• comment on a post Robert Gibbs, the drag on Obama over 7 years ago

    This shows a really serious problem for anyone running the type of "rise above the muck" campaign like Obama's. It sets a very, very high standard of conduct for the campaign. But, if you're Obama, you're building a campaign of professionals schooled and skilled in the same politics you are supposedly setting out to end. It's an inherent contradiction that I've never really seen overcome.

    And, as another point, "I'm in to win" vs "I'm going to change our politics" is so fact-free and meta that it's bound to degenerate into quite nasty name calling. When you're basing campaigns on such subjective, amorphous foundations, the attacks are, almost by definition, personal and need to be rhetorically vicious to bite.

  • comment on a post New Iowa Poll over 7 years ago

    It's so tough to read these Iowa polls ... we all have no idea what they really mean. It's interesting that Vilsack is so consistently low in his home state, but he's clearly got a huge organizational edge on the rest of them. Of course, he moved Atrios today to take the firmest stand I've ever seen Mr. Black take against a Democrat not named Lieberman, which can't be good considering the reason.

    First rule of Democratic politics: don't fuck with Social Security. Just. Don't.

  • Atrios flagged that Vilsack plan, as well. I must admit I missed it as it blogged by, but it is quite an admission.

  • comment on a post Liveblogging the Carson City AFSCME Forum over 7 years ago

    On the first question from Stephanopoulos, Richardson states that he does believe Barack Obama should denounce David Geffen's comments, that he believes there should be a positive campaign for the nomination.

    Freaking pundits. Nice to ask about the issues that matter!

  • on a comment on The Hollywood Primary over 7 years ago

    From Greg Sargent:

    We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because 'he's black.'

    That Lincoln Bedroom fling was a little unnecessary, tapping into the right-wing narrative as it did, but ... I think this is what we can expect over the next year. Pretty divisive stuff from both sides ...


  • comment on a post The Hollywood Primary over 7 years ago

    As a fairly newly-minted Richardson partisan, I have to say ... I think "underdog" is not a bad place to be. Hillary and Obama will be tearing into each other for the next 10 months. If I was working for Edwards, I'd suggest working as quietly as possible for the next 6-9 months. He'll have enough money and name ID, but he needs to keep his head down.

    The whole thing (endless campaign before any voting happens, then all the voting nearly right away) seems almost intentionally designed to create a pundit-driven primary, completely dominated by personality and process stories.

    If we had a long primary season and a shorter campaign before the voting, the voters would have more power and the pundits less.

    Hmmmm, is this just a coincidence?

  • comment on a post Questions for Chris Dodd or Other Candidates? over 7 years ago

    In addition to detailing what you will do about global warming, what steps have you taken in the past to deal with the threat?

    How would you characterize the danger from Iran?

  • comment on a post Fund the Troops, not the War over 7 years ago

    I'm not an Obama supporter in the primary, but that's good stuff there. "Caring for our returning heroes is one of the things we can still get right about this war ... "

    The man's got some rhetorical skills, that's for damn sure.

  • on a comment on Is The Field Finally Set? over 7 years ago

    Obama has explicitly said he isn't coming. He has a fundraiser in Beverly Hills the night before and nothing scheduled the day of the forum, so he may literally be flying over the forum while it's occuring.

    Not sure what his thinking was on this one ...

  • on a comment on Is The Field Finally Set? over 7 years ago

    Who'da thunk?

  • on a comment on Stop the Fearmongering over 7 years ago

    I think Daou forgets one little helpful guideline: don't speculate when you are feeling bad. You're too likely to come off as stupid, or you'll say something counter-productive. He should've just said, "Thanks, Matt. As far as I know, it's accurate. I'll find out more about the context and the intent and get back to you as soon as I can."

    I mean, really ... she might be referring to Republicans? Please.

  • But how many of those 40% are primary voters? I'd be willing to bet that the number of people voting in GOP primaries who are pro-choice is quite a bit under 40%. Especially in Iowa and South Carolina (NH would have quite a few pro-choice voters, though).

    I still say there's no way. All of the independent institutions in the GOP coalition would have major problems with Rudy. It's not just pro-choice. How many GOP primary voters even know that Rudy is in favor of civil unions, let alone the fact he lived with a gay couple when he was divorcing his wife and got kicked out of the mayor's mansion?

  • Hillary wins NY in a walk. I'm not a big fan of Hillary's candidacy, to put it mildly, but she's genuinely popular here in NY. She's been a good Senator, and being mayor of NY isn't the best job qualifications for everyone upstate of that (meaning everyone else).

    Hillary would pound Rudy in NY in the general election.

  • on a comment on MyDD Feburary Straw Poll Results over 7 years ago

    Well ...yeah. But it's not what's driving the choice, is it?

  • on a comment on Living in Grace Time over 7 years ago

    Just noticed an inconsistency in my last two posts in the chance of success. What I meant in the first is that you have the same target for success of both approaches (a veto-proof majority), but, as I mention in the second, you have a better chance of reaching that with the de-authorization approach. It's still not much of a chance, admittedly, but it's at least better than going after funding.


Advertise Blogads