New at Reason
Chip Bok wonders how this ground-breaking presidential race is working out for the Democrats.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Shadow of toast on the cave wall. | January 18, 2008, 7:50am | #
Charlatan. He just took a photo and traced it.jackanapestarian | January 18, 2008, 8:17am | #
The Himbo: 12%Contrarian | January 18, 2008, 8:37am | #
And the Mexican just dropped out.SugarFree | January 18, 2008, 9:00am | #
As long as it doesn't become a Clinton/Obama ticket, I can enjoy the spectacle of watching competing liberal guilt sources grind up against each other."Assuage civil rights guilt or deal a blow to the patriarchy? Oh, noes!"
Delicious.
toast with burn marx | January 18, 2008, 9:16am | #
SugarFree, I haven't given that any thought, but it's an interesting angle: if the donkey electorate winds up with only "civil rights" candidates, then one could argue without too much exaggeration that they are choosing to vote against a group (call it a "class") who are supposed to have wronged the groups ("classes") to which the candidates (paternalists) belong. So that's where all that class warfare stuff comes from!Bipartisanship disclaimer: of course the other party can't decide whether they want to increase government, expand government, or both.
SugarFree | January 18, 2008, 9:26am | #
toast with burn marx,Well, the GOP doesn't have it much better. Look at the major candidates they have left... a robot, a warmonger tin-pot dictator, a crazed grandpa, an ex-preacher urging talibanocracy.
I honestly can't imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who is actually excited to vote for any of these jokers (D or R.)
jackanapestarian | January 18, 2008, 9:32am | #
You know things are bad when, in retrospect, soft-shelled things like Humphrey,Mondale and Dole seem like giants.
anon | January 18, 2008, 9:36am | #
WTF Is Bill Clinton running against Hillary?LarryA | January 18, 2008, 10:00am | #
I keep telling myself that 2012 has to reverse the trend in candidates. There's no place to go but up.Of course that's what I used to say about 2008.
Reinmoose | January 18, 2008, 10:05am | #
a robot, a warmonger tin-pot dictator, a crazed grandpa, an ex-preacher urging talibanocracyOk, now that doesn't really narrow it down much. Which one of these is supposed to be which candidate? ;)
joe | January 18, 2008, 10:07am | #
As long as it doesn't become a Clinton/Obama ticket, I can enjoy the spectacle of watching competing liberal guilt sources grind up against each other.So if having a black and woman candidate leading the Democratic race tells us a great deal about the internal thought process of Democrats, then the litany of white men once again competing for the Republican nomination tells us...?
Reinmoose | January 18, 2008, 10:07am | #
Also, I don't find it terribly funny because I actually watched the news last night while at the gym. Holy bejesers it's a segregated race.Did anyone else see the recent poll where John Edwards has more of the white vote than Barak Obama, but only 2% of the black vote? Wow.
Episiarch | January 18, 2008, 10:10am | #
So if having a black and woman candidate leading the Democratic race tells us a great deal about the internal thought process of Democrats, then the litany of white men once again competing for the Republican nomination tells us...?TEAM RED TEAM BLUE GO TEAM GO
joe | January 18, 2008, 10:13am | #
Funny, Episiarch, you didn't write that about the original, anti-Democrat comment. Just the anti-Republican comment that mirrored it. Again. Like you always do.You actually think you're objective, don't you?
joe | January 18, 2008, 10:14am | #
GO TEAM RED!*chirp chirp*
SCREW TEAM RED!
Hey, you are teh partisan!
Episiarch | January 18, 2008, 10:18am | #
You actually think you're objective, don't you?Absolutely. I am focused on the "objective" of getting a rise out of you.
Kolohe | January 18, 2008, 10:28am | #
Chris Bok has found his voice. Much better than much of the weak-ass stuff that has come before.To be precise, I was making fun of white guilt more than I was really going after Democrats. Just because they are the party of white guilt is really quite incidental.
Truly, it's a character flaw to desire the end of white, male monopoly on power.
Rick Barton | January 18, 2008, 11:15am | #
I predict an Obama-Edwards Dem ticket. They will win unless the GOP ticket advocates a clear agenda of smaller government including plans to bring our troops home from Iraq.Cactus Jack | January 18, 2008, 11:18am | #
"I predict an Obama-Edwards Dem ticket"For that to happen, Obama needs to win and I'm afraid he won't unless Edwards pulls out and stops dividing the anti-Hillary votes.
Cactus Jack | January 18, 2008, 11:20am | #
"Truly, it's a character flaw to desire the end of white, male monopoly on power."Is it a character flaw to have a desire to see the end of the Bush/Clinton monopoly on power?
R C Dean | January 18, 2008, 11:21am | #
Truly, it's a character flaw to desire the end of white, male monopoly on power.Using collectivist/tribal means of identity politics to achieve this end is, indeed, a character flaw.
joe | January 18, 2008, 11:23am | #
Oh, good Lord no, CJ!If Hillary and Obama split Nevada and South Carolina, we're right back to square one, with no frontrunner and Edwards still in it.
I can't believe we have two nomination campaigns that could end up at the convention.
Tim | January 18, 2008, 11:24am | #
I can't wait until the jew jumps in the race. It takes a black to transcend race, a woman to transcend gender, and a jew to transcend our fear of DNA databases.joe | January 18, 2008, 11:24am | #
Using collectivist/tribal means of identity politics to achieve this end is, indeed, a character flaw.As is assuming such a thing is happening whenever someone supports a candidate that isn't white, male, and Christian.
R C Dean | January 18, 2008, 12:17pm | #
As is assuming such a thing is happening whenever someone supports a candidate that isn't white, male, and Christian.Who is assuming that? Protesting a little too much, joe? ;)
Although I would say that anyone who thinks there is still some kind of white male monopoly on power in this country isn't paying attention. I look around, myself, and see lots of non-white and non-male folks holding all sorts of serious governmental positions in this country. At the federal level alone:
Blacks and women on the Supreme Court? Check.
Blacks and women holding cabinet positions, including Secretary of State? Check.
Blacks and women serving as commitee chairs and even majority leader? Check.
joshua corning | January 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #
I like how Ron Paul is Satan incarnate for letting an asshole have editorial control of his newsletter 15 years ago but when Hillary says a weeks ago not to vote for Oboma cuz he is black and a black man will not get elected, Joe doesn't blink an eye.joe | January 18, 2008, 12:53pm | #
RC,Who is assuming that?
How about everybody who writes that "white guilt" is the driving force behind Obama's candidacy?
Ah, joshua, "Yoor a racist for noticing my racism," again. Yawn.
Sure, "there are racist poeple out there" is exactly the same as "black people are dangerous and inferior." Exactly.
You know what makes a race card effective, joshua? Actually giving a shit about racism.
the statist | January 18, 2008, 1:32pm | #
What he didn't include Wrong Pauls 10% polling?! Wrong Paul is the only hope for America! We need his non-libertarian ideas on a closed border now!R C Dean | January 18, 2008, 1:37pm | #
How about everybody who writes that "white guilt" is the driving force behind Obama's candidacy?Sure, but that ain't me. I think the driving force behind Obama is Anybody But Hillary.
I'll take your word for it, RC. I wasn't pointing the finger at you.
Rick Barton | January 18, 2008, 2:31pm | #
Evan if Obama doesn't have enough votes for nomination going in, I think that he'll make a deal with Edwards and Edwards will extract the veep gig for himself as quid pro quo. Also, lotsa Dem senators are out to support Obama.Hillary will have to have a political bomb drop on Obama to stop him. It's gonna be fun watching her so desperate. She could say or try just about anything.
Rick Barton | January 18, 2008, 2:35pm | #
...Look for the Queen of Deception to work with Fox and the neocon propaganda nexus to try to stop Obama.Rex RHino | January 18, 2008, 2:41pm | #
So if having a black and woman candidate leading the Democratic race tells us a great deal about the internal thought process of Democrats, then the litany of white men once again competing for the Republican nomination tells us...?That the Republicans are racist? You are reading a Libertarian blog, joe. Republican baiting doesn't work here. We could give a shit if you diss Republicans... in fact many people here are going to vote Democrat as long as "The Woman" doesn't get nominated.
Truly, it's a character flaw to desire the end of white, male monopoly on power.Not in and of itself. If the desire to end white, male monopoly on power causes you to act irrationally in trying to achieve your goals, then yes, it is a character flaw.
If you are voting for Obama or Clinton hoping to crush the white male patriarchy, I think you are going to be sadely disappointed.
joshua corning | January 18, 2008, 2:46pm | #
You know what makes a race card effective, joshua? Actually giving a shit about racism.Soo it is the deep deep caring about racism of one strong white woman that will....well will keep a black man from becoming the democrats nominee for president.
Wow joe my hat is off to you....it has been awhile since i have seen so much bullshit.
But i like how this all works out that Hillary is trying to convince her party to keep the racists voting democrat....fucking beautiful.
Cactus Jack | January 18, 2008, 3:00pm | #
"Evan if Obama doesn't have enough votes for nomination going in, I think that he'll make a deal with Edwards and Edwards will extract the veep gig for himself as quid pro quo."That may be why Edwards is sticking in there, hoping for some deal like VP or some high level cabinet position like Attorney General. Or could it be that Hillary has already offered him something if he stays in to split the anti-Hillary vote?
Ventifact | January 18, 2008, 4:41pm | #
At the federal level alone:Ah, but those aren't "real" blacks and women. They aren't promoting an agenda we associate with the anticipated "true" rise of minorities to significant power -- i.e. they are not behaving the way we expect blacks and women of power to behave.
Blacks and women on the Supreme Court? Check.
Blacks and women holding cabinet positions, including Secretary of State? Check.
Blacks and women serving as commitee chairs and even majority leader? Check.
Hmm, looks like there may in fact be some collectivism going on here...
joe | January 18, 2008, 5:20pm | #
I have a question: has anyone ever observed joshua corning making a substantive contribution to a discussion?Seriously, can anyone point me to thread that was better becasue he was on it?
R C Dean | January 18, 2008, 5:28pm | #
So if having a black and woman candidate leading the Democratic race tells us a great deal about the internal thought process of Democrats, then the litany of white men once again competing for the Republican nomination tells us...?Umm, no Republican ex-president has a megalomaniacal wife?
Colin Powell decided long ago not to run for elective office, and has seen no reason to regret that decision?
joe | January 18, 2008, 5:42pm | #
Easy there, R C.I wasn't accusing the GOP of anything, just blowing a big hole in the middle of the argument that the Democrats must be in the throes of "white guilt" and "male guilt" because the leading candidates are a woman and an African-American.
joe | January 18, 2008, 6:08pm | #
Seriously, anyone? Anyone?"joshua corning made a lot of good points on the" something "thread, and the conversation really benefitted. I'm really glad he comments here."
Anyone? Anywhere? Little help here.
Sean W. Malone | January 19, 2008, 4:21am | #
Can anyone remember the last time Joe made a substantive contribution to any thread? I mean... one where his points weren't just the smug leftist dribble we all come to expect?Sean W. Malone | January 19, 2008, 4:23am | #
No?Sean W. Malone | January 19, 2008, 4:29am | #
heh... yeah, anyway there's really not much to discuss is there? The democrats spend as much time playing identity politics as the republicans do playing "who's tougher on trrrrrrr".That said, I've had innumerable discussions with people who seem to honestly believe that in order to prove to the world that race & gender don't matter to American voters, they need to vote not on merit but on race or gender. That is a bit of a robot killer to me.
I actually talked to one dude who said that he didn't trust Hillary at all but was planning to vote for her because "we need a woman president". Smooth.
joe | January 19, 2008, 11:02am | #
Funny you should ask, Sean, this was posted just hours before you:Regis Carnifex | January 18, 2008, 7:06pm | #
Srsly, have you noticed how much I stick out like a sore thumb on these threads?
A budding young libertarian myself, I have to say that joe is definitely a major factor drawing me back to these threads. Thanks, joe, for intruding rudely, and often eloquently, on the H&R echo chamber!
I get a lot of that, actually. But thanks so much for asking.
Sean W. Malone | January 19, 2008, 11:41am | #
Hehe... rude and eloquent are all well and good but "substantial" is something else now isn't it.I rescind my earlier jab though Joe - without you around the boards would be a lot less amusing. Marketplace of ideas is a keystone after all.