Hard News: Another Big Day
157 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
So it turns out Russell's correct about Iti, but missed the bit where TVNZ is underwriting his photo op with Key.
-
So it turns out Russell's correct about Iti, but missed the bit where TVNZ is underwriting his photo op with Key.
Um, and I'm sure Clark was very pleased with the heavy rotation Three gave her oh so carefully contrived outrage. (Because we all know TV3 would never, ever do any such thing.)
Personally, I'm a little more outraged about a million dollars of public money being spent on shit like Sensing Murder -- and public money intended to facilitate "the production of programmes which would not be made in a wholly commercial environment". If that sack of shit isn't 'commercial', then I'm a heterosexual Communist atheist with an unusually sweet disposition.
Now, I don't like the practice at all -- whether its indulged in my public or private broadcasters -- and think that's where Russell is coming from. Perhaps we're a bit old school and don't like using the phrase 'chequebook journalism' in polite company.
But can I be excused for being a wee bit cynical and suggesting that some of the exquisite outrage out there is less about the practice than the beneficiaries. Or sledging the competition when their position on the moral high ground is less than secure. Or, in Clark's case, finding that opining on operational and editorial matters in a public broadcaster isn't so bad when it makes a useful political weapon of mass distraction.
Meanwhile, pretty freaking neat that thousands were at Waitangi today, and precisely NONE of them left in a paddy wagon.
What happens if we're promised a riot, and nobody plays along?
-
So it turns out the last minute polls in CA weren't correct, no big last minute swings for Obama or Romney. But Clinton and Obama are essentially tied for delegates at this point, it really is fascinating but I would still shade the race towards Clinton.
The longer the Dem contest goes on, the more it hurts the Dems chances of winning in Nov because the Clintons will go dirty again, they can't help themselves, it is very much a part of who they are as people. Hillary wasn't joking when she said "now the fun part begins" a few weeks ago when the dirt was beginning to fly.
Obama is very impressive as a speaker and as someone who is refreshingly genuine, and it looks like he doesn't have any significant skeletons in his closet because if the Clinton's dumpster divers haven't found anything by now, it almost certainly doesn't exist.
It is interesting to note that a key firewall for Hillary in CA (and in TX coming up) is Hispanics, who apparently won’t vote for a black candidate. If there was this kind of racial overtone in the Repub race, it would be all over the news, but it hardly gets a mention.
McCain will be okay as a candidate and as a President, if he gets that far. He can definitely beat Hillary, no doubt about that. Make no mistake (Neil) that there is a deep vein of antipathy against the Clintons in the US. Most things are lined up pointing to a Dem win in Nov, like they were in 1988, but a lousy candidate can screw the pooch no problem. And Hillary simply is not a good candidate, she is not likeable or charismatic, and looks like a phony when she tries to be, and she (and Bill) have more baggage than any politician in living memory.
Bush's budget is pitiful; it represents a truly massive increase in Govt expenditure over the time he has been in office. Military exp is only a small part of the increase, it seems like there is no corner of Govt that Bush didn’t deem fit to piss taxpayers money all over. With the massive increase in tax revenue that the US has had over the last few years, the US should be rolling in surpluses, paying down Govt debt and cutting taxes again to keep things moving. But no, we have to have continued deficits and now a stupid "stimulus package" that will be almost totally ineffective.
Dems can't hold their head high though, every time Bush proposed a new program or an increase in Govt exp, all you heard from the Dems was "it is not enough" and demands for even more spending. It is pathetic, a plague on both their houses.
-
Hillary the lesser threat to McCain
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/NATION/476091143/1001
Here is an article that outlines the polling on Johnny Mac v Hill. It is from the Washington Times, but it is consistent with everything I have read and heard from numerous sources on the subject.
Obama would have a much better shot at winning, but he could also implode based on his inexperience and his uber liberal voting record and policy positions. America is a moderately conservative country (twice as many Americans self identify as conservative than self identify as liberal). Being too liberal could be a real problem in the General.
-
Bush's budget is pitiful; it represents a truly massive increase in Govt expenditure over the time he has been in office.
The utter fecklessness of the Bush fiscal "policy", on both the spending and revenue sides, can hardly be over-emphasised; but remember, this was supposed to be its genius -- It wasn't hard to find conservative commentators to declare that "deficits don't matter".
And now, as you point out, there's nothing in reserve for conventional economic stimulus. It wouldn't have been allowed to happen in most sovereign states.
-
Here's my concern: apart from Scarlett, we've got the actress who plays Addison Montgomery, Nicole from the Pussycat Dolls, John Legend, and Will.I.Am? Poor showing, celebrities! (On the other hand, it's nice to see Aisha Tyler again.)
Heh, thanks for that Danielle. Apart from Scarlett I was wondering who the hell all those people were.
What? Couldn't Obama get Kanye or something?
-
Well actually there is - assuming that you accept Zogby's polling results as representative of America as a whole...
ah yes the Zogby polling. Always seems to be it bit pro-Obama and a bit wrong.
If Obama is running on the line "vote for me because the Republicans hate Hillary" then that's a pretty weak campaign. I would have thought that's just the sort of candidate the Dems would want.
Maybe there's a little bit in the fact that Hillary is irrationally loathed by some Republicans but maybe there's a little less in Obama's Greater Uniter line. He's not exactly uniting Dem voters.
-
but maybe there's a little less in Obama's Greater Uniter line. He's not exactly uniting Dem voters.
And absolutely nothing in the Inevitability of Hillary line the media were pushing for over a year. I don't actually see how it does the Democrats any harm that their presidential nominee is being elected rather than anointed, in primary after primary where historic numbers of Democrats actually give a shit.
And I'm really beginning to get rather depressed where fundamental civility, and a rhetoric pitched slightly above 'my opponent is a baby-eating pig-fucker', is greeted with a cynical eye roll. If you're voting for Clinton because you believe the same old bullshit in a brand new box is what America needs,don't waste your time wondering why the stench remains the same.
-
I'd like Democrats/Republicans/Americans as a whole to choose the person who is going to make the best President. Who can beat who is a job for strategists, I have friends who'd just like to turn up after the election and feel a little bit of pride in their chosen representative again (or for the younger ones... for the first time).
For me, if the answer to that is Clinton, then something's gone wrong between the question and the answer, but I don't get to vote!
-
The Dems' problem is that the respective camp's supporters will tear each other apart by convention time.
There are lots of blog comments threads like this one out there today.
McCain is a large dead rat for the conservative establishment to swallow, but it appears that there are quite a few Obama voters who'll go to him rather than vote for Hillary.
-
And I'm really beginning to get rather depressed where fundamental civility, and a rhetoric pitched slightly above 'my opponent is a baby-eating pig-fucker', is greeted with a cynical eye roll.
Nice turn of phrase, Craig, but hardly what is happening between the two leading Dems right now.
You must be confusing this for when Rovian acolytes accused McCain of fathering illegitimate black kids (because he adopted a child from India) and Kerry of hardly having participated in the Vietnam war.
Nothing has come close to that in this campaign so far despite your (and others) attempts to claim it has.
-
You know, the 'Clinton sucks' crowd are so all-pervasive - media, Republicans, Obama-supporters - that I feel as though I'm being manipulated into disliking her, and I don't like that feeling. I made a list this morning:
a) Both of them are too far to the right for my liking, but it's a
two-party system flaw
b) Obama has more charisma and is a better speaker, but his policies
are a bit wishy-washy
c) Clinton knows her shit and is tough as old boots (necessity from
years of sniping from the right)
d) Clinton voted for the war, but her healthcare plan is more comprehensive
e) Barack has 'momentum' and excitement, while Clinton is just more
dynastic same-old
f) Clinton's depiction in the media is so thoroughly reprehensible
that she kind of gets my pity vote for never getting a fair shot at
anything. (Here is where Craig pops up and tells me that there's nothing sexist about being consistently described as 'cackling', or being derided for getting very slightly wet-eyed at a press conference, or... etcetera. Sorry, I don't buy it.)I'm leaning towards wanting Obama to win the nomination. But he probably won't. Then again, I have a long history (since 2000) of not predicting *anything* accurately when it comes to US politics. I'm like George Costanza with 'do the opposite!'
-
I feel as though I'm being manipulated into disliking her, and I don't like that feeling
Ditto, Danielle. I have a broad streak of Oppositional Defiance Disorder, otherwise known as 'Oh yeah? screw you'. I'll give Craig props for actually being able to produce reasons for not liking her.
I've had friends in America (actual friends in America this time, not torrents) telling me how much they hated her since it became clear she would run. Stroppy, snide, her voice is like nails down a blackboard, she's too pushy... for a *coughmumble* 'Cackling' is the politest end of a continuum that goes all the way to calling her a c*nt.
But like Danielle again, I think I'd rather have Obama - because presidents don't make policy. If I wanted someone to, say, organise a large function for my family or school group, I'd want Clinton. Only I think Obama might actually GET the nomination, because he appears to have the momentum, and that's often the same thing as actually having it.
-
Just a note, but having heard "Hillary is divisive", it's worth noting that there is quite some antipathy in the Republican right towards McCain that I've been hearing about for some time. Here's one recent story.
-
Blaming Obama and his camp for the "Hillary is Divisive" commentary is pretty short sighted - she has been a political figure since 92 at least and has consistently gathered substantial hostile commentary since about then as well, which was revived when she started expressing interest in the NY senate position.
-
The Dems' problem is that the respective camp's supporters will tear each other apart by convention time
There's some evidence that broadly speaking supporters in both camps aren't nearly as hostile towards each other's candidate as a lot of internet discussion would suggest. I can't find the polls at the moment but that's what they say. I suspect the vast majority of Dems wont be so short sighted as to change their party vote just because their candidate didn't get selected.
Blaming Obama and his camp for the "Hillary is Divisive" commentary is pretty short sighted - she has been a political figure since 92
She's been around for longer than Obama so has more baggage but one can question whether what the Obama camp is saying the consquences of that are is true or not.
-
Wow, look at this, Hillary is having money problems!! Add that to the list of things that I would never have expected to happen that have happened.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_loaned_her_campaign_5_million.html
Five reasons Hillary should be worried, according to Politico. Hard to argue with them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8363.html
Obama really may win the Dem nomination. I guess I have afforded the Clinton machine too much respect.
Although I don't agree with his policy positions, if Obama does knock off Hillary, I will feel forever in his debt. By taking out the Clintons, he will have done more to clean up Washington than anyone or anything else.
Hopefully Hillary and Bill will pour lots more of their stash into the campaign, and still lose. Koed in the political world and broke. It has the feeling of a dream that is too good to be true.
-
Emma,
You wrote " ... presidents don't make policy'. I think I am reading your post correctly.
Presidents most assuredly do make policy. In fact depending on factors like their popularity and which year of their term it is etc. they set the policy agenda, in fact all agendas, in Washington and the US. Of course they still have to get it passed by both Houses of congress.
If Obama is in the White House, he will be doing policy by the bucket load, which bearing in mind his level of experience, or rather inexperience, gives one pause.
-
By taking out the Clintons, he will have done more to clean up Washington than anyone or anything else.
Oh FFS. Yes, it's the *Clintons* that are the most corrupt people in Washington right now. Clearly.
-
Oh FFS. Yes, it's the *Clintons* that are the most corrupt people in Washington right now. Clearly.
Teehee. Sometimes I wonder if there are people who believe it wasn't Dick Cheney who shot that guy in the face, but Hillary Clinton. On the grassy noll...
Of course they still have to get it passed by both Houses of congress.
Which is pretty much what I meant. You can 'set agendas' all you like, but if you can't get a bill passed? That's why you guys invented the phrase 'lame duck president', right?
I do wonder, if Obama ends up pulling a disaffected Republican vote, whether he could then get a second term, once he fails to deliver them... whatever undefined miracle they're looking for.
-
Danielle,
Read the article linked to below for a glimpse of what some aspects of a 2nd Clinton presidency would look like. Now Dick Morris is no fan of the Clinton's he has his big anti Clinton drum that he bangs on endlessly, but in the article he makes a compelling case citing some actions of Bill's that are known.http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?p=252
Morris describes and Craig cited a NYT aricle about a deal Clinton brokered in Kazakhstan that netted his library $131m (in reality Bill, the library is just a money laundering exercise).
Not that there aren't other corruptocrats in D.C, but the Clintons set the standard and broke all the records on sleeze from Jan 1993, and they haven't let up since, having them out of play would be a very good thing.
-
Emma,
You wrote:
Which is pretty much what I meant. You can 'set agendas' all you like, but if you can't get a bill passed? That's why you guys invented the phrase 'lame duck president', right?
No matter what happens in the Presidential in Nov, the Dems will still hold both the House and the Senate, so a President Obama would expect the Congress would pass his agenda. There is no way that a President Obama or Hillary would be a lame duck in at least the first 2 years of their presidency.
-
Neil said...
I suspect the vast majority of Dems wont be so short sighted as to change their party vote just because their candidate didn't get selected.
You're right (mostly) I think, although many Americans who self-identify as Progressives will be holding their noses and voting for Hillary if she gets the nom, because many of them do not like her at all. (Anecdotal evidence from having been a member of Daily Kos for the last 4 years).
But I wasn't really thinking of Dems - I was thinking of the very large and potentially decisive vote of those now identifying as Independents. There are more Independents now than there have been in a very long time (maybe ever). Some are disenchanted former Dems or Repubs, others have switched to Independent to try and stay under the radar when it comes to Robocalls from either party, others have always been Independent and vote on the person or a particular policy, rather than by party.
There are enough of them to swing the vote, and (anecdotally at least, and probably demonstrated by polling if I had the time to look), there's a bunch of them who really, really don't like Hillary.
If she were to become the Democratic nominee, there may be enough Independents who won't vote Dem just because it's Hillary to have quite an effect on the outcome, especially if McCain is the Repub nominee - he scores pretty well with Independents (seen as a maverick, to the left of the Right, etc).
Then there's the disaffected Repubs I mentioned earlier, who have such a long-standing hatred of Hillary that they would hold their noses and vote for the Repub candidate, but who also score quite highly for Obama, and might just be persuaded to vote for him, if he were the nominee.
Ben said...
Blaming Obama and his camp for the "Hillary is Divisive" commentary is pretty short sighted - she has been a political figure since 92 at least and has consistently gathered substantial hostile commentary since about then as well, which was revived when she started expressing interest in the NY senate position.
Absolutely! I've been an American politics junkie for years, Neil, and I'm also very interested in analysing the ebb and flow of people's opinions and behaviour. I've watched the Hillary-loathing for years and years - ever since Bill first became President - this isn't a new thing at all, and that's what makes Hillary so risky IMO - long-held views are much harder to break or change.
Neil said...
She's been around for longer than Obama so has more baggage but one can question whether what the Obama camp is saying the consquences of that are is true or not.
I don't see the "Hillary is divisive" comment coming from the Obama camp, Neil - although do correct me if I'm wrong. It's coming from political analysts, pollsters, and people who like watching the "theatre" that is American politics (such as myself) - an example being the Washington Times article linked to earlier:
The senator from Arizona [McCain] beats the senator from New York [Clinton] in 14 of 17 head-to-head polls taken since Dec. 6, but he wins just five of 17 against the senator from Illinois [Obama] over the same period.
-
RB,
The problem in the US is on the expenditure side of the docket, not the revenue side. Here is a link to the Congressional Budget Office's historical data. The CBO suck at predictions because they use static rather than dynamic modelling, but historical data is historical data.http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
The revenue side has been a spectacular success, growth from 2003 to 2007 from $1.8t to $2.6t, nearly 10% per year growth. Now if spending had been held to reasonable levels, the US would be in great shape. That is good tax policy and a powerhouse economy at work. Under Bubba revenues grew at 7.5% under a tax regime that was improved several times after 1994, and the powerhouse US economy.
There is money for conventional economic stimulus, it will be borrowed, but that is not my concern. Rebates and other one off conventional economic stimulus is a waste of time, it is a deadweight loss that will generate no significant economic activity and therefore no significant tax revenues. Bush's rebates in 2001 were a waste of money, the 2008 version will be no different.
-
Webweaver's last post is right on the money re Hillary and independents & McCain.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.