Click here to see Slate’s Election Clinton/Obama mashup. Hat tip, Frank Rich, “The Audacity of Hopelessness.”
Please share widely!
Pretty Amusing
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Click here to see Slate’s Election Clinton/Obama mashup. Hat tip, Frank Rich, “The Audacity of Hopelessness.”
On Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me the other day, Paula Poundstone said (from memory, sorry) she’s
Whichever, I couldn’t stand to leave that quote half-remembered. So, here is my transcription of the actual podcast dialog
First, bravo on the heroic research to find the transcript. The late-night obsessiveness of a true blogger. Second, a toast to shared admiration for Paula Poundstone and Wait, Wait: genius.
The times have changed, now everyone is mocking Obama, even Hillary. I started feeling this change last week.
and Obama is the Chris Klein candidate, who is the Matthew Broderick assistant principle that throws the election because he can’t stand Flick? Frank Rich, or maybe the “netroots?”
… because like Hillary I have been around awhile and the Hillary/Flick Clip comparison is a bit twerpy as political commentary. Amusing yes but like Hillary from the Link to the video that “They” posted I don’t expect the Celestial Angels to fly in and make the worlds problems go away just because Obama says they will.
<
p>Just that pesky Experience thing again.
<
p>Dam now where did my rose colored glasses get mislaid?
is a losing strategy. Campaign battlefields are littered with “more competent and experienced” hopefuls. I suspect that Democrats understand this now more than before, although there are still a lot of hold outs.
why aren’t we dumping Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and most of our congressional delegation?
Kennedy and Kerry have never campaigned against hope. No one is talking about change for the sake of change. Yesterday’s rally in Providence is a case in point. Clinton openly mocked the hopes and dreams of her opponent. This is a losing strategy regardless of what you might think is in the best interest of the country. It just doesn’t work.
Frank Rich lays this out very starkly. The blindness, incompetence, and arrogance of the HRC campaign has to call into question her claimed ability to step into the job on day one.
.. where the left wing of the Dems have been shut out for 16 years (like say the Kennedy’s) starting with Bill Clinton, 1. Hope sells better and 2. You have had the worst President in US history to bounce that example off of. The Twerpy Video (how ever cute) is an example of the lack of maturity among some members of the Obama wave. All stuff like that will come back to haunt as the Right wing attack machine comes on line. (And thanks to the NYT they are now energized behind Moderate (( RINO)) McCain)
<
p>Get to the General election and for Bread and Butter demographics, the promise of hope doesn’t resonate as widely as experience does. Hope when your living paycheck to paycheck plays differently.
and he’s not afraid to kick her when she’s down. But to me, his column doesn’t explain much. The fact that she may have run a disorganized campaign and may have fewer field offices in Vermont and some other states than Obama doesn’t explain the public adulation for Obama that has caused him to win state after state. I would disagree that she has campaigned against hope. She has campaigned on themes of experience and pragmatism.
If Clinton has so much “experience,” why did she run such a horrible campaign? Why does she have people like Mark Penn at the helm? And, on that point, how much more experience does she have?
<
p>She was elected to the US Senate in 2000, her first elected office. Obama was elected in 2004, after serving for 8 years as an Illinois senator. Both did non-profit work with worthy groups and worked in law firms. I believe Obama also was president of the Harvard Law Review, graduated magna cum laude and taught Constitutional Law at the U of Chicago Law School. Clinton served as an editor on the Yale Law Review yet failed the Washington DC bar exam after graduating.
<
p>It’s true that Obama was never a first lady, but I’d hardly elect Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan or Rosalyn Carter because of those credentials. So, where’s the beef on her supposedly superior experience? And don’t get me started on her 1993 healthcare fiasco.
It makes me a bit more understanding of some of Bill’s trangressions.
<
p>If she is so experienced, then why has she missed out on posting 10 delegates in PA, despite the fact her friend the Governor extended the deadline to aid her in closing the gap?
<
p>And if her experience included 6 years on the corporate board of Walmart, can we wonder why Bill was so eager to get NAFTA signed off?
than Frank Rich’s column before reaching a conclusion as to whether Clinton did run a horrible campaign. If she did indeed run a poor campaign, that would say something about her claims about experience and competence. But my point is really only that none of this explains the success Obama has had.
…farthest thing from George Bush that could have come on the scene.
<
p>Look at Huckabee. Positive sells but as we in the commonwealth learned the hard way that doesn’t translate into getting it done.
So let’s retire that tired line of attack, shall we?
….?
Prior discussion here. Since that discussion, we’ve also seen movement on closing of the tax loopholes and the life sciences initiative.
…how closing the corporate tax loopholes comes with a reduction in the corporate tax rate. The Life science initiative is tax breaks to attract corporations on the promise of future tax revenues, gambling that they stay here. Also (referring to Sabuti’s response) implementation of the Casino nightmare pretty much wipes the slate clean.