Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary
Published February 13, 2008
My very politically astute mother urged me not to write this article, deriding it as mere 'common wisdom' and perhaps beneath the high quality of punditry which I aspire to maintain. But I'm afraid the thought keeps nagging at me and I can't resist, even if I'm stating something which may seem a bit facile and even obvious to some.
The thought occurred to me looking at the results from Super Tuesday and has been reinforced in the week since then — and with the outcome of subsequent primaries. The dynamic of this primary election for the Democrats seems inexorable. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion, knowing that disaster is coming but also knowing that there's nothing which can be done to sway the juggernauts from their track towards destruction.
In the aftermath of the Bush administration and with the hostility which so many on the right feel towards John McCain, it would seem obvious that any reasonable candidate nominated by the Democrats would have a clear path to an easy victory and probably two terms in the White House. Something truly disastrous would have to take place to negate that obvious outcome. The interesting thing is that as the primary is shaping up, disaster seems not only likely, but inevitable.
The root of the problem is the practice of the Democratic Party of giving a huge number of party luminaries positions as 'superdelegates' with a vote in the outcome of the primary at the convention. Almost a fifth of their total delegates are picked this way, chosen by the party rather than by the people. This creates the possibility for the catastrophic scenario we now see unfolding.
In primary after primary we see Barack Obama winning by a small margin and gradually advancing his delegate count ahead of Hillary Clinton's. As it stands right now Obama has a lead of fewer than 100 voted delegates, a margin which will likely widen but probably never to more than 300 delegates out of a total which will eventually be around 2000. Clinton leads substantially in support from superdelegates, and with about 400 of them as yet unpledged, many of those are likely to go to her, preferring someone who is more predictable and more of a party insider. Clinton is also already campaigning to have the punishment which banned Florida's delegates lifted or to have that primary revoted, bringing her another nice chunk of additional delegates.
Dave Nalle has been a magazine editor, freelance writer, capitol hill staffer, game designer and taught college history for many years. He is Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, working to promote liberty in the GOP. He designs fonts for a living and lives with his family just outside Austin. You can find his writings on politics and culture at Republic of Dave, on conspiracy theories at IdiotWars and on design and fonts at The Scriptorium.
- Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary
- Published: February 13, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Government, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Dave Nalle
- Dave Nalle's BC Writer page
- Dave Nalle's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Dave,
Gee...sounds like another job for the Supreme Court! I could see either Obama or Billary going that route---
Wouldnt that be a grand finale!
JOM- "For Change,singles and twenties"
DAVE:
Why do you believe that the candidate that Dem voters select will beat McCain? The Dems have been selecting losers for decades (Clinton winning only because of Perot's presence). I do not like the Superdelegate situation, but it has been there for years; we just have a close race now, so it is more discussed. The other thing -- if you count Fl and Mich -- then the "rank and file" Dems probably wanted Hill (popular vote AND delegates combined). I think McCain would beat either candidate at this point. The Dems are classic losers.
Interesting commentary, Dave.
It sounds as though the snowballing momentum of the Obama campaign may well lead some Super Delegates to think twice before selecting Hillary: they have their own future political careers to consider
The Super Delegates will also have to deal with their local and state elections...the impact of voting politcally rather than where the local constituents may come back to haunt people when they are running for reelection...
JOM- "For Change,singles and twenties"
Darren, I don't know that the democratic candidate will beat McCain, but I do know that if they shoehorn Hillary into the front slot of the ticket then the democrats definitely WILL NOT beat McCain.
Dave
You make a good point, but I think you've overstated it a bit - there are other scenarios that could result in a peaceful conclusion and a decisively chosen nominee. Obama could win nearly all the remaining primaries and rack up so much momentum that Hillary's team has to back down and sacrifice some of her ambition for the sake of party unity.
Dave, you say:
"Clinton is also already campaigning to have the punishment which banned Florida's delegates lifted or to have that primary revoted, bringing her another nice chunk of additional delegates."
I believe she's making a big mistake offering the "revote" option. Based on my (admittedly small and totally unscientific) sampling poll of Democrats I know personally, a significant number that voted Hillary the first time around, are re-thinking that vote as they watch Obama sweeping state after state.
She should stick to the seating of the delegates already elected option; she could lose a revote here in Florida..
Wishful thinking, Dave?
John Zogby pointed out this morning that a lot of the superdelegates remain uncommitted. A month or two ago, yes, they probably would have gone for Clinton, no question. Now, they're hedging their bets. Their own political nuts are, after all, in the cracker as well.
We'll probably have a better idea after Texas (yay Dave!) and Ohio.
i wonder if the superdelegates would take this kind of thinking (i.e. don't fuck with your voting public) into account when they cast their votes...
wouldn't that be smart?
I think that Dave's suppositions are not out of the question, but they also amount to a bit of wishful thinking.
What he doesn't consider is the similar disaray of the Reps AND the very real possibility that McCain may crash and burn as well. McCain's propensity for blowing a fuse could well, and once again send his campaign into a tail spin. While he is certainly more articulate than the current WH resident, he, too, tends to have lapses during his speeches, and he has all too often made thoughtless utterances which have come back to haunt him.
He is obviously very resilient for a man of his age, but his age, could still become a factor as the campaign wears on.
And, at this juncture Hucklebean is not dead in the water. Stranger things have happened. Gosh works in mysterious ways, don't you know?
Things may well work out as Dave predicts, but I don't believe he is any more prescient than the next guy. The Dems just may surprise those who feel so superior and confident that they will be unable to get out of their own way. If the current trend of Barack gaining both delegates and popular momentum continues through to the convention, I don't believe that the super delegates would be so out of touch or audacious they would ignore the will of the voters. Clinton pressures notwithstanding, the Dems want a victory in November more than they are determined to have Hillary as their standard bearer. If their best chance lay with Obama, then that is the direction they will go.
And Dave, along with most of the commenters here, assume to know the mind of HC when in fact, you know little or nothing. I don't claim to know her mind either, but she is intelligent. She didn't rise to prominence by being stupid. It may be a hard pill for her to swallow, but if the party opts for Obama, she may indeed swallow it and move on without taking the revenge that most of you predict, because she is also a realist.
Baritone
OTOH, she has also revealed herself to be a vindictive wench when crossed.
Can you say Travelgate?
I think that Dave's suppositions are not out of the question, but they also amount to a bit of wishful thinking. What he doesn't consider is the similar disaray of the Reps
The disarray of the Republicans is much more serious, actually, B-Tone.
Contentious though the Democrats are right now, it is NOT an actual ideological split. You are not hearing major segments of the Democratic base threatening to sit out the election if one candidate or the other gets the nomination. You don't have high-profile Dem pundits suggesting they'll defect to the other team, either.
I kinda suspect Dave's not so much thinking wishfully, as he is projecting.
pulling a trick out of moonraven's basket! what ever happened to her?
Clavos...I see the "Kerry Syndrome" (medical term - Flip Flopus Stupidus) effecting some of your Dumbocrat friends... "re-thinking that vote as they watch Obama sweeping state after state."
So they "voted for her before they would vote against her"...gee so much for loyalty..
JOM
West...you are in denial "it is NOT an actual ideological split"????
Obamas story - "I am new"
Clinton - "I am old"
JOM
JOM again demonstrates his Dick and Jane grasp of American politics.
Pledging to sweep with a new broom is not the same thing as an ideological split. Both Obama and Clinton remain basically true to core Democratic values.
The problem with the Republicans at the moment is that there is a big row over what the party's core values actually are. There's the faction that thinks Republicanism means steering the nation on a Christian-based path, with all the moral regulation that entails. And there's the faction that advocates fiscal responsibility, an end to big government and greater social inclusiveness.
It's a fundamental schism, and... oh wait, this is JOM I'm talking to. Why do I even bother?
Come to that, why is he even allowed to vote?
because it's illegal to kill him.
what?
I don't know that the democratic candidate will beat McCain, but I do know that if they shoehorn Hillary into the front slot of the ticket then the democrats definitely WILL NOT beat McCain.
Malarkey. You don't know that a bit more than anyone else does or can.
Here's my prediction: HRC will withdraw if she loses by significant numbers in Ohio and Texas. Part of being a skillful politician is knowing when to fold 'em. And there are no more skillful and smart politicians than the Clintons.
There is an outside chance that she will stage a comeback in Ohio and Texas comparable to her New Hampshire, California and New Jersey wins. If that happens and the race goes on past the morning of March 5, then "shoehorn" is not the appropriate verb. It would make a Clinton/Obama ticket more likely, and also more acceptable.
HRC still has a lot of fervent supporters. And not nearly all HRC supporters dislike Obama, or vice versa. A lot of Democrats, such as moi, like both candidates enormously.
In other words, none of this has to be bad news. Of course it is self serving for Dave to paint it so. But it is true that the Dems have a long sad history of proving their skill at losing presidential elections that they should win.
Dread, there really isn't a fight over the core values of the Republican Party. Republicans believe basically the same stuff they always have. The trouble is, they didn't get a nominee who represents them well.
Dave will no doubt disagree, but for the last dozen elections there have been two stages in the GOP nomination. (Not every time, but usually.) The moderates and conservatives coalesce around their respective best candidate, then those two slug it out. This year, no one was sure which candidate was which. There was the religious conservative (Huck), the newly-minted conservative (Romney), the generally conservative guy who hates conservatives (McCain), et cetera. There was no more grappling with the GOP identity than usual.
I've already speculated that the Democratic Convention could be a fight between freedom rider Clinton and Jim Crow Obama, where she tries to depict him as disenfranchising the poor people of Florida and Michigan. If she succeeds, there would be scorched earth even before the general election (which would feature the two nastiest candidates in history).
That's what I keep thinking about. McCain and Clinton are like two kids on the playground who reach the slide at the same time:
"My turn!"
"No, my turn!"
"NO! MY TURN!"
Pledging to sweep with a new broom is not the same thing as an ideological split. Both Obama and Clinton remain basically true to core Democratic values.
Actually, I'd suggest that they both subscribe to different neo-democrat values. Obama is a populist/socialist while Clinton is an international socialist. Both pay lipservice to the traditions of the party, but are actually radically different from what the democratic party was even 20 or 30 years ago.
The problem with the Republicans at the moment is that there is a big row over what the party's core values actually are.
You've totally misread this. There's no argument over the actual core values. There are arguments over whether any of the candidates really follow those core values and there are those who would like to ADD new core values.
There's the faction that thinks Republicanism means steering the nation on a Christian-based path, with all the moral regulation that entails. And there's the faction that advocates fiscal responsibility, an end to big government and greater social inclusiveness.
The first group would mostly be former democrats who are past due for a boot out the wide open door to starting a new party.
Dave
As for my supposed 'wishful thinking', it doesn't really factor in here. I'm just observing things as they are.
I'll now officially admit that I plan to vote in the Democratic Primary and vote for Obama. I'm doing it because it will put Hillary an extra step away from the presidency and because I have a great desire to vote against a particular candidate in our local democratic primary.
Dave
You've totally misread this. There's no argument over the actual core values.
What those values are rather depends on who you ask. Confusion, then, if you don't like argument.
The RNC's website isn't very edifying either.
I'll now officially admit that I plan to vote in the Democratic Primary
You might as well make your vote count, Dave. The Republican primaries are basically a procession from here on in. McCain won't miss one less flower thrown from the crowd.
I have a great desire to vote against a particular candidate in our local democratic primary.
Good God, MCH isn't running, is he?
;-)
Dredge again demonstrates his "Bill and Hillary" grasp of American politics.
Pledging to "change the foundation of the way politics are conducted in Washington" is about a big an ideological split as there can be. Both "the old coot" MCcain and Jerkabee remain basically true to core middle of the road (wimpy) non-conservative Republican values.
The problem with the Dumbocrats at the moment is that the racism in the party's core DNA is hanging out there for the whole world to see. "Cant let the black man get too much power now can we Bill and Hill??" There's a faction of the DUMBS that think the races are equal and there is another that believes that "black folk" aren't ready to come into the White House.
It's a fundamental schism, and... oh wait, this is Dredge I'm talking to. Why do I even bother? He's one of the guys with the white sheet in his closet supporting the old-line racists in the Dumbocratic Party
JOM "Change is good as long as it doesn't effect me"
As for my supposed 'wishful thinking', it doesn't really factor in here. I'm just observing things as they are.
Well...no, you aren't, really, Dave. You're making guesses at the way things might be, or might soon be, re the superdelegates and the convention. When you use phrases like "quite likely to" or "could very well be," you're dealing in assumptions, not facts.
I think there's a big elephant (no pu intended) in the room that we're all avoiding: namely, what will Richard "separate nations for separate races" Brodie do if Obama becomes president?
Oh, and JOM...I'm sure I'm wasting my time by trying, here, but you might start by getting a dictionary and looking up "ideological."
Yeah, but first you have to explain what a dictionary is.
Mikey and El Bicho..
[Edited. JOM, please do not change other commenters' names into insults. Thank you.
Assistant Comments Editor]
Obviously you both have a literacy problem...
An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process.
Like I said...
Pledging to "change the foundation of the way politics are conducted in Washington" and allowing minorities a real place of power at the political table (as the Bush administration has demonstrated) is a HUGE shift in DUMBOCRATIC IDEOLOGY...
The end is near for the old line racist of the left..They just don't know it yet...
JOM - "For Change as long as it shuts you idiots up!"
I love it when a right winger makes racist accusations against the left. What comes to mind is something about a pot and a kettle.
Actually, it just pisses me off. The overwhelming majority of old line racist democrats are now died in the wool republicans. That shift started in earnest in the mid-1960s and has continued since. The democratic party embraced the civil rights movement while republicans shrank back into their own abyss of racial hatred where many have remained. Don't give me any bullshit about significant racism amongst democrats.
It will likely be years before the republicans will open up their retentive assholes and nominate anyone not an aging white protestant male. The heart of American racism now beats in the GOP. Republicans have inherited the good old boy network and they're welcome to it.
B-tone
my comments not welcome.. i quess this is not really a public opion blog!
Hmmm...
When JOM suddenly gets all articulate, it's time to go to Wikipedia and find out whether he just lifted his comment #28 directly from their entry on 'ideology'...
Well - whaddaya know!
rick,
Why do you say that? Did you have trouble posting? If that's the case, you have joined the club. Posting is sometimes slow and difficult. It plays games with you.
As long as what you have to say is not a personal attack, most anything you write is welcome here. You may get a lot of flack for whatever your opinions might be, but that's what this place is all about.
B-tone
Well...no, you aren't, really, Dave. You're making guesses at the way things might be, or might soon be, re the superdelegates and the convention. When you use phrases like "quite likely to" or "could very well be," you're dealing in assumptions, not facts.
Ok, but that's still not 'wishful thinking'. I'm not taking a particular position here or advocating anything, just pointing out possibilities.
I think there's a big elephant (no pu intended) in the room that we're all avoiding: namely, what will Richard "separate nations for separate races" Brodie do if Obama becomes president?
Group suicide?
But seriously, there's a reason why the FBI ranks domestic terrorism higher than al Qaeda as a potential threat.
Dave
And Baritone, while blatant individual racism may be on the decline in the Democratic party, the institutionalized racism on which the party's power structure is based hasn't gone anywhere. You can declare yourself and your party lilly white when you no longer depend on the votes of minorities and the poor who are deliberately maintained as clients of the party and the state so that they will remain loyal democratic voters.
As for the racist infiltration of the GOP, clearly they've been marked and their days are numbered.
Dave
I could not have thought of a better way to win...
Thanks Democrates
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] ..I didnt credit Wikki...but rather than argue the facts you attack the messenger...
Just this AM on "Morning Joe" all of the Clintonistas were out there claiming that Hillary is being descriminated against by the media because she is a women. "There are things you can say about a women BUT not about a black man." And dont forget Ed Rendel "Some whites arent ready to vote for a black." This doesnt get any better than this!!!Imagine an elected Republican or their "people" saying this...they would be forced to apologize and forced to resign...
I think Hillary and the Dumbocratic leadership just got the endorsement of the NAAWP National Association for the Advancement of White People. Put on your white sheets boys we are having a Dumbocratic campaign rally!
JOM "The Dumbocrats - Setting back race relations 20 years and counting"
BREAKING NEWS
David Duke to endorse Hillary!
JOM
It's so silly of me. I keep forgeting that the republicans are pure of heart, the shining star that periodically cleanses the nation of all that it perceives as not "right" with the country.
So, Dave, the reps are going to rid itself of all evangelicals and all racists? Do I have that right? So, that will leave you and, uh, who else? (I am assuming of course as you are a professed atheist (as I am,) that you are not an evangelical, nor a racist.)
There is no more "institutionalized racism" amongst dems than the reps. Additionally, the reps are also slimed with their exploitation of the religious right who they now find it more propitious to spurn.
"I'm not taking a particular position here or advocating anything, just pointing out possibilities."
Yeah, right! Your visceral hatred of HC has no influence on your prognostications? Give me a break.
B-tone
"Just this AM on "Morning Joe" all of the Clintonistas were out there claiming that Hillary is being descriminated against by the media because she is a women." (emphasis added)
Even though she does have two faces, she's still just one woman. (Thank Zeus!)
McCain has a much larger problem than either Obama or Clinton would have in the election. He'll never be conservative enough for the conservatives he needs in order to win, without alienating the moderates and independents he needs in order to win.
..I didnt credit Wikki...
You can't even spell Wiki.
but rather than argue the facts you attack the messenger...
Something you never do, of course, JOM. Actually, I believe I've already argued the facts, at #17.
Just this AM on "Morning Joe"...
It might be a good idea for you to stop listening to "Morning Joe". It's clearly not a great workout for your intellect. The statements you regularly make here are at least as dumb as your selection of calls from this morning's show.
Do you really think the numbskulls who call in to radio talk shows represent the core values of any party? Or are they just parroting the dumbass hosts and pundits on those very same shows?
Again, Obama promising to change the way things are done in Washington is an idea, not an ideology. Subtle but significant difference. Besides, all presidential candidates are say things like that. Nobody's going to get elected on a platform of carrying on with things exactly the same way Bush has been doing them.
I think Hillary and the Dumbocratic leadership just got the endorsement of the NAAWP National Association for the Advancement of White People.
And I think you're projecting.
Put on your white sheets boys we are having a Dumbocratic campaign rally!
Yup.
jom, le bomb: "And dont forget Ed Rendel "Some whites arent ready to vote for a black." This doesnt get any better than this!!!Imagine an elected Republican or their "people" saying this...they would be forced to apologize and forced to resign..."
it's the truth... some whites AREN'T ready to vote for a black man. the republicans don't even need to make such statements, because it's kind of obvious at the national level. still, i doubt that anyone is thinking rendel is making a racist statement... because he's not.
as for your "this doesnt get any better than this!!!" statement, well... that would be absolutely true.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Morning Joe is on MSNBC hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
I do believe that there is an underlying gender issue regarding Clinton just as there is doubtless an underlying racial issue regarding Obama.
Of course there are those who will openly and unashamedly admit to bigotry regarding women and/or people of color. But, the majority of people will keep such notions to themselves, except perhaps when they enter the voting booth.
Admit it or not, there is a strong dislike of Hillary simply because she is a strong woman. She is regarded as a bitch for many of the things she has said and done; things for which a man would have been characterized as, well, just being manly.
There are a lot of people, both men and women who can't abide a dominant woman. As witness, look at many of the various fundamentalist religious organizations, chief among them the SBC, which have in recent years codified the subservient role of women under the dominance of men. Old biblical bullshit.
Actually, gender issues predate racial issues, and are, in some respects, more deeply entrenched and, consequently, more difficult to overcome.
B-tone
Age would be every bit as much of a factor in this election as race or sex would be, for image alone, if for no other more practical reason.
Kennedy looked younger and more energetic on TV than Nixon,(even though he was in poorer health.) Reagan WAS old, but didn't look it.
McCain might outlive and be able to outhink us all, but he sure doesn't look or sound like it much of the time, and that will count to our youth-oriented culture. Being racially mixed or female won't count against a candidate any more than being perceived as a(really)senior-citizen.
And for every die-hard racist out there who'd never vote for a non-white candidate, there are 5 or 10 young, minority, or anti-Bush voters who would.
are you guys doing radio this afternoon - ?
I disagree with you, B-tone.
While it may be true that there is an underlying bias against females in politics on the part of the electorate, I don't think it's widespread enough to stop a qualified woman who is well perceived by a large enough portion of the electorate from getting elected.
The assumed underlying bias against African Americans certainly isn't hindering Obama. No, I think prejudice in this country is far less than is normally assumed these days.
IMO, Hillary is losing (and will likely lose) in the nomination race much more because of the persona she projects, which is that of a grasping, super ambitious person (not woman) who will stop at nothing and stoop to wherever necessary to get elected.
There is (again, IMO) also a certain perception on the part of substantial elements of the electorate that the Clinton campaign is a twofer, and many are opposed to that idea on ideological grounds.
It is these factors plus the ineffable odor of sleaze around the Clinton campaign that is losing it for her, and I think she's finally realized it, which is why she stepped on Bill and fired her top two campaign managers.
To attribute her failure to an anti-woman bias misses the real reasons, and excuses her own (and Bill's and her campaign staff's) missteps, when in fact, she appears to be losing the race on her own, not because she's a woman.
"Obviously you both have a literacy problem"
This coming from a guy who writes the sentence "Hillary is being *descriminated* against by the media because she is *a women*."
Go Wiki "literacy". What's the O/U line on the next time this child gets another BC timeout?
JOM "Setting back humanity 100 years and counting"
My, my. You're getting as bad as Moonraven, JOM. Trying to fill the gap she left in the market?
Based on the little that was NOT excised by our esteemed Mr Rose:
OK, so "Morning Joe" is a TV talk show, not a radio show. Big whoop. I don't waste my time on them because I just get annoyed. I prefer to spend it here on BC, where one can actually respond to things that are said, instead of just railing uselessly at one's [insert broadcast receiving device of choice here].
Your attempts to paint the Democratic Party as a bunch of racists ain't going to fly. This isn't the 1860s.
Look, there are going to be racist elements in any major political party, especially in a place like the US, where you only have two of them and they both - of necessity - accommodate a very broad church. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a monopoly on them, nor is racism a driver of either party's policies.
Clavos sez: IMO, Hillary is losing (and will likely lose) in the nomination race much more because of the persona she projects, which is that of a grasping, super ambitious person (not woman) who will stop at nothing and stoop to wherever necessary to get elected.
Hmm. Perhaps. As Baritone pointed out, these are qualities which might not be perceived as undesirable if she were a man.
Then again, Mitt Romney projects a similar persona, and it hasn't done him much good either.
Really, you're all feeling your way a bit in this election. The Democratic Party is in pole position to win the presidency, and their last two candidates left standing possess physical qualities the American electorate has never had to consider seriously in that capacity before. Interesting times.
Doc,
Obviously, I agree with you. That the Dems are the first party to put forward a woman and an African-American as serious candidates,I think is great. None of us can truly guess the outcome (except Dave, of course,) but frankly, I think it will be a damn shame if the GOP wins in November. I would like to see a bit of history made come election day. I guess if McCain were to win the only bit of history being made would be the election of the oldest president ever. Whoopie!
Despite some statements to the contrary, I don't believe there is much difference to be found between Hillary and Barack. They may approach things from a different perspective, but the broad strokes of their policy positions are very similar. I would be happy with either of them winning in November. Of course, a Clinton win would afford me a bit of vengeful pleasure, but perhaps an Obama victory would ultimately be more satisfying - unless he blows it.
Clav,
I don't believe that either race or gender will be a major factor in the election, and in that I agree with you. But, just as Dave suggested after the New Hampshire vote, some of the underlying racial feelings may have risen to the surface as voters closed the curtain in the voting booth. If you recall, I didn't agree with Dave then (Now there's a surprise!,) but upon reflection I don't think the notion that race and gender might have an influence can be totally dismissed.
You and Dave and many others here at BC truly dislike Hillary and find it hard if not impossible to find anything positive about her. I don't share that opinion. Frankly, I'm not sure any woman could have risen to Hillary's level of prominence, especially in the political sphere, without being exceptionally hard driving and manipulative. There is no doubt that she is one determined woman.
B-tone
"Then again, Mitt Romney projects a similar persona, and it hasn't done him much good either."
Hhmmm, interesting. Guess I've just never thought of Mitt "Mountain Meadows Massacre" Romney and Hillary "Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife" Clinton as being like two peas in a pod.
But it does make sense, since the Mormons believe in plural wives and Hillary has allowed multiple mistresses...
"Your attempts to paint the attempts to paint the Democratic Party as a bunch of racists"
Gee..all I do is report what the leadership of the main stream Dumbocrats are saying to every journalist and TV outlet that will talk to them "THEY DO NOT WANT A BLACK MAN" as president...
I am not making this up it is your party..
JOM "The Dumbocrats still keepin the Brother down"
It's so silly of me. I keep forgeting that the republicans are pure of heart, the shining star that periodically cleanses the nation of all that it perceives as not "right" with the country.
I know you're being facetious, but in fact, if you look at history, that is EXACTLY the role which Republicans have played again and again. Look at Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Their role as presidents was clearly to address government excess and abuse and set the country back on track.
So, Dave, the reps are going to rid itself of all evangelicals and all racists? Do I have that right?
I doubt it. But I do think there's a real surge to return to traditional Republican values which include toleration of an awful lot of diversity, so long as negative ideas held by individuals don't impact policy. The problem we've had is allowing those with other agendas to pull the party away from its core beliefs.
So, that will leave you and, uh, who else? (I am assuming of course as you are a professed atheist (as I am,) that you are not an evangelical, nor a racist.)
I'm especially not an evangelical atheist. Those guys scare me as much as evangelical Christians.
There is no more "institutionalized racism" amongst dems than the reps. Additionally, the reps are also slimed with their exploitation of the religious right who they now find it more propitious to spurn.
I didn't say the Republicans don't exploit certain groups too. But it just happens that Republican exploitation isn't based on keeping minorities separated from mainstream culture and keeping the poor dependent on government.
Yeah, right! Your visceral hatred of HC has no influence on your prognostications? Give me a break.
It didn't play much of a role in this article, anyway. And keep in mind that I share that hatred with most of the US population if you believe Hillary's negative ratings.
Dave
I am not making this up it is your party..
1. Yes, you are making it up.
2. It is not my party.
JOM,
Just WHO are these "main stream dumbocrats," and where are they saying these things? I live in a pretty red neck state - a republican haven, and, yet no dems here have made any such statements.
Dave,
"Evangelical atheists?" Nice invention.
"Their role as presidents was clearly to address government excess and abuse and set the country back on track."
And then the dems take office burdened with wreckage of the rep's ignoring the poor and now its war on science. Reagan's administration left us with record budget deficits eclipsed only by that we now have not to mention the ten trillion dollar national debt facing us by Bush & Co. Oh, yeah, the reps always make everything hunky dory.
B-tone
"Evangelical atheists" Is kind of an unusual (but somewhat poetic) construct.
As an atheist myself, I am made exceedingly uncomfortable by crusading atheists (Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Michael Newdow, e.g.) just as I am by theists who send missionaries out to the remote corners of the earth to convert the heathen, or those young men in white shirts and ties who knock on my door occasionally.
Ed Rendel Gov of PA
"I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."
HINT HINT - This is a Dumbocratic primary - He is either talking about his fellow racist Dumbocrats or sending a clear message to Hillary's base -"Dont vote for the black guy!"
Rendell is one of Hillarys biggest and most visable supporters besides being one of the biggest Dumbocrats. In addition he is just one of the people in Clinton's campaign that have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
JOM "The Dumbocrats - The Klan Party"
jom, quoting rendel: "I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."
that's just a statement of fact.
"HINT HINT - This is a Dumbocratic primary - He is either talking about his fellow racist Dumbocrats or sending a clear message to Hillary's base -"Dont vote for the black guy!""
or maybe he's talking about white people. some people aren't going to vote for a black man. funny though, if the democrats are so full of racists, why is the black man winning in the primary?
i don't know if you've ever heard of such a thing, but "electability" is certainly a major issue when choosing a candidate to represent your party. i mean, let's face it... you guys ran a mentally-challenged redneck who got us into an unpopular war and likes torture and spying on american citizens and can't really speak the english language, and yet you still won. the dems are running a black man and a woman this time around. in order to win, the dems have to produce a candidate that can pull in some independent and even some fed-up republic votes.
but what's a worse detriment? (in terms of electability...) being black or being female? is it even a detriment anymore? i guess we'll find out.
the fact is that there are more dems than there are republicans in america. and yet, the republicans keep winning presidential elections, even when they put up an utter idiot. why? dems don't vote like republicans do. why not? i dunno. maybe we're lazy.
truth be told, mccain isn't the worst republican candidate i've ever seen. but i still don't want him to be our president.
the point is that rendel is not a racist for stating that some americans just won't vote for a black man. he may be a racist for all i know, but that statement doesn't prove anything except that rendel occasionally makes a true statement.
and your reading of his statement only proves that you can find racism in the dems even when it's not there.
Methinks thou protesteth too much....
I rest my case!
JOM -"The Dumbocrats - Racists in Denial"
Nothing's going to dissuade you, is it, JOM? Somehow, your brain cell has got hold of this bizarre idea that the Democrats are a racist party.
Tell me, is it the black presidential candidates, the affirmative action policies or the voting patterns of African-Americans that's confusing you?
good job there, jom. what a lawyer you'll be.
No its your rambling inane posts that make no fucking sense....
REMF -- Your ignorance and stupidity continue to amuse and entertain me. If that's what you had in mind, then thanks. If you were serious about Mitt "Mountain Meadows Massacre" Romney then your supposed thirty years knowing about the massacre has taught you nothing since NONE of Romney's ancestors were involved. Furthermore, Mormons have not officially practiced plural marriage for more than 100 years. Get up to speed on things REMF or continue to entertain people with your stupidity
I don't think Dave realizes just how demeaning his charge of democratic exploitation of minorities is to blacks, hispanics, etc. His charge implies that those supposedly being "exploited" by the evil racist democrats are hapless victims, unable to recognize how they are being used, or are unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
The fact is that the great majority of minorities in this country understand how it all works and they align primarily with the democrats as the party that carries their needs and concerns to the centers of government.
Julia Carson, the late Democratic Congresswoman from Indiana is a good example. While her detractors thought she was some kind of bafoon, she was a smart, savvy legislator who worked tirelessly for her district, primarily inner city Indianapolis. In the wake of her death, her grandson is favored to take her place for the remainder of her term in a special election in May, and just as likely to take the seat in the regular election in November. Ms. Carson maintained her seat in Congress for several terms owing to the enthusiastic support of her constituents - both black and white. None of the stiff necked white men who ran against her over the years was able to unseat her. Neither her's nor other such constituencies are being exploited by the democratic party. The democratic party is as much their party as it is anyone's.
As for JOM, I do believe he is trying to take up the slack left in the wake of Moonraven's departure. Hell, I kind of miss her. She was articulate at any rate.
B-tone
Blacks are voting for Obama at about 80%. Hillary might as well be a Republican to them.
It's fun, and amusingly predictable, to watch blacks voting explicitly racial against a white liberal advocate of the charade of black empowerment through white male disposession.
Some good could come of this.
Perhaps the sensible people of all races and genders will be moved to abandon the party of hate and division.
Dave, I have sent an email to your website in relation to a story I've done. This is the only way I can now contact anyone at BC after being taken off the group email bizzo.
If you can reply I'd be appreciative. Cheers.
I don't think Dave realizes just how demeaning his charge of democratic exploitation of minorities is to blacks, hispanics, etc. His charge implies that those supposedly being "exploited" by the evil racist democrats are hapless victims, unable to recognize how they are being used, or are unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
IMO it's the exploitation which is demeaning, not being a victim of it. On an individual basis, plenty of those who make up the power base of the democrats can move on and advance themselves, but it's not a coincidence that the democrats promote policies which encourage as many people as possible not to seek to advance themselves and to live off of the system which they created.
The fact is that the great majority of minorities in this country understand how it all works and they align primarily with the democrats as the party that carries their needs and concerns to the centers of government.
Exactly. They know which side their bread is buttered on and take the easy route and support the party which supports them. The problem is that this creates a parasitic relationship which ultimately works to their detriment. It's a lot harder for them to embrace a political philosophy which urges them to be responsible for themselves.
Dave
...you mean it's like business people's relationship with the Republican party and corporate wellfare - ?
now, now, troll. what the democrats do is exploitation, while what the republicans do is just getting a little 69 action. there are no victims here.
Who would you rather see exploited, the business community or the poor?
Dave
actually - imagine the mess for the owner class if those that the democrats bribe to 'stay in their place' all of a sudden embraced *a political philosophy which urges them to be responsible for themselves*
Well, the business community creates jobs.
The poor...
We report, you decide.
Dave #71 - neither...I would rather see the government stand down and let the poor and the business community work things out for themselves
with the support of government the poor enable low wages thus serving a function as critical to 'economic equilibrium' as job creation
"They know which side their bread is buttered on and take the easy route and support the party which supports them. The problem is that this creates a parasitic relationship which ultimately works to their detriment.
My god, Dave, you should hear yourself. So blacks should align themselves with the party that doesn't give a rats ass about them? They should vote for republicans who wouldn't so much as provide bread, let alone any butter to put on it. You are so incredibly elitist and condescending it's hard to imagine. Vote republican and we'll do the black community the service of leaving them entirely adrift to fend for themselves, so they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, assuming of course that they have boots. If not, well, that's on them. Anyhow, it's the private sector's job to help people - go talk to the bleeding hearts at the United Way for christ's sake.
The government's job is to wage war - in which we fully expect the black community to offer up its young - and to support the corporate community. As long as we stay rich, who knows, some trifling bit of coinage might "trickle" from our magnanimous fingers (along with a knowing wink) down to the poor's upraised hands.
Your contempt for the poor is unvarnished and hanging out there for all to see.
B-tone
Clavos
"Well, the business community creates jobs."
No it doesn't. Market demand (consumption) creates jobs.
If there were no demand for, say, expensive yachts, all the businessmen in Florida could go into the yacht business and they'd make not one sale and create one job.
bliffle,
Partly true. You can have all the demand in the world, but if no one moves to meet that demand, you ain't got no jobs...
NOBODY expects ANYTHING from the Republican Party.
The problem is with the Democratic Party; there is a great desire for change. The Democratic Party neither offers anything strategically different than the Republican Party nor do its two candidates show much difference between each other.
Even though there is no substantial difference between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is the safer candidate. Change is not her central theme; it's her experience.
The ruling class does not want to raise anyone's expectation that anything FUNDAMENTAL is going to change. In that case Clinton is a better choice than Obama. If Obama is forced on them they will use their power and experience to manage him to suit their needs.
The reality is that there will be no fundamental difference no matter which of the three candidates, or possibly some dark horse, gets elected. Any significant change in direction will have more to do with external factors than any of the personalities at the head.
I would offer this as regards the desirabilty of "change:" How much change do we really want?
Dramatic change in government would also likely entail dramatic disruptions in the economy and in any number of other areas of our daily lives, perhaps including violence.
Some changes are certainly needed and would be welcome by many. But, in order to retain at least nominal stability, any changes should be incremental - baby steps. People who call for drastic changes either don't understand the nature and fragility of civilization, or they really want disruption and violence, thinking (stupidly) that it will lead to a better world.
B-tone
People who call for drastic changes either don't understand the nature and fragility of civilization, or they really want disruption and violence, thinking (stupidly) that it will lead to a better world.
Hark! I can hear a pipe-organ tuning up - somewhere in the direction of Jerusalem...?
Interesting to see that Dave and Clavos really dislike those pesky 'evangelical' or 'crusading' atheists.
Does that mean you guys stand against those anti-theists who argue that tax money shouldn't go to support faith-based activities and sectarian schools in America?
And do those who oppose mandatory prayer in schools annoy you? And those who want science, not theology, taught in biology classes?
If they make you nervous, what about their opposite numbers--a Huckabee who wants the Constitution re-written into a Christian document? And candidates who kiss Robertson's and Dobson's behinds? Shouldn't someone speak out against actual and potential theism in our government?
Maybe their willingness to crusade against threats to our freedoms is really an important safeguard of your right to choose to be an atheist--one that you should appreciate more than disdain.
B-tone,
What a few people want or don't want has relatively little to do with how things happen. In the case of the Bush war strategy, this was being discussed and debated in ruling circles for quite some time before a team was put together. It took a sizable section of the ruling class getting behind it and organizing an election to put that team at the head of the executive branch of the federal government before they got a chance to try it out. There was an enormous shakeup in the structure of the military and its leadership. The losing side in that debate was quite bitter and there are still those who have not forgotten or forgiven.
My wishes, or as some might perceive to be my wishes, have no causal effect on what happens in this election. What I do see though is that there are a LOT of people that want to see the fucking government do at least something to relieve the pain of the deteriorating economic situation. They are also tired of the war. People that believe the Democrats are actually going to SOLVE anything will be sorely disappointed. There's already some disappointment with the results of the heralded '06 elections.
I'm not wishing this. Wishing does no good. I believe there are some expectations that more will happen than will. It is my judgment that the ruling class would like a fairly high voter turnout but will, and does, feel apprehensive about people getting too carried away with their expectations.
Les
clavos:
"bliffle,
Partly true. You can have all the demand in the world, but if no one moves to meet that demand, you ain't got no jobs..."
But someone WILL move to make the business, even if it's a blackmarket and they have to risk their lives and freedom, as in the drug market.
But nooone can force customers to appear where their is no demand, except for the peculiar case of some advertising campaigns, such as Pet Rocks.
The very greed that so many businessmen brag about will manipulate them to fill a market need as surely as if they were androids commanded by their masters. So there's no need for the government to extend incentives, tax breaks, no-bid contracts and outright grants and loans.
Talk about creating a market for a product absolutely no one needs; think of Staple's "Easy Button." Here is an item which is nothing more than advertising, yet for which people are willing to pay. Go figure.
Les,
Elections are nothing if not about high expectations. Every candidate for every office essentially promises that upon their ascendancy to the sought after office, we will all forthwith be living in the land of milk and honey.
Zelda Fitzgerald once wrote: "We grew up founding our dreams on the infinite promise of American advertising." That is no less true of political promises. In order to have a chance of winning any seriously contested political campaign, a candidate must promise the world, must promise much more than anyone could possibly deliver. That in itself is sad. Even sadder, perhaps, is that a great number of people - voters in this case, actually believe it.
It is no wonder that people become angry and skeptical once it is made plain that the gravy train is not likely to stop at their particular doorstep as they were led to believe before entering the voting booth. What is troubling, though, is that many of these same crestfallen folks will, in a few short years, once again enthusiastically jump upon some politician's band wagon in the renewed belief that THIS time will be different. THIS candidate will keep his or her promises and all of our cares and concerns will melt away like an ice cube on a June street. It's a bewildering cycle.
Obviously, most of us DO want change. We DO want our involvement in Iraq to end, or at least diminish dramatically. We DO want a more equitable and stable economy. We DO want more and better opportunities for education and jobs. Some believe that will come at the hands of John McCain. Some believe that Hillary or Barack will provide the strength of leadership to effect those changes.
You are probably correct in that any changes which do happen with those and other important issues will not be of a wholesale nature. As is normally the case, we must swallow many of our desires and expectations accepting with a smile (fronting a clenched jaw, perhaps) the less than dramatic, incremental changes that will be nevertheless touted as a significant change in the status quo, marching us off in a great new direction, into a new frontier and other blathering incantations.
Looking at the larger picture and in the long run, perhaps those carefully measured "baby steps" will be more fortuitously taken than a giant leap into the abyss.
B-tone
"But someone WILL move to make the business, even if it's a blackmarket and they have to risk their lives and freedom, as in the drug market."
And, in so doing, they will create jobs.
My original point was businesses create jobs.
the answer = 'the egg'
B-tone,
"Looking at the larger picture and in the long run, perhaps those carefully measured 'baby steps' will be more fortuitously taken than a giant leap into the abyss."
I too like looking at the big picture. First of all, not looking to the future, whatever steps have already been taken, have been taken in a direction that is putting a greater and greater portion of the population deeper and deeper into a hole. And it's not just the recent sub-prime, credit crunch thing either. This has been going on for decades, not just since Bush got into office.
I don't think people want change just for the sake of change. I believe people want and hope that the DIRECTION will change. I don't think there is wish for any radical change, just a BEGINNING to go in a direction that's not going to be worse. That's where I believe people will be disappointed because none of these candidates, or their parties, is going to change direction.
Any change of direction in government policy will be forced on them by circumstances beyond their control.
Les
Lee,
Sorry, didn't mean to pick only on atheists.
Zealots. Of any stripe.
The majority of people in this country, and throughout much of the world have been inexorably and incrementally moved further and further from the center of power. As government, the hallowed military/industrial complex and other mega corporations entrench themselves into the fabric of our day to day existence we experience a corresponding inability to extracate ourselves from their grasp. It is, of course, a symbiotic relationship. We crave the toys they provide for us. They keep us distracted. They keep us wanting more. From McMansions to big gas guzzler cars to big screen TVs, laptops, Ipods, and other hi-tech play things, designer clothes and more, we are now living the good life - at least some of us are.
But for the most part, we are all hopelessly out of the loop. We are no more empowered by our relative wealth than the average serf living in a thatched hut under the thumb of a feudal lord. But now, we have central heating and air and a Starbucks on every corner.
B-tone
I too like looking at the big picture. First of all, not looking to the future, whatever steps have already been taken, have been taken in a direction that is putting a greater and greater portion of the population deeper and deeper into a hole. And it's not just the recent sub-prime, credit crunch thing either. This has been going on for decades, not just since Bush got into office.
Les. People did not get into this hole because of the actions of government or the actions of businesses. More than anything else they put themselves into a hole by overspending, borrowing and not managing their money responsibly. The proof of this is the fairly substantial minority of the population living under the same circumstances who are NOT in debt up to their ears and defaulting on a ridiculous mortgage.
I don't think people want change just for the sake of change. I believe people want and hope that the DIRECTION will change. I don't think there is wish for any radical change, just a BEGINNING to go in a direction that's not going to be worse. That's where I believe people will be disappointed because none of these candidates, or their parties, is going to change direction.
None of the candidates are going to address the real problem because government isn't the solution. The PEOPLE need to change and hoping for change from the government is just another attempt to pass the buck and not accept responsibility for their own actions. Those trying to sell change in the campaign are mainly just selling a panacea and telling the people that government is going once again to save them from themselves.
Dave
Baritone, it sounds like you're taking the stance that you condemned earlier - that people are tricked into voting against their interests.
Dave says (or implies) that most blacks in the US vote as a bloc for a party that screws them over. You say that we are so distracted by our bright shiny toys that we don't realize who's running the show. It's the same position.
And there's nothing wrong with it. If you support the Democratic ticket, you're saying that 50% of the country (and the majority of men) vote stupidly. I support the Republicans, which means I believe that half the country and most of the women act like morons in the voting booth.
Second subject: the Democratic Party is racist. They support judging people on the basis of race. Republicans oppose quotas and set-asides. We don't think about race; you do. You're racists. There isn't even wiggle room on this issue.
Bolonius,
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I? Struck a nerve. You're poised and ready to jump on my every key stroke. Admirable, I must say, uh, if somewhat pathetic.
Your self righteous presumptious republican pomposity is showing. You should tuck it in.
Of course, it serves you to believe your delusions. You're obviously a good Party man, though. They've got you walking in lock step, just as you should be.
I DO admire the skill with which you and others in "The Party" have managed over the years to completely flip flop the argument and flim flam the public. You take the pig's ear of republican racial hatred and turn it into the silk purse of a twisted kind of racial ecumenism. You'll go far.
By the way, I'm finding ample room to wiggle, thank you very much.
B-tone
Sorry, guys, but it's the nation, whites and blacks alike, that's racist.
It's illegal now, so it's gone underground, and some people have actually learned not to fear and hate, but it's still there and it's still ubiquitous, nonetheless.
Even the schools have de facto re-segregated themselves; if not in the classrooms, certainly in the yards and playgrounds.
You take the pig's ear of republican racial hatred and turn it into the silk purse of a twisted kind of racial ecumenism.
Baritone, there's still no evidence of any sort that historically, even in recent history, the policies of the Republican party are racist in any sense. There may be individual republicans who are racist just as there are individual democrats who are, but from the moment the party was founded even to this very day, the GOP has managed NEVER to enshrine any form of racism in its party platform or official policies. The Democrats certainly cannot claim that.
One of the reasons I'm willing to support McCain is that he's clearly able to take the lead in maintaining the GOP's positive position on racial issues and draw a line which the nativists will not be allowed to drag the party across.
Dave
Nobody, outside of BC, seems to be paying attention to this issue.
Hmmmm. I wonder if it's just a red herring that Dave has dragged across the trail? You know, to distract attention from the Iraq Invasion and the Economy, two issues that are killing the republicans among the general public.
Nobody, outside of BC, seems to be paying attention to this issue.
Bliff, do you not read newspapers, watch TV or at least get news from the radio? As I noted in the opening of the article, the concern over this issue is so ubiquitous that my mother warned me the article might be dismissed as already established 'common wisdom'.
Hmmmm. I wonder if it's just a red herring that Dave has dragged across the trail? You know, to distract attention from the Iraq Invasion and the Economy, two issues that are killing the republicans among the general public.
No one is paying any attention to Iraq anymore and the economy issue is largely a fiction of the left. I particularly love Obama's plan to create 15 million new jobs. I wonder who he's going to give them to? Illegal aliens? There sure aren't enough job seeking natives to fill them.
Dave
"and the economy issue is largely a fiction of the left."
Dave
You are showing signs of mental breakdown. Please seek help.
Does "the left" include the Wall St Journal and The Economist, Dave? They are both talking recession daily and weekly, respectively. What does it take to convince you? Pretty outrageous thing to say.
"Pretty outrageous thing to say."
Perhaps. And perhaps not...
Forbes is a respectable and recognized authority on economic matters, n'est-ce-pas?
I'm sorry Dave, that was flippant.
Your Republican President just initiated a truly moronic "Economic Stimulus Package" because of what? A fantasy? A fabrication of the left?
The housing meltdown is simply spin by the left? The losses of the NYSE and other global stock markets are all a dream? The exploding federal deficit is all just a plot by Democrats to discredit the current administration?
I know that the "War In Iraq" is but a small part of the problem. Medicare and Welfare are bankrupting the USA, so what does Bush do? Offer a one time handout of eight to fifteen hundred dollars to the bottom 70% of American wage earners, as if it will actually make a difference to anybody. Fifteen hundred dollars to my wife, child, and I will not even show up on our balance sheet.
What's the point? I'm watching and waiting, as are many Americans, for the housing market to bottom out (sometime in the next 12 months). With the inventory of houses on the market, it's going to be at least two years before the construction industry even thinks of starting up again.
Banks are using the lower fed rate to try and build up their cash reserves. No passing these lower rates on to borrowers for at least six-eight months, and why would they bother, when home prices are likely to continue to drop in the meantime?
But hey, no one is thinking about the economy, or Iraq, or why you are so desperate to spin every freaking event into a plot by the Dems to fuck the country up. Your boy in the white house has set a very high bar for that, and he's still got 11 months to find ways to put even more money into the pockets of the likes of your "Elitist Pig" class.
It's fun reading your comments just to see the lengths you'll go to justify your self serving BS.
Amusing, that.
Strange. I haven't read anyplace else about "Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary".
Clavos, as I've said before, and you affirmed, neither I nor you nor anyone else knows whether we are already in a recession, about to enter one, or have dodged a bullet. But there are multiple market crises going on and they are not finished yet.
Rich Karlgaard is the publisher of Forbes, but that was an opinion piece you linked to, not journalistic reporting. He can express an opinion like everyone else, but does it mean more?
When the Wall St Journal writes about the cascading bad news every day on its front page, something is up. When The Economist says, in its latest issue, that the US is poised to enter, if it hasn't already, a recession, that's meaningful, because that's a very careful, serious magazine [and not of the left, at least on economic issues].
Dave's remark was flippant but we deserve to have it explained, I think.
Most of the talking heads on Meet the Press etc today seemed to think Obama was getting close to inevitability - unless Clinton has victories in Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania. If she loses even one of those, the game is up. And Texas is looking more like a toss-up lately.
Rich Karlgaard is the publisher of Forbes, but that was an opinion piece you linked to, not journalistic reporting. He can express an opinion like everyone else, but does it mean more?"
Exactly! And the responding comments to his article are (for the most part) insightful, and pose serious questions to his take on the issue
Test
handy,
I've had a comment prepared since about 4 hours ago that for whatever reason just would not post. It included the observation that the definition of a recession is two down quarters in a row, and until we have those, everything published on the issue is an opinion.
I also had three links; one to CNN, quoting Bernanke and Paulson saying we do not have a recession, nor do they expect one to develop in 2008, one to the CEO of the Philadelphia Fed with a similar statement, and one to the Minneapolis Star Tribune with a similar assessment from their board of economists.
I found many more in the same vein, but as you know, we can only have three links per comment.
I'm not going to try to link to them again, as I suspect they were what made the software choke.
There is NO recession in the US, and I bet there won't be one. Tougher times maybe, but not the whole nine yards. This is the time for Americans to start doing what do they best - making a buck, and not from selling snake oil.
Manufacturing is the key here ... and US- manufactured products rank up there with the best in the world. I know which I'd sooner buy in comparison to many other nations' goods right now.
That's how the US economy can take full advantage of the lower dollar.
As for the Dems' trainwreck, all I want to know is when someone is actually going to really WIN something.
Your Republican President just initiated a truly moronic "Economic Stimulus Package" because of what? A fantasy? A fabrication of the left?
How about an election year and a desire to find a backdoor way to effectively cut taxes even more?
The housing meltdown is simply spin by the left? The losses of the NYSE and other global stock markets are all a dream? The exploding federal deficit is all just a plot by Democrats to discredit the current administration?
The federal deficit has no impact on the day to day welfare of the average American and its impacts on the larger economy are both positive and negative. As for the housing situation, it's hardly a meltdown. It's a reasonable regionalized retraction of the market and the fruit of poor practices among lenders. And the NYSE was obviously overvalued. It hasn't exactly crashed. Keep an eye on it. It's not going into a death spiral.
Offer a one time handout of eight to fifteen hundred dollars to the bottom 70% of American wage earners, as if it will actually make a difference to anybody. Fifteen hundred dollars to my wife, child, and I will not even show up on our balance sheet.
It's not a 'handout', it's returning to people money taken by the government - effectively acknowledging that the people can spend that money better than the government can.
What's the point? I'm watching and waiting, as are many Americans, for the housing market to bottom out (sometime in the next 12 months). With the inventory of houses on the market, it's going to be at least two years before the construction industry even thinks of starting up again.
And yet, construction continues all over the country, except in a few isolated areas. It may be growing less than it did a couple of years ago, but it's hardly shut down.
Banks are using the lower fed rate to try and build up their cash reserves. No passing these lower rates on to borrowers for at least six-eight months, and why would they bother, when home prices are likely to continue to drop in the meantime?
Good. Maybe they've learned something.
But hey, no one is thinking about the economy, or Iraq,
I didn't say no one was worrying about the economy. I think the fearmongering of the left has been quite effective. But except for a small body of extremists the war has definitely moved to the back burner.
Dave
Strange. I haven't read anyplace else about "Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary".
You're right, Bliffle. No one else has used my colorful title when they've written about this subject. Should that be surprising?
Dave
Seems to me most people are saying the dems have an abundance of riches with two promising candidates and a lot of dem voter enthusiasm. YMMV.
So this is the first exciting and invigorating Demo primary we've had in a good 2 decades at least, but it's a "trainwreck"? I think if anything this campaign has been good for the Dems.
Nik. Read the article before you comment, not just the title. It's only a trainwreck if insiders put Clinton on the head of the ticket instead of Obama, as many think is possible.
Dave
Bliffle. I want to urge you to go check out a transcript or video of yesterday's episode of Meet the Press - almost a week after I wrote this article. The first half of the show is taken up with Tim Russert and Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer discussing EXACTLY what I talk about in this article at great length.
I doubt they'd have talked about it for half an hour if it was just my fantasy.
Dave
Clibamccain for President!!!
What everybody misses in these discussions is that there's really no difference between these parties and these candidates. The political rhetoric is just pandering to different groups to get the numbers but they all serve the same masters.
Among Obama's largest contributors you find Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Jp Morgan - Chase and Citigroup. Clinton's major donors include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan - Chase, Lehman Brothers and Citigroup and McCain, who is of course the poster-child for campaign finance reform, has gotten most of his money from Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan - Chase and Credit Suisse.
Those who own this country will continue to do so and they don't care about abortion, flag-burning, war, gay marriage, affirmative action. They care about money and they're quite happy to let us fight over these insignificancies. While we do this, we're paying no attention to the man behind the curtain.
So, I'm voting for Clibamccain - and so are the rest of you.
Liberal: I'm conservative and I, too, see the same sickening lack of significant difference between the contenders the media has been supporting: Obama, McCain, Clinton.
Compare McClintAma's sources of support you listed to the top five contributors to Ron Paul's presidential campaign: Army, Navy, Air Force, Google, Microsoft. The support of the military for Ron Paul is key since he is the only truly anti-war candidate remaining in the race.
Contrast heavy support by the major Media industry to McClintAma to the support Ron Paul has from Google and Microsoft. Without the Internet, most people outside of his congressional district wouldn't even have heard any of Ron Paul's establishment-challenging ideas, despite his very successful fund-raising for his presidential campaign.
Incidentally, the monies from his presidential campaign are being kept separate from the funds to defend his congressional seat--as it is illegal to do otherwise. The newest rumor that is sweeping the blogosphere: "Ron Paul is running scared -- using his Presidential campaign's donors' money to subsidize a desperate last-minute attempt to save his Congressional seat." More lies, designed to smear a candidate who really would have provided---and is still providing--a voice for American voters who want a REAL alternative.
"Dave Nalle: "the war has definitely moved to the back burner." Sadly, I have to agree with you. Gay rights- promoters and their opponents seem to be generating an inordinate amount of passion by comparison. Look for politicians to cynically use and pander to both sides of the gay issue for the next several decades, just as they do with abortion and have been doing since the early 1970's.
As the "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers fade, calls from American servicemen being called up for a second tour of duty (and their families) are to the GI Rights Hotline for advice in leaving the military were being made at the rate of 3000 per month as of 2005. Moral objections of many soldiers were developed while they witnessed and were made to participate in what they considered unethical acts, such as attacks on civilians, during their first tours. Honorable discharges for personal reasons after first tours are also being ignored as calls are being made for second tours of duty.
You're wondering how Obama is going to fill the 15 million jobs he plans to create? I'm more curious about where the military is going to find the manpower for its next adventure in Iran--which Clinton and McCain definitely support and Obama has variously supported and not supported.
More from the "extremists" in uniform who still oppose the war.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/73837)
Dave, there's a lot of grim humor in this article. You don't mention the one position that Hillary would accept in exchange for an Obama Presidency, but I'm sure that you can figure it out.
Does anyone remember why the Dems have superdelegates? I seem to remember it was to make things fairer, to give the people more of a say. It was a table scrap tossed to Jesse Jackson, I think.