Oh please if the number really is just two I'll eat my hat.Branduil said:Don't forget, one woman for each America.
Oh please if the number really is just two I'll eat my hat.Branduil said:Don't forget, one woman for each America.
APF said:Obama's skin color is both a positive and a negative. If he were white he'd be where John Edwards is today, but at the same time he loses votes because he's black. Obama's key appeals as a mystical figure are not his, "John McCain owns FOREIGN CARS" ads, but rather his unique personal story and alleged "transcendence" of race. The argument that race plays no role in his success, simply because he loses votes from racist Dems, is myopic.
Developing: TVNewser has learned all the networks were prepared to ban the use of pictures and video from Gov. Sarah Palin's meetings at the UN today. The ban was in protest of the McCain campaign's restriction on editorial presence.
We hear the networks had arranged for a pool camera to cover all the meetings, and at least three journalists were to be present as well (one print, one radio, one TV). Earlier today, the McCain campaign said it would allow just one editorial person inside. Later, the campaign limited it to a camera only.
Within the last few minutes, the campaign reversed course and will allow a CNN producer in to the meetings.
What is it with unelected Democratic VP candidates turning out to be douchebags? Ferraro, Lieberman and now Edwards. Seems only Bentsen has avoided the curse as of late.Branduil said:Don't forget, one woman for each America.
syllogism said:
numble said:He was a very rich guy talking about the poor. The $500 haircut, and the stories from John Kerry and Russ Feingold didn't help him either.
Russ Feingold? John Kerry?diffusionx said:Fuck that. The $500 haircut was concocted bullshit. Everyone on Capitol Hill gets expensive haircuts. Everyone on Capitol Hill wears expensive, tailored suits. Why? Because they have to look good for the cameras. They can't look like shit on TV, and in front of the people they are trying to woo.
Plus, the idea that a rich person cannot talk about and try to help the poor is insane. The fact is that people in power can and should talk and do more to help the poor, and most of the people in power are rich. But if the only thing rich people are "supposed" to do is help rich people get richer, then you have, well, you have the American government of the past several decades. It is class war bullshit, except unlike the usual narrative it is the rich people doing all the fighting.
ronito said:I've always said that Edwards had the right message in the wrong package. His policy resonates with people that feel left out of the "first America" as things progress more and more down the urination economics track this of course grows, so it's hardly surprising that his policy and whatnot are popular. Now, that being said, a man that pays $400 for a haircut, has multiple estates and gets paid thousands of dollars to talk about wage ineqaulity is not the best man to present such a message.
APF said:I agree that Edwards' aesthetics presented a mixed message, but at the same time I think the '04 primary Edwards came across as "genuine enough," while his relative inexperience made him second fiddle to the dour candidate we ended up with.
Re: Obama, if he were white how genuine would his "hope and change" message appear, when he was another young white guy but less well-known than the former VP pick, who had already been through an election and came very close to winning? Is "hope" really a more substantial argument than Edwards' "Two Americas?" I don't think you can discount the power of someone saying he's a "change" and literally having a "different face than the guys on dollar bills" (or whatever he said). Not to mention, if Obama were white, how would he have peeled off Hillary's lockdown of the AA vote? Could he have done that if he had a pastor and long-time mentor who was making what many still feel were racially-charged sermons? Would his Presidency of the Harvard Law Review be as celebrated? Would his rise from community organizing be so meteoric? Could he have had a chance to rise politically, in Chicago, in the same trajectory, in the first place?
diffusionx said:Fuck that. The $500 haircut was concocted bullshit. Everyone on Capitol Hill gets expensive haircuts. Everyone on Capitol Hill wears expensive, tailored suits. Why? Because they have to look good for the cameras. They can't look like shit on TV, and in front of the people they are trying to woo.
Plus, the idea that a rich person cannot talk about and try to help the poor is insane. The fact is that people in power can and should talk and do more to help the poor, and most of the people in power are rich. But if the only thing rich people are "supposed" to do is help rich people get richer, then you have, well, you have the American government of the past several decades. It is class war bullshit, except unlike the usual narrative it is the rich people doing all the fighting.
Bill Clinton ran on the same message, "hope and change" isn't a new campaign tactic.APF said:Re: Obama, if he were white how genuine would his "hope and change" message appear,
If Obama were white, he'd be where Biden is today.RubxQub said:I agree with you in part, but you discredit Obama's far superior ability to run a campaign compared to Edwards. Obama is a much more relevant candidate than Edwards for this reason alone, not to mention his greater charisma and oratory skills.
speculawyer said:Props to CNN for pulling its reporters from what became a campaign commercial instead of a news event.
Cloudy said:Holy crap! I just saw another Goolsbee segment on CNN. He actually printed out McCain's "plan" and held it up in an index card :lol
http://www.pollster.com/so_awes said:where's my hit of Hopium for today?????!!!?
APF said:I agree that Edwards' aesthetics presented a mixed message, but at the same time I think the '04 primary Edwards came across as "genuine enough," while his relative inexperience made him second fiddle to the dour candidate we ended up with.
Re: Obama, if he were white how genuine would his "hope and change" message appear, when he was another young white guy but less well-known than the former VP pick, who had already been through an election and came very close to winning? Is "hope" really a more substantial argument than Edwards' "Two Americas?" I don't think you can discount the power of someone saying he's a "change" and literally having a "different face than the guys on dollar bills" (or whatever he said). Not to mention, if Obama were white, how would he have peeled off Hillary's lockdown of the AA vote? Could he have done that if he had a pastor and long-time mentor who was making what many still feel were racially-charged sermons? Would his Presidency of the Harvard Law Review be as celebrated? Would his rise from community organizing be so meteoric? Could he have had a chance to rise politically, in Chicago, in the same trajectory, in the first place?
Edwards didnt' start cheating until 2006 and its possible that a Kerry adminstrative policy could have stalled or weakened the economic problems that we are currently facing.Odrion said:Here is a fun what if: Would a Kerry/Edwards candidacy been a disaster for the Democratic image? The economic collapse happening on their watch and Edward's scandal would of sunk the Democrat's image.
Odrion said:Bill Clinton ran on the same message, "hope and change" isn't a new campaign tactic.
I agree, which makes it strange that people here can't allow themselves to admit such a thing.grandjedi6 said:I think we're getting way too far into the "what ifs?" now. There is no way we would know what would have happened had Obama not been black or Hillary not a woman, ect. The same can be true for any person. Changing such a critical part of a person's life could have any number of effects.
The media is once again showing how biased they are against Palin by refusing to cover her appearing as a legitimate politician.Fatalah said:What's this about the media vs. Palin's visit to the UN?
Here's an even funner thought: This isn't going to affect the Republicans image one iota after this election!Odrion said:Here is a fun what if: Would a Kerry/Edwards candidacy been a disaster? The economic collapse happening on their watch, and Edward's scandal, would of skunked the Democrat's image big time.
However, saying someone would be in exact position X if they were a different race/gender is also entirely disingenuous.APF said:I agree, which makes it strange that people here can't allow themselves to admit such a thing.
Steve Youngblood said:The media is once again showing how biased they are against Palin by refusing to cover her appearing as a legitimate politician.
Steve Youngblood said:The media is once again showing how biased they are against Palin by refusing to cover her appearing as a legitimate politician.
SY strikes again.Fatalah said:Yeah, but they have a reason don't they?
It might be disingenuous if that weren't my opinion on a hypothetical, but it is, so it isn't.numble said:However, saying someone would be in exact position X if they were a different race/gender is also entirely disingenuous.
LIMBAUGH'S LATEST SMEAR.... I don't want to alarm anyone, but it appears that Rush Limbaugh is blisteringly stupid when it comes to race and ethnicity.
Rush Limbaugh baselessly asserted of Sen. Barack Obama: "Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood?" Limbaugh continued: "He's Arab. You know, he's from Africa. He's from Arab parts of Africa.... [H]e's not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."
Limbaugh concluded his little rant by telling his audience, "Everything seems upside-down today in this country."
The irony was rich.
As Media Matters reported, this "Obama is actually Arab" line has been making the rounds in right-wing circles, and has been featured in a variety of conservative settings. It's also demonstrably ridiculous.
First, it's probably worth noting that Obama is not "Arab" "from Africa," he's American from Hawaii. (You know, the place Cokie Roberts mocks for being "exotic.") Second, his father is from Kenya, and Kenya isn't an Arab part of Africa. Third, "African American" generally refers to black people in the United States of African lineage. "The last thing that he is is African American"? Please.
But let's not overlook the point here -- far-right hacks aren't quite done with the smear. The efforts to label Obama "Arab" is just the latest twist in a larger effort launched by those motivated by fear and bigotry.
"Everything seems upside-down today in this country." Especially for those who listen to right-wing radio.
I think you discount his story too much.APF said:I agree that Edwards' aesthetics presented a mixed message, but at the same time I think the '04 primary Edwards came across as "genuine enough," while his relative inexperience made him second fiddle to the dour candidate we ended up with.
Re: Obama, if he were white how genuine would his "hope and change" message appear, when he was another young white guy but less well-known than the former VP pick, who had already been through an election and came very close to winning? Is "hope" really a more substantial argument than Edwards' "Two Americas?" I don't think you can discount the power of someone saying he's a "change" and literally having a "different face than the guys on dollar bills" (or whatever he said). Not to mention, if Obama were white, how would he have peeled off Hillary's lockdown of the AA vote? Could he have done that if he had a pastor and long-time mentor who was making what many still feel were racially-charged sermons? Would his Presidency of the Harvard Law Review be as celebrated? Would his rise from community organizing be so meteoric? Could he have had a chance to rise politically, in Chicago, in the same trajectory, in the first place?
Edit: in the beginning of the Primary race, Obama an unprecedented amount of positive coverage, and the people saying he's not black enough--all two of them--jumped the Clinton ship the instant they had an excuse to vote for the guy who was at least a little blacker than Hillary.
That's why I think having a Democratic president over the next four years is going to better for the Republican party, in the long run.Odrion said:Here is a fun what if: Would a Kerry/Edwards candidacy been a disaster? The economic collapse happening on their watch, and Edward's scandal, would of skunked the Democrat's image big time.
Branduil said:That's why I think having a Democratic president over the next four years is going to better for the Republican party, in the long run.
What a fucking imbecile :lolAgent Icebeezy said:
APF said:I agree that Edwards' aesthetics presented a mixed message, but at the same time I think the '04 primary Edwards came across as "genuine enough," while his relative inexperience made him second fiddle to the dour candidate we ended up with.
Re: Obama, if he were white how genuine would his "hope and change" message appear, when he was another young white guy but less well-known than the former VP pick, who had already been through an election and came very close to winning? Is "hope" really a more substantial argument than Edwards' "Two Americas?" I don't think you can discount the power of someone saying he's a "change" and literally having a "different face than the guys on dollar bills" (or whatever he said). Not to mention, if Obama were white, how would he have peeled off Hillary's lockdown of the AA vote? Could he have done that if he had a pastor and long-time mentor who was making what many still feel were racially-charged sermons? Would his Presidency of the Harvard Law Review be as celebrated? Would his rise from community organizing be so meteoric? Could he have had a chance to rise politically, in Chicago, in the same trajectory, in the first place?
It's not so much the Gaborn doctrine as the "let-the-other-guy-take-the-fall" doctrine.Xisiqomelir said:You too Branduil? There truly are Gaborn Doctrine adherents everywhere.
Agent Icebeezy said:
Link648099 said:SY strikes again.
No, he'd be yet another charismatic white guy with legal prospects but no shepherding, and potentially the same racist / etc pastors that people try to associate with McCain and Palin.mckmas8808 said:To be honest had Obama been white he wouldn't have had to go to Chicago to start his career. He wouldn't have had a Rev. Wright issue either.
To answer your original question: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/mccain_campaign_aboutface_on_editorial_presence_for_palins_un_visit_95323.aspFatalah said:Question-- what's "SY"?
numble said:
Unless of course things improve under the Democratic presidency or at least their policies are seen to stall the various problems. Then it tends to greatly favor the incumbent. Which isn't surprising, good presidency = better chances for the party and vice-versa.Branduil said:That's why I think having a Democratic president over the next four years is going to better for the Republican party, in the long run.
Agent Icebeezy said:
Branduil said:It's not so much the Gaborn doctrine as the "let-the-other-guy-take-the-fall" doctrine.
He likely still would have been elected senator, somewhere, probably not Ill. since I doubt he would have gone to Chicago to create a political base if he was white. But he would have gotten into the senate one way or another based on his political ambitions/ability and his ease with being able to get political connections due to being president of Harvard law review (being president of Harvard law review more or less lets you pick any law or political career path you want).APF said:No, he'd be yet another charismatic white guy with legal prospects but no shepherding, and potentially the same racist / etc pastors that people try to associate with McCain and Palin.