?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2008-02-06 06:46
Subject: [politics] Super Tuesday
Security: Public
Location:Nuevo Rancho Lake
Mood:thoughtful
Music:morning sounds
Tags:politics
What an entertaining primary season. As usual, I don't have any greatly erudite commentary to add to what's widely available around the blogosphere and the commentariat. However, I'll throw out a few thoughts.

Romney

I would never have guessed so much money could buy such a (relatively) poor showing. The media narrative seems to be leaning toward "he's out", which isn't so obvious to me on the face of the numbers. Given the Republican obsession with consistency, I continue amazed that his inveterate flipflopping isn't a bigger problem. He has the money and the looks to be president, but seems to be playing in the same shallow end of the pool as Dan Quayle.

Huckabee

I would never have guessed so little money could buy such a (relatively) good showing. Even though I profoundly disagree with both his positions, and his basic fitness for office, Huckabee seems to be the Republican candidate of ideas. The gamesman in me wants to cheer him on. The American in me wants him to sink like Cheney's polling numbers.

McCain

Remember the Keating Five? The GOP base doesn't seem to. Which is amazing given their endlessly long memory for Democratic scandals. McCain's apparent attempts to wriggle out of public campaign financing are also going to require Rovian-grade spin if he succeeds. Also, that whole "maverick Senator John McCain" thing wore thin on me years ago, especially given what a Bush toady he's been. I dislike him rather intensely, but I still dislike him the least of his field. And I'm still holding out for a McCain-Huckabee ticket, given his problems with the GOP base. Of course, they're going to vote for him regardless, because even if they think he's a total fraud, he's their total fraud. McCain's worst enemy in the general election will be conservative apathy. So long as he's running against Hillary, that will not be a problem.

Hillary

Running strong, classic Democratic machine politics. She must be really pissed at Obama right now, but she's working her playbook very well. My basic comments on her electability stand, specifically about her being the GOP's dream candidate, though I'm glad to see she reined in Bill after the idiocy South Carolina primary.

Obama

My man. He has a sense of historic inevitability building around him. That can be swept away in a single turn of the news cycle, of course, but I've never been so excited about a candidate. Like Hillary, he's working his playbook very well. I'd much rather see him win now than see him wait for "his turn". "His turn" politics gets us nothing candidates like Mondale and Dole. Obama would rearrange the political game in a way none of the other candidates from either party could.
Post A Comment | 20 Comments | | Flag | Link






Amy Sisson
User: amysisson
Date: 2008-02-06 15:09 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I'm sorry, I just gotta ask, because this is something that comes up in my fiction critique group often, as relates to naming characters.

Four male candidates named by last name, one female candidate named by first name? ;-)

Granted, Clinton is the one whose name duplicates that of a former President. I don't recall offhand how people referred to Dubya leading up to his first election, since just using a first name wasn't an distinguishing option either.

But it's still pretty noticeable, and happens surprisingly often in fiction too.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-02-06 15:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
yourbob (I believe) called me out on this same issue a while back. I'm using "Hillary" because that's how her campaign brands her. That's an explicit decision on my part, not latent sexism, and it's intended as a mark of respect.

Edited at 2008-02-06 03:15 pm (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Amy Sisson
User: amysisson
Date: 2008-02-06 15:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Fair enough!

Boy, I kind of wish they (the campaign) hadn't done that. It's probably intended to portray her as more warm and human, but it hardly does good things for feminism.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-02-06 15:28 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yah, but think about the "Clinton" brand -- very powerful, controversial in some circles, and inextricably linked with her husband's tenure in office. I see this as an effort to differentiate her, which would seem to be a good thing from a feminist perspective. (Rather than, say, ride Bill's coattails.)

Edited at 2008-02-06 03:30 pm (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Amy Sisson
User: amysisson
Date: 2008-02-06 15:31 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Point conceded. Although if she left her name as Rodham to begin with, it mightn't be such as issue. (I haven't confirmed -- it could be urban myth -- but didn't she wait until Bill's Presidential campaign to finally change her name from Rodham to Clinton? That bugged me -- although, as said, I really should confirm it before I let it bug me!)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-02-06 15:39 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
My recollection is she was being a two last name person for a while during the 1992 election cycle, then dropped the "Rodham."

Wikipedia (that source of quick-hit, low-confidence information on such hot button topics as Mrs. Clinton) says "Bill Clinton returned to the Governor's office two years later by winning the election of 1982. During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", in order to have greater appeal to Arkansas voters"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

There's some footnotes there with references to her decision to keep her birthname after marriage, and the later change.



Edited at 2008-02-06 03:42 pm (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mmegaera
Date: 2008-02-07 01:20 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
ISTR that there was some pressure on her to take Bill's last name when he started moving up politically, but don't quote me on that.

As for what Shrub got called during his campaigns, Shrub was actually the least of it [g].
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-02-06 16:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That's a good point. Her effort to be 'Hillary' was annoying me, and felt a bit precious, but that does make quite a lot of sense.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Bob
User: yourbob
Date: 2008-02-06 16:43 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yup it was me, and I fully bought your argument. And watching especially last night, it was quite noticable. 'specially with those commentators who were trying hard to use all their titles (Senator, Governor).
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: bmalone
Date: 2008-02-06 16:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Sorry Jay, but Hillary is the inevitable candidate for the Democrats, if only because neither party would ever nominate someone that I would actually vote for. It's going to be close, but the Clintons and their cronies own the party machinery, and a close convention means it will go to Hillary. Obama needs to blow her out, and it looks like that is not going to happen.

I foresee a Clinton-McCain contest in November, with the lowest voter turnout in history.

*Sigh* I guess, for me, it looks like another vote for Nader.
Reply | Thread | Link



Rafe
User: etcet
Date: 2008-02-06 16:45 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
http://etcet.livejournal.com/555961.html

(rather than wallpaper my rant from yesterday)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: dirkcjelli
Date: 2008-02-06 16:46 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Here's hoping the Greens run Cynthia Mckinney instead.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-02-06 16:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Sly
I don't know if it's that cut and dry, Brian. Seriously. As Jay and several other people (including CNN, actually) have been saying, Obama really has a political movement gathering about him. I don't think it's quite there yet, but the only thing I can compare it to is a [insert jack/bobby as preferred here] Kennedy feeling, if not as strong or (possibly) genuine. Even though I wasn't born when they were around... maybe someone else can chip in there. On a related note, while Hillary has the Clinton machine behind her, I noticed that Obama quietly has all the Kennedys at his table. I don't know how much pull they have these days, but I was led to believe that Edward (at least) has some pull in the party.

I would still vote for Hillary over the others if your scenario plays out, but I'd far prefer to see Obama.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: bmalone
Date: 2008-02-06 18:32 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Hey Chris! I certainly plan to vote for Barrack on Tuesday, and I hope that you're right, but he still has 80 delegates to make up right now. If he wins all of the delegates from this point forward, then he's doing just fine. But he continues to split the vote with Clinton, then the super-delegates at the convention will choose the nominee, and the Clintons pretty much own the party machine.

By the by, the Kennedy endorsements weren't enough to deliver Massachusetts for Obama, so . . .
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-02-06 18:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Hello Brian!

Yes, that doesn't bode well. I heard about the super-delegates as well, which seems a funny concept, albeit one I don't understand completely. Anyway, I still think there's a long way to go, and Hilary doesn't really inspire me, even though I'd happily take her as second choice.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



aries_jordan: Despair
User: aries_jordan
Date: 2008-02-06 16:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Despair
I really want Obama to win, but that said, I pray he doesn't run as an independent.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-02-06 17:11 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Cheeky
re: Clinton silliness, this tickled me: Bill Clinton: "Screw it, I'm running!"
Reply | Thread | Link



farmgirl1146
User: farmgirl1146
Date: 2008-02-06 19:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Remember the Keating Five? The GOP base doesn't seem to. Which is amazing given their endlessly long memory for Democratic scandals.

If you go to www.redstate.com you will find plenty of links to hatred towards McCain and remembering of the Keating Five. The GOP has done an amazing job of marginalizing (especially in the news) their wacko base. I hope they cannot do that much longer.

Your comments about "Hillary" branding are so true.

To chrisbillett, the Onion article is great!
Reply | Thread | Link



threeoutside
User: threeoutside
Date: 2008-02-06 19:38 (UTC)
Subject: Obama
He's speaking in Omaha this Thursday at 3:30 pm. To be followed in the evening by a Bright Eyes concert at Slowdown. Both events free, both will probably be packed. I'll stay home and play old Bright Eyes CDs and remember the good old days of the Cog Factory and Sokol Underground and $5 cover charges and thirty people in the audience. *sigh*
Reply | Thread | Link



Josh English: initials
User: joshenglish
Date: 2008-02-08 02:01 (UTC)
Subject: Romney's Flip Flopping
Keyword:initials
Flip Flopping is only a crime if you have a (D) after your name, don't you know that? Cons don't even think about consistency in their own ranks. After all, they're against abortion, but for the death penalty, because life is, you know, sacred.
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances