The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
American Presidency: The Election Year Of Living Dangerously
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Arkansas Democratic Party chair and superdelegate gunned down:
Sadly, this is a sign that the tensions that the race is evoking may be reaching the bursting point. That worries me, especially with the Right's fondness for eliminationist rhetoric.
Edit: And from Moniker's OP:
Obama Fatigue
The BBC wrote:
The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party has died after being shot by a gunman at the US state's party HQ, Bill and Hillary Clinton's office has said.
Bill Gwatney, 49, was reportedly shot three times after the gunman barged his way into his office near the state capitol building in Little Rock.
The suspected gunman was shot during a police chase and died, the Associated Press news agency reports.
Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said it was a "senseless tragedy".
"We are deeply saddened by the news that Bill Gwatney has passed away," the Clintons said in a joint statement.
The couple lived for years in the Arkansas capital of Little Rock while former President Bill Clinton was governor of the state.
Barack Obama, who competed with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination to run for US president in November, also said he was "shocked and saddened" by news of the shooting.
The authorities have not yet named the suspected gunman, said to be a 51-year-old man, and the motive for the shooting remains unclear.
A 17-year-old volunteer at the party headquarters building told the Associated Press that the suspect had pushed past staff to get into Mr Gwatney's office.
"He said he was interested in volunteering but that was obviously a lie," Sam Higginbotham said.
Mr Gwatney was taken to hospital in a critical condition and died of his injuries about four hours later.
He was a former state senator and was due to attend the Democratic Party's national convention in Denver later this month as a superdelegate.
He supported Mrs Clinton during the contest for the party's presidential nomination.
Last December, a man who claimed to have a bomb strapped to his chest walked into Mrs Clinton's campaign office in New Hampshire, prompting a hostage drama lasting several hours.
Sadly, this is a sign that the tensions that the race is evoking may be reaching the bursting point. That worries me, especially with the Right's fondness for eliminationist rhetoric.
Edit: And from Moniker's OP:
Obama Fatigue
The Economist wrote:THE most politically potent emotion of the past 18 months has been Obamamania. This condition allowed a neophyte senator from Illinois to seize his party’s nomination from the jaws of the formidable Clinton machine. The big question now hanging over American politics is whether Obamamania is giving way to Obama fatigue.
Mr Obama has everything going for him in the race for the White House. Almost 80% of Americans think that the country is heading in the wrong direction. People are disgruntled with George Bush’s Republicans and worried sick about the economy. Mr Obama is also running a far better campaign than his rival—smooth and professional where the McCain campaign is slapdash and amateurish.
Yet the polls tell a different story. A Gallup/USA Today poll showed John McCain beating Mr Obama by 49% to 45% among likely voters. The cash-rich Obama campaign has been pouring money into the battleground states. But, if anything, the polls in those states are tightening. Generic Democrats enjoy a 10-15 point advantage over Republicans. But add the names Obama and McCain to the mix and you get a statistical tie.
This suggests that, for all their energy and professionalism, the Democrats may have made a big strategic error: allowing the election to become a referendum on their candidate rather than a verdict on the Bush years. This was probably inevitable if you run a mould-breaking candidate (in retrospect, the Democrats might have been better advised to run a white male rather than getting into a slugfest between a woman and a black). But Mr Obama is hardly a master of deflecting attention from himself.
The junior senator from Illinois is strikingly self-obsessed even by the standards of politicians. He has already written two autobiographies. He seems to be happiest as a politician addressing huge crowds of adoring fans. His convention speech at Denver was always going to be an extraordinary moment, given that he will be delivering it on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. But Mr Obama decided to move it to a local sports stadium that has room for 75,000.
There are worrying signs, for the Democrats, that Obama fatigue is beginning to set in. A Pew poll this week showed that 76% of respondents named Mr Obama as the candidate they had heard most about compared with 11% who named Mr McCain. But close to half (48%) of Pew’s interviewees said that they had been hearing too much about Mr Obama—and 22% said that they have formed a less favourable opinion of him recently.
Mr Obama is undoubtedly an enormously talented public speaker. But his rhetorical tropes can begin to pall, particularly in a campaign that has already gone on for 18 months. How many more times can Americans hear the phrase “Yes we can” without wondering whether they really want to? George Will, a conservative columnist, notes that Disraeli’s gibe about Gladstone might well apply to Mr Obama—he is “inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”.
Mr Obama may be ill-served by his hallelujah corner in the press. The Pew survey suggests that the frenzy of media coverage of Mr Obama is creating a backlash. He may also be ill-served by some of his more over-the-top supporters who treat him like a rock star rather than a statesman. “Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino,” Lili Haydn wrote in the Huffington Post. “Couples all over America are making love again and shouting ‘Yes we can’ as they climax.”
The McCain team has been quick to spot its opportunity. It has released a series of advertisements that are designed to pummel the president-in-waiting. One quotes an NBC reporter confessing that “it’s almost hard to remain objective while covering Obama because the energy of the campaign is so infectious.” Another compares him to Moses. Mr McCain also keeps saying that Mr Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. This onslaught cleverly tries to turn Mr Obama’s qualities—his youthful good looks and devoted supporters—into weaknesses. It also sends a clear message to voters: Mr McCain equals country first, Mr Obama equals Obama first.
Issues, not orgasms
This strategy is far from risk-free for Mr McCain. It threatens to dilute his brand as a straight-talking anti-Washington reformer. He has surrounded himself with veterans of the George Bush-Karl Rove machine: the man behind the latest ads, Steve Schmidt, was the person Mr Rove put in charge of the Bush war-room during the 2004 election. Mr McCain has also engaged in some decidedly unstraight talk. He has complained loudly that Mr Obama failed to visit wounded soldiers in Germany, ignoring the fact that his rival had visited injured troops in Iraq.
Mr McCain needs to win over undecided and independent voters if he is to have any chance of winning the White House. He also needs to come up with his own version of a “change” agenda for an electorate that is desperate for something new. But the more he employs Mr Bush’s footsoldiers and borrows from Mr Rove’s playbook, the more he opens himself up to the criticism that he is offering another four years of Mr Bush. The same polls that show the race narrowing also show that Mr McCain has not managed to break 46% in the Gallup tracking poll since Mr Obama won the nomination.
The Obama machine also remains formidable: it is impossible to wander around American cities these days without coming across enthusiastic young canvassers. But Mr Obama needs to reframe the election so that it is less about him and more about the issues. And he needs to abandon the rhetorical high ground for the nitty-gritty of policy. Otherwise the general election could prove to be the second coronation in a row, after Hillary’s implosion, that has ended with a surprise.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
isn't just automatically correct into perpetuity and isn't a magic justification for going to a popular vote system. Even in the 2008 presidential election you see realignment-style changes starting to happen in some states.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Hopefully, we will never come to that.
Steam | Twitter
For the lols, won't anyone think of the lols?
It's more that this election has become a referendum on Obama rather than a presidential race. That being the case you can get desensitized to what he has to say thanks to the constant coverage. Remember in the primaries when we were talking about whether a candidate was delivering a standard stump speech, a slightly altered stump speech, or unveiling a new stump speech? And how we all couldn't wait for the damn thing to be over because we'd heard the same damn stump speech enough times to actually know what changes had occurred in it? That could happen again on the long slog to November if Obama isn't careful/doesn't change things up/ makes more substantive soundbites to get repeated constantly.
Yeah, shame America has a democracy ain't it.
Fuck CNN.
The Democratic party isn't a democracy. They have super duper voters fer chris'sake.
I of course will be voting for the Toga Party this year 8-)
No, though you certainly can discourage a candidate from running in the first place.
Trying and succeeding!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/13/hannity-pwns-himself-over-john-mccains-own-affair-double-standard-applies-to-edwards/
For some reason, I listen to talk radio when I drive to work. And when Bill Maher isn't doing his podcasts, that means I have to listen to terresterial talk radio. I've noticed 2 things that seriously make me want to drive my car into a pole.
#1 - How does anyone get away with calling the media "the liberal media". Here in Syracuse, NY, it goes from RUSH LIMBAUGH to a local guy to SEAN HANNITY to MICHAEL SAVAGE. And every single one of them bitches about the LIBERAL MEDIA.
YOU GUYS ARE ON THE RADIO RIGHT NOW, AND ALL DAY, AND YOU'RE NOT LIBERAL.
Fuck!
and
#2 - I think I hate Sean Hannity more than anyone in this world. Fucking smug bastard. That article made me SO happy.
And I keep saying "Stop listening to these people, it just makes you angry.", but I dont like listening to music when I drive and there's no LOST podcasts right now...
In the tradition of "Wow why the fuck do I not know about this", I'm wondering why this isn't more publicized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Is this something you guys have discussed at all before I started visiting this thread? I dont want to rehash ancient history, but man...how does Obama not bring this up?
Edit: Also, McCain was cleared of wrongdoing in the Keating Five business, whether he actually did anything or not. It'd ultimately go nowhere.
Nothing is more infuriating then listening to right-wing talk radio, I don't know how you stand it. I'd rather listen to nothing (although I much prefer music). You should listen to Sports talk if you have to listen to an AM station, at least you won't be constantly pissed off while listening.
It super worries me. Ive heard numerous right wingers on the internet and in real life suggesting offing obama, in a quite serious tone.
but they're listening to every word I say
What about Glen Beck. I seriously think about breaking the TV every time I even flip by the channel and he is on.
I feel like an crazy old person when he is on because I start yelling at the TV like he can hear me.
but they're listening to every word I say
Doesn't he have a book or some shit coming out soon?
Steam | Twitter
Edit: I like the "Hands" ad Obama's running during the Olympic Coverage. Its completely positive and not only does it not say "Here's a problem we have", it skips straight to "Here's a solution"
McCain's shortcomings are so shamelessly supervillainous that I would take articles about McCain's shortcomings and stitch them into a comforting blankie.
There's room enough in most outlets for both. Plus all the idiotic rumors of Lindsay Lohan or that other chick.
I guess I could rephrase the question to: If you're only going to read one political article is it more likely to be "Here's a story about a different candidate" or "here's a politician acting like a politician"
I think it already came out.
An Inconvienient Book
Glenn Beck is the smugest of them all. What a dick.
but they're listening to every word I say
It's as much an 'October Surprise' as the Rezko 'controversy' would be. Which is to say it isn't.
He's a self-righteous douchebag, but the minute anyone calls him out, he whines like a baby. I cannot wait until he's off the air.
Steam | Twitter
He's also paranoid and purposefully lives a thermonuclear fallout radius away from New York City. Just in case.
It's rather sad that there are enough ideologues and morons, on both sides, to give jackasses like him work. And good paying work at that.
And he's an adult convert to Mormonism. There is literally nothing good about the man.
Steam | Twitter
Hence the quotes- it wouldn't be a surprise to those keeping close tabs on the election, but it would surprise the vast majority of the electorate, it can be made to sound really fucking bad, and the media could probably be enticed to cover it if Obama made several mentions of it.
The August 26 list of speakers is out, and the thinking is that a speech on this day means you're out of the hunt, as the VP speaks the next day. So here's who's on that schedule:
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano
Ohio Gov. Ted Stickland
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
Frederico Pena, who headed both the Energy and Transportation departments during the Clinton administration.
It's just as easily dismissed and is settled. Unless you have some new 'startling' find it's dead, buried, and the plot has been converted to a strip mall. Rezko was covered because of his trial over bribing our dear governor. Whitewater was covered because some guy involved started talking about it around the election. This? It's nearly as old as John McCain. And that's old.
So we finally got a confirmation on Sebelius' slot? And I see Schweitzer is out of the running too.
Doesn't this basically put us down to Biden (yay) and Bayh (ehh/boo)? Unless we're still holding out hope for the Clark ro Feingold dark horses.
Look, the media babbled on and on about Rezko for WEEKS. This was some guy who Obama bought a house from 20 years ago. McCain was involved in a huge scandal showing up all of his claimed values of transparency and integrity, also 20 years ago. I'm not saying that media will cover it- but my point is that they've been willing to cover at great length things much less relevant and sensational.
Edit: Also Gore! Don't forget Gore!
(It'll never happen).