she trusted Bush to use that "coercive diplomacy" wisely. Easily forseeable blunder.
That shows extremely poor character judgement (on all of their parts, not just Clinton's). A robot would have made a pretty good Senator just by systematically opposing everything coming out of the White House. They were and are that bad.
There are only two possible explanations for going along with the WH on anything: being a well-meaning dupe or doing it out of political calculation. I'm absolutely certain Clinton, Kerry and Edwards all did the latter, even though none of them can admit it (it is a mortal sin for a politician to admit to being a politician). Two of them eventually came around to confessing to the lesser charge and apologizing. Weak and less than pricipled, but better than nothing. Clinton deserves all the criticism she gets on this.
And since we're sort of rehashing the primaries anyway, may I remind everyone that she didn't read the NIE before voting, unlike Bob Graham (who also planned to run for president and represented a more conservative state). There is no better evidence that her priorities as a Senator are totally out of whack.
I also wish these ClintonVeepers would acknowledge the most substantive arguments against her (high net disapprovals and lots of baggage, for example) instead of suggesting how she gets along with Obama is the most important question mark.
could debate like Kerry. While Gore clearly got flustered by Bush's stupid inanities, Kerry took them in stride and obliterated Bush on both content and delivery.
I agree that neithr was particularly gifted on the stump, though I would say both Gore and Kerry were better than McCain. The one thing McCain has going for him is that he can charm the pants of an interviewer.
I like to break up public speaking into three formats: speeches (S), debates (D) and interviews (I). Each requires a different set of skills and I have yet to see a politician master them all.
Gore: solid S, mediocre D, solid I
Dean: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I
Kerry: mediocre S, brillant D, solid I
Obama: brilliant S, mediocre D, solid I
Clinton: poor S, solid D, solid I
McCain: mediocre S, solid D, brilliant I
I can't evaluate Bush because I don't understand why people don't see him as terrible in every aspect.
Anyhoo, this rough scorecard shows that Obama needs to catch up to McCain in debating skill if he wants to be perceived as the all-around better candidate.
Whatever. What a lame pivot attempt. I'm not sure you even know what "identity politics" means. Sebelius has a lot of positives even Saint Hillary lacks: overall favorables, red-state cred, executive experience and a record that includes some tough risky decisions (e.g. coal plant vetoes).
She makes a lot of sense as a VP pick independently of her gender. That it would annoy some Clinton supporters is a reflection on them, not on me. It may not be nice to express satisfaction about the possibilty Obama ignores this ridiculous line of reasoning and picks Sebelius anyway. Oh well. I'm tired of their tirades, and I'd like to see less of this kind of reasoning in future cycles.
It would give me a little satisfaction anyway. It would expose identity politicking for the fallacy that it is. As would Clinton picking a black veep other than Obama had she won, of course.
I suppose it would lose some HillVeep semi-PUMA votes if Obama picked a different woman. But over half the country dislikes her already. The more media attention Hillary diehards get complaining that he shafted her again the more backlash support he could actually pick up.
It's too bad that they only quote the generic blather. I'm hoping Obama can come up with a zingy punchline that can sum up Republican economic failures nicely. "Culture of corruption" apparently worked pretty well in '06 (corruption came in as the top issue in many surveys, even ahead of Iraq), but I think Obama can do better.
I dunno, something like "greed and bleed" economoics. Maybe even rehashing Poppy's "voodoo".
Not about hitting back at McCain, but in the effectiveness of the quote.
1. It repeated the accusation "my plans not gonna bring about economic disaster". That's a basic PR no-no. Remember "I am not a crook!"
2. It's still annoyingly vague. How was the economy disasterous under Bush? What Bush/McCain policies caused or aggravated them? How about "Those prices you're paying for a bottle of pills? You can thank the Bush Medicare part D clause that prevented the government from negociating lower prices as a giveaway to big Pharma." Or even "millonaires are paying less in taxes than ever, while you're being nickel-and-dimed with tuition, vehicle registration fees and grocery bills." Something that shows causality between Republicans and economic pain.
3. More "new path" rhetoric. Obama doesn't need to emphasize that he's new, different and exciting. Voters can perceive that. He needs to show why he'll be better.
Surely a politician with his oratorical gifts can articulate dry or technical economic positions in a way that resonates to target voting groups.
FP weakness: Obama has stated that he isn't particularly worried about that area, having lived abroad and all. He made some disparaging remarks about congressional junkets. While I think both Clark and Biden would be great picks, I hope either of them is not selected simply to fill a perceived weakness.
I bet on Sebelius, so I hope he picks her. It would also spite the annoying "no woman but Hillary" crowd.
It's all very well-reasoned (not quite sure about the relative Fox news numbers, but the rest is solid).
And the rest is pure ad hominem. OK, so say bobswern wants Hillary on the ticket. How does that matter? His points stand up for themselves.
There was no Obama-bashing in this post (missing keywords: Wright, Messiah, The One, Barry, unelectable, disenfranchise, inexperienced) A sober assessment of polling trends and campaign staff qualifications hardly does a disservice to the Obama campaign.
were opposed to civil rights (relating to AAs anyway). When their party's leadership started building a civil rights platform, they switched parties. Party philosophy evolves over time, as you must know. By switching, the Dixiecrats turned the Repulbican party into the soft-on-civil rights party. Follow the logic now? Heck don't take my word for it, take Keh Mehlman's.
Besides, my point is about respect for civil rights today not 45 years ago. Care to refute any part of my enumerated list, or come up with equivalent Democratic violations under Clinton or Carter?
Argue Laffer curve stuff, government waste or ending affirmative action or something. Then we could really spar. Defending the recent Republican record on civil rights is like stocking a barrel with lethargic sockeye salmon and handing me an AK-47.
(...) can only liken it to a guest coming into my home, peeing on my hardwood floors, and being shocked that I would ask this guest to leave.
Post on redstate much, Chitown? You sound exactly like those authoritarian jackasses trying to be pithy.
You've shown admirable restraint these past few months, showing your true colors only in flashes. It's interesting that you know mostly post meta-stuff dripping with appeals to respect. Tip: the sig's a little off. There are better and more subtle ways to sow dissention.
I just hope it doesn't give you an ulcer. To quote Vonnegut from his disturbing masterpiece Mother Night:
Be careful what you pretend to be, because you are what you pretend to be.