.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Picture of the Day


(Supporters cheer for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama during a rally Friday, Feb. 15, 2008, in Oshkosh, Wis. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer))

posted by mikevotes at 7:00 AM

11 Comments:

  • Not related to the photo, but...

    From CNN Political Ticker:
    "Bill Clinton: Obama's ignoring my White House legacy"

    What a small and shallow man. I wish he would just shut the hell up.

    Isn't it interesting that Bill's VP, Gore, has emerged at the legitimate international statesmen. Bill, on the other hand, is reduced to hedge funds and international corporate deal-making. Oh, and the occasional soft-ball fund raiser for a natural disaster, holding hands with GHWB.

    I'm at the point where I really don't like the man.... and I don't want him anywhere near the White House again.

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:16 AM  

  • I generally don't post on this sort of sniping, but it does feed into my brain.

    This is part of the balancing act of Clinton II (joint presidency.) The Clinton's want to send that message to those it will work for, but not to the broader public.

    But, I do have to note that in those much maligned comments Obama made before Nevada about Reagan, Obama did pretty much relegate Clinton's presidency to placeholder.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:26 AM  

  • Regarding your last paragraph... I realize this. I'm just amazed at what strikes me as the bitchy, self-centered anger that Bill carries around with him. Really, the man is obsessed with himself... to the detriment of Hillary's candidacy, I think.

    Obama's snub of the Clinton presidency was done an a matter of fact manner (passive agressive?). Unlike the Clintons' aggressive, almost churlish, negative attacks on Obama.

    I realize politics ain't bean bag, as they say, but I'm just surprised at the emotional immaturity I see in some of the negative comments by Bill.

    I know you don't post on this sniping nonsense... to your credit. However, I find it illustrative in some way of how the candidates would approach governing. I'm also interested in who certain negative styles play in certain demographics. Does Bill's whining actually resonate with the Clinton base? Does it do anything to attract undecideds to her cause? We know, historically, that negative ads work. I'm just wondering how they work in a primary and in what way with what demographics.

    OK. Rambling over... Just a bunch of rhetorical questions on a cold NE day.

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:06 AM  

  • I see it the other way. I see the fire against Obama coming not from a selfcenteredness, but from the very real animosity that comes between campaigns. They just can't believe that they're losing this thing.

    (Not electing Hillary would be a reflection on Clinton's presidency?)

    And, I do read a whole lot of the sniping stuff. As you point out, it informs on the campaigns, their strategies, their states, etc. I just don't like to put it on the frontpage because I don't like the pointless, uninformed conversation it brings in the comments.

    The only time I post it is when I think it illuminates some broader attack line or targets a particular demographic group that echoes more broadly in the campaign. That's what interests me.

    ....

    I'm really curious about the "debate ads" in Wisconsin. That's such a strange attack. I wish I had some data to tell me whether it is effective, and with whom.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:17 AM  

  • "I see the fire against Obama coming not from a selfcenteredness, but from the very real animosity that comes between campaigns."

    I'll have to think about this. Right now I think it's more than campaign rivalry. Perhaps I'm focusing too much on Bill Clinton and using too broad a brush on the whole Hillary campaign. I'm not sure.

    Hillary's campaign is historic and president setting. Not because she's a woman, but because her husband is a former president.

    The elephant in the room is if Hillary's husband was anyone other than a recent, popular president would she be where she is now in this contest?

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:32 AM  

  • she would not be IN the contest if it wasn't for her husband.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:14 PM  

  • EPM, Part of that is my opinion of Clinton as an incredibly shrewd politician. He walked his way through an impeachment. So, My comprehension of him is one that interprets all comments and words as intentional, not emotional.

    ...

    Anon, True, but at the same time, that's not necessarily exclusionary.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:23 PM  

  • I'm pretty sure Hillary would be in elected politics even if Bill lost his 1992 bid for president. In fact she'd probably have entered sooner. However, without being the spouse of a former president, she'd just be another A-list senator, like Biden or Dodd, who washed out of the primaries because she didn't connect with the voters. But we'll never know, will we.

    Bill is indeed a schrewed politician. But lets not forget that it was emotion that got in into the pickle in the first place. Also, I think Obama is more than just a candidate. People see something very special in him, real or imagined. This is throwing Bill instincts a curve.

    The snippy Big Dog rhetoric that might have worked effectively against Biden or even Edwards is having a whole different and backfiring affect when used against Barak Obama. People are personally, emotionally invested in Obama (again, rightly or wrongly) and they personally feel the sting of Bill's attacks on Obama.

    Strange times, these. Strange times.

    By Blogger -epm, at 3:52 PM  

  • If Clinton had washed out, she'd probably have had to start at Congressman. It would have been a lock, but would have added some years to the ascent.

    And, that's the thing, Obama is being treated differently (we can argue over whether he is some type of different candidate) but he's been more or less bulletproof against attacks with most of the damage boomeranging aginst the attacker.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:10 PM  

  • Ah. But Obama is being treated differently by the American voter as well. He's tapped into something in the hoi polloi that is inspirational and generational. I'm not saying it's right, but Obama's as much a movement as he is a candidate.

    Are the traditional media covering the candidate or the movement? Maybe that's the "problem." Or at least the difference between who Clinton and Obama are approached by the media.

    By Blogger -epm, at 6:21 PM  

  • Agreed.

    There were a couple of articles a few weeks ago about how Obama has almost no direct contact with the press. His people bend over backwards and are loved by the press on the bus, but they rarely get any time, any time to sit and talk with Obama casually.

    Whereas, the media seems to play the game with the Clinton folks. It's almost formulaic. The Clinton team spins, the press knows they're being spun. Everybody smiles, but they all know the game.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home