Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[davy]

i just watched the clip that started all this nonsense--search youtube for "shame on you obama"--and she sounds pretty fucking pissed!

i think it's hilarious that she angrily asks "since when do democrats attack one another on universal healthcare?" when that's pretty much what she's been doing the whole friggin' time.

i wonder how her emotion in this clip is going to play out...

[elpollodiablo]

If your boy can't survive a little bit of bad press...

[Andrew_TSKS]

i get an odd feeling of forboding, though. i feel like she's stumbled onto something that could hurt him in next week's debate. he did such a good job of turning all her attack ads back on her, but now he's released a couple of his own, and she's doing the exact same thing back to him. plus, newsday (the publication where the quote in question originated) agrees with her, and sort of convincingly chastises him.

are you saying that the campaign flyers hillary is pissed about constitute attack ads? that's absurd. just because she's reacting as if she's being swiftboated doesn't mean she IS being swiftboated. the ads say a couple of things about her positions that are actually accurate. i think the "15 million left uninsured" lie-by-omission is closer to an attack than any of this stuff.

[davy]

well, that's what i mean...they're as close to an attack ad as the obama campaign has released yet.

i don't know. my sense of dread comes more from the obvious desperation of hillary clinton. we've entered that stage where she might do anything to turn the tide, and that makes me nervous. especially with that next debate coming up. something tells me it's not going to be the handshake-a-thon that the last one was.

but maybe that's a good thing.

[DCDave]

Factual pamphlets with a negative tone don't constitute attack ads.  They constitute issue ads.

[jebreject]

I think most everything Clinton has been saying lately is rather ironic, considering all of her criticisms of Obama's campaigning tactics would be far more effective as criticisms of her own.

[FreddyKnuckles]

The whole plagiarism thing is hysterical too, considering I've seen probably a dozen clips of bill giving a speech followed by a clip of her, you know, GIVING THE EXACT SAME FUCKING SPEECH.


What's wit the McCain/Times thing?  Y'all know I hold no love for McCain, but wtf?

[Thermofusion]

Nader Announces Bid For White House

oh, FFS 

[Andrew_TSKS]

the nader bid for the white house will go exactly nowhere. he ran in 2004 and got less than 20% of the votes he got in 2000. this year he'll have even less impact. he's becoming analogous to the guys who run every election year on the libertarian party ticket. they're on the ballot every year, but they never get enough votes to even register on the national consciousness.

as for the times thing--freddy, they should have just been all "mccain has ties to lobbyists, despite what he might like you to believe", rather than focusing on any potential romantic relationship, and because they didn't handle the story that way, they discredited themselves. there is something newsworthy going on there, just like there was in that whole dan rather story that ruined his career about george w. bush's sketchy service record. but they handled the story wrong, just as rather did, and now the entire story will be ignored by anyone who ever would have thought about voting for mccain in the first place. it's a shame.

[FreddyKnuckles]

I was reading another article in the times, one that seemed to be defending the first, that was focusing on the lobbyist biznass and it seemed disingenuous and misleading.


I mean, there are thousands of lobbyists in DC doing perfectly legal things every day--Planned Parenthood, Americans for Democratic Action, and etc.  Their job is to meet with politicians and try to convince them to either vote their way, or use their influence to help their cause.  Some lobbyists, like Abramoff, do illegal things to convince politicians--monetary gifts, vacations, and the like. 

There is absolutely zero evidence in the Times article that to suggest anything other than that McCain met with a lobbyist, was convinced by her, and used his influence to help her cause (one which some of us are politically opposed to, but nonetheless is perfectly legal). 

Allegations that there was misconduct in procuring McCain's help are just as factually unfounded as the allegations that the two had a sexual relationship.  Further, allegations of a sexual relationship are borderline sexist by the Times.  Attractive blond successful? Must be screwing.


Double edit:
I'm also not saying that McCain has never done anything shady with lobbyists because I'm pretty sure every Senator in the country except that guy from Alaska has.  I'm saying that for the article to be as vague and factless as it was to be a front page story, with 8-10 year old news, in the midst of a man's presidential bid, should raise a few eyebrows.

[FreddyKnuckles]

She said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of this country."  Which is pretty hamfisted, sure, but you'd think she shot Glen Beck's puppy.

Not even when the 1980 Men's olympic hockey team won?

[DCDave]

I was reading another article in the times, one that seemed to be defending the first, that was focusing on the lobbyist biznass and it seemed disingenuous and misleading.


I mean, there are thousands of lobbyists in DC doing perfectly legal things every day--Planned Parenthood, Americans for Democratic Action, and etc.  Their job is to meet with politicians and try to convince them to either vote their way, or use their influence to help their cause.  Some lobbyists, like Abramoff, do illegal things to convince politicians--monetary gifts, vacations, and the like. 

There is absolutely zero evidence in the Times article that to suggest anything other than that McCain met with a lobbyist, was convinced by her, and used his influence to help her cause (one which some of us are politically opposed to, but nonetheless is perfectly legal). 

Allegations that there was misconduct in procuring McCain's help are just as factually unfounded as the allegations that the two had a sexual relationship.  Further, allegations of a sexual relationship are borderline sexist by the Times.  Attractive blond successful? Must be screwing.


Double edit:
I'm also not saying that McCain has never done anything shady with lobbyists because I'm pretty sure every Senator in the country except that guy from Alaska has.  I'm saying that for the article to be as vague and factless as it was to be a front page story, with 8-10 year old news, in the midst of a man's presidential bid, should raise a few eyebrows.

The Newsweek piece on it, where they pull up transcript from a deposition that refutes his rebuttal of never having met with those lobbyists is pretty interesting.  Also interesting is that his campaign manager specifically instructed the lobbyist to distance herself from McCain in the lead-up to his 2000 bid. 

[davy]

the early spin seems to be in hillary's favor. she's getting a lot of "backed-into-a-corner!" segments. the next debate is going to be dirty, and she does dirty better than obama. hopefully he can outclass her.

and nader? 

[slow west vultures]

btw, simply loved the end of the TX debate (just saw the recap). Especially the bit where Obama pulls out HC's chair.

...and fast-forward to today's headlines:

"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies... Shame on you, Barack Obama... Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

attention:  will Barack Obama please report to the principals office immediately. 

[jebreject]

I really don't see how anyone can find Clinton anything but despicable right now. I mean, just as despicable as pretty much any other politician, but still!

[RavingLunatic]

Nader Announces Bid For White House

oh, FFS 

Well, he's got my vote. And should have any leftist's who doesn't live in a swing state.

[davy]

fuck that.

[jebreject]

Right, because every Leftist's views align themselves perfectly with Nader's. I'd vote Socialist first.

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

Logically, wouldn't you want to vote for the best candidate that actually has a chance, rather than the one that has better (youropinionnotmine) views but doesn't have a hope in hell of winning?

[dieblucasdie]

Well, but John McCain is the *only* candidate with a chance of winning Indiana.

[RavingLunatic]

Right, because every Leftist's views align themselves perfectly with Nader's. I'd vote Socialist first.

Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as you don't cave and vote Democrat.

[RavingLunatic]

Logically, wouldn't you want to vote for the best candidate that actually has a chance, rather than the one that has better (youropinionnotmine) views but doesn't have a hope in hell of winning?

What Blucas said, but also, you must understand that part of the reason truly leftist candidates don't get more votes and have a chance at winning or at least affecting the debate is because of thinking like this.

[DCDave]

It's also because they don't represent the views of the majority.

[guanajuato]

Logically, wouldn't you want to vote for the best candidate that actually has a chance, rather than the one that has better (youropinionnotmine) views but doesn't have a hope in hell of winning?

What Blucas said, but also, you must understand that part of the reason truly leftist candidates don't get more votes and have a chance at winning or at least affecting the debate is because of thinking like this.

part of the reason bush was sworn in as president in 2000, was because nader siphoned off florida votes. some amount of hostility remains when nader inevitably tosses his hat in the ring. scalia is obviously more blame-worthy but still. nader is in love with nader, and nader voters are in love with nader-voters, if they could fuck themselves they would never leave their bedrooms unless it was to fuck themselves in front of a giant full length mirror.

it doesn't automatically confer a largess of spirit when someone takes a stand for nader in a democratic swing state. it's like buying a hooker where it's legal.

[hannah]

She said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of this country."  Which is pretty hamfisted, sure, but you'd think she shot Glen Beck's puppy.

Not even when the 1980 Men's olympic hockey team won?

She wasn't an adult then!