Wow.

This isn't brushing off--this is In. Your. Face.

Posted at May 31, 2008 11:34 AM in response to Obama To Hold Huge Rally Tuesday Night At Site Of 2008 GOP Convention

Errrgh.

I was responding to this comment by Lux:

That's basically what they will be doing, which is why I was so pissed with Hillary throwing every right-wing attack at Obama that she knew damn well would be used against Obama if he won the nomination. But she didn't care about Obama, or the future of the Party, it was all about her quest for glory.

Posted at May 16, 2008 6:20 PM in response to McCain: Americans Should Be Afraid -- Very Afraid -- Of President Obama

Lux,
I hear you. If it does turn out to be the case, though, that McCain follows Hillary's line of attack on Obama, we have some comfort in knowing that it probably won't work this time around, either. And if today's exchanges are harbingers of what's to come, Obama won't pull punches.

Posted at May 16, 2008 6:19 PM in response to McCain: Americans Should Be Afraid -- Very Afraid -- Of President Obama

Just to be clear here: I think Obama has proven himself to be more than capable of handling himself.

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:23 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

If McAullife is in fact launching a trial balloon from the Clinton campaign about this possibility, I have to say that it seems to me yet another instance of how tone-deaf they are over there. Clinton represents the very past that Obama has been running in opposition to. But more to the point: in such an administration, Bill as a presence would create, at best, an awkward dynamic between a President Obama and a Vice-President Clinton. Bill has shown on this campaign that he, um, doesn't take direction well, even when it's for the greater good of his wife's candidacy; it's difficult to see how, within the orbit of the Executive Branch again, he'd be any more amenable to direction-taking.

At worst, such a choice would bear a strong resemblance to Bush's choosing of Cheney: Obama can't handle himself, so he's asked a steadier, more-experienced hand to join him on the ticket. I'd think even Clinton supporters whose greater interest lies in the strength of the Democratic Party's ticket can see the potential problems with the optics of such a ticket.

Posted at May 9, 2008 5:19 PM in response to McAuliffe: Joint Ticket Would Be "A Great Idea"

Is it just possible, however remotely, that the Clinton campaign is guilty of overestimating Hillary's appeal relative to that of the other candidates? That they took too much for granted the "inevitability" meme? That, in overestimating that they would have things wrapped up by Super Tuesday, they seem not to have done any serious planning at all for future contests? That the power of the (Bill) Clinton name and, by extension, that of the DLC, was such that they could get away with the "caucus-states-don't-count" strategy and so ignore them?

It's absurd to argue that the Clinton(s) ran a faultless campaign, that things just didn't break their way. The evidence is pretty clear that Obama just flat out-organized and out-worked everybody else and, even when it became clear what was happening, the Clintons didn't change a thing. Penn is a walking, talking proof of that fact. The Clintons not only had their political hat handed to them, they even provided the tray--their miscalculations--on which that hat was served.

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:11 PM in response to A Mark Penn Memo From 2007 About Those Big States

I'd note that he also seems to be the only one who includes civil rights, disabilities, senior citizens, urban policy, and service in his issues—or at least in the issue summaries. As I write this, I suspect they're not sampling the entire list of issues, but I could be wrong.

I agree with you that those are indeed also significant issues. As a believer and advocate of the wall of separation between church and state myself, I'd much prefer that religion not become a political punching bag because it ends up cheapening the value of religion--but that's just me.

As for your questioning about sampling, Goodspeed notes that he just made a list of the "Issues" tabs at each campaign's respective website; the absence of an issue for a campaign indicates that that campaign simply didn't address it.

Posted at May 8, 2008 1:14 PM in response to Word counts

Ren,
Thank you for taking the time to compose your thoughtful and considered response to my post.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:49 PM in response to Word counts

I fail to see anything that Obama supporters have to whine about.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:05 PM in response to Mark Penn Denies Not Knowing The Basics About Dem Primaries

Well, yes, Ben (and thanks for commenting); that would be valuable--and fun--to see. But surely the presence/absence of certain issues is striking to note on this graph. I'm fascinated by the fact that of the three candidates, only Obama addresses the issue of faith on his site. Given how religion--the alleged confusion over whether he is "really" a Christian--has been used against him in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways by both Republicans and Clinton, it's curious that neither of them addresses that issue at all.

One can spin Obama's addressing that in ways that are unflattering to him; personally, I (full disclosure: a completely in-the-tank, Kool-aid-swilling Obama fan) have no cause to think other than what he has repeatedly said: that his understanding of the Gospel informs his politics, that it's not a flag-pin-like veneer slapped on for purposes of optics.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Word counts