May 27, 2008

Yeah, but if you count Michigan and Florida, the cunt is leading in the popular vote

Last week, following Barack Obama's historic 75,000-person rally in Portland, the Oregon State University newspaper urged students to get out and vote with a singularly unfortunate headline.

[h/t: David Simmons]

Posted by Daniel Radosh


"...and GONE!"

Gregory Hines in "History of the World, Part I"

The only way to make up for that, is to headline an article about a McCain rally with THE MICK IS DOWN.

Personally, I find the use of the vernacular to be somewhat appealing. A strong word in defense of the position of a strong woman. The sentiment somehow illustrates what a lot of the country has come to feel – that you just have to admit… the bitch has balls. And what’s further coming to light is that she’s got a bigger set than Obama.

Hey, McCain and Hillary have seen some action is all I’m saying – And I’m not sure who’s better at torture, the VC or Ken Starr, but one thing is clear, Obama hasn’t been tested in the least. A hint of criticism hurled at his wife and the dude has a fit, calling out into the schoolyard anyone lobbing critique (black, white, half black half white – whatever you call it, that skin ain’t thick). I cannot imagine what reaction we’ll get when the full machine rolls up and splatters her college thesis, her attitudes toward black separatism, and the size of her giant ass over the media like so much chaff in a doomed bomber run. And when that separatism issue comes home to roost, watch the white vote that only wanted to “play” at being liberal run for the friggin hills.

I see a meltdown on the horizon that only Dean could commiserate over. And when it happens, we’ll all bemoan the fact that Hillary would have wiped the floor with McCain.

@pessimist: Um, Hillary is thick skinned? "Waa! Waa! The vast right wing conspiracy made my husband cheat on me!" And if Obama is such a pushover, why couldn't your uber-tough Hillary beat him? Not for lack of trying, that's for sure.

I'm also not following the "McCain has been tested" reasoning in this context. Unless you think the Democrats are going to physically torture him, it's not clear that he can withstand a tough political campaign. South Carolina 2000, anyone?

> Unless you think the Democrats are going to physically torture him, it's not clear that he can withstand a tough political campaign

And even then, he might not withstand it - I mean, the guy did break and do propaganda for the enemy, after all. Pansy.

Ooops. That classy "pansy" comment was from me.

[COMMENT: I propose that hereafter any erroneous or unattributed use of the word PANSY -- particularly in a classy manner -- be termed a VANCEY. Or something.]

Ah, but she’s been ridden like a five dollar mule and was still elected by a serious margin to the NY senate. As to why she didn’t beat him? Simple – Mark Penn. Awfully bad strategy in Caucus states and could have been avoided. Convert to a winner-take-all primary like the republicans and she’d have the nomination – done, over. And who did Obama beat to get his senate seat? Alan Keys? Yeah, a ninth hour black dude from how many states away with 6 weeks to put a campaign together. What a nail biter. A South side crack whore would have won that seat.

The fact is NO one anticipated the support of a black dude with a funny and vaguely middle Eastern sounding name, a state senate alumni who’s noted as an agent for Political Change by voting “present” how many times? Someone who’s got disdain for real politicians, but who changed his senate vote on seven occasions from no to yes or yes to no because he made a “mistake”? Claiming to not understand red for no and green for yes seven, yes SEVEN times so he could say he voted both ways on a particular issue? Give me a break.

Oh no, he’s no politician, since the job of editor of the Harvard Law review is something they just give you for good grades. His “community involvement”? People I know truly committed to their communities STAY in community involvement and don’t do it for the photo op and resume experience, then bail.

This guy’s entire adult life is one ongoing political calculation and my problem with Obama is that his candidacy is based on it being completely otherwise. Hillary’s a politician, she doesn’t run from that, she BATHES in it.

I can respect someone that admits who they are and what they are, and stands on their own merits. Obama, while being the anointed son of grace and goodness, has only been able to look good not by what he’s done, but by what he has NOT done. Well no kidding he hasn’t made career mistakes. You have to both have a career and vote on positions to even have a chance at it.

What’s Obama going to do when the Congress won’t “change” because he wants them to? Sulk? What’s the time horizon on CHANGE anyway? How do you legislate change? Sounds kind of vague to me. How do you legislate getting along with others for that matter? Wasn’t Bush’s mantra that he was a uniter not a divider?

Sure I’ll vote for him, though, but I’ll be in the minority. Yeah, McCain got trounced in 2000. Trounced by the machine that is now standing right behind him. He’s an idiot with a drug addict for a wife, still has the stink of Keating on him, and is STILL ahead in polls against Obama.

Why? Because he’s weak on SO many issues that don’t involve inspiring people to give him money. He’s got just as valid an opinion on veterans affairs as McCain because his white grandfather was a veteran? Are you f-ing kidding me? Did Obama ever even MEET his grandfather? I can trash this guy all day and with great gusto and I’m voting Democratic for christsakes. How hard do you think the right wingers will go after him?

That's right, she beat RICK LAZIO! I take it all back.

> Did Obama ever even MEET his grandfather?

Only if you count raising him.

Obama raised his grandfather? That makes him a Muslim, right?

While we're fisking...

>and is STILL ahead in polls against Obama.

Obama trumps McCain in four swing states

Average of the (meaningless) nationwide polls: Obama +2.4

See, Hilary would have won if she'd bothered to learn how the election worked. And if nobody had run against her.

McCain inspires Republicans like Kerry inspired Democrats and the Bush machine will be as useful to him in 2008 as the Clinton machine was for Kerry in 2004.

The arguments that are being made at this stage in the campaign regarding the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates are essentially self-serving and dishonest. This issue has nothing to do with counting votes, or any of the other arguments Hillary and her supporters have brought forward. It is time she and her supporters understand that Hillary lost because of Hillary. This was a self-inflicted defeat. If these people are going through some sort of grieving process, then perhaps they should seek therapy.

For Billary to suggest that it is appropriate to talk about who has won more Electoral College votes, when the General Election has not been held yet, is patently absurd. The only votes Hillary won are votes cast in the Democratic Party primaries. Just as absurd and moreover irresponsible is the broader suggestion that there is some sort of conspiracy afloat. But, we must remember this all comes from the same guy who was ready to argue about the definition of the word “is.”

The Clinton’s are both supremely political animals. Everything they do and say has political motivation. Why spend our focus faulting them for facets of their makeup that are immutable? Sure the argument over Florida and Michigan is political expediency at its best. No question. You know it, they know it. It’s also valid, however, to give the citizens of those states their right to vote. Those same, and now disaffected, citizens are not the people that chose to fuck up the timing of their primary.

Another point completely lost in the media, and that I think the Clinton’s themselves are failing to make, is the role of Superdelegates. If the Superdelegates simply follow the split of the delegates, then of what use are they in a decision? Obviously, if they follow like lemmings the will of the individual delegates, they are of no use beyond that of debate and punditry. But to be a Lemming is NOT the role of Superdelegates, is it? If neither candidate can secure enough delegates to win the nomination, the primary election is a tie. You don’t look at popular vote, you don’t look at delegate count. It’s a tie. It is within the margin of error so it is a tie.

And in the case of a tie, the superdelegates are the tiebreakers. In my opinion they should absolutely NOT have made any decision in the support of one candidate or another until after June 3rd. Why? Why did the networks stop reporting polling data prior to the close of polls – because it influences the end results of an election.

By stating their support so far in advance of the end of this primary, they have dug themselves into a hole and allowed the media to claim a winner when this election is in fact a tie. This election will not have been decided by We the People, but by 800 politicians. And I would think Democratic politicians would back the person they feel has the best chance against McCain, but they seem less interested in winning in November than I am. The fact is, many likely would change their votes back to Hillary, but feel painted into a corner.

Frankly, I cannot blame the Clintons or Obama for this primary mess. The DNC conceived and built the most patently inconsistent and ridiculous primary voting scheme imaginable and those responsible (Howard Dean) should be lambasted and hoisted from the highest petard for debilitating short-sightedness. No one can disagree with that.

Now – Howard Dean was the “agent for change” once upon a time. Howard had the support of the liberal elite, the intelligentsia, the students, the media (until his rant). And then he lost to that goofball Kerry, who lost to an even bigger goofball Bush, and what is Dean’s defacto legacy of implementing that “change” brand of improvement everyone clamors for from Obama? He “changed” the primary system to a process that can’t find its dick with both hands.


You cannot blame Howard Dean for the problem with superdelegates. They were first put into place in the early '80s. The fact that the Democratic nominee will be chosen by 800 superdelegates is the fault of those who created this scheme back then, not Dean.

The use of proportional representation, in my opinion, more accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate. You should be in favor of this if you truly believe that voters should not be disenfranchised.

Florida and Michigan knew the DNC rules regarding the timing of the primaries. Thus, it is their fault, not Dean's, that the voters of those states have been disenfranchised. In fact, I'd say the fact that this primary has been so screwed up rests solely on the shoulders of Florida and Michigan. Had they followed the rules, their votes would have had enormous impact on the nominee selection process, and it would all be settled by now. They have squandered a great opportunity.

I don’t disagree that the process in basic form has been around, but my understanding is that it has been updated by Dean. And you’re absolutely right that the state legislatures bear the burden of the choices they made.

The problem is the choice was made for several millions of people who’s vote now does not count. The punitive measures could have been taken in the next election (like making them last in the cycle), but to negate public votes after they’ve been cast is a ridiculous concept in a democracy.

Dean had the power and influence to fix this before it even became a problem. The lack of foresight in anticipating a close election after the last 8 years is nothing short of criminal.

And it is not proportional balloting I have a problem with, it is the mix of true vote and caucus I have a problem with. How is a caucus representational to everyone? It’s great for people that don’t work, who have an extra 3 hours to mill around, or who love to debate in public about politics. So how many people does the caucus system disenfranchise? Consider for a moment those “blue collar working class” voters working hourly jobs with perhaps 30 minutes between work and dinner to vote. Did they show up at a caucus?

Christ, why not make it less challenging and make people write a 5 page white paper on their choice, written in # 2 pencil with a clear binder, double spaced 11 point Times Roman Font with water mark facing up. That would have put Dean over the top in ’00. What were we thinking?

The people, ALL the people, need a simple and consistent voting mechanism. The fact that we’re 8 years past an election stolen by corruption and confusion and STILL cannot be clear and fair in how we vote boggles my mind.

The cost of that failure is now over 4,000 American lives, well over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, an energy policy bereft of insight and common sense, billions in debt leading to a crumbling economy and the people on this post want to rush to another judgment all over again. For what? For someone who claims they’ll restore honor and dignity to the office of president? Isn’t that what he’s saying, only without the twang and in a paraphrase?

Vote for him because you like him, his tone of speech, his books, his youth, the cut of his jib. But for god’s sake don’t vote for him because you believe a new era of politics is on the horizon. You all cannot be deaf to the point of not having heard that tune before. It’s politics and dangerously naïve not to think so given what’s at stake.

Can I vote for him because I like his policy proposals and think he'll be a good president?

There's some general confusion, and not just at this blog, over the nature of the primary system. It's not *supposed* to be a democratic vote like the general election. The parties can select candidates however they want, according to whatever rules they want, hence superdelegates, caucuses, etc. It is only in the last 40 years that the two parties even began to embrace the notion that their selection process should be based on anything like "the will of the people," and only in the past 20 years that they've gotten serious about it. This isn't confusion about "how we vote" its an evolving decision about the extent to which voting should determine the selection of candidates in the first place.

For more, see my recent briefing

Talk about unfortunate headlines. Tell us, if Clinton were black, would you have gone with "cunt" or "nigger"?

Well, it's a relief to get past all the political fights and back to good old missing the joke.

Missing the joke? Are you even aware that Oprah Winfrey has repeatedly declared she is giving up her career as a talk show host(ess) to become a full-time warrior against "child sex abuse" and has been bankrolling Obama's run for president, with the expectation of being appointed some kind of Sex and Pornography "czar"? And that she is now laying low and hush-hush about this until after the election?

Can you even imagine this country's war-on-sex-and-pornography then?

Which is it, "repeatedly declared" or "laying low and hush-hush"?

A primary election is not historically “supposed” to express the will of the people? You mean just like “all men are created equal” is “supposed” to literally mean men, and only white men? The liberal-minded white men framing the constitution felt the right to vote should be extended to people that didn’t own land, which for the time was nicely radical. Good for them.

Can we get over what it’s “supposed” to be like and move on to what it SHOULD be like?

Can we see an agent of real political change tackle issues that directly affect their strategic ability to be elected in the first place? That’s easy – NO.

I’ve got little respect for such a self serving institution, but it’s all we have. However I have even less respect for those within it that pretend to be above it or outside it somehow. Since the very fact of their presence within it would refute their claims. Obama and Clinton are essentially the same on policy. The choice comes mainly down to ability and the experience with which to effectively govern.

McCain’s first anti-Obama ad need be no more than a clip from Mr. Smith goes to Washington, as Jimmy Stewart vainly tries to pass legislation, voice cracking after 23 hours of filibuster – the neophyte in big bad Washington unable to understand the dynamics. Sadly I doubt we can count on our current day Claude Rains to attempt suicide and admit to being corrupt and influenced by lobbyists, allowing Mr. Smith and that swell group of boy scouts to have their cake and eat it.

How disturbing that the only parallel between the movie and real life is how cute the pages were.

Winfrey was salient in the media circus build-up to the current hysteria of those never-ending spate of laws.

She was among the first to back Obama.

Now she lies low. That seems to me to be the reason, so as not to spook the voters about what's in store ahead.

A primary election is not historically "supposed" to express the will of the people? You mean just like "all men are created equal" is "supposed" to literally mean men, and only white men?

No, he means that the system was not designed to express the will of the majority, and no one ever claimed that it was. Since you seem disinclined to read the briefing Daniel linked to, here's a summary: traditionally party bosses picked the candidates, and there were no primaries. Then some states added primaries or caucuses to give party members more say. Superdelegates (who you are counting on to negate Obama's solid lead in pledged delegates) were created partly to give party members less say. No one has ever pretended that picking the nominee is based solely on a majority vote by the party membership.

In fact, there are many arguments against having a majority vote, which is why some states have caucuses and why you think the superdelegates should vote for the candidate who received fewer votes. It depends on who you think should choose the nominee -- the majority of the party (primaries), the most commited party members (caucuses), or the party leadership (superdelegates). The current system gives us a balance of all three. It may not be the balance you or I would choose, but it's the one we have now, and it's the one Obama and Clinton are competing in.

A few other points:

1. For Florida and Michigan the DNC is not "negat[ing] public votes after they've been cast." The voters were told beforehand that their votes weren't going to count (a decision Clinton publicly supported). That they voted anyway is admirable but irrelevant.

2. "The lack of foresight in anticipating a close election" is not suprising since the last time we had a close primary election was in the 80s. Remember, primaries and general elections are set up differently.

3. I've read all your comments on "change" several times, and I still have no idea what they are supposed to mean, other than that you don't like Obama.

4. "McCain's first anti-Obama ad need be no more than a clip from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, as Jimmy Stewart vainly tries to pass legislation, voice cracking after 23 hours of filibuster - the neophyte in big bad Washington unable to understand the dynamics." That would be awesome. McCain is three years older than that movie, which is surely something he wants to play up.

I'm at work and I can't spend that much time here. Can we make a rule that no post can exceed, say, 50 words? We can call it the "Anti-Caption Rule"?

(Radosh would, of course, be excluded.)

And, since I have 13 left: "Jig" is a far cry from "cunt."

Y'know, I was trying to come up with a more exact equivalent. I keep hearing about all the derogatory words for women, but couldn't come up with anything more exotic than bitch but less extreme than cunt that didn't specifically reference sexual behavior.

How bout something vaguely old fashioned like cunny. Its not far off cunt, but still strangely dirty and wrong sounding. perhaps just the right sort of unique radosh twist.

Twist? Broad? Dame? Tomato? Hag? Fishwife?

I'm happy to weigh in with well under 50 words... We're talking politics, right? So I think "whore" is perfectly apt. Skirt? Not nearly offensive enough.

Old bag?

I have just one question: Is there some sort of election thingy goin' on?

"... those responsible (Howard Dean) should be lambasted and hoisted from the highest petard ..." -- Pessimist

"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon ..." -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4

Not sure what Pessimist means. A petard was a bomb placed at the base of a fortress wall to blow a hole in it. These were known to explode prematurely on occasion, with embarrassing or deadly results to the one setting it off. Some say its derivation is from the French word meaning to fart. I'm going to believe that whether it is true nor not.



Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2