The Triumph of Hope Over Experience

Dude--did you "seriously" cite a Frank Luntz focus group as some sort of proof of something?

What's wrong with you?

Democrats are far more interested in "turning the page" than policy details.

According to Frank Luntz.

This is really bad performance art.

The most substantive campaign? Are you high?

I hadly know where to start to unpack this load of utter nonsense.

Let me be clear, I have no horse in this race. To me, primary season just brings out the stupid in people, but you've gone round the bend on this one, Joe.

First, John Edwards published all of his policy positions, well-detailed, months before any other candidate. His online presence has been well thought out, organized, and interactive in ways that Senator Clinton can only give the mildest of lip service to. He understand how to use the internet as a means of not just message out, but also as message in, and most important, message across.

Chris Dodd, through the undeniable talents of Tim Tagaris, also has an excellent online presence and user empowering online site as well.

And while Senator Obama and Senator Clinton were busy playing chicken on who would be the first to symbolically pull out support for funding in Iraq, Dennis Kucinich was putting forward the clear and obvious path to ending the funding of the war, and Joe Biden had also published a well- considered thesis on the subject.

And while sitting Senators Obama and Clinton were so busy trying to get their next job, that they forgot to do the job they were already sworn to do, Senator Dodd left Iowa and went to Washington to stage a one man fight for the Constitution. And he won it. Do ya think maybe that get a little nod for substantive?

Hillary Clinton running a substantive campaign? Of the many, many times I have heard her speak in person (she is my Senator), one of the few truly substantive answers I have ever heard her give to a question was one about taking campaign contributions from Washington Lobbyists. She gave a substantive answer alright. She said that of course she would take money from Washington lobbyists, and then continued on to give a full-throated and passionate support of Washington lobbyists by telling a room of hard core liberal activist that lobbyists work for us. But, I will admit, the question caught her off guard so she answered with some rare candor. Lest you doubt me, I have the footage of it.

Here's a tip, Joe--substantive answers are not ones which simultaneously agree with all points of view and then promise a solution which will please each interested party. Witness her licenses for aliens in NY debacle.

Senator Clinton's campaign may be many things--well-organized, prepared, polished, skilled--but substantive is not one of them.

If you want to see a substantive campaign, you should look at Senator Edwards campaign. That's one with substance.

If you want a substantive understanding how to get new voters to commit to the process, go watch Obama's campaign.

If you want to see what substantive leadership on defending the Constitution looks like, go follow Chris Dodd around for a while.

If you want to listen to someone who actually knows first hand what the hell is going on in North Korea and can give a substantive answer on it, try Bill Richardson.

If you want someone who has a clear cut and substantive sense of what will likely happen in Iraq, set aside an hour or four and go ask Joe Biden.

Hillary Clinton the most substantive campaign? You've missed the point, yet again, Joe. The whole point of Mark Penn's directing of Senator Clinton's campaign was to be the least substantive as possible. If she lacked real substance, then she wouldn't be as easy to attack in the general election. That was the whole point of the primary campaign strategy. Sadly, he succeeded. And now we may never know what a campaign of Hillary Clinton with substance will ever look like.

But it seems, understandably, that Democrats are far more interested in, as Obama says, "turning the page" than in the mastery of policy details.

Also, I can't let this go by without noting how completely nitwitted that statement is.

Mastery of policy details? You mean like:

Right-to-Organize Unions
The United Nations
The Peace Corps
GI Bill of Rights
NATO
The Marshall Plan
NASA
Minimum Wage
8 Hour workday
OSHA, MSHA
EPA
Medicare
Medicaid
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Water Quality Act
Clean Air Act
RCRA
Women's Suffrage Ammendment
Workers Compensation Act
Unemployment Compensation Act
Rural Electrification Act
Equal Pay
Equal Rights
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Home Loan Program
Securities and Exchange Act
Guaranteed Student Loan Program
Family & Medical Leave Act
School Lunch Program
Motor Voter Act
Balanced Budget in 1998 as a result of the Balanced Act 1993
Davis-Bacon Act
---
Uh, yeah, the Democrats really have a tricky time making those poilcy things work, huh, Joe...

Then again, if she were not associated with that other Clinton presidency, she wouldn't be in the Senate or on the stage.

Yes, clearly this must be true because women who graduate at the top of their class from Wellsleyand go on to Yale Law School from an already politically connected family rarely succeed without the help of their husband.

Jesus, Joe--either quit drinking or quit writing. Hopefully both.

Posted by Joe Klein January 6, 2008 2:14:

"But it seems, understandably, that Democrats are far more interested in, as Obama says, "turning the page" than in the mastery of policy details."

Did everybody get that?

"Democrats"--the entire party and self-identified voters--are comprised of a "Frank Luntz focus group". Awesome.

No wonder that, deep down, Joe has no respect for Democrats! After all, it's "understandable" that policy details are of no interest to Democrats when it's obvious that we're all Big Mac-eating, minivan-driving "Frank Luntz focus group"-participating provincial dullards. That's why it's best that these sort of things are left to the experts and Wise Men in Washington (I'm sure that Joe can think of a few).

But I seem to recall Joe telling us something else about Democrats in a piece he wrote for the Democratic Leadership Council (the Clintons' former political machine) rag "Blueprint". What was that again?

They need to understand what Republicans have long known: that presidential politics is about character, first and foremost -- it is about beliefs, as opposed to issues, and it is about humanity. We are choosing a leader, not a series of talking points. We are deciding who will live in our kitchens and family rooms for the next four years. Karl Rove began George W. Bush's first presidential campaign by telling the staff that there were three crucial questions in the campaign: Which candidate is stronger? Which one is more trustworthy? And which one cares more about people like me? It is amazing that Democrats have never figured out just how simple this business of electing presidents can be.

So that's interesting: on the one hand, it's "understandable" that Democrats could care less about substance, but on the other, it's Democrats again who need to learn that issues don't matter (from W and Karl).

Or is it that Frank Luntz focus group "Democrats" are mysteriously also George W voters? I give up. Are Democrats hopelessly stuck on issues (Iraq occupation, health care, economy), or are they semi-obese dimwits who can't even tell what substance looks like in a debate, much less vote for sound leadership?

Joe makes an absolute art out of drivel and condescension. Does he imagine that we are such fools? Does he believe that we're so desperate to escape being identified with Lunt'z small-town, working class "regular Americans" (on Fox News, where else) that we'll reflexively embrace his studiously anthropological view of their "voting habits"?

Does he not know that we're aware of Luntz's sole gift to America, the rephrasing of "Estate Tax" into "Death Tax" at the behest of Tom Delay-era Republicans? Does he not understand that it's perfectly obvious to us that Luntz (and media-buying campaign consultants in general) has the biggest stake of all in an agenda of depriving voters of solid information in favor of a well-crafted and laboratory tested "message"? It's literally what the guy sells for a living--everybody knows this. What is Frank going to do--tell his prospective Beltway clientele that voters want to make decisions based on solutions to specific problems and not polled phrases? Would that ever happen, even if somebody secretly replaced Frank's focus group members with a Mensa book club? Joe apparently thinks that we're not creative enough to make the connection between the Republican "messaging guru"'s free advice to campaigns ("better have good messaging!") and the perfectly staged "evidence" clearly proving the soundness of such wisdom. I guess he also believes that we still listen to David Broder's tales of intimacy with "Real Americans" without dissolving into laughter.

Luntz's sales technique can hardly be distressing to Joe, because he himself is in the business of dreaming up wise conclusions first and then "reporting" whatever "facts" there are to be had in support of such theories. We might have thought that anti-science was a defining characteristic of the Bush Administration, but Joe's obviously post proves that it is also of the entire political media establishment.

The most egregious thing about this post is also emblematic of how Beltway Conventional Wisdom seeks to fix the facts around its desired policy: that nowhere to be found is any hint of "ordinary voter" response to or desire for accountability.
Accountability for the corruption, gross errors, law-breaking, debt and disaster inflicted on our nation by our political elites and their establishment media enablers will never be a "positive dial turner" for Klein's and the Luntz's mythical "Democrat", even though it is the entire reason why a system of elected government was established by the founders of our country. Enforced on Americans instead are the false choices of "policy details" vs "turning the page", "experience" vs "change", "substance" vs "style". Accountability has somehow disappeared from the ballot--because "anger" isn't an allowed response to what's happened to our freedoms, or to our prosperity, or to our strength, or to truth itself during the last eight years. No, somehow accountability never polls well enough to make it into a "viable" candidate's message. We are assured again and again that voters "don't like anger", that people want "someone to unite the country", while Congress's approval is in the teens, and a majority of the country knows that we're bankrupting ourselves. What is "change" in a democratic system if not ultimately holding institutions accountable for failure to make people's lives better? People don't want "change"--change happens all the time, usually for the worse these days. People want accountability--which never happens, because of the mechanisms that produce and reward Joe for taking accountability off of the table.

In case you think that I'm implying something about the apparent push to limit the Democratic field to Hillary vs. Obama, I'll say this: I have no idea if John Edward's candidacy represents anything more than the symbolism of accountability. If Joe Klein has his way, the country never will, either.

Please forgive the typos, I'm tired. I won't list them all. Thanks for bearing with me.

Well, I would say that it was the triumph of something over experience, but not b/c Hillary came in 3rd, but rather b/c Dodd, Biden, and to a lesser extent Richardson could never get the media or voters to take them seriously.

C Morris: While I agree with virtually everything you wrote, I'd like to add that there is a jarring, and depressing, contrast between the detailed and well thought out policy proposals by Edwards on his website and the increasingly desperate, shrill populism that he spouts on the stump (e.g., "I'll take Congress's health care away," "Corporate greed is stealing your children's future," etc.). Alas, after Clinton and Obama copied his health-care plan, there wasn't as much to distinguish him on the issues.

Joe, you might be totally off your rocker now.

Penn has micropolled Clinton to death. She is running on as safely a controlled platform as possible.

She played the prevent defense, running as the defacto winner with mushy muddle headed moderate positions. It failed.

Oh, no wonder you think she is brilliant. Never mind.

Dude--did you "seriously" cite a Frank Luntz focus group as some sort of proof of something?

not only did he cite a Luntz focus group, but one put together for Fox!

How bad is Luntz. His first question was leading ("you guys all want change, right?") -- and of course the whole room replied "yes" in unison.

How bad is luntz? Next question didn't even mention Edwards (who, IMHO won the debate for the first time.) Instead, it was framed as "who won that battle [for change] Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton". Indeed, not ONCE during the segment did Luntz even mention Edwards.

***********

Its clear that the media will criticize Hillary for whatever she does. She has run the most substantive campaign --- throughout the Iowa period, she constantly talked about her record, and her plans. And her website has the most comprehensive and well-thought-out policy papers (even when I don't agree with her positions, there is no question that the details are there.)

And the same media that said that Barack Obama had to get more agressive with Hillary when his campaign was in trouble is now viciously trashing Hillary for getting more agressive in criticizing Obama.

***********
No one ever mentions that Obama didn't start out as the "change" candidate, but the "hope" candidate. Edwards was the person who campaigned on "change" --- and Obama adopted that mantra when his "hope" message started to falter. Nor does anyone mention that Obama was perfectly happy to accept contributions from Federal lobbyists --- until Edwards made "lobbyist money" an issue, and suddenly Obama is refunding all those contributions.

*********
Nor is anyone mentioning that Edwards did not directly attack Hillary -- although that is what is being reportered simply because Edwards said that he and Obama would be attacked by entrenched interests for advocating change. Edward's was just as indirectly critical of Obama (do you think he was referring just to Hillary when he talked about lobbyists money?) but the media doesn't care about that --- "attack Hillary" is the mantra, and that is all that matters.

*********
Hillary's best moment was when she cited the fact that Obama criticizes lobbyists at the same time that his New Hampshire co-chair is a lobbyist. That was the kind of statement that deserved a followup to Obama -- but there was none. (And I'd really like to see Obama answer that question.... apparently his rationale is that he's making a distinction between "federal" and "state" lobbyists, which would make him look foolish if he tried to do that in a debate setting.)

She played the prevent defense, running as the defacto winner with mushy muddle headed moderate positions. It failed.

for the sake of argument, lets just say that Hillary Clinton had spent the last eight years in the Senate voting exactly as Barack Obama has (and would have) rather than trying to establish her "moderate" credentials. And that she'd campaigned on a message of "hope" and "change"....

Do you really think that she would not have already been pigeon-holed by the media as some kind of left-wing "feminazi" radical?

I'm not a Hillary fan, because she did veer to the middle at a time when the country needed prominent people willing to speak out boldly against Bush. But I understand why she did it --- she understands exactly how vicious and hateful the media is toward her, and she had to give the media as little ammo as possible.

Frank Luntz provides the empirical evidence that politics is all about character thereby justifying the fact that the MSM focus all their attention on creating poor analogies about character rather than substance.

I guess that is why they never cover Edwards because he is angry, and anger trumps substance.

The irony is that the top 3 Democrats in this race have so little experience overall. Edwards served one term in the senate, Obama served at the state level, but he's missing most of his first term in Congress while running for President, and Clinton is only in her second term.

Now, while Senator Clinton would like to claim some of Bill Clinton's glory, she really can't. Her only really front-and-center attempt to influence policy was one of the biggest disasters of President Clinton's two terms in office.

And look at President Clinton's record compared to any of the top Democrats running now. He was governor of Arkansas for a decade after a period of time as Attorney General. And being a Governor is really one of the best overall qualifications for President.

On the Democratic side, It's a contest among inexperienced candidates, all of whom are trying to inflate their resumes and one of whom will have to then face off against either another long-serving Governor from Arkansas who can jam Bill Clinton-style and has a very Clinton-esque communication style, a one term Governor who has also been a successful businessman, a man who has been serving in Congress since 1982, or one of the most successful mayors and politicians in American history.

It should be interesting.

A couple of thoughts:

"The sad thing, at least to me, is that Hillary Clinton has run the most substantive campaign of any of the Democrats and, if she goes down, it will be because of factors beyond her control."

But really isn't that something that can be said about quite a few losing presidential candidates? You can have all the policy positions in the world nailed down to a T and if you can't get the electorate to trust and believe in you, none of it will matter. She's got a lot of good answers but she's just not comfortable in front of crowds. Al Gore was the same way until e started taking some lessons from Bill. Given their proximity, it's a shame that Hillary isn't doing the same.

"The ultimate conundrum: If she were not associated with that other Clinton presidency, she would seem a fresh and exciting possibility--the first woman President, and someone far better prepared than the guys to do the job."

BUT, let's face it, she hasn't made much of an effort to distance herself from Bill's administration either. Do you know what I saw when she gave her little speech Thursday night? A ton of high profile faces from Bill's administration. Do you know what that reminded me of? Bush 43's administration with all the high profile faces from republican administrations of yore. Sure, some of those guys were pretty effective once upon a time, but it's a scary parallel. Just like I wasn't looking for a return to the Bush 41 years when I voted for Gore and Kerry, I'm not looking for return to the Clinton 42 years when I cast my vote next month. I don't want a return to the good old days an old administration, I want an administration that makes a clean break with the past and is ready, willing, and able to take us into the future unencumbered.

Does he imagine that we are such fools?

yes.

This has been another edition........

You have no idea what Hillary Clinton's life would havwe been like had she not been associated with the Clinton presidency. But most people don't question that she's smart and talented enough to have gotten to the senate or to run for the presidency. And if she hadn't been first lady she wouldn't seem like the establishment candidate in the first place.

To say that Hillary is only a viable contender because of Bill is as sexist as it would be racist to say that Barack Obama is only a contender because he's black.

Does anyone know how Klein ever got to be a journalist? It must be his ability to draw false analogies and pose false dilemmas.

Oh, Lawd. Frank Luntz? That guy epitomizes everything that is wrong with the Beltway.

Did anybody actually watch the clip?

Frank Luntz did not ask a single substantive question. He's the one who is asking character and message statements. The entire discussion is about messaging and tactics.

There are a few instances where people in the audience cite policy issues--No child left behind, substanceless responses from Clinton--but it's Luntz not the voters who are not focused on policy issues. He didn't ask for a sho.w of hands on, say, who'll get us out of Iraq or who will successfully implement universal health care.

It's absolutely bizarre that Joe would use this clip to support a position that voters don't care about issues

This style vs substance narrative is rather old and tired and really silly to apply to the democrats. The fact of the matter is that all of the dems are pretty sustantive. Maybe Hillary provides more details and can be considered a bit more subtantive. But if you want to look at an example of a presidential candidate with style but no substance, look at Fred Thompson. All of them are pretty substantive. Debates are not necessrily the forum in which to spell out the details of every policy. People have to remember the audience. This is not a graduate level seminar. Considering debates that I have seen over the years, I have to say that this crop of dems has been among the most substantive in a long time.

Speaking personally, I'm much more interested in what a candidate actually proposes to do than their "expertise." All of these guys are professional politicians, and none of them have been president before.

Give me someone with policies I agree with over someone who knows the job forwards and backwards any day.

Mr. Joe Klein:

I would agree with the previous poster(s) who take issue with you saying Clinton has run the most substantive campaign. That award would go to Edwards, I think. And I think it's safe to say Obama and Clinton have generally been reacting to his policy proposals rather than being the most pro-active.

As to why people have a bad reaction to Mrs. Clinton, maybe its that she wants to have it both ways (shocking!)

On one hand, she says she has all this experience and has been getting things done for more than three decades. In the next sentence (like she did last night) she talks about her political courage in the context of the '93 Clinton budget bill.

Last time I checked, she was picking china patterns and new drapes for the WH residence while that was going on. So why does she claim it as her own?

I wish Obama or Edwards would have called her out on that last night. The bottom line is, the Obama and Edwards campaigns are about big ideas or a different way of doing things. Hillary's campaign is about Hillary. And the polls show (unfairly or not) that a lot of people just don't like her. So why Mark Penn has her running on this cult of personality is beyond me.

The good news is, in a few weeks we won't have to worry about it anymore.

I say Good Day!

cookie puss--

Can you post links to polls that show that Clinton is particularly disliked? Especially among Democrats?

Because I don't think you'll find that to be true.

RKA wrote:

This style vs substance narrative is rather old and tired and really silly to apply to the democrats. The fact of the matter is that all of the dems are pretty sustantive. Maybe...

okay, who replaced the Obamadrone 3000 that has been posting here as RKA with a real person? ;-)

jayackroyd:

i don't have any polls that show Clinton is disliked, but I am following in the hallowed Swampland tradition of Joe Klein and making it up as I go along.

I say Good Day!

"Can you post links to polls that show that Clinton is particularly disliked? Especially among Democrats?"

This is not scientific but my sense as a dirty internet hippie, who lives in a big eastern city ruled by Satan, is that no one believes Clinton when she says we are getting out of Iraq. They think Obama will do it, but his kissy-face rhetoric toward the pukes who want us to stay there forever makes them a little nervous. John Edwards, on the other hand, they think, couldn't possibly back track on that issue now.

It is not that Clinton is disliked. Her biggest problem is her association with the centrist cult that has let us down the past year.

"Then again, if she were not associated with that other Clinton presidency, she wouldn't be in the Senate or on the stage."

If she hadn't been the First Lady in the 90s, and Arkansas's First Lady before that, she presumably would have been pursuing her own political career. Before she married, she was active in politics, and once her husband's political career was finished, she immeadiately entered electoral politics. It's unreasonable to suggest that she would have been doing nothing in the 80s and 90s if she hadn't been First Lady. And ironically, she would have probably been in Illinois, working as a U.S. Senator or possibly as a Governor.

Being, say, a three term U.S. Senator running to be the first woman President sounds like a pretty good combination of experience and change, doesn't it?

Joe Klein - The commentors have responded to you in a civil and thought-provoking manner. Any chance that you could engage the comments section on some of these issues?

Particularly C. Morris and stuart_zechman who hit the nail(s) on the head here.

The meta-analysis of this post is that your frequent visits to the truly despicable Luntz and your utter disdain for the commentors on this board and the Progressive netroots in general can easily explain the position in which your candidate now finds herself. The whole problem with your 'centrism' is that you only listen to the GOP. You advised her to run right in as non-confrontational manner as possible in an attempt to remove any ammunition that the GOP might have against Clinton. But here is the (obvious) problem with that strategy - THE GOP WILL NEVER STOP HATING HER! It does not matter that they have no more reason to hate her; hate is all that they have at this point. And all of the independents/undeclared/low-information-voters out there have been similarly brainwashed.

What Clinton needed was an inspired and activated base of voters and the Progressive Netroots could have been those people. But your strategy blew that opportunity - YOU blew that opportunity.

If you had dropped this 'centrism' nonsense and advocated acting like a true opposition party, complete with calls for accountability for the Bush administration's lawlessness, then today would be a different day. And Mark Penn would have been accurate in his depiction of Clinton as an inevitable candidate.

Pleaase respond to these issues Joe.

I agree with that assessment of Clinton, Derek. I strongly disagree with letting Rush Limbaugh talking points become the conventional wisdom. BTW, you should check out digby. She quotes a lengthy time line that argues that the whole VRWC attacks on the Clintons is all about stopping universal health care. Evil, heartless, divisive, ball-cutting Hillary is a centerpiece to those attacks.

Bill Kristol says why:

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress.

Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/make-it-so-by-digby-eugene-washington.html

But it's not true, of course. Clinton, like most politicians, is eminently likable.

Posted by jayackroyd Author Profile Page | January 6, 2008 10:44 AM:

"Can you post links to polls that show that Clinton is particularly disliked? Especially among Democrats?"

I'm seeing this talking point from Obama cultists and sock puppets in a bunch of commentary now, and it's getting mindlessly repeated by the Villagers and bandwagon jumpers. Their "proof" of younger Democrats, Democrats in general and Americans in general is simple: Iowa.

Now Iowa is being used to justify (when cult members feel like it makes them look bad not to have any reasoning) every sip of kool-aid coming out from Obama's compound. Get it? We knew with scientific certainty even before Iowa that young people hate Hillary because she's negative, she's Bill, she's spiteful, her message isn't "hope" or "change", and because, fair or unfair, she's just unelectable. Now we know with similar infallibility that this is the case because Iowa proves everything Obama's people ever said was right.

How do you know she's unelectable? Look at Iowa. How do you know young Democrats hate her? Look at Iowa. How do you know that Edwards isn't a viable candidate? Look at Iowa. How do you know that Republicans won't make Obama just as unelectable. You guessed it--Iowa. How do we know that water is wet, or day is night? The Obama faithful have all been given good instructions, and know exactly what to tell you to shut that argument down. That's why Oprah came to Iowa (but most likely won't be there for the general). That's why Iowa was their mythical "purple state" where Obama proved he could win over Republicans like he's going to in Virginia and North Carolina.

You have to admire them for their discipline and single-mindedness, if not for their honesty or moral compasses. Listen to them--it's like going over to Red State or Little Green Footballs--because they'll tell you openly what they're going to do and say next. They're getting a little less disciplined, actually, because they're so arrogant now. Remember, (like Rush Republicans) they actually believe what they're saying, even if it's the complete opposite of what they said yesterday or five minutes ago.

"I don't think you'll find that to be true."

I think that we'll all find that what's true or not true isn't what matters to believers in the cult of Obama. The truth doesn't matter, Democrats in general don't matter, policy details don't matter, yesterday's line doesn't matter, and, if you're not on board the "Hope Express", you absolutely don't matter. To the faithful, all that matters is that Obama is going to win the primaries this cycle.

That's why honest policy critiques like Krugman's, or strateic critiques like Markos' are "attacks" that need dirty, dishonest responses like "Paul's (non-existant) son works for Hillary", and "the blogosphere needs to realize that they're just marginalizing themselves". The very act of publicly disagreeing or even questioning the supremacy of Obama's candidacy is by definition an "attack", no matter what the objective merits of the debate actually are. It's Sovietism. It's university campus-style word-police and language politics, but far more sophisticated, since it's employed by people who are ambitious enough to imagine controlling the discourse of a much, much larger dormitory. They're very good at it. They know exactly what they're doing.

We won't find much that is going to be repeated endlessly over the next two months to be objectively true and supported by the facts, but reality (and the internet-based reality community) were thrown under the bus for the cause months ago, if not from the very start. We were reality-based in response to the Bush people, too, you'll remember. In fact, now it's might be too late for us. Luckily for us, being marginalized by the Beltway establishment, and fighting against almost hopeless odds are what we've been doing ever since this country went to war in Arabia. It's what we do, telling the truth. We just have to start fighting a little harder this year than we thought we had to. In the end, we'll win.

Oh, mediasux, don't you get it? Getting rid of the application of the style vs substance narrative to obama vs clinton, respectively, is in the candidate for who I allegedly drone's interest!

To further that point, there is a certain irony in this post's accusing Obama of not having substance while providing no substance himself to back up his sweeping generalization. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

But in any case, maybe those of you who will never love Obama the way I do can take at least take this Kos poster's attitude, which is to love the campaign/movement, even if the candidate is not as combative as you all might prefer.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/6/10467/38297/963/431256

"I agree with that assessment of Clinton, Derek."

It is somewhat ironic that the thing that was supposed to be her strength, her centrism, may now be her greatest weakness. Basing her whole campaign on that may turn out to be as big a mistake as McCain made trying to turn himself into a right wing extremist. It looks like St. McCain is now losing to Romney in NH because independents are abandoning him.

Commenters:
To be real clear about it, I'm not describing people who like Obama's candidacy in general, or find hope in his campaign, or agree with Obama's positions, truthfully don't like the other candidates as much, or know that they are going to vote for Obama for whatever reason.

I'm talking about the "faithful", people who mindlessly bleat "fired up, fired up" like it's "four legs good, two legs bad". I'm talking about those who refer to honest dissenters from their cause as "ankle-biters". I'm talking about others who immediately race to describe honest discussion as "attacks", and will assign Clinton, Edwards or Republican sock-puppet motives to their opponents in an argument at the drop of a hat. I'm really talking about folks who can seriously refer to another human being who happens to be a politician from Illinois as "The One".

That's exactly who I'm describing, and nobody else.

Then again, if she were not associated with that other Clinton presidency, she wouldn't be in the Senate or on the stage.

This is the central point of Hillary's candidacy.

It's not that complicated. A Hillary presidency would be a restoration.

Not saying that's bad, but that's what it is. Wouldn't it be better if we just debated the merits of a Clinton restoration instead of chit-chatting about cleavage and cackles and whatever nonsense Frank Luntz is peddling?

IME with Obama supporters, they're pro-Obama rather than anti-Clinton.

Yes, Derek, by following the prognostications of Penn, running to set up the general rather than to lock down the nomination and failing to recognize the temperature of the country, Clinton crafted a bad strategy.

You have to remember how long she has been in the bubble--since 1992. She has to rely on pollsters and strategists because she never gets real contact with people. I do lay part of this at the viciousness of the right wing attacks upon her; she needs a more impervious bubble than most.

It's not like there weren't plenty of people out here in DFH-Land telling her people that she was missing her moment. I'll always wonder what Peter Daou had to say to her, and what his access was like.

Joan Walsh had a fairly condescending piece complimenting the leaders of the DFHers (such as they are; they mostly deny that mantle) at their restraint in this cycle. But even though most of the time (I don't read DK candidate diaries) the rhetoric has been restrained, the concern that Clinton would get the nomination is palpable. She'll get the blogospheric votes in the general, if nominated, but there will be some noses held.

If she does make it past Super Tuesday, she is going to have to change her perception very quickly. Stoller suggested, over on OpenLeft, that she join Dodd's filibuster. She needs some kind of Hail Mary (pending, of course, the NH results. If she wins by 10 points, then Penn is vindicated.)

But, you know, this is what we've been saying since 2004. We want sincere committed candidates who are proud to be in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. We believe this reflects the will of the constituents of our Democratic elected officials.

So we'll see whether money and controlled campaigning can win over passionate supporters. Money and control won in 2004. In 2006, Lamont made it part way before the money and control stepped in. I'm not persuaded that any of the anointed three (and super anointed two) will move the country out of the hands of the military industrial, hypercorporatist complex.

But I think it's now clear (and you need look no farther than the other race) where the electorate is.

And that's BEFORE the recession has started and 100 dollar a barrel oil makes it way to the gas pump and the heating oil truck.

About HRC's unlikability.
I believe polls show that she has very high favorables among Dems, and with women in particular. As an illustration, here is a quote from Rasmussen a few days ago:
"Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democratic voters, Edwards by 66%, and Obama by 61%."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/as_campaign_season_begins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_viewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters

On the other hand she is irrationally hated my many Repukes, who in previous Rasmussen polls consistently voted her as the most liberal Dem candidate, even though polls of Dem voters revealed what just about everyone else here knows, namely, that she has run as the most conservative Dem candidate. So even though she ran (and voted in the Senate wrt Iraq and Iran) as a centrist to avoid giving ammunition to Reps in the general, assuming that she had the nom sewn up, it probably won't matter to them even if she is nominated. They will still call her a liberal, socialist, or cmmunist b/c that is what they hate, and they hate her, too, so they assume she must be one.

I fully understand that she (and Edwards) voted in favor of the Iraq War b/c they were afraid that it would be used against them in the next election since at the time pro-war sentiment was very high. I also understand that she and Obama didn't take the lead in trying to end funding for the war earlier this year and only voted against spending authorizations only when it was obvious that they would fail since if the troops are forced to be w/drawn due to budgetary cutbacks the Repubs will blame the Dems for having cost them the War, like Vietnam. But still I expected more leadership and courage from my Pres candidate.

The way she arrived at her decision to vote for the Iraq war is the way she'll make decisions as president. That's why I'll never vote for her.

The factors that shaped the most important decision of her elected life were political (she feared a vote against the war would hurt her in the general election).

An issue of war and peace...and she can't stand on principal? If sending soldiers off to their potential death doesn't merit a principled stand that might cost you politically...what does?

Derek, where do you see McCain losing to Romney n NH? Every poll I've seen recently has him on top, and some by more than a few percent.

"Derek, where do you see McCain losing to Romney n NH? Every poll I've seen recently has him on top, and some by more than a few percent."

Zogby

I agree with Joe that Hillary's campaign has got way more substance than those of the other democratic contenders, Richardson's apart. That said, America is in desperate need for change and, by always invoking the Clinton legacy, Hillary can hardly be seen as the candidate of change.

I just want to say that the quality of the discussion on this blog has really improved recently, since just before Xmas, even if the blogs themselves have gone in the opposite direction. It is also refreshing to no longer hear from QH or T4T.

"The way she arrived at her decision to vote for the Iraq war is the way she'll make decisions as president. That's why I'll never vote for her.

The factors that shaped the most important decision of her elected life were political (she feared a vote against the war would hurt her in the general election)."

That is why I use the term centrist cult since I believe this sort of calculation in no way represents true moderation. This is not the right forum to get into a technical philosophical discussion on what real moderation is all about but I would put it to you that the term has been horribly misused and misrepresented by people like Clinton.

Pierre, have you read the candidate's position papers on their websites? Did you follow Biden's or Dodd's campaign? Or are you only referring to stump speeches of Obama and Edwards that are filetered through the media?

In the RCP average of the last 7 polls over he past day, Romney leads in only 2, and has increased his lead in only the Zogby you mention (where he leads by 1%), but he trails McCain by an average of 4.6% overall, and as much as 14% in one. It seems like a stretch to say that this has turned around.

Part of the problem is that Hillary has never defined a real idea of what she is, other than (allegedly) experienced. Now, experience with real achievement to match deserves respect - but what has Hillary actually achieved? The issue here is a genuine one: if Clinton offers "substance", then where is the resume to back it? The line that discredits her most is that she has been working for change for 35 years. Well, I count 16 years - 8 in an unimpressive Clinton White House, 8 as Senator for New York. Where are the big achievements? Unfortunately, most people remember her for the health care fiasco, which may not have been her fault, but hardly brings her much credit. Now she suddenly wants to be an agent of change - but what change has she delivered?

Oh for the love of G*d and all things holy, why do people like Joe, Chris Matthews etc take snake-oil salesmen like Frank Luntz seriously? The guy has an agenda. His methodology is laughable and his work has been criticized by other pollsters for failure to keep backup (i.e., MAKING STUFF UP.)

Dear Mr Klein,

How can you presume that Hillary would neither be in the Senate or on that stage if she hadn't married Bill Clinton?

She might have made it to the Senate in the 90's and, seeing an open field in 08, decided to run for President.

What is an "agent of change", exactly?

I mean beyond the superficial labels and branding, what exactly will change? Anybody want to take up that question, or does it not have to do with politics?

What would be different about the policies enacted by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama?

For bright people to take three hamburgers, look at the packaging, and name one the "McExperience", the second "McChange" and the third "McChange with cheese" doesn't seem very useful to me (other than as a method of selling cheap food to people in a hurry).
I mean we still don't have any idea what's in the hamburgers.

What do intelligent people mean specifically when they talk about whether a candidate is a "change agent" or not?

Other than who we talk and read about, what's supposed to change about our lives?

I'm so over Edwards' "poor son of a mill-worker, this is personal" schtick. What has he ever changed? A change candidate indeed.

I like Obama. By any measure, a change candidate. But, whereas America would like to think itself not racist, God-fearing, humble, etc., we know only too well that racism is alive and roiling, that America is the most prurient nation (re:pornography and sex crimes), and we believe a white American life is worth far more than any number of brown and black people (re: 3900 American troops dead and tens if not hundreds of poor dead Iraqis not even counted). As Joe Biden would say, "give me a break." Enough with the high-minded rhetoric. America is long past the image that Obama is evoking - we only like to think we're not.

I like Hillary. She's pragmatic, knowledgeable, tenacious, and can hit the ground running. Yes, she is substantive. Change and experience. We can have both.

The way she arrived at her decision to vote for the Iraq war is the way she'll make decisions as president. That's why I'll never vote for her.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

The President gets to set the agenda. In other words, there is a difference between voting for a bill, and having the power of the presidency to shape and influence legislation.

And while I tend to agree that Hillary will keep a steady eye on maintaining her re-electability in making her decisions (but she is no different in that respect than anyone else), it will be her ability to set the agenda that will make a huge difference in the quality of the decisions she makes.

Obama has one huge advantage over Clinton, and to a lesser extent Edwards, in the primaries: Independents have only heard about him from other Democrats, while Edwards and especially Clinton have already been the targets of Republican attacks.

But Obama's support from Independents will plummet if he becomes the nominee. After all, no one can escape those Republican attacks. If they did it to a war hero, they'll do it to anyone. The good thing for Clinton is that they've already thrown everything at her. This is not really an argument to vote for Clinton or Edwards, but it's also not an argument to vote for Obama. No amount of spinning will change that fact.

"Change and experience. We can have both."

Clinton is the wife of someone who has experience. If I see her take credit for bringing peace in Northern Ireland one more time I'm going to puke. Even if we assume for a moment that she has experience, which she doesn't, what good did it do her on Iraq or Iran where her votes were wrong both times. She didn't even bother to read the full NIE on Iraq so her so-called experience hasn't taught her the virtue of gathering facts before making decisions.

I'm so over Edwards' "poor son of a mill-worker, this is personal" schtick. What has he ever changed? A change candidate indeed.

well, if you have a daughter, you can now rest a lot easier that she won't be disembowelled thanks to a pool drain --- and John Edwards accomplished THAT on his own. (Unlike every other candidate, who hasn't actually done anything ON THEIR OWN to accomplish actual change. Hillary, and Obama [and Edwards] can talk all they want to about the bills they wrote, or 'pushed through' congress, or whatever--but its not like they were virtually alone in supporting these things.)

The fact is that all the candidates will change things for the better. The questions that you have to ask yourself is "what changes will be their top priorities, and will they be able to achieve them?"

There's a bit of a problem this the notion that Obama supporters are mindless drones seduced by the rhetoric of an empty suit.

Obama's base has always been the higher educated wing of the dem party. This is the candidate derided for thinking Iowan knew about Arugula, who was pigeonholed by many as a "latte liberal" that would sugger the same fates of the Bill Bradleys, Paul Tsongas's, Adlai Stevensons of the democratic party.

HIllary and Edwards have had much more blue collar and rural appeal, though Obama has made significant inroads in these groups while running up the score with the young and the highly educated.

Look, I am not saying that a thinking person can't reasonably support Hillary or Edwards, but I think it is also incorrect (an unfair) to state that Obama's base are these throngs of blindly seduced voters. We're not. Please stop insulting our intelligence.

Come on, Joe. The triumph of hope over experience? How about the triumph of a phony, totally unqualified social and charismatic political image package that offers false hope that is designed to appeal to the willfully naive and the hopelessly clueless adolescent voter, over an equally unqualified, boring, uncharismatic, unapologetic old socialist who's only reason for surviving in the race is a 1990's vintage spin machine that always places personal ambition and ruthless political expediency over the truth and the national interest.

In truth, there is no substantive difference between the two or with Edwards for that matter. These three egomaniacs all want to become President to satisfy personal ambitions and to foist economic class warfare, healthcare socialism, higher taxes and completely failed liberal economic policies on the rest of us. None of them has offered a credible economic stimulus policy, but they all advocate punitive tax and spend policies that would certainly devastate the American way of life.

They are all three completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief and their very election would send a strong message of weakness, irresolution, and political cowardice to America's most violent and determined enemies. They all three would force America out of Iraq with no serious plan to deal with the human and global economic disaster that would follow when civil war breaks out in Iraq and Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda fill the security void we leave behind. They have not given one thought to the reality that oil prices will exponentially skyrocket when radical Islam controls Iran and Iraq and takes up positions on the border of Saudi Arabia and proceeds to undermine all the Gulf State regimes.

They show no concern for the fact that radically higher oil prices will topple the fragile American economy which will already be nose diving as a result of their destructive socialist economic policies. Yeah, let's all elect one of these reckless, self-serving neophytes as the guardians of our economy, our national security and our children's future!

Uh-oh.

This is starting to look like a DK pie throwing thread.

We've been very lucky this year in that all the candidates, even the anointed two, and semi-anointed third, are really fine candidates and would each make a much better president than anything the Republicans have to offer (or have had to offer since Bush I).

With all three, there is a real risk that they will follow their donors and the Beltway Serious People rather than their constituents, particularly wrt universal health care and the chimerical pursuit of hegemony.

But I don't think any of them deserve fierce approbation.

"None of them has offered a credible economic stimulus policy"

I was under the impression that the war criminal was still in charge of the economy?

jayackroyd: I consider your opinion valuable.

Didn't you link to a Dkos diary that you wrote?
Would you mind linking to it again for me?

I'd like to read it, thanks.

Dear Derek:

The point is that nowhere on any of the dem candidate websites or in anything they have said will you find a CREDIBLE, cohesive strategy for creating economic growth and prosperity. The socialism and high taxes they advocate exhausts investment capital sources that drive economic growth while penalizing and disheartening the most productive earners. All the dems do is pander to the economically distressed with promises of free healthcare and other social benefits while falsely promising to lower energy costs while advocating a retreat from Iraq that would cause oil prices to skyrocket. They have also invented this ridiculously phony socialist notion that corporations control everything and are the enemies of workers. Lenin ran that same scam ninety years ago in Russia to disastrous effect.

All the dem campaigns are one huge fraud designed to get themselves elected through self-destructive economic class warfare that will wreck the economy and dispirit America at a time when we all face determined enemies around the world who all pray at least 4 times a day to Allah that people like you will make one of these charlatans our President.

PoliticalReality101 if you tried using any facts to backup your slander you might be worth responding too. Try one of the Obama fans. They have some irrational desire to work with people like you. All I want to do is bury Republicans and insure they are on the sidelines for years to come, so they can't do any more damage to the country. As it is it may take a generation or two to repair the damage already done.

Posted by PoliticalReality101 | January 6, 2008 4:41 PM:

"...we all face determined enemies around the world who all pray at least 4 times a day to Allah that people like you will make one of these charlatans our President."

So I take this to mean that you probably wouldn't cast your vote for President in favor of someone who you thought might actually be a Muslim, am I correct?

PoliticalReality101 believes that slandering Democrats and fear mongering is the same thing as rational argument. I'm sure he will be calling us all traitors soon and claiming victory.

stuart_zechman and C Morris, you two made excellent contributions to this thread. (Let me thank you Joe Klein, it seems your worst posts lead to the best threads here.)

Stuart are you referring to this Jayackroyd diary?

Here's a variation of the same theme:

**********
>>>Dave Lindorff: Clinton's Embarrassing Iowa Flop Exposes Key Democratic Leadership Myth

The real message of the Iowa caucus yesterday was that the long-operative Clintonian/Democratic Leadership Council assumption that the independent or unaffiliated voter bloc is composed of conservative-leaning, dim-witted, and easily manipulated people has got it all wrong.

In fact, in Iowa, where unaffiliated voters are free to participate in either a Democratic or Republican caucus, 41 percent of those people voted not for the conservative, tough-talking "centrist" Hillary Clinton. They voted instead for the black, nominally anti-war candidate, Barack Obama. Another significant percentage of independents went for another progressive-sounding candidate, John Edwards. Clinton only got an embarrassing 17 percent of the unaffiliated vote...

Exit polls in November 2006 showed that these voters (and a majority of Democratic voters) were looking for Democrats to stand up forcefully for the Constitution, and to put an end to the Iraq War.

They were double-crossed. The Democratic Congressional leadership, under the Clintonesque direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have done none of those things, choosing instead to simply pretend to be an opposition, while actually doing nothing on either front...

The rest of the Democrats seeking office or seeking re-election next fall should take heed. There is a frustrated, angry, and very large bloc of people out there -- independent voters -- who are looking for progressive candidates who will not just talk in buzzwords, but who will act to restore some semblance of Constitutional government in America, and who will end the damned war in Iraq. If they're lucky, those voters might giver them one more chance despite the wretched betrayal of November 2006.
**********

I don't agree with Lindorff that Clinton's prospects would be bleak in the general election. However, it is beginning to look like Clinton made a bad bet thinking she could ignore the base for years and expect it to turn out for her during the primaries.

As to the Clinton team, contemplate the meaning of the presence of this recruit in the Clinton ranks and file a note away behind the "what were they thinking?" tab.

***********
>>>TalkLeft
Edwards Brings It Home
Jan. 02, 2008
by Jeralyn

Update, 2:00 am Iowa Time: The bar was hopping. Bill Clinton was holding court in the lobby outside the bar with Susan Estrich holding his arm, trying to get him upstairs-- only at the same time he was engaged in a discussion with Fox News' Greta Van Susteran (who looked terrific) that ended with Clinton describing his cowboy boot collection...

After Estrich finally succeeded in guiding Clinton upstairs, I went to the bar.
*************

Susan Estrich? Maybe time has passed the Clintons by.

I don't agree with Lindorff that Clinton's prospects would be bleak in the general election. However, it is beginning to look like Clinton made a bad bet thinking she could ignore the base for years and expect it to turn out for her during the primaries.

actually, imho, it was a good bet -- its just that snake-eyes got rolled.

In 2000, when Hillary started running, there was no such thing as "Barack Obama". In 2004, the "progressive base" candidate (Dean) got slapped down hard by the media at the first opportunity -- and nobody knew who Barack Obama was even then --- let alone that he would enter the 2008 Presidential race. And while Hillary no doubt expected the media to promote an anti-Hillary candidate, she didn't have any reason to suspect that the media-darling would be someone considerably to the "left" of moderate.

Hillary's big mistake, IMHO, wound up believing the media promoted story that all she had to do was win in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it would be all over. Of course, the minute she bought into that myth, the media went after her with everything they had -- turning her dream scenario into a nightmare.

A smarter strategy would have been to concentrate on New Hampshire, and let one 'challenger' to Hillary's inevitability emerge from Iowa -- and have all of these challengers attacking each other, instead of her, for months on end.

this is why i think Rudy still has a shot. By the time Super-Duper tuesday comes around, the other three will have been at each others throats for a full month in an effort to be the "front-runner" in a series of contests that the media will declare as "must win" for various candidates. (NH is a "must win" now for McCain, Michigan a "must win" for Romney, SC a "must win" for Huckabee...)

Hey! so nice discussion , BUT it is NEW YEAR now,You love to try something new special? http://interracialsingleonline.com you will be surprised there...

"Exit polls in November 2006 showed that these voters (and a majority of Democratic voters) were looking for Democrats to stand up forcefully for the Constitution, and to put an end to the Iraq War."

End the war, yes, but I defy you to find one poll that showed any bloc of voters giving a crap about the Constitution. How else could you explain the lack of interest in Dodd's filibuster?

"A smarter strategy would have been to concentrate on New Hampshire, and let one 'challenger' to Hillary's inevitability emerge from Iowa -- and have all of these challengers attacking each other, instead of her, for months on end."

Even if she had foregone Iowa they still would've been attacking her for months in the debates, since she was the 'inevitable' frontrunner.

Mediasux @ 8:27 am said:

Nor is anyone mentioning that Edwards did not directly attack Hillary-- although that is what is being reportered simply because Edwards said that he and Obama would be attacked by entrenched interests for advocating change. Edward's was just as indirectly critical of Obama (do you think he was referring just to Hillary when he talked about lobbyists money?) but the media doesn't care about that --- "attack Hillary" is the mantra, and that is all that matters.
************

In this YouTube video Edwards begins speaking at 2:47. I'll pick it up further along:

*************
Anytime you speak out powerfully for change the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens. It's fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Sen. Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story [which Hillary Clinton had quoted at the outset of the segment] that's not the debate we should be having.

I think every time this happens, what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change the forces of status quo are going to attack every single time. And what we have to remember is, and this is the over arching issue here, because what we need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change about how we bring about that change.

Because we have differences about but the one thing I do not argue with him [Obama] about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you are fighting for that, I mean I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Sen. Clinton when she was ahead and now that she's not we hear them. And anytime you speak out, anytime you speak out for change this happens.
***********

It's fair to say Edwards "directly" attacked Hillary in this instance.

CMike:

Thanks, and thanks again for the link to jayackroyd's diary!

It's fair to say Edwards "directly" attacked Hillary in this instance.

Edwards criticized Hillary for criticing Obama now that he has momentum (which seems like a pretty silly charge, to me, especially since both he and Obama went after Hillary when she had the momentum, and Obama was faultering). But that is not what the media is reporting -- which is that Edwards attacked Hillary because she's not an agent of change.

**********
End the war, yes, but I defy you to find one poll that showed any bloc of voters giving a crap about the Constitution. How else could you explain the lack of interest in Dodd's filibuster?

um...virtual silence from the mainstream media on Dodd's filibuster?

**********
Even if she had foregone Iowa they still would've been attacking her for months in the debates, since she was the 'inevitable' frontrunner.

lets say that Hillary had pretty much stayed out of Iowa, and Obama's campaign started faltering nationally at the same time it did last year. Would Matthews and the rest of the beltway bubblehead have said "Obama has to go after Hillary" or "Obama has to go after Edwards?"

Negative campaigning is always a risk -- negative campaigning aimed at someone who isn't in the race that is considered "crucial" for you to move on is a much bigger risk -- and not one likely to reap the rewards necessary.

Sure, Hillary would have taken some shots, but the focus of most of the attacks would be on the "Iowa frontrunner", because everyone would have needed to get out of Iowa in first place.

As a Democrat, the lack of any real substance coming from Obama scares me. He's an inexperienced candidate and once the fur starts flying, there is a risk he will whither under the pressure and make a gaffe that wrecks his candidacy. There is a good reason we don't hear much negative reporting aimed at Mr. Obama. The Republicans want to run against him. They're not feeding the fat Russerts or Blitzers their little tidbits of negative things yet because they're waiting for the general election. Once we have Obama at the head of the ticket, watch how fast the glowing press coverage changes to questions about his background or his leadership abilities. The only chance Republicans have in '08 requires Obama at the top of the ticket.

PR101 writes:

"All the dem campaigns are one huge fraud designed to get themselves elected through self-destructive economic class warfare that will wreck the economy and dispirit America at a time when we all face determined enemies around the world who all pray at least 4 times a day to Allah that people like you will make one of these charlatans our President."

Don't look now but there is already a class war going on and it's your friends in the Republican Party that are leading the charge. They don't seem to mind excessive pay for CEO's but they cry like babies if a union wants a raise for their working stiffs. If you're looking for charlatans, look no further than the men running on the Wingnut ticket. Romney can't remember if he's pro-choice of pro-life, Rudy thinks that 9/11 was his ticket to Supreme Leader not to mention untold fortune and Huckabee wants us to forget what he said about biulding gods army before we figure out that his army has the middle class in their crosshairs. Can anyone think of a single instance of Republican rhetoric that squares with the realities of how they have governed? Smaller government? Less government intrusion on our daily lives? Fiscal responsibility? Talk is cheap my friend. Don't tell me what they say, show me what they actually do.

منتديات دليل مواقع منتدى قريش منتدى صور الكون شبكة اسلاميه العاب مركز تحميل تحميل صور
اداره مواضيع المميزه تعارف تبادل نصي تبادل روابط نصيه اهدائات ترحيب تعارف خدمة الاعضاء الرئيسيه مواضيع اسلاميه مواضيع عامه نقاش حوار السياحه السفر الاخباريه جريمه اثاره الرياضه سيارات دراجات ناريه الاسره المجتمع شباب العربي ابناء ادم عالم حواء بنات حواء عالم الطفل الطفل الطب الصحه مطبخ الزواج الحياه الزوجيه ديكور اثاث منزلي اشغال يدويه الابداعات الشعريه الابداعات الادبيه همس القوافي شعر عذب الكلام خواطر قصص روايات ترفيهيه العاب مسابقات نكت ضحك فرفشه افلام انمي افلام كرتون المكتبه الصوتيه المكتبه السمعيه الابداع التصوير الفوتغرافي فوتشوب فلاش سويتش صور صور ورده تصاميم الاعضاء ابداعات الاعضاء تقنيه الالكترونيه الاتصالات كمبيوتر برامج كمبيوتر برامج ماسنجر ماسنجر هوتميل ماسنجر ياهو جوال موبايل برامج جوال ارشيف مواضيع مكرره مواضيع محذوفه

بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب -
افلام -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
العاب لعب العب - -
منتديات بيت حواء -
ازياء - -فساتين زفاف 2008 -
موضة -فساتين -
6 -6-p-4 -6-p-9 -6-p-12 -أجمل فساتين -
فساتين بنات -فساتين ناعمة -
بيجامات ناعمه -فساتين قصيرة -
قمصان نومفساتين -
ملابس ناعمه -بجامات بنوتات -
فستان زفاف -ملابس اطفال -أكسسوارات -
ملابس 2008 -أزياء صيفية -فساتين -موضة 2009 -
أزياء بنات حلوة 2008 -موضة 2008 -
كولكشن صيفي -فساتين سهرة 2008 -فساتين زفاف 2008 -
موديلات فساتين -فساتين سهرة 2008 -
فساتين روعة 2008 -شورتات -
ديور -عروس -أزياء بنوتيه -ازياء -
فساتين السهرة -قمصان النوم -بلايز -
ازياء خطيره -ازياء نواعم -
أزياء للحوامل -أزياء حوامل -
اكسسوارات -ميك اب -
مكياج -72 -72-p-3 -72-p-5 -
72-p-7 -72-p-9 -
قصات شعر 2008 -مكياج ناعم -صور سلاسل -
مكياج -MaKe Up -
تسريحه روعه -العروس -
دبل الخطوبة -ساعات -
نقوش حنه -صور مكياج -
مكياج بنات ناعم -احلى التسريحات -
احلى القصات -اسرار العطور -
صور ميك اب -صور مكياج -
ميك اب روعه -صيف 2008 -
ميك اب -صور تسريحات 2008 -
تسريحات شعر قصير -تسرحيات شعر طويل -
تسريحات وقصات شعر -تسريحات شعر -قصات شعر -
شنط ماركات -صور مكياج -
تسريحات 2008 -صور احلى مكياج -
مكياج عروس 2008 -أحزمة بنات -
بطاقات زواج -