so...

[Flex]

Its hard to imagine anything worse than a lateral move. Alrthogu Im 95% syre tgar iuf I were prez I could make it happen.





VOTE KILLER ROBOT IN 2012!!! THE FUTURE OF ALL FLESHY HUMAN SCUM DYING HaMNGS IN THE BACKLANCE


artst depuction of ham sammichj:


THW ASnwich IS OBAMA. Also, Alice in WOnderland,

[eumaas]

Alrthogu Im 95% syre tgar iuf I were prez I could make it happen.

Shit, do you channel Cthulhu when drunk?

[JennyB]

If he does turn out to be awful, it will only motivate me more to start the St. Louis chapter of the "Wolt 2012 -- Where is my Jetson's shit?" campaign.

[Wolter]

If he does turn out to be awful, it will only motivate me more to start the St. Louis chapter of the "Wolt 2012 -- Where is my Jetson's shit?" campaign.

Solid.

[Bankrobber]

Alrthogu Im 95% syre tgar iuf I were prez I could make it happen.

Shit, do you channel Cthulhu when drunk?

Iä! Iä! Alrthogu syre tgar iuf!

[eumaas]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

[Dr. Medulla]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

[eumaas]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

It needn't be directly his fault so long as it can be successfully framed as his fault. See Carter.

[Dr. Medulla]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

It needn't be directly his fault so long as it can be successfully framed as his fault. See Carter.

Well, yes, but the comparison to Carter isn't quite justified. Carter was governing at a time when reactionary conservatism was on the rise (i.e., gaining legitimacy). At this point in American political history, while "Reaganism" (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty much discredited, it's less clear if there is a dominant default narrative taking its place. Maybe some kind of New Deal/Great Society coalition is filling the void, but I think it's way too soon to say. That's one of the reasons why I think negative ads haven't worked for the right this year—you can only demonize your opponent as long as your own brand still has validity. Without that foundation, attacks lack bite. That's a built-in advantage, I think, for Obama's first term—the Republicans lack an identity that resonates beyond their neo-Know Nothing base. As I've said before, if Obama has a real potential foe in the next two and four years, it'll be impatient/irrational liberals in Congress. He'll need to out-poll them tomorrow to keep them somewhat in line.

[eumaas]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

It needn't be directly his fault so long as it can be successfully framed as his fault. See Carter.

Well, yes, but the comparison to Carter isn't quite justified. Carter was governing at a time when reactionary conservatism was on the rise (i.e., gaining legitimacy). At this point in American political history, while "Reaganism" (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty much discredited, it's less clear if there is a dominant default narrative taking its place. Maybe some kind of New Deal/Great Society coalition is filling the void, but I think it's way too soon to say. That's one of the reasons why I think negative ads haven't worked for the right this year—you can only demonize your opponent as long as your own brand still has validity. Without that foundation, attacks lack bite. That's a built-in advantage, I think, for Obama's first term—the Republicans lack an identity that resonates beyond their neo-Know Nothing base. As I've said before, if Obama has a real potential foe in the next two and four years, it'll be impatient/irrational liberals in Congress. He'll need to out-poll them tomorrow to keep them somewhat in line.

I'm not saying it's likely--I think such a framing by the Repubs is hella unlikely considering how they've fallen apart. But if he doesn't deliver, he could face a challenge from the left as well.

[Dr. Medulla]

If Obama is elected then tanks, we'll have even more apathy and faithlessness in gov't than ever before.

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

It needn't be directly his fault so long as it can be successfully framed as his fault. See Carter.

Well, yes, but the comparison to Carter isn't quite justified. Carter was governing at a time when reactionary conservatism was on the rise (i.e., gaining legitimacy). At this point in American political history, while "Reaganism" (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty much discredited, it's less clear if there is a dominant default narrative taking its place. Maybe some kind of New Deal/Great Society coalition is filling the void, but I think it's way too soon to say. That's one of the reasons why I think negative ads haven't worked for the right this year—you can only demonize your opponent as long as your own brand still has validity. Without that foundation, attacks lack bite. That's a built-in advantage, I think, for Obama's first term—the Republicans lack an identity that resonates beyond their neo-Know Nothing base. As I've said before, if Obama has a real potential foe in the next two and four years, it'll be impatient/irrational liberals in Congress. He'll need to out-poll them tomorrow to keep them somewhat in line.

I'm not saying it's likely--I think such a framing by the Repubs is hella unlikely considering how they've fallen apart. But if he doesn't deliver, he could face a challenge from the left as well.

And that challenge from left (if it occurs) would be more analogous to Carter. Ted Kennedy challenging him in the primaries from an openly liberal position undoubtedly weakened Jimmy's overall chances—opponents to the left and right, trying to govern from the centre of a nation divided. Not a huge surprise, in retrospect, that he was a one-termer.

[eumaas]

I think I agree with you here. But the key to that happening—the apathy thing—is that it will have to be seen as a personal failure of or betrayal by Obama. If, say, universal health insurance fails due to Republican tactics and/or Congressional Democrat fuck ups, I don't know if that would necessary fall at the feet of Obama. But, yeah, the bar has been set high by both himself and his younger idealistic supporters, which has the opportunities of a generation-long dominance or deep apathy and cynicism.

It needn't be directly his fault so long as it can be successfully framed as his fault. See Carter.

Well, yes, but the comparison to Carter isn't quite justified. Carter was governing at a time when reactionary conservatism was on the rise (i.e., gaining legitimacy). At this point in American political history, while "Reaganism" (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty much discredited, it's less clear if there is a dominant default narrative taking its place. Maybe some kind of New Deal/Great Society coalition is filling the void, but I think it's way too soon to say. That's one of the reasons why I think negative ads haven't worked for the right this year—you can only demonize your opponent as long as your own brand still has validity. Without that foundation, attacks lack bite. That's a built-in advantage, I think, for Obama's first term—the Republicans lack an identity that resonates beyond their neo-Know Nothing base. As I've said before, if Obama has a real potential foe in the next two and four years, it'll be impatient/irrational liberals in Congress. He'll need to out-poll them tomorrow to keep them somewhat in line.

I'm not saying it's likely--I think such a framing by the Repubs is hella unlikely considering how they've fallen apart. But if he doesn't deliver, he could face a challenge from the left as well.

And that challenge from left (if it occurs) would be more analogous to Carter. Ted Kennedy challenging him in the primaries from an openly liberal position undoubtedly weakened Jimmy's overall chances—opponents to the left and right, trying to govern from the centre of a nation divided. Not a huge surprise, in retrospect, that he was a one-termer.

Or (more disanalogously**) Eugene McCarthy's surprise challenge. Anyway, I see substantive potential for great disappointment.



** I shall coin as I see fit, sirs!

[tepista]

Who here will eat crow if Obama is elected and turns out awful? Raise your hand.

Admitting that "your guy" is at fault would be unprecedented. There's always someone else to blame.

Besides, the whole country's broke and in a never ending war, what could be worse? Everyone gets AIDS?

[eumaas]

Who here will eat crow if Obama is elected and turns out awful? Raise your hand.

Admitting that "your guy" is at fault would be unprecedented. There's always someone else to blame.

Besides, the whole country's broke and in a never ending war, what could be worse? Everyone gets AIDS?

If it's been worse before, it can always get worse in the future.

[tepista]

Shanty towns, like the depression