• comment on a post Hillary Didn't Want to be VP over 5 years ago

    Huh?  We don't actually KNOW if she wanted the job or if she didn't.  I don't see why it matters, anyhow.  But let's just say she actually had wanted the job: it would not have been in Bill's (or Hillary's) interest to disclose that today.  It would only have added fuel to the fire.

    But now that you opened the door, the real question is not whether she "wanted" it (because we ought not to get into the psychological political game), but whether picking Hillary would have been politically prudent on the part of Obama, and the unequivocal answer--echoed by Bill--was that, yes, it would have been.  

  • I was disagreeing with your original assertion that "we treat the fundamentals of our thought processes as absolute and indisputable truths."  As your reply seems to indicate, unlike Republicans, we actually don't operate under any absolute and indisputable truths--and our thought processes tend to disavow fundamentals, while favoring nuance.  If anything, the ONE thing that has become absolute/fundamental, as you imply, is our rabid partisanship and opposition to anything conservative.

  • We treat the fundamentals of our thought processes as absolute and indisputable truths. And we react with disgust to conclusions that aren't based on these. We may not frame our opinions in religious terms, but there's plenty of prejudice and moral opprobrium to go around.

    With all due respect, I must disagree.  I always considered the Republicans success, in part, due to their rigid adherence to a simple, conservative orthodox: More government bad, less government good.  Evil must be confronted and defeated at all costs.  Taxes bad: they take money out of your pocket.

    Democrats, on the other hand, allow for much more nuance and gray area on both social issues as well as the role of government.  We don't have a clear message to sell, and I think we are going to find one (or reframe one) if we are going to hope to be consistently successful at the presidential level.

  • comment on a post The Earmarks McCain Used To Mock over 5 years ago

    Wow--she requested all that in 2009?  I didn't know those innovators in Alaska already built a time machine...

  • on a comment on The GLEE that Obama may lose? over 5 years ago

    Come on canadian gal...we have agreed on so much, and perhaps we still do.  There is no point of silencing people simply on the basis that they are discussing their earnestly held sentiments about the dreadful state of this race.

    Frankly, I would expect that more Democrats would be doing some intense soul searching right now.  If not now, there will certainly be more of it between now and the election--and after.

  • on a comment on The GLEE that Obama may lose? over 5 years ago


    Really, I want an answer from the hardcore Obama supporters who bought into that crap: What did happen to the 50 state strategy?  Where did it go?  I would prefer they gave an honest appraisal that it was wrong to even consider it (and waste a plethora of time and resources on the idea) in the first place!

    The notion that in this polarized of an environment (still polarized culturally despite GWB's low approval ratings), a candidate with such inherent weaknesses could run a 50 state strategy was nothing short of ludicrous indeed.

  • on a comment on The GLEE that Obama may lose? over 5 years ago

    An "overvalued upstart" is exactly right, Gary.  I'm not sure if you've seen this article, but it explores precisely this idea:

    Speculative bubbles have come in many different varieties: flowers, railway shares, Florida property, Beanie Babies, comic books, technology stocks, exurb McMansions. Does Candidate Obama qualify? Well, the candidate does sound a bit like a lot of the hot Internet companies back in the late 1990s. Not much of a track record. Lots of media hype. Parabolic ascent. And now a stomach-dropping decline.

  • on a comment on The GLEE that Obama may lose? over 5 years ago

    My thoughts exactly, nikkid.  What goes around comes around.

    Obama is paying an unbelievable price for his refusal to pick Hillary Clinton as VP.  I believe both of us argued forcefully before the announcement that this single decision had sky-high potential for Obama to solidify the Democratic base and provide the most dynamic ticket in the history of presidential politics.

    Instead of acting courageously, Obama choose the "safe" alternative, and left the door open for McCain to pick a woman like Sarah Palin.  It was a lack of foresight and a lack of imagination that contributed to this--and all Democrats may pay the price because of it.

  • You know, I don't disagree with you that those things happened.  The DNC Rules and Bylaws served us horribly this time around, and frankly, thats another diary.  But reforming the Electoral College is ultimately an issue for all Americans of both parties, I believe.

  • on a comment on You Didn't See This Coming? over 5 years ago

    I am sorry, but as a Clintonista I do feel that Obama should have had the foresight to pick Hillary Clinton as VP, to help shore up the Democratic base as well as independents.  Joe Biden was the second best option, but the question is why the campaign couldn't forsee McCain's choice of a woman like Sarah Palin.

  • Correction:  "The same ratio, roughly, might work in today's favor" should read "in McCain's favor".

  • I read the post, and so did the commenter, and he/she makes a valid point--whether in reference to popular vote OR the electoral vote count.

    There is nothing wrong with questioning the notion that we are "on the cusp of a landslide".  I like the enthusiasm of this diary, and appreciate the need to work hard to get Obama to get narrowly elected; this urgency, however, underlies the very real possibility that we may also be on the cusp of a narrow loss.

    Obama's lead of 1-4 points in most of the state polls mentioned in this diary is actually within the margin of error: hardly evidence of being on the cusp of a landslide.

    Throw in some of the intangibles: Add the potential Bradley Effect of this general election.

    Add the undecideds--noting that those undecided in the primary went 2:1 for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.  I was convinced then, and still am now, that these were anti-Obama holdovers more so than pro-Hillary voters.  The same ratio, roughly, might work in today's favor.  Underpinning this movement of the undecideds against Obama may be fear, racism, or ignorance; yet the point is to acknowledge that these intangibles do exist, and to prepare for them.

    I think the content of the diary does give the hint that we are not TODAY on the cusp of a landslide.  That is contingent on hard work, and perhaps some luck in the next sixty days.  Perhaps the better title might have been: We still have work to do.

  • correction: i meant underestimated on both fronts.  and you're right, anything can happen.  it's just that this is the sort of election we shouldn't even have to cross our fingers for.

  • Okay.  So between me and you (any kind of worry/concern is seen as anathema and trollery on this site and most), where do you think our odds stand right now?

    Intrade has had Obama at a 60% chance of winning, McCain 40%.  Especially since the Palin pick, I have the same prediction--reversed.  I do think that Democrats have underestimated our opponent's (more hidden) strengths and overestimated our nominee's weaknesses all along; and thats precisely why I supported Hillary.  

    At the very least, I think it is very hard to argue against our prospects being no better than a coin flip right now.  And that is a very, very depressing thing.

  • hey canadian gal...remember your comment on my diary a month ago about your sneaking suspicion?

    My sneaking suspicion is...you were right.


Advertise Blogads