America! Fuck yeah!

Posted at June 19, 2008 1:22 PM in response to Obama's First General Election Ad: I Love America

I would like to note for all who are commenting that TPM might be very aware that the biggest news stories (in terms of commenters) are Hillary or Lieberman stories. Both of these dems drive large passions both positive and negative. Since the primary season ended, I've noticed that TPMEC posts level out at about 30-50 comments unless it's about Hillary. Then they fly into the 100-200's.

There are maybe a handful of pissed-off Hillary supporters still posting here, but I think it speaks to the fact that us Obama supporters aren't quite over the Hillary saga either. I'm not saying we're a split party, but the frayed feelings go both ways. This isn't a dump-on-hillary thing; the other side (albeit the victorious side) feels awfully "bitter" about how the race went down.

Posted at June 16, 2008 2:10 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

The things you pointed out applied to every single campaign. John Edwards had a $400 haircut! And had a shady house sale! Barack Obama might be a muslim! (although Hillary "took his word" that he wasn't!) Also shady house purchase! MSM took the debunked "votes present on important issues" meme and ran with it for Hillary.

The fact is that Hillary was "the inevitable nominee" from day one. She was the most known quantity with the most baggage. Barely any of it got touched.

In terms of the psychoanalyzing. Sure, that's dumb. But that happened to Bill. And she, herself, came out after NH proclaimaing "I found my voice" -- using what could very well have been a true moment and reducing it to transparent politics.

TPM even created one of the forced-laughs TPM.TV reels. If you remember, that WAS her strategy: force a laugh on all the news programs when they brought up any question she didn't want to answer. She looked ridiculous. Imagine Obama breaking into guffaws on every single news program!? It would have been his Dean Scream.

I mean, c'mon. She has been around these news people for years. She had one of the most "experienced" political teams in the game.

That they didn't have a press strategy for dealing with all of this until they started "working the refs" -- as Josh pointed out way back when -- shows the absurdity of her campaign.

I think the number of truly offensive things said about either candidate has more to do with the unprecedented length of the campaign combined with the fascination of covering a historic moment.

She didn't get any worse than I bet she expected, she just started losing and couldn't believe that she was responsible for it. Remember, she was the one who was supposedly so ready to "take on" the slime machine.

Posted at June 16, 2008 1:14 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

phew. Hawaii became a state in 1959, TWO SHORT YEARS before Obama was born. USA! USA!

Ok, now that we have the date and time of his birth, can we please get a astrologist to give us a rundown??

Posted at June 12, 2008 1:59 PM in response to Obama's Birth Certificate: Yes, He's American

Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.

The one thing Cheney-Lieberman-McCain have in common is their desire to bomb the a--ah out of Iran.

Posted at June 12, 2008 12:13 PM in response to Veep Cheney Hangs Out At Joe Lieberman's Office

Its been pointed out that the Dem convention will be ON the 45th Anniversary of MLK's I Have A Dream speech.

I think you can be quite sure that there will be loud praise for the civil rights movement and recognition of the african american figures who made his run possible.

Posted at June 4, 2008 11:00 PM in response to Is anyone else a little sad today?

I'm not watching the c-span and have a question. Has anyone brought up the fact that Clinton stated that the Michigan primary "wouldn't count for anything"?

That seems like a fairly damning piece of evidence against their camp's current position.

Posted at May 31, 2008 2:46 PM in response to Clinton-Backer James Blanchard: Honor The Michigan Primary In Full

Clearly we disagree that the language reflects the candidates' different world views/views on governing. Fair enough, it was an observation that others seemed to have noticed as well.

To your point that a critique of a candidate's use of language, "if applied to a woman," is sexist betrays your argument. Certainly comments indicating that a woman CANNOT use "I" would be sexist. But to want to hear the same sort of language from both men and women cannot be sexist.

My point is that from the very beginning, the Obama campaign has made an effort to appeal to people's desire to participate. The "hope" and "change" mantras weren't based on things that Obama would do, but on what he could inspire others to do -- and that has been a consistent theme. Clinton's campaign started out as "I'm the inevitable candidate," which quickly turned to "I found my voice" after New Hampshire. Clinton has been running on her experience -- that she's unique in being able to accomplish the job. It's always about her -- good in a job interview, but maybe not great to a hungry electorate.

Yes, Obama has been running on his life story -- But he's been using it as an example and representation of what America can be. His message has been about inclusion and I think that has reverberated. That's my point.

BTW -- I found this on NYTimes from way back. Self-abnegation can be a good thing!!:

Jul 29, 1918

ALLIES' FOOD CRISIS IS NOW PASSED; Situation Saved by Patriotism and Self-Abnegation of the American People.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980DEFD7143EE433A2575AC2A9619C946996D6CF

Posted at May 29, 2008 1:55 PM in response to Campaign Dichotomy: "I am" vs. "We are"

Certainly every politician has a massive ego, is narcissistic, and full of hubris. Obama, both Clintons, McCain, Bush, Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson.

But self-abnegation!? Isn't that what we want from our leaders -- male or female? To put nation before self? It's misogynistic to want a candidate to govern through consensus and participation rather than by fiat? I'm insisting male leaders practice the same, and I'm pointing out that the language used by Obama has been about participatory government vs. the "I'll take care of it" language used by Clinton.

Posted at May 29, 2008 12:41 PM in response to Campaign Dichotomy: "I am" vs. "We are"

No. She's not evil. And it's not just that she says "I" versus "We" in a sentence. But that's the philosophy behind how she presents herself as a candidate.

Her candidacy, her governing style, even her experience in the WH with the health care reform efforts in the 1990's all stem from the same idea: SHE is the one we've been waiting for, and if only "they'd" let her, she'd figure it all out.

You can disagree with the idea that we're stronger with a collective movement lead through transparency. There are many (including those in the WH today) that believe it is dangerous to lead that way. The current administration is very much about "I'm the person who's going to take care of you -- so let me be."

This idea that government is about more than the governing class is what drew me to Obama in the first place.

In terms of "she is not THE ONE!" -- that's the entire point. He (Obama) isn't "THE ONE" either. He's offering to open up government and lead, not pretend that he can dictate policy bulls. I'm ready to participate. There's no "bowing down" here, there's energy.

Posted at May 29, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Campaign Dichotomy: "I am" vs. "We are"