If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Wire)   You ever wondered what happened to Mark Penn, the guy who ran the Hillary 2008 primary campaign that masterfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Yeah he's the guy behind those idiotic "Scroogled" ads from Microsoft   (thewire.com) divider line 50
    More: Followup, Mark Penn, Microsoft, Kara Swisher, Chromebook, Pawn Stars, advertising campaigns  
•       •       •

948 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Feb 2014 at 1:59 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-28 01:02:55 PM
Why does ANYONE hire this guy? What the hell.
 
2014-02-28 01:26:44 PM
If they REALLY want to get people to switch to Bing they should point out how much easier it is to search for porn now that Google's gone all puritan with their GIS results.
 
2014-02-28 01:54:13 PM
Nope
 
2014-02-28 02:06:51 PM
So, did microsoft  buy scroogle.org then?  It used to be a decent way to search without having your DNS records recorded for eternity.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:34 PM
I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.

Not to totally defend Mark Penn, but Hillary lost the campaign mostly because of who she is, and not so much because of what he did or didnt do while running her campaign. That said, the scroogled ads are stupid and he should lose his job because of them, not because of anything related to his previous work with the Debil.
 
2014-02-28 02:23:39 PM
Haven't seen the "scroogle" ads, is it worth hooking up speakers/headphones to see(hear) what the fuss is about? I'm guessing no...
 
2014-02-28 02:54:02 PM

StopLurkListen: Haven't seen the "scroogle" ads, is it worth hooking up speakers/headphones to see(hear) what the fuss is about? I'm guessing no...


Eh. They're sort of like bad movies. If you enjoy watching people embarrass themselves even as they try their very and most honest best, it might be worthwhile.

Plus the French Model guy from the State Farm ads is in it.
 
2014-02-28 02:57:32 PM
I kinda like that song of his No Myth.
 
2014-02-28 03:06:58 PM
The ads that looked like they were produced as late-night infomercials in 1987?

// seriously, LifeAlert and The Clapper have higher production values
 
2014-02-28 03:15:49 PM

Dick Gozinya: I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.

Not to totally defend Mark Penn, but Hillary lost the campaign mostly because of who she is, and not so much because of what he did or didnt do while running her campaign. That said, the scroogled ads are stupid and he should lose his job because of them, not because of anything related to his previous work with the Debil.


Hillary didn't lose the nomination because of her divisive public image, but because of her own actions. Provenly false tales of invisible snipers, the less-than-subtle racist approach that Bill used to explain why Obama couldn't win, and adhering to a doom-'n-gloom "elect me or else" message that rarely plays well with the voting public. She was also completely unable to measure up to Obama's level of campaigning, which, for his first run at least, was absolutely brilliant. It's galling that after threatening to hold up the nomination process if she wasn't placated in some fashion, the Democrats are still willing to give her another shot.

She lost on her own and deservedly so. Her terrible campaign commercials didn't help, but they were far from her biggest problem.
 
2014-02-28 03:27:46 PM

DamnYankees: Why does ANYONE hire this guy? What the hell.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Penn

 Because he does appear to have some measure of success in the past as a political consultant and campaign strategist.

Others have pointed out that Hillary's reputation is sometimes its own worst enemy in terms of her political prospects, and even a stellar campaign manager would have a large deficit to work with there.

But that also may help to explain the biggest flaw of the "scroogled" advertising effort (at last to me);  it came across more like political ads slamming the other candidate than tech ads giving me a reason to want to switch to (or even try) Bing over Google.
 
2014-02-28 03:31:08 PM

EdgeRunner: Dick Gozinya: I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.

Not to totally defend Mark Penn, but Hillary lost the campaign mostly because of who she is, and not so much because of what he did or didnt do while running her campaign. That said, the scroogled ads are stupid and he should lose his job because of them, not because of anything related to his previous work with the Debil.

Hillary didn't lose the nomination because of her divisive public image, but because of her own actions. Provenly false tales of invisible snipers, the less-than-subtle racist approach that Bill used to explain why Obama couldn't win, and adhering to a doom-'n-gloom "elect me or else" message that rarely plays well with the voting public. She was also completely unable to measure up to Obama's level of campaigning, which, for his first run at least, was absolutely brilliant. It's galling that after threatening to hold up the nomination process if she wasn't placated in some fashion, the Democrats are still willing to give her another shot.

She lost on her own and deservedly so. Her terrible campaign commercials didn't help, but they were far from her biggest problem.


Somehow I agree with both of you.  And I will still reserve a little scorn for Penn anyway.  MS seems completely incapable of releasing a decent image ad.  I say "releasing" because surely of all the ad agencies at their disposal, someone must have come up with something good, but it got rejected.
 
2014-02-28 03:47:19 PM
s2.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-28 04:20:57 PM
ha ha.  snatched.
 
2014-02-28 04:24:28 PM

EdgeRunner: Dick Gozinya: I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.

Not to totally defend Mark Penn, but Hillary lost the campaign mostly because of who she is, and not so much because of what he did or didnt do while running her campaign. That said, the scroogled ads are stupid and he should lose his job because of them, not because of anything related to his previous work with the Debil.

Hillary didn't lose the nomination because of her divisive public image, but because of her own actions. Provenly false tales of invisible snipers, the less-than-subtle racist approach that Bill used to explain why Obama couldn't win, and adhering to a doom-'n-gloom "elect me or else" message that rarely plays well with the voting public. She was also completely unable to measure up to Obama's level of campaigning, which, for his first run at least, was absolutely brilliant. It's galling that after threatening to hold up the nomination process if she wasn't placated in some fashion, the Democrats are still willing to give her another shot.

She lost on her own and deservedly so. Her terrible campaign commercials didn't help, but they were far from her biggest problem.


None of this helped, but Penn also helped to devise a campaign strategy which rather foolishly ignored how delegates would be apportioned in the Democratic primary. He really was something of a boat anchor.
 
2014-02-28 04:26:39 PM
great.  another Madonna/Penn "scandal".

cdn.thewire.com

/that is one old choice of photos there
 
2014-02-28 04:27:03 PM

Dick Gozinya: I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.

Not to totally defend Mark Penn, but Hillary lost the campaign mostly because of who she is, and not so much because of what he did or didnt do while running her campaign. That said, the scroogled ads are stupid and he should lose his job because of them, not because of anything related to his previous work with the Debil.


None of what you say is false, but  for all Hillary's flaws Penn Really did lose the primary campaign for her, in part by not even bothering to learn the rules under which the primaries operated.

There was a Vanity Fair story right after Obama clinched the nom about how Hilary's top campaign aides were in a war room after Obama started surging where Penn Confidently pointed to California and ew York and their delegate totals and said essentially no problem , we'll sin these two states and have all the delegates we need to go over the top,   Apparently he was completely unaware that the primaries did NOT operate on a winner-take-all system and that delegates were awarded proportionally and on a precinct by precinct basis, so Obama didn't need to win the states, just make strong showing in some parts of the states to essentially split the delegate hauls from those states.
 
2014-02-28 04:34:08 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: If they REALLY want to get people to switch to Bing they should point out how much easier it is to search for porn now that Google's gone all puritan with their GIS results.


Eh, just add "nude" or "sex" to your search and you'll get the good stuff.
 
2014-02-28 04:48:07 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Rev. Skarekroe: If they REALLY want to get people to switch to Bing they should point out how much easier it is to search for porn now that Google's gone all puritan with their GIS results.

Eh, just add "nude" or "sex" to your search and you'll get the good stuff.


Something weird is going on with "BIS".  I use a lesser name search engine that uses Bing for image search.  I turned off safesearch because it's just me using it.  But the image results for very innocent terms produce some really NASTY stuff lately, showing up far AHEAD of the legitimate stuff I'm looking for.  Similar things have never happened to me with safesearch off on the Googles (which I stopped using months ago).

Now that I'm writing about it, it occurs to me that this is likely due to MS/Bing being far inferior at culling and policing search spam "SEO" methods by the porn sites.  Does that make sense?
 
2014-02-28 06:09:07 PM
Penn Sucks
 
2014-02-28 06:43:03 PM

Dick Gozinya: I know this belongs on the politics tab, but the problem with Hillary is that she's just too polarizing of a figure: people either love her or think she is Satan incarnate. Elections are won by swaying the fence sitters, and with her, there just arent enough people on the fence.


Quit listening to this guy...he's not going to sleep with you.

blogs.roanoke.com

Hillary is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats and crushes all comers in both one-on-one lineups as well as against generic Republicans. If you honestly think anyone else stands a chance, show us who.
 
2014-02-28 07:30:24 PM
Far Cough:

Something weird is going on with "BIS".  I use a lesser name search engine that uses Bing for image search.  I turned off safesearch because it's just me using it.  But the image results for very innocent terms produce some really NASTY stuff lately, showing up far AHEAD of the legitimate stuff I'm looking for.  Similar things have never happened to me with safesearch off on the Googles (which I stopped using months ago).

Now that I'm writing about it, it occurs to me that this is likely due to MS/Bing being far inferior at culling and policing search spam "SEO" methods by the porn sites.  Does that make sense?


or MS/Bing being far superior at predictive analysis based on past browsing?
 
2014-02-28 07:36:06 PM

Stone Meadow: Hillary is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats and crushes all comers in both one-on-one lineups as well as against generic Republicans. If you honestly think anyone else stands a chance, show us who.


Nixon. He could easily run to Hillary's left, has foreign policy credibility, is far more vicious in a fight than the Clintons ever were, and has the unbeatable virtue of being dead, which means that he, personally, could screw nothing up.
 
2014-02-28 07:36:55 PM

Stone Meadow: Hillary is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats and crushes all comers in both one-on-one lineups as well as against generic Republicans. If you honestly think anyone else stands a chance, show us who.


It's too bad (for the country) that her tenure as secretary of state was marked by incompetence. (Kerry's not doing any better.)
Perhaps a fawning, unquestioning press can drag Hillary over the finishing line anyway.
 
2014-02-28 07:37:34 PM

HighlanderRPI: Far Cough:

Something weird is going on with "BIS".  I use a lesser name search engine that uses Bing for image search.  I turned off safesearch because it's just me using it.  But the image results for very innocent terms produce some really NASTY stuff lately, showing up far AHEAD of the legitimate stuff I'm looking for.  Similar things have never happened to me with safesearch off on the Googles (which I stopped using months ago).

Now that I'm writing about it, it occurs to me that this is likely due to MS/Bing being far inferior at culling and policing search spam "SEO" methods by the porn sites.  Does that make sense?

or MS/Bing being far superior at predictive analysis based on past browsing?


Good one.  :)

But one reason I use a different search engine front end (not Bing) is because it somewhat anonymizes things.  I don't believe the hand-off conveys any tracking cookies or referrer that could be mined.  And my porn browsing is typically done more carefully than that.   But who knows; I'm not up at night about it.
 
2014-02-28 08:24:57 PM
Yeah.. he's the idiot. Not the billions of people that think Google really gives things away for free out of the goodness of their heart. Suckers. Google is the biggest shell game of a company in the world. All the rubes line up to worship them and everything they do. People love being tricked. FOOOOLLSS!!! (and their porn search sucks.)
 
2014-02-28 08:25:14 PM

dfenstrate: Stone Meadow: Hillary is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats and crushes all comers in both one-on-one lineups as well as against generic Republicans. If you honestly think anyone else stands a chance, show us who.

It's too bad (for the country) that her tenure as secretary of state was marked by incompetence. (Kerry's not doing any better.)
Perhaps a fawning, unquestioning press can drag Hillary over the finishing line anyway.


CNN tried their best back in 2008, but she was just too big a load to budge.
 
2014-02-28 09:09:41 PM

dfenstrate: Stone Meadow: Hillary is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats and crushes all comers in both one-on-one lineups as well as against generic Republicans. If you honestly think anyone else stands a chance, show us who.

It's too bad (for the country) that her tenure as secretary of state was marked by incompetence. (Kerry's not doing any better.) Perhaps a fawning, unquestioning press can drag Hillary over the finishing line anyway.


What universe do you currently reside in? The most popular media outlet in the country, Fox, excoriates her on a daily basis, with Rush, Glenn, and Sean adding their vitriol all day, every day. So no, it won't be a  fawning, unquestioning press that drags Hillary across the finishing line. It will be the American voters, for whom she is the overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country, and who are apparently smarter than the media.
 
2014-02-28 09:49:51 PM

Stone Meadow: It will be the American voters, for whom she is the overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country, and who are apparently smarter than the media.


Whoa whoa whoa.  I'll probably vote for her if she's the candidate (I'd prefer a liberal), but isn't that laying it on a bit thick?  Overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country?  Not Obama or Biden or Warren or congressional leaders or bigger name local politicians?  The last thing she's known for is leaving her job coincident with health issues.  (That, and the random residual snipes from Fox et al. as you mention.)
 
2014-02-28 10:03:36 PM

Far Cough: Stone Meadow: It will be the American voters, for whom she is the overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country, and who are apparently smarter than the media.

Whoa whoa whoa.  I'll probably vote for her if she's the candidate (I'd prefer a liberal), but isn't that laying it on a bit thick?  Overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country?  Not Obama or Biden or Warren or congressional leaders or bigger name local politicians?  The last thing she's known for is leaving her job coincident with health issues.  (That, and the random residual snipes from Fox et al. as you mention.)


Yeah, I was probably conflating her popularity with Democrats with this poll from a couple of months ago: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admire d -man-woman.aspx

/not drinking...honest! :)
 
2014-02-28 10:07:54 PM

Stone Meadow: Far Cough: Stone Meadow: It will be the American voters, for whom she is the overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country, and who are apparently smarter than the media.

Whoa whoa whoa.  I'll probably vote for her if she's the candidate (I'd prefer a liberal), but isn't that laying it on a bit thick?  Overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country?  Not Obama or Biden or Warren or congressional leaders or bigger name local politicians?  The last thing she's known for is leaving her job coincident with health issues.  (That, and the random residual snipes from Fox et al. as you mention.)

Yeah, I was probably conflating her popularity with Democrats with this poll from a couple of months ago: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admire d -man-woman.aspx

/not drinking...honest! :)


Well that's cool; I hadn't expected you to back down at all.  And that poll is darned impressive anyway; I really didn't know she was that "admired".  I still don't understand it personally, but facts are dangerous things.  (Also, the competition on those charts is a little depressing.  Okay, a lot depressing.)
 
2014-02-28 10:26:44 PM

Far Cough: Stone Meadow: Far Cough: Stone Meadow: It will be the American voters, for whom she is the overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country, and who are apparently smarter than the media.

Whoa whoa whoa.  I'll probably vote for her if she's the candidate (I'd prefer a liberal), but isn't that laying it on a bit thick?  Overwhelmingly most respected politician in the country?  Not Obama or Biden or Warren or congressional leaders or bigger name local politicians?  The last thing she's known for is leaving her job coincident with health issues.  (That, and the random residual snipes from Fox et al. as you mention.)

Yeah, I was probably conflating her popularity with Democrats with this poll from a couple of months ago: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admire d -man-woman.aspx

/not drinking...honest! :)

Well that's cool; I hadn't expected you to back down at all.  And that poll is darned impressive anyway; I really didn't know she was that "admired".  I still don't understand it personally, but facts are dangerous things.  (Also, the competition on those charts is a little depressing.  Okay, a lot depressing.)


Oh, I'm as capable as errant nonsense as the next fool on Fark, but I'm happy to admit it when I'm wrong. As for Clinton, this op/ed piece from the Daily Beast covers all the bases... :)
 
2014-02-28 10:37:07 PM

Stone Meadow: Well that's cool; I hadn't expected you to back down at all. And that poll is darned impressive anyway; I really didn't know she was that "admired". I still don't understand it personally, but facts are dangerous things. (Also, the competition on those charts is a little depressing. Okay, a lot depressing.)

Oh, I'm as capable as errant nonsense as the next fool on Fark, but I'm happy to admit it when I'm wrong. As for Clinton, this op/ed piece from the Daily Beast covers all the bases... :)


Speaking of depressing.  :)  Too bad about Warren; she's someone I could really get excited about.  VP, maybe, possibly?  I'd say "nah" to a 2 woman ticket ever working, but I didn't think BO had a chance either, so I'll keep all pessimism at bay.

The thing I'm not learning from that opinion piece, though, is just what makes him so sure that Biden and Warren really won't decide to go for it.  I mean, he's assuming Hillary will change her mind and run, as a foregone conclusion; why wouldn't someone else change their mind too?
 
2014-02-28 10:54:29 PM

Far Cough: Stone Meadow: I'm as capable asof errant nonsense as the next fool on Fark, but I'm happy to admit it when I'm wrong. As for Clinton, this op/ed piece from the Daily Beast covers all the bases... :)

Speaking of depressing.  :)  Too bad about Warren; she's someone I could really get excited about.  VP, maybe, possibly?  I'd say "nah" to a 2 woman ticket ever working, but I didn't think BO had a chance either, so I'll keep all pessimism at bay.

The thing I'm not learning from that opinion piece, though, is just what makes him so sure that Biden and Warren really won't decide to go for it.  I mean, he's assuming Hillary will change her mind and run, as a foregone conclusion; why wouldn't someone else change their mind too?


Simple answer? Warren has already endorsed Hillary and is not about to run against her. Biden can read the tea leaves, too, and isn't going to upset the apple cart, either. If there is anything the Democrats have learned from the GOP over the past 30 years, it's to close ranks behind the leader* and play as a team.

* - Hillary never had this clear a lead in '08
 
2014-02-28 11:37:53 PM
Hillary 2016:  I Will Respect Your Right To Shove Whatever You Want Into Your Vagina
 
2014-03-01 12:00:50 AM
Yeah, the "attack" aspect itself isn't so bad (though they could've as easily made the same point less aggressively), but that is a very poorly executed ad.

As a mostly-liberal person, it's depressing to think that the Democrats are going to go with Hillary again. Both tactically and substantively, that's going to be one shiatty slog of a campaign (and presidential term, if she wins).
 
2014-03-01 10:13:14 AM
Can someone please tell me why they think Hillary was a great Secretary of State?  Aside from the media telling you she was, what did she accomplish vs. what did she fumble?

The same people that will vote for Hillary (while complaining about outsourcing and the 1%) are the same people that think Google is a benevolent company, watch American Idol, read books about shining vampires and nothing else, and keep 2 1/2 Men on the air.
 
2014-03-01 10:28:22 AM

Nemo's Brother: The same people that will vote for Hillary (while complaining about outsourcing and the 1%) are the same people that think Google is a benevolent company, watch American Idol, read books about shining vampires and nothing else, and keep 2 1/2 Men on the air who reject the GOP vision of subjugated women, blacks, browns and the poor. And since they outnumber Republicans, it's all over but the crying.


It's as simple as that. To attempt to reframe the argument in terms of her relative (to what?) success as SecState is a classic Straw Man. That's not why people are inclined to vote for her, and you know it. In the aggregate she represents people's hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future, and their fears about what the other side represents. Ergo, she's going to be our next President, so repeat after me..."Madame President".
 
2014-03-01 11:18:10 AM

Stone Meadow: Nemo's Brother: The same people that will vote for Hillary (while complaining about outsourcing and the 1%) are the same people that think Google is a benevolent company, watch American Idol, read books about shining vampires and nothing else, and keep 2 1/2 Men on the air who reject the GOP vision of subjugated women, blacks, browns and the poor. And since they outnumber Republicans, it's all over but the crying.

It's as simple as that. To attempt to reframe the argument in terms of her relative (to what?) success as SecState is a classic Straw Man. That's not why people are inclined to vote for her, and you know it. In the aggregate she represents people's hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future, and their fears about what the other side represents. Ergo, she's going to be our next President, so repeat after me..."Madame President".


Okay, forget what you're drinking. What the hell are you snorting? Hillary represents no one's dreams and aspirations but her own, and anyone who thinks Ms. "I've got the white vote locked up" Clinton, or her hubby "Obama can't win, he's a blah candidate just like Jesse Jackson" Bill are any kind of progressives hasn't been paying attention. (There's an oft-repeated account that while trying to get Ted Kennedy's support for his wife, Bill dismissed Obama as someone who, a few years back, would have been carrying their bags. There's no audio of that, however, so it's not confirmed.)

The reality of Hillary is she's the "tough" candidate. The one who's "ready for that 3am call". The one who believed Obama's promise to shut down the Iraq war was a "fairy tale". A vote for Hillary is a vote for an angrier George W. without the smidgen of social conscience, and most people are aware of that. Me, I'd like an actual choice on the next ballot. Not just a coin flip between two hardline right-wingers whose only difference is the names on their political hit lists.
 
2014-03-01 12:04:36 PM

EdgeRunner: Stone Meadow: It's as simple as that. To attempt to reframe the argument in terms of her relative (to what?) success as SecState is a classic Straw Man. That's not why people are inclined to vote for her, and you know it. In the aggregate she represents people's hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future, and their fears about what the other side represents. Ergo, she's going to be our next President, so repeat after me..."Madame President".

Okay, forget what you're drinking. What the hell are you snorting? Hillary represents no one's dreams and aspirations but her own, and anyone who thinks Ms. "I've got the white vote locked up" Clinton, or her hubby "Obama can't win, he's a blah candidate just like Jesse Jackson" Bill are any kind of progressives hasn't been paying attention. (There's an oft-repeated account that while trying to get Ted Kennedy's support for his wife, Bill dismissed Obama as someone who, a few years back, would have been carrying their bags. There's no audio of that, however, so it's not confirmed.)

The reality of Hillary is she's the "tough" candidate. The one who's "ready for that 3am call". The one who believed Obama's promise to shut down the Iraq war was a "fairy tale". A vote for Hillary is a vote for an angrier George W. without the smidgen of social conscience, and most people are aware of that. Me, I'd like an actual choice on the next ballot. Not just a coin flip between two hardline right-wingers whose only difference is the names on their political hit lists.


[citation_needed.jpg] Seriously, where do you get this from?

Now, I grant you that Hillary is no living incarnation of the liberal left wing's ideal progressive, but an angrier Dubya? Let me laugh even harder. By the same token, she's no right winger, either. What she is is what America is...a right of center establishmentarian with a conscience and a moral center. Just progressive enough to make the majority of Americans comfortable with her and her vision of the future. Just conservative enough to understand that the business of America is business.

People want steady jobs, effective education, a functioning safety net, and infrastructure repair, among other mundane desires. What they don't want, as reflected in virtually ALL recent polling, is more international adventurism, mansplaining to women about their giggly bits, mean spirited efforts to disenfranchise women and minorities, and the rest of the hold-over chest thumping of The Greatest Generation. Moreover, it's clear that vast numbers of Americans see her as more focused on those wants and needs compared to anyone the GOP appears likely to nominate, so I repeat myself...Madame President.
 
2014-03-01 12:44:22 PM
Repeat yourself all you want. The only people truly excited about a Hillary candidacy are the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who practically drowned themselves with their own jism fountains at the thought of her running two elections back. If you can't read over her past history and come up with a more sensible picture of who she is, nothing anyone can say will change your mind. Go on and volunteer for her campaign. Get her to the debates. Let her try to overcome decades of bad press and worse decisions to beat a fresher challenger with less baggage.

Just don't be surprised when the Republicans reclaim the White House. They'd have a fight beating Biden, but they'd have to fight twice as hard to lose to Hillary. I'm not saying they couldn't - they've been driving the fail train at full throttle for years now - but no matter what you think the polls are telling you, a Hillary candidacy is a huge boost for her opponent, and I'm not crazy about the idea of Chris Christie getting that clear a shot at the head office.
 
2014-03-01 12:59:48 PM

EdgeRunner: Repeat yourself all you want. The only people truly excited about a Hillary candidacy are the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who practically drowned themselves with their own jism fountains at the thought of her running two elections back. If you can't read over her past history and come up with a more sensible picture of who she is, nothing anyone can say will change your mind. Go on and volunteer for her campaign. Get her to the debates. Let her try to overcome decades of bad press and worse decisions to beat a fresher challenger with less baggage.

Just don't be surprised when the Republicans reclaim the White House. They'd have a fight beating Biden, but they'd have to fight twice as hard to lose to Hillary. I'm not saying they couldn't - they've been driving the fail train at full throttle for years now - but no matter what you think the polls are telling you, a Hillary candidacy is a huge boost for her opponent, and I'm not crazy about the idea of Chris Christie getting that clear a shot at the head office.


i keep telling people this, but no one listens.  I tell them that running Hillary is almost all but ensuring a republican in office, but no one listens.
 
2014-03-01 02:11:54 PM

frepnog: EdgeRunner: Just don't be surprised when the Republicans reclaim the White House. They'd have a fight beating Biden, but they'd have to fight twice as hard to lose to Hillary. I'm not saying they couldn't - they've been driving the fail train at full throttle for years now - but no matter what you think the polls are telling you, a Hillary candidacy is a huge boost for her opponent, and I'm not crazy about the idea of Chris Christie getting that clear a shot at the head office.

i keep telling people this, but no one listens.  I tell them that running Hillary is almost all but ensuring a republican in office, but no one listens.


In which decade? Seriously, if you two honestly think ANY Republican is capable of beating Hillary in '16, please show us who and how. Who is it and what is their path to victory in the primaries and the general?  The Democrats have cleared the decks for Hillary, while the GOP is once again throwing up the current edition of the 7 dwarfs for her to knock down. The main contenders have imploded while the second string look like a lineup from Loony Tunes. Some of those clowns can't even hang onto the seats they hold. The idea that they are going to somehow ride this 'fear of Hillary' to the White House smacks of this guy's version of reality:

static5.businessinsider.com
 
2014-03-01 02:15:43 PM
Yeah, it's like everyone's willfully forgetting about Limbaugh's Operation Chaos and who was behind the Hillary is 44 website and why. About the only plus to putting Hillary in the race is, at least during the nomination process, she'll get funding from both sides.
 
2014-03-01 02:22:31 PM

Stone Meadow: Seriously, if you two honestly think ANY Republican is capable of beating Hillary in '16, please show us who and how. Who is it and what is their path to victory in the primaries and the general? The Democrats have cleared the decks for Hillary, while the GOP is once again throwing up the current edition of the 7 dwarfs for her to knock down. The main contenders have imploded while the second string look like a lineup from Loony Tunes. Some of those clowns can't even hang onto the seats they hold.


you do realize that in reality, the republicans are very much likely to take the senate, right?

you realize that the country is going to shift right again (as it tends to do after liberal leadership wears out its welcome) and that the chance of ANY democrat winning the presidency next election is a long shot?  and even MORE so if the Democrats actually run Hillary, who is absolutely un-electable as president?

the senate race this year will be interesting.  and if the republicans take the senate, it does nothing but bode well for who ever the republicans run.
 
2014-03-01 02:48:40 PM
Focus, guys...focus. WHICH Republican do you think can beat Hillary, and how do they get the nomination?

I've linked to appropriate sources above to show why I think she will win the WH. Now show who you think might beat her and how.
 
2014-03-01 03:20:53 PM

Stone Meadow: Focus, guys...focus. WHICH Republican do you think can beat Hillary, and how do they get the nomination?

I've linked to appropriate sources above to show why I think she will win the WH. Now show who you think might beat her and how.


Stone, as I said I'll probably vote for her, but reluctantly. I bet other liberals feel similarly. She's an unattractive candidate, and the opposite of charismatic. Always dour, always sour, and never seeming genuine or personable. Combine that with the wacko rights perennial hard-on for her, and it's not a shoo-in.

I read one of your links but wasn't convinced that an Obama-like success might not emerge before long. (I mean, for example Warren's sitting right there, endorsement or no.)

But worse, her unlikeability and the real vast right wing clusterfarkiracy could easily let slip through an R or teadragger. Anyone but Bush won the last election, and thank goodness for that. I think we got the best president that was available. I'd just rather not see this one turn into Anyone but Hillary. Complacency farks us over every time. Still reeling from the GWB reelection myself, not to mention Reagan. We can never underestimate just how stupid and/or fickle voters can be. In my opinion Hillary doesn't help matters. She's a downer.
 
2014-03-01 03:28:00 PM

Far Cough: Anyone but Bush won the last election, and thank goodness for that. I think we got the best president that was available. I'd just rather not see this one turn into Anyone but Hillary. Complacency farks us over every time.


this is what people who keep saying to me "WELL TELL ME WHO CAN BEAT HER!" are missing.  I keep telling them "who ever the republicans run".

people keep mistaking my honest concern for being a crazy republican.  i don't really want our next president at this point to BE a republican.  it will just be unavoidable if the democrats run an un-electable candidate, and Hillary is just that.  Our first female president will not be Hillary Clinton.  If she was electable, she would have taken the nomination and would be our president NOW. Her BEST hope for the white house at this point would be to run as vice president on another candidate's bill.  But once again, if that was going to happen, she would be vice NOW.  She has no real hope to ever have either position.
 
2014-03-01 05:44:45 PM

Far Cough: Stone Meadow: Focus, guys...focus. WHICH Republican do you think can beat Hillary, and how do they get the nomination?

I've linked to appropriate sources above to show why I think she will win the WH. Now show who you think might beat her and how.

Stone, as I said I'll probably vote for her, but reluctantly. I bet other liberals feel similarly. She's an unattractive candidate, and the opposite of charismatic. Always dour, always sour, and never seeming genuine or personable. Combine that with the wacko rights perennial hard-on for her, and it's not a shoo-in.


Hey, I grant every point you make here. A former squadron mate of mine was her pilot at the 89th while she was First Lady, and he described her as aloof and a prude, the opposite of her husband. But at the end of the day, the gregariousness of Potus candidates doesn't seem to win them election. The economy, party mood and cohesiveness, campaign effectiveness, and voter demographics count more. Moreover, women were 53% of voters in 2012, and gaining every day.  Plus, the American voting body is getting younger, browner and more democratic-voting by 2% a year, and I just don't see any visible Republican who can turn that tide.

Besides, so what if she always seem dour and unpersonable? If she were light hearted and outgoing Republicans would complain she wasn't 'serious' enough for the weight of the job. Being sour faced and hyperfocused is an asset IMO.

I read one of your links but wasn't convinced that an Obama-like success might not emerge before long. (I mean, for example Warren's sitting right there, endorsement or no.)

Election cycles are now like cable news...24/7. If 2008 taught us anything it's that you don't want to be caught off guard early in a campaign, which is why I wrote that the Democrats are lining up to support her, including some of her most obvious potential competitors. There will and should be a primary season, but I suspect that for the Democratic nomination it will be short and sweet, and that early on she will sew up the nomination. More of a parade of future candidates than serious opposition to her.

In contrast, the GOP nomination looks to be a freak show to me, with even more bizarre candidates than last time. And what with the Koch bros and Teahadists vs the Establishment and Chamber of Commerce duking it out early, often and to the death, they really don't impress me as likely to have their collective shiat in one sock to take on Hillary.

But worse, her unlikeability and the real vast right wing clusterfarkiracy could easily let slip through an R or teadragger. Anyone but Bush won the last election, and thank goodness for that. I think we got the best president that was available. I'd just rather not see this one turn into Anyone but Hillary. Complacency farks us over every time. Still reeling from the GWB reelection myself, not to mention Reagan. We can never underestimate just how stupid and/or fickle voters can be. In my opinion Hillary doesn't help matters. She's a downer.

Complacency will not be the issue this time that it was last time. For one thing there is no surprise Democrat hiding in the shadows. For another the GOP has progressively become ever more unhinged in recent years, and their demagoguery and fratricide will be on full display from this fall, irrespective of the outcome of their efforts to take the Senate. I am confident that combination will be enough to keep the DNC focused on the goal.
 
2014-03-02 12:27:55 AM
I don't think you grasp how these things are actually run, Stone. There are strategists in both parties who do nothing all day but tally up the odds, not just of who has the best shot at winning, but also what the chances are that winning at the wrong time can actually be a loss. The public wanted to unseat George W. in his second run, but I don't believe the Democratic high command did. They couldn't have stopped the wars at that stage - even throwaway candidate Kerry knew that much, which was why he never answered any questions about what his plan for Iraq was - and it was better PR to just leave Bush to ride out the worst of it and then charge in later to pick up the pieces. And thus, one of the most hated incumbents in recent history coasted right into a second term, thanks to being matched against one of the least electable candidates since Michael Dukakis or Bob Dole.

In the following election, the Republicans knew they had no chance after Bush, so they offered up McCain, a man so hated by the far right for working with Democrats on various bills, even Fox News refused to support him with any enthusiasm. His GOP masters gave him a shoddy campaign strategy ("Keep saying 'Maverick' over and over until even your houseplants scream at you to shut up.") and saddled him with a completely unvetted running mate who was chosen solely for her gender, which was blatantly played up as a gimmick rather than any kind of progressive choice. Big surprise, that ticket never stood a chance, especially not against a serious contender.

When Obama failed to drastically screw things up in his first term, but instead actually seemed to make good on some of his campaign promises and had motherf*cking Bin Laden go down on his watch, the GOP must have lost a lot of sleep wondering what to do next. Make a serious run at the Presidency in 2008, or wait out a second Obama term, during which the scheduled costs of the ACA would start to come due, as well as any complications from the Iraq troop scaledown? Considering they ran Mitt "What was my platform again?" Romney and somebody-or-other Ryan, who might as well have been failmates Kerry and Edwards in disguise, it doesn't take a genius to see the Republicans didn't really want to win that badly.

And now we look to 2016, a time that promises to offer serious challenges both at home and abroad to whoever sits in the Oval Office. If the Republicans win, no matter what happens they can blame it all on Obama. But if the Democrats win, it'll be too far down the line to point at Bush anymore. Everything will be laid at their doorstep, even things they couldn't possibly have seen coming and had nothing to do with, and that could damage their brand for years to come. Sometimes it's better to look like you're trying, but secretly do everything you can to lose. If they put Hillary on the ticket, especially this late in her unillustrious career, I honestly think the plan would have to be for her to lose and leave the Republicans stuck holding the ACA payments, but only after there's too many people dependent on it to cancel the program. That's REAL politics, not the "my side, your side, win win win" schoolyard bullsh*t that plays out on TV. These things are plotted out to win the long game, not just short term victories. If the Presidency was half as important to the Big Two Parties as they claim it is, we'd get a much better crop of applicants. More often than not, we just get cartoon characters performing bad theater.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report