Skip

Or, maybe not
March 9, 2006 2:57 PM   Subscribe


 
Smarmy newsfilter; it does a body good!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:02 PM on March 9, 2006


heh
posted by delmoi at 3:03 PM on March 9, 2006


God, Hillary is such a bitch.
posted by delmoi at 3:04 PM on March 9, 2006


Is Clinton trying to make sure she has absolutely no shot at the Democratic Presidential nomination?
posted by gyc at 3:04 PM on March 9, 2006


*sigh*
posted by MythMaker at 3:04 PM on March 9, 2006


What the hell are they thinking?
posted by SirOmega at 3:05 PM on March 9, 2006


The movie industry quickly protected itself earlier last century by the age rating system; hasn't the video game industry adopted those too? What else can the feds/other government figures do about the issue?

The gaming industry needs a Jack Valenti. In fact, all geeky endeavours in general do.
posted by Firas at 3:05 PM on March 9, 2006


Relavent! They wash again!
posted by metaculpa at 3:06 PM on March 9, 2006


I remember back when Lieberman declared Mechwarrior 2 one of the year's most violent video games. That's when I decided I hated him.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 3:07 PM on March 9, 2006


With Hillary running this hard to the right, she'll be the head of John Birch by the end of 2006.

But it's nice to see her working with a Republican on something.

/rimshotI'mhereallweektakemywife!
posted by bardic at 3:07 PM on March 9, 2006


Oh, man. You fooled me.
posted by quadog at 3:08 PM on March 9, 2006


But it's nice to see her working with a Republican on something.

As a person who lived and worked in Stamford, CT for 8 years (home of Joe Lieberman), I'd like to take umbrage with your comment.

...but I can't. He's a republican in democrat's clothing. Unfortunately, it's less than clothing, and more the skin he flayed off the body of a much more deserving human being.
posted by thanotopsis at 3:11 PM on March 9, 2006


Quick, get Bill out there saying he supports the gaming industry's freedom of expression so Hillary can play both sides.

On preview: Mechwarrior 2?
posted by 2sheets at 3:11 PM on March 9, 2006


You know who also hated video games?

(Here's Howie Klein, former head of Reprise Records, on Lieberman.)
posted by bardic at 3:12 PM on March 9, 2006


Oops.
posted by bardic at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2006


I hate to say it but the Dems need to lose the next election as well. Then, finally, maybe there will be a colonic irrigation of these fuckwits and somebody else will get a chance. Also the GOP can clean up its own fucking mess for once.
posted by unSane at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2006


"What else can the feds/other government figures do about the issue?"

Smack the parents in the head when they bitch about their kids seeing stuff they don't want them to see all the while refusing to actually parent?

What a freaking waste (shakes head at the absolute freaking uselessness of both political parties).
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:13 PM on March 9, 2006


.
posted by Artw at 3:16 PM on March 9, 2006


The irony is, while democratic anti-game politicians are focused on violence, republican anti-media politicians are focused on sex. GTA San Andreas, by any measure an incredibly violent game only got in real trouble when the deactivated sex-minigame was found and activated. Even when they're being wrongheaded, the democrats manage to be less effective than the republicans.
posted by insomnus at 3:17 PM on March 9, 2006


I hated the Republicans all my life. Now the Democrats are doing everything they can to get me to hate them as well. We are so screwed. A two party system where both parties are willfully clueless about things as obvious as cause and effect.

"Video game violence. Sounds bad. What? Studies show it's not bad? Well, I need a talking point that sounds like I'm willing to stand for something. Or against something. Something that doesn't actually require a spine. Something. Let's keep doing studies on it until we prove it's bad. If fact let's just pass legislation saying it's bad. Science can be problematic."

And what unSane said. Riding this this shit-train right into the wall may be the best we can do.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:17 PM on March 9, 2006


Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Mmmm, Santorum.
posted by gurple at 3:19 PM on March 9, 2006


[this is funny]
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:20 PM on March 9, 2006


The ESRB has ratings, but after last year's Hot Coffee mod (might be NSFW, has picture of clothed people in sexual positions) for GTA:San Andreas the politicos, especially Hilary, got all up in arms about violent videogames. The problem is places that sell such games say they don't sell Mature rated games to minors, but numerous investiations by TV Magazine shows indicate they still do.

It is important to note that the video game ratings dont have the force of law, just like movie ratings dont have the force of law. Congress has flirted several times with making video game ratings have the force of law, and in fact several municipalities have tried and failed to regulate violent games.

This bill and its sponsors can kiss my ass. Why waste $90M on something as stupid as this. Feed some poor people, put more money into Head Start, I dont care just dont waste it like this.

And FWIW, MW2 is hardly a violent game compared to some of the other games of the time (Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, etc).
posted by SirOmega at 3:22 PM on March 9, 2006


Most video games I'm familiar with are inherently nonviolent.
posted by nervousfritz at 3:23 PM on March 9, 2006


That was a great lead-in, orthogonality.

You know, for a 'liberal' website like MeFi, we sure do despise the Democrats. And they wonder why they lose elections.

They can't _seriously_ think that games are really that much of a problem... it's gotta be simple pandering, trying to get votes. Thing is, I don't think anyone even cares. They just look stupid, and lose far more votes than they could ever hope to gain.

What the fuck happened to sensible leaders that know how to think?

'Course, men like Churchill could never go anywhere in politics these days... actual intelligence and talent seem to be just about the _last_ things we want in a leader. Exhibit A: President of the United States.
posted by Malor at 3:24 PM on March 9, 2006


I agree with everything said above, BUT a friend had an experience recently that has had me pondering the issue of kids and media a lot. My (very liberal) friend has a 5 year old daughter and tried to watch the Olympics with her. Pretty quickly, though, she got uncomfortable with the amount of sex and violence in the ads (yes, often slapstick or satirical, but still blatant) and her daughter's questions about material that was clearly inappropriate for a child. I may be a First Amendment absolutist but at the same time I have to acknowledge (as someone who is currently childless) that parents have legitimate concerns about how and when the mass media are bombarding their kids with content the parents don't feel their kids are ready for yet.
I am NOT defending Hillary and Joe's nonsense here, just suggesting that we on the Left need a more nuanced position on kids & the media that addresses these legimate concerns if we're ever going to win a national election again.
posted by twsf at 3:25 PM on March 9, 2006


gurple: Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

I think it's worth mentioning that, if the dems dropped their sponsorship, this would be called the "Santorum-Brownback" bill.

*giggles*
posted by rkent at 3:27 PM on March 9, 2006


Hillary is still scarred by walking in on Bill while he was playing this.

More seriously, the only shot Hillary has to win is based on two facts, 1) Bush is a millstone on the neck of the Republican party and 2) she can fire up the grassroots, i.e., the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." Playing to the middle is not her strength, nor her style. Just fucking nuts from every angle.
posted by bardic at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2006


Think of the children!
posted by my sock puppet account at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2006


she got uncomfortable with the amount of sex and violence in the ads (yes, often slapstick or satirical, but still blatant) and her daughter's questions about material that was clearly inappropriate for a child

Good solutions: a) don't watch TV. b) Videotape the shows and fast-forward through the commercials. c) Get a TiVo and do the same. d) Download the events you want - already edited for you to be commercial-free - from the internet.

Dumb solutions: a) trying to make everything on the planet suitable for children.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:31 PM on March 9, 2006


2) she can fire up the grassroots, i.e., the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Yeah, but she's doing stuff that will alienate them, like voting for the Patriot Act.
posted by unreason at 3:33 PM on March 9, 2006


Fuck this, I’m voting for Kodos.

...did we forget Tipper Gore kids?

This schtick from the Dems has been around for some time.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:35 PM on March 9, 2006


Seems like Hillary has been playing to the Republican wing of the Democratic Party since 2004. She's been mostly dead to the Democratic base of the party because of her bizarre articulations of support for the war. If she keeps this shit up, she'll have no one left in her camp, save the coterie of sycophants that live halfway up her ass.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 3:38 PM on March 9, 2006


I want a video game where I can steal Lieberman's car and have sex with Hilary. Or the other way around, whatever.
posted by beerbajay at 3:42 PM on March 9, 2006


Kang or Kodos, that's what it comes down to, hm?
posted by signal at 3:43 PM on March 9, 2006


funny.
& sad.
posted by nuclear_soup at 3:45 PM on March 9, 2006


lol awesome fpp internet
posted by tweak at 3:45 PM on March 9, 2006


So you'll steal Hillary and have sex with Lieberman's car? I would say that would be more desirable than the converse.
posted by ooga_booga at 3:46 PM on March 9, 2006


I manage an online MMORPG called Outbreak, and it was briefly considered early in its development process to add sex (sex with NPCs for health, a la GTA), but the idea was scrapped for fear of landing in the same kind of hot water the other game makers are busy swimming in. Nevermind the game has you killing demons twenty-four hours a day, but sex? The horror!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!
posted by nlindstrom at 3:50 PM on March 9, 2006


I nominate this thread for "Best FPP". Nice work.

Hillary and Joe: stop fucking around and walk across the aisle. Just go. Better yet, resign from office and let someone with a clue take your place. You're worthless and we don't need you.
posted by mullingitover at 3:54 PM on March 9, 2006


I agree with everything said above, BUT a friend had an experience recently that has had me pondering the issue of kids and media a lot. My (very liberal) friend has a 5 year old daughter and tried to watch the Olympics with her. Pretty quickly, though, she got uncomfortable with the amount of sex and violence in the ads (yes, often slapstick or satirical, but still blatant) and her daughter's questions about material that was clearly inappropriate for a child.

It's not the governments job to protect parents from embarrassing questions.
posted by delmoi at 4:00 PM on March 9, 2006


parents have legitimate concerns about how and when the mass media are bombarding their kids with content the parents don't feel their kids are ready for yet.

It's too bad watching TV is mandated by our government!
posted by odinsdream at 4:06 PM on March 9, 2006


I'll vote for Hillary when she recommends banning the internet (warning: nsfw, bad music, cliche images, and plenty of other stuff you don't really need to see).
posted by b1tr0t at 4:07 PM on March 9, 2006


Nice headline, submitter. :)
posted by Plinko at 4:21 PM on March 9, 2006


If the study is fair I'm guessing it will wind up the same way the hysteria surrounding D&D wound up in the 80s.
1. Clueless older people succumb to FUD
2. A serious study is performed
3. Study vindicates social activity
4. Informed older people relent; fringe groups warp facts (see: Jack Chick)

I just hope it's a fair, unbiased study...
posted by ducksauce at 4:23 PM on March 9, 2006


delmoi, Optimus_Chyme, odinsdream - I'm not making myself clear - the tech solutions O_C cites and the principles all of you note are true and fine, but they do nothing to address the legitimate concerns of average parents just flipping through the channels with their kids in the room. I'm not proposing a specific solution, but then neither are you. And until we think about it and talk about it in a less smug, dismissive way, we just ain't going to win national elections - we need to speak to average, non-ideological, earnest parents, not just the libertarian, technophiles on The Blue.
posted by twsf at 4:25 PM on March 9, 2006


Hillary Clinton doesn't wipe her ass unless it helps her politically. Nothing she does is genuine.

I have a kid, and I see the unending stream of crap that the world dangles in front of her, and it really is impossible to keep it away, unless you want to move to the back of beyond. But it's not the government's responsibility to tell me what's OK. It's only their responsibility to give me the tools I need to decide for myself and for my kid - and then stay the hell out of my business.

But having the CDC investigate electronic gaming is like asking the CIA to investigate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whatever they come up with, you can use it to bolster your case. So they'll continue to rail against the games and the shows and the songs instead of going after the real problem.

How about an investigation into the shit-ass parenting that goes on in this country, with collosal idiots BUYING these games for their ten-year olds, and never thinking of it again. THAT'S the disease.

That's whose responsible for creating the demand for demented shit, and that's whose responsible if it ultimately does have any damaging consequences - which it probably does.
posted by JWright at 4:33 PM on March 9, 2006


“Hillary Clinton doesn't wipe her ass unless it helps her politically.”

That’s not true!
...although I can’t find any supporting links, so...
....whaddya think - she’s a Charmin type?
Or is she the raspy sandpaper type?
/personally I think she’s the bidet type. Hell, I’d be looking for someone on the side too, Bill.

There are already rules in place for TV. There is also hardware to lock out certain channels. If you have cable, there is software to lock out certain channels too.

I think parents had a fair beef with the Janet Jackson boob surprise (surprise boob?) during the superbowl.
I happen to mildly disagree with watching scantily clad cheerleaders and thinking one inch less of cloth makes all the difference in the world, but I get the point and if it’s unexpected it can be shocking (which I think was the point).
I think Govt. folks over reacted to it, but that’s a whole other thing.

This, you can choose whether to buy for your kid or not. There are labels. A bloody chain saw on the cover is a decent indicator of what’s inside. And you can sit with your kids.

I’m not unsympathetic. I don’t mind putting my fair share into the public school pot if - say - my kids are going to private school. But I draw the line at the Fed spending money regulating something parents can do themselves.
Which is of course is to realize that like comic books - not all video games are for kids.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:50 PM on March 9, 2006


they do nothing to address the legitimate concerns of average parents just flipping through the channels with their kids in the room. I'm not proposing a specific solution, but then neither are you.

I'm not proposing a solution, because I don't think it's a problem.

That may not be an effective political tactic, but it is kinda fun.
posted by delmoi at 4:52 PM on March 9, 2006


Remember kidz - don't vote Nader! Better the devil you know!
posted by Decani at 4:52 PM on March 9, 2006


Nader, wasn't he the guy that took money from Republican donors last election?
posted by MikeKD at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2006


"Riding this this shit-train right into the wall may be the best we can do." ( y6y6y6 ) - I agree with your characterization, but what's driving the train ?
posted by troutfishing at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2006


Or - perhaps Hillary Clinton is just catching a ride en route to power.
posted by troutfishing at 5:04 PM on March 9, 2006


Them damn Demmie, preventing the Army from putting its war-training simulator in the hands of the future bullet-sponges.

Outraged, I tell ya. Outraged!

(That and the voters of the future have such a short attention spans, they will not remember who kept the "good" video games out of their hands 'till voting age.)


Wonder if Open Sourced Violent games would be OK, as they are 'not for sale' per say.....
posted by rough ashlar at 5:06 PM on March 9, 2006


Wonder if Open Sourced Violent games would be OK, as they are 'not for sale' per say.....

That'd be violent and communist!
posted by brundlefly at 5:10 PM on March 9, 2006


oh, god.

you know what's a good thing to do these days?

Watch West Wing from the beginning. Ignore reality. It's so much less prone to making me want to go and beat up random DNC employees. Ignorance is bliss.
posted by blacklite at 5:14 PM on March 9, 2006


"communist....." - you took the words from my keyboard.
_______

"We must ban all nonprofit video game violence !" ?

The DNC seems itching for this in '08...

Besides, "Scoop" Jackson was nominally a Democrat, and given current expectations concerning the Rapture, he may soon come bursting out of the grave to champion pseudo-left rightist authoritarianism.
posted by troutfishing at 5:16 PM on March 9, 2006


This issue is also what's stopping me from much liking Adrian Fenty, an otherwise decent mayoral candidate here in DC.
posted by brownpau at 5:30 PM on March 9, 2006


In short, Hillary was a student of Bill's or vice versa....

And, it doesn't matter which held true....

Indeed, I'd bet they still share a certain grudging love - those two go back a long way.

But, both have less inclination towards change than towards squatting in the middle. Middlesquatting is a skill not unlike surfing: tricky, but the contours of the wave are accepted as part of the territory.
_______

That aside, the presidency is a good power seat, so maybe they are right......

Yet, I didn't see Bill, Hillary, or both fighting fighting in Florida, 2000...

There are pivotal points, bifurcations.....

Thus those two seemed - at that crucial time - adrift and detached.

We all make mistakes.
posted by troutfishing at 5:31 PM on March 9, 2006


On one side we have the Asshole party. On the other side we have the Bukake party.
No wonder people are turned off by politics. Jesus H Jumping Flying Spaghetti Monster Christ.
We have dipsticks and cowardly enablers running our frickin' government. Tidal wave, earthquake, invasion from space, I don't care, just implode D.C. into it's own self-created black hole so normal responsible people will finally have the opportunity to live meaningful productive lives instead of being subjected to the whims of a city of shit for brains plutocrats.
posted by mk1gti at 5:34 PM on March 9, 2006


> I think parents had a fair beef with the Janet Jackson boob surprise (surprise boob?)

It wasn't the boob, it was the nipple ring. That freaked me out totally (and I didn't even watch the superbowl, just saw a still of the wardrobe malfunction later.) It's like somebody dropping a big lively centipede in your lap.
posted by jfuller at 5:37 PM on March 9, 2006


she can fire up the grassroots, i.e., the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Um, no? All the liberals I know hate her; all the conservatives really hate her.

I'm honestly beginning to think that our best hope is Al Gore in '08. And that is so sad.
posted by designbot at 5:39 PM on March 9, 2006


All this shit does is make me infinitely sadder at the loss of Paul Wellstone. Fuck.
posted by mosk at 5:42 PM on March 9, 2006


Addressing the olympics/kid-safe side topic.

If we had ala carte TV, parents could just buy the programs/channels that were kid safe. They could maybe even specify kid-safe as a preference, and get 'mature' content edited to be kid-safe.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:45 PM on March 9, 2006


Aaaargh!
posted by fungible at 5:46 PM on March 9, 2006


If we had ala carte TV, parents could just buy the programs/channels that were kid safe. They could maybe even specify kid-safe as a preference, and get 'mature' content edited to be kid-safe.

It's called the V-Chip, and it's been on every TV since 2000.

(Regardless, a la carte TV would be awesome.)
posted by designbot at 5:49 PM on March 9, 2006


In the last couple of years, Al Gore has written some absolutely amazing speeches. I'd vote for him (again) in a heartbeat... he has the raw material to be a great president.

I voted for both Gore and Kerry primarily because they weren't Bush... least of evils theory. This time, I'd happily vote for him because he's Al Gore. He understands what this country once stood for, and enunciated that message more clearly than anyone in a generation.

Perhaps he could lead us back in that direction again.
posted by Malor at 6:03 PM on March 9, 2006


The Dems are so screwed.

I can see Hillary being on the ticket and that means an overwhelming loss. A deserved one.
posted by melt away at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2006


Nader, wasn't he the guy that took money from Republican donors

He got the enemy to give him money? Awesome! He's just soared in my estimation.
posted by Decani at 6:28 PM on March 9, 2006


So....has KOS ever made any noises about running?
posted by slatternus at 6:33 PM on March 9, 2006



(Regardless, a la carte TV would be awesome.)

No, it would suck. We would all pay more for less and anything not appealing to the masses would disappear. Parents need to raise their own kids and stop expecting the government to do so. Either take fucking responsibility, or responsibly fuck.
posted by HyperBlue at 6:34 PM on March 9, 2006


If what you mean, HyperBlue, is that all that suckass cable shit would disappear, because nobody would fucking buy it, then yes, you're probably right.

Your theory is just as viable as the theory that buy-what-you-want ends up with more satisfied customers, and more satisfied distributors (who get to sell advertisements that actually work better, being that they're going to people who actively chose certain channels). I honestly don't think parental controls come into play much in a discussion of a-la carté TV, which I would fully support.
posted by odinsdream at 6:44 PM on March 9, 2006


So....has KOS ever made any noises about running?

KOS? Are you kidding? He's about as main-stream democrat as you can get, except very vitriolic about it. He loves Hillary, and even defended Leiberman during the primaries.
posted by delmoi at 7:20 PM on March 9, 2006


I voted for both Gore and Kerry primarily because they weren't Bush... least of evils theory.

The Democrats: We're the Darth Vader to thei Republicans' Emperor Palpatine. Vote Democrat in 2008.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2006


I’m reading this and y6(x3)’s line about riding this shit train all the way to the wall captures my thoughts. I get the chuckles and this morphs into a fractured Cat Stevens’ Peace Train.

“Shit train’s a holy roller, everyone jump upon the shit train….” Somehow this makes me happy and I feel better about it all. “For out on the edge of darkness there rides a shit train. Shit train, take this country, come take me home again...”

Hell, I once talked a right-winger into supporting a Bush impeachment if I agreed to a Lieberman-McCain ticket. This, we imagined from our zero power position in this world.

So maybe this thread has hit on some possible Dem. solutions. We leave Kerry and Clinton in the Senate to handle proceedings and investigations. Then we run Gore again in 2008. But, Gore and who? Cat Steven?
posted by BillyElmore at 7:47 PM on March 9, 2006


Until someone sacks up in the Democratic leadership and starts talking about electoral fraud, it won't matter if we run Al Gore, Yusuf "Peace Train" Islam, or Jesus fucking H. Christ on rollerblades. The GOP guy candidate will "win."
posted by stenseng at 7:54 PM on March 9, 2006


GOP candidate rather, strike the guy part
posted by stenseng at 7:55 PM on March 9, 2006


If Hillary winds up with the '08 nomination, I swear to fucking St. Goodness H. Christ I will spend my voting booth time building a lean-to in the woods.

Also, having lived in CT during the Lieberman office, all I can say is that:

-Yes, the man is a elephant in donkey clothes.
-Yes, he is a champion of all talking point causes which in actuality have no real meaning or merit.
-Yes, or at least maybe, his name roughly translates to "Loverman".

Glad I live in a place where this guy now works for me...Sort of.
posted by rollbiz at 8:09 PM on March 9, 2006


Okay then, Yusuf is in charge of the ports. The GOP riggs for Ms. Rice, but we fool them by putting Steve Jobs all over the voting machines. This leaves Jimmy Carter open for his second term. Gore grows a beard in the VP slot again. I'm cool like that.
posted by BillyElmore at 8:13 PM on March 9, 2006


Metafilter: We're the Darth Vader to the Republicans' Emperor Palpatine.
posted by SirOmega at 8:34 PM on March 9, 2006




Here's a political ad from Vernon Robinson, a Republican.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:58 PM PST on March 9


everyone click that link holy shit

Also as a huge fan of Serling and the Twilight Zone I fully support kicking Robinson in the fucking nards for the rest of his tragic life. Don't ruin that show for me you piece of inbred trash.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:43 PM on March 9, 2006


Hillary and Joe aren't representative of the bulk of the Democratic party, but they're the ones that the mainstream press loves to put in the spotlight.

If Hillary runs in '08, I'm fairly sure she'll be trounced in the primaries. She leans far too Republican for any real Democrats to support her. Republicans already hate her and her incomprehensible appeasement isn't going to change that.

If you want to get rid of Lieberman, take a look at Ned Lamont.
posted by H-Bar at 11:39 PM on March 9, 2006


H-Bar, I'm with you in spirit, but Hillary has the infrastructure, the advisors (to wit: the ones who lost it in 2000 and 2004), and most importantly, the money. Truckloads of it, compared to Edwards, Biden, Warner, and the man who deserves the nomination (if only for not voting for the initial PATRIOT) Feingold.

The Democratic primary is going to be a mess--rumors abound that Shrum, Ickes, and other pro-Clinton insiders are already maneuvering to get Dean out of his post at the DNC, which would be the ultimate f-u to actual Democrats.

Is it possible to say that I'm anti-Hillary without being called a misogynist? Today, yes, but I'm curious to see what happens when the campaigns get into full swing.

That said, it won't be rosy for the Republican nomination either, with long-shots like Brownback and Santorum (who's got nothing to lose, at least not his Senate seat since he's about to get the boot) attacking McCain and Giuliani as being gay-loving libertines (I think Giuliani won't be running, actually, because he's smart enough to know that he won't play in the Red States beyond 9/11 superhero).

Hollywood for ugly people, etc. I think Obama's the wildcard right now, but I'm kind of hoping he doesn't bloody and ruin his potential in the clusterfuckolicious 2007-2008 primary. It's going to tar everyone on both sides, IMHO.
posted by bardic at 12:01 AM on March 10, 2006


As far as the video game issue goes, I can't help but wonder if they didn't pick it simply because it gave them something to do that played well to the control-freak public and stood a chance with the majority party.

That being said, I can't stand either Liberman or Clinton. Sad in the latter case, as I love the poetic justice of the Clintons moving back to the Whitehouse. BUT I can't support any candidate in the primaries who voted for the Patriot Act. Period.
posted by Goofyy at 12:13 AM on March 10, 2006


Obama should run. Even if he loses, he'll be better off for future races.
posted by washburn at 12:31 AM on March 10, 2006


washburn, I'd love to see him run but disagree. He needs to stay a senator for a while, and then run for governor of IL. If he runs in 2008, he'll have to do a wilderness strech a la Edwards, and I don't think that's good thing.
posted by bardic at 12:33 AM on March 10, 2006


*If he runs *and loses* in 2008*
posted by bardic at 12:45 AM on March 10, 2006


I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat. I supported Bush in 2000 and it is the greatest political misjudgment I've ever made.

I'll tell you right now, though...if Hillary is on the ticket as the Dem nomination, I'd probably be tempted to just stay home in November 2008.
posted by darkstar at 3:46 AM on March 10, 2006


I'm currently living in Kenya, where there are large numbers of CDC research staff. These guys are looking at big stuff, cures for Malaria, AIDS vaccines and the like.

This proposed use of their time seems pointless.
posted by davehat at 5:23 AM on March 10, 2006


I'm going to echo Smedleyman from earlier, but give it a more sussinct and easily google-able name.

The Parents Resource Music Center.

Look it up.

Some notable opponents of the PMRC are : Twisted Sister lead singer and current Radio DJ Dee Snider. (Original) Dead Kennedy's lead singer and way cool out there prankster Jello Biafra. (Deceased) Country Music singer John Denver. Psychadelic rock god Frank Zappa.

Here's an interesting quote from a website talking about the founding and the current backers of the PRMC, and organizations of its ilk. Linky
"Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was founded by Tipper Gore, wife of Vice President Albert Gore and author of Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society. She became an activist in 1984, after listening to Prince's Purple Rain soundtrack album, which she had bought for her 11-year-old daughter. Mrs. Gore has officially resigned from PMRC but continues to support its agenda. Until recently the core of the PMRC, which remains heavily influenced by the Christian evangelical attempt to demonize rock music, comprised about 15 Washington wives, most notably cofounder Susan Baker, wife of the former Secretary of State."

Not mentioned is the role Leiberman has with the PMRC, which can be found here.

I so love legislative morality. It gives me something to rant and scream about hysterically. Kind of like how they act when "talking" about these things. You should find transcript of the speeches and read them. They are entertainment gold.
posted by daq at 7:22 AM on March 10, 2006


It's all about the Values Voters:

WASHINGTON—Forget Iraq. Forget terrorism. Forget the economy. The biggest factor shaping people's votes Tuesday (Nov. 2) was the mother of all sleeper issues—"moral values."

In nationwide exit polls, one in five voters said moral values were the most important issue in casting their votes, outpacing every other major topic. Those "values" voters overwhelmingly went for President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, 79 percent to 18 percent.

The stronger-than-expected role of moral values signals that the nation's values agenda is likely to be dominated by "social morality" concerns for abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research—issues vital to Bush's base. The election also marks a defeat for progressive groups who tried to cast "social justice" concerns of poverty, war, and the environment as moral issues.


Video games are perceived as a 'safe' issue for Dems to take a moral stand on. Nobody wants to hear about poverty, the environment, social justice or health care. (Remember First Lady Hillary Clinton's attempts at health care reform? Think she learned anything from that?)
posted by Otis at 7:41 AM on March 10, 2006


The blogosphere and prosterati aren't an accurate sample of actual primary voter behavior. Hillary has the Presidential nomination all but locked up for 2008.

She's quite popular among almost every segment of likely Democrat primary voter. She's hugely popular among women and minority Democrats and has low negatives among white male Democrats as well. She's more popular with self-identified liberals than with self-identified moderates, and still plenty popular with the latter.

And beyond popularity and name recognition, it's about early resources. Hillary has an overwhelming, and only growing, advantage there. Her support profile is more similar to that of an incumbent President or sitting Vice President seeking (re)nomination than it is of a top candidate in an open race -- i.e., in 2006 she's more like Al Gore was in 1998 than she's like Bill Clinton was in 1990.

I'd say that the candidate she most resembles in terms of her standing and her ultimate fate is Bob Dole in 1994: more or less certain to win the nomination, and more or less certain to lose the general election.
posted by MattD at 8:11 AM on March 10, 2006


Make that protesterati. Nothing worse than a typo in an attempt to coint a neologism.
posted by MattD at 8:12 AM on March 10, 2006


I'd say that the candidate she most resembles in terms of her standing and her ultimate fate is Bob Dole in 1994: more or less certain to win the nomination, and more or less certain to lose the general election.
posted by MattD at 11:11 AM EST on March 10 [!]


You are not the only person out there who holds that belief. The perception that she is not 'electable' could end up really hurting her in the primaries.

Californians ready for female president, but tepid on Clinton

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California, said Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' version of President Bush -- beloved by one party and despised by the other. If that situation continues, it could give Democratic voters pause during the presidential primaries.

"There appears to be some real nervousness about the fact she appears to be such a polarizing figure and whether she can win a general election,' Jeffe said.

posted by Otis at 8:40 AM on March 10, 2006


“I so love legislative morality.” - daq

Thanks for clairfying the PMRC thing daq. I tend to shorthand stuff I think people should already know. This whole “people have their own lives and interests” thing really throws me off.

That said, I did enjoy the later “you can’t legislate morality” schtick from the left when it came to abortion. (whole other can of worms - I’m just pointing out the irony there).
posted by Smedleyman at 9:38 AM on March 10, 2006


Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' version of President Bush -- beloved by one party and despised by the other.

That analogy might work better if she were actually, you know, beloved by one party. The Republicans loathe her with a white-hot fury as intense as what non-Republicans feel for Bush, but all I see in the other direction is a sort of lukewarm approval, as befits what appears to be a largely undistinguished political career devoid of noteworthy accomplishment or clearly-articulated principle.

I don't know why people keep talking about her as a presidential candidate. I can't think of anyone more likely to attract Republicans to the polls by the millions; they hate her more than they hated her husband.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2006


If Clinton gets the nom, she will certainly lose.

And if she doesn't, well, we get all the same foreign policy and encroachment on civil rights we have now.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:49 AM on March 10, 2006


Preach it, Saxman!

The whole idea of Hillary running has been a GOP-driven meme for the past three years. They NEED her, badly, to continue to be a boogy-woman to stir up the vitriol of their base.

I don't know a single Dem who has ever seriously thought of her as the best Dem to run for President. The fact that she's seriously considered as a viable candidate is that the GOP has effectively framed the discussion to include her as a front-runner.

I predicted years ago that this would happen, with the result being that Dems would start seriously considering her as a possible candidate (not that it took any great foresight). Here we are three years later and Hillary is at the top of the lists.

You folks should spend more time around Republicans, really. Mention Hillary over dinner and watch the fangs bared and the venom start to drip. I swear, there is very likely NO ONE in the Dem party that would so effectively mobilize the Republican base, right out of the gate, than Hillary Clinton. We joke about dead people voting Republican, but with Hillary on the ticket, you can bet that dead Republicans would be clawing their way out of their loamy graves, just for the privilege of voting against her.

She's got a ton of money now, with a goal of collecting $40 million in the coming year. And she's doing this even though she has no real opposition in the Senate race, because she's building a war chest for '08, obviously. But please, please, for the love of all that's holy! If you have any serious hope of taking back the White House in '08, she has got to be firmly and clearly rejected as the Dem candidate.
posted by darkstar at 10:26 AM on March 11, 2006


« Older RFID wallets   |   Grey Gardens -- The Return of the Marble Faun. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post