well, we have plenty of obama supporters who still believe drudge's debunked lie that he got the somali dress photo from the clinton camp; so, why not drudge's bff? if it takes a swipe at the clintons, it must be true! i'm just surprised we haven't yet seen jerry falwell's video about the clintons posted on "liberal' blogs...
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 05:39 PMeRiposte, I was hoping for an involved post on bu$h torture... instead...
Posted by Seven of Six at April 10, 2008 06:11 PMI would be surprised if Obama wins 10 states in the fall, and if he wins only 1 or 2, that seems about right. The bubble the Obamaphants have put around him worked well for a while, but now he seems to me that if nominated, he will be the weakest candidate in 40 years. He has NOTHING to offer but puffery.
By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases. h/t susie at suburban guerrilla via corrente
Democrats treated other Democrats justly I guess. Well it's in the rules...they make this okay. And to those who wants to say Clinton has done it too, she has only purged 50 to Obama's 900. Read it Seven, enable him some more with your support. He doesn't stand by his words
Posted by peter at April 10, 2008 07:56 PMGeorge W. Bush - The Most Competent President In Modern Times...At least that is the conclusion one could comfortably arrive at based on the Deep ThoughtsTM of some Obama bloggers and supporters,
You have absolutely lost your fucking mind. You need a long break from this blogging stuff. You should maybe think about getting back to your "cut-n-paste"(TM) analyses when your mind has healed.
Good God, what a fucking dork.
Posted by phidipides at April 10, 2008 08:16 PM...and in the meantime, McBush has erased Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.
Where has this supposedly incompetent Bush administration failed in its objectives?
Tax cuts: check.
Invasion of Iraq/overthrow of Saddam: check.
Gutting of the EPA: check.
Politicisation of the DOJ: check.
Demonisation of the "Democrat" Party/liberals: check.
Punishment of opponents (Plame): check.
Rewarding of supporters (Libby): check.
Expansion of executive powers: check.
Congress converted into rubber stamp: check.
K-street contributions laundering machine: check.
Financial deregulation: check.
Second term: check.
and lots more. The only high-priority task they failed to bring off was the privatisation of Social Security to reward their financial friends in Wall Street, and that was a close-run thing.
That list of achievements strikes me as proof of a competent Republican Party A-team at work. Of course that's not what the Republicans who voted for them wanted -- they were looking for fiscal responsibility, good government, sensible foreign policy, stable currency, higher wages etc. but sadly for them they were deceived by spin and flag-waving after the events of 9/11.
Sadly, Senator Clinton's campaign team (which is, I suspect, actually the DLC's campaign team with Senator Clinton as the high-visibility figurehead) is just not up to the GOP's first-string team in even getting the nomination nailed down.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at April 11, 2008 03:37 AMActually, I believe there are some striking similarities between Clinton's campaign and at least one aspect of the Bush administration - the war in Iraq.
Both Clinton and Bush:
• Assumed victory would be easy
• Were caught off-balance when events didn't unfold as expected
• Had no back-up plan
• Placed loyalty above competence
• Used lies to deceive people into supporting their cause
• Used intimidation to stave off criticism
• Wasted huge sums of money
• Have no exit strategy
I, for one, don't want to see the same mind-set we've endured for the last eight years reinstated for the next four. Here's hoping the voters of PA are wise enough to help shut HRC's tragi-comic quest down.
Posted by balthus at April 11, 2008 07:47 AMRunning a good campaign may or may not correlate to running the White House well. I would tend to agree with Robert Sneddon that the Bush White House has actually been run with ruthless efficiency at implementing horrible policies. There is very little that Democrats have gotten in the way of. By the standards of the Bush administration, Iraq has been a success because the goal of the adventure was to get Bush "re"-elected, to advantage Republican constituencies, and to make Bush feel powerful.
Whether or not one agrees with the notion that a good campaign translates to a good White House, we should be able to agree that a good primary election campaign correlates with a good general election campaign. We all know that Gore and Kerry would have been far better presidents than Bush. Without good general election campaigns, however, they never got the chance.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 11, 2008 09:24 AMRegardless of what followed, you have to admit that Bush did get selected (if not elected) - which is an indication of "electability" (if not selectabilty), which is an argument of the HRC campaign.
The ability to get s/elected is independent of a political program. You know better than that, but emotions are stronger than knowledge, aren't they?
Posted by peBird at April 11, 2008 05:08 PM