Hard News: Campaigns
131 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Well, sorry Ben but I won't be saying "diddums" if infantile crap like this is going to be on the agenda at the National Party conference in a few months, or we're going to have to squirm through this in the House.
Those were both APPALLING. For the last while I've been a bit of a Labour apologist, tended to claim Cullen's arrogant streak was simply a bearable downside of his intelligence, they were focussing on a good platform of work and damn the media image etc etc but I have turned from that now. The desparate, tired, do-almost-anything-to-cling-to-power-but-with-no- discernably-significant-program-of-work-to-implement-once-they're-there feeling is finally sticking with me over the last couple of weeks. I'll still contend that they've done great work, but I now can't help but feel it's all behind them.
Of course I have no view from the "other side" to make me anything more than "chronically undecided", but that's a cooling from my previous view of "undecided but would vote Labour in a snap election based on no view of the alternative and no particular dislike of the incumbent".
-
I admit to 'not knowing where to look', which shouldn't be confused with 'unable to not stare'.
I was at an Equity meeting where Miranda Harcourt made a speech while breastfeeding her new baby. Would've been rude not to stare.
-
Those were both APPALLING
And the thing that worries me is that both Clark and Key might like to have a good hard think about where that kind of politics ends up -- and in the age of You Tube or Photoshop the politics of personal destruction can end up in some some seriously disturbed places.
-
...Cullen's arrogant streak was simply a bearable downside of his intelligence...
Mockery's a bit tricky to get right when you're not working from a guaranteed position of strenght. If not then you have to do Mockery+ Bluffing which is pretty difficult. That's what Clark and Cullen tried and failed to do.
That wouldn't get me voting National but if they keep on doing things like that plus acting in bad faith over the EFA then I'm going to devote my full attention to US politics as a form of escapism.
-
Sometimes diddums does actually neatly convey the point. It's sneering, sure. Which is all some bleating sooky points deserve.
Well, sorry Ben but I won't be saying "diddums" if infantile crap like this is going to be on the agenda at the National Party conference in a few months,Did these people not realise there were cameras there? Most of the stuff people are criticising Labour for, including the purported "interfering in people's lives", hasn't bothered me much. But this would almost make me vote for someone else.
I want to vote for the party with the best policies, I really do. And I'm a bit of a nerd myself sometimes, I really am. But holy crap, can I vote for these dorks...?
-
I don’t see the point of the legislation.
Neither can I except in so far as it explicitly removes a right, which is slightly more far reaching than 'contracting out of the right'. I guess it's aimed at workplaces which haven't yet bothered with a code of conduct, so their right to spy is ambiguous. Now it isn't.Yeah, you’re right. It’s really dodgy legislation, the more I think of it.
-
I was at an Equity meeting where Miranda Harcourt made a speech while breastfeeding her new baby. Would've been rude not to stare.
Dan,
I thought you were joining Al Qaeda? Staring at breasts will be out for you, buddy. Hard to breast feed in a Burqa.
-
In the UK party leaders singing embarrassing childish parody songs about their opponents goes back to William the Conqueror, at least. That it may not be the case here has come as a bit of a surprise.
The things that surprise us 1st gen NZ folks...
-
Another nice post on Alas a Blog, about Obama vs. Clinton, arguing that there are two issues that really matter, health care and foreign policy, that on health policy, there are no real differences, and then saying that Obama is better on foreign policy, and promising another post detailing why.
He also points out that neither candidate has clean hands, at all, when it comes to racism vs. sexism.
-
In the UK party leaders singing embarrassing childish parody songs about their opponents goes back to William the Conqueror, at least. That it may not be the case here has come as a bit of a surprise.
Here's (then) Labour finance spokesman John Smith, on the deteriorating relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson (now known as Nigella's dad, but back in the 80's, Maggie's Chancellor of the Exchequer, who traditionally resides next door in 11 Downing Street).
House of Commons, June 7 1989 (Hansard):
"Although he and the Prime Minister are neighbours, he should take account, as many of us who are aficionados do, of the theme song of the "Neighbours" programme which we hear twice a day on BBC television. The song goes :
"Neighbours--everybody needs good neighbours.
Just a friendly wave each morning helps to make a better day. Neighbours need to get to know each other.
Next door is only a footstep away.
Neighbours--everybody needs good neighbours.
With a little understanding, you can find a perfect blend. Neighbours should be there for one another.
That's when good neighbours become good friends."
(Lawson jumped/was pushed shortly afterwards, and Thatcher didn't last much longer).
-
maybe john key should consider this for the Nat election adverts this year:
Is it you or is it me?
Lately I've been lost it seems.
I think a change is what I need.
If I'm looking for a chance or to dreamVote National...
Taking time to hold my place.
Yesterday's another race
Just living for the times we've seen.
When the writing's on the wall says I'll beVoting national...
If you want to find a way of searching for another world,
It's hard to see.vote National...
-
Thanks Simon and Samual. I realise is should have attributed my William the Conq. claim.
"Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow,
"With my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin."Harold was know to his Sasonax mates as "The Cock" for reasons that are unclear to historians today.
Was William displaying poor taste with that nursery rhyme? An ungracious winner of battles, thief of yeomen hearts?
Perhaps this should be a topic for the next enthralling installment of Media 7.
-
cullen : "notice how john key rhymes with shonky?"
comedy gold!
-
Another nice post on Alas a Blog, about Obama vs. Clinton, arguing that there are two issues that really matter, health care and foreign policy, that on health policy, there are no real differences, and then saying that Obama is better on foreign policy, and promising another post detailing why.
Yes a good post. I'd argue slightly differently.
Health Reforms -
Ampersand argues that HRC's reforms are slightly better than Obama's but that in the end it doesn't matter much because both sets of proposals will go through the political grinder so the likelihood of either of them getting their policies through unchanged is slim.
I'd say that the policy differences are more than slight and that Clinton has spent a lot of energy on getting the opponents of reform - the insurance industry etc - on side. So I'd say she's got a slightly better chance of getting her reforms through.
But there's plenty of variables that could swing things differently. And I suspect that a Pres Obama would adopt HRC's health policies - he came in late on this issue and she'd already taken the best positions - he had to offer something different.
Foreign Policy -
Ampersand hasn't put her argument yet. My view is that their differences are purely rhetorical. Their foreign policy teams are very similar in outlook but they have to make the most of what differences there are - which comes down to various semantic squabbles over what "soon" means when talking about troop withdrawals from Iraq. On most the both look like having pretty standard Democrat foreign policy positions.
There is the argument that his personality and background would play a significant role. That's possible but one could also make the same argument about a woman Pres. In the end I don't think it's an issue that can be decided now. There might just be a set of events that would be better dealt with by Obama or by Hillary.
She actually lists the Electability argument as the most important and I agree with her view -
The trouble is, although both sides play with math semi-persuasively (”only large states count!” “No, only swings!” “No, only Reagan Democrats!” “look at the fundraising!” blah blah blah), there’s no way we can know or even reasonably guess who will beat McCain by the larger margin, because we don’t get to run the general election twice.
Very hard to second guess the voting system so one may as well pick the candidate whose policies one prefers.
But in the bid scheme of things these arguments are rather subtle and really there are good reasons for preferring either candidate.
-
But in the bid scheme of things these arguments are rather subtle and really there are good reasons for preferring either candidate.
And what a shame nobody told ABC, because the Obama/Clinton debate -- or at the least the parts I could stomach -- was embarrasing. Sorry, I'm all for Obama being asked tough questions but displaying insufficient patriotism in his choice of jewellery? And did we really learn anything new about Hillary and Sniper-gate?
They should have just held the damn thing on Fox News and got Billious O'Reilly and Sean Innanity to moderate. It sure sounds like they wrote all the questions.
As a public service, could Mark Jennings and Tony Flannery please make everyone they assign to election debates watch this joke and say if anything like this pops up on TVNZ or Three the perpetrators are going to be fired.
-
WH,
This article changed my thinking about the Hillary/Obama race, but its a couple of months old now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html
Hillary's team has made some major strategic mistakes that have her cost her the delegate lead and probably her shot at the presidency - especially the 'inevitability' narrative, the failure to win over the media and the failure to properly prepare for the races in important states. Her candidacy has also been handicapped by the hangover from the snow job the Republicans did on the Clintons in the 90's, something Obama has ocassionally exploited. Some of the criticisms that Clinton attracts are strangely personal.
Obama's delegate lead does not necessarily make him the more electable candidate IMO, but an early end to the race may be the only way to prevent McCain from taking advantage.
-
Hillary's team has made some major strategic mistakes that have her cost her the delegate lead and probably her shot at the presidency - especially the 'inevitability' narrative...
Indeed -- and to be scrupulously fair to the Senator, I've got to admit that I'd need my ego surgically removed to resist that meme once it got rolling. OTOH, it now seems there was considerable (and with hindsight perfectly justified) disquiet about this tack from within the campaign. Ultimately, a candidate has to take full responsibility for their campaign strategy and Hillary listened to the wrong people.
Her candidacy has also been handicapped by the hangover from the snow job the Republicans did on the Clintons in the 90's, something Obama has ocassionally exploited. Some of the criticisms that Clinton attracts are strangely personal.
Wait a mo', WH. If this was such a 'handicap', you've got to wonder why Clinton was so keen to put the 90's front and center in the "I'm more experienced and ready to lead from day one" narrative. Did the GOP force her to run the now infamous (and in my view profoundly dishonest) '3 am phone call' ad? And how about the frankly farcial re-branding as jus' gun-toting, beer-guzzling salt of the earth folk?
-
WH,
If anyone feels like discussing teh US politics - I think Joe Biden is a good choice for VP. He performed really well in the Democratic debates and (big plus this) I saw him in person when I was in DC. I waved but he didn't recognise me.
Interestingly Real Clear Politics has McCain ahead on projected electoral votes for the first time that I can recall (274-264). A reversion to red/blue America was inevitable IMO, but still its not exactly good news.
Is Neil Morrison still around?
-
A reversion to red/blue America was inevitable IMO, but still its not exactly good news.
Obama has to walk a tightrope. One one hand he has to sound reasoned, rational and provide some hope for his core base and on the other he has to mouth the inane, patriotic gung-ho-isms that so much of America expects. McCain's base on the other hand just expects the latter as dumbed down as possible which is much easier.
And then there is the whole way McCain has structured his attack ads of recent to imply that Obama is uppity, has forgotten his place. The race thing still has huge resonance.
McCain just needs to keep it simplistic, target and play on the fear of those enemies America needs, and subtly keep on playing the race card and he'll walk in in November.
-
If anyone feels like discussing teh US politics - I think Joe Biden is a good choice for VP.
Senator Biden voted for the invasion and the war.Obama now has lost the high moral ground argument which I think appealed to so many.
McCain just needs to keep it simplistic, target and play on the fear of those enemies America needs, and subtly keep on playing the race card and he'll walk in in November.
I agree.
-
Obama's prejudice problem is the subject of this in today's observer.
Senator Biden voted for the invasion and the war.Obama now has lost the high moral ground argument which I think appealed to so many.
The irony is that Biden has been bought on board to add an experience factor to the Democrat ticket..to add that perception of experience since such a perception is adding polls points to McCain right now despite McCain's experience mostly consisting of a few years in a DRV jail, and a history of misjudgement and gross over-reaction.
I'm thinking that experience hasn't served America that well in recent years, but there seems to be a desire on the right for more of the same.
Interesting OpEd in the FT from Singapore's Kishore Mahbubani a couple of days back which accentuates an important non-Western perspective to the current crossroads which I think this election symbolises. He talks of the return of history, ie a repudiation of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, which, from a Neo-Con perspective touted the supremacy of the West about 20 years back, and I think he's right.
McCain however represents a continuation of those somewhat discredited Fukuyama themes (not least by Fukuyama himself) of US dominance and right and, if elected, must serve to continue Bush's slow but steady destruction of perceived US supremacy and right to supremacy (which has largely evaporated in the past decade).
That's what experience gets yer...
-
Senator Biden voted for the invasion and the war.Obama now has lost the high moral ground argument which I think appealed to so many.
Biden is getting raps for the likes of this:
Your kitchen table is like mine, you sit there at night after you put the kids to bed and you talk about what you need. That's not a worry John McCain has to worry about. He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at.
Rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have decided the gap between McCain's hardscrabble image and the reality of his marrying into wealth decades ago (after walking out on his seriously ill first wife) is worth exploiting. Biden's way more able to do that: he's the poorest guy in the Senate.
-
Rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have decided the gap between McCain's hardscrabble image and the reality of his marrying into wealth decades ago (after walking out on his seriously ill first wife) is worth exploiting. Biden's way more able to do that: he's the poorest guy in the Senate.
If that's the only reason to bring Biden in then I think the Democrats are wasting their time. It's not a point that is going to stick with those touting security & experience as tipping points for giving their votes to McCain. It may have some resonance with some but I think those are already likely Obama voters, and I don't think either way the Dems have the attack dogs to hit McCain hard enough with that to make it work.
The Democrats really are just too nice. The rabid lunatic fringe can repeat the most outrageous garbage over and over again, slapping Obama regardless of its truth and the Democrats respond politely with 'it's not true'. No-one cares about the truth..in Rove, Rush and Murdoch's America it's about repeating the lie, no matter how irrational or ridiculous, over and over again to make it stick.
-
Biden is getting raps for the likes of this:
The Republicans and the attack dogs on K Street must be pleased with the last couple of weeks.
I can't help thinking that the Clinton's will sit back and quietly let things implode and get their chance next time.
-
WH,
Senator Biden voted for the invasion and the war. Obama now has lost the high moral ground argument which I think appealed to so many.
I'm not sure that Obama has lost moral ground by selecting Biden as his running mate. More than half of the Democratic Senate voted in favour of the resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq. Obama, who was not a member of the Senate when the vote was taken, has said that he may have supported the resolution had he had access to the intelligence made available to the Democratic senators. He has also defended the pro-war votes of Senators Kerry and Edwards (evidence here). I make the argument this way to avoid a digression into how the Democratic members of Congress should have voted in light of the orthodoxies that prevailed at the time of the vote.
If there is a loss of moral high ground then I would argue that its impact will be limited to voters who are unlikely to defect to McCain, and arguably irrelevant from an electoral perspective. Just under half of all Democratic primary voters, being a group that might be taken as more liberal than others, favoured a candidate who voted in favour of the authorising resolution.
It is rather late in the day for those with Democratic leanings to to be raising concerns about the role that racism will play in the election. Given that the issue reduces to electability, the point should have been confronted during the primaries. While they contain a lot that is unfortunate and true, in my view articles such as the those in Slate and the Observer come too late to influence the result, but in time to hit on familiar prejudices about and within American society.
The remarkably small margins in 2000 and 2008 suggest that US voters were already closely split. The idea that 'America' is not ready for a black president is a foolish oversimplification - obviously fractional changes in voting patterns are capable of changing the outcome. It's been less than 50 years since the civil rights movement and the elimination of segregation - it required no great insight to foresee that race, in various guises, could play a decisive role. This was the risk that was taken. That said, Obama's imminent selection as the Democratic nominee, his continuing popularity, and the fact that he is still favoured to win attests to his considerable strength as a candidate and to the progress that has been achieved in American race relations.
Obama's strengths and race aside, there are at least two other factors in Obama's favour: there is a significant national swing away from the Republicans (including a weakening in the Republican's traditional lock on the religious vote), and the rest of Clinton's supporters might eventually be persuaded to come back into the fold.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.