Good analysis of where the Clinton campaign went wrong . . .

[BT]

Let me rephrase.

Which of the democratic candidates benefit from Bush's polarizing capabilities?

Specifically how does Obama benefit. How does Clinton benefit. Who benefits more.

[fatman]

And the effect of that polarization is?

An increasing inability to garner bi-partisan support for legislation, and an increase in proposals that are more extreme than moderate.

Which largely began before he even took the oath of office, with cries of stolen election.  Face it Fat, Bush HAD a reputation of working with Dems, and Conservatives knew before hand he was no real Reagan conservative, and often pulled Democrat-lite/like executive decisions, but the DC democrats had little to no intention of working with him on anything, outside of hard line liberal causes, such as Education, that he also endorsed

I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise sirs, one of the main reasons I voted for him in 2000 was because he wasn't a conservative.  I don't have any real problem with fiscal conservatives, but the social ones (for somewhat obvious reasons) I have a lot of disagreement with.  I think that the polarization actually began in the Clinton era, when conservatives decided to have Clinton at any cost, especially after the 1994 Republican victories(and please note:  I'm not talking about the one who pressed an impeachment indictment because of perjury, there is some legitimacy to that.  I am referring to those fringe elements that liked to call Clinton a rapist, a murderer [Vince Foster] etc.).  I think that both sides have become entrenched in their thinking and their politics, and you only see bipartisanship when it's a ploy to win over voters (gas tax holiday, stimulus package).

By no means am I excusing the Dems who play this game.  It just seems to me that it goes both ways.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The effect of the polarization has been that Obama, who is perceived as being a new face ad approach to politics, has been favored over Hillary, who has been associated more with politics as usual.

The polarization began at the very beginning of the Clinton administration, with the Whitewater investigation, and the attempt to impeach Clinton, even though the GOP knew from the beginning that they did not have the votes.

[BT]

The effect of the polarization has been that Obama, who is perceived as being a new face ad approach to politics, has been favored over Hillary, who has been associated more with politics as usual.

The polarization began at the very beginning of the Clinton administration, with the Whitewater investigation, and the attempt to impeach Clinton, even though the GOP knew from the beginning that they did not have the votes.

If i understand you correctly there is a partisanship fatique that is leading people to favor Obama as a relief mechanism.

[sirs]

Obama's problem is time however, as it's becoming more and more transparent of what a typical politician he is vs the "new face" he's trying to sell to the masses.  The last 2 Presidential election cycles, the stump line was largely vote for we Dems, because we're not Bush or Republican.  This one started out with the theme "change" in every other syllable, yet as time as slowly krept thru the election hourglass, more and more of that "change" is simply poll driven rhetoric with no substance behind it, typical politician, doing what's politically expedient for that particular moment.  And worse, egregious judgement and naivete to boot

If only Obama could have the election yesterday.  By the time November come around however..........

[Brassmask]

Obama is not a "typical" politician.  You can say it all you want, it will never be true.

McCain is certainly a typical politician.  Straight talk express, my ass.

[BT]

McCain is certainly a typical politician.  Straight talk express, my ass.

I think the election will boil down to tried and true or a new direction. If the young turn out it could be a very tight race.

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama is not a "typical" politician.  You can say it all you want, it will never be true.

<<McCain is certainly a typical politician.  Straight talk express, my ass.>>

McCain's as old-line as they come.  For those who believe that he's given up his crooked ways as a charter member of the Keating Five, give it up, folks.  He's back to his old ways doing favours for other campaign contributors, this time Paxson Communications:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_comments_distort_fcc_ma.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/what_did_mccain_do_for_isemans.php

This guy is so crooked, when he dies, they'll need a corkscrew to get him into the ground.  Maverick, my ass.  He's a fucking crook.  I really wish someone would do a little Swift-Boating on his so-called "torture" in Viet Nam.  Some of the blogs I've seen are suggesting that as the son and grandson of U.S. Admirals, he had it pretty good in his captivity.  Why is everyone pussy-footing around this?  One thing I gotta hand it to the Republicans, when they get into the ring, they go all-out for blood.

Unfortunately, Obama is starting to look like a bit of an empty suit with a good script behind him.  His biggest backers seem to be Wall Street legal and financial firms like Scadden Arps and Goldman Sachs.  Instead of a 30-day or at the very most a 60-day pull-out, he's talking time periods of over a year, and of withdrawing "combat troops" which leaves a lot of other goons on the ground.  Also going after Bin Laden in Pakistan (if you think Iraq's a quagmire . . . ) and similar crazy shit which makes me think it's just a different flavour of racism, militarism and fascism that he's selling.

[Plane]

"...I really wish someone would do a little Swift-Boating on his so-called "torture" in Viet Nam...."

Yes , what exactly made it easy for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to wound Kerry , What would make it hard for the big money behind the Dems to do the same?

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes , what exactly made it easy for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to wound Kerry , What would make it hard for the big money behind the Dems to do the same?>>

Fear.  If the Republicans pull that shit, they get some editorial tut-tutting them, but if the Democrats pull that shit,one of them will wind up dead.

[Plane]

<<Yes , what exactly made it easy for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to wound Kerry , What would make it hard for the big money behind the Dems to do the same?>>

Fear.  If the Republicans pull that shit, they get some editorial tut-tutting them, but if the Democrats pull that shit,one of them will wind up dead.

Seems far fetched.

Would it not be a simpler explanation that many of Kerrys comrades were displeased with him , but few of McCains ?

[Michael Tee]

<<Seems far fetched.>>

I don't think so.  Does it seem far-fetched to you that the victims of American political assassinations or attempts are all on the liberal side of the spectrum, or that the only one to the right of centre (Wallace) was threatening to siphon votes from the right-wing favourite in a close election?

<<Would it not be a simpler explanation that many of Kerrys comrades were displeased with him , but few of McCains>>

Now THAT is far-fetched.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the guys on Kerry's boat backed him up.  It was only higher officers and captains of other boats in the area that Swift-Boated him.  There would necessarily have been a much tighter bond between the captain and crew of a swift boat who must live together and more importantly fight together in cramped quarters for weeks at a time, whereas a fighter pilot is of necessity a more solitary fighter.  Fights alone, dies alone, gets shot down alone.

[Plane]

<<Seems far fetched.>>

I don't think so.  Does it seem far-fetched to you that the victims of American political assassinations or attempts are all on the liberal side of the spectrum, or that the only one to the right of centre (Wallace) was threatening to siphon votes from the right-wing favourite in a close election?

<<Would it not be a simpler explanation that many of Kerrys comrades were displeased with him , but few of McCains>>

Now THAT is far-fetched.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the guys on Kerry's boat backed him up.  It was only higher officers and captains of other boats in the area that Swift-Boated him.  There would necessarily have been a much tighter bond between the captain and crew of a swift boat who must live together and more importantly fight together in cramped quarters for weeks at a time, whereas a fighter pilot is of necessity a more solitary fighter.  Fights alone, dies alone, gets shot down alone.

President Ford was nearly shot twice , Ronald Reagan was shot in the lung but survived , perhaps you don't remember assination unless the victim is a politician you care about. Besides Robert Kennedy was shot by a Plaestinian beloved of Yassar Arafat , what favors could the right demand of Arafat?

No most of Kerrys boat crew liked him , not 100% .Most of the rest of the Swift boat officers and crewmen did not like him. The Officers all bunked in a dorm like building , the boats were too small to be lived on for long periods so they had offices and dorms in a quiet area.


At this point it seems well established that about half of what John Kerry claimed about VietNam and his service was true , and about half otherwise.

"Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."


But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light. "

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

[sirs]

Obama is not a "typical" politician.  You can say it all you want, it will never be true.

And you can ignore the reality all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true

McCain is certainly a typical politician.  Straight talk express, my ass.

Did I ever imply otherwise??

[Xavier_Onassis]

If i understand you correctly there is a partisanship fatigue that is leading people to favor Obama as a relief mechanism.

=========================================================
I simply said that Obama is less like the usual politician, and that Democrats have grown tired of usual politicians, and therefore tend to favor Obama.

Obviously, Obama is a politician. He would be a terrible senator or president if he were not. But he was against the Iraq War from the start, and he is as close to a White guy as a Black guy in America could be: raised by Whites and perhaps Indonesians in Indonesia and Hawaii, and then Kansas. He does not have the Black accent, he lacks the preachy style of speaking, and he is not Southern in any way.