|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I wonder how many Texans actually watched and whether it will have any effect....
Perhaps, however many people watched it, what is equally (if not more) important to the candidates, is the perception, largely filtered through media commentators, of who 'won'.
There's in interesting article on the BBC blog about the debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/02/post_4.html
BL
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
On the debate: I thought "change you can Xerox" would have been a good line if Clinton had a stronger case, and wasn't a bad line anyway, really, but she got booed! And then got a standing ovation at the end ... very interesting. Her wrap-up is being read as valedictory, except of course by Howard Wolfson. Also very interesting.
I was listening (yes, it is incredibly sad to come in from a night out and go straight to CSPAN to see how elections half way across the world are going) and thought that line smacked of desperation and negativity. I'm not exactly sure what her purpose is, as it didn't seem a disastrous accusation. Maybe she wanted to force Obama into a negative campaign and thus undermine his message. Either way, Obama handled it really well, and his comment on 'silly season' was, to me, a perfectly judged put-down.
Winner for me? Clinton probably edged it on performance alone, but it didn't change me mind about who I would support, and the difference was far to slight to half Obama's momentum. And her negative comments annoyed me - it only confirmed my belief that if Clinton wins the nomination, she'll lose the election. She appears more and more like someone who is willing to do what it takes to win the nomination, even to the detriment of her party, and her line of experience might work against Obama, but will fail completely against McCain, who wins by miles on that count.
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
Well, the numbers I've heard show that if Obama were to get something like 65% of the remaining delegates, he could actually secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. I don't see that as being any less likely than Clinton getting the 58% she'd need to pull even, honestly. (He's won his last 10 by an average margin of 33 percentage points. Even on Super Tuesday he won 13 states by an average of 28 points each, while Clinton won 9 by an average of only 15.)
Past performance is no guarantee of future return. The states where he was winning these large margins were already predicted to go that way in polls leading up to the primaries. That's not true in Texas or Ohio, even though he has closed the gap compared to a month ago. But Obama wins of 60+% in these states do not seem likely.
It's like a baseball season. There are parts of the schedule that are tougher for the team - long stretches on the road versus home, tougher teams versus easier teams etc. The 'momentum' for Obama was simply a streak of states where he had been polling well. The perceived momentum has helped some down the line, e.g. Wisconsin, but it is not expected that this string of 60+% wins should continue, and no reason why he shouldn't lose some states. Thanks to proportional allocation, those kinds of set backs aren't likely to hurt him too much, but conversely he will also not be able to use them to pull meaningfully ahead.
quote:
I agree that it probably won't be officially decided by pledged delegates alone come convention time. But to say he needs an 800 delegate lead to guarantee a win is ignoring how the process really works. The "superdelegates" aren't just a random group of stuffy old men in smoky rooms who have no connection to the outside world. They're Democratic politicians, and they have their futures and the future of their party to consider.
And as such, they have known the Clintons for a very long time and probably owe them a bunch of favors. Obama is a national newcomer to whom they owe nothing; and whoever helps out the Clintons when they're struggling is likely to get a pretty good perq later if they win. To ignore that is to ignore how party politics are done-connections. I'm not saying Clinton will get all 800, but she is likely to have the edge. I agree that the larger margin of difference going in to convention, the harder it would be to vote against that margin.
The rest of the comments about the Clintons are just hype. Hilary Clinton may have a lot of negatives among the general population; it does not follow from this that she has the same status with the party superdelegates. And superdelegates may be very likely to believe that whoever gets the nomination is going to win the general election - we don't know.
Both campaigns have realized this which is why they've been lobbying superdelegates for weeks or even months now. Bill may be preaching on needing to win the big states coming up, but don't think that both campaigns aren't working the super delegates right now.
Regardless of how dire it may appear for the Clintons, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate them. I'm sure Obama is not doing that. Or I'd like to be.
[ 22. February 2008, 13:28: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
On the debate: I thought "change you can Xerox" would have been a good line if Clinton had a stronger case, and wasn't a bad line anyway, really, but she got booed!
I am certainly opposed to plagarism, but the Obama thing wasn't plagarism. When Doris Kearns Goodwin lifted passages from another person's book for her own, and failed to attribute it, that was plagarism. When Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, that wasn't plagarism.
First, speeches are very different from commercial enterprises like books. There is no money on the table, and there is no expectation that everything that isn't attributed is a creative expression of the speaker. Given that all of these people use speeches written for them by others, the very idea that the speaker is making it up is a conceit, not an expectation.
The attack by the Clinton campaign on this "plagarism" is just a typical Clintonian smear -- throw all kinds of charges and innuendos and see if any of them resonate. Even if they don't, the mere fact that you've made so many allegations has a mass effect that erodes the opponent's standing.
The only reason I am less outraged than I might otherwise be is that this is exactly the approach that the Republicans have taken in the last few election cycles, so Obama will have to learn to weather this kind of sleeze if he's going to win the election.
I would be very interested in knowing what was driving the McCain infidelity story in the NY Times. This sure sounds like a Clintonian act. This sort of thing just makes the opposition feel justified in their own lies and unsubstantiated mudslinging. I sincerely hope that the character of McCain and Obama are the driving forces in the election this year -- we may actually have an election that elevates and focuses on our national aspirations instead of pandering to the Jerry Springer in the soul of the electorate.
--Tom Clune
[ 22. February 2008, 13:36: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Obama's response about the plagiarism charge ran over and over and over on all the late night news last night, both out of the local US stations, on Nightline, and on the CBC and CTV.
Didn't exactly make Clinton look good.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
NY Times is a bit Clinton focused....if it was her in front at all, I suspect you would see a larger lead the actual.
I'm not so sure they're just trying to make her look good; their current lead article is all about her poor management of campaign funds. They may just be recognizing that estimating the delegate count is a risky and potentially error-ridden business given that the methods of calculating pledged delegates are so convoluted and the super-delegates don't have to commit until the convention.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
Does anyone know the status of the delegates pledged to Edwards? I would think that his support would tip the edge in a tight contest such as this.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
This Texan didn't watch. I've been reviewing the Cliff note's versions, though.
I plan to stop by my early voting polling place this afternoon and make my decision.
Speaking of simmering sex scandals, I wonder if this one will get any traction. Also discussed here.
From the looks of the plaintiff, I simply can't imagine it.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
NY Times is a bit Clinton focused....if it was her in front at all, I suspect you would see a larger lead the actual.
I'm not so sure they're just trying to make her look good; their current lead article is all about her poor management of campaign funds. They may just be recognizing that estimating the delegate count is a risky and potentially error-ridden business given that the methods of calculating pledged delegates are so convoluted and the super-delegates don't have to commit until the convention.
The NYT method for counting delegates is documented extensively on their web site, and it is the most conservative count out there in that it does not count super delegates at all. This policy was set prior to the beginning of the primaries and they have stuck with it.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Only about half of them responded - i.e. the opinions of another 380 or so are unknown. And Clinton still leads by 60 among those who have made a public position, despite the flip-flopping.
This is more of a media attempt to have a story in a situation where there simply won't be a story until convention.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
The Economist had another interesting commentary on Independent Voters (that would be me btw). Apparently 30% of Americans call themselves Independents, but what I found was wierd is that Obama had a 62% approval rating with us Indies. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Obama to the Left of Hillary? Are independents actually Dems in disguise? WTF?
The Teutonic Goddess is Independent Left, but I am Independent Right. Are there simply more of the latter out there? Just curious.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Aren't the independents the descendents of the "Reagan Republicans"? The vast middle that can shift either way depending on a myriad of factors?
(I'm fearing the convention is going to coronate Hilary and she will be defeated by McCain (where Obama might have one against him), proving the Dems' ability to fire projectiles through their pedal appendages is still alive and well.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agrgurich
Shipmate
# 5724
|
Posted
I've read that there are very few real independents. Most so-called "independents" vote regularly for one party , but don't like to call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc.
--------------------
Life is a comedy to those who think & a tragedy to those who feel.-Horace Walpole
AJG
Posts: 4478 | From: Michigan's Copper Country | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Being a Democrat or Republican is not just something you call yourself. It's joining an organisation. Signing up. And I would further submit that even card-carrying Dem or GOP members don't all vote a strict party line, but do vote "regularly for one party". Voting GOP more often than not does not make a person a member of the Republican party. (And versa-vicewise, although I picked the Reps over the Dems cos the latter lack a really satisfying acro; if they lose this election they should spend the next 3 years coming up with one.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Acro?
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Aren't the independents the descendents of the "Reagan Republicans"? The vast middle that can shift either way depending on a myriad of factors?
I would think so. I would think they might be comprised of non-republican Libertarians, and perhaps Greens, and Perotistas, etc. But I would think they would be right leaning mostly. Apparently not.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I don't remember seeing this posted here before -- I actually haven't seen it anywhere in several years, but with McCain presumably the Republican candidate (and especially if Hillary becomes the Republican candidate) I'm sure this "joke" of McCain's will be circulated again. A person who would find this humorous is not someone I want as President.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Being a Democrat or Republican is not just something you call yourself. It's joining an organisation. Signing up.
I would disagree. Being a Democrat or more, being a Democratic voter is not the same as being a member of the Labour Party in the UK or the Socialists in France where you actually join the Party and pay dues. The party organizations are much more a "way of life" then in the US
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not a way of life, but still an organisation which has a definite rite of joining (signing something for instance), thus voting democrat doesn't make you a member of the party, as I said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Only about half of them responded - i.e. the opinions of another 380 or so are unknown. And Clinton still leads by 60 among those who have made a public position, despite the flip-flopping.
This is more of a media attempt to have a story in a situation where there simply won't be a story until convention.
I don't think it is, completely. It's showing a trend line and watching as it unfolds. Even Hillary's tone in the debate showed her campaign circling around itself and preparing for the beginnings of concession should she lose some of the big states coming up.
Lots of politicians had Clinton in mind this year specifically for the favors they'd be getting out of them. I'm well aware of that. However, to say that these "superdelegates" will vote against the people just to get Hillary into position to possibly win the presidency is an extremely wild claim in need of a lot of evidence or reason. It is highly unlikely that many of them would risk losing their own political positions, jeopardizing their chance at having a Dem President, and putting their entire party at risk for the chance to get a few favors out of the Clinton family bank. It's a fairy tale that Clinton supporters and people who want more drama in the race have dreamed up and passed out. Understandably so, as it helps to persuade Clinton voters not to give up quite yet if you can say, "Keep voting for us even though it seems like we can never catch up, because we'll get lots of SUPER delegates to help us win in the end!"
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
But with less than half responding, we don't know if in fact the trend is in the other direction. Those who publicly declare may have a different level of support for Obama than those who do not.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
There are probably a number of super delegates with the same feelings as Bill Richardson, for example.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Not a way of life, but still an organisation which has a definite rite of joining (signing something for instance), thus voting democrat doesn't make you a member of the party, as I said.
Signing the voter registration form isn't much of a rite, as rites go. Unless you're involved in party politics, I think it's only as meaningful as you think it is. Some people invest a lot into being "yellow dog Democrats," while other people, like me, change their registration periodically and don't find it very meaningful -- I've been variously registered as a Republican, a Democrat, and a Green.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Signing the voter registration form isn't much of a rite, as rites go...
You would not believe the blood-rite involved in becoming a precinct delegate. The robes alone were quite impressive.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
Has anyone else seen the incredible similarities between the West Wing elections in series 6 and 7 and this one? I've noticed it for weeks and thought that it was just a brilliant coincidence but this Guardian article seems to suggest that it wasn't as big a coincidence as I thought.
From West Wing to real thing
[Ah, the demon of scroll lock exorcised again by tinyurl.com !]
[ 25. February 2008, 01:30: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I have a feeling that Gov. Richardson will be the Vice-Presidential selection by either Clinton or Obama.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I have a feeling that Gov. Richardson will be the Vice-Presidential selection by either Clinton or Obama.
Greta
I supported Richardson at first before Obama. He would be an excellent choice.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What I find odd is why Richardson thinks it is a good idea to yank part of a campaign team off the road in the middle of series of contest in ordre to watch football and eat fried chicken (didn't Clinton have a heart attack not so long ago) - it seems like grandstanding to me.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I supported Richardson at first before Obama. He would be an excellent choice.
So did I. Richardson's foreign policy experience puts the others to shame. He's even been a hostage negotiator. As VP, he could represent political hope for our large disenfranchised hispanic population.
As part of my continuing education in the electoral process, I'll be attending the annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner tonight at Olympic College in Bremerton. There will be party bigwigs in attendance, discussion of the platform and a fund-raising auction. The dinner tickets were $50! [It seems you can't play if you don't pay.] Where's those fatcat lobbyists when I need them? Guess I'm still small-fry in a big pond.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
In terms of winning the election, it would be great to have Richardson on the ticket. What a shame not to have him as Secretary of State, though! And when we really need a good one....
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama, if he wins the nomination, selects Richardson as VP. If Clinton wins the nomination, I think she almost has to pick Obama to keep the party together.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
I can't see Obama playing second fiddle to Clinton even if it were to keep the party together. If Clinton is nominated, McCain is a shoo-in.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
Has anyone else seen the incredible similarities between the West Wing elections in series 6 and 7 and this one? I've noticed it for weeks and thought that it was just a brilliant coincidence but this Guardian article seems to suggest that it wasn't as big a coincidence as I thought.
From West Wing to real thing
You too? I thought the same thing. I thought I had seen this election before. It's eerie how far the similarity goes. Not just with the (now obvious) inspiration from Mr. Obama, but the dead ringer of a character Alan Alda was for John McCain, and the fits of conniption that the series had the Democratic Party in.
Casting a character is one thing, making so many parallels to real life is just incredible.
[Avaunt foul fiend of scroll lock! Super-long url exorcised by tinyurl.com.]
[ 25. February 2008, 01:34: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Maybe at first, but they seem to have gotten over it as the african american vote is going 70 -80 -90% for Obama these days.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Sorry - in my current feverish state, I think this went to the wrong thread.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
A good Secretary of State? How about George Mitchell?
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
I think this Hilary Clinton attack on Obama has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the idea of him serving as her vp.
The question is, will voters see this attack as a display of strength by Hillary or as a desperate "rant"? On the clip it doesn't look too bad, but in the UK they showed only brief clips and it really came across like she had "lost it" mentally. That kind of raving would mean the end of a career in frontline politics in the UK, but maybe it doesn't play too bad in the US?
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
Has anyone else seen the incredible similarities between the West Wing elections in series 6 and 7 and this one? I've noticed it for weeks and thought that it was just a brilliant coincidence but this Guardian article seems to suggest that it wasn't as big a coincidence as I thought.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
You too? I thought the same thing. I thought I had seen this election before. It's eerie how far the similarity goes. Not just with the (now obvious) inspiration from Mr. Obama, but the dead ringer of a character Alan Alda was for John McCain, and the fits of conniption that the series had the Democratic Party in.
Casting a character is one thing, making so many parallels to real life is just incredible.
I think I heard it commented upon in the media at the time, or more likely on the TWOP boards, that the Santos character was based on Obama. But the way things have unfolded since, and the parallels between Vinick and McCain, must be just one of the odder cases of life imitating art.
Man, I miss the West Wing.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beza:
The question is, will voters see this attack as a display of strength by Hillary or as a desperate "rant"? On the clip it doesn't look too bad, but in the UK they showed only brief clips and it really came across like she had "lost it" mentally.
I heard this too. I thought it sounded like a whine about life not being fair and the 'shame on you' comment was well OTT. I'm not sure suggesting a debate about Obama's tactics was the best plan of action, if she wanted to be perceived as something other than desperate.
I think it is interesting that she has assumed Obama was deliberately misleading rather than, say, making a mistake or alternatively telling the truth and then comparing her approach to his (in the latter case it would have been far better to say nothing!). Maybe Obama has tried to mislead voters, but surely voters would by now know what their two approaches are on an issue the size of healthcare? Would Obama really be able to get away with manipulating the truth on paper? He didn't appear fazed when he was interviewed. Then again, he never does appear fazed!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
Has anyone else seen the incredible similarities between the West Wing elections in series 6 and 7 and this one? I've noticed it for weeks and thought that it was just a brilliant coincidence but this Guardian article seems to suggest that it wasn't as big a coincidence as I thought.
From West Wing to real thing
You too? I thought the same thing. I thought I had seen this election before. It's eerie how far the similarity goes. Not just with the (now obvious) inspiration from Mr. Obama, but the dead ringer of a character Alan Alda was for John McCain, and the fits of conniption that the series had the Democratic Party in.
Casting a character is one thing, making so many parallels to real life is just incredible.
I think I heard it commented upon in the media at the time, or more likely on the TWOP boards, that the Santos character was based on Obama. But the way things have unfolded since, and the parallels between Vinick and McCain, must be just one of the odder cases of life imitating art.
Man, I miss the West Wing.
I only really noticed the Vinick/McCain thing once Romney pulled out and McCain started getting Evangelical Christian Right Backlash. Also, drawing on the West Wing, what if McCain was appointed Secretary of State? Leaves Bill Richardson free for VP, McCain seems to have plenty of Foreign Affairs experience, having served on plenty Committees and of course being a War Veteran himself. I also can't see him running again after this year and it would be a firm statement of intent by Obama on his desire for bi-partisanship.
This is, of course, assuming that Obama wins the nomination and subsequently the election which, however desirable I may find it, is not in any way a guarantee. I can't see McCain working for Clinton, or Clinton accepting him in any way. I also can't see Obama as VP now, and I think Clinton has really show herself in the foot with this latest outburst, especially as it turns out that the leaflets were released weeks ago and she's held back til now
[If I say "demon of scroll lock" three times, does one appear in my bathroom mirror? Yes, but then I just have to use tinyurl.com THREE TIMES and it's fixed.]
[ 25. February 2008, 01:37: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
basso
Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228
|
Posted
Wild card, anybody?
Yes, Ralph Nader's running again. If I say anything more, it will belong in Hell.
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Ralph who? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beza:
I think this Hilary Clinton attack on Obama has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the idea of him serving as her vp.
The question is, will voters see this attack as a display of strength by Hillary or as a desperate "rant"? On the clip it doesn't look too bad, but in the UK they showed only brief clips and it really came across like she had "lost it" mentally. That kind of raving would mean the end of a career in frontline politics in the UK, but maybe it doesn't play too bad in the US?
I think this will be seen as a desperate last-minute tactic to "enliven" a campaign which is struggling. It is much like her line in the last Texas debate "Change you can xerox" which fell flat. Makes me have even less respect for Hillary and her handlers.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Well, as much as I was cussing at the radio when I heard the Clinton clips, I cussed even more when it came on with the news that Ralph Nader had thrown his hat into the ring, yet again! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Will it be that close that Nader makes the difference again?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beza:
I think this Hilary Clinton attack on Obama has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the idea of him serving as her vp.
The notion that either of the Democratic candidates might serve as VP running mate for the other is a peculiarly British notion that is totally inapplicable to the situation, to the interests of these two politicians, and to the political reality of the American vice presidency vs. a seat in the Senate. Both Hillary and Barak are much better off in the Senate than serving as the other's VP. It's not like being Deputy MP, where one retains one's own power base to some degree and a seat in the Commons, with the potential to move into other cabinet posts. In most instances the US vice presidency is a place for political careers to die. There are prominent exceptions, of course, in US history, but a US senator with good electoral tenure has far greater power and status than the VP, whose only constitutionally defined function is to preside over the Senate and cast a vote in case of a tie in that house. In point of fact, of course, the normal presiding officer of the Senate is its President Pro Tempore. Cheney has apparently exercised undue influence in the Bush administration, but that influence has been both anomolous and sinister. Of course, the VP can constitutionally take over for an incapacitated POTUS, and succeeds one whose died in office, but those are obviously exceptional circumstances.
[ 24. February 2008, 18:20: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Will it be that close that Nader makes the difference again?
IMHO, Yes.
Nader is an egomaniac who's done great damage to this country, which is sad as he showed promise as a more positive influence.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Nader entering the race means more potential damage to the Democratic candidate, correct?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Do you really thing Nader has any real following anymore? Will he even be able to get on the ballot in that many states? Won't just a few nutters vote for him -- the leftie version of Ron Paul's followers?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
