Political Clichés

Scott Hardie | January 27, 2008
Amy has expressed aggravation at the phrase "the race card," which gets a lot of misuse and overuse these days.

Me, I'm getting very tired of speeches where the candidate lists the people s/he talked to on the campaign trail. "What about the single mother who works three jobs just to buy her son asthma medicine?" "I met with a retired double-amputee who worries Medicaid won't cover his stumps." It's not a bad speechmaking technique, just exhausted.

What clichés are you getting tired of in politics, either from the candidates or the media or someone else?

Lori Lancaster | January 27, 2008
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 27, 2008
Alas, as is endlessly, said, the reason mudslinging occurs is that it is provably the single most effective campaign tactic. Experiment after experiment in the social sciences leads us to the depressing conclusion that, on average, we are quite ready to think negatively of others when given the opportunity and the impetus. One recent study even showed that a damaging lie about someone, once exposed as a lie, still damages the lie's target where approval scores are concerned. Knowing the negative is false doesn't undo all of the harm of having heard it first; we feel more than we think, and we like to feel contempt.

Mudslinging happens because voters are powerfully influenced by slung mud.

Jackie Mason | January 27, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | January 28, 2008
Bill Clinton...anything he says or does

Kris Weberg | January 28, 2008
Jackie, it seems to me that the drug question every politician of a certain age is asked is getting old too. The coverups and denials are bad, and that's why the question is asked. But why don't we just acknowledge that it really doesn't matter 30 or 40 years after the fact, and grasp that there are plenty of reasons besides political viability someone might not admit trying weed as a collegiate? It's not as if there aren't millions of parents making the same move for the benefit of their kids, right?

And Tony, Bill's definitely overexposed to the point of tedium. Ditto for W. Bush.

Tony Peters | January 28, 2008
I'm waiting for W to goooooo

Drugs: At this point anyone who is my age I expect that they either inhaled or they were complete losers in highschool and college....the 3rd option is that they are lying out their ass (Bill) and it's pretty easy to recognize that they are full of shit. Integrity, own your past the good and the bad

Amy Austin | May 7, 2008
Heard on CNN over dinner (about the ongoing Hillarama drama):
"It's gonna' get bloody all right..."

For God's sake... these pundits should be covering "elections" in Africa or somewhere! Talk about ridiculous hyperbole... I'm really ashamed to count myself among the nation's jaded and burnt out on what should be one of the most exciting election years ever -- and I blame it completely on the media.

Also... to make a U-turn back to the cliche that started this discussion... the race card. I find myself experiencing the special kind of disappointment that goes along with being "surprised, but not really" by things that you don't really want to believe about human nature, our country, whatever... And also being supremely irritated by having been steered there by the same infernal political coverage!!!

One of the main things that has been going on since Day 1 of the primaries, will continue to go on until they end, and continues to get "worse" the closer we get, is the ceaseless collection and analysis of exit polls. It's such a predictable trap, with mass/media appeal, to get into this kind of analysis -- and personally, I think it's doing far, far more to "damage the process" than the fact that Hillary is still in the race. Even when you consider yourself an unbiased and rational person who tells yourself that there's no possible way to know how each individual arrived at each opinion expressed in the polls, no way to eliminate potential skewing, and, therefore, no possible way to *legitimately* jump to sweeping generalizations/conclusions about the voting public, state by state... I don't think it can be helped! It's discouraging on many levels, revealing biases of all kinds. I might be imagining it, but at least the analysts appear to be feeling this to the degree that they seem to be getting *a little* more restrained about their commentary -- ridiculously emphasizing the numbers and statistics, rather than elaborating too deeply on the implications -- no doubt somewhat fearful of critical backlash, even though the real damage is already done.

What was the exit poll "issue" that really got my goat over this? Well, it was the question of whether Hillary supporters would cast their votes for Obama if he secures the nomination... and vice versa. I never appreciate when race and/or gender are being made into more than they ought to be, but I'm also a woman. Can't help but bring that to the table, just as black voters and black female voters -- well, everybody -- can't. Deep down, we've all formulated some kind of opinion on the matter, whether we've formally recognized/voiced it or not. Being confronted with these thoughts is more than a little uncomfortable for the overthinker... it's downright aggravating.

I knew all along that whatever the results, there will be negative implications to go along with. If Hillary gets the ticket, it's because we're all a bunch of racists -- if it's Obama, we're sexist. There seems to be no way around it, and it's what I find so discouraging. But I think it's also why I've been quite content with the closeness of the race thus far and Hillary's refusal to concede -- it's such a close to evenly divided split that it's almost as if the whole country were trying to compensate for this inevitable knowledge! We don't want to be sexist *or* racist! And I'm more than a bit bothered to realize -- even though I am not favoring either one over the other, mind you... one is only ever a hair behind the other in my mind, and that's the way I like the outcomes, too! -- but I am irritated to realize that I would be feeling pretty angry if Hillary were being slaughtered. I take heart in knowing that I'd be very nearly as upset if it were the other way around, too. And with this knowledge, I could feel pretty good about the outcome either way... if only it weren't for exit polls.

Turns out that a large percentage of Obama supporters would still vote for Hillary over McCain, with a minority not voting at all. Turn it around, and the percentage of Hillary supporters voting for Obama... not as impressive. And, of course, these figures looked quite like what one might expect from North Carolina and Indiana (there it is -- the state bias rearing its ugly head like Obama's impulsive and not-so-private-after-all commentary on Pennsylvania voters), which makes me ashamed of myself all over again.

I know, without a doubt, that I can support either one of the Democrats over McCain... and that ought to be enough for me. But it isn't... because I'm an idealist at heart, and even though I'd like to think that the country will choose the best person for the job -- based on past experience and (sadly) instinct, I don't feel it to be true... and I'm angry knowing that a lot of people (even if it's only a ridiculously loud and small percentage) will back out of casting their votes to the same end and/or for similar enough ideals over matters of race, gender and pride.

Lori Lancaster | May 7, 2008
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | May 7, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | May 7, 2008
Thats funny Eric, I am so tired of hearing the Hillarama drama (to quote Amy), the Nastiness is what turns me off more than anything...I avoid the news with a kneejerk reaction these day

Amy Austin | May 7, 2008
Well put, Lori. And I agree that she is really stooping lately... the accusations of pandering and using "GOP playbook" techniques are, I think, not far off -- it is disgusting. But I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't use that as justification to vote for McCain or not at all -- that's what really tears me.

Funny, Erik, and you know, if that really had happened, I wouldn't find it to be appropriately illustrative of her point anyway! What is she, the old lady on the bus that you need to give up your seat for??? I would be flat-out insulted by that sort of thing. And I don't think the media is treating her delicately at all (see above).

Mike Eberhart | May 7, 2008
You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of the whole freaking government. Republican/Democrat. They all have screwed this country over. It won't matter who wins in November, nothings going to get done. The gas prices are still going to be outrageous, property taxes are still going to go up. It just doesn't matter. This is the first time ever that I'm seriously considering not voting at all. Why? Because IT DOESN"T MATTER. I don't even know what else to say other than I'm sick of politicians. They aren't out for anyone but themselves. No matter what they say.

Amy Austin | May 7, 2008
Wow... so this is what it took to get you back in the fray, Mike! ;-) Man... and I thought *I* was seriously cynical lately. But... I can't really argue with you, either. I do hold out the tiniest bit of hope that you're wrong, though.

Erik Bates | May 8, 2008
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | May 8, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | May 8, 2008
I agree Mike....the truely sad thing is the republican party has been highjacked by the moral majority, neither the gipper nor tricky dick would recognize what it has become and they are headed in the wrong direction. On the Flipside the democratic party has lost everything...they have no direction...the most powerful person in the party can't be a president again so he'd rather destroy the second most powerful person in the party rather than give up. At this point I'm looking for change, not saying that I want Obama, just that I want something different from what we have now

Mike Eberhart | May 8, 2008
Tony, I totally agree. What we really need is someone completely different. Someone who isn't tied to either party. Of course, that's a pipe dream and will never happen. Even if it did, that person still probably couldn't get anything done because then he'd be battling both parties in congress and they wouldn't allow anything to change. It's just sad. I don't know what it will take, but something drastic will have to happen in order for this to be corrected.

Erik Bates | May 8, 2008
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | May 9, 2008
I may have to pick up a copy of that book. I researched Ron Paul and he was definately someone that I would have voted for. The only problem was he didn't stand a chance against the main Republican machine. His views are too radical for most of them. However, I seem to find myself inline with most of his views. It's too bad he didn't make it. Maybe next time.

Tony Peters | May 9, 2008
poor Ron Paul's problem is that he is closer to being a "republican" than any canidate in 10-20 years...McCain would have been a good president 8 years ago not so much now

Jackie Mason | May 13, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | May 13, 2008
Let me just clarify something here... the only thing I am in any agreement about with anyone (Lori) is Hillary's less-than-straightforward tactics and the fact that I can get behind whichever candidate the Democrats endorse, versus McCain or altogether throwing out my vote. I am *not* one of the people spouting crap about her tearing up, damaging or otherwise "breaking" the Democratic party. She has every right to see the primaries through to the end -- THAT'S WHAT PRIMARIES ARE FOR, PEOPLE! The only reason that this one seems so tiresome and to have gone on for so long is because of the unprecedented (and ANNOYING!) media coverage, and the people who've been saying that she should concede are being rude and premature. She's been all but written off ever since Obama won Iowa... and yet, she's proven them wrong every step of the way, bewildering the analysts at every turn and holding her own throughout. She -- and the voters -- DO deserve to go the distance with this, and I don't blame her one bit for doing so and for continuing to say these things. What I do blame her for is being (almost) as much of a hothead as McCain, for stooping and pandering to the blue-collar vote (even going so far as to jump on McCain's "gas-tax holiday" plan as a good idea... please!) and for hypocritically feeding into this "elitist" crap while grubbing for the lowest common denominator vote to get her the rest of the way there. And also, in her defense, I am sure that there is way more inspiration in her rally speeches than what's evident from the tiresome soundbite spin. I don't think it's fair to make too many assumptions about what she *isn't* or hasn't been doing or talking about unless you've been to a rally or two or spent more than just a few minutes watching the coverage on "the news" (and I mean "you" in the general sense, Jackie, not "you" personally... I don't know how closely you've followed anything -- but I know how much I have, and I don't personally feel that I have room to say anything in that capacity).

I just wanted to be clear about where I stand on this... I am very much in favor of her finishing the race to the satisfaction of herself and her supporters, and I don't believe all this ridiculous nonsense about her "destroying" the Democratic party -- this is the process, and the party can take it... even Obama acknowledges that.

Steve West | May 13, 2008
I find myself suffering from electile dysfunction, not being aroused by any candidate. There are no viable conservative candidates. The only choice appears to be the degree of liberalism you want, McCain being Liberal Light but liberal nonetheless.

Erik Bates | May 14, 2008
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | May 14, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | May 14, 2008
LOL, Steve!!!

I wish the primaries weren't designed that way and all the states held their contests closer together.

I *SO* second that emotion! (And the rest that follows, too -- you are right -- you didn't miss out on anything important in the ABC "debate"...)

Scott Hardie | June 14, 2008
Maybe soon we can add "baby mama" to the list of political clichés, now that Fox News calls Michelle Obama that. (link)

Jackie Mason | June 15, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | June 15, 2008
Personally, I like the euphemism that someone came up with... "Faux News".

Scott Hardie | June 17, 2008
Memo to Hillary Clinton supporters: Barack Obama will never, ever choose her to be his running mate. I'm getting so tired of news stories in which every veep-related move he makes is analyzed for signs that he won't choose Clinton and how angry this will make her supporters. It would be campaign suicide to pair with her. Give up this topic of speculation.

Tony Peters | June 17, 2008
Personally, I like the euphemism that someone came up with... "Faux News".

I can't beleive I missed this on saturday (or maybe I did read it and was just too loopy to remember). Faux news is all that we are allowed ot have on TV here at the office unless out Department Head changes the channel, even then the right wing conspiracy usually over rules him and puts it back on. Unfortunatly I see and hear to much "not news" in any given day.

VEEP I have heard that the smartest choice for him would be a white, retired senior military officer from the midwest who is in good shape. That would go a long way towards gathering both the voters Hillary attracted and legitimising his his perceived foreign policy weakness.

I am saddened by McCain's continued foolish comments.

Scott Hardie | August 28, 2008
Furthering my comment from June 17... I suppose it was inevitable with Clinton giving her big speech last night, but her PUMA followers made the news again. (When I say PUMA, I don't just refer to members of that specific group, but any former Clinton voter who adamantly refuses to support Obama.) Certain "pundits" argued that Obama should have chosen her as veep in order to win over her supporters, a move that would have helped him gain the presidency.

I don't know much about politics, but I know that argument is bullshit.
1) PUMA will only support Clinton for president. Few if any of them will support her as Obama's veep, because she has thoroughly convinced them that Obama is not acceptable as president. This would not boost Obama's numbers.
2) PUMA are few. Only 100 showed up to Denver to be heard. They are not enough to have significant influence on Obama's numbers either way.
3) Whatever possible boost Obama might get from PUMA by choosing Clinton would be obliterated by the nosedive he'd take from the people who don't want Clinton anywhere near the White House again, on both sides of the political fence. That woman is hated in larger circles than PUMA loves her.
4) The voters who have no love or hate for Clinton, but might be swayed by her policies or "experience," would be even more swayed by Biden's policies and experience. She's too similar to Obama to cover any new ground.

His "lack of experience" is quickly becoming the Republicans' unanimous criticism of Obama – the Democrats had better come up with one about McCain fast – and I'm getting fed up with hearing about it. Clinton had seven years of experience in the Senate; he had three. What a whopping difference. Do her eight years as first lady count as public service experience? If her jobs before 1992 count, how come Obama's don't? The man has steadily worked his way up. One Republican commentator said that McCain has a 'lifetime of experience' serving the public while Obama has 'virtually none.' What do you expect us to think he was doing before the Senate, flipping burgers? I don't worry what lies they say about him really; I just worry what lies people believe.

Steve West | August 28, 2008
I'm afraid Biden's selection, because of his experience, only emphasizes Obama's lack thereof and does not inspire me to vote for such a young candidate. Clinton as VP would definitely have been a death knell for his campaign.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 28, 2008
I think, Scott, you hit on what is most often heard criticism of McCain (or at least the one I've heard most often): McCain has a "lifetime" of experience. The man is older than dirt. Is his age a reasonable factor for being against him? I dunno. I think it's a better reason than "because I hate all Republicans, because W is the worst president ever." That's like hating all Democrats because of the Clintons. It's dumb!

I think Obama should have picked Hillary, and I'll tell you why. It's the best insurance policy he could have against assassination. Most people who might hate him enough to consider it would say to themselves, "Oh crap! If I do that, we have Hillary Clinton in the White House again! Forget it!" :)

Serously, though, I do think Clinton is hated more than loved by too many people to have been a good choice.

Amy Austin | August 28, 2008
I think it's bullshit to expect a candidate to be universally strong and "experienced" (in the DC/political office sense, that is) -- the ability to delegate to those who complement and fill those gaps seems incredibly undervalued to me... look at how the Bush Administration has been affected by these choices and the simultaneous ability/inability to delegate. Obviously, his strengths lay in his choices of people to get him into and keep him in office (Rove et al) and not so much in those whose job it was to handle policy, both foreign and domestic ("heckuva' job, Brownie..."). I give Obama major props for doing his homework and being willing to choose a running mate that may give that sort of impression (older, "more experienced") by comparison. A great leader doesn't necessarily know how to do it all him/herself -- but he/she damn sure knows how to pick and lead the people who can help them. There's nothing that McCain & the GOP can do or say to sway me in my confidence in Obama -- I am completely fed up with their bullshit and won't be prey to their lies and smears... but, like Scott, I do seriously worry about the sensibilities of the average American to be able to do the same.

Samir Mehta | August 28, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 28, 2008
Well said.

Jackie Mason | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | August 29, 2008
Advantage of not having a lot of experience in the political arena: not a lot of dirt to dig up. :)

Point: Obama

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
Ha!

Tony Peters | August 29, 2008
I’m not sure that Biden is such a good choice, he’s a white catholic guy from Delaware known for not thinking before he speaks and voting politics before conscience. He’s smart well thought of and easy to get along with but other than foreign policy doesn’t really bring a lot to the campaign. I was hoping that Obama and company would chosen someone like Jack Reed (and that he hadn’t removed himself from consideration) not just because he’s from Rhode Island but because he’s a much more balanced and intelligent person who would contribute to the running of the country. Biden is the Anti Cheney he will be a show piece and after Cheney (needed by the Republican party because little Bush turned out to be soo weak) that may be what the candidates on both sides are thinking with their choices of running mates

Samir Mehta | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | August 30, 2008
that Biden is a better speaker than Reed is true but I just don't think he's as good a choice for Obama as McSame's choice of Pallin seems to be from a P.R. POV anyway...though I bet Biden will eat her alive in a debate

dollars to donuts/doughnuts (American, informal)
if you say that something will happen, dollars to donuts, you mean you are sure it will happen. Dollars to donuts the company is going to fold. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts she won't come to the party.

Samir Mehta | August 30, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 30, 2008
LOL... you know what Chris Rock says about Krispy Kreme...

(In case you don't...)


(I'm not a huge Chirs Rock fan or anything... but this bit always makes me laugh.)

Jackie Mason | August 30, 2008
[hidden by request]