I think we may be going a bit overboard using the convention schedule as a barometer for the Veepstakes. I mean Obama's campaign seems relatively good at keeping secrets, so by scheduling Sebelius it might just be a way to throw us off the scent. That said Webb, Biden, Bayh, Kaine, Clark and Dodd (along with myriad other senior party folk) have yet to be scheduled. I still very much hope it's Biden, but it seems a bit too pat to dismiss out of hand anyone who's already on the schedule.

Posted at August 15, 2008 12:02 PM in response to It's Unlikely Webb Will Speak At The Dem Convention

There's still a major difference here, the audience. These attacks were at least somewhat successful, I mean Hillary culled nearly half of the Democratic primary voters. I think these are attacks far more likely to appeal to undecideds and conservatives. In the end, while the attacks are similar it doesn't mean that it's the same old debunked strategy and acting like it is and not fighting back hard against such attacks would be a mistake.

Posted at August 14, 2008 1:55 PM in response to McCain Recycling Hillary's Old Attacks Against Obama

Look, again, the more we discuss this and get angry about this the more hits this post will get. In turn the more the MSM will pay attention and thus the more times it will appear on television. It's just not worth the ruckus, which seems to have been effective throughout the campaign.

More on this: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/08/free-advertising-just-act-indignant-jm.html

Posted at August 11, 2008 5:36 PM in response to New McCain Web Ad: "Hot Chicks Dig Obama"

Seriously, please stop. This isn't even close to "Fording" and as a Democrat I am getting kind of sick of hearing this from our side. It's playing straight in to McCain's hands. What y'all are looking for is a campaign that criticizes only issues when it comes to the Republicans. It will just never happen. As far as criticisms go, they are mocking the extremities of Obama love, which I am tempted to do from time to time myself. The only way an ad like this gets ANY traction is because the indignancy brigade gets ginned up, the press picks it up and we're off to the races. Your need to be self-righteous is precisely why McCain can get away with not actually spending money on ads.

The easiest way to win this election is avoid the metadebate, stop criticizing McCain's tactics and move on to policy and issues. If something is truly racist it will get out there, but this is yet another example of a situation that is just way too ambiguous to support those charges in any way. But, of course, this will give Team McCain yet another opportunity to go on TV and claim that Obama is trying to make this campaign about race. That's how we lose.

Posted at August 11, 2008 5:15 PM in response to New McCain Web Ad: "Hot Chicks Dig Obama"

Apphouse,

Seriously, your argument is that we should agree with both campaigns? Of course they were. Obama is using this to make political hay and McCain has no choice but to repudiate it.

If you'd read arguments instead of existing within your own righteous indignation you would realize the argument as nothing t0 do with it being the New Yorker, but rather that this is a legitimate expression of the contemporary political moment. If I am going to choose between allowing and censoring expression, I will always side with allowing.

I am sorry that I am responding a lot here, I try not to comment too much, but this issue has really got me going. It's important this not become a party that wants to dismiss expression and opposition outright because of the damage it might do.

Posted at July 14, 2008 2:56 PM in response to The New Yorker's "Ironic" Obama Cover

Liam,

You argue that it would have been more "effective" to show the Obamas in church. This term is indicative of the larger problem with your view of this situation. The New Yorker is not a propaganda machine or an arm of the Democratic Party. Their job is not create the best view of Obama or support a cause, but rather create, in the case, art.

The art is ironic and satirical. It is a joke in a more serious sense, not as in ha ha ha, guffaw, guffaw, but the deeper humor that tells more about who we are. But I would also take exception with the idea that your idea would have been more effective. Look at the conversation we are getting about this. As I said earlier, this discussion is only going to be to the benefit of Obama. In the end, no new people are going to believe this because of a cartoon on the New Yorker's cover, but some just may be persuaded to realize how ironic all of this is.

But either way, everyone seems to be dancing around the bigger issue. These rumors are part of the zeitgeist of our time. It's no worse than when Time names a totalitarian dictator or otherwise reprehensible character as Time's Person of the Year. Art need not be politically expedient, it should merely convey both truth and beauty, and the passion this has sparked has made it worthy.

Posted at July 14, 2008 2:44 PM in response to The New Yorker's "Ironic" Obama Cover

Sigh, but this isn't deserving of criticism, nor is it reinforcing stereotypes. It is only doing it because everyone assumes that the populace is too dumb to get in on the joke. That is the height of offensive, talk about arrogant. I am not sure the editors of the New Yorker are the ones that require humbling.

Posted at July 14, 2008 1:54 PM in response to The New Yorker's "Ironic" Obama Cover

Welcome to a world where we pander to the lowest common denominator. Welcome to a world where a joke is only funny and irony only poignant when we are certain, absolutely certain, everyone will be in on the joke. I am actually disturb, not terribly surprised, but disturbed by this chain of logic. In fact, over the last few weeks I have heard people cry out in disgust against the New Yorker, against people criticizing Obama on FISA and against people who would dare question Obama's fidelity to his promises on Iraq.

Look, I want the Dems to win just as much as anyone else, but I will be damned if it'll be on the back of the world where humor and culture is dictated by the perception of the least amongst us. Everyone of you gets the joke, the joke is about how silly is this hatred and rumormongering. It is not making light of hatred itself, but rather lies so very implausible that the best we can do is mock and depict them. This is a very real picture of the time we are living in, and to provoke this kind of reaction indicates that the art has done its job and done its job well.

I am positive that there is no political downside to this, not even remotely. Discussion of this always entails a response and dialogue. You know why swiftboating worked? Because we ignored it. I promise, if the New Yorker has done a cartoon mocking Kerry's service ironically it would have been the best type of exposure for the Kerry campaign. This cover is not convincing a single person that Obama is Muslim who did not already believe that while it is likely to make quite clear to fence sitters that this is just how much credence these rumors have.

Even if this was a politically dangerous cover to Obama rather than helpful I still wouldn't care. One of the disturbing trends I have noticed on these boards is a complete lack of respect for people who don't agree with the so-called progressive principle. Everyone seems so concerned that people simply won't understand the irony intended or that they'll be spun by the GOP. Maybe the reason this happens so very often is that we don't respect them enough to make everyone a part of this great nation conversation. Political art is a great form of expression that shouldn't be denigrated by the PC-police, or worse the PC for Obama-police. We will win this election this fall, but if we want to win this country we have to have the temerity to believe that our convictions can stand up to criticism, art and expressions of all form.

Posted at July 14, 2008 1:41 PM in response to The New Yorker's "Ironic" Obama Cover

Obama clearly could have saved the day. Believe me, if he had ordered a floor fight he would have gotten most of the conservative Dems to come back to the fold. It was probably their pressure that made him change his position on this in the first place.

Posted at July 9, 2008 4:24 PM in response to Senate OK's New Wiretapping Law

According to Roll Call Clinton voted AGAINST invoking cloture and thus in favor of the filibuster. So enjoy: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00167

Posted at July 9, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Senate OK's New Wiretapping Law