Comments on: Stay down

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:46:47 +0000

The editors: “It seems we’ve been saying that for 2 elections now. How’s that working out?”
Again, Clinton has run a slimy campaign and Obama has ducked, dodged, weaved and generally made her look bad for doing so. In other words, yes, when the big bad bully calls you a name you call names back. Or, you can subvert. Or, you can do end runs. Or, you can point out the absurdity of the name calling.
The mistake you make is framing this as an either/or. It’s not. There are numerous ways to respond to mudslinging. Imagine Kerry trying to deal with the Rev. Wright controversy. He’s have failed miserably by being meek, weak and passive. So the only possible alternative is the Clinton alternative – strap on the gloves and slug away. Did you not pay attention to Obama’s handling of this? He did neither of the above and although I can’t say in the end it’s a wash, he certainly hasn’t been knocked off stride or crippled by it.
It’s not a choice between fight or cower.
There are a thousand ways to deal with such attacks. Slime vs. slime does no one any good. If you win by such you will govern as such.

By: The Editors

The Editors — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:14:38 +0000

It seems to me a majority of Dems are saying they’ve had enough of this shit–we don’t want a candidate who can out-slime the repub slime.

It seems we’ve been saying that for 2 elections now. How’s that working out?

By: les

les — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:30:11 +0000

What Bob said. Unless your position is that no black can win–and, again, he beat Hillary–why do you think Obama can’t beat a tired old man ignorant of economics, ignorant of Middle East politics and culture, tied to Mr. 28%’s war, with anger management issues and a crumbling base? It seems to me a majority of Dems are saying they’ve had enough of this shit–we don’t want a candidate who can out-slime the repub slime.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:29:28 +0000

Stay on the offensive, never quit, play to the lowest kind of populism…..that sounds so familiar. Let’s see…stay on the offensive (Karl Rove), never quit (Florida 2000), play to the lowest kind of populism (brush clearing) – hey, I think I got it! You’re describing George W. Bush.
See, these aren’t just character flaws or strengths, and I guess I’m being overly delicate for pointing this out but the last thing we need is another egomaniac unmoored by any ideology other than winning – not your party winning not your values winning but you winning. Yes, I’d like to see more fight in Obama, but let me point out something that seems obvious to me yet seems to have eluded an awful lot of Clinton supporters: in a nearly year long primary season extended over almost all 50 states as of today Obama, not Clinton, has the clear lead in delegates and popular vote. So please explain to me how that makes her the stronger candidate and him the weaker.
She started with every advantage possible and lost to a first term senator with black skin, a foreign sounding name, a madrassa in his background, and a 20 year friendship with a minister that has him explaining that no he isn’t a Black Panther mole out to snuff whitey. She lost. To him. The guy carrying all that baggage. She lost. And that proves that she’s the better candidate?
I just don’t understand this crazy mixed up world anymore.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:02:58 +0000

Stoners can’t stop raving about Hillary Clinton.

“What we’ve got here is everything that’s always been typical for Hillary Clinton – apocalyptic soundscapes, tribal drums, lyrical mood, gloom… Clinton 2008 is emotionally diverse, but not colorful… more like gray, embracing the whole black-and-white spectrum. This is maybe one of the most varied presidential campaigns ever released, shrouding all of the genre’s faces in 17 months. The louder you listen to this campaign, the deeper it takes you. And, believe me, there is definitely some depth in there.”
Lemmy Polticalshitmonkey@Stonerrock.com

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:53:21 +0000

“To me what makes Hillary so great is the mantra-like repetetiveness of their campaign. What they do, as in Sleep (esp. Dopesmoker), comes close to ‘holy’ music. What the lyrics are about to me is not important at all, they could be singing about chocolate puffcakes for chrissakes! What IS important is the way of delivery. Their rhythm section is totally brutal.”
– Jesus Faced

By: The Editors

The Editors — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:23:49 +0000

Fixt.

By: wolfstar

wolfstar — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:42:18 +0000

Without, it appears, understanding the meaning of “craven.”

By: Doc Nebula

Doc Nebula — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:35:02 +0000

Your buried link is to the wrong TPM entry. The one you want is at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/193250.php

Amusingly, the one you’ve linked to is somebody talking about how he’s a Democratic fundraiser and he’s still finding Hillary’s campaign tactics to be so craven he isn’t sure he can vote for her if she’s the nominee.

By: foolishmortal

foolishmortal — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:32:20 +0000

The Times should fire Maureen Dowd and hire GWAR.