Nice piece, eriposte. Welcome to the world where you'll soon be called a cultist.
Posted by phidipides at July 13, 2008 10:20 AMStill under performing party identification after more than a month without Clinton's constant attacks! He isn't the candidate of "winter 2008" that attracted all those new voters anymore. The "summer 2008" candidate sounds so different, we hardly recognize ya.
Posted by peter at July 13, 2008 10:38 AMThe "summer 2008" candidate sounds so different, we hardly recognize ya.
Still buying into your own republi-con memes. How cool! So, how is McBush doing? Looks like you guys are contemplating replacing him in September. And he was such a "Maverick", too. Maybe you'll reanimate the corpse of Ray-Gun? I know! Run George "Macaca" Allen.
You want me to worry about what some writer from Chicago writes? How much is Obama paying this guy? I suppose McCain is getting to him. Can't seem to get any separation. And that LATimes poll he referenced...didn't Steve just sorta distance himself from the very similar Newsweek poll of June 20th?
Posted by peter at July 13, 2008 11:17 AMYou don't need a page with issue contrasts. Just tell anyone who might be trying to decide how to vote two words:
Supreme Court
And that should be enough
Posted by Greg in FL at July 13, 2008 11:43 AMStevens is 88. Ginsburg is 75. Let's check those actuarial tables. I'm looking at the most recent life table from the National Center for Health Statistics. A white female who is now 75 has a life expectancy of 12.8 more years. So if Obama is elected and wins a second term, Ginsburg can outlast him and even the first term of the next President.
Now, Stevens is 88 and male. Surely, he can't hold on, you're thinking. But you are wrong. The life expectancy of a 90 year old white male is 4.3 years. 6.o for 85. So do the math. Looks like a good 5 years.
Goldstein predicts only Stevens will retire during the next four years and not before he surpasses Oliver Wendell Holmes — who stepped down two months shy of his 91st birthday, in 1932 — to become the oldest sitting justice. That would happen in February 2011.
It's funny to think of a man that old engaged in what seems like the rather childish behavior of record-setting. But if Stevens is into record-breaking, would he just try to beat Holmes by one day or would he try to set the most unbeatable new mark that he could? And what about that other record? William O. Douglas served on the court the longest: 36 years and 7 months. The man who took his comfortable seat was John Paul Stevens. The date: December 18, 1975. So he needs to go to July 19, 2011 to beat that record.
And then there's Souter?
Posted by peter at July 13, 2008 11:56 AMI am disgusted that we are stuck with 2 lame options.
The only way I can muster the enthusiasm for Obama is to remember that if McCain gets it he has no incentive to clean house and get rid of the GOP dead wood the Bushies put in to rob the joint.
To vote for McCain is to reward the GOP for the last 8 years of sewage. I cant do it.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 13, 2008 02:04 PM>Supreme Court
>And that should be enough
No. We already have a 5-4 Right-wing majority in the Court, and it is extremely unclear that Obama will change that. That was a better argument in 2000 or 2004.
The real question is simple: do you think Obama will succeed in office (as a centrist Democrat-he clearly is no liberal) or will he fail, and revive the Right in the process. If the former, you should hold your nose and vote for Obama. But I believe the latter, so I'm left hoping for McCain and a better Democrat in 2012.
Posted by tdraicer at July 13, 2008 02:07 PMwow TD, I feel like I just read that same argument form you a few hours ago.
wait.
I did!
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 13, 2008 02:28 PMThe right as we currently know it will not be revived for the demographics prohibit it. Everyday more members of the Nixon-Reagan-Bush coalition die off and are being replaced by the most liberal and pro Democratic party young voters in history. McCain is the last stand for the current American paradigm just as Hubert Humphry was for the previous new deal coalition in 1968.
There will eventually be a new conservative movement in the future, but it won't be built around a flag waving, tax and "fag" hating corporate Jesus. That coalition is exhausted and discredited. A McCain victory this year would only ensures the installment of reactionary judges over the next four years.
Young Judith muster some "enthusiasum" when you think of those dead soldiers in Afganistan today.
They aren't "young"anymore.
Stop with the bringing down of the Democratic nominee who was and is right on the War.
If you hope for McCain in 2008, there may not be enough of a nation left to salvage by 2012. Since the policy differences between Obama and Clinton were actually minute, the sad fact is, we did not have a choice of a real progressive this year. As we move away from the destructive primary season, my opinion of the bad feeling between the followers of the two Dem candidates is shifting to the idea that the problem lay in the dynamics of the race more than anything else. Frankly, I think the country is in bad enough shape that I don't know if either Obama or Clinton would take the steps necessary to get it on another track. McCain would simply sink us all in war and class struggle.
Posted by Delia at July 13, 2008 04:02 PMforsyth - you make me snicker with contempt. I have a very keen appreciation for the price some people pay so lumps like you can use their tragedy as a bludgeon to strangers. Bet you never served, didja?
I will continue to question politicians including and especially Obama who has had several positions on the war -and all just last week!
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 13, 2008 05:15 PM
"sniker contempt" at me is a ok but contempt for the democratic nominee is destructive, lke any right wing pundit, you bring up "my serving"? How about my lapel pin? or my car magnet? where did I put my patriotisum? hmmm must be with my "bludgeon I use on strangers" to remind them what the real issue is like a war of lies and death for american soldiers " some people pay"not you young Judith. you continue with your basless political talk heavens who wants to emind you of an emmm war and stuff! You go girl
Posted by rm forsyth at July 13, 2008 06:00 PMAt the moment, Obama has a big time trust problem. No amount words on a piece of paper are going to bridge that breach. Most voters won't read it; most people don't read a newspaper for cryin out loud.
For many disillusioned Obama supporters, his FISA vote was the final betrayal. That vote cleared the "change" jaundiced eyes of these hopeful progressives who now see the centrist politician for who he is, warts and all.
Posted by fafnir at July 13, 2008 06:04 PMforster - I am so glad it is ok with you that I snicker at you. Cause goodness! What if you didnt like it?
Here's a hint - you and deminNJ would go farther if you didnt talk down to strangers. Personally, I dont care about convincing anybody of anything.
But you do and you are bad at it.
sorry, meant forsyth.
i think I need a vacation from the blogs. I jsut find myslef getting annoyed and that isnt good for me or anyone else.
eriposte, it was nice to see you here.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 13, 2008 07:37 PMEripost, if you make your table, it will only help Obama figure out easier how to "move to the center" and get on track with his Republican mentors.
Posted by Nobody at July 13, 2008 07:37 PM>wow TD, I feel like I just read that same argument form you a few hours ago. wait. I did!
And you will read it again, assuming the topic of McCain vs. Obama comes up. And probably make a similar half-witty response.
Posted by tdraicer at July 13, 2008 10:10 PMIf the distinction between the candidates is so minute that political junkies are having trouble distinguishing between the two please explain why BO crushes McB in Europe? See http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Support_Obama_europe/2008/05/30/100156.html
Could it be that a little objectivity clears the fog? You people need to get out more.
"It's funny to think of a man [Stevens] that old engaged in what seems like the rather childish behavior of record-setting."
incredibly stoopid even for you, pants pissing peter. Stevens wants to make sure Bush doesn't nominate another monarchist to the Supreme Court
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 14, 2008 12:18 PMWhen are Democrats going to realize that presidential elections aren't won or lost on "the issues"? Voters are often poorly informed, but they understand one important thing: issues can change, but the president has to to have the character to handle whatever comes up. They're looking for somebody they can trust to make the right call.
Obama's recent orgy of flip-flopping is killing him. He's been on the national stage for about five minutes. He hasn't earned the right to start bobbing and weaving, especially since his lack of qualifications forces him to run as a purveyor of bipartisan straight talk--a la McCain.
It doesn't matter what Obama's positions are if he himself doesn't have any credibility.
Posted by cygnus at July 14, 2008 01:02 PM