Not all dogwhistles are for Republicans, Brad.

2000 was a little of this & a little of that – targeting weak Dem seats for mail-kiting (a not-so-victimless crime) was one GOP fave, the dirty-pool push-poll was another … as was turning “dangling chads” into a conveniently destructive & disruptive mini-riot, with a judicial coup d’etat as dessert. It was nearly as ugly afterwards, with the Senate (both “D” & “R”) administering a lethal cornholing to the Black Caucus as it rallied to protest the disgustingly invalid election America had just gone through, demanding an enquiry.

Year One of Bananas-Republik.

As long as we’re going with humorous labels for candidates, Hussein Obama X is fine with me. However, for McCain, I have to say that St. McBBQ doesn’t do it. First, saints are good people. They get shot all full of arrows for believing in Jesus and shit like that. Not something you want to associate with McCain, who lied on behalf of the NVA. Secondly, Mc. Mc indicates Scotch/Irish heritage. These noble folks brought us whiskey, television, bicycles, telephones etc. McCain will not bring us a goddamn thing, save senility and more casualties. Finally, BBQ is great food. Personally, I like all kinds, but Tennessee BBQ will always be my real favorite. McCain is a rich man; therefore he don’t know squat about real BBQ.

I would prefer it if we went on with JiSM3. That’s funnier.

Should we really emulate either, when we know they’re both proven losers?
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said, August 4, 2008 at 20:10

sadly combining McCain’s and Clinton’s spiteful lunatic vote is a winning majority

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Petrol prices the main election issue?

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!

I don’t think we’re giving Obama enough credit here, is all. I haven’t seen his campaign make too many mistakes. Obama will ultimately come out ahead.

NB I surely do hope I’m right about this. If McCain is elected (or installed) I’m leaving this country and I don’t really care very much which direction I take. I think anywhere will be a better place to be.

But maybe we ought to just send out lots and lots of prominent Democratic proteges to talk on TV shows about how astoundingly, amazingly, mind-bogglingly honorable John McCain is and how distasteful some Democrat who criticized McCain is, such as John Kerry this weekend, who I’m quite sure was 100% convinced he was doing the smart and honorable thing.

No, I don’t know what the next 90 odd days hold, but it’s not irrational to wonder if the incompetence of the last week or so will be the frame within which the Obama campaign will work, and we’ll be left hoping that somehow we’ll turn out far more Democratic voters than any solid evidence has us hoping we will. It’s possible, but I’d rather the lead be wider than narrower.

As far as the other point, look, I’m not magic. None of us are. And I have contradictory feelings, as much as I criticize the Democratic campaigns for continually working hard to mess up good leads.

Simultaneously I feel that in the end, it isn’t just about the campaigns and how gently and Xmas-wrappy they present themselves to the voters. It’s what people choose. If enough people choose to vote for McCain (so that he wins, or so that it can be rigged for the Republicans again), then that’s what they chose to do, for whatever reasons, and I get sick and tired of hearing about how it’s all the candidate’s fault for not running the perfect campaign.

If enough people want 4 more years of Republican leadership of the country — regardless of what their feverish little minds imagine that they will get out of it, and how disastrously self-defeating their mental movies of a McCain future would be — then they will get it.

Similarly, people have an opportunity to choose something different and better. It’s not just up to the campaigns and the newspapers and the TV shows and the blogs. Regular people have to make their own choices, too, in an imperfect universe and where all-too-predictable consequences await.

Look, as long as Kos or whoever is denying me the pleasure of commenting on the I-kissed-a-girl thread, I’ll say this: it strikes me that people here on this thread and elsewhere are muddying their terms a bit. Does everyone know what s/he means by “going negative”? or “hitting back”? I have absolutely no problem with Obama calling McCain on his bullshit, mocking him, pointing out his flop sweat at every opportunity. I also have no problem with Obama hitting McCain hard on his bad and/or nonexistent positions. But the minute Obama’s camp starts behaving like Atwater proteges, I think we’re well and truly fucked.

*sigh*

I’d so rather be skewering naughty-christian-girl music . . .

This is Obama’s election to lose, and if they really want to, they can do it.

But if Americans are really, really stupid and venal enough to put another f***ing Republican douchebag in there because Obama and the Democrats didn’t give them the proper campaign to make them remember what ought to already be tied around their necks stinking up their nose each and every morning, well, by god, that’s what America wants, and if they want the country to go down the tubes ’cause they’re nervous about a celebrity black guy who’s vaguely Muslimish and John McCain makes ‘em feel safe ’cause he thinks we ‘ort to go to war and stick with it more, then they can have it.

Interesting point, and much better than the usual round of trollery we get here. As far as I’m concerned, Obama is talking to the McCain camp, through campaign ads and such.

Why are some of you advocating going negative? Isn’t the big answer to disagreement diplomacy? Why doesn’t Barack just talk to the McCain camp and make everything alright?

Obama seems to think it would work with Iran and North Korea, why not with the Republicans?

Sadly’s hamsters aren’t gonna be back to normal ’til they can get off the wheel and get a nice fresh hit of steroids and hamster growth hormone….

mikey