Quote :

"PinkandBlack: According to the board I got the report from, Clinton stacked the house. Obama got great cheers, but had NO campaign presence whatsoever. His table had no signs, stickers, or anything. Clinton was prepared, but also got some catcalls about war support. Wes Clark was terrible, Dodd impressed, Kucinich was good, the others were decent. Edwards looks like the real challenger now."

Apparently, Obama's lack of a campaign presence was intentional (down to the lack of a theme song), to accompany the tenor of his speech (which was far more somber than most of the other speeches). After the DNC event, he headed over to George Mason University (less than 30 minutes away) for a student event and there were no shortage of supporters or Obama for President paraphernalia.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM. Reason : Page 6!]

2/5/2007 3:03:40 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 the republicans invented the electorcal college just to fuck over the dems! drunknloaded i thought originally the federalists created the electorial college to fuck over the dems? TreeTwista10 regardless, the purpose was to fuck over the modern day dems, specifically al gore "

was there any purpose to this exchange or are you two just circle jerking?

2/5/2007 6:39:51 PM

Quote :

"My argument is about the fact that prognostications about "what voters want" are being made at all..."

As opposed to what? Purely intellectual, pie-in-the-sky discussions about "issues?"

While it might make for an entertaining Monty Python sketch, those of us living on Planet Reality prefer to think in terms of what people actually look for in Presidents.

Quote :

"first I can guarantee that I hire more people in my job than you do in yours"

Now who's being presumptuous? What, are you Carly Fiorina by day, TWW poster by night?

Quote :

"I think voters should be allowed to make the same decision--one that's entirely subjective."

Well, exactly. Who's stupid enough to make "entirely subjective" decisions? That's like reducing a Presidential election to an art class in 19th-century Pointilism or something.

Back here where the air isn't quite so thin, people can make at least semi-objective judgments to come to rational conclusions.

Quote :

" If that were the case, Howard Dean would've been the Democratic nominee in 2004."

And if it weren't the case, Howard Dean's name never would've been mentioned more than twice.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure John Kerry enjoyed his fair share of quid pro quo, trendy politics, and noise-making. Nothing else recommended him to the job of President in the post-9/11 world. He was a blue-blooded, Northeastern Yankee liberal with thirty years of dove politics under his belt. The decision to nominate him was so monumentally stupid, it could only have come about through the random collision of sub-atomic particles in the voters' heads.

Or do you perchance believe his most excellent closet of ties contributed to that "purely subjective" judgment you consider the divining rod of American will?

2/6/2007 1:43:02 AM

Quote :

"Apparently, Obama's lack of a campaign presence was intentional (down to the lack of a theme song), to accompany the tenor of his speech (which was far more somber than most of the other speeches)."

Sure, and after he's elected, he'll hire Philip Glass to rework Hail to the Chief into something more subdued.

P.S. do you happen to believe everything the PR guys say, or only if CNN bothers to reprint it?

2/6/2007 1:48:17 AM

Quote :

"He was a blue-blooded, Northeastern Yankee liberalrecovering alcoholic with thirtyten years of dove politics under his belt."

were we talking about Kerry or Bush?

[Edited on February 6, 2007 at 7:56 AM. Reason : e]

2/6/2007 7:56:11 AM

Quote :

"He was a blue-blooded, Northeastern Yankee liberal with thirty years of dove politics under his belt. "

A dove that voted for pre-emptive war with Iraq, yeah.

2/6/2007 11:02:21 AM

that was back when it was cool to pose in front of the flag (according to polls)

2/6/2007 11:09:25 AM

Of course. Everyone was doing it. Kerry was just another stooge in the party that I don't particularly like. Edwards has been, too, but he's making an effort to right the ship now, at least.

2/6/2007 11:55:46 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-edwards6feb06,0,1624584.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Here's an article to his Healthcare plan.

What I don't appreciate is the phrase "tax increase" in lieu of "tax cut repeal". Its all framing and if Edwards isnt careful to shape his craft on this issue, he'll get slammed (albeit falsely) as a tax creating and increasing liberal.

However there you go for the larger debate on his policies.

Quote :

"Apparently, Obama's lack of a campaign presence was intentional (down to the lack of a theme song), to accompany the tenor of his speech (which was far more somber than most of the other speeches)."

And I for one appreciate that in a candidate. I believe Obama not to be as ego-centric as most politicians, and this would fit that descripition. But we'll see how that goes down the road.

2/6/2007 12:32:15 PM

the best way to cut off the tax increase bullshit yelling is to mention two things
#1 how much we are spending every day in Iraq
#2 the deficit

2/6/2007 12:45:10 PM

thats a poor analogy, I mean yeah, they could mention it and for the most part have a point

but it's not like if those 2 things weren't going on he wouldn't try to increase taxes anyway

2/6/2007 2:40:37 PM

he wouldnt necessarily be required to.

second, why is it such a bad thing if taxes are raised?

2/6/2007 10:29:38 PM

don't you understand that everyone is in that top 1%

2/7/2007 12:02:41 AM

woops. i forgot, between getting the butler to wash the porsche and having the maid clean the guest house i just got sidetracked.

2/7/2007 1:21:05 AM

Quote :

" were we talking about Kerry or Bush? "

Kerry -- if you want to talk about Bush's shortcomings and background, feel free to start your own goddamned thread about it.

2/7/2007 5:12:07 AM

Just like talking about Kerry in an Edwards thread?

2/7/2007 5:14:07 AM

Quote :

" However there you go for the larger debate on his policies. "

What larger debate? He's another Democrat whose sole mission in life is to wave his dick at the Health Care issue.

I don't understand why the Health Care thing comes up every election cycle. The Democrats have been bringing it up in every general election since God-knows-when, and it's yet to make them the permanent majority party again.

Who cares what Edwards's specific plan for Health Care is? It's not like he's going to part the Red Sea and actually make it happen. It'll be a cold day in Hell before Americans accept an expensive, intrusive, federally-mandated Health Care program.

Besides that, I don't see who it wins over -- most of the people who want more government Health Care are low-income voters -- natural Democrats. Maybe it "fires up the base" for them to hear about it again, but it's still just pandering and posturing in the end.

2/7/2007 5:27:35 AM

^^

You can always read my actual posts to understand the context of what I was saying.

2/7/2007 5:31:47 AM

Where's the fun in that?

2/7/2007 6:02:47 AM

Quote :

"It'll be a cold day in Hell before Americans accept an expensive, intrusive, federally-mandated Health Care program."

We already pay more than any other country for less desirable results. But, hey, why fix it?

Quote :

"most of the people who want more government Health Care are low-income voters"

actually. thanks to things like medicare, most of those who currently have no health insurance are not the poorest people but those right above the poverty line all the way up to a significant chunk of the middle class.

2/7/2007 11:00:51 AM

That blogger shit was just on Tucker on MSNBC. And so was that old friend on loud mouths Donohue. I mean the guy can make good points, but it just sounds like someone else is pulling his strings...

anyways..

Edwards is getting railroaded over this and so are these women. I think its sad and a failure of the Edwards camp to effectively frame debates and issues. Which doesnt bode well for his future if he cant do it now.

2/7/2007 6:57:38 PM

Why are we still talking about this? He's a UNC homer. He sucks.

[/thread]

2/7/2007 8:13:25 PM

haha Edwards hires incompetent bloggers

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16658617.htm

2/9/2007 11:03:35 AM

what is gonna be really funny is when the guy who started the "controversy" loses his nonprofit status over this.

2/9/2007 11:07:51 AM

Quote :

"We already pay more than any other country for less desirable results. But, hey, why fix it?"

less desirable results ... are you crazy?

2/9/2007 4:06:12 PM

higher infant mortality rates
lower life expactancy

yeah im insane

2/9/2007 6:56:37 PM

The lower life expectancy may have something to do with the fact that we actually work in this country.

2/9/2007 8:48:57 PM

Marcotte has resigned. Still holding out for the hope the Donahue loses his tax exempt status

2/12/2007 9:41:09 PM

The higher infant mortality rate is due to varying standards of what is considered a "viable birth" in different countries. We have some of the greatest neonatologists in the world in this country. Also, as alluded to by another poster, we don't live as long because we work longer hours and eat crappier foods.

2/12/2007 10:11:29 PM

After reading more about Tom Vilsack, it saddens me that Edwards is getting pushed so hard over him. He'd be another Dukakis (easy target for not being "tough on crime", since he allowed felons to vote), but otherwise I think he's solid in experience and on the issues, moreso than Edwards and Obama.

Sigh.

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2007 10:53:18 PM

Are you kidding? Listening to him is like watching paint dry.

2/13/2007 1:27:47 AM

because if being the greatest orater was grounds for the presidency then Nathaniel Webster would have been president.

Why not focus on something other than the superficial.

2/13/2007 1:29:29 AM

And if elections were all about resumes and experience on the issues, George Bush wouldn't be president.

But since he was brought up: http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=6077526

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 2:03 AM. Reason : add]

2/13/2007 2:03:12 AM

when did I ever come out in support of bush? right now it appears your reasons for like edwards are extremely superficial.

2/13/2007 2:04:27 AM

Where'd I express my support for Nathaniel Webster?

Or John Edwards for that matter?

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 2:07 AM. Reason : man, wrong webster]

2/13/2007 2:06:25 AM

I was pointing out the supidity of your speaking ability statement.

don't kid me on your support of edwards. you've been all over his cock for the past 3 years, ever since he ran initially.

2/13/2007 2:12:49 AM

I realize that...and I was pointing out the stupidity of you disregarding my statement about speaking ability.

And I haven't exactly decided if I'll support Edwards in 2008 (you're right to note I did in 2004)...I may eventually, but I'm just not there yet. My contributions to this thread aren't so much about what I think personally, but my best guesses on his campaign strategy and general push back on some of the comments made about him.

2/13/2007 2:52:46 AM

I'll copy and paste my friends complaint about Edwards. What say ye to this?

Quote :

"My beef with Edwards is fairly recent. I follow a couple of feminist progressive blogs--Shakespeare's Sister and Pandagon. Edwards hired the principal bloggers from those sites (which can be pretty racous about their opinions). Amanda Mercotte of Pandagon was hired to be his campaign blogger and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister was hired to do net-based organizing. Last week two very far right fringey people--Michelle Malking and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (who defended Mel Gibson's drunken anti-semitic rant among other crazy things) cherry-picked some of what was said on those blogs from before Edwards hired them (they had written pretty stridently about the Catholic church's stance on birth control and abortion rights) and went on all the news talk shows screaming that Edwards had hired anti-Catholic bigots. The New York Times and ABC news, among others, picked it up and gave them air time/column space. Edwards campaign at first said that the two would be let go (only weeks after starting--both had moved cross-country to work for the campaign), then said they would not be summarily fired but that the senator would "weigh their fates." After about 48 hours Edwards came out very solemnly and said the two had been reprimanded (for stuff they had written BEFORE they worked for him) and that they would NOT be writing anything like that for him (no duh). He all but agreed with the looneys that the two were intolerant bigots. Then he had them apologize (which they did in a sort of non-apologetic "I'm sorry you were offended" way). He did keep them on. But the rush first to repudiate them, then withdrawing that and still dithering while deciding whether or not to fire them really turned me off. If he had fired them, Malkin and Donohue and their extreme supporters would never have voted for Edwards and would have been calling the shots of the Edwards campaign to boot. If you can't even be depended on to support your supporters... well, it really left a bad taste in my mouth. I was leaning toward him over Obama, but now, I don't know..."

2/13/2007 3:05:08 AM

The background on the situation (the first paragraph) is completely accurate, from what I've read about it, but the response from the Edwards team (in the second paragraph) may be a little mischaracterized, depending on what you believe.

After the story broke, Salon reported that both bloggers were being fired, but the Edwards campaign didn't confirm or deny that at any point. The campaign's spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

So, really, it's anyone's guess what actually happened...all I know for sure is that 36 hours later, the campaign quietly released some statements (which I wouldn't call a reprimand) and Marcotte and McEwen kept their jobs (well, until Marcotte just resigned yesterday).

I haven't the slightest clue what took so long for Edwards to release his statement--Palmieri said something about being cautious about dealing with people's livelihoods (which suggests that they were close to be axed, at the very least), but I don't really believe that. For someone who's launching a campaign akin to McCain's "Straight Talk Express" of 2000 (back when McCain was capable of such things), it seems weird that it'd take 36 hours to respond, if there weren't political calculations being made.

So that's my take on your friend's complaint...it's been interesting to hear response from people about this whole thing, as I'm not nearly as concerned about the dithering as I am interested in how representative this is of Edwards' campaign strategy.

2/13/2007 3:49:24 AM

I'm pissed off that Edwards is willing to cave into fanatics like malkin and donahue. I'm also pissed that Edwards hired these women knowing full well where they stand and then chastizing them for something they wrote before they worked for them and threatened to fire them after they moved across country. Unacceptable.

2/13/2007 3:59:45 AM

Here's where we disagree:

Quote :

"Edwards hired these women knowing full well where they stand"

I'm not entirely sure they knew where they stood.

If you're running a presidential campaign and you find out about those offending posts, you know what's coming--after all, the far right wing's as predictable as they are hypocritical--so, of course, you don't hire them.

I think, while campaigns have integrated blogging into their campaign apparatus (because there's a public demand), there's still not enough respect for blogging among insiders to treat it as a valued part of its communication strategy--that is, there isn't an appreciation yet that Jennifer Palmieri, Marcotte and McEwen are all public faces of the Edwards campaign. And, on the flip side, bloggers haven't fully come to appreciate that, if you choose to work in the world of politics professionally, particularly in such a public role, your life is not your own.

As such, I'm not sure that Marcotte and McEwen received the thorough vetting they deserved. I can't say for sure, obviously, but I'm not sure that anyone on the Edwards campaign had read the offending posts until Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin started yammering about them. If they had, they wouldn't have been hired.

I think the 36 hours was spent doing the vetting that should have been done in the first place. The only thing that would've been worse than getting hit by Donohue and Malkin once would've been keeping the bloggers on and then having Donohue and Malkin come back and say "look what else we found." That would've been the death knell.

So, to sum it up...I'm pissed that Edwards' camp is consistently making stupid, avoidable mental mistakes. It's like watching NCSU football with Amato at the helm. It doesn't bode well for the campaign.


[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 4:49 AM. Reason : Alright, seriously this time...I'm going to sleep!]

2/13/2007 4:48:23 AM

more on the blogging thing

marcotte quit

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/12/D8N8H2D00.html

2/13/2007 4:58:42 AM

Quote :

"I'm pissed off that Edwards is willing to cave into fanatics like malkin and donahue. I'm also pissed that Edwards hired these women knowing full well where they stand and then chastizing them for something they wrote before they worked for them and threatened to fire them after they moved across country. Unacceptable."

Also, I still feel one-term Senators aren't ready to carry the nation, much less a Senator that has just finished his 2nd year in the Senate. It sucks that we rely so much on superficial bullshit, the best candidates will continue to slip through in the name of good looks and idealistic speeches.

The only fully qualified Senators in the race are Biden and Dodd, and Clinton since she was essentially an executive officer already.

At least Edwards has declared war on poverty (and written up a plan), while Obama has declared war on "apathy". We need to stop declaring war on abstract nouns.

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 11:44:54 AM

If Bush was considered qualified then no one else should have a problem actually running the place.

2/13/2007 11:58:23 AM

Quote :

"And if elections were all about resumes and experience on the issues, George Bush wouldn't be president"

considering the current crop of democratic candidates I guess it no longer matters to the left either, right?


^ you really have some issues you need to work on, do you eat/sleep/breathe this obsessive hatred against a man that you don't know?

2/13/2007 2:47:51 PM

I think the last time in the last...um...40 years that the most experienced candidate actually won was when George HW Bush won in 1988.

2/13/2007 2:51:35 PM

^ Reagan? Two-time governor of the largest state (and, if a nation, one of the largest nations in the world)?



(ok, technically, you're correct... you said "the last time..." I read that as "the only time")

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 2:52:29 PM

you're right lol

but that tired ass argument has been used repeatedly over the last 6 years


I was just being sarcastic with ya

2/13/2007 2:54:35 PM

Quote :

"you really have some issues you need to work on, do you eat/sleep/breathe this obsessive hatred against a man that you don't know?"

i hate more people than him. but he does deserve it. the man has caused more harm to my country than most people could imagine doing if they were writing a horror film.

2/13/2007 2:57:15 PM

I think you're exaggerating just a bit


he's certainly not been the best by any means (iraq, patriot act, etc)

but considering what events fell in his lap, he's done better than I would have expected any of the past candidates to do

^ I can't say I "hate" any people that I don't know... but I have an utter dislike for a few politicians, but mostly thats due to their elitist, "my life and what I want is more important than you" type of attitude

[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2007 2:59:19 PM