Running Primaries Thread

Both Clinton and Obama are in the news and not in a positive light.

So, yeah, sadly, that number's probably accurate.

But they're daily tracking polls. They move a lot. And a lot of the movement is noise.

 

You guys will need a vat for your collective vomit by November. Maybe you'll get as much mileage out of my previous posts predicting a Demo implosion, screwing up a golden opportunity as they've had, by Election Day as you have "a safe spot in Amman."

 

Indeed, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth as you wonder why in the hell you didn't nominate John Edwards.

 

Go away, please.

 

What? No one here for you to ride the charge on?

 

I simply gave you guys ammunition for November in case I'm wrong. Which I don't think I'll be.

 

As an Arizonan, I know that a general campaign is going to expose McCain like the hole in Richie Sexson's swing. The Iran-AQ blunder was the tip of the iceberg.

However, if McCain gets the Bush 2000 media treatment -- and all indications are that he's going to get it, super-sized -- you should prepare for the possibility that he'll be the next president.

Glenn Greenwald:

 

Kind of funny that we're already blaming the dastardly media for John McCain having a shot. I guess it helps hedge our bets, like fans who piss that "The refs hate US!!!" and moan that "The media is UNFAIR!!!" before and after the fact, so a loss can be rationalized in that way.

Politics can turn even the most level-headed of us into fanboys. I know a lot of people would prefer that every media story about McCain identified him as "John McCain, who is from the same party as that prick GW Bush and who has changed his "Straight Talk" views multiple times and whose policies would only lead to four more years of the GOP crap anyway."

Or Hillary, "a candidate who has no shot yet remains here because of her name but she was just married to the president, what the hell does that mean for experience, not a damn thing."

"Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, who makes pretty speeches yet who hasn't been in elected office for 25 years so what the hell does he know about anything?"

Etc.

Not that I'm actively looking for it, but I don't see a slant for or against anyone in the mainstream press coverage. I'm sure there are many linked articles to pundits on all sides who would tell me different.

 

PR --
But the template never changes. Reagan knew very little, and forgot most of it, said some incredibly meretricious nonsense, and got covered for on the basis of his likability and, eventually, his age. W knew dick and that became a positive compared to know-it-all Al Gore. Now, we have McCain who has foreign-policy credentials even though he doesn't know a Sunni from a Shia, has campaign-reform cred even though he is at the moment gaming the system illegally, has anti-lobbyist credentials even though his campaign is chockfull of them, and has anti-torture credentials even though he thinks only the CIA should do it. That's getting a pass like you dream about.

 

Greenwald's a boob. Here's proof:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09/barrelfishing_w.html

 

McCain ahead of Hil is an old story.

McCain ahead of Obama is the direct effect of Rev. Wrong.

The first example isn't going to matter.

The second example is subject to change. The norotious McCain temper is
uncontrollable, and is certain to inspire a couple of thrilling episodes.

This thing figures close . . . but the de-evolution of the broad economy can only hurt the GOP, down the road.

 

Yawn's a boob! Here's proof! sportsjournalists.com