Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBefore he was America's best-known populist, author and activist Jim Hightower was the elected Agriculture Commissioner for the state of Texas.
In that capacity, he rewrote the political playbook and made a relatively low-profile statewide post into a bully pulpit for taking on the corporate special interests that warped both the Democratic Party and federal, state and local policy making.
One of the great moments in American politics came when Hightower, wearing his cowboy hat and spouting the old-school economic populist gospel, joined the Rev. Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" campaign of 1988. Their campaign events in Texas were epic celebrations of what a politics that saw beyond lines of race and ethnicity to the fundamental issue of class might look like.
For a time in March of 1988, that politics seemed possible. Jackson ran a strong second to Mike Dukakis in the Texas primary and then finished first in the local conventions that selected additional delegates. Hightower was in the thick of that historic moment.
In March of 2008, Hightower will be in the thick of it again.
The Austin-based populist will be campaigning in Texas for Barack Obama. And it will mean something, since Hightower has not forgotten what he learned about the political landscape by winning two statewide elections in the 1980s and serving as an essential player on more than a few campaigns since then.
Texas is supposed to be Hillary Clinton country. She's got what are referred to as "demographic advantages." Translation: The large Hispanic population in the Lone Star state is expected to back her on March 4 when Texans follow their traditional two-step process of voting in a day-time primary and then caucus in the evening.
Hispanic support has been critical to Clinton's viability, helping the New York senator to carry California, Arizona and other key states on Super Tuesday.
But Hightower thinks Obama can compete in Texas by building a coalition that looks a little like the "rainbow" of old -- and a lot like the coalitions that just gave the senator big wins in Maryland and Virginia. The Obama campaign is listening. Indeed, the candidate has started slipping references to the state into his campaign speeches. Obama plans to play in Texas, as he will do so with Hightower at his side.
"The Obama campaign is a phenomenon," says Hightower, who will make his formal endorsement soon but spoke this week with Laura Flanders and this writer on Radio Nation.
"Í am impressed with the tone of his campaign and, most of all, I am impressed with the people who have surged behind his campaign –- especially the young people," the Texan says of Obama.
Hightower knows the complaints about the Obama campaign: that it is not specific enough, that it promises "change" without describing what change looks like, that it preaches "hope" without explaining what it is that we are hoping for.
The former agriculture commissioner says his candidate should be more specific, especially on economic issues. Running a campaign that can be accused of emphasizing slogans over policies is usually "a mistake," Hightower says. But, he adds, that mistake can and will be rectified by an Obama camp that is only now beginning to catch up with its own momentum.
Ultimately, says Hightower, part of the responsibility for making Obama stronger on specific issues lies with progressives who back the Illinois senator.
"The thing that really matters about the Obama campaign is the 'change' message," says the Texan. "This has more staying power."
"That makes it incumbent upon progressives – and this new force that is emerging is a progressive force – to make demands," adds Hightower. "Franklin Roosevelt did not campaign on the New Deal. The people that elected him made Roosevelt give them a New Deal."
The people who elect Obama, says Hightower, can assure that Obama's 'change' message translates as "progressive change."
And one of the people electing Obama -- or, at the very least, doing his damnedest to carry Texas for the senator -- will be Jim Hightower.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Jim Hightower's support for Senator Obama is a major blow to Senator Clinton's Texas campaign. This probably means that there will not be a lopsided victory by either candidate.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/14/2008 @ 4:19pm
Okay, here's two things that scare me about this article (for Obama winning the nomination)--
1. Jim Hightower used to have a little 2 minute commentary on Air America Radio. In 2004, he predicted "John Kerry will not only win...he'll win in a landslide!"
2. Mr Nichols says it's a positive sign.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 4:21pm
alibama
rio you shame god with your racist trash talk.
after all, we are all created in his image, right?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 4:50pm
Rio-I was waiting for the Obama conspiracy theory to show up.We had the 9/11 conspiracy people.The plots against the Clintons conspiracy theory and now you've provided us with the long awaited Obama conspiracy theory where we will have to read books authored by Hitler and be subjected to extremism.Thank you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/14/2008 @ 4:53pm
Jim Hightower used to have a little 2 minute commentary on Air America Radio. In 2004, he predicted "John Kerry will not only win...he'll win in a landslide!"
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 4:21pm
Well I think Jim was a little more realistic about the situation as you make him out to be:
July 26, 2004
Jim Hightower: Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush
"But in terms of Kerry himself, you know, I think it's an essential first step that we get rid of Bush. What I find is not wild enthusiasm particularly for Kerry, but a unified effort to A.B.B., Anybody But Bush, get this guy out. They aren't only nuts, they are dangerous. That is a step that we have it take. Now having done that, that's not a progressive victory to get rid of Bush. That just brings us back to ground level again. You know, there's that old song, "It Felt So Good When It Stopped Hurting." And that's the way we will feel. That will feel good for a while, but November 3 is an awfully important date for us, because we will then have the opportunity to begin to put our best agenda forward and our best progressive organizing forward to retake the debate in the country for health care for everybody, good jobs at good wages, etc. And be in the face of the Kerry/Edwards administration. We are going to have to make them as progressive as they can be. They aren't going to do it on their own."
http://tinyurl.com/3ys4pu
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 4:54pm
Rio-Does this mean that you're supporting satan's favorite daughter over extremist Obama?
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/14/2008 @ 4:56pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/14/2008 @ 4:42pm
So Dems hold Congress and Obama gets the White House....
you moving?
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 4:57pm
The RICH secular regressives who must surely hate themselves for being rich (unless they are marxist liars also) are pouring millions into not just a national presidential race, but ...
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/14/2008 @ 4:42pm
Why do new cons always project their own guilt of neglect and bad intent towards their fellow man on the very people trying to fix the new con mess?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 4:59pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/14/2008 @ 4:54pm
HSUB, I didn't say Hightower didn't "have some problems with Kerry"...
I said he PREDICTED Kerry would win in a landslide. I know....I HEARD it during his commentary on Air America in mid-October 2004.
Now, there's a difference between "policy/political differences" and "predictions".
And I think you of all people know that predictions about monumental shifts in the political landscape that fail, don't add to your "street cred".
(BTW, here's where you point out that I said Gonzales MIGHT stay as AG...and quietly 'forget' that you predicted impeachment and Gore's eventual run for the Dem nomination...and we get into a tussle again that involves you calling me names (and still oddly FEMALE insults?!?!?) and never coming clean with your failed prognostications.....just so everybody knows what's coming next!)
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 5:01pm
Hightower knows the complaints about the Obama campaign: that it is not specific enough, that it promises "change" without describing what change looks like, that it preaches "hope" without explaining what it is that we are hoping for.
There are quite a few specifics for any one who is interested in visiting Obama's website. To campaign in a policy-wonkish style that goes deep into the specifics turns off most voters, and only satisfies political intellectuals.
And I think we all know Obama's "change" means change from Washington politics as usual, in which those with the insider connections and the most lobbying dollars are no longer able to write the laws of this country.
And how could "anyone" who listens to an Obama speech not know what hope is?
"Hope is not blind optimism." "Hope is not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight." Pause. "Hope is that thing inside of us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is something greater inside of us."
"I was raised by a single mom. We had neither wealth nor privilege," "All odds -- all odds -- said I shouldn't be standing here. But I am because of love and education and lots of hope. That's what we can stand for in four days. That's what you can stand for."
From a progressive point of view, and Obama is indeed a progressive, hope is believing we can change our government so that it is responsive to to ordinary Americans. It is the ability to conceive of an enlightened America, one that makes the world proud, and then doing the heavy lifting required to bring this about.
Hope is knowing that it is American arrogance and hypocrisy that our the root causes of international terrorism, and believing we can create a more humble America, a more constructive America, an America that seeks to uplift the human condition of the world.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 5:01pm
AMY GOODMAN: What irks you most about the President of the United States?
JIM HIGHTOWER: Well it's nothing about him personally. Rather, it is the rabidly right-wing zealotry that these people have brought into national politics. You know, I've been watching the Bushites for nine years now. Five years as Governor of Texas and now in the White House and I have come, from my scientific observation, to this academic conclusion that these people are nuts. Just absolutely bogus loopy. This is not a matter of, I mean their policies are Orwellian, Ayn Randian, Jerry Falwellian, Strangelovian attempt to supplant our democracy with their corporate vision of autocracy, plutocracy and empire. This is not just another election. It's a big time in America, I think and I have been doing, as you have, a whole lot of travel around America in the last several weeks and months, even, and I find that people are aware of it. I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck in my town of (Austin), Texas and it said "Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?" People have some sense that we are being led down a rabbit trail, off the true path of America.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 5:11pm
Typo...it should have read:
"Hope is knowing that it is American arrogance and hypocrisy that [are] the root causes of international terrorism, and believing we can create a more humble America, a more constructive America, an America that seeks to uplift the human condition of the world."
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 5:13pm
"So they had the police remove the protesters from the sidewalk saying it was a threat to the public for them to be there. And of course it endangered themselves to be on the sidewalk. Therefore, they should go to a parking lot out of sight of Bush and out of sight of the national media. And that was the beginning of this what I call Bush zones that have been created. Of course, America used to be a protest zone. We had a wonderful incident last year in Crawford, Texas. A group of peace protesters, about 100 of them caravanning in cars going to the Bush ranchette just outside of Crawford. And they are driving through Crawford and they are met there by Donnie Tidmore, and Donnie is the Chief of Police, and he's got a barricade there. And they said, "Get out of the cars,"--to the leaders, "Get out of the cars," and they walk up and say, "What's this?" He said, "Well you have no permit to protest in Crawford." And they said "No, Donnie, we aren't going to protest in Crawford. We are going through Crawford to the ranch." And Donnie said well just by your very presence of being here, you are a protest. The logic cell in Donnie Tidmore's brain was not functioning that day. So they tried to argue with him. Tried to make a little common sense with him and that was not functioning. So Donnie arrested five of the protestors. They became the "Crawford Five." And they were later convicted by a jury in Crawford for demonstrating. And at the trial, it was even said--Tidmore himself was asked: "If somebody came into town wearing a polit--a peace button, would that constitute a protest under your ordinance? And he said, "It could be a protest. It could be a sign of a demonstration." "
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 5:15pm
OK, I had my haircut today and again, chatted w/my Hispanic female barber. She was born in the US. We go back half a dozen years now.
Like most, she is surprised by Magic's rise.....interestingly, her first `shot' is the push for Universal Health Care.....she has insurance through her husband's employer. She's well aware that the "50 million uninsured" is bogus and that many don't apply for what they already qualifies for, and of course, the 10~20 million illegals. I shared w/her what I knew...that something north of 10 million are usually between employments and that another bunch simply choose NOT to buy insurance--the young and usually single non-professionals.
Jim Hightower, as irrelevant as an endorsement of Clinton by Ann Richards, if she's still alive.
I did my part and just informed her of the fact Obama is ranked the MOST LIBERAL of all Senators, much higher than #18 Hillary and even Teddy Ken-LeaveWomantoDie-nedy.
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 5:21pm
I did my part and just informed her of the fact Obama is ranked the MOST LIBERAL of all Senators, much higher than #18 Hillary and even Teddy Ken-LeaveWomantoDie-nedy.
I think the timliness of this rating and its inconsistency from year to year on the same politicians indicates that the National Journal is not the "non-partisan" group it purports to be.
Labels like "liberal" are not going to work against Obama, as he will force you to confront what you mean by that, and force you to acknowledge that Bush's government spending far outstrips any Democrat or Republican. And there is a meaningful difference between "taxing the rich" and "spending on ordinary Americans", and "taxing the middle class" and "spending on defense contractors and oil companies", which is what the Republicans have done.
Old labels and old slogans just won't work this time!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 5:29pm
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 5:01pm
Not saying he didn't predict it, but saying he was a lot more realistic about the circumstances-- let's just say he colored it as not so much that Kerry would win the election as much as hsuB/cHeney would lose it. Plus he was working against 'lost' hope and perhaps underestimated the amount of the US pop that had already been beaten down. He was trying to be optimistic in the face of bad news:
For example:
HEY, THERE'S GOOD NEWS AT THE GRASSROOTS
Progressive groups are busting out all over
Hey, come on, progressives-- buck up! There's been too much doom and gloom--especially among inside-the-beltway progressives--about John Kerry's chances on Nov. 2. Maybe they inherited an extra dour gene, or maybe they're spending too much time listening to pollsters and pundits. Of course there's the occasional discouraging campaign news, but don't wallow in it, for there's also greatly encouraging news:
• Yes, I know that some polls have shown Bush running even with Kerry or ahead--but the pollsters are vastly undercounting anti-Bush votes.
• Yes, I know that Kerry's charisma quotient ranks somewhere between that of Al Gore and Michael Dukakis--but John's been perking up lately, showing a bit of populist passion, striking some solid blows, and winning all three debates.
• Yes, I know that the Bushites are creepy-scary thugs who've shown that they'll lie, cheat, and steal to win, but they've been doing such things so often that their color-coded bag of tricks has lost credibility with the general public--the curtain has been pulled back, and the wizard has been revealed to be just a spoiled, insecure, petulant little son of a Bush.
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/344
However, the big dif and a major point-- it isn't 2004 and Barack Obama is no John Kerry!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 5:31pm
Zero take a look at the trend on this:
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
That trend will look a lot like this in two weeks:
http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Do some research and I believe you'll find an influx of northern transmigration into Texas. There are large pockets of progressives in Texas that have been growing for quite a while now.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 5:21pm
If "liberal" means taking our government away from the moneyed special interest and giving back to ordinary Americans, then we should all be liberals. If "liberal" means breaking our addiction to oil so we don't have to fight any more wars for oil, then we all should be liberals. If liberal means making healthcare affordable and universal so that no American must worry about what happens to them when they get sick or injured, then we all should be liberal. If liberal means college for everyone and living wages so all Americans can live with dignity and respect, then we all should be liberal. And if liberal means creating a new America that is looked up to as an example of compassion and world brotherhood, then we all should be liberals.
WE are not going to let YOU define what liberal is HAPPY - we will define it for you this time and ensure it has the broadest support possible for our progressive agenda.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 5:53pm
The trends in Ohio and Pennsylvania look a lot more like NY than Texas:
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
However if the ongoing Barack tsunami continues CA would be an easy win for him in the general:
http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Especially seeing as he may be getting another 100,000 votes from LA:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5692
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 5:57pm
WE are not going to let YOU define what liberal is HAPPY - we will define it for you this time and ensure it has the broadest support possible for our progressive agenda.
Posted by METTEYYA 02/14/2008 @ 5:53pm
Tell you what, since all yo Believers know that he can walk on water, why not have him campaign, for the general, as an out-and-out Liberal or Progressive, no more `hiding' from the Liberal label...you think Obama has the balls to do that? He is a Socialist, IMO!
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 5:58pm
er,
"State Democratic Chairman Brian Colon made the announcement after a marathon hand count of 17,000 provisional ballots that had to be given to voters on Feb. 5 because of long lines and a shortage of ballots. The final statewide count gave her a 1,709-vote edge over rival Sen. Barack Obama, 73,105 or 48.8 percent of the total vote to 71,396 or 47.6 percent."
"Of the 22 states that held Democratic primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday, New Mexico was the last to report a winner. The caucus here was run by the state Democratic party rather than by state government."
"It was a mess: Overwhelmed polling places with long lines, some up to three hours. Too few ballots. Confusion over where to vote. Bad weather in the north. In Rio Rancho, one of the state's largest cities, a single polling location where 1,900 people remain lined up at 7 p.m on election night.
Colon has apologized repeatedly: "We absolutely miscalculated and I apologize. It's a tragedy when folks are not afforded the opportunity to vote."
http://tinyurl.com/3y3l3s
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 5:58pm
I don't think he is going to campaign on labels - he will transcend them.
Labels are what got us into this mess because they force voters to stop thinking. We are going to do just the opposite of a label campaign, and make people think about why we are in the mess we are in today and what needs to be done to extricate ourselves from it.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 6:15pm
Oops:
"Even as Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was blasting Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to the Exelon Corporation, the firm of Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very same nuclear energy giant.
This past week, Burson Marsteller, Penn's powerhouse consulting agency, was paid more than $230,000 by Exelon to help renew a nuclear energy license in New Jersey, the Huffington Post has learned. The payment was for work that took place over several months, and Burson is still employed by the company."
http://tinyurl.com/378234
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 6:27pm
Somewhat off topic...
House In Chaos After Republicans Force Vote During Lantos Memorial
February 14, 2008 11:38 AM
Apart from repub behavior being in bad taste by not simply waiting an hour or two, the comments on this article surely reflect the mood of the country currently towards the new con repubs:
http://tinyurl.com/yqd3mq
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/14/2008 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person
ahh...the obligatory rio far right rant of the day!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2008 @ 7:23pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 5:21pm
people are sick of "conservative republicans".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2008 @ 7:25pm
It is funny the way the conservatives try to label those who oppose their views as "Liberals", very much akin to Alquaeda calling their opponents "Infidels"! Do you see the coincidence?
Both are conservatives and narrow-minded..
Posted by steve_va at 02/14/2008 @ 7:32pm
people are sick of "conservative republicans".
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2008 @ 7:25pm
Say a lot why McCain is going to be the Nominee...seems I nailed this one!
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 7:38pm
...narrow-minded..
Posted by STEVE_VA 02/14/2008 @ 7:32pm
You mean like Berkely regarding our Marines or Toledo w/our troops training in urban environs? You may be Liberals, but I knew what Liberals, and you sir, you're no liberal!
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 7:41pm
I trust Hightower more than I do most politicians. This endorsement is a big deal as far as I am concerned. I don't care if he was wrong about Kerry in '04. It is not his status as a crystal ball reader that I care about, it is his status as a honest and committed leftist that I care about.
For genuine progressives, populist, liberals or whatever to be comfortable supporting Obama (I don't see a way the informed left doesn't support him, given the alternative) they have to think that behind the centrist talk and the millions in big money donations is someone who is playing the game so that he can change it once he wins. The problem is none of us interact with the candidate. We don't know who he really is or what he really wants. That is why endorsements like this ought to matter. When people like Jim Hightower, who are above the suspicion that the nature of Obama's campaign has created in the minds of some (myself included), endorse Obama it makes it easier to believe that he is not Bill Clinton all over again. It makes it easier to believe that he is softening his rhetoric and approach in order to do what Edwards and Kucinich could not do, win.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/14/2008 @ 7:44pm
However, the big dif and a major point-- it isn't 2004 and Barack Obama is no John Kerry!---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/14/2008 @ 5:31pm
A reason I'm not AS depressed about Hightower getting involved and Nichols boosting it.
FRANKly (pun intended), if Obama wins the nomination, I think he runs the table to November 4th. (Yes, this is my prediction). Based on the fact that as HAPPY has STILL failed to do...McCain offers almost nothing but "more of the same that Bush gave you".
That plus the "Kennedy/Nixon debate" moment in October, where people see a feisty, but ancient man versus a young, dynamic guy and a sense of "Can't we atleast TRY something new?"
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 7:53pm
Posted by STEVE_VA 02/14/2008 @ 7:32pm
Uh, didn't you just label those who disagree with YOU as "conservatives"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 7:54pm
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 7:53pm
Are you really so spell-bound? You are not the same MASK I found here a year ago.....then, it was a suspicion, now, you are not much different than a FRANKG or METT, except you're a Party Operative!
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 8:06pm
..McCain offers almost nothing but "more of the same that Bush gave you".
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 7:53pm
...the major differences in policy that John McCain would enact that differs from George W. Bush?!?!?!????
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 1:06pm from: Your GOP Valentine thread
No earmarks! McCain is the Pork Buster! You do know why Bush 43 lost a major slice of the Conservative coalition? or do you?
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 7:43p at Your GOP Valentine thread
Now, I gave you one major difference between Bush & McCain, tell me how Obama would be different from another Clinton? Something policy-wise and a BIG difference (other than mandating or voluntary UHC)?
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 8:11pm
It makes it easier to believe that he is softening his rhetoric and approach in order to do what Edwards and Kucinich could not do, win.
You are starting to get it, DENTEDPAT!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 8:12pm
So, Jesse Jackson lost the non-binding Texas primary, but won the actual delegate selection caucuses later that same evening? It sounds to me like we may see a re-run of 1988 (although it was actually Michael Dukakis who won the Texas primary, not Al Gore; 1988 was the first election in which I was old enough to vote, and I remember it like it was yesterday), although I still hold out some hope for an Obama upset in the non-binding primary. But its delegates that will win him this nomination.
Oh, and I'd just like to say that as a man of the political right (I'm a registered Republican who voted for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday, and for Patrick Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket in 2000), who prefers the idea of Barack Obama in the White House to that bumbling, senile, hothead John McInsane, that you, Rio Bravo, are an excellent example of why so many people hate conservatives, and why the Republican Party will definitely lose this year (and why it frankly deserves to, after eight disastrous, neo-"conservative" years of Bush/Cheney).
Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/14/2008 @ 8:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 8:08pm
Obama will trounce McCain in November, and this is why the conservative attack dogs are ratcheting up their "Obama is too liberal" propaganda!
The voters are tired of these label games, and want a fresh face in the White House who is able to clean up the mess in Washington and put citizens in control of our government.
McCain is a relic of the past who was part of the Keating 5. He is therefore part of the problem, not the solution!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 8:37pm
...voted for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday, and for Patrick Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket in 2000), who prefers the idea of Barack Obama in the White House to that bumbling, senile, hothead John McInsane,...
Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 02/14/2008 @ 8:26pm
Bouncing from Buchanan to Paul to Obama........I see. You don't have much inner principles.....like a Clinton. Not an insult really.....it is characteristic of many Independents....NOT MANY ROOT PRINCIPLES...like small Gov't and low taxation for the Repub Base......which Paul, Buchanan & McCain certainly have in common to a great degree.
You should never have registered as a GOP....but, goes to show our tent is pretty Big!
BTW, I like both Paul & Buchanan.....neither a perfect fit for my views....but more than acceptable as POTUS.
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 9:09pm
If "liberal" means taking our government away from the moneyed special interest and giving back to ordinary Americans, then we should all be liberals. If "liberal" means breaking our addiction to oil so we don't have to fight any more wars for oil, then we all should be liberals. If liberal means making healthcare affordable and universal so that no American must worry about what happens to them when they get sick or injured, then we all should be liberal. If liberal means college for everyone and living wages so all Americans can live with dignity and respect, then we all should be liberal. And if liberal means creating a new America that is looked up to as an example of compassion and world brotherhood, then we all should be liberals.
WE are not going to let YOU define what liberal is HAPPY - we will define it for you this time and ensure it has the broadest support possible for our progressive agenda.
Posted by METTEYYA 02/14/2008 @ 5:53pm
Heh, that's some pretty good propaganda you've got going their. Sadly, what your advocating is less liberal and more...socialist. As we all know (and has been mercilessly hammered into us by our politicians) were not a socialist nation. To many people make to much money on screwing over the rest of us to be a socialist nation.
Also, people seem to love to forget the words 'Diebald Voting Machine' as it regards to the 2004 elections. Y'know, those electronic, paperless, easily hackable voting systems installed in the key swing states of 2004, manufactured by a corporation that supports Bush. I'll leave you guys to connect the dots on this one, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
Posted by shadow master at 02/14/2008 @ 9:11pm
To no one in particular....
Bought Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks & White Liberals" today while doing my period browsing of a used books store. Anyone read this? Can't say I've heard of this book though I'm a fan of Sowell's commentaries. Provocative title...the Black Redneck half...hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 9:13pm
Picked up something interesting....Obama is out-buying Clinton for the Superdelegates.....for Obamanics, you ought to be HAPPY your candidate now has more money than Clinton and may just yet, `buy' himself a nomination. No, not all Supers are For Sale!
from Capitol Eye:
Seeking Superdelegates
As the Democratic Party's superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $890,000 they've received from the candidates?
By Lindsay Renick Mayer
February 14, 2008 | At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers....
......elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton.....according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama,....has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee.....Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him......
Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded.....appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions,....
.....--Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds.....
"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.'....
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 9:39pm
Bouncing from Buchanan to Paul to Obama........I see. You don't have much inner principles.....like a Clinton. Not an insult really.....it is characteristic of many Independents....NOT MANY ROOT PRINCIPLES...like small Gov't and low taxation for the Repub Base......which Paul, Buchanan & McCain certainly have in common to a great degree.
I have very strong political principles; they're just not mirrored by either political party (or even any of the minor ones, although I'm probably closer to the LP than anything else). But John McInsane is the kind of irrational, hotheaded, macho screwball who might do something really stupid, and get us into a shooting war with Russia and/or China (and definitely with Iran). Can you imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if that idiot were in the White House in 1962? McInsane is the sort of neo-"conservative" warmonger who could manage to get us into a nuclear war over Quemoy and Matsu in 2009. I have a son who will turn ten years old this year; I'd like him to live to see 18 (and not get drafted once he does). I could have voted for Duncan Hunter if he'd been the nominee, but other than for him and Ron Paul, the Republican field really sucked this year, and McInsane was the very worst of a bad lot. I'll probably vote for a third party candidate come November, but I'd still prefer to see Obama beat Senator Strangelove. Although I would vote for Obama if I lived in a swing state (but as a Californian, I'm free to vote for whomever I want, knowing our Electoral College delegation will go to the Democrats in any year that isn't a landslide for the GOP).
Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/14/2008 @ 9:49pm
Under no circumstances will Texans ever vote a black man into the presidential nomination or the White House.
Posted by ZERO 02/14/2008 @ 5:35p
mr. obama may not win,
but i think you'll be surprised how many delegates he can scrape out of texas.
you WILL be surprised.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:07pm
you think Obama has the balls to do that? He is a Socialist, IMO!
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 5:58pm
been making jimson tea again?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:09pm
You mean like Berkely regarding our Marines or Toledo w/our troops training in urban environs? You may be Liberals, but I knew what Liberals, and you sir, you're no liberal!
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 7:41pm
ever been to downtown toledo?
it's a ghost town.............
the ongoing abandonment of america.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:13pm
We don't know who he really is or what he really wants.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/14/2008 @ 7:44pm
neither does mr. obama.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:14pm
Are you really so spell-bound? You are not the same MASK I found here a year ago.....then, it was a suspicion, now, you are not much different than a FRANKG or METT, except you're a Party Operative!
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 8:06pm
neither are you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:15pm
He is a Socialist, IMO!
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 5:58pm
been making jimson tea again?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/14/2008 @ 10:09pm
Well, maybe I got ahead of the WSJ....it called him just a plain old "orthodox liberal".
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 10:16pm
Though you might like us to go away, there are still about 50-60 million voting conservatives.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 8:08pm
attrition will take of that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:16pm
I'm a fan of Sowell's commentaries.
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 9:13pm
purge thy brain!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 9:39pm
corrupt insider politics in america. impossible.
only canadians do that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:20pm
neither are you.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/14/2008 @ 10:15pm
True enough....half of my posts used to be about the stock market and how our economy benefits when, heheheh, over 50% of the American people (% of Americans w/direct holdings via IRA, Keogh and co.-managed pension funds) are making money in stocks! Now, with the market doing what I thought (last summer/fall) it would by now, and with less money in the market....it's politics almost all of the time.
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 10:21pm
Well, maybe I got ahead of the WSJ....it called him just a plain old "orthodox liberal".
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 10:16pm
i look upon him with fingers crossed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:22pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 10:21pm
not just that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 8:11pm
HAPPY, what Republican (including Bush) hasn't promised he'll "cut pork barrel spending"?
What one has?
Seriously, you should (if true) be able to list 4-5 different things that McCain will do than Bush. You seemed pretty confident, in several posts now that McCain would have this laundry list of things he'd "do differently" and that would overcome Bush's 30% approval ratings and the fact the GOP just lost Congress after a dozen years.
As for what will Obama do differently than Clinton?...who knows. But he has promised to do a LOT of things different than Bush, which McCain hasn't, and given public attitudes about the 43rd Presidency...that's plenty.
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/14/2008 @ 10:15pm
Hilariously, I've been accused of being a REPUBLICAN "party operative" on this site several times.
For HAPP to think I'm a Dem operative makes me feel quite good that I'm not an idealogue of either side.
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 10:24pm
BTW, guys...
finally found that video of RIO BRAVO! [youtube.com]
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 4:00pm
this one features RIO AND BRAVO
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:26pm
Though you might like us to go away, there are still about 50-60 million voting conservatives.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 8:08pm
attrition will take care of that.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/14/2008 @ 10:16pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:28pm
As for what will Obama do differently than Clinton?...who knows. But he has promised to do a LOT of things different than Bush, which McCain hasn't, and given public attitudes about the 43rd Presidency...that's plenty.
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 10:23pm
i tell you HAPPY says "McCain McCain McCain McCain McCain McCain McCain".
but he's gonna have a couple drinks in the morning, get in his V-19 Ford Mutineer, go to the polling place, walk confidently into the both,
and VOTE FOR OBAMA
(all the while hoping the cameras didn't catch it.)
both in the primary
and in the general.
and he's going to lie about it, and he's gonna be really proud of it, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 10:33pm
...John McInsane is the kind of irrational, hotheaded, macho screwball who might do something really stupid, and get us into a shooting war with Russia and/or China (and definitely with Iran). Can you imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if that idiot were in the White House in 1962?...
Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 02/14/2008 @ 9:49pm
I can easily imagine McCain, in the role of JFK, staring down Nakita Kruschev or today's AhmaDineinYourJeans. A POTUS strong on nat'l defense--as JFK's speech about paying any price to uphold freedom anywhere indicates--is far more likely to lead our enemies to back down.
Iraq would have IF not for the Europeans who took Saddam's money & gave Saddam false hope.......even on the eve of invasion w/our troops in Kuwait, he thought we were bluffing. DumbAss....he could have exiled with his two punk sons!
Either Obama or Clinton as POTUS, presents two major risks on foreign policy. The MidEast and all its bad actors, will `bust loose' and test us....especially those allied w/us.....maybe even getting us completely out of the ME.....I'm NOT altogether opposed to this (Buchanan's isolationist position) but there will be unknown but very serious economic and energy security issues for us for decades......there is no free lunch.
The other risk is based on either the race or gender of the Dem POTUS....for obvious historical significance. Either will be acutely aware of the whole nation (& world) staring at them, and future Historians, pondering: Do the first black/female POTUS measure up when our national interests were seriously threatened even though no fool-proof smoking gun existed...as was the case for war in Iraq when all allied and Russian intelligence indicated that Saddam had WMDs.
McCain can `stand down' from confrontations and explain the rationales to the country's satisfaction....NOT so with the Dems who have been declaring Defeat for 4~5 years.
I absolutely buy into the cliche of "to avoid a war, one must be prepared for war"! Modern-day Dems just don't give me any comfort.
BTW, I don't mean to say the Dems won't go to war, it's just that when they do, it will be much bigger & nastier wars where your son may end up going....not drafted....because he may decide to serve his country on the battlefield.
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 10:46pm
Mett,
There is evidence behind the claim that Obama is farther to the left than he is showing us and the donor class. That evidence isn't enough, yet, to make me comfortable. It will take more endorsements from important people. It will also take public avowals of trust in Obama from people I trust. That the left will back Obama now that the choices are down to two is not a surprise. So the nature of the endorsements matter. As of right now I am marginally less skeptical than before, but it is a small margin.
That said, even if Obama is running as a stealthed progressive there is a cost to this, a I have said. If he is really farther to the left than he has sounded (in fairness he is sounding more economically sensible, meaning more leftist on the economy, recently) then he is developing this coalition on false pretenses. I have no problem tricking republicans into voting sensibly, but I do think it means the coalition he is building will not be a lasting one in the way the New Deal and Reagan coalitions were. There is an oppurtunity cost, and a big one, everytime a Democrat runs while not being a forceful advocate for liberal/progressive/populist principles. It is impossible to know how big this one is. I thought all along that the Republican party was weak enough that Democrats could afford to run a campaign desinged not only to win but also pull public discourse to the left. I think Obama is doing a good job of building an operation that does the first. I have seen no evidence that he is doing the second. And that makes me sad because I don't see an oppurtunity this good coming around again for years. Perhaps if he weren't running against a centrist corporate democrat like Clinton he would feel safer to open things up and try to change some minds on the core policy issues. Who knows.
To everyone else, wouldn't it be fun to cut out all the 'Yes We Can!' and 'Time for Change' parts of Obama's speeches and see what sense you get of him from those speeches? Well the editing process would not be fun. But the result would be interesting. I wonder from time to time if most of my antipathy for Obama comes from the parts of his speeches that sound like they are being pitched to 12 year olds (which explains why the mainstream media is so inspired). I wonder what would be left if you took out the crap sloganeering from his speeches and interviews, and whether he would come off as more substantial. I am open to being proved wrong about Obama. I hope I am wrong given that Obama has good odds of being president. If I do get proved wrong, I wonder if the 'Yes we Can' stuff is the explanation of why I went wrong.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/14/2008 @ 10:48pm
For HAPP to think I'm a Dem operative makes me feel quite good...
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 10:24pm
I pegged you for either a Dem or Abortion Operative probably a month or two after reading you......I didn't go public w/it at first, but never, ever mistook you for a Repub Operative or a Libertarian (no way a middling Libertarian can buy into the Dem's populist, big-gov't BS)......maybe you fooled most on my ignored list that you're a Repub...and you're right, I recall many of them did (may still do) call you a Repub.
Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 10:58pm
"I can easily imagine McCain, in the role of JFK, staring down Nakita Kruschev or today's AhmaDineinYourJeans."
This is an excellent example of the Bizarro World that neo-"conservatives" apparently inhabit. Nikita Khruschev was the leader of the second most powerful nation on Earth, with a conventional force that could quite possibly have defeated us in Europe, and several thousand nuclear warheads. Ahmadinejad is a largely ceremonial President who spends his time making speeches and cutting ribbons in a country that has essentially no offensive military capacity what-so-ever, other than a lot of infantry troops that probably couldn't make it west of Baghdad, in the unlikely event they ever went on the march. Our own CIA believes they abandoned their nuclear program years ago. Iran presents absolutely no threat what-so-ever to the United States, and yet you compare them to the Soviet Union? That's like comparing Tonga to Indonesia, Laos to China, or Surinam to Brazil. There is no conceivable reason for the United States to contemplate war with Iran, and numerous reasons to be horrified at such a prospect (for one thing, their defensive capabilities are actually rather formidable, as the most recent series of wargames demonstrated; we lost an aircraft carrier and 16 other ships on the first day of hostilities, which is almost exactly the same results we got the last time the Pentagon wargamed the war-with-Iran-in-the-Persian-Gulf scenario).
"Iraq would have IF not for the Europeans who took Saddam's money & gave Saddam false hope.......even on the eve of invasion w/our troops in Kuwait, he thought we were bluffing."
U.S. interests would have been best served by leaving Saddam in power. He did an effective job keeping a lid on the powder keg that is Mesopotamia, and Al-Qaeda and other jihadists of the sort which do present some moderate threat to U.S. security, were almost totally unable to operate in Iraq under his regime. As a secular, national socialist Arab leader, Saddam's enemies were also our enemies. Invading Iraq in 2003 was a colossal blunder that has done nothing but bleed our country's military men & resources, deplete our Treasury (and increase our national debt), increase instability in the Middle East, and make it easier for Al-Qaeda to pick up new recruits. Saddam Hussein may have been a brutal tyrant, but life under his regime was still much less dangerous (and much more comfortable and pleasant, or at least less unpleasant) than life under the ineffectual puppet regime we've instituted in Iraq.
Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 02/15/2008 @ 12:46am
...makes me feel quite good that I'm not an idealogue of either side.
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 10:24pm
Is that like stretching out a left and right butt cheek and being in the middle?
j/k
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 12:54am
if Obama wins the nomination, I think he runs the table to November 4th. (Yes, this is my prediction)....
That plus the "Kennedy/Nixon debate" moment in October, where people see a feisty, but ancient man versus a young, dynamic guy and a sense of "Can't we atleast TRY something new?"
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 7:53pm
I'd only change-- "versus a young, dynamic guy and a sense of "We 'WILL' (yes we can) TRY something new?", to conclude, from your lips to gods (all of them) ears.
What was old WILL be NEW again.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:02am
Bush Says Paternalism Over in U.S. Aid
WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring the age of paternalism over, President Bush said Thursday the United States demands clear results for the billions of taxpayer dollars it sends to Africa. He accused other nations of exploiting the continent's resources or irresponsibly offering aid as charity.
"America is serving as an investor, not as a donor," Bush said in a tone-setting preview of his six-day trip to Africa, which begins Saturday.
Bush's speech was largely aimed at Congress, which sets the foreign aid budgets that will ultimately shape whether his initiatives outlast his presidency.
The president said the United States has a moral imperative and a vital security interest in helping Africa overcome disease, poverty and instability. His message reflected that foreign aid goes over better with lawmakers and the taxpaying public when it turns up tangible results and lasting change.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQEFMG0&show_article=1
Can everyone say all together now-- "What an asshole jerk piece of lower than bile shit worm excrement." hsuB needs to look in the mirror and slap his vile face and grab an ice pick and attack himself with it for every person that has died not only in Africa but in Iraq. He is a pile of souless anti-human sick gas that must be ignited and let go from our planet.
AAAaah feel much better.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:19am
That's like comparing Tonga to Indonesia, Laos to China, or Surinam to Brazil.
Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 02/15/2008 @ 12:46am
Those places are near Guam, right?
Posted by FOREIGNPOLICY 02/15/2008 @ 01:19am | ignore this person
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 01:34am
Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 02/15/2008 @ 12:46am
any more reasons to hate america, commie?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 01:35am
"What an asshole jerk piece of lower than bile shit worm excrement."
Posted by SLOOFBUSH 02/15/2008 @ 01:19am
waajpoltbswe -- that's dutch for "abyss"
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 01:39am
I wonder from time to time if most of my antipathy for Obama comes from the parts of his speeches that sound like they are being pitched to 12 year olds (which explains why the mainstream media is so inspired).
DENTED, this sounds about right given the majority of newspapers and magazines are written on an 8th grade reading level.
Posted by FritztheCat at 02/15/2008 @ 08:29am
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 7:41pm You mean like Berkely regarding our Marines or Toledo w/our troops training in urban environs? You may be Liberals, but I knew what Liberals, and you sir, you're no liberal!
I am neither liberal nor conservative! I don't pre-dispose my mind on any of the issues! In political attacks, I always see republicans label their opponents as "liberal" and I don't see this labelling from dems!
Posted by steve_va at 02/15/2008 @ 08:43am
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 10:58pm
You mean as opposed to the "Big Gov't b.s." of spending a TRILLION dollars on a stalemated war...with a "national credit card" owned by Chinese Express...never planning on paying it off and in fact having the GOP nominee saying "We'll do it for 100 years, if that's what it takes"?
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 09:01am
I always see republicans label their opponents as "liberal" and I don't see this labelling from dems!---Posted by STEVE_VA 02/15/2008 @ 08:43am
Democrats don't label their opponents as "conservatives" or "neo-cons"?!!?!???
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 09:02am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/15/2008 @ 01:02am
Well, Obama won't be "A 'Maverick' version of Bush" which is what McCain promises.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 09:03am
DENTED, this sounds about right given the majority of newspapers and magazines are written on an 8th grade reading level.
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/15/2008 @ 08:29am
and so few read them anyway................
ooh look! a great link
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 09:30am
Posted by KEVIN_OKEEFFE 02/14/2008 @ 8:26pm
Thinking people do not hate conservatives. Indeed, I would offer that no one who uses his or her brain at all could be 100% conservative, or 100% liberal.
Those who accept jack-offs like RIO or Bush/Cheney as their paradigm for conservatism are just fucked.
Posted by drhammer at 02/15/2008 @ 09:42am
Posted by MASK 02/14/2008 @ 10:24pm
One person accuses you of being a Democratic operative, and your balance is confirmed.
Life is good.
Posted by drhammer at 02/15/2008 @ 09:50am
Under no circumstances will Texans ever vote a black man into the presidential nomination or the White House.
Posted by ZERO 02/14/2008 @ 5:35pm
Didn't you say something similar about Maine last weekend?
Posted by Rintrah at 02/15/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by DRHAMMER 02/15/2008 @ 09:50am
Not just HAPP, LVLIB calls me a "liberal" all the time. And I'm pretty sure that RIO, SLIVER, PONTI, ACOOK, even MARYBRET and MAASCH think of me as "left-of-center" every time I debate Iraq, abortion, gay rights, or global warming.
So, yeah...I consider that a pretty good thing that Right OR Left...I can piss somebody off!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 12:23pm
Posted by RINTRAH 02/15/2008 @ 11:29am
Let me help you out there, RIN...
"b) Maine is a traditional and old money Eastern state and the last thing they will ever do is break with the status quo"----Posted by ZERO 02/10/2008 @ 2:30pm
BIG WINS COULD GIVE OBAMA BIG MO...Posted by Ari Berman at 02/10/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 12:24pm
I wonder what would be left if you took out the crap sloganeering from his speeches and interviews, and whether he would come off as more substantial
He would come off as a policy-wonkish Adlai Stevenson that can only relate to liberal intellectuals. You have to think beyond your own reference point in terms of Obama's appeal and understand what it takes to appeal to a broader spectrum of the electorate.
Policy wonks that are long on specifics but short on inspiration NEVER make it mainstream politics.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 12:55pm
people are not only sick of "conservative rebublicans", but also of "bourbon democrats"...
indeed this election, between mr. obama and mr. mccain epitomizes this. problem with mccain is people are more sick of the former and he has to smoochie their posteriors ad nauseum...
socialism? look, the john bircher posters here, bless them, are barely left of mussolini, so their fears of that old red/pink bugaboo of corporatists and benighted peasantry alike are so much rightwing claptrap propaganda.
for seven years they have populated government with a pack of satano-aynrando right wing corporatist anarchists bound and determined to sabatoge the federal government so they could...
a) enrich and enpower their objects of true loyalty - their corporations, selves and aristocratic families...and...
b) show everyone how bad government is (by sabatoging it)...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/15/2008 @ 1:00pm
Hightower's famous Bush bio, "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." Anybody got a 'bio' for Hillary?
Posted by felicity at 02/15/2008 @ 1:01pm
"Hillary's life of wealth and power started the day she began drinking gold water."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 1:13pm
n a poll of likely Texas primary voters, Hamilton Campaigns, a Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategy, a Republican firm, have drawn a bead on the political landscape in the upcoming primary elections.
The poll, commissioned by the Texas Credit Union League, which has offices in Farmer's Branch, asked 400 likely primary voters a series of questions ranging from who they plan to vote for to what their most important issues are.
The polls found:
Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama, 49 percent to 41 percent statewide. Eight percent of Democrats are undecided.
*In Dallas-Fort Worth, Clinton has 42 percent to Obama's 41 percent.
John McCain and Mike Huckabee both fall within the margin of error with McCain leading 45 percent to 41 percent statewide. Ron Paul trails with 6 percent.
*Illegal immigration is the most important issue to Republican voters.
*Education is the most important issue to Democratic voters.
*Forty-five percent of Republicans believe the country is on the "wrong track" with just shy of one-third of Republican voters saying they "strongly approve" of the job President Bush has done.
*Eighty-five percent of Democrats believe the country is on the "wrong track."
*Barack Obama has the highest number of crossover voters.
More than 7 million Texans do business with credit unions. The Texas Credit Union League, a trade association with offices across the state, represents approximately 97 percent of Texas credit unions. - Dallas Business Journal, 2/15/08
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 1:42pm
Anyone else think it's rolling on the floor hilarious that RIO BRAVO, that great American patriot uses a SPANISH label here? (He's on my ignore list, so no point in his responding to this.)
As for the discussion about what "liberal" means, well, it's got several real dictionary meanings. Here's how Microsoft Word (that bastion of progressive thought) defines "liberal":
progressive, tolerant, broadminded, generous, unprejudiced, magnanimous, advanced, honorable, ample, abundant, beneficent, bountiful, bounteous, charitable, lavish
And my favorite (who knew?) - handsome!
I suppose conservatives might have some problems with being "lavish, bounteous, or charitable," just as Jesus probably would.
But here are the definitions of "conservative":
adj. cautious, unprogressive, traditional, unchanging, conventional, inflexible, stable, obstinate, rightwing
noun. champion of the status quo, rightwinger, reactionary, obstructionist, die-hard, traditionalist, opponent of change, conventionalist, federalist
Now, there might be some not-so-bad definitions in there, but none of them are "batshit loopy nutjob," so what some people call "conservative" should probably be called at the very least "regressive" or "radical."
"Liberal" has been made into an insult, but that's just a very weird form of newspeak. And given the above definitions, which would you rather be? (For all the freepers and trolls on my ignore list: Jesus was a liberal!!! He'd have thrown out the current Bush Cabal with the moneychangers in the temple!)
Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/15/2008 @ 1:57pm
METTEYYA, I think you'll like THIS one a bit more--
American Research Group---February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences
Democrats TX
Clinton 42%
Obama 48%
Someone else 3%
Undecided 7%
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.
22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by LEEANNG 02/15/2008 @ 1:57pm
Well, LEEANG, the "dictionary definition" argument has been around for years, and apparantly holds little weight even for some "liberals"....i.e. the fact that a lot of them call themselves "progressives" now.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:07pm
This is from the same Texas poll in my last post above, and shows that Iraq is till a big issue among Texas Democrats, with the economy being the top concern:
6. Of the following list of issues facing the COUNTRY, which ONE would you say is most important to you personally? Is it... (RANDOMIZE) DEM GOP 28% 13% THE ECONOMY AND JOBS 16% 3% HEALTH CARE 6% 23% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 7% 5% EDUCATION 2% 7% CUTTING TAXES 8% 3% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE 5% 9% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL 4% 1% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING 17% 8% THE SITUATION IN IRAQ 4% 26% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY 1% 1% NONE OF THESE (DNR) 2% 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
7. And of this same list which is your second choice?(RANDOMIZE REMAINING ITEMS/EXCLUDE FIRST CHOICE) DEM GOP 19% 16% THE ECONOMY AND JOBS 15% 6% HEALTH CARE 11% 18% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 5% 5% EDUCATION 2% 7% CUTTING TAXES 8% 5% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE 5% 9% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL 3% 1% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING 20% 13% THE SITUATION IN IRAQ 8% 15% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY * * NONE OF THESE (DNR) * 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
6C. Combined choice DEM GOP 47% 30%^ THE ECONOMY AND JOBS 31% 9% HEALTH CARE 17% 41% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 12% 10% EDUCATION 4% 14% CUTTING TAXES 16% 8% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE 10% 18% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL 7% 2% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING 38%^ 20%^ THE SITUATION IN IRAQ 12% 41% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY 1% 2%^ NONE OF THESE (DNR) 3%^ 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 2:08pm
6. Of the following list of issues facing the COUNTRY, which ONE would you say is most important to you personally? Is it... (RANDOMIZE) DEM GOP
28% 13% THE ECONOMY AND JOBS
16% 3% HEALTH CARE
6% 23% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
7% 5% EDUCATION
2% 7% CUTTING TAXES
8% 3% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
5% 9% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL
4% 1% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING
17% 8% THE SITUATION IN IRAQ
4% 26% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY
1% 1% NONE OF THESE (DNR)
2% 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
7. And of this same list which is your second choice?(RANDOMIZE REMAINING ITEMS/EXCLUDE FIRST CHOICE)
DEM GOP
19% 16% THE ECONOMY AND JOBS
15% 6% HEALTH CARE
11% 18% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
5% 5% EDUCATION
2% 7% CUTTING TAXES
8% 5% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
5% 9% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL
3% 1% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING
20% 13% THE SITUATION IN IRAQ
8% 15% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY
* * NONE OF THESE (DNR)
* 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
6C. Combined choice
DEM GOP
47% 30%^ THE ECONOMY AND JOBS
31% 9% HEALTH CARE
17% 41% ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
12% 10% EDUCATION
4% 14% CUTTING TAXES
16% 8% SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
10% 18% REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL
7% 2% THE ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL WARMING
38%^ 20%^ THE SITUATION IN IRAQ
12% 41% TERRORISM & NATIONAL SECURITY
1% 2%^ NONE OF THESE (DNR)
3%^ 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (DNR)
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 2:10pm
It is interesting that in Texas, "dependence on foreign oil" is more of a concern to Republicans than to Democrats. This provides an opportunity for a Democrat to make inroads with Republicans there on green energy, and Barack seems to have the greatest cross-over appeal in Texas.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
It is interesting that in Texas, "dependence on foreign oil" is more of a concern to Republicans than to Democrats.----Posted by METTEYYA 02/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
Means "drilling in ANWR and the Gulf", METTE....not hybrids.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by MASK 02/15/2008 @ 2:05pm
This race in Texas looks a lot more competitive than I had thought.
Barack is killing Hillary among independents and Republicans, and is nearly even with Hillary among Hispanics. Therefore, his wide lead among blacks and men may put him over the top.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
Means "drilling in ANWR and the Gulf", METTE....not hybrids.
I think this is an open question. While I concede that these Republicans would like to drill for more oil locally, they are also the voter who could be convinced that oil is no longer necessary to power cars or power plants.
I have met many Republicans myself who have admitted as much - they want us out under the thumb of the Middle East dictators and are sort of indifferent as to how that actually happens.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 2:26pm
We are still a divided nation with about half the population conservative to center-right.
That is why McCain is beating HRC in current polls and in a statistical tie with Obama.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2008 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person
Ah yes, LL misses the mark once again.
Starts with a statement about a 'political philosophy' (conservative to center-right) and tries to back it with polls that measure the popularity of 'personalities'.
Apparently LL hasn't noticed all of the polls over the past 2 years or so that, time and again, show the public now favors a 'generic Democrat' over 'generic Republican' by a fairly wide margin!
Posted by Lillian at 02/15/2008 @ 4:17pm