I can not take eight years of this:
The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to sue over the party’s complicated delegate selection process.
In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats’ effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.
Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election.
“It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,” Dunn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.”
Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.
“Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,” said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
Another Democratic official who was privy to the discussions confirmed Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.
“Officials from Sen. Clinton’s campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of ‘challenging the process,’ ” the official said.
Queue the Hillbots to tell me this is just an anonymous smear against Hillary. The rest of us recognize this for what it is- an increasingly desparate Clinton campaign resorting to what they really understand- strong-arming people to get their way.
it’s almost nihilistic. damn the party’s prospects, we’re gonna tear this fucker down if we can’t have our way!
That’s one way of getting votes.
I’m sure it’ll be as effective as her plan for having Michigan’s delegation seated as “voted” where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot.
BUT BUT THE LETTER WAS SENT TO BOTH CAMPAIGNS WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON HILLARY BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW
Bu, but, John, if we don’t elect her, that newb is gonna answer the call when the world asplodes, AND YOUR CHILLUN GONNA DIE!
Well, insofar as both campaigns have expressed reservations about the way that the delegate selection process works, and that both campaigns have expressed a willingness to litigate if necessary, I’m not sure why you seem to think this is completely Clinton’s fault because her camp is more vigorous in expressing reservations.
I have no idea on the legal merits of the arguments/reservations — but it seems to me that the reason that the Clinton camp is making more noise is because they expect to get screwed, and if the Obama camp thought they were gonna get screwed, they’d be making more noise and the Clinton camp less noise.
Well, the Hillary campaign seems to be doing its level best to make me embarrassed for ever supporting them. I like to think this is a function of the people Hillary surrounded herself with rather than Hillary herself, but of course it doesn’t matter. Ah well, the good news is this year I could be happy with any of the major Democratic contenders for the Presidency, not just lesser-of-two-evils happy. Boy, would I be depressed if I was a Republican.
A radio report in Dallas suggests that the principal driver came from the campaign staff of Barack “He Who Must Not Be Middle-Named” Obama. Who knows??
I mean, seriously John… look at this quote
both sides seem to recognize that the process is bad, but since it appears to be bad in Obama’s favor, he’s not making as much noise. If Clinton manages to get her people to the caucuses better than Obama does, the Obama camp “will go there”
If by screwed you mean: Lose the delegate count according to the rules of the election process in Texas, then yes, I’d imagine they expect to get screwed. That’s what happens when people fail to vote for you.
That’s proof by assertion IMO. If Obama sues over this, he’d just look stupid and lose a lot of support. If Clinton wins the caucus and starts winning elections and gains the nomination that way, I will be stunned if Obama does anything other than congratulate her.
I’m starting to think the HRC campaign is premised on retaliation and nothing else. Against the GOP to start with, but if anyone else gets in the way of payback, well, that’s just too bad.
Pretty thin gruel to run on. But if we just chant “revenge” loudly enough, nobody will notice. Or we can use TEH TERRORISTS OMG
She won’t go away, but she might become Senate Majority Leader.
If she’ put the energy into that job that she is putting into scheming up ways to steal the nomination, it might actually do something useful for the country.
I’m certainly not a Hillbot, but I do recognize that it’s very easy to stir up hysteria about the Clintons. I thought it was bogus before when the Politico had the story about Clinton trying to poach Obama’s pledged delegates (even though I fell for it briefly), and there’s a good chance it’s bogus now.
On the other hand, you do have Bill attacking the Texas caucus system as a way for Hillary to have the win she’s entitled to “taken away in the dark of night”.
Gee. I dunno why I think this is coming from the clinton camp predominantly:
Grumpy Code Monkey
In what way is the process “bad”?
Grumpy, any process that doesn’t lead to Clinton winning is bad by definition. Caucuses have already been proven bad. Not sure why Obama’s campaign would have embraced that definition, though.
Actually, saw a funny thing last night on DKos where someone had a great little riff on the middle name thing:
I quite liked it, actually, fun way to play with it, especially considering the contrast it sets up with his rivals. And just in general, his “funny” name really is turning into one of his great assets. It’s memorable on its own, but the possibilities for punning off it are endless.
The only thing John Cole still has in common with the “Paging Nelson Muntz” crowd is his visceral hatred for all things Hitlery.
After listening to people whine about the Dems rolling over for the last 8 years, someone finally comes along and is willing to go into the cage for a death match.
I sure hope the media fabricated “high road” works out for the MUP crowd.
To paraphrase, it’s clear that since Obama has made a bad lane change once or twice in his life, he is just as dangerous a driver as the Clintons, who keep threatening to ram other cars and force them off the road and into the ditch if they can’t have the road to themselves.
All a “death match” does is cause us to spend the next 4 years fighting a death match. I want to spend that time trying to actually improve the country, not engage in partisan attacks over prosecuting Bush officials or something.
Because Hillary did not get her nomination on Super Tuesday like she planned.
Hillary’s campaign seems to be run by a bunch of mental children, who focus only on what’s directly in front of them, with no regard to the long-term consequences of their behavior…kind of like George W. Bush and his posse, actually…and now I’ll shamelessly pimp my own take on this lunacy,
which is here.
We’d prefer someone who would go into the cage with a Republican, not a fellow Democrat.
Anyway, shouldn’t you be lecturing us about how Hillary and Obama are equally corrupt tools of the status quo, and a vote for either is immoral?
The Other Steve
How long has this process been in place?
Hillary seemed to be fine with it until it was clear she was going to lose.
The Other Steve
I’m going to be so happy on March 5th when she announces she is dropping out. She represents a past, which has been a history of failures. Failures to plan, failures to understand, failures to listen, failures to follow up. failed, failed, failed, failed. And then they whine, whine, whine, whine, when they don’t get their way.
It’s time the party moved on from this failed past.
Just go away already. Stay in New York. Once you’ve proven yourself as a Senator for a few years, then maybe… maybe… we’ll return your phone calls.
WRT the deathmatch comment again, one of the striking differences for me is how they fight. Clinton goes on the attack. She pushes and shoves and isn’t above a dirty trick or two, but she can get her victory that leaves her foes standing there, raising their fists in the air, vowing to work even harder next time to destroy her. Meanwhile, Obama comes into a room and asks how we can compromise on an issue. His foes get all excited about what they can get and leave the room convinced that they conned the poor rube! They send out press releases about their incredible victory. It’s only much later that it occurs to them that Obama actually won.
John, you’re sounding as reflexively and hysterically anti-Hillary as crazy Andy Sullivan these days.
From a pure entertainment perspective, I find it refreshing to watch someone angle for the nomination who may not be pretending to be all sweetness and light; who is doing what it takes to win in the pitifully corrupt system of elections and government the U.S. has evolved to.
I have a feeling Obama pulls no punches behind the scenes either; but the press is currently in love with him so no one cares.
I think you’re just offering the kind of low-hanging fruit I throw to ppGaz occasionally, so will let this pass.
Mother Jones details the radical differences between Hitlery and MUP.
We’ll see how his coalition holds together once he starts surrendering their pet issues. I, for one, am completely willing to compromise on the war, Gitmo, DOJ stacking, Article II powers, FISA, etc, so me not so much…
tBone is looking for someone who will go into the cage with the opposition, you’re looking for hugs. I’m sure we can Transcend that and make both of you happy.
Goddamn voters! Just who do they think they are? The most tiresome thing about the rant here is how it personalizes the primary process. It’s all about Team Clinton getting screwed.
Now, even given the weirdness of Texas politics, the only way this could be a deliberate attempt to screw Team Clinton would be if somebody said, “You know, just in case Senator Clinton doesn’t have this thing wrapped up by February, let’s complicate the Texas primary so that she won’t win delegates.”
On the other hand, if someone can post some reference to some early analysis out of Texas suggesting that the Texas primary changes were designed so that NO ONE candidate could get a high number of delegates, then you might have something.
As it stands, the main effect of this tiresome noise is to try to get people to forget Team Clinton’s brag that they were going to clean up in states like Texas, where things really mattered.
Word. What’s the point threatening to beat up the people who didn’t vote for you?
“We’ll see how his coalition holds together once he starts surrendering their pet issues.”
You missed my point. Obama talks about compromise, but at least in the primary, he seems uncannily able to get people to “compromise” on a position that is what he wanted in the first place. Instead of winning the fight by pummeling the 48% who disagrees with him, he does so by convincing them that maybe he has some good ideas.
Yeah, this is the part that gets me. The cage deathmatch scenario I had in my head (bear with me here) was more like an old Bugs Bunny episode. Hillary as the gorilla who gets into the cage growling, then Obama locks the cage and drives it off to the zoo. Yeah, ok, so I watched too many cartoons as a kid, but the image fits. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless.
The biggest modern conflicts are ideological battles that can’t be won with guns (we should all be fairly clear on this by now), so this approach is encouraging on a macro level, as well, because it could represent a return to much more effective soft power in international politics rather than blunt force. Sure, it doesn’t get you the instant gratification of clubbing someone over the head, but the cool part is that in the end with soft power you don’t have to.
See, srv’s binary little mind has trouble coping with the fact that sometimes you use a velvet glove, and sometimes you take it off and use the iron fist underneath.
The point is that she has to win THIS BATTLE. She hates to lose and will do whatever is possible to win it. The general? That’s the next battle and she’ll worry about that then.
I’m gonna say this nicely one time before I start calling people bad names.
Few people here hate Hillary. I don’t. John has stated he doesn’t. Lots of people here support her as Senator, and lots of people here supported her Presidential bid before switching to The MUP. But people are sick of her crap, and they’re calling her on it. That’s not the same as hating her.
I personally don’t hate her, but I am really, really disappointed in her, and more than anything the assholes she has CHOSEN to surround herself with.
There may be a few Hillary-haters in this crowd, but overwhelmingly, there are not. So drop it.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Salon has a good article describing Obama’s ground game, and how it has allowed him to do so well to this point. Some choice quotes from the article:
And, in light of this thread, the best line of the piece:
In short, Obama employed the 50-state strategy with a vengeance, and it has worked out pretty well so far. Clinton, OTOH, stuck with the 51% strategy, and it may wind up biting her in the ass.
Obama appears to believe that all states matter, and is working hard to win in every state. For those of us who haven’t had much of a say in the primaries over the last quarter-century, that’s a huge point in his favor. Clinton wouldn’t have given two shits about states like Texas if the race weren’t this close.
John S. Says
Looks like my
assumptionprediction is turning out to be neither Hillary-hate nor paranoia, unless that’s what you call judging a person by their own behavior.
You may blow it out your ass, demi – again.
I am sitting here watching the CNN.com live video feed of an Obama appearance in Houston. Barack is sitting on a stool in a small room, having basically a conversation with the people there. Taking questions and chatting with them.
You can take all the manic pressured speech in lukasiak’s rants about numbers, and all the snark and all the blah blah blah, and toss it in the trashcan where it belongs. Just listen to this guy talk, in a calm and conversational tone that sounds exactly as if he is sitting on your couch and having a personal conversation with you, talking to veterans about the war and veterans’ benefits, and you will understand everything.
You want to have a beer with him, don’t you?
No, I don’t drink. But I do want to listen to what he has to say about important policy matters, because it sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and can talk about it without bullshit, pandering, making promises he can’t keep, and making shit up.
Fixed for right-wing memery.
Is anyone here familiar with the “Texas Two Step” primary/caucus process? It really is, let’s be honest, a bit of a huge, undemocratic mess.
Throughout this (absurdly long) campaign season, the American people have gotten a good look at the Primary process, and realized that, hey, it’s kind of undemocratic (public ballots? “superdelegates”?), byzantine (vote for your candidate AND their delegates, and then show up at a different location later that night), and skewed towards certain States (why should Iowa have more influence than Missouri?). I hope that there will be popular pressure towards simplifying the process, and an attempt towards a more democratic nomination by 2012.
Bearing in mind, however (and this is important): Obama still would have won. With even bigger margins, I think. But, perhaps, maybe the Clinton campaign’s complaints will have a beneficial impact (once she’s Senate Majority Leader, of course).
No, I don’t play that either.
But I can listen to a few candidates and pretty well figure out who is full of crap and who isn’t. I have a hunch that our ability to govern the country is ultimately going to hang on that concept. And I am pretty well convinced that if you listen to the last three people standing in this year’s contest, you are only going to hear one who passes the test.
But you know, that’s just me. I’m sure lukasiak is right and that Obama is only winning because lukasiak is on the verge of finding the next prime number.
shaker o salt
Hilbots and Obamabots sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g….
Sounds like the Iron Law of Institutions at work.
I typically have a hard core “glass half-empty” cynical perspective on things. I had been looking forward to Hillary as president for some time, mostly as a relief to the complete disaster we have lived through the last 7 plus years. Upon examination, much of that “looking forward to Hillary” was based on assumption that she would be the Dem’s choice. Even after the events of the last couple of months and the rise of Mr. Obama, I stood with Hillary, thinking that Mr. Obama’s lofty words were pretty thin gruel for the long haul in DC where, to get things done, some gritty fighting would have to be done. The DEMS in power now dont seem to have the stomach for this and I felt Hillary would be more effective.
After reading TONS of information from many sources about their positions on issues I find important to me left me satisfied with either as a choice.
Now, however, I have begun to realize that my cynicism towards politics is based largely on the fact that we were going to NEED to go to DC and kick some ass to get things changed and I was not looking to 4 or 8 years of listening to the inevitable fight…a form of Clinton fatigue.
What I have been seeing over the last couple of weeks in Ohio here in Texas has finally pushed me over to Obama. Eveytime she or her campaign does something stupid, thoughtless, mean-spirited or what ever, I grow more weary. I simply dont want to put up with this behavior any longer. Even though I find them both qualified, I would rather see someone I admire as president.
Sorry for all the disjointed stream of consciousness here…at work where I dont have the time to edit and have wanted to comment for a long time.
Keep doing it. That was a fine post.
The first letter of Obama’s last name is “O” – a circle. The ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is pi. As von Lindemann proved, pi is a transcendent number. MUP FTW!
A lot of the Democratic base is premised on retaliation and nothing else right now. They feel like the abused wife and are now running around looking for the sewing scissors to start cutting off some dick. Obama has a lot of these people too but I’d say most of the level Dems are in his camp.
Granted, the GOP is in their usual state of only seeing power before them.
He’s even going to Rhode Island for a rally this weekend, I think. Impressive considering the stakes in Ohio and Texas.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Grumpy Code Monkey
Again, why is it a mess? What, specifically, makes it undemocratic?
Is it the apportionment of primary delegates based on how many people in a district voted for a Democrat in the last election, thus giving more weight to traditional Democratic strongholds? Who currently favor Obama over Clinton?
If Obama’s smart enough to know where the delegates are and Clinton isn’t, that’s not the process’ fault.
TZ, I like the idea of Hillary as Majority Leader. Good call.
Dude. Pyrrhic victory.
King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans 280 BC and 279 BC, became famous in this report by Dionysius:
Senator Clinton doesn’t appear to understand that the phrase “take no prisoners” does not refer to your own allies.
Senator Clinton’s biggest problem for me is that she appears to be looking more for personal vindication than for victory for the Democrats in the general election.
The Other Steve
Wouldn’t it be nice to finally have a President we could all be proud of?
In defense of Senator Clinton, there has been talk of Obama supporters bullying people at caucuses. (The complaints I’d heard of mostly came from middle-aged women who hadn’t caucused before.)
I don’t like that possibility, and I’d hope that there were strong willed, take-no-prisoners people in charge of this, who would stomp on bullying behavior hard.
(NB: “bullying” does *not* refer to physical force, but I’m sure you can all imagine the kinds of tactics that could occur with enthusiastic caucus goers.)
If there was some kind of “shut down the Clinton supporters” activity at the caucuses, then legal action might (emphasis: *might*) be appropriate to render a decision about whether or not something should (or could) be done. (I don’t think anything could be done, which short circuits “should”.)
I think that these stories might be overblown, but I honestly don’t know.
I hope that they have some very strong leaders at the caucuses to prevent any of those kinds of problems.
HEY! Where’s my asterisks? If I wanted strong I’d have done it! I wanted asterisks! Razzafrazzin’ technology trying to swipe my old Usenet habits.
Oh, absolutely. But notice that their campaign has quite a few complaints about the Texas process as well. The “mess” comes from an overly-complicated system (which I’ve had to try to explain on the phone to potential TX primary voters many, many times), and the rather strange delegate gerrymandering of the districts. Plus, beyond TX, the whole “superdelegate” apportionment, and the spread-out, “important” states first schedule. Not a completely bad system at all (and it makes a lot of sense, if you work through the process), but, well, like I said, a bit (accent on “a bit”) of a huge, undemocratic mess.
Not that party primaries need to be “democratic” (they are, effectively, extra-Constitutional contractual agreements), but a lot of voters expect them to be “fair” and, I imagine, want them to be as “democratic” as the general election (which is, let’s face it, not very “democratic” either, but that’s a whole other topic).
(Also, btw: the Clinton camp vociferously denies making any lawsuit threats).
Brachiator – we’re agreeing. Clinton drives me crazy with her need to win every single battle at all costs.
I love the ‘Obama locks the cage and drives it to the zoo’ snark :)
I’ve tended to avoid even watching Obama do anything- never watched a speech- don’t want to be sucked into some crazy mass hallucination, I want to think about the ideas not the personalities.
But I’ve seen bits of Obama with things like the clips from debates (which I also have not watched), and the impression that I get more than any other is- this guy is an ADULT.
He may not be omniescent or guaranteed right on every policy (though I haven’t seen any dealbreakers) but it’s like he’s the only guy in the entire race who is a grown-up. There are some flashes of common sense elsewhere- like Ron Paul calling bullshit on the Iraq war, though he’s batshit otherwise…
Obama is behaving like a reasonable, decent ADULT who is running for board of directors of a big nonprofit about housing or something. It’s like he’s set out to pretend that all the states count, all Americans count, and that more of them are sensible than not… when he reacts to asshattery it’s like ‘oh, yeah, that’s right, some people are pretty messed up’, not like ‘initiate defense module XJ!’.
He keeps not getting sucked into the bizarre, faked up ‘traps’ people make. I saw the ‘okay, I reject AND denounce’ clip. I saw a guy who’s aware that this ploy was ridiculous, had a certain amount of sympathy for the fact that these people aren’t entirely joking, gave them a concession he was comfortable with but didn’t lose sight of his sense that it was ridiculous.
Why aren’t more politicians adults? This guy reacts like an adult. Never mind acts- it’s hard to fake but anyone can read a script. When Obama gets knocked off balance he REACTS like an adult.
I hope other politicians are watching, because I think that’s the root of his appeal. Schoolyard politics is dead.
I heard Hillary kicked a puppy once. True story.
Also, I have to repeat: If Hillary had spent as half as much effort fighting the Republicans the past seven years as she has fighting Obama in the past two months, maybe I’d take her “hard fighter” credentials more seriously.
Well, and her “I was against the war before and during the vote I made, authorizing George Bush to fight it” routine has worn thin. And the “I am the Queen of Universal Healthcare, which is why fifteen years after I was crowned, you still don’t have it” bullshit reveals that she is all hat and no cattle when it comes to getting things done.
Is that a thinly veiled reference to Bush?
Actually, it was a dogwhistle reference to the evils of haberdashery.
I’m sure you felt it.
This is a big point for me, too. She’s the farthest thing from a fighter in the Senate, only voting for and sponsoring the most politically useful bills that will help her career. Compare her track record of fighting to, say, Chris Dodd or Patrick Leahy (my own Senator, yay!) and she comes up quite short. Not that they’re perfect by any means, but at least they’re willing to stand up for something once in a while.
If she’s such a fighter for health care, where was she during SCHIP?
Why John Cole is an asshat….
well, I went and read the linked article, all 331 words of it. Cole quoted 278 of those words. Here are the ones he left out…
This is, indeed, an important part of the story. It seems that the Clinton campaign is categorically denying the “lawsuit threat” story.
There will be more calls and conferences throughout the day, I imagine. The story is, as they say, “developing.”
I don’t see how this makes John Cole an “asshat,” by the way, but then I’m not very fond of those kinds of insults anyway. But feel free to underscore your substantive points by insulting the blog host, if that makes you feel better.
So, she can spend the next year either eating her liver over why the “lawsuit threat” thing would stick to her, while the “race baiting” thing wouldn’t stick to Obama, and never, ever get it, or ….
She can turn her energies to constructive things, go for the majority leader job, and help President Obama get us healthcare reform.
It’s her choice.
Sigh. Sounds nice, right? However, I’ve come to believe that Sen. Clinton is, in fact, physically immune to the M.U.P.
I don’t know why, tho’. It might have something to do with her dental fillings or something, blocking out Obama’s Magical Hope Rays.
If Obama’s smart enough to know where the delegates are and Clinton isn’t, that’s not the process’ fault.
Well I screwed up that block quote, but hopefully everyone gets the point.
Or as Foghorn Leghorn would say, “She’s doing a lot of choppin’, but no chips are flyin’.”
I guess that while she was accruing her “35 years of experience,” she forgot to ask Bill how he actually, you know, campaigned and won primaries.
It is pretty sad that Spector had complained (before completely rolling over) about Bush’s tactics that most of our Democratic senators (Hillary included).
Why p.lukasiak is an asshat…
He bolded the part of the second paragraph that he liked while ignoring the bolded part of the first paragraph. Clearly, it’s a case of he said/she said, but given Clinton’s past record it is hard to imagine that she wasn’t seriously entertaining a legal battle.
Gosh, it’s like the Beer Hall Putsch, isn’t it?
Well, since both Bill and Hill are CFR attendees, that could be exactly what she’s trying to do… make sure a REAL Dem (as opposed to a WAR Dem) doesn’t make it into the WH.
Asterisks don’t exist on BJ, they’re only a figment of your imagination.
I don’t see how this makes John Cole an “asshat,” by the way, but then I’m not very fond of those kinds of insults anyway.
its because he quoted 278 words out of a 331 word article… and left out the paragraph in which the Clinton campaign’s response was included.
The article is extremely long on innuendo and hyperbole by the reporter (look how “raised the specter” and “forcefully raised the possibility” is used by the reporter to characterize what happened as “veiled threats”) based on anonymous quotes — and note that the reporter doesn’t employ the kind of disclaimer that says we’re getting an unbiased view from those sources (i.e. just “Democratic official”, not “Democratic officials unaffiliated with either campaign”.)
(as an aside, I find it exceedingly odd that a story about a supposed threat of legal action would make no mention of the basis of that potential action.)
This blog entry is just more evidence that Cole has drunk the Kool-Aid, and has reverted back to his comfort zone and Hillary-hating roots. He’s no longer showing any capacity to discriminate between valid and questionable criticism of the Clinton campaign — an that’s why he’s an asshat.
Sorry TZ, but I think Kennedy and Biden might have a problem with that.
Hmmm. First of all, you do raise a valid issue, in your way (my apologies to our host). Objectivity is an admirable goal. This Houston Chronicle article is, after all, not absolute proof that the Clinton campaign was actually up to any criticizable shenanigans: and it does, indeed, make it easy to infer (perhaps wrongly) that they were.
However, if you don’t mind, a few points:
– Hating Hillary is super easy. There are good reasons for it, and bad reasons for it. From what I’ve seen, Mr. Cole has not shown any objectionable motivations for his visceral distaste for Sen. Clinton (much less than, say, Andrew Sullivan, and nothing compared to Taylor Marsh’s or TalkLeft’s hatred of Sen. Obama). And yes, I include his criticism of the Clintons from his Republican party days.
– You say Hillary-hating like it’s an inherently bad thing. I, for instance, strongly dislike Sen. McCain. I am a McCain hater. Is this inherently wrong? Does this make me an asshat?
– Sure, maybe jumping to specific conclusions from this (arguably, but I won’t argue) biased article isn’t fair, especially when one bases that conclusion on past events, previous behavior, and (what you’re alleging) personal bias. When I read that McCain may have had an affair with a young, blonde lobbyist who bore a striking resemblance to his wife (who he had first had an affair with when he was married to his first, older, also blonde wife), I said: “Hey! He probably did!” Unfair, maybe. Wrong? Sure, I may turn out to be wrong. But a Kool-Aid drinking asshat?
– Finally (and irrelevantly), the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” has become useless as criticism due to its overuse in parody. And I never liked it in the first place (An incorrect reference to religiously induced mass suicide? Talk about tasteless).
Sorry for all this verbiage, p.lukasiak (and everyone else). I’ve been bitten by a commenting bug, and need to get it out of my system.
If I had hated you more, just a little bit more, we would have had a lot less trouble.
That’s because it was really Flavor Aid.
Jim had a lot of great quotes, but no taste whatsover.
Yes, that commenting bug is going around. I have a touch of it myself.
The phrase keeps recurring – and I agree with you that it’s getting old and should be retired for the duration – because, well, that’s the way Obama’s followers sound sometimes. It occurred to me in relation to the Obama fans before I had ever seen it on the net or in print, and this was at a time when I was leaning towards the guy and admired him for his nerve in challenging Clinton. But it gets so tiring. Everything Obama does or says is Good, or if not, it can be explained away or just plain ignored. Everything Clinton does or says is Bad, and nothing can be explained away or excused, and it’ll be distorted if necessary. And this is coming from Democrats. The double standard continues to be appalling.
“hating” isn’t necessarily the problem. I’ve had BDS since November 2000. I literally cannot stand to watch Bush for more than a minute or two on TV. But doesn’t mean that I find it necessary to take every opportunity to bash him.
you become an “asshat” when you either can’t or won’t differentiate between legitmate arguments and illegitimate arguments when it comes to your object of hate. You also become an “asshat” when you obsessively bash your object of hate on the slightest pretext, rather than waiting for something really worth bashing.
I certainly agree with you, to a point (I was around a gaggle of college-aged Obama volunteers recently, and they were kind of . . . well . . . hysterical). However, I believe that a lot of this dichotomy of coverage (internets-wise) can be chalked up to:
a) Ordinary partisanship (“My local sports team is better in every aspect than your local sports team”),
b) Sen. Obama’s rather spectacular political and rhetorical savvy (how many national politicians can you name that have made as few outright gaffes or who command such a passionate support base?), and
c) Sen. Clinton’s laughably inept campaign team.
But, yeah. The religious-enlightenment/wild-eyed enthusiasm of some of Obama’s supporters is outta control (Ride that Magical Unity Pony, kids! Ride it hard!).
Sure, of course. I’m just sayin’ that Mr. Cole isn’t “obsessive,” and that this Houston Chronicle article is not a slight pretext. Also: This blog post just quoted the article and added three sentences. “Bashing”?
Or, you can be an asshat when people put substantive bashes out there and you ignore them and instead spam the blog with number-puzzles over votes and polls and percentages and arcana that have nothing whatever to do with the issues at hand, just putting a smokescreen of bullshit.
On the basis of two central issues alone, you could never convince me now to pick Clinton over Obama: The war in Iraq, and healthcare. Clinton fucked up big time in both areas, and now wants to claim that she’s the best prepared to handle those issues. Quite frankly, that’s just an insult to the intelligence of the voter.
Mike in Texas
Just talked to a friend of mine who is very active in the Democratic party here in Texas. They are livid at the Clinton campaign for pulling this shit, and they are expecting an already chaotic situation on March 4th to get much worse.
rec.music.phish has no finer alumni
Bow down to ZZYZX.
You stupidly refer to Hillary Clinton as “her” in your title line. With so few women in politics you can get away with that, can’t you? As far as I’m concerned your blog has truned into Club Misogyny.
Maybe you should publish a disclaimer with all your posts about the campaign. It could read, “I should not be taken seriously, because I have stopped thinking seriously about the candidates. It’s enough for me to avoid recognizing my own misogyny by calling myself a liberal.”
Just talked to a friend of mine who is very active in the Democratic party here in Texas. They are livid at the Clinton campaign for pulling this shit, and they are expecting an already chaotic situation on March 4th to get much worse.
mike, as of yet, no one seems to be willing to say exactly what it is that the Clintons are supposedly rattling their swords about.
And I doubt that its the primary/caucus system itself…if they were going to file suit on that, they’d do so pre-emptively. The original article suggests that the disagreement is over how the rules themselves will be interpreted and/or ensuring that they are interpreted consistently throughout the state.
IIRC, I read somewhere that under the caucus rules, the doors are only open for 15 minutes…and not exactly unambiguous about people “standing in line” when the doors are closed. Given the “dedication” of Obama supporters, I can see a large number arriving an hour early, then slowing down the registration process — and if the people who are in line when the doors close are not allowed to participant, THAT would be a legitimate reason for the Clinton people to raise hell.
In Nevada, the Obama camp complained mightily when the doors were closed at 11:30, and while everyone in line was allowed to register, no one else was allowed in. In that case, the rules were somewhat ambiguous on one page (you had to read the text closely to understand that everyone who was to participate had to be there by 11:30), but on a different page the rules were spelled out (you could only participate if you were in line when the doors closed at 11:30), which is why the Obama camp’s complaints went nowhere.
As for the point made about “Bill Clinton won under those same rules” — with all due respect, nobody cares about the rules when the race is not the least bit competitive, and Clinton won the 1992 Texas primary with 65.5% of the vote, more than 40 points more than his closest competitor, Tsongas (with 19.2%).
I wouldn’t call anyone an “asshat” on their own blog.
I would use politer euphemisms or call him names somewhere else.
But I have noticed a tendency in John the last few weeks to ignore stories negative to Obama unless he can bash Hillary or the GOP for being the source of them.
But John is not alone. Any negative story about Hillary is pushed forward throughout the traditional media, the right blogosphere and most of the left blogosphere. Every story is treated with the assumption that she is guilty even if proven innocent. This happens even when there is no evidence whatsoever that she or someone in her campaign is guilty of wrongdoing. It’s disurbing to see allegedly lefty blogs looking like freeper sites when the subject of Hillary arises.
When negative stories about Obama emerge, the media and most of the left blogosphere rushes to his defense, even when the story is accurate. If they can’t discredit the story, they ignore it.
It’s gotten to the point that if Obama went on national television and confessed to to being a Manchurian/madrassa candidate, half the Obamaniacs would pretend nothing happened, and the other half would use the story as proof that Obama can attract Moslem voters and can bring peace to the Middle East.
t jasper parnell
This is from the Mike in Texas link above. How is then that HRC campaign didn’t “know” about the rules and “needed them in writing.” Is Bill not sharing his knowledge with his wife?
Different day, same verse. Aren’t you running out of ways to whine about unfair it all is? You and the Britney chick on YouTube really ought to team up.
You’re right, hillaryis44.com is fucking creepy.
I read a comment in a thread on TPMElectionCentral that claimed something very similar to this, that the bone of contention was over how to handle crowd overflow issues if the caucus site is too small (the same person posted a similar comment at mydd).
Given what we’ve seen happen in other states, I’m glad that if this is true then at least it means somebody is thinking about this rather than waiting until election day and then saying “record turnout, who would have thunk? What do we do now?”.
Can anyone trace this to an actual source in one of the campaigns or the Texas Democratic Party organization. It makes sense but is nothing but Hot Air and Ill-informed Banter at this point.
On a more humorous note – does anybody remember the series of TV commercials BudLite was running during the NFL playoffs, where drinking Bud confered various super powers (teleportation, etc.), which sounded really cool, but turned out to be ridiculous when actually used. Do you remember the one featuring “BudLite confers the ability to talk to animals”, where the guy is standing in his kitchen, and all his dog has to say is “sausages! sausages! sausages! SAU-SAG-ES.”
I have a feeling that Mark Penn has a recurring nightmare where he is that BudLite guy, trapped in a kitchen by a large Weimaraner dog (with facial features and large ears strongly resembling Barack Obama), who has him backed up against the fridge, and keeps saying “caucuses! caucuses! CAU-CU-SES“
Here’s some more detail, from Paul Burka’s blog hosted by the Texas Monthly.
Again, no links to official sources with either campaign or the Texas Dem., but judging from the other posts on this blog the author seems to have an impressive knowledge of Texas politics. He also reports some mind boggling stats on the early voting, with Dem early vote counts running ahead of Rep counts by almost 3 to 1, and coming in at a pace of 5 to 10 times (or more) the levels seen in 2004 and 2006..
Draw your own conclusions as to what this means for the primary, although IIRC “epic turnout shattering all previous records” and “Obama victory by substantial margins” seem to keep turning up in the same stories over and over again thus far.