-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Alcibiades
Member
hmm, I never quite saw that... I guess as a super-grown Lucas...JoshuaJSlone said:Certainly from my perspective he's come a long way. Before I started paying big attention to the primaries, he was just a guy I saw sometimes that I thought kinda looked like Lucas from Days of Our Lives with a beard.
backbreaker65
Banned
Who Fucking Knew that giving a little dap or a pound aka fist bump and now fox calls it the "TERRORIST FIST BUMP" you can't make this shit up even if you tried.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007
polyh3dron
Banned
Obama am turrist CONFIRMEDgluv65 said:
But srsly, they make it look like they don't understand the Obama fist-bump, and then go into completely explaining Bush's chest bump and they give him props for it. Wow.
FAIR AND BALANCED
ToyMachine228
Member
suaveric said:
Yeah this was a unifying/healing speech that is going to start to heal both sides. Eventually she's going to have to go back into fiery Hillary mode and tell her stubborn supporters and some of the more "uneducated white vote" that may not be quick to get behind Obama and say. "You want to stay in Iraq? Fine vote for McCain. You want war with Iran, fine vote for McCain. You want the economy to stay the same with the Joe American getting shit on? Fine vote for McCain. You want to keep paying high gas prices, and stay dependent on oil and continue to ignore the energy crisis that is coming? Fine vote for McCain. But if you don't want those things, then you need to seriously consider voting for Barack Obama." She'd be good at that.
backbreaker65
Banned
I was pleased with Clinton's speech. She can yet become a powerful force for good this November if she keeps it up. I'm still opposed to her as VP because I do not believe it would ultimately help Barack, however, if it does in fact help him get elected I'm all for it. From now on I care about only one thing in politics - getting this man into the Oval Office.
Anyway, I transcribed the lyrics of Nas' Black President for the occasion:
Anyway, I transcribed the lyrics of Nas' Black President for the occasion:
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
gluv65 said:
awsome
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
I just watched a repeat of the speech. I missed the first little bit so maybe I didn't get the entire context, but from what I saw I wasn't that impressed. She managed to talk about herself a lot (for the second speech in a row...) and when she touched upon Obama it was always vague generalities about the needs of the party and voting for Obama because he's the nominee rather than positive things about Obama himself. She still seems unwilling to let go of the notion that she would be better. There was even a point where she says how she thought she would be the best candidate but... and then proceeds to launch into a long monologue about women in America without ever returning to the idea that Obama is a strong candidate in his own right.
I don't know. It just seemed like she was trying to cement her place in history and otherwise going through the motions. Every endorsement she gives seems to be about what position Obama is in and and what the alternative is, not who Obama is and what he specifically offers. It's disappointing, but not surprising.
I don't know. It just seemed like she was trying to cement her place in history and otherwise going through the motions. Every endorsement she gives seems to be about what position Obama is in and and what the alternative is, not who Obama is and what he specifically offers. It's disappointing, but not surprising.
GrotesqueBeauty said:
I think that's a little bit harsh. I do maintain that Hillary is a bit of an egomaniac, and we certainly saw that in her speech, but I thought she did what she felt she needed to do, she did endorse Obama very specifically and explicitly touting him as the logical candidate for her supporters to go to, and calling for them to make that move. I thought she was as gracious as she could be.
I think the negative that you saw, and I as well, that she was focused so much on herself was more about her desire to be VP than any attempt to still be President this time around. I think she was speaking as much to Obama as Democrats in generally and believed that emulating him, in scope and manner of speaking (the tone was pure Obama) was her way of asking to be his VP. From a political standpoint the motive was graceless, but rhetorically I have to say it was brilliant, and a little scary how she could seemingly morph into an entirely different speaker from the past.
Stumpokapow said:
You're right. There's an enormous myopia when it comes to about 3/4ths of PoliGAF in realizing that 18 million voted for her and she's one of the most powerful people in politics. I don't like her, I don't like Bill, they surround themselves with some of the most destructive, slash and burn advisers and supporters in the country... but her being on Obama's ticket would provide a range of appeal among voters that absolutely no one else could provide. I snicker when people come up with shit like Sebelius and Webb and other trophy candidates who have zero appeal on the national stage. It's obvious that this is a first election for a lot of people here because they never think of trying to appeal to as many people as possible, they just think about what appeals to themselves the most.
Would I personally rather another VP than Hillary? Yes. Would another VP than Hillary lend as much to Obama's broad appeal as much as she does? No way. Obama won the nomination on Tuesday and the media has been 24/7 Hillary since. She's a major force in American politics, like it or not.
I'm frequently dumbfounded listening to some of you wanting to discard a candidate who just racked up 18 MILLION votes. It's a dream come true for Obama. He gets to be the president. He's the one who sets the policies and the tone and approves and vetoes and appoints judges and meets with foreign leaders and so on and so on and so on, and what Hillary does is stand there in a supporting role and bring her 18 million supporters on board.
You'd have to be half-insane to choose another candidate over her. And I don't like her! But I want to win.
VALIS said:
God knows I don't agree with much of what poligaf believes, but I think they're dead on about Hillary. The thing is, Obama's young enough and not "established" enough, and Hillary's got enough connections (even ignoring Bill) that an Obama-Clinton ticket would immediately become in effect an Obama-CLINTON ticket. Rather than the VP being just another supporter of the President, Hillary would immediately overshadow Obama in coverage and in gravitas. That's of course aside from the fact she's more polarizing and less "likeable" than Obama outside of core democratic voters.
Think of it though as if Obama chose Gore to be his VP (and assume he'd accept). Do you think Obama would get more or less attention than Gore in that situation?
You're assuming that those 18 million would come on board automatically with Obama at the top of the ticket. You're also assuming another VP, given appropriate exposure, could not get them as well. Not to mention that much of her popular vote came from large, solid blue states like New York and California that are not contested. Her tactical appeal is limited in states that matter. Sebelius, for example, could probably help in Ohio just as much as Clinton.VALIS said:
Hillary also comes with a number of liabilities. There's her own dirty laundry which the Republicans have been digging up for years. There's her irrational and unpredictable behavior on the campaign trail. There's her own sound bites which can be used against Obama. She arguably undermines the message, and then there's Bill and the whole Pandora's Box he brings along.
Bottom line is I don't think she passes a cost-risk evaluation.
ZeroTolerance
Junior Member
Obama's Biography thing playing on MSNBC right now.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
VALIS, it's glib and condescending to suggest that people must be first time voters or that it's their first time participating in the process because they don't support Clinton on the ticket. It's not wrong to believe in principle over supposed "electibility", and beyond that assertion there are half a dozen other practical considerations to take into account. She brings a tremendous amount of baggage both from the primaries (a source for dozens if not hundreds of sound bytes of her attacking Obama's qualifications in the worst possible way) as well as her and Bill's unsavory financial entanglements. It's also a mistake to think of those 18 million voters as Hillary's and hers alone. The ones who are focused on issues are already likely to switch to Obama and those for whom it's a cult of personality wouldn't necessarily be any less resentful upon seeing her in the subservient role of VP than they are now.
The list goes on, and I'm sure you could rebute each point in turn with more arguments for why she would be a good pick, but my point is that there are legit grounds for considering why she might not just be the shiny sparkling gift of 18 million votes that you propose.
The list goes on, and I'm sure you could rebute each point in turn with more arguments for why she would be a good pick, but my point is that there are legit grounds for considering why she might not just be the shiny sparkling gift of 18 million votes that you propose.
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
omgimaninja said:
Okay I'm buying a KIA :lol
That video is such a fantastic look into Obama's campaign. Really nice. Even with what he has accomplished the man just appears to be so down to earth and normal.
Zeed said:
I'm sure there were a decent amount of voters who chose her not because they like her but don't like Obama. But most of them? Yes, of course they would come on board vote for Barack. And a lot of them would vote for him even if she wasn't VP, but I don't think some of you realize what the next few months would be like with ab Obama/Clinton ticket. Media frenzy. The dream team. The most important ticket in American political history, they'd say. I'd bet you cash money that would be the overriding theme everywhere but Fox News and a couple other conservative enclaves. Could you imagine what kind of influence this would have? Remember, the majority of voters aren't well researched. Give them three months of HISTORY MAKING DREAM TEAM vs. old and saggy McCain and whatever other straggler he brings on, and I predict you'd see a rout.
kkaabboomm
Member
Odrion said:
why would you do that? it has been 100% confirmed that if Obama made Hillary his VP choice, it would magically give him those 18 million votes. come on now, don't hate on the truth.
The Lamonster
Member
Pretty good! Thanks for the link and lyrics.Zeed said:
I'm watching the Obama biography on MSNBC, and I just realized we've completely ignored John Kerry in this thread. Obama would not be the nominee today if it weren't for Kerry. It was Kerry who tapped Obama to give the keynote DNC speech in '04, and Kerry was behind Obama's campaign really early in the process.
I wonder if Obama will ask him to join the administration...
I wonder if Obama will ask him to join the administration...
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
VALIS said:
The myopia I'm describing is not holding the opinion that Hillary would be a good choice for the ticket or holding the opinion that she wouldn't be a good choice for the ticket. It's the process by which people arrive at those conclusions. I'm not calling you myopic by any means, but in a sense I'm referring to all of us.
The internet empowers people to have instant access to information and allows them to rapidly get up to speed on things they did not know about before. I don't know fuck all about cricket, but I'm sure the internet allows me to learn the rules and the big players pretty quickly.
The unfortunate side effect of this new generation of instant micro-experts is that the quality and depth of vision has been lowered greatly. Someone proposes Ted Strickland as Governor, and suddenly a few Googles and Wikipedias later every poster in the thread has a nominally informed opinion about Strickland.
So there's a mix of both people who don't know anything but think they know a lot and people who genuinely know a lot but learned it so recently that they lack a certain robustness of understanding of what it is they know.
Along with the internet, television has gone in a similar direction. Between the constant need of the 24 hour news cycle to drum up new stories out of thin air, the professional "consultant" industry, the journalist as pundit, and echo chambers found in progressive, conservative, and neutral media sources, we've got a world where everyone is an expert but no one really knows what they're talking about.
People yelling about Hillary as an independent candidate earlier in the week had evidence to back them up; pundits had floated it, she was sending out mixed signals about quitting the race, immediate opinion polls said Americans thought that wouldn't be a half-bad idea. In a vacuum, all that sounds enticing... but the idea is stupid now and it was stupid then. It ignores the realities of the team she had assembled, the moneymakers, the issues of the election, her political future. Basically every long-term or deeper-than-surface level concern was erased for a few days when people focused just on her personality and the half thought out opinions Americans mashed into the phones when robocalled.
The same goes for the ridiculous cabinets people are assembling for Obama that include clashing personalities, people that don't want the jobs, people who can't hack the jobs, people with scandal-filled backgrounds, and a roster of people so famous that if they were assembled into a cabinet they would leave massive power vacuums in the Democratic party infrastructure from bottom to top... while ignoring the reality that the majority of cabinet members are talented individuals with a background in non-elected civil service and executive bureaucracy. It's not uncommon that the Vice Presidential candidate has low name recognition. It's not uncommon that the cabinet has NO name recognition.
And in the end perhaps the most grievous error of all found in internet discussions is the idea that this amateur hour of punditry actually represents the direction of politics. Both Dean and Obama have spoken about the power of the internet to create a new democracy--and Edwards and Obama both cast their campaigns as a bottom-up grassroots effort... but when push comes to shove, every single campaign relies on a certain level of intellectual elitism wherein the candidate and his or her inner circle of expert advisers aim to direct public discourse, not listen to it. It's one thing to say that a politician should be mindful of what people want, but a history of American public opinion polls should tell us two things: first, people often want things they don't fully understand that can or will hurt them. Second, people are led by leaders.
Whether the surge or Bush's social security reform plans were good or not is not relevant here, but they do provide an awesome example of this phenomenon. Two days before the surge was announced, popular opinion did not exist on the subject. Sure, some people would have a gut reaction to it if it was pitched to them... but the fact remains that the actual discourse around the surge did not exist until it left the lips of the politicians assigned to pitch it to the public.
The new media and the internet ignore this. Ideas appear and instantaneously everyone is already an expert on the idea, the counterproposals, and every little trivial bit of knowledge surrounding it. The real experts who have the actual ability to evaluate the idea and provide meaningful context are either partisan and thus unable to be intellectually honest, or else drowned out by the echo chamber of populist sentiment on the matter.
That's the myopia I'm talking about. I don't mean to suggest I'm immune to it, either... although I'd argue that in particular this dampening effect tends to be worse in American politics than elsewhere in my experience. There's a reason academics can be career historians and political scientists; there is a much deeper historical, political, logical, empirical, and thoughtful dimension to this race and it's not being discussed near enough here, anywhere else on the internet, or for the most part in public.
I think, too, that this sort of thing is demonstrated best as time goes on an ideas spouted by pundits and posters alike are ridiculed. It's no coincidence that "crow eating" tends to happen much more now than ever before in my experience, and it's not just because the internet allows us to easily pull up someone's record--it's that people who never would have weighed in or made predictions before now make them frequently, but those predictions are not good enough to be right most of the time. I'd also wager a guess that the average person from this generation feels as though he or she knows more about politics whether or not he or she actually does.
For the third time, I'll quote Alexander Pope here--A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.
kkaabboomm
Member
theBishop said:
i have very mixed feelings about this type of thing. 'oh, we want biden as SOS, kerry in there, maybe dodd, maybe clinton, etc'
there are currently only 49 democrats in the senate, plus 2 I's who caucus with them (one of those being the big L). if Obama wins, thats 48, and if kerry, clinton, biden alone, thats 45. yeah, gov's can appoint new dems to take their seats, and the dems are slated to pick up maybe 5 or more senate seats, but raiding a body of 100 of 5 members, thats 5 people who have relationships with people, who have connections, who have legislative experience, etc from that body.
i'm not sure it's a good idea to take so many senators and put them in the admin/cabinet.
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
theBishop said:
I'm quite positive he will. Yes we absolutely cannot forget the faith that Kerry had in Obama. Sure people shrugged off his endorsement as nothing major, but I thought it was pretty significant that he was throwing his support behind Obama the way he did so it's important that we not forget people like that.
Very good point kaboom.
:lol Obama to his campaign people stating how had they lost Iowa it would've been over, but since we did, we have to win.
Almost like a "holy shit we really stepped into it now, we can't disappoint people lets win this thing!"
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
theBishop said:
Massachusetts would go from having the 18th ranked senator in the senate to having the 100th ranked senator in the senate... and given that Teddy is going to kick the bucket or retire at some point during his term, they'll also lose the 2nd ranked senator in the senate.
From 2nd and 18th to 99th and 100th. It's going to be a shitty few years for the bay state in terms of political influence.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
theBishop said:
Kerry has repeatedly denounced such rumors. Plus it wouldn't be wise for Obama to steal all of his fellow Senators for his administration
When i get paid guysStoOgE said:Guys, I've updated the fundraising goal for NeoGafers for Obama to 3K.
Remember, it's NeoGAF's contribution to society.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NeoGAFforObama
we did an awesome job bringing the senator 1337 dollars in the primary. I wanted to make the goal 9001 dollars (greater than 9000).. but last time I had a crazy big number as a joke, you guys hit it, I didnt want to make GAF give up all their money this time.
. I cant wait to donate money.Jason's Ultimatum
Member
gluv65 said:
Is that video up on Youtube yet? For some reason, it isn't working on their site. For me that is.
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
God gamn Obama is one inspirational sob. I almost cried listening to the very the end part of his speech to his campaign HQ in Chicago.
The man really does care about these things.
The man really does care about these things.
The Lamonster
Member
so awesomegluv65 said:
GrotesqueBeauty said:
I'm not suggesting that everyone who doesn't think Clinton would be a beneficial VP candidate is a political newb, but come on, anyone with two eyes has seen the PoliGAF threads inundated in the last couple months with people hopping on board for the gifs and the memes and the trash talking and because Obama is a bit of a cultural phenomenon. There are good reasons why one should be concerned about a Clinton vice presidency and there are good points to be made for other candidates. However, most of the anti-Clinton VP arguments here can be summed up as, "She's a bitch, and I'm still pissed off about some things she did."
Politics, and American politics specifically, has got to be the most emotionally raw "game" on the planet. It can and usually is nasty, divisive, undercutting, crude, dismissive and so on. It's not the place for the sensitive and easily wounded. Democracy in general is trying to find the best solution for everyone, it's about conceding some points to gain on others. It's compromise and practicality. Idealism is what gets a lot of us up in the morning but idealism isn't what gets jobs done. As a party we can not be overly idealistic again as we were in 2004 when we got behind a solid democrat but a candidate with hideous national appeal in John Kerry, who went on to get trounced. I'm not sitting with my head in my hands again the day after the election wondering how the fuck we lost. Idealism is great but winning is better right now. Pick the ticket with the broadest voter appeal and let's win the election.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
I don't like the new McCain ads on NeoGAF :/
The Lamonster
Member
Keep him distracted, I'm calling the terrorist hotline right now.guess said:
Revengeance
Member
OHMYGOD WHERE DO I SIGN UP!!??gluv65 said:
polyh3dron
Banned
VALIS said:
From previous page:
Also, Peter Paul.
The whole Republican angle would be to just play Hillary soundbites ad nauseum, saying "His VP candidate didn't believe in him, so why should YOU?"
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
What do you guys expect the popular vote to look like in November? Pretty close, like in 2004, right?
Deus Ex Machina
Member
http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcomZonar said:
Stumpokapow said:
Enjoyable post and I agree with a lot of what you said, but I differ with you here. I agree, people slotting big names into cabinet positions is like making up fantasy baseball rosters and not very realistic. And usually, it's a debate without a definitive conclusion on how important a VP is to the presidential candidate.
Except this time. For Obama, I think the choice of a VP is crucial. I can not think of a nominated candidate in my lifetime who is going to have a tougher job appealing to America as a whole as Obama. Personally, I don't know shit from rural America as I've lived my whole life within shouting distance of New York City, but people sure have talked a lot about rural America in the last 10 years, and pandered to it, and asked its opinion on every topic under the sun. While it would be wrong to say most rural areas of this country reject Obama, it would be even more incorrect to assume these rural people who voted for Clinton will just hop on board Obama's train now. New York democrats, or California dems, sure. Pennsylvania or Michigan or Florida or Ohio? Not so easy. He needs help. And he's going to make up a lot of this help himself by touring the country and letting people get to know him, which always works out in his favor, but you're only going to visit so many places in 5 months and influence so many people.
A pick like Webb or Sebelius or Kaine or any number of these relatively small time figures and you have twice the work ahead of you -- letting people get to know and learn about Obama AND his vice presidential candidate. Why take that on? How much do you expect to accomplish in a few months?
Furthermore, expanding on what I said in my last post, a lot of election year politics comes down to flash and soundbites because the majority of voters aren't well informed. Who's got the flash and who's got the soundbites? Obama/Clinton? Or Obama/Webb/Sebelius/etc.?
We are always too idealistic in this party, always wanting every little piece to fit in perfectly. Most conservatives don't like McCain, and what happened? He won the nomination, they all shut up and got on board. It may not be the most robust support you've ever seen, but they're not picking his candidacy apart trying to micro-analyze every little facet and decision. It's time for us to do the same. Two democratic presidencies out of the last seven. Can we admit as a party we're too fussy and too unwilling to sacrifice smaller issues for the larger picture? I mean, if you told me there was another VP candidate who carries the same broad appeal as Hillary, I'm all ears. I just don't see who he or she is. I mean, after Hillary my choices are Wesley Clark and Sam Nunn purely for demographic reasons and the broad appeal boxes they tick off. That's what I'm all about right now: Broad Appeal.
Kerry discovered him. Kerry was in Chicago for a fundraiser before Obama won the nomination to be the democrat for the senate seat, back when Obama was third in the senate primary polls. Kerry saw one of Obama's events and was impressed by him and thats why he picked him for the convention.theBishop said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Actually I'd say Obama should win the popular vote handily. However that doesn't mean Obama will win the electoral college of course
- Status