comment #1

Dan Revill says ...

By the title of the post, I half expected you to continue with "...coming in the air tonight, oh Lord."

It's gonna be a tight one.

comment #2

Edward says ...

If only the Republican race could be so tight. Maybe Ron Paul will surge, at least he has some interesting proposals.

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

The problem, Jeff, is that you're mixing a whole mess of stuff and calling it all neanderthal, when much of it isn't.

Do I think Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate? Of course not. Is it reasonable to ask how someone of his slim resume would handle a major foreign crisis? Especially after he couldn't handle a press conference yesterday, yes. You may well decide, overall, he brings a better temperament to it than brittle Hillary, whose supposed WH experience is unknowable (was she at the president's side making decisions during the months they were probably not speaking to each other?) but it's not an unreasonable question.

Is it reasonable to ask what's at the bottom of those funny dealings with Tony Rezko? Yes, as the person who first mentioned Rezko's name on this site in May 2007, it's a legitimate issue, so is Obama's go-along-to-get-along approach to sleazy Chicago politics. Is it worse than Bill selling shares in his presidential library to sheiks and freaks all over the world? Probably not, again, but it's not an illegitimate question.

Obama's going to get tested sometime. If you want him to win, you should hope for the testing now, not in the national debates with McCain. It's not a Rovian conspiracy to ask a presidential candidate hard questions.

comment #4

Dave says ...

Why must everything Jeff dislikes be attributed to impure, even risible, motives?

Some people are voting for Hillary Clinton because they like her more than they like Barack Obama. I bet the same thing happens the other way, too.

Guess what? If Obama manages a knockout punch today, some people may vote for John McCain because they prefer him over Obama.

These things happen, Jeff. For reasons that rarely, if ever, have anything to do with your anti-human cynicism.

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Oh, and NAFTA is a big, big deal. I think they're both bullshitting Ohio about it, NAFTA is to Ohio as ethanol is to Iowa, but if you want a real recession, just kick off a global trade/tariff war by unilaterally and illegally invalidating one of the most beneficial things Clinton ever did. Lawrence Kudlow has the stats-- 27.5 million new jobs have been created since NAFTA, and before D.Z. says they were all crappy jobs at McDonald's, average hourly earnings-- that's lunchpail guys, not executives-- are up 62% since then. Yes, manufacturing is down by 3 million jobs. But 24 million additional jobs have been created, and the pay for those jobs is up by 2/3rds. Unless you feel there's some reason a manufacturing job that pays $30,000 is morally preferable to some other kind of job that pays the same kinds of people $50,000, the NAFTA era has been a huge net benefit.

And both the Democratic candidates want to reverse that and think those 24 million higher-paying jobs were a mistake. Hopefully, once the Ohio primary is over, they'll stop thinking it.

comment #6

Dave says ...

Actually, if I may continue. . .

Jeff's post is a wonderfully illuminating snapshot of the major sickness in American politics today. It's all "TEAM! TEAM! TEAM!", and never about reasoned discussion.

After all, Jeff argues that most everyone who votes against Obama today are closet racists (or are they out of the closet, since they're voting against him?), or uneducated old people.

Instead of defending his candidate on reasonable and objective merits, the best we get is "I like Obama". When pressed for more, Jeff rests on "it's hip to like Obama," and then launches into anti-Hillary tirades galore.

Now, I happen to oppose Hillary Clinton, for a bunch of reasons. Sure, I don't *like* her much, but that's a personal opinion. I also don't like John McCain much, either. But on matters of ideology, policy and principal, I can at least sleep at night knowing I am choosing one candidate over another based on something far more consequential than "Everybody is doing it, it looks cool & hip to be an Obama supporter!"

What is the difference between Obama and Clinton, other than personal distaste for one or the other?

I really hope Obama wins today, and Hillary drops out, because Jeff's shit has really gotten old.

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Dave, Mgmax: People who sincerely prefer Hillary....fine. But the "3 in the morning" TV ad, the Muslim Manchuran Candidate myth, Hillary's "as far as I know" and the Somali garb in '06 raps are CHEAP BULLSHIT and are appealing, whether you like it or not, largely to (a) closet racists and (b) the insufficiently educated over-40s, who are regrettably abundant in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. That is not supposition. It is blunt cold FACT. If you prefer Hillary for thoughtful "serious" reasons, or even for emotional ones, fine. But if you're challenging the notion that ignorance is the mortal enemy of democracy, then you are truly blowing rancid smoke. Why do it? Do you enjoy spreading confusion and inexactitude?

comment #8

Joe Leydon says ...

In regard to "the insufficiently educated over-40s, who are regrettably abundant in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island" -- evidently, using your measure, they're pretty damn abundant in California and Massachusetts, right?

comment #9

le corbeau says ...

I still say one of these things is not like the others. Experience-- however crudely caricatured by the phone ad-- is the most legitimate of grounds for choosing a president. The problem is that, simply, it's a poor card for Hillary to play; as Jonathan Chait says today in the LA Times, by Hillary's own logic she should have dropped out so Joe Biden could be the nominee.

comment #10

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Leydon: Unfortunately, yes.

comment #11

truefaith says ...

"(b) the insufficiently educated over-40s, who are regrettably abundant in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island."

Insufficiently educated over-40s? FYI, they're not just in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island but other parts of the country. These are the same "insufficiently educated" people who cannot tell the difference between the populist speech ("The public schools in North Carolina are falling apart.") that is given by both Obama and Edwards. They can't tell the difference--because there is NO difference. They're the same speeches. Yet these same "insufficiently educated" people bought that speech when a black man said it but they didn't buy it when a white guy said it. Not only is that "insufficently educated" but it's also hypocritical. So go ahead and knock Hillary's supporters but also be aware that some of Obama's supporters are hypocrites.

comment #12

christian says ...

Its always wonderful to hear the out of touch elites like George Bush contradict his own statements within seconds:

QUESTION: What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now -- facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing -

BUSH: Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gas?

QUESTION: A number of analysts are predicting $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

BUSH: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

QUESTION: Yes, sir. [...]

QUESTION: Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for this?

BUSH: Yes, probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal. And I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fund-raising strategy yet.

And so, the answer to your question is really I can't answer your questions well.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/bush-falsely-claims-hes-focused-on-gas-prices/

Hopefully, the populace will understand that McCain is mo' of the same. I'm ready to shift the focus onto Republican candidates now. It's their turn under the sun lamp to cook.

comment #13

Dave says ...

Jeff, just doing my part to restrain the hyperbole.

It's a political campaign, Jeff. These things have been hardball for a couple centuries by now. Your reactions strike me as a variation on "There's gambling in this establishment?!?" There are no saints on either side of the aisle when it comes to campaigning. Never have been, never will be. Doesn't make them bad people-- it's just a tough business.

And Joe Leydon has an excellent point. Do we get to revoke the Blue State bonafides of California and Massachusetts now? By your logic, there sure are plenty of insufficiently educated Klansmen running around those states.

Campaigns are complex, living animals. They turn on some of the dumbest things imaginable. The "best" people aren't the ones who always get elected. Luck, timing, and focus come into play, time and time again. If Obama wins outright today, he probably wins it all. If Hillary wins or even ties, this thing is going to the convention floor.

Obama should be asked hard questions. Constantly, and repeatedly. For the same reason most Democrats-- and not a few Republicans-- gripe that George W. Bush wasn't pressed harder in 2000. Obama's so new, he's still shiny and in the wrapping. You think what Hillary is doing is harsh? You said it yourself-- wait until a general election campaign.

Or better yet, wait until the White House, Year One, when the honeymoon is over.

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

That's it, I'm definitely not voting for him in the Ohio primary!

comment #15

Dave says ...

Christian, if you don't mind, may I ask if you don't change the subject until tomorrow? :-)

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

Oh, if only you could edit and I could make it clear I was talking about Bush. Then my joke would be, y'know, comprehensible.

comment #17

IndyNick says ...

Anyone who pushes the "as far as I know" meme is intellectually embarrassing. The reporter kept pushing her after she clearly stated she did not believe Obama is a Muslim.

I am a Hillary supporter, and I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. However, it is Obama supporters like you that make me hate Obama for creating navel gazing, idiot supporters who spew hatred in the name of "unity".

Go ahead, hand McCain the White House.

comment #18

dangovich says ...

Why is it intellectually embarrassing to bring up the "as far as I know" line? Everything that comes out of Hillary's mouth is exhaustively analyzed beforehand by her Mephistophelean campaign managers. The line was intended to keep alive the "Obama's a Muslim" notion amongst the mouthbreathers in Ohio. She knew exactly what she was doing when she said it.

comment #19

JasonGeyer says ...

Mgmax:

Seriously? Kudlow? Hasn't supply side economics been discredited enough by now?

NAFTA has not brought about a 62% increase in worker pay. Increased productivity during the 90s and the rise ina computerized society had more to do with that than NAFTA ever did.

And I dispute those figures anyway: "...from 1990 t 2003...average worker pay rose 49 percent while inflation climbed 41 percent." So really, worker's pay barely stayed ahead of the same purchasing power it had a decade earlier.

But NAFTA and supply side practices DID raise someone's pay: CEO salaries went on a stratospheric tear through the atmosphere, well over past levels and any possible inflation adjustments.

And hey, look, facts to back this up!

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/21/news/companies/ceo_pay_epi/index.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0412-10.htm

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114719841354447998.html

comment #20

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Isn't the rest of that HAL quote "...my mind is going"?

comment #21

christian says ...

And we all know how great outsourcing has been for America. Workers here LOVE that. Makes 'em feel all gooey inside knowing that CEO's don't give a shit about them or the economy.

comment #22

Stephe96 says ...

I love "educated over-40" libs who misspell 'Manchurian!'

comment #23

K. Bowen says ...

Well, I think the insufficiently educated are typically Democrat voters, but whatever.

It snowed here in Big D last night, and there's an icy wind today, and I figure it will be cold tonight. My sense is that this might depress the voting up here a little. My perception is that Dallas is Obama territory, more Black than Brown comparatively to Houston or San Antonio. I also suspect that the Democrats in the North Dallas suburbs are probably Obama people.

Add to that Republican crossover support for Clinton, and I guess she pulls out a squeaker in Texas.

I guess my point is that in this close race, I wonder if the weather is going to swing it. It's amazing how history could possibly come down to a freak snowstorm.

comment #24

le corbeau says ...

Supply side economics discredited? By what, the fact that you're worse off than you were in 1979? The triumph of Communism?

Honestly, these people who think a 200-point drop in a 12,000 point Dow proves that the economy's in the shitter. There's just no arguing with them even when the evidence of their own eyes is in front of them. I guess it's because they're not old enough to remember when the economy really was anything other than roaring along.

comment #25

christian says ...

Ah, Mgmax and his Magical "You think this is a bad economy, you shoulda seen Russia in 1916" Econo-Theory!

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "27.5 million new jobs have been created since NAFTA, and before D.Z. says they were all crappy jobs at McDonald's, average hourly earnings-- that's lunchpail guys, not executives--"

Thanks to the Tech Bubble, those executives are working at McDonald's with the assembly workers.

"Unless you feel there's some reason a manufacturing job that pays $30,000 is morally preferable to some other kind of job that pays the same kinds of people $50,000, the NAFTA era has been a huge net benefit."

Well, for one thing, the same kinds of people have to pay at least $50,000, just to be able to afford an education which would net them the latter type of income. For another thing, even if that isn't the case, the money might wind up going to hospital bills involving lead poisoning from said outsourced products. Oh, and the terrorists you're so afraid of can cross the border a lot easier, thanks to NAFTA.

"Supply side economics discredited? By what, the fact that you're worse off than you were in 1979?"

We weren't in a potential nuclear war with Iran back then, anyway...

"The triumph of Communism?"

In China and Vietnam, yes.

"Honestly, these people who think a 200-point drop in a 12,000 point Dow proves that the economy's in the shitter. There's just no arguing with them even when the evidence of their own eyes is in front of them."

A rich guy like Warren Buffet seems to feel it...

Dave: "By your logic, there sure are plenty of insufficiently educated Klansmen running around those states."

In our neck of the woods, they're called skinheads.

comment #27

TheJeff says ...

I'm a fervent Obama guy, but doesn't Wells fall into the "insufficiently-educated, over-40" camp himself? Weird to see him calling out his own people like that.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

The national tragedy of having to pay for college. There's D.Z.'s gimme-gimme attitude in a nutshell. You'll pay for it either while you're going or after, kid. If you make college free, it becomes a regressive tax on blue collar workers. But God knows you've never thought an economic thought through that far in your life.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

"The national tragedy of having to pay for college."

Who said anything about college? I'm talking graduate school.

"There's D.Z.'s gimme-gimme attitude in a nutshell."

Yeah, how dare I ask the government to help qualified people get ahead, so they end up don't sponging off the system, because they can't afford it.

"You'll pay for it either while you're going or after, kid."

You can't pay for it while going, and the banks extort you with disproportionately high interest rates after you leave.

"If you make college free, it becomes a regressive tax on blue collar workers."

Not if you tax the rich first....