Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Darius871]

They're the same, though it seems like the Canadian website is slightly more politically charged:

http://www.thebodyshop.com/

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah I was pretty sure the stores were exactly the same.

I have had girls make that comment about how eco friendly the place is, which is a laugh because it's run by a family of loggers. It's great business though because people are willing to pay extra to be considered 'green'.

[Dinner]

I think Pontiuth Pilate, a poster at CFC and Speakeasy, had it right.

Listen, I respect Krugman. He has been one of the voices in the wilderness talking about the real effect of Bush's economic policies, going back to the early part of this decade. So if he decides to endorse Hillary, I am not going to suddenly call him a traitor and a Clintonista & go ape**** all over him like certain people at Daily Kos. Same goes if Al Gore decides to endorse Billary.

However, I do think, while his analysis of the contrast between Obama and Clinton on policy issues is pretty apt, he has NO CLUE what he's talking about when he discusses their campaigns.

Obama supporters don't want "their candidate or nobody." They want ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. At least 40% of Obama's current voters are former Edheads. A lot of us progressives, after Iowa, looked forward to a race in which the two real progressives, Obama and Edwards, could have a substantive debate. After NH, we saw that was an unrealistic expectation. So we rallied behind the best progressive challenge to the Clinton machine.

Obama doesn't have a cult of personality. He's just drawing EXCELLENT contrasts between the kind of politics he offers, and the kind of politics Clinton offers.

Would we be this enthusiastic about John Edwards? Well, he doesn't give speeches this great. So Krug has a point there. But otherwise, I would be Fired Up & Ready To Go for John.

Would we support Hillary in a general election? If she earns it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obama doesn't have a cult of personality.

I'd consider that statement to be utterly hilarious. I'd imagine that even most Obama supporters realize there is a cult of personality going on here. I mean, when progressive politics under Edwards goes nowhere, but goes this far with Obama... well, come on (as the poster somewhat acknowledges).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I mean, when progressive politics under Edwards goes nowhere, but goes this far with Obama... well, come on (as the poster somewhat acknowledges).

The logical conclusion would be that Obama articulates progressive politics better. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but saying that there is a cult of personality just because Edwards did poorly is preposterous.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The difference is that I think Edwards articulated progressive politics pretty darn well (he was pretty clear on them, being a trial lawyer he knows how to present a case). Obama is more selling "hope" and "change" than Edwards' nicely laid out case for progressive politics.

Not saying the Edwards doing badly automatically means that Obama has a cult of personality, but Edwards, who is charismatic and can laid out his ideas very well, failing so badly on progressive ideals while Obama seems to be thriving on it is support of the cult of personality hypothesis.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
...Edwards, who is charismatic and can laid out his ideas very well, failing so badly on progressive ideals while Obama seems to be thriving on it is support of the cult of personality hypothesis.

No it isn't. A cult of personality requires the cultivation of a heroic image and an "aura of infallibility." By your own description, it's not even as much about Obama as a person than "hope" and "change." It's the rhetoric that is selling some of the voters, not an image of Barack Obama as a hero or infalliable icon. You can accuse Obama of running a vague or idealistic campaign, or more effectively deploying populist and progressive rhetoric than Edwards, but that's not a cult of personality. I have yet to see any level of "hero worship" unusual to an American presidential campaign. Any pro-Obama partisan on TV will say no wrong of him, but the same is true of partisans for Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee.

I wish Obama would be more clear on his policy positions, because I think they're strong, and are the reasons I'm voting for him. I don't see any justification for calling a cult of personality, however. Where's the beef, Imran?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The difference is that I think Edwards articulated progressive politics pretty darn well (he was pretty clear on them, being a trial lawyer he knows how to present a case). Obama is more selling "hope" and "change" than Edwards' nicely laid out case for progressive politics.

Not saying the Edwards doing badly automatically means that Obama has a cult of personality, but Edwards, who is charismatic and can laid out his ideas very well, failing so badly on progressive ideals while Obama seems to be thriving on it is support of the cult of personality hypothesis.

That is absurd. Edward's charisma and rhetoric appeals to the working class, whereas Obama's appeals pretty much to everyone else. Edwards also is just a white male, whereas Obama is black, and Hillary is a female. Furthermore, Edwards is a complete phony and when he was in Senate didn't support any of the progressive ideals he know supposedly dedicates his life towards. In fact, he was one of the founders of the New Democrat coalition in the Senate, along with fellow stars Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman.

[Dinner]

The Republicans attempting to deify reagan is a cult of personality because they attribute the, beyond all reason, everything good from coming from Reagan. Obama simply isn't deified the way Reagan, Lenin, or Mao is.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Republicans attempting to deify reagan is a cult of personality because they attribute the, beyond all reason, everything good from coming from Reagan. Obama simply isn't deified the way Reagan, Lenin, or Mao is.

Actually, if there's a Reagan cult of personality (and there is), it's not one that assumes all good things come from him, but one that assumes that he could do no wrong. Reagan ran up giant deficits? Reagan gave aid and comfort to our enemies and negotiated with terrorists? Reagan didn't recognize his own cabinet members when he bumped into them in teh White House? It's all okay because he's TEH REAGAN.

I don't think the enthusiasm around Obama works quite teh same way. I don't think the enthusiams is for him so much as it is for the message and feeling he stands in for. If Obama were to suddenly begin campaigning on the platform of staying in Iraq, cutting social programs as a means of paying for a war with Iran, and bringing Donald Rumsfeld back to DoD, I don't think his supporters woudl follow him just because he's Obama.

[MarkG]

Obama would be killed if elect according to very old lady

Obama will be assassinated if he wins: Nobel winner Lessing

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated, British Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing predicted in a newspaper interview published here Saturday.

Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.

Lessing, who won the 2007 Nobel Literature Prize, said it might be better if Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton were to succeed in her bid to become the first woman president of the United States.

"The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama," she said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I wish Obama would be more clear on his policy positions, because I think they're strong, and are the reasons I'm voting for him. I don't see any justification for calling a cult of personality, however. Where's the beef, Imran?

As pointed out by Krugman (among others... he's only the latest to assert it), that there is most definately a (somewhat loud) group of his supporters who thinks he can do no wrong.

In addition:

[q=Rufus]I don't think the enthusiams is for him so much as it is for the message and feeling he stands in for. If Obama were to suddenly begin campaigning on the platform of staying in Iraq, cutting social programs as a means of paying for a war with Iran, and bringing Donald Rumsfeld back to DoD, I don't think his supporters woudl follow him just because he's Obama.[/q]

Isn't that the same as the Reagan cult of personality? True, some Reagan's supporters seem to ignore the times when he wasn't "Reagan enough", but if ole Ronnie started to come out in 1985 for LBJ like tax rates, drastically cutting military spending and deciding to let the Soviets invade countries without supporting proxies, etc., he wouldn't have been supported either. There is a component of ideology and personality matching.

[Guynemer]

I always love to point out that Reagan was once a member of the Communist Party to the All Hail Reagan crowd.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I always love to point out that Reagan was once a member of the Communist Party to the All Hail Reagan crowd.

He saw the light and repented his sins akin to Paul's conversion on the way to Damascus.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He saw the light and repented his sins akin to Paul's conversion on the way to Damascus.

You call Reaganomics the light.

And the guy majored in economics in college.