Paris68's Comments (27)

“Can't we wait until the mid-terms before we start speculating 2012?”

“Hope you're right.”

“Where does she get the money for IVF and plastic surgery?”

“"If they tell me tomorrow Bruce Springsteen was on tape, there's no hope."

Ahem, funny you should mention that, Ruth:

http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/not-playing-live-story-continues-even-e-street-band-was-faking-it-superbowl/

If it helps, Bruce was actually singing, but they were just pretending to play.”

“Easy. All fingers should be pointed at W.”

“I don't know if it's hilarious or sad, but it turns out that "Joe the Plumber" (Joe Wurzelbacher, that is), is not even registered to vote, apparently. Message to McCain: if you are going kiss-up to one single voter, make sure it's one that will actually show up to the polls on Election Day.”

“I agree. I don't think the GOP will be able to regain their footing until after the mid-terms when they decide what kind of party they want to be. David Brooks has said that they need to spend some time out in the woods.”

“This is CRAZY!... We've still got 3 weeks, folks. That's a lifetime in politics. This thing is NOT over yet. Anything could happen!

That said, Pawlenty looks pretty well positioned for 2012. But if McCain loses, there will likely be a significant realignment on the right. Remember, prior to the thumping in '06, it looked like George Allen or Bill Frist were going to be the natural heirs to King George's fortunes.”

“Me? I just bought Iceland for a song.”

“"The truth of the matter is Clinton, Boxer, Hutchison, Dole, Weinstein are all CREDIBLE, INTELLIGENT and proven players on the national stage."

True, but if you can name more than one of those senators, you have probably followed politics a bit, and are not bothered by the blood sport nature of politics. This debate is not for you. It is for the other half of the country who tune in for a month every four years to vote for the candidate they sorta think they could get along with.”

“Whine, whine, whine... This just sounds like an excuse for McCain to pull Palin from the debate. Ifill is probably one of the sharpest, most informed journalists on the politcal beat. And her fairness is unimpeachable. The fact that she's waiting until AFTER the political season to publish her book should attest to her fairness, even if it says very little about her marketing acumen.”

“I agree that a different set of rules are at work here. But MLK didn't change the world in a doctoral thesis. He used the language of the church, which made his message relatable, trustworthy, and less reactionary.”

“Great analysis. But I disagree that Obama should dumb-down the language too much. If Obama comes off as folksy and plain-spoken, he'll be accused (accurately) of being a fake. Most of the character narratives are already set. Obama comes off as either an elite egoist or an inspirational outsider, depending on your leanings; McCain is either a maverick straight-talker or a hotheaded liar, depending on your leanings. The best that Obama can do is paint a friendlier, trustworthy side to citizens with advance degrees, avoiding nuance and polysyllabic words whenever possible, while reinforcing the image of McCain as tempermental and untrustworthy.”

“I remember reading an article after the debacle of 2000 about the future of elections. While all the commentators at the time were saying that the tightness of that race was unprecendented and that we'd certainly never see anything as close in our lifetimes, this article argued that it was actually the future of all elections. Narrow-casting has replaced broadcasting. And demographics and messaging has gotten so precise, candidates can deliver their tailor-made message (negative/positive) to your precise ZIP code. It then just becomes a game of pushing a handful of counties in the US over the tipping point.”

“What planet are you on? Hillary will do what is expected of her to help Obama. Nothing more. She's stumped for him. She's half-heartedly introduced him to her key donors (to little effect, apparently). She has strongly encouraged her supporters to vote for him. And she's been critical of Palin. The rest is up to Obama. This is his to win or lose. And I do think he'll win by the way.”

“Not quite. I agree that Obama won't take FL or NC. VA and OH are toss-ups. But he can still win without them, if he takes PA, CO, NM. IA. NH, and the other safe and likely states (273 electoral votes). All very possible.”

“Virginia will be the new Ohio. Mark my words.”

“In the Safe Democratic section.”

“Given that everyone is irrationally demanding that the New Yorker respond with an equally "critical" (?) cover of McCain, that actually would be funny. Not ha-ha funny. But maybe meta-meta New Yorker funny.”

“Just hold on tight. We're now 24 hours through a 48-hour news cycle. It'll all be over tomorrow. Unfortunately, it will be replaced by something equally as trivial.”

“I'm getting really tired of commentators saying, "Sure, I get it. I'm sophisticated. I'm an 'it' getter. It's just those gullible rubes living west of the Hudson River that I'm worried about. They'll never be able to comprehend the nuanced irony of those brainiacs at The New Yorker."

Question: Do you think portraying the 12% who believe Obama to be a Muslim as fat, toothless hillbillies will help change their mind?”

“You forgot about Remnick's (great) book on Mohammed Ali... Ahem, a converted muslim. Need I say more???”

“I've read a dozen or so posts now grasping for an appropriate anology from the right ("What if this were the cover of the National Review?," etc.). But I think these are misguided. It once again assumes that Obama is the target of the satire, and not the fringe right that laps up these ludicrous rumors. A more apt anology might be if a conservative weekly (say, The Weekly Standard) printed a caraciture of Obama depicted as a saint--which THEY HAVE. They of course don't have to depict Obama followed by thousands of sheep to get their point across of how they view Obama supporters. We get it. And nobody on the right is telling them, "psst... watch it, our readers might ACTUALLY believe that he's the Messiah."

Point two: actually the New Yorker has done a lot of unfavorable--and funny--covers of Bush and co. My favorite, just after Cheney shot that guy in the face, was of Bush and Cheney portrayed as cowboys. Doing a double take, I realized that it was done just like the poster for Brokeback Mountain. Gratuitous? Sure. Hilarious? Absolutely! Yet I never for a moment believed that Bush and Cheney actually had something going on.”

“Exactly. Should we write letters to take Colbert off the air? I mean it's obviously satire. And definitely over the top. But heck, there might be a few idiots out there who actually buy into his schtick. I say it's too risky to keep him on the air.”

“1. Yeah, I tend to think that Rove is a creature completely devoid of shame. I can't imagine it's a feeling that he's ever encountered in his little black heart.

2. Of course they invert reality, but again, you assume they should feel "shame" for it. No, indeed it's long been a source of pride. Remember the White House aid that told Ron Suskind: normal folks like us are ''in what we call the reality-based community ... when we act, we create our own reality."”