So Hillary Clinton has announced that she’s forming an exploratory committee to look into running for president.
I have several problems with this:
First of all, when she ran for Senator, she swore it wasn’t to position herself for a presidential run, but rather because she loved New York and wanted to serve its citizens. If she’d been in that position through, say, 2012, I might be convinced she saw the gig as something other than a means to an end. As it is, I feel as if she were here for the minimum amount of time necessary to establish some political cred. That’s a touch too manipulative for me.
Second, she’s come across to me as too mealy-mouthed and–there’s that word again–manipulative on various issues. Even her announcement about running isn’t firm and positive: She’s announced that she’s sticking her toe in the water. Say you’re in, say you’re out, but make a decision. It makes me think of Mr. Miyagi telling Daniel something like, “You karate yes, fine. You karate no, fine. You karate maybe, you get squished like grape.”
Third, I don’t think she’s electable. I just don’t. I don’t think she’ll play anywhere outside of large metropolitan areas, and even in some of those. I’m not sure Barack Obama is, either. I don’t think he’s got enough experience and, frankly, I still think there’s sizable pockets of this country that don’t put a black man in office (hëll, I grew up in the 1960s where assassination was the order of the day, so I’m worried some white supremacist is going to pop a cap in his head.)
As crazy as it sounds, I’d almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it. Hëll, Richard Nixon came back from a loss, and that wasn’t even an election where he won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike everyone else in the field, he’s got a six year track record of being actively involved in something other than trying to get office and stay in office. He’s been sounding the alert about serious problems this planet faces while the administration had its ears covered saying “la la la, I’m not listening.” What’s wrong with electing a man who has demonstrably been ahead of the curve on one of the gravest problems these next generations will face?
PAD
• 
I think most on this thread are really underestimating Governor Bill Richardson. I’m not sure who I’ll vote for yet but while everyone is taking shots at the A-listers, Richardson could pull something out of the bag early.
The first three contests, NH, NV, and Iowa taken as a group work best for Richardson in the early delegate count. Let me explain.
Of the three states NH (my home state) and Iowa put candidates through the retail politics wringer. You can’t just swoop in with a bag of money and buy air time and expect to win. You have to go door-to-door and convince eye-to-eye to win. Steve Forbes found this out in 1996 when he outspent everyone and came in fourth. When Steve looked people in the eye, they looked him in the smirk.
Not being perceived as a threat with a single digit poll margin, he will fly under the radar as the A-listers (like Hillary and Obama)pummel each other, and throw mud etc… Richardson won’t need a bag of money in those two states but he will need to work hard. Who is in the Guinness Book for the handshake record beating Teddy Roosevelt? Bill Richardson. He could come away as a positive alternative to “the Bickersons”.
That leaves NV, and as a bordering state Governor he will have more knowledge on which events to go to and which are a waste of time and money. His coffers will increase as people see him rise in the polls in NH and Iowa.
I mean it’s not fool-proof, but that’s how Carter, Clinton, and Reagan did it.
Why not Handshaking Bill?
–Captain Naraht.
P.S. If we’re writing our own Presidential tickets how about:
Bill Myers/Bill Mulligan 2008?
Mike can be White House Press Secretary!
Mike: Last year a study was done at a major university where subjects were bombarded randomly with ethnic imagery and the random invocation of virtues and vices. While some people were able to attribute favorable characteristics evenly among ethnicities evenly (establishing the standard for objectivity), most people demonstrated a bias favoring white males — including black and lesbian subjects. I can only imagine such a bias — where even blacks and lesbians default to trusting people who aren’t like them — is only more powerful when you don’t even acknowledge it exists.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have not established that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, for the simple reason that the comments on my part that prompted your responses had nothing to do with it.
I do acknowledge that it exists, specifically because I took that test online myself (assuming that the one you’re talking about is Harvard University’s Race Implicit Association Test). It showed that I slightly favor Europeans, and overweight people, both of which surprised me. It should also be pointed out that that test (which you can all take at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), makes a point about implicit, unconscious attitudes, rather than overt, fully conscious ones. (More on that point at: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-29.html.) It only stands to reason that even unconsciously, a person will tend to favor members of groups to which that person belongs, a point that is obviously not exclusive to whites. I don’t know why the results you cite would also hold for black subjects, but if you could furnish us with sources, please do so.
In any event, none of this refutes my statements about Obama, or even pertains to it. You saw a comment I made about race, and used it to begin a satellite thread about a different a completely different topic about which you seem to have a very self-righteous chip on your shoulder, launching into an attack upon my personal life, which I never brought up, even accusing me of basing my statements on “experience” and “optimism”, when my post made it explicitly clear that it was a statement on a matter of fact based on cited sources. For someone who extols the virtues of citations, it’s a bit surprising that you ignored this fact, instead choosing to respond with just attacks and assumptions about me and my life, without much citations of your own.
Mike: From the way you’ve framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees — from which they make their fûçkìņg huge profits — to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.
Luigi Novi: The point is that contrary to Czar’s comment, things would not necessarily be “okay” if Edwards gets elected. The point was not about how well insurance companies are doing their job.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?
Mike: What assertions are you referring to?
Luigi Novi: You disagreed with my statements about how the Census Bureau has projected that whites will be the minority by 2040-2050 by dismissing it as “optimism”. Where is your citation that that statement is not true, or for that matter, the citation upon which you established my state of mind? You also asserted that the university study on race demonstrated a bias towards whites even on the part of black subjects. Where is your citation for that?
Kelly: For everyone giggling over the idea of my cat helping me type, I offer you the following proof, from last week: Toledo helping me index an academic blog.
Luigi Novi: Geez. I’m happy that I can just get Elsa to use the litter box and stop scratching up the house. And just a minute or two after I wrote this, she jumped into my lap and started rubbing her face on the lower right-hand “Enter” key, causing spaces to appear between the different paragraphs. Now why can’t you be helpful like Toledo, Elsa?!
Rob Brown: Actually I was referring to how a briefcase containing his campaign strategy was lost by his people, found by somebody else, and leaked. At the time it happened, it sounded as though it had hurt his chances quite a bit.
Luigi Novi: Oh yeah. I had forgotten about that.
Jerome Maida: The Clintons have made a political killing by destroying their opponents.
Luigi Novi: Like who?
100% agreed. Hil and Barak just aren’t electable outside of the more liberal areas of our country and don’t have the experience necessary for the highest office in the land. And Al Gore does. Furthermore, he’ll be running without the bad taste (no pun intended) of the Monicagate debacle in America’s collective mouth.
What bugs me is that the votes in the midterm elections were barely counted and already nearly a dozen candidates declared themselves running or at least thinking about running.
I think a mandatory cooling off period should be in order.
That said, I think all of the major candidates on both sides (Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giulliani, etc) all have major strengths and major weaknesses. It’s far too soon to predict who will win and who isn’t electable. A lot can change in 2 years, but going just with my gut, I’d say that while we will have a woman president one day, it won’t be Hillary Clinton for several obvious reasons.
I’m theorizing the tape was made months ago and just now released. (Shades of the cave guy!)
I think it’s been well established that the tape was made a week or two ago. The outside background may well be fake but that’s no big deal these days–background is routinely tweaked for effect. Better a nice flowery garden than some goof in a snowjacket holding a “Bababooey” poster.
Captain Naraht–haven’t really heard a lot from Richardson to form much of an opinion one way or another. If Obama stays in the race to the end he will have to be very careful not to encourage a black/Latino split–the party can ill afford any in-fighting.
Bill Myers/Bill Mulligan 2008?
Heh. Myers will be sleeping very unsoundly. Be a real shame if something were to happen to him…
I took the Harvard test and it claimed I showed a slight preference for African-Americans. I think the results are skewed by the order that the test is given–a lot of it depends on reaction time and you just get better at it as time goes on. I’m a bit dubious of the validity of these things.
And Al Gore does. Furthermore, he’ll be running without the bad taste (no pun intended) of the Monicagate debacle in America’s collective mouth.
Not to keep harping on this but Gore says he isn’t running. And every day more money and skilled campaigners are being tied up by other candidates who are running. If there is no change in his position, and fast, he has to be taken out of the potential pool.
I don’t know whether to believe this guy or not, but he did predict that the current pope would pick the name Benedict
http://www.catholicplanet.com/future/next-prolife.htm
Let me refer to the following as Statement A:
As a standalone statement, Statement A is reasonable. Jim Crow-era laws ended in the US 40 years ago. The handicapping influence of a defunct institution has to end sometime. The same for slavery which ended a century earlier.
Let me refer to the following as Statement B:
You’re comparing the legal descrimination of denying you services, of what are for most people the largest purchases of their lives, because of inadequate funds — to the illegal descrimination of denying the same services based on skin color.
You’re unambiguously trying to paint something unfair as fair.
There might be someone who can reconcile the premise behind Statement A with the fixed games presented as fair minorities are subject to. That person simply isn’t you.
(This is why I don’t buy the Free Market Kool Aid™ anymore — it depends on presenting fixed games as fair.)
I took the section I bolded in Section A to be the substantial part of it, and I meant to refer to that specifically. I do not deny your census stats.
And the only assertion I made about your state of mind was that you had one. If you don’t have a state of mind, I won’t challenge your word you don’t.
I refer to the NPR interview with a representative of the study. I don’t have a link, but she unambiguosly said blacks and women were likely to hold a white patriarchal bias, which she admitted she also held.
Thank you for admitting your white bias. I don’t so much have a problem with bias than I do the pretense of fairness that shelters and denies bias. It’s the deliberation that separates casual bias from racism. I hope I can count on you not to present something unfair as fair, as it has now been made obvious to you.
By deliberation, I mean the quality or state of being deliberate, not the act of deliberating.
Mike: As a standalone statement, Statement A is reasonable.
Luigi Novi: Except that it wasn’t made as a “standalone” statement. It was one sentence in an entire paragraph made in response to Peter’s claim that Obama might not get elected because of racist pockets in the country, and his fear that a white supremacist may try to assassinate him. Taking that statement out of context is irrelevant.
Mike: You’re comparing the legal descrimination of denying you services, of what are for most people the largest purchases of their lives, because of inadequate funds — to the illegal descrimination of denying the same services based on skin color. You’re unambiguously trying to paint something unfair as fair.
Luigi Novi: No, I’m not comparing them, since they have nothing to do with one another. You’ve simply misread my statement, and the intended meaning behind it. I responded to your statement that I’m “privileged” by virtue of my skin color by pointing out that skin color is not the only variable that determines one’s future, and pointed out, as an example, that being white did not pave a golden road to an ideal housing situation, because other variables (which you do not take into account) are present. Only in your Straw Man argument were situational obstacles and illegal discrimination being “compared”. If this point of mine is still not clear, then let me rephrase it, using the original statement by you, and a revised response on my part:
Mike: For another, you don’t have to worry about housing brokers losing interest in serving you based your skin color, or car salesmen charging you more based on the same.
Luigi Novi: Maybe not: But there are other variables in life that may prevent me from having an ideal life. Being white may give me an advantage, but that’s just one variable. There are others that may keep me in the same position—or worse—than you.
If I did not convey the point that I intended when I originally responded, then I apologize.
Mike: And the only assertion I made about your state of mind was that you had one.
Luigi Novi: The assertion that you made was that my statement to Peter was based on “experience” and “optimism”, rather than observation and citable facts. Those were your words, and optimism is indeed a state of mind, as is basing an opinion on experinece. Again, as soon as you can establish that I was based my statements on these things, please do so.
Mike: I don’t so much have a problem with bias than I do the pretense of fairness that shelters and denies bias. It’s the deliberation that separates casual bias from racism. I hope I can count on you not to present something unfair as fair, as it has now been made obvious to you.
Luigi Novi: It has not been made obvious. I have not engaged in any pretense, deliberate or otherwise, nor have I presented anything unfair as fair. I made the meaning behind my mention of my housing situation clear, and while I’m willing to concede the possibility that it was not clear in the original post, I have further clarified it. Rather than make a similar concession that perhaps you misread it, you just arbitrarily assumed a dishonest motive or fallacious bit of reasoning on my part, rather than allow for other possibilities. That’s unfortunate. But for my part, I’ve already established a reputation among the more respected visitors here for approaching these discussions and honesty and good faith. By contrast, you assume the worst interpretations of my words, and don’t even bother verifying them by asking me about them, which says more about your state of mind than anything in my posts. If you want to arbitrarily convince yourself of this in order to satisfy predilection towards enmity or paranoia, or some chip on your shoulder, go right ahead.
Peace, Mike.
Luigi Novi: I’ve already established a reputation among the more respected visitors here for approaching these discussions and honesty and good faith.
Bill Myers: For what it’s worth, I’ve always admired your commitment to rational discourse and find myself looking forward to your posts.
Jerome Maida –
Ford’s legacy grew in the years he left office and he worked with Carter on several things, to say nothing of his wife’s famous rehab center.
Honestly, I completely forgot about the Betty Ford Clinic.
Bush Sr. has, among other things, been working with his former rival Clinton on many things.
He made a commercial with Clinton for the tsunami, and he made an appearance with his wife after Katrina, an appearance he probably regrets.
I don’t see him out there making speeches about the things that can be done to help the world and so forth. He mostly just sits at the ranch.
It’s been a pretty big case of doing whatever possible to stay out of the public eye. And I guess I just prefer my former presidents to be keeping busy and showing that they actually gave a dámņ about their country, rather than just their legacy, ala Bush Jr.
Reagan, obviously, can be excused from the conversation, but by comparison, it just doesn’t seem like Bush Sr and Ford (in more recent years) pale in comparison to the fact that Carter and Clinton are going to be out there until the day they each die.
Captain Naraht –
I think most on this thread are really underestimating Governor Bill Richardson.
Well, if that’s the case, then Vilsack has just as good a chance as anybody as well, since he’s from Iowa. 🙂
But then, like Vilsack, nobody really knows Richardson and what he’s done to date.
You asked me for a privilege being white has afforded you, and now you’ve affirmed that I’ve given you one. Thank you.
Why should I allow for any other interpretation than mine — when you admitted to a white bias?
(Again, I’m not challenging casual bias, only the deliberate sheltering of bias by pretense or denial.)
I agree with you that both Clinton and Obama are not electable. Alas, specifically because they are female and black, respectively. I think that there are vast swaths of the country — of both parties — would will not now or ever vote for a non-white, non-male for President. There are probably a fair number of Democrats who would simply not vote rather than have to vote for someone like that; I don’t think they would switch parties and vote for the other side, though.
Hillary has her own issues beyond being female as well, of course.
My prediction is Bill Richardson. Not because I know anything about him, but because he’s a governor. All these senators running for President… you have to go back 40 years, to Kennedy, to get a president who was not previously a governor or a vice-president, to get someone who didn’t in theory already have experience in the vein needed for the role. (And thus I’ll put up Guiliani for the Republican candidate. Mayor of New York is close enough to governor for the experience level, I think.)
On further consideration, I simply don’t know what your grievance is here.
Here’s your original reply:
I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn’t like that interpretation so you rephrased.
So why the drama?
I’m not sure if the normal “rules” will apply to this election. Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity. Jim and others have pointed out that senators seldom go far in these things. All perfectly valid but this is an election like no other and anyone who treats it as such might be making a huge tactical error.
The time when Americans more or less passively watched these things unfold before them is over. With the internet they can find out more about a candidate than they ever could from a segment on the nightly news. If the candidate makes a mistake it is all over youtube, forever, along with the remixed version set to rap and a half dozen flash animations starring the candidate along with badgers and the Star Wars Kid. (Just ask former senator Allen).
That certainly adds volatility to the mix. At the same time the money involved has gone through the roof. The Federal Election Commission Chairman said that this one will have a 100 million dollar entry fee and I suspect he’s right. It gets hard to imagine someone at 1% now being able to raise $100,000,000.
It also seems to me, from a casual glance, that the Democratic Party has a more web savvy approach than the Republican Party. That may also mean that if any of the Republican candidates can close this gap they may put themselves in a good position to squeak ahead in the nomination race.
.
.
Al Gore for President. Howard Dean for Vice President.
Then the Republicans could run on the slogan:
.
.
GORE-DEAN NOT!
.
.
Gordian Knot—Get it?
.
.
Bill Myers: For what it’s worth, I’ve always admired your commitment to rational discourse and find myself looking forward to your posts.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, Bill. 🙂
Luigi Novi: Luigi Novi: Maybe not: But there are other variables in life that may prevent me from having an ideal life. Being white may give me an advantage, but that’s just one variable. There are others that may keep me in the same position—or worse—than you.
Mike: (Quoting only the first sentence of the above): You asked me for a privilege being white has afforded you, and now you’ve affirmed that I’ve given you one. Thank you.
Luigi Novi: Whether you acknowledge or respond to it or not, my point remains the same: That being white is only one variable out of many (which I’ve never denied), and does not, in and of itself, afford me a “privileged” life, inasmuch as I’ve made it clear that I do not have one. Instead of refuting this point, or even responding to it honestly, you’ve now decided to edit out the entire remaining section of the passage, and reacting with the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “La-la-la-la-la…”, in order to completely ignore the point.
Mike: Why should I allow for any other interpretation than mine — when you admitted to a white bias?
Luigi Novi: Why should you allow for any other interpretation than yours? Well, two reasons. First, maybe because the passage in question was made by me, so the only one who can give the original intent behind it is, um, you know, the person who actually made it. How exactly your interpretation of it can be as accurate as mine, I don’t know.
Second, because, as I pointed out above, my admission that I may have the same types of biases that everyone has was not the point of the passage in question, but in a different portion of the thread. The original passage—the one that you misinterpreted—was the one in which I pointed out that I did not have a very good housing situation or a car, which you interpreted as an comparison between illegal discrimination and circumstantial obstacles. I clarified this above by pointing out that it was a way to underscore the point that skin color is one of many variables that determine your living conditions. That original point was made in my 10:55am post today. You responded to that passage with the misinterpreted meaning in your 2:48pm post. The post I then made in which you say I “admitted my white bias”, didn’t occur until 3:57pm post. So how exactly you could justify your misinterpretation at the time—and the refusal to consider any others at the time you expressed it, by perhaps asking me what my intent was—in light of a statement that didn’t occur until over an hour later, I don’t know.
Mike: Again, I’m not challenging casual bias, only the deliberate sheltering of bias by pretense or denial.
Luigi Novi: So you assert that I’ve “admitted” a white bias, but then continue to insist that I’m “sheltering” or “denying” it?
Mike: I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn’t like that interpretation so you rephrased.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say that I didn’t like that interpretation. I said that it was wrong.
……
I have attempted to allow for the possibility that whatever misunderstanding you and I were experiencing, that you were approaching my posts in good faith. But it’s clear with your last post above that you are not. Like every other flamer, troll and paralogist, you are deliberately and knowingly dishonest, conducting yourself not with civility, intelligence and sincerity, but by distorting and manipulatively editing other people’s words, assuming sinister intentions rather than showing intellectual curiosity by asking people for their intended meaning, attempting to portray statements made in one portion of a thread to have been made in a completely different one, and then having the temerity to accuse others of “pretense”. By behaving in this way, you reveal yourself as a willful liar, an intellectually bankrupt hypocrite, and an abject coward.
You’re shrouded.
I can see the slogans now:
“Hillary Clinton: Closer to Being a Woman Than Obama is to Being Black”
It’s clear that I’m dishonest. And in my last post too.
What was my deception, exactly? That you actually did like my interpretation? Where did you say you liked my interpretation?
If it’s clear that I’m dishonest — from my last post — you should have no problem pointing out my deception again.
Please cite an example.
If we can’t take you at your word — why are you here?
I said the text you are responding to to keep my agenda clear — as opposed to the deceitful agenda you ascribe to me. It wasn’t directed at you, so I enclosed it in parentheses.
Why did you — who are holding me to the standard of truthfulness — feel the need to misrepresent what I said by removing the parentheses?
When you say my last post was dishonest, Luigi, will you please do me the courtesy of actually reading it?
When I said I reconsidered your post I was replying to — because I don’t know what your grievance is — I submitted an updated reply:
What… is… your… problem…?
I wish I could feel certain the HTML typo in the previous post is obvious in comparison to the original, but since I can’t be certain Luigi will review my post he based his accusation of dishonesty on, I feel compelled to post the text in the correct formatting:
I haven’t decided yet if I’m going to vote in the next American presidential elections. I did it last time, but with much hesitation. I’m legally entitled to do it, since I have an American passport, but I do not live in the US, so is it right to vote? I’m not sure.
In any case, it is interesting to hear different attitudes toward the candidates. If I do decide to vote, I would have to become more informed about them.
There’s something encouraging about the fact that a woman and a black man are seriously considered for the job. Many here are concerned that maybe the electorate in the US is still not ready. I don’t know. Maybe now finally is the time. There has to be a first time. And there is something problematic about delaying it over and over because of fear.
I’ve seen a bit of Obama. He seems to have a certain Kenedy-esque charisma. And charisma seems to be worth a lot in presidential elections. I’m also impressed by the way he seems to talk not only about what’s wrong but about what can be done to make it better. Hope is very important at this stage. It’s been a lousy decade, and I personaly could use some hope. I realize that the lack of experience is a problem. I wonder how he’ll address it? Will he look for an LBJ-like running mate to address this weakness? Then again, after Bush people may feel that experience is more important than they did in the past. It will be interesting to see how far can charisma take Obama.
I know governors have had an advantage on senators. Probably because they are perceived as having executive experience? But don’t senators have more experience in dealing with foreign policy?
Hilary is an interesting candidate. She seems lacking in charisma, but she has been able to become popular — it would seem — in New York. Will se ba able to replicate it in other places, or is the deep-seated dislike for her just too strong.
Robertson seems to have a very good resume for a candidate — governor, cabinet member, experience in foreign policy. But does he have that personable quality that won the elections for Clinton and Bush. After Kerry, democrats might feel that voting for the person they instinctually like, might be better than voting to the person that looks good on paper.
I also like Al Gore as a candidate. His focus on ecology is appealing. It is about time that this issue will become a serious part of politics and not just an issue for a green minority. It was quite unfortunate that at the time when two global threats — global warming and Islamic radicalism — came to the foreground, the most powerful person in the world did not have the abilities or the inclination to deal with them correctly. A Gore-Obama ticket may be appealing. Of course for that Gore has to run. Maybe if he is pushed to run by public opinion? Has he been able to address the handicap that lost him (narrowly) the 2000 elections?
As for the Republicans, they will probably try to present their candidate as someone possessing all the goodness of conservativism without the baggage associated with Bush. Can it work? After all, conservative attitudes are strongly rooted in the US. Also, I think Kerry lost partially because although Iraq already seemed pretty bad in 2004, the Democrats were not perceived as offering an appealing alternative to Americans concerned about terror. Will the avarage American now feel more confident about voting for liberal candidates?
One thing about McCain. He seems to support an even greater surge in Iraq than Bush does. Considering the unpopularity of the war, isn’t he taking a great political risk? Could this be considered courage on his part?
———————–
Luigi, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It has a picture of a man slamming his head into a brick wall. You can have one at the color of your choice.
————————
About the Jimmy Carter thing. When an ex-president who is supposed to be a great dioplomat parrots bad Palestinian propaganda, it is quite disappointing, even if it is not motivated by antisemitism. Not being an antisemite is nice, but not enough. In this conflict you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution. Bush is part of the problem and now so is Carter.
Here is a colmn about this from somebody who has similar positions to mine on this issues more or less:
http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/2006/12/carters-palestine-israel-book-its-even.html
Matt Adler,
Do you really find it unthinkable that Hillary already has people digging up dirt on Obama?
‘Twasn’t me that said that. But do I find it unthinkable? I rarely find anything in politics unthinkable. Do I think it’s likely? Well, the biggest argument against it is the backlash Hillary would get if it were discovered. So right now I think it’s slightly more unlikely than likely, but you never know.
However, it’s my opinion that anyone who votes in favour of DRM (or the Pro-Bono Copyright Act, a few years back, when the Bono part was still alive) is (A) putting himself in the position of King Canute, suggesting poor political judgement or (B) suggesting strongly that he is being well-paid by Corporate America. [(C) All of the Above, is also a possibility…]
I think it certainly suggests he gets contributions from some corporations, but that’s true of all major politicians, and Corporate America isn’t monolithic. All things considered, I’d rather someone be in the pocket of Time Warner than Halliburton or Philip Morris.
Robertson seems to have a very good resume for a candidate — governor, cabinet member, experience in foreign policy.
I’m going to assume you meant Richardson. For moment I actually thought you were talking about Pat Robertson and I think a little piece of me died inside. 🙂
Ig Gore (or anyone else) is waiting for popular opinion to push him into running…I hope he has a comfy chair and some nice DVDs. Gonna be a long wait.
(I recommend Mr Gore–and you all–run out and get the Criterion Collection reconstruction of SPARTACUS–one of my all time favorites, looking better than it has in 40 years.)
Yes, Richardson, got confused.
Don’t you think Obama was pushed to run now at least patially by public opinion, or at least by certain people who felt that there is an opportunity for a black candidate now?
Yeah, the guy you linked to? I don’t think he can be taken at his word.
Carter isn’t encouraging terrorism.
Anyone familiar with Nelson Mandela’s history knows the South African government went to him and asked him to publicly denounce the ANC terrorism. Mandela refused, replying that as an incarcerated man, he isn’t in a position to ask anything of anyone.
If Carter believes the comparison to apartheid applies, then, just as he would have couseled Mandela to assure the South African government he will denounce the terrorism of the ANC if they free him, he is couseling the Palestinians to give assurances they will renounce terrorism if Israel relents whatever the hëll the Palestinians claim is oppressing them.
You’re welcome to help him find the deceit he accused me of. You Can Be First.™
Don’t you think Obama was pushed to run now at least patially by public opinion, or at least by certain people who felt that there is an opportunity for a black candidate now?
Yes, you’re correct, but Obama actually HAS a degree of popular support. Gore at 10% just isn’t getting it. Now admittedly, it’s possible that if he DID decide to run more people would flock to him…but I don’t really see it. As I’ve pointed out, Democrats are not big on second chances. Gore is not the pariah that Dukakis is, they’ll allow him to speak at the convention and he might even get a role in a new Democratic administration–maybe expand the Office of Homeland security to include global warming?–but I think his chance has passed and I think he knows it.
There seems to be a hunger for a new face–which, ironically could count against Hillary, I suppose. Strange that a person could be simultaneously groundbreaking and establishment butthese are strange times.
If Obama runs, Hillary has got to be his assination insurence, much like Ðìçk Chaney to George Bush. Even the wackiest wack jobs dont try to pop a shot at him, concidering no one want Vader himself in charge.
Huh! The ABC-WaPo poll:
Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken before her announcement, and after Obama’s Jan. 16 campaign kickoff.
Strikingly, Clinton did even better among black Democratic voters, amassing a 26-point lead over Obama.
So…Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.
It’s consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. Kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.
Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents
I think it just goes to show that Hillary isn’t as polarizing to the Democratic voting bloc as many like to think.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
According to a New Orleans attorney i know, backs on juries are more likely to convict black dfendants than are whites – because blacks who wind upon juries are likely to be upper-middle- to upper-class professionals who see black criminals as making the whole black community look bad.
Perhaps the blacks who say that they support Hillary over Obama are figuring that blacks in politics will take less of a hit if a white woman crashes and burns than if a black man does.
Posted by: Mike
Nah.
Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?
“But, Da – Fadder Reilly’s a papist!”
“Right – I’m doin’ a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us.”
As i said above, maybe the blacks simply figure that, in a pioneering situation, it’s better for a white woman to get shot out of the saddle than a black man.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
According to a New Orleans attorney i know, backs on juries are more likely to convict black dfendants than are whites – because blacks who wind upon juries are likely to be upper-middle- to upper-class professionals who see black criminals as making the whole black community look bad.
Perhaps the blacks who say that they support Hillary over Obama are figuring that blacks in politics will take less of a hit if a white woman crashes and burns than if a black man does.
Posted by: Mike
Nah.
Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?
“But, Da – Fadder Reilly’s a papist!”
“Right – I’m doin’ a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us.”
As i said above, maybe the blacks simply figure that, in a pioneering situation, it’s better for a white woman to get shot out of the saddle than a black man.
Maybe they actually prefer Hillary to Obama because they prefer Hillary to Obama. The assumption that they shoould do otherwise seems somewhat paternalistic. White voters are expected to vote for the person they feel is best qualified but if Black voters exercise the same level of judgement they are somehow guilty of bias.
Until evidence to the contrary shows up I see no reason to assume the worst of African-American voters simply for choosing a white candidate over a black one.
As for the idea that they may be reluctant to see a black man try and fail…possibly, there was talk of that among Jewish circles during Lieberman’s run for VP in 2000 but ultimately it didn’t amount to much. Having Obama run, even if he loses, will be an indication of black political power, not weakness.
New classes start today, it will be interesting to get a feel from my students what they think and what their parents have been saying.
Maybe I’m just naive, but why can’t people just elect Barack or Hillary or Al or whøëvërŧhëfûçk based on their track record?
Am I an idealist, or just stupid?
Even after seven season of The West Wing and a girlfriend who was a polisci major, I still don’t understand what the flap is about. Look at the person’s record, what they’ve done for good or ill, and elect them based on that. It doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter if they’re black, white, yellow, male, female, herm, Antarean, or what. If they have the best interests of the people at heart, give them the job.
Far too many politicians are in there to make money. They don’t give a šhìŧ about their constituents. The ones who do care get run outta town real fast. And the crooks who are in it to get and stay elected have been around forever. Watch any of the film versions of The Front Page if you don’t believe me.
Nobody reads Santayana.
Must go. Need coffee.
Miles
Antareans can be elected president. It’s in teh constitution.
They could be elected governor of California and anecdotal evidence says they have been.
Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?
“But, Da – Fadder Reilly’s a papist!”
“Right – I’m doin’ a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us.”
Considering the IRA is made up of almost entirely Catholic separatists (ie, “papists”), your joke makes no sense whatsoever.
I never denied support for Hillary is sincere. I just said blacks prefering Hillary over Obama to a higher degree than whites is consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. And that it’s kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.
Ig Gore (or anyone else) is waiting for popular opinion to push him into running…I hope he has a comfy chair and some nice DVDs. Gonna be a long wait.
But is he going to be waiting on a desert Island with a really long extension cord? 🙂
Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity.
A question I’ve been asking for a long time now. I still say that it’s far too early to either annoint a frontrunner or declare someone “unelectable” because they’re (pick one) black, a woman, inexperienced, polarizing, etc.
Hillary is a shrewd campaigner. Who knows? She could surprise everyone or she could crash and burn as she becomes everyone’s target in the primary. Obama’s decisions to run is without doubt heavily influenced by the rising wave of popularity his charisma is generating. As a governor, Richardson might have a better shot at running as a Washington outsider. I’d have to say that a Richardson/Obama ticket would be a powerful combo.
I understand why people have reservations about Hilary. But what is it that caused her to become a forerunner (at this early stage) to begin with? I haven’t been following US politics close enough, so I don’t really know what she’s done lately.
Hillary is being less than truthful again? Surprise, surprise.
Because a president who is a minority, a woman, or vulnerable to mischaractizations he took credit for inventing the internet, is a challenge to the pretense of invulnerability most people hold dear — dear enough for men to sacrifice their own marriages over, and dear enough for even blacks and lesbians to display a bias in favor of a white patriarchy.
Re: Hillary Clinton’s apparent lead over Barack Obama among blacks.
This is a *good* thing by any measure. Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, has a tremendous amount of good will among minorities. It would be discouraging to me, at least, if a political relationship of about 15 years could be lost or ignored simply because Obama is black.
Can Obama shift the tide? Sure. But he will have to prove himself.
Also, someone had mentioned whether it would be easier for a white woman to win the presidency as opposed to a black man. My opinion is that — excluding the banjo-picking, Klan members — Joe Average Middle American is more inclined to publically state that he has a problem with a female president than with a black president. Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks. Yes, I know that most white women aren’t going to be accidentally shot by the cops any time soon but in this area, I think women would have it tougher than blacks. Keep in mind that most of the negative black stereotypes are hard to pin on Obama — he’s obviously not lazy, dangerous, and so on. However, we’ve already heard rumblings about whether Hillary has what it takes to be commander and chief of the military and so on.
And now for something completely different (unless I missed a similar post in the previous 141 posts; sigh)…
When I first read the last paragraph…
As crazy as it sounds, I’d almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it. Hëll, Richard Nixon came back from a loss, and that wasn’t even an election where he won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike everyone else in the field, he’s got a six year track record of being actively involved in something other than trying to get office and stay in office. He’s been sounding the alert about serious problems this planet faces while the administration had its ears covered saying “la la la, I’m not listening.” What’s wrong with electing a man who has demonstrably been ahead of the curve on one of the gravest problems these next generations will face?
…I have to admit I lost track of who “he” was, which lead to the frightful thought…
ZOMBIE NIXON’S BACK!!!
A-heh. … >coff
We now return to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.
Craig J. Ries Stated “Reagan, obviously, can be excused from the conversation,”
No, he shouldn’t. Say what you will about Reagan as president. Love him, hate him, analyze his term in office. But Reagan was one of the more lazy ex-presidents. The only thing he did after the White House was a multi million dollar speaking tour. As much as I disagreed with Bush Sr the President, Bush Sr the EX-President beats Reagan hands down. He’s one of those old-school, charity-without-flash conservatives who you never see doing public service unless he’s working with the very flashy Bill Clinton.
Then Craig stated [regarding Bill Richardson being underestimated]: “Well, if that’s the case, then Vilsack has just as good a chance as anybody as well, since he’s from Iowa. But then, like Vilsack, nobody really knows Richardson and what he’s done to date.”
Good point about what each Governor has done. That’s the difference between Vilsak and Richardson. Richardson has White House and international experience that Vilsak sorely lacks. These early primaries will allow every candidate to work on a grass roots level using little money (except in NV.) Put these two Governors in an NH living room for coffee with 40 people and Richardson will look far more charming and presidential.
Besides that, Iowa and NH look poorly on “favorite son” types who attempt taking advantage of the primary system. Just Google or Wiki US Senator Bob Smith’s (R-NH) unsuccessful Independent bid for president in 1996. He was rewarded with facing John Sununu Jr in the Republican primary in 2002. He lost.
Bill Mulligan: “I’m not sure if the normal “rules” will apply to this election. Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity.”
This too is probably the right way to go. At this time in 1976 and 1980, no one thought Reagan or Carter had a chance either, and a slim victory in the NH primary caused LBJ to not seek another term as President.
The reason why the Iowa Caucus and NH Primary are so important is their ability to weed out the Potomac Fever types who just wanna buy air time (i.e. Richard Gephardt). After fifty years of this Iowa and NH are pretty savvy about demanding details from candidates.
My only problem with the process is both states lack of ethnic diversity. To counter that I propose that the D.C Caucus should be held the Saturday after the NH primary. While candidates could certainly buy a lot of airtime, they would also be able to travel short distances and would have to campaign by meeting people face to face–just like in NH and Iowa.
–Captain Naraht
“Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks”
What? There’s any kind of prejudice that’s acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?
I truly hope this isn’t a widely held view. Prejudice against gays vis a vis marriage limitations may be tolerated and allowed in some areas at the moment, but I’d hardly say that it’s accepted.
Practiced, perpetuated, existing, yes, to all three. But accepted? Hardly.
Captain Naraht –
No, he shouldn’t.
Well, maybe it’s just me, but if I found out tomorrow that I had Alzheimer’s, I’d be giving the world the finger so I could enjoy what time I’ve got left.
It’s a horrible disease that nobody should have to deal with, and I can’t blame anybody suffering from it from shying away from the public eye.
Late to the party as usual. Any cold drinks left? Ðámņ.
Hillary and Obama each have something in common here and it’s the kind of thing that will hurt their chances over time rather then help them. People are seeing more in them then what’s actually there.
Hillary is a familiar face and she’s associated with, for many, the “good times” before President Chimp came along. I really doubt that most people beyond the Tri-State area could really tell you the first thing she stands for other then health care issues. People are just pouring what they want to see in a candidate into her. Hëll, I run across people out there who like Hillary because she voted against the war and will fix Bush’s mess there. No, that’s not a typo.
By early 2008, Hillary will be taking public stands on many subjects that people may not agree with and her record on things like the war will become well known to even the densest of her present supporters. Knowledge is going to fill in the blanks that people have in what they “know” about her and she may lose support because of it.
Obama has the same problem, times three, for the opposite reason. He’s a new face, a new hope, that people know almost nothing about. Ask the average guy on the street who says that he likes Obama what Obama actually stands for. Odds are that you’ll get regurgitated PR puff from the cable news shows or nonsensical stuff about new ideas and the future. They just project what they want most from a candidate onto his blank slate.
It’s kind of like that rigged poll question that many on the left loved to use against Bush back in 2003. They would ask who you backed in the upcoming election and give one of the choices as an “unknown” Democrat opponent to Bush. Well, “unknown” was kicking Bush’s butt by huge margins every time the poll was done. And why not? “Unknown” got to be the perfect candidate for each person being polled. I think that’s what people are doing with Obama, even more so then with Hillary, now.
That blank slate will also hurt Obama with the moderates that might vote for him but don’t follow politics in any detailed or serious way. The Republican Noise Machine (RNM) is already ramping up hard and heavy with anti-Obama falsehoods. Fox News has been reporting some nice whoppers about him and his past as absolute fact, the talk radio crowd is following suite and Joe Average on the street is already asking about his “extreme Muslim upbringing.”
Yeah, you can say that facts will win out in the end. I just don’t subscribe to that idea with the general public. I was still hearing certain Swift Boat falsehoods about Kerry being discussed as fact by the general public months after seeing their head guys get backed into corners on various political chat shows and admit that they were “in error” with some of their personal recollections and materials in their book. They lied. They admitted to lying. But the RNM kept banging away with the admitted lies and people kept pointing to them as facts. Granted, this wasn’t helped one bit by Kerry and his attitude in general.
Hillary may be somewhat immune to the RNM this go around. What are they going to bring up? White Water? Cattle futures? Her book deal? Bill’s peccadilloes? Lesbian rumors? Old news from garbage scandals. I don’t think that any of them will play like they did in the 90’s and they’d have a problem coming up with anything new that might play like this crap used to. Granted, Fox News and the radio guys will likely do what they do best and just make something up, but that won’t play as well as it did ten years ago.
They only thing that I can see them trying to hit Hillary with right now is her abandoning her commitment to New York with an 2008 presidential run. Yeah, I can’t see that as being much of a kill shot either. Most people outside of New York won’t care and anybody who does care is just going to be looked at like a fool. I’m sorry, but how naive do you really have to be to think that Hillary wasn’t a) using New York as her stepping stone and b) heading for the White House in 2008. Most of last Saturday’s SNL Hardball skit was crap, but they nailed that topic dead on.
“What? There’s any kind of prejudice that’s acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?”
Of course there is. Trek geeks who don’t have the intelligence and good taste to admit that B-5 and/or Farscape were better shows then 90% of modern Trek deserve the persecution that they get, people who say that Red Dwarf isn’t funny should rightly be treated as second class citizens and fans of the films of Uwe Boll should be shunned and segregated from the rest of society for the greater good.