Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Deep Thoughts #4
Hillary Clinton keeps saying she will fight for the general good, but keeps abandoning voters in states where she feels she has no easy chance to win?
Related: How does this timid avoidance fold-in with her self-declared "fighter" moniker?
Why is it that it's okay to refer to John McCain as a "old man" but not Hillary Clinton as a "old woman"? (Historical note: should she be the Dem nominee, she will be their oldest nominee at the time of election since Harry Truman.)
What would happen if John McCain picked Condi Rice as his running mate?
Anyone remember when SNL would hammer on the candidate from the right?
We haven't heard much from Ralph Nader since his announcement to run.
Why is Hillary Clinton upset with the same form of primary season that got her husband the Dem nominee slot in 1992?
It's been very quiet lately and both Hillary and Obama are sitting on a pile of money. It's been too quiet.
How many symbolic reasons were there for Bush to serve McCain hot dogs in the White House?
Why did TPM choose two formatting styles for posts: one for blogging and one for replying?
Comments (6)
I'm not sure about the old guy/old gal thing. Though Hillary Clinton would have you believe that the press is against her, I see quite the opposite.. even here at TPM.
For what it's worth, Condi has stated that she has no intention of ever running for any public office.
As for SNL, Adam McKay has identified one of the prime sources of right-wing tendencies at SNL:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/live-from-new-yorkvote_b_90164.html
The money story is terribly interesting. The Democratic Party is sitting on the biggest war chest in campaign history. From the perspective of winning the general election, the best time to shut this primary down would be right after the primary financing peaks. Then you shift focus to the general and re-energize the revenue stream.
I'm going to refrain from comments about the cordial extension of White House wieners. Ahem.
As for the formatting.. I have no idea. Either give me a rich text editor for both or let me use tags for both. I can go either way.
March 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Much has been made of Obama's youth (by Hillary) as a negative. It would not be unreasonable for calling either McCain or HRC "stale", but for some reason I suspect there is a double standard here about age as related to gender.
Now if *both* candidates in the GE are of the same age bracket, it obviously becomes a wash.
Yes, but that was in the context of a POTUS or Senate run. VP is a bit more subtle. Rice would have to be coaxed (maybe not, look at the role Cheney played!) but think about it would affect McCains' stance:
a) he'd have a woman on the ticket
b) he'd have a black woman on the ticket
c) he'd have a conservative black woman on the ticket
d) he'd have a hawkish, conservative black woman on the ticket
e) he'd have a hawkish, conservative, black woman on the ticket who has far more experience than anyone else running in terms of recent geopolitics
It would certainly close the ranks of the GOP and take away the "newness" momentum of the Dems if HRC were the nominee. (Obama can still promote youth.)
Yes, consistency is important, especially for something so easy. I sure wish they would also fix the "quote" button. As it stands now, if you hit it, you can't go into "unquote" mode afterwards!
March 9, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the hot-dog thing got to me too. I mean it wasn't outdoors or anything. In fact I am shocked that ANYONE would be fed hot-dogs at the White House! It is absurd! That George has a lot of class. Too bad it's all low.
Hillary is upset with the same format that let her husband win because she isn't winning. Duh!
I personally haven't heard McCain referred to as an "old man." But even so, 72 is alot older than 60 (I am 60 and would croak if someone called me an old lady!)
Besides her incompetence when she was National Security Advisor, and as Secretary of State, I think Condi has some skeletons in her closet; she could never stand the scrutiny of elected office.
I don't care about the difference in format; I would REALLY appreciate some way of tagging previously read posts. Since it was done on the previous TPM I know it's possible. It is such a time-waster to have to re-read so much.
Oh, and since this is my second try to post this; why does the password come up as invalid EVERY SINGLE TIME I enter it on the first try, and sometimes the secon?
March 9, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully ask you to note that at election time, Obama will be 47, McCain will be 72, and Hillary will be 61.
If the 11 years between McCain and Hillary constitutes "a lot older" (your words), then what adjective would you use to describe the 14 years between Hillary and Obama?
;-)
I guess the answer lies in the answerer's own age!
March 9, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The years between 45 and 65 are in general, healthy and vital years; you can still learn things, and your body is not in decline. Many people in their 70's are completely with it, but many are starting to lose mental acuity and physical stamina as well.
Remember that the great hero of neocons, Ronald Reagan, was beginning to have symptoms of Alzheimers before he left office. Seventy-two is not just 11 years older than 61; it is a time of life where decline is more common than not.
The idea of a 10 year-old marrying a 21 year-old is disgusting, but there are plenty of 30 year-olds who marry people in their 40's.
So, in other words, Barack Obama, at 47 is certainly old enough to have reached a maturity level to handle the office, and Hillary at 61 is certainly not too old. I would argue that McCain, who most certainly couldn't serve more than one term, is questionably beyond the age where our nation can count on his abilities. Regardless of his "experience" there is still a learning curve, and hopefully a level of flexibility that I think is important to any leader.
Does that answer your question about the 11 and 14 year age differences?
March 9, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Science explicitly disputes the highlighted portion of your statement. It is well known that your body begins significant decline starting around age 40 (metabolism, muscle mass, brain issues, etc.).
The fact that 47 is well into middle age (by any reasonable definition) and 60 is considered whatever the euphemism is of the day and it lumped with those "older" ages.
The rate of decline is an individual thing. Consider GWB and Cheney. Cheney is only a mere 5 years older than GWB. However both are definitely "old" - beyond middle age. I bet you would have agreed with this statement when you were 20!
If getting "old" bothers a person, there is solace in the fact that it's better than the alternative.
March 9, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment