Swopa
- : http://www.needlenose.com
-
Sure. Look at Obama's latest advertising, which gets a lot more concrete about addressing real-world problems:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1382896025
Posted at January 21, 2008 5:13 PM in response to Role Reversal
-
If Obama was making those arguments against NAFTA and welfare reform in his speeches and campaign ads, he might be doing better with working-class voters.
Unfortunately, his strategist seems to have convinced him that campaigning on issues is icky. So perhaps you should address your complaint to Obama rather than me.
Posted at January 20, 2008 2:33 PM in response to Role Reversal
-
Your analysis seems very shallow, Reed. Obama had all the momentum in the world coming out of Iowa, and it's stalled because he hasn't been skilled enough to adapt his vague message of "change" to address the real needs of working-class people.
To think that his narcissistic-fluff strategy (skim over the issues, and just encourage people to project their hopes onto you) would hold up intact through a fall campaign against the GOP when it couldn't even last a week in January is wishful thinking.
And to say that "arguably without Perot the Democrats wouldn't have won" in 1992 is simply ridiculous.
Posted at January 20, 2008 1:09 PM in response to Role Reversal
-
it’s hard for us to understand how popular China has become in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Or, for that matter, in Iraq.
Posted at June 25, 2007 9:32 AM in response to China's Charm Offensive
-
Not, surely, the collapse of the Iraqi government or an all-out civil war — neither of which can be termed “unexpected” in any meaningful way.
I fear that's you talking, not the report. This sounds like more of the "if everything goes well, we can reduce troop levels" song and dance we've been hearing for a few years... the problem being that everything doesn't go well.
Since about six months ago, I've been including this coda whenever I write about this subject --
ESTRAGON: Let's go.
VLADIMIR: We can't.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We're waiting for the political and security environment to stabilize.
ESTRAGON (despairingly): Ah!Posted at December 6, 2006 8:40 AM in response to “Subject to Unexpected Developments”
-
Here are the questions that I have:
Does this (along with the recent announcements by Karl Rove and Bob Novak) imply that Patrick Fitzgerald has given up any intention of prosecuting anyone for the Plame leak itself, and so has told Joe & Valerie to proceed without fear of interfering with any criminal trial?
Or (perhaps as implied by the mention of "false or misleading testimony") are the Wilsons just going ahead on their own initiative? (Is there a statute of limitations that they needed to worry about?)
Posted at July 13, 2006 1:52 PM in response to Wilson sues Rove, Cheney and Libby
-
Dear Matt,
In the immortal words of John Lennon, "We need money first."
Love,
Kenneth and AndreiPosted at July 10, 2006 2:21 PM in response to Not Ideas About The Thing, But The Thing Itself
-
Sad to say, North Korea's foreign policy is a lot more rational than ours.
They know exactly what they're doing. We don't.
Posted at July 9, 2006 10:12 AM in response to The Madman Theory of World Politics
-
... surely there's something less useless they could be building for an equal fee.
I'm not sure. But if there is, rest assured that they're lobbying to build that, too.
For defense contractors, a Republican administration means never having to choose.
Posted at July 8, 2006 12:30 PM in response to Idée Fixe
-
A shorter and simpler version of what Mr. Begala says:
Which do you think is more likely to send the president a message and bring common sense to our Iraq policy -- another Republican Congress, or a Democratic one?
That's the question Democrats should put before the voters.Posted at June 22, 2006 10:28 AM in response to GOP on Iraq = More of the Same
