Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
recent poling -
Hillary and McCain in the lead nationally. On the surface of things Hillary appears to be benefiting the most from Edwards' decline.
In Nevada it's a 3 horserace with
Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percentAnd in South Corolina things are looking interesting. Obama still in the lead but this has narrowed and he leads amongst African-American voters while she leads with women.
-
Do you really think Talking Points Memo is some kind of Clinton-hating bearpit?
i wouldn't put it quite so strongly but, yes I do. The same for The Nation apart from a few exceptions. In general the liberal (mostly white, male, middleclass) pundocracy has been anti-Hillary. They have all been almost uniformly repeating the mantra that she is unelectable, she's too divisive etc for the past few years despite the fact that she's been riding high in public opinion polls. When Obama came along all of sudden there was someone to project their fantasies on.
I think that has changed recently with places like Daily Kos becoming more measured and the more rabid anti-Hillary writers on The Nation pulling their heads in.
That said, i think the Dems will have the luxury of having their cake and eating it too. I think the Reps will be out of power for awhile this time round. 8 years of HRC as pres with Obama as VP then 8 years of him as Pres. If he would make a good pres now he'll make a great one after 8 years as VP. Sound good.
-
But I think we can both agree that if the Huffington Post has convinced everyone that a 'swift boat'-style smear campaign isn't worth the risk , then they've done political discourse a great service.
HP print a lot of lies about HRC which are immediately deinied by those concerned but it's all for the good because printing those lies means that those lies won't happen.
And that's what HRC has been getting for quite some time from the liberal media. It's no wonder a lot of people in NH took exception to that sort of thing.
-
I'm happy there's still a race on. every one's had some humble pie now. But those polls? Obama apparently had such a massive lead. But HRC showed a consistent lead right thru the voting.
The Guardian is reporting a higher vote for HRC among woman amongst other factors. Maybe Obama won't be so keen on Edwards embrace.
-
...much sympathy when they lost their shit under pressure on...
it wasn't so much a matter of sympathy for HRC, she's a big girl in a rough game she freely chooses to be part of, but rather what it said about Edwards.
The drama of the primaries looks to continue. With 11% of votes counted HRC is in the lead (probalbly due to early counting of smaller communities more likley to vote HRC). And McCain looks unbeatable.
-
In a recent TV debate Edwards and Obama decided to gang up on Hillary, apparently she's the "status quo" or something. Edwards did the dirty work while Obama looked more than a little pleased.
Katha Pollitt's take on Edwards.
-
Obama just gets that that cynicism is real and 'change' is more than a bumper sticker slogan.
the real change will be from a Republican admistration to a Democrat one. Whether that's Obama or Clinton is on the level of hard vs soft pineapple lumps.
Obama's "change" branding is as cynicall as any strategy of the other candidates. As Katha Pollitt says of Obama -
Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be.
It may not be fair, but then, that's show business.
-
Obama is promising to bring people together because that's what the voters want to hear. It's politics.
very standard politics. Obama can position himself as an outsider, as some one who will go to Washington untainted by the Beltway. And so can promise reconcilliation and bipartisan etc etc. Nice fantasy. Reagan, Clinton and GWB all did the same. It's a very standard strategy.
I find it extremely shallow. But it works.
But the reality is always the prosaic business of getting legislation passed.
-
Obama and Clinton on foreign policy. I can't see much subsantive difference but maybe my comb hasn't got fine enough teeth.
And Martin Kettle gives a plug to that rather bizarre argument that HRC is "too divisive". There's a strand of support for Obama which is based purely on him being The Not Hillary candidate and which is usually accompanied by an inflated sense of Obama being a Great Uniter.
-
Hillary was not the key player in her husband's presidency that she is trying to make out...
I agree she was not a key player in foreign affairs, but she would have seen Bill's thinking and decision making process, well, intimately. What he got right and wrong on foreign policy and why.
That's not necessarily a make or break issue on which candidate to support but it is a relevant fact.
But my pick is that there will be Clinton/Obama ticket of what ever permutation so it's not an issue I'll lose sleep over.