<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Clintons are graceless. Is it finally good night?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/</link>
	<description>where the world thinks out loud</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:13:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: American Politics &#8212; Geography, Telecast</title>
		<link>http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-200</link>
		<dc:creator>American Politics &#8212; Geography, Telecast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/#comment-200</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8230;and optimism. And idealism, too, I guess. Not blind and stupid idealism, simply the having of ideals. It&#8217;s a nearly insane notion now, but I like that some people don&#8217;t mind being crazy for the greater good. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8230;and optimism. And idealism, too, I guess. Not blind and stupid idealism, simply the having of ideals. It&#8217;s a nearly insane notion now, but I like that some people don&#8217;t mind being crazy for the greater good. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff Woollacott</title>
		<link>http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Woollacott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/#comment-190</guid>
		<description>I do not disagree with your contention that the Republicans will be dealing to an inside straight to win in 2008.  Hillary is the easier candidate to win against, but I am sick of pyhrric victories leaving the country evermore jaded about their politicians.  As low as Bush&#039;s approval ratings go, he still stays less reviled than congress.

We get Hillary and it&#039;s going to be 1992 and 1996 all over again.  Rapid Response to attack the accuser the way a defense attorney goes after claimant.  Hillary&#039;s negative rating the other day was listed at 47%.  Anything over 30% is generally deemed anathema to campaign operatives, because the sale becomes a two step process.  First you have to overcome the negative, **then** you have to create the positive impetus to vote yes.  It&#039;s a tough, tough sell.

So even if we, the republicans win, I think we the people lose with a brutal and nasty campaign.

Who knows about Obama.  I *love* his style, but know little about his record other than he has been out on point against the Iraq War.  Poll data shows the nation conflict there in that they do not like the war but do not believe in a pull out of sorts.  We saw this played out with the game of political chicken the dems and reps played with funding the troops which, it seems, Bush won.

So the nation is uneasy about that point, but not ready to leave in a hurry.  That McCain supported prosecuting the war, but disagreed with the tactics just might resonate, particularly if the surge continues to be perceived as working.

Obama is nicely wrapped in the shroud of JFK at the moment, at it&#039;s not a bad parallel.  To this end, it would seem perfectly fair to recall JFK&#039;s early foreign policy mistakes with the Bay of Pigs emboldening the USSR to push us to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  

So it could come down to Idealism versus Realism.  The younger generation standing on the lawn seeking to reach for the stares, while the ornery old man stands on his porch yelling at them to get off his lawn.

It&#039;ll be interesting to see how Obama handles policy matters.  I watched him intently months ago on Meet the Press on Tim Russert and he did not look ready for Prime Time, but the guy looks to be a quick learner.  Let&#039;s see what Hillary does to him in the debate.  After having been able to get him tied to politics as usual based on exit polls showing the folks think he has gone negative as much as they have, she is ready to start feigning the high road, dismissing his critiques of her by saying she wants to stick to the issues.

It&#039;s the first race we&#039;ve had where neither side had a presumptive nominee (i.e. a sitting president or VP) since 1952.

It&#039;s been a fascinating ride so far this election cycle, and I do not see it abating anytime soon...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not disagree with your contention that the Republicans will be dealing to an inside straight to win in 2008.  Hillary is the easier candidate to win against, but I am sick of pyhrric victories leaving the country evermore jaded about their politicians.  As low as Bush&#8217;s approval ratings go, he still stays less reviled than congress.</p>
<p>We get Hillary and it&#8217;s going to be 1992 and 1996 all over again.  Rapid Response to attack the accuser the way a defense attorney goes after claimant.  Hillary&#8217;s negative rating the other day was listed at 47%.  Anything over 30% is generally deemed anathema to campaign operatives, because the sale becomes a two step process.  First you have to overcome the negative, **then** you have to create the positive impetus to vote yes.  It&#8217;s a tough, tough sell.</p>
<p>So even if we, the republicans win, I think we the people lose with a brutal and nasty campaign.</p>
<p>Who knows about Obama.  I *love* his style, but know little about his record other than he has been out on point against the Iraq War.  Poll data shows the nation conflict there in that they do not like the war but do not believe in a pull out of sorts.  We saw this played out with the game of political chicken the dems and reps played with funding the troops which, it seems, Bush won.</p>
<p>So the nation is uneasy about that point, but not ready to leave in a hurry.  That McCain supported prosecuting the war, but disagreed with the tactics just might resonate, particularly if the surge continues to be perceived as working.</p>
<p>Obama is nicely wrapped in the shroud of JFK at the moment, at it&#8217;s not a bad parallel.  To this end, it would seem perfectly fair to recall JFK&#8217;s early foreign policy mistakes with the Bay of Pigs emboldening the USSR to push us to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  </p>
<p>So it could come down to Idealism versus Realism.  The younger generation standing on the lawn seeking to reach for the stares, while the ornery old man stands on his porch yelling at them to get off his lawn.</p>
<p>It&#8217;ll be interesting to see how Obama handles policy matters.  I watched him intently months ago on Meet the Press on Tim Russert and he did not look ready for Prime Time, but the guy looks to be a quick learner.  Let&#8217;s see what Hillary does to him in the debate.  After having been able to get him tied to politics as usual based on exit polls showing the folks think he has gone negative as much as they have, she is ready to start feigning the high road, dismissing his critiques of her by saying she wants to stick to the issues.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the first race we&#8217;ve had where neither side had a presumptive nominee (i.e. a sitting president or VP) since 1952.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been a fascinating ride so far this election cycle, and I do not see it abating anytime soon&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Stanhope</title>
		<link>http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-189</link>
		<dc:creator>James Stanhope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/#comment-189</guid>
		<description>Correction to the above post, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence:  The main clause starting with &quot;she leads&quot; should read &quot;I SEE THAT she leads ...&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction to the above post, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence:  The main clause starting with &#8220;she leads&#8221; should read &#8220;I SEE THAT she leads &#8230;&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Stanhope</title>
		<link>http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-188</link>
		<dc:creator>James Stanhope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:49:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalcomment.com/2008/they%e2%80%99re-graceless-is-it-finally-good-night/#comment-188</guid>
		<description>Your point is well taken that an Obama versus McCain campaign would be more elevated than a Hillary versus anyone campaign, but Hillary may still win the Democratic nomination. After a quick and not very careful look on other blogs at what were presented as the latest poll results, she leads by 20% among registered Democrats in California.  But all these poll numbers can change, of course.  

I want to discuss two other issues not mentioned in your post: 

First, the almost certain Democratic victory in November 2008 against any Republican nominee.  The Republican nominee necessarily will be judged on the White House record of the past eight years, whether the Republicans like it or not, and that alone throws the election to the Democrats.  I&#039;m a Republican and support McCain.  But, if McCain is nominated, in addition to the problem of George Bush&#039;s record, McCain&#039;s age and uncertain physical health may decide against him in an election against  either Hillary or Obama.  If Romney is the GOP nominee and runs against Obama, he would probably draw in the Republican base and also whichever white Democrats decide not to vote for Obama.  But again, the Republican record of the past eight years would probably throw the election to Obama. If it is Romney versus Hillary, Hillary wins (as I see it).  

Second, if Obama is nominated, his  success in November will probably result from nearly all voters&#039; revulsion for George W. Bush (and hence the GOP), because Obama&#039;s exact strength outside the black community is uncertain.  It&#039;s understood that he draws progressive upper middle class whites and white college students, but it&#039;s simply unclear exactly what his support is among whites otherwise.  Some bloggers think that the reason for Obama&#039;s success among white voters in Iowa is due to the open-caucus process there, whereas where Democratic voters vote in secret primaries, Hillary tends to win among white Democratic voters.  I don&#039;t know what Obama&#039;s  support is among Latinos and other people of color.

But, at any rate, the Democrats will win in November 2008, whether I happen to vote their way or not.  George Bush has killed the GOP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your point is well taken that an Obama versus McCain campaign would be more elevated than a Hillary versus anyone campaign, but Hillary may still win the Democratic nomination. After a quick and not very careful look on other blogs at what were presented as the latest poll results, she leads by 20% among registered Democrats in California.  But all these poll numbers can change, of course.  </p>
<p>I want to discuss two other issues not mentioned in your post: </p>
<p>First, the almost certain Democratic victory in November 2008 against any Republican nominee.  The Republican nominee necessarily will be judged on the White House record of the past eight years, whether the Republicans like it or not, and that alone throws the election to the Democrats.  I&#8217;m a Republican and support McCain.  But, if McCain is nominated, in addition to the problem of George Bush&#8217;s record, McCain&#8217;s age and uncertain physical health may decide against him in an election against  either Hillary or Obama.  If Romney is the GOP nominee and runs against Obama, he would probably draw in the Republican base and also whichever white Democrats decide not to vote for Obama.  But again, the Republican record of the past eight years would probably throw the election to Obama. If it is Romney versus Hillary, Hillary wins (as I see it).  </p>
<p>Second, if Obama is nominated, his  success in November will probably result from nearly all voters&#8217; revulsion for George W. Bush (and hence the GOP), because Obama&#8217;s exact strength outside the black community is uncertain.  It&#8217;s understood that he draws progressive upper middle class whites and white college students, but it&#8217;s simply unclear exactly what his support is among whites otherwise.  Some bloggers think that the reason for Obama&#8217;s success among white voters in Iowa is due to the open-caucus process there, whereas where Democratic voters vote in secret primaries, Hillary tends to win among white Democratic voters.  I don&#8217;t know what Obama&#8217;s  support is among Latinos and other people of color.</p>
<p>But, at any rate, the Democrats will win in November 2008, whether I happen to vote their way or not.  George Bush has killed the GOP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
