I would bet on the older Clinton