There are many ways to view the Hillary vs. Obama debate as a perspective voter or supporter.
If you're an all-or-nothing, conservative, partisan Republican, with eyes on the White House for your party, I suppose Hillary is the better bet. She may come across as a little less liberal than Obama but she seems to be a better match vs. McCain electorally speaking from partisan POV. Conservatives simply think the divisive nature of Hillary Clinton will bode better in a general election vs. the "more maverick" McCain. In short, it's a political calculation. You want your team to play the team you think they match up better against.
If you're a less partisan Republican but still a hawk who wants the lesser of two evils on Foreign Policy, Hillary is also the better bet. She may not be as hawkish as McCain but she's more hawkish than Obama. The last thing you want is a President with zero support for the war effort or a drastically different view on what it takes to fight the GWOT.
On a Democratic side, there are basically two groups and they sway on the intangibles and self-identification criteria with the party factions:
The generally more Middle America, more white, less educated, lower income, blue collar populist, union types are for Hillary. They want someone who knows how to "git'er done" in DC, fight the bad guys and deliver the goods with nice sounding reforms. They want a "strong leader who controls things in their favor". Their views on foreign and social policy are also more moderate so that bodes well for Hillary in terms of perception. And yes, these people can also be a little more racist in a passive sort of way. I personally know several. Sorry if that offends anyone but it's true.
The more liberal, college educated and idealist wing supports Obama. The "priority-one" anti-war crowd is also more in his corner. I think that speaks for itself. So do the blacks because...well...Obama is black. I think that speaks for itself too.
Independents and centrists who generally dislike "DC politicking" and the status quo are probably more for Obama as well. Obama "sounds different", says the "right things", is a "breath of fresh air against politics-as-usual" and comes across as the true outsider.
Also, as a subset of the independent group, more in my neck of the woods, is the more deliberative and strategic nonpartisan libertarian group which is also a subset of the general libertarian swing vote....a group that votes almost 50/50 between the parties these days...if they don't vote 3rd party. It would also seem that this group is heavily leaning Democratic in this election. Reading into this small group of thinkers in pretty interesting...at least for people like me anyway. :)- It's not really interesting in terms of who'll they vote for but rather to get a feel for the possible realities, rhetoric and promises aside, of having either Obama or Hillary as president.
These people's agendas generally transcend and/or strattle partisan agendas and they seem to go to great pains to find a justification for either and the justifications are generally an indicator of what kind of reality we should expect from President Hillary or President Obama.
Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Monthly leans Obama as do most others, in my experience. Why? Well, besides the 800lb Gorilla of Foreign Policy, and without digging up links, she senses a better understanding, in Obama, of first principles (and second!) and political economy
and the ramifications of policy beyond intent. Basically, she sees more respect for fundamentals and methodology of "massaging or coaxing incentives in a behavorial context
. This contrasts with the more "kitchen table" appeal of Hillary's approach.
Basically,
Hillary approach is: If you want a result, you say you're going to do it and then do something that seems to directly attempt to do it. Politically, it's more digestible and easy to conceptualize. It's as subtle as a bull running through a room of china.
Obama's is more: If you want something, you need to find out why you're not getting it and look for the less intrusive and more effective of helping or coaxing people to do what you think they should do or would do if it were easier or more institutionally predictable for them to do it. AKA, soft paternalism . Much more subtle....more like a whisper, a nudge or gentle push in a desired direction....for the most part. It doesn't generally attempt to hack things apart of make fundamental changes to the processes. It's also a little less palatable for the straight-talking, show-me-the-money, make-it-all-better crowd.
Bryan Caplan , ever the "think-outside-the-box" contrarian
that he is, takes a different approach in light of all the waves in the opposite direction and it's more in line with the "divided government works best argument:
In terms of policy, Hillary and Obama look extremely similar to me; I prefer either to McCain because I think they're more likely to get the U.S. out of Iraq. But Hillary worries me a lot less than Obama because leaving Iraq is likely to be her only major political success. Hillary has a built-in army of enemies, and she's making more enemies every day. (I've talked to Obama supporters who hate her more than Rush Limbaugh does!) Obama, in contrast, is genuinely likeable. At least during his honeymoon period, he might be able to unite the country behind a long list of "progressive" reforms. And that's what makes him dangerous to liberty.
In short, people who hate Hillary's (domestic) policies should hope that Hillary beats Obama, because he's a lot more likely to deliver on her promises than she is.
Hmmm. I've heard this pro-Hillary argument before from fellow-traveler Will Wilkinson of Cato and Fly Bottle . The argument basically is a little more thorough in that it doesn't take the candidate's views and promises at face value but rather it looks at the person within the realties of the context via which they will be trying to deliver those on the promises. I think it's a compelling case if that is your agenda.
Personally, for me...as insightful and thorough as Bryan's analysis is, it's not enough for me. Perhaps it's just a hunch but I feel Obama will do much better for my own views on Foreign Policy than Hillary will....regardless of what they say and considering the political context within they would working.
And while I share Caplan's trepidations on domestic policy, Foreign Policy is still and will always be the sphere of political power where the President makes the most direct and unfettered impact.
__________________________
I plan to vote for McCain
I plan to vote for McCain (albeit without nearly as much enthusiasm as I would have had in 2000 had he been the nominee), and as far as the Democratic contest, here's my silly, somewhat irresponsible, somewhat emotion-based, somewhat petty, self-centered view:
- If Obama win the nomination it will irritate me that so many people were swept up in Obamamania and voted for a guy (and a very inexperienced guy at that) without being able to explain why without using some variation of the word "inspire" or "change".
- If Clintons wins, it will irritate me that the winner was a total phony who can be counted on to put personal ambition over the interests of the country whenever the two conflict.
I've come down on the side of rooting for Obama. Yes, largely based on weighing the above.
Agreed...
However, I have my reasons.
They are clear. He doesn't inspire me, I'm not looking at him to change DC, I don't see hope and this or that...in the sense that his supporters do.
All I see is better foreign policy from my POV.
The rest is for the birds.
Exciting watching CNN right
Exciting watching CNN right now as the vote from Lake County comes in. CBS already called Indiana for Clinton. Let's see what happens.
thanks for reminding me...
I actually haven't even been watching.
I haven't even watched the news...let alone cable news...since the PA primary.
Now I have two reasons to
Now I have two reasons to root for Obama in Indiana. One because I'm rooting for Obama to get the nomination. The other being that CBS News already called it for Clinton. And that's no beef with CBS News, just plain old schadenfreude.
lake county
is still coming in. Even if Obama doesn't pull into a statistical tie once lake county is counted, it's really a big win for Obama that Hillary will have gained nothing from the state.
John King on CNN has really
John King on CNN has really impressed me throughout the primaries with his real-time county-by-county analysis. Excellent stuff. Good to see someone preparing so well, knowing his stuff, and providing intelligent perspective and analysis.
Yeah, he does a nice job
That awesome touchscreen (+software) certainly helps.
The Hammond mayor is saying his results are already in and the county hasn't released it yet b/c they are counting absentee ballots.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yeah, see my comment below
yeah, see my comment below
that mayor is a moron
he seems defensive about the focus on lake county.
No reason for it. I think he's just irritated that Hillary isn't winning big and he's taking it out on TV.
I think he overdoes the explanations about
about county population and how you can't simply look at the physical map.
Yeah, King. We got it. No duh.
One dumb thing they all do though is stress who wins the state. It's about delegates. Period. 51-49 is basically a tie in terms of delegates....especially in smaller states. They look to overlook that and focus on a symbolic state win. It's misleading and silly because they know better.
I was just saying that
They should have those population-weighted maps to show now and then.
I think Clinton would really like the win for spin purposes.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I agree that it's silly that
I agree that it's silly that a 51-49 "victory" would be presented by the media -- and spun by campaigns -- as significantly different from a tie or a 51-49 split the other way.
strange goings on in Lake
strange goings on in Lake County. Makes one wonder if they're witholding the count so they can know how aggressively to invalidate absentee ballots one way or another. hmmmmm
I'm going to go out on a limb here
and predict Clinton supporters will raise concerns of fraud.
In fact, I cheated and checked some blogs and they already have.
It certainly doesn't look good for one county to hold up the entire state, and if that county flips a 40,000 vote Clinton lead to Obama then even if everyone knew it was an Obama stronghold there will be questions.
The nice thing is that it doesn't really matter (except from a spin perspective) who wins, since the delegate count is pretty much the same. So hopefully they'll sort it all out, make sure the result is legit, and everyone will chill.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I can't blame them for being
I can't blame them for being suspicious, at least at this point. Why wouldn't they release the totals aside from the absentee ballots? And why haven't they answered that question? And why haven't the media asked the county officials that question (if they are accessible)?
precisely
delegates in IN will be a wash. Nothing can change that. I wonder if the CNN people care how pithy the significance of these last votes is.
Here's one reason it might
Here's one reason it might not be insignificant. Some think that Hillary may be looking for a time to end her run, but can't do it while she's winning primaries. From that perspective, a close loss may make a difference vs. a close win.
I'm skeptical of that whole premise, but it's not implausible.
Also, given the way the media would present even a close Hillary loss, it could affect Hillary's ability to raise funds, which could pressure her to quit.
I realize, by the way, the
I realize, by the way, the circular nature of my last point -- the media should cover it because it's important, and it's important because the media is covering it -- but that only applies in aggregate. If an individual news source didn't cover it, it wouldn't stop the other new sources and, in turn, prevent the dynamic.
media ARE covering it, that
media ARE covering it, that is. (ouch, yeah I know "media" is plural)
Really?
I thought it was singular collective. I'd say "The media is..." any day of the week.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
http://dictionary.reference.c
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media
Wow, you've really got your grammar hat on today, eh?
:)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Interesting argument
here
for why it would help Obama if Clinton stays in for at least a short while longer:
She'll win Kentucky too (but probably lose Oregon) on the 20th.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
interesting point
And no offense to thoughtful Dems but given how the the party can't get out of its own way sometimes, I could see them giving the media fodder to undermine Obama by running to polls and voting for Hillary anyway.
Of course, perception shouldn't matter but it does.
Hillary cancels all campaign appearances tomorrow
I gather Russert is reporting this (I saw it here
).
The end?
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Finished in 2nd after a good run?
Time to put the Philly down?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Nah, she'll get something good out of it
Maybe Reid's position (I think that would be good for Dems) or maybe a VP slot (I think that's less likely).
But your title question mark is appropriate, of course it's too soon to count her out, as we've seen repeatedly in this primary.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Or not: Clinton adds appearance in WV today
Per CNN
:
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Finally, most of the outstanding votes come in
99%, Clinton still ahead by >20,000, so it looks like she will win Indiana by a narrow margin.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
IOW
Obama gained delegates in NC and she gained nothing on IN.
Think that's tomorrow's headline?
:)
Quite frankly,
I don't like any of t he candidates. None of t hem are Presidential material, and none of them, either Hillary, McCain or Obama, know enough for t hat. The people who really are presidential material and who actually do know enough about domestic and foreign policy to become POTUS don't want to run for whatever reasons. Unfortunately, whether or not Hillary stays in the race, we're stuck with voting for know-nothings or staying home. It sucks, imo.
I still think that Hillary will pull a Lieberman ...
if she doesn't get the Democrat nomination.
In fact, I would encourage her to do so. She obviously has a lot of support and Obama has been severely wounded by the Wright/Ayers flaps as far as the general election goes.
You go girl, don't let the sexists in the Democrat party hold you down no mo'! :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your new best girlfriend, GoRight
Aren't you sticking your finger in the wind a bit here?
Or is it the enemy of my enemy
is now my friend?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Since I have no candidate in this election ...
I am now a maverick just like John McCain!
So I don't have to follow party principle or tow the party line when it doesn't suit me. This gives me the freedom to speak my mind and play into the hilarity factor on some of these things.
Besides, I'm against sexism, aren't you? :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't even know what
sexism means. Can you explain it for me.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Did you, per chance, go to a public school?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sexism is going to a public school
I have never heard it put that way before.
There were coloreds in my classroom is that what you mean?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
I am merely trying to ascertain the source of your education.
Since you claim to not know what sexism means it appears that your education was somewhat sparse and lacking.
And this question seems to suggest that your initial assessment of your own knowledge base was, in fact, correct.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I still don't know what you mean by sexism
Since you are the King and Master of definitions, parsings and word play it would be helpful if you would give us the your definition of sexism.
Especially since in these little games you play, you always make the claim that you are the ultimate and definitive authority on what the meaning of is is, or in this case what the meaning of sexism is.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
If I'm and admin now...
...and AFAIK I'm just an open thread monkey, does that mean I can tell people to be nice and quit fighting?
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
No games. Just the standard dictionary definition of sexism.
Which you claim to not understand, so I would like to know where you were educated to assess any shortcomings, thereof.
Sexism is a common word, after all, is it not?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My education
rests in your hands. Enlighten me.
What do you mean when you say sexism.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Are you saying you think
Are you saying you think she'd run as an independent? No way. She probably wouldn't win, and if her goal is to win the presidency in 2012, that's not the best approach.
This is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_wont_adopt_the... and that column reflects what I've been saying (not sure if I did so on SC) is her likely objective and strategy.
By the way, "Democrat" as an adjective is irritating and seems quite petty and gratuitously nasty at the expense of correct grammar. We don't say a Jewish person is a "Jew person", and if we did it would sound pretty nasty, in addition to grammatically incorrect in a very awkward way. The adjective is "Democratic", even if it irks you to use an adjective with positive connotations to describe a party you dislike.
Agreed, BR
When I see politicians do it on TV with a serious face, I just chuckle and say to myself:
how old are we??
Come on, GR. Just say it right. If you must mock as you write, at least just "Dummocrat" or "Dimmocrat"...though I don't condone that either. :)
Ah Shaddap you Libert !
Ah Shaddap you Libert !
chuckle, chuckle
...
;)
Hey John, Check out crazy
Hey John,
Check out crazy "anne" (of Economist's View fame) over at Brad DeLong's blog, at her very (looniest) best http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/hillary-rodham.html
Sooooo funny!
Anne is beyond funny
and needs to get a grip.
She is a caricature. I envision someone with tense lips, gaping-wide eyes, leaning in the computer screen and breathing heavy.
And as Forrest Gump says:
And that's all I got to say about that.
I do wonder if she (he?
I do wonder if she (he? they? it?) is actually a total put-on, a deliberate caricature just for laughs. I'd give it about a 10% probability. What do you think?
If not, holy schmoly.
If I can paraphrase Gump, anne's comments are like a box of crazy chocolates...You never know what kind of batsh*t insanity yer gonna get.
By the way, that's one of my favorite movies. History, humor, profound drama, challenges to character and values, etc., and all so well done. I got in to an argument with my then-girlfriend, who was one of those people saying that, because the Gump character was stupid, it was ridiculous that people were admiring that character. I got a bit pissed and pointed out to her that Gump epitomized everything I think people should value in a person: He was extremely unselfish and giving, loyal, honest, hard-working, brave, etc. The fact that he was not intelligent, something a person can't control, didn't diminish those qualities one bit. My girlfriend admitted I was right. And she cried -- BONUS! (just kidding about the "bonus", but she did cry).
nahh,
I think it's totally genuine. Scary, huh?
Holy Schmoly is right.
I can't imagine that Thoma and DeLong wouldn't find her a bit embarrassing.
Agreed on Gump. 5 stars all the way around.
Stop whining.
I agree that the RealClearPolitics analysis may be an alternative political calculation on her part (i.e. torpedo Obama now and try again against McCain in 2012 instead of an incumbant Obama). That may, in fact be her plan, we simply don't know.
But if her goal truly IS to knock Obama out of the general election to clear the path for 2012, which has the best chances of success on that front, (a) throwing mud at him and hoping it sticks through the general, or (b) running as an independent and stealing votes from him in the actual election?
I would argue (b) has a higher probability of success in terms of insuring that Obama doesn't make it to the White House, and given the propensity of Democrats to forgive the Clintons I doubt it would hurt her chances in the primary for 2012 any more than losing the primary this year would on its own.
I respectfully disagree. This comes down to the difference between the meaning of big "D" Democrat and little "d" democrat. They are in no way the same thing.
As such my use of "Democrat" is as a proper noun, not as an adjective. My usage is comparable, for example, to references to the "Green Party" (as opposed to the "Greenish Party"). Therefore, grammatically speaking, the word "Democratic" (as opposed to the actual adjective "democratic") is complete non-sense (although the "complete non-sense" meme could easily extend to more than just grammar).
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Re: “I agree that the
Re: “I agree that the RealClearPolitics analysis…”
It’s not “the RealClearPolitics” analysis. It’s Dick Morris’ analysis. It’s usually advisable to pay attention to who the source is.
Re: “But if her goal truly IS to knock Obama out of the general election to clear the path for 2012, which has the best chances of success on that front, (a) throwing mud at him and hoping it sticks through the general, or (b) running as an independent and stealing votes from him in the actual election? I would argue (b) has a higher probability of success in terms of insuring that Obama doesn't make it to the White House, and given the propensity of Democrats to forgive the Clintons I doubt it would hurt her chances in the primary for 2012 any more than losing the primary this year would on its own.”
I agree that “b” would be more likely to cause an Obama loss in the general than continuing her current level/type of anti-Obama rhetoric in the primary, but I disagree with your second assertion that “b” would “not hurt her chances in the primary for 2012 any more than losing the primary this year would on its own.” Think of all the lingering resentment toward Ralph Nader, even among people who liked him a lot before 2000. Not perfectly analogous (he wasn’t a Democrat), but the basic dynamic applies.
Re: your comment regarding “Democrat” as an adjective, your just wrong. Your argument is invalid. First, yes, obviously “Democrat” and “democrat” are not the same thing. So what? Second, your analogy with “Green Party” is inapplicable. “Green” is an adjective (although a member of the Green Party can be called a Green, as a noun). Just like “Republican” can be either an adjective or a noun. But “Democrat” is a noun, not an adjective, like the word “Jew”, per my example. You don’t say “Harry is a Jew man”, do you? Why not? Because "Jew" is not an adjective, making use of it as an adjective grammatically incorrect and quite awkward. Additionally, if your use of such awkwardly incorrect grammar is due to a wish to convey a negative opinion on the type of person in question (in the case of a Jewish person, or to avoid an adjective with a positive-sounding connotation, in the case of "Democratic"), then it's just gratuituously nasty, and frankly, makes one sound not just nasty but also kind of dumb and/or anti-intellectual.
Umm, I believe that was MY point ...
Hence my statement ...
When I refer to the Democrat Party I am using a proper noun, not an adjective. In this context Democrat is not an adjective modifying the meaning of Party, it is a proper noun designating which specific party I am referring to. Now, "demoratic party" would be something altogether different since in that case "democratic" is, in fact, being used as an adjective.
Perhaps this will help you sort through your misconceptions of the English language:
Moving on ...
Where was this editorial piece published? Dick Morris may have been the author but the piece belongs to RealClearPolitics. That's what the "© RealClearPolitics 2008" at the bottom is for. So, legally speaking, it IS RealClearPolitics' analysis even though Dick Morris was the author. But we seem to be splitting hairs here for no real purpose.
NOW who's being peurile here? You knew perfectly well what I meant. :)
Well, so we are in 1/2 agreement. I guess we'll see how the other half play's out.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Grammar Schmammar
Grammar aside, the name of the party is the Democratic Party
. Your use of Democrat Party is not analogous to "Green Party", because the Green Party 
is the actual name of the party. It's either lazy (can't bother to type the 2 extra letters), or as B Rational said, "petty and gratuitously nasty." Sorry not to give you the benefit of the doubt here, GR, but I strongly suspect the latter explanation is closer to your intent.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That may be their name for the group ...
but mine is "Democrat Party," and I contend that my name is more proper than theirs given the normal rules of the English language.
My rationale is as follows:
The party of which we speak is composed of what?
(a) Democrats, or (b) Democratics.
I argue it is (a) and therefore the name Democrat Party is more proper.
I think that the following example from the Wikipedia Section on Proper and Common Nouns
makes my point very effectively:
Similarly, a group may be named the "Democrat Party" despite being neither a democrat
nor a party 
. (Well, OK, in this case they are a party but you get the point.)
Even so, where is it written that I cannot have my own name for something?
__________________________And even if you object to my coining my own name, clearly the name
"Democrat Party" is in common usage, since you all keep pointing out
examples of such, and so I am not even making this up on my own. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So you are like
the Clintons? You just make up the rules as you go along.
Or are you more of a McCain maverick.
Anything to say 'screw you' to democrats.
That seems to be your modus operandi.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Oh, definitely a McCain style maverick.
But in this case I am not making up anything as a go along. The rules I refer to were established long before I was even born. :)
Since McCain is the Republican nominee and he obviously believes that bucking the system is acceptable or even desirable, for this election I choose to follow his lead (on that specific point at least) and basically toss him under the bus every chance I get. Not only is it "screw the Democrats", it is "screw McCain".
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why not
just screw everybody!
You could start your own party.
The party of grammatically correct cognitive dissonance and arguments that go on endlessly for days over how very right you are on everything logically speaking.
What can we call it. The Whigged Out Rights
We'll call it the WOR party.
(sounds like.... war or whore, take your pick).
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Re: “When I refer to the
Re: “When I refer to the Democrat Party I am using a proper noun, not an adjective. In this context Democrat is not an adjective modifying the meaning of Party, it is a proper noun designating which specific party I am referring to.”
Let me try to explain this way: suppose Jewish people formed a party, the Jewish Party. Then someone starts calling them the “Jew Party” even though “Jew” is only a noun, not an adjective. But he says “Listen, you’re missing my point. I’M using “Jew” as a proper noun, therefore my referring to them as the “Jew Party” is correct.” Well, that’s what you’re doing. Would you say that that guy is correct or incorrect in his usage of “Jew”? What about “Jew people” instead of “Jewish people” – is that ok as a proper noun?
Moving on ...
Re: my Dick Morris / RealClearPolitics point, you write “Where was this editorial piece published? Dick Morris may have been the author but the piece belongs to RealClearPolitics. That's what the "© RealClearPolitics 2008" at the bottom is for. So, legally speaking, it IS RealClearPolitics' analysis even though Dick Morris was the author. But we seem to be splitting hairs here for no real purpose.”
You’re wrong and it’s not splitting hairs. It isn’t an “editorial”, it’s a column or op-ed. Do you know the difference? An editorial would be an opinion piece reflecting the views of the editorial board of RealClearPolitics (or of the New York Times or whatever). This column is by columnist Dick Morris. He posted it on The Hill http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillary-wont-adopt-the-huckabee-option-20... and it was picked up by RealClearPolitics, just as RealClearPolitics picks up plenty of other columns and editorials by others. The columns appearing their do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of RealClearPolitics at all. In fact, RealClearPolitics picks up columns reflecting political views spanning a wide range on the political spectrum, so clearly many columns there reflect very different views from those of the editors. So you’re just wrong.
And it’s only “splitting hairs” if you think it’s unimportant to know who the source of an opinion/analysis is and to refer to it accordingly. If that’s what you think, I beg to differ.
As for the "a" and "b" regarding strategy for Hillary, not to sound disagreeable, but no, we're not "in 1/2 agreement". I'm saying that if she did what you suggest she'd be cutting off her nose despite her face, winning the battle in a way that makes it very likely she'll lose the war. That's not 1/2 agreement, any more than half a boat will get you 1/2 across a lake.
I don't know what's better
the fact that GR gets some sort of pleasure out of using the PROPER NOUN, MIND YOU "Democrat Party" or that anyone here thinks they're going to get him to stop using the phrase.
As a wise man once said,
Give the baby what he wants. -- Homer J. Simpson
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
LOL
Point 1: I claimed option (b) offers the best option for Hillary to knock Obama out of the general election.
You replied:
which I took to mean, well, that you agreed with this point. When writing in the english language it’s usually advisable to pay attention to which words you actually use.
Point 2: I claimed that running as an independent wouldn't hurt Hillary's chances any more than losing the current primary would in 2012.
You replied:
which I took to mean, well, that you disagreed with this point. I guess I got that part right based on your response above.
So let's total things up, shall we? Hmm. There seem to be two points here. Based on your response to the first one let's count that as 1 point agreed. Based on your response to the second one let's count that as 1 point disagreed.
So now, what percentage of these points did we agree on? 1 out of 2, or stated another way 1/2 agreed. :P
I could continue this little game of cat and mouse on this point*, but who cares? You obviously knew which analysis I was referring to when I said "RealClearPolitics analysis", right? It's not like it makes any difference to this discussion whether the analysis in question was performed by Dick Morris or copyrighted by RealClearPolitics does it? The analysis was what it was. My comments were relative to substance thereof, not relative to the author in question. Who authored it is irrelevant to this discussion at hand.
Are you trying to assert that just because Dick Morris wrote this piece that that fact alone makes it correct and indisputable? If so, I think you over rate Dick Morris. If not, then exactly what was your purpose in making this tangential point?
If it makes you somehow feel better about yourself, fine I misspoke when I referred to the analysis in question as "the RealClearPolitics analysis" and hereby acknowledge that the analysis in question was, in fact, performed by Dick Morris. This doesn't, however, change any of the actual points I made above, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For example, regarding:
You seem to be laboring under the erroneous opinion that the only possible interpretation of my original statement is that it somehow attributes the intellectual underpinnings of the analysis in question to the editors of RealClearPolitics, as opposed to Dick Morris, when in fact nothing I wrote actually says, or uniquely implies, that.
(1) The authorship of that analysis was never actually in question since it is clearly attributed to Dick Morris on the RealClearPolitics website. In my usage of the phrase, "RealClearPolitics analysis", I was merely referring back to the analysis you had linked to on their site. You obviously caught my meaning. The fact that you want to read more into my statement than was intended is your problem, not mine.
(2) A valid case can be made that my statement was referring simply to the copyright holder of the actual piece we were discussing (as indicated by the only copyright notice on the page in question), as opposed to your (erroneous) interpretation of it conveying any sort of attribution to the intellectual source of the analysis. That was never my intent despite your protestations to the contrary, but clearly your interpretation of my original statement is NOT the only such valid interpretation nor was it the intended one.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
GoRight, I don't know how
GoRight,
I don't know how much longer I can keep correcting you. My patience is wearing thin and my efforts to set you straight, followed by more mistakes on your part and further corrections by me, may start to resemble a perpetual motion machine that produces nothing.
On the "a" and "b" stuff, just listen, ok? I'm saying that if she ran as an independent, that would be MORE likely to cause Obama to lose in the general than would just continuing fighting in the primary battle and eventually losing. BUT running as an independent would make it much LESS llikely that she'd win the nomination in 2012 for reasons I gave. Hence, she'd be cutting off her nose despite her face, winning a battle in a way that made it very unlikely to win the war. Don't you get it?? And to say that we "1/2 agree" is misleading, since the question was really which strategy would maximize her chances of winning the presidency in 2012. We don't 1/2 agree. We disagree. We only agree on one premise. Don't you understand that distinction??
Re: the Dick Morris column, listen, ok? You referred to the column as "the RealClearPolitics analysis". That's not what it was. I know that, and I understand the difference between an analysis by RealClearPolitics and a column by Dick Morris published in The Hill and picked up by RealClearPolitics, but apparently you didn't and others who read your comment might not, so I pointed our your error for your edification and to inform others of what that piece really was, along with advice to you and all to pay attention to who the source of an opinion/analysis piece is. I wrote "It’s not “the RealClearPolitics” analysis. It’s Dick Morris’ analysis. It’s usually advisable to pay attention to who the source is." That's it, man. ok? I was correcting you on how you characterized the piece because it's important to know and keep in mind who the source is. That's IT.
More LOL
So we are agreed on this point, right?
But not on this point, right?
No matter how many times you say it, you will have STILL agreed with 1/2 of my points.
Why yes, I do get it. I got it the first time I read the RealClearPolitics analysis you pointed to. (Or was that the Dick Morris analysis? I can't remember which.) This was Morris' main point. I understand the logic of it which is why I graciously referred to it as an alternative analysis. And I use alternative here to mean, well, different from mine in case you were confused on that point.
I simply disagree with that analysis, which should have also been obvious from my previous comments ... that is if you would stop laboring under the erroneous contention that simply because I have not conceded that Morris' analysis is somehow correct that it must mean that I don't understand his point. I do. I just disagree.
And where do I disagree with you and Dick Morris? Why on the second point listed above, of course.
We all seem to be agreed that Hillary will try to derail Obama in the general election so that she can make a run again in 2012. You even agree with me that option (b) maximizes her chances of actually derailing him.
We only disagree on the methods available to her (i.e. mudslinging vs. independent run). So, 1 point agreed and 1 point disagreed equals 1/2 of the points agreed.
And since you are being so picky on grammar and such, I believe that the actual saying here is "she'd be cutting her nose off to spite her face". Cutting her nose of despite her face is just nonsense. Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out in the end. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Thanks for correcting me on
Thanks for correcting me on that expression (cutting off nose...).
As for the rest, I'm done correcting you, and in the case of most of it, I've already explained as clearly as possible why you're wrong. Perhaps someone else has the patience to take it from here. I don't.
I would venture to say that GR
knows exactly what you are talking about and acknowledges it to himself but is going to great pains to make an argument for as long as he can and as long as people come after him with it.
Just my impression...
So he's either being thick
So he's either being thick or a d*ck. I don't know which.