Penn canned, sort of:
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chief presidential campaign strategist is quitting his post amid criticism of his public relations firm’s contacts with the Colombian government over a pending free-trade deal, Clinton’s campaign announced.
Mark Penn will continue to advise Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator’s Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
“After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign,” Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Not sure why she can not simply break from him completely, but I am assuming if he was completely severed they would lose any and all polling data they need to run the campaign in the short term. If not, I don’t know why the hell she is keeping him around in any role.
As I write this, Doug Feith is asserting on 60 Minutes the War in Iraq was the right thing to do, even after everything we have learned.
***Update ***
It turns out that Mark Penn is a uniter, and not a divider, because BTD and I agree on something.
MJ
This most likely has to do with Penn meeting with Columbian officials regarding trade as part of his consulting business. He has a conflict of interest since Hillary is against the free trade deal with Columbia.
p.lukasiak
Why is she keeping Penn around? Two words. Ohio and Texas.
I doubt if Penn is to blame (certainly not solely to blame) for the decision to ignore states that won’t matter on Super Tuesday, and not spend time or money in the immediate post-Super Tuesday states. Sane people realize that you don’t waste time and effort during the primary season in states you can’t win on a big day like Super Tuesday.
But Alexrod is “crazy, like a fox” and understood that by doing something that made no real sense at all for Obama’s chances of winning in November, he could effectively blunt the media focus on Clinton’s resounding victories in the states that will be crucial to winning the presidency, and he realized that the calendar would prevent Clinton from taking advantage of the fact that Obama pretty much got wiped out almost everywhere that mattered.
Axelrod also knew that the media would uncritically repeat the Obama campaign’s “look at how many states and delegates he won” nonsense for a couple of days, because the media hates Clinton and Obama is their anti-Clinton, spend money in the states right after Super Tuesday, and possibly steal the nomination.
But Penn put together the string of stunning victories (and near misses in MO and CT) on Super Tuesday, which was his job. And he got Clinton victories in Texas and Ohio when Obama had all the medie, all the momentum and all the money in the world at his disposal to beat her in those two states.
I’ve been saying for ages that Penn should be muzzled — he may be a brilliant on the ground strategist, but he’s a complete disaster as a spokesperson. So this decision is really the best of both worlds for Clinton — Penn no longer speaks for the campaign, but is still telling her how to win in the crucial states.
Perry Como
lol wut?
dmsilev
That’s a somewhat odd theory because
(a) Obama won more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday
and
(b) In the end, the nomination will go to the candidate with the most delegates (pledged + supers).
Calling that “stealing the nomination” is a strange way to look at it, to put it mildly.
Oh yes, and according to Clinton herself, the nomination was supposed to be over on Super Tuesday. If that was their grand strategy, Penn failed miserably in carrying it out.
-dms
John Cole
Was it over when the germans bombed pearl Harbor, P. Lukasiak? Hell no!
HILLARY 08!
KCinDC
I have mixed feelings. My fear is that now she’ll find someone more competent and could drag this out longer and do more damage to Democratic chances in November.
And come on, folks, anything that results in Queen Hillary not getting the nomination to which she is hereditarily entitled is obviously stealing.
Jake
Isn’t it possible she can’t completely can the fat slob because then she’d be forced to actually pay him what she owes him?
The Other Steve
LOL! Only in Hillary land is taking 30 point lead polling and turning it into a close race considered a victory.
This is just the sort of competent, enthusiastic leadership we need to help us win in November. Like the great strategists who lead Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, only Mark Penn is capable of turning a 10 point lead in the polls into a disasterous loss.
Only crazy people would claim otherwise.
SmilingPolitely
Ah, so this is like that movie “Casino”, where Robert Deniro, by title, isn’t officially running the Tangiers Casino, but he’s running the Tangiers Casino.
The Other Steve
Do not worry! If John Ashcroft taught me anything, just when you think you have found the biggest idiot imaginable.
Along comes Alberto Gonzalez!
The Other Steve
Well yeah, except Mark Penn is sane. Incredibly sane. Super duper sane. More sane than the most sane man you can find on the street.
Saner than Superman. Saner than a speeding bullet. Able to leap tall psychiatrists with a single thought.
Yes, he really is that sane.
The Other Steve
You forgot to count only the states that count.
See, if you include only the primaries, and exclude Illinois because that’s not fair cause it’s Obama’s home state. Then you include Michigan and Florida. And you add that all up, it shows without a doubt that Hillary is winning and has the most popular vote.
Incertus
Too little too late, I think–the race is over, and has been for a while. And I think the potential for this affecting November has been more than a little exaggerated.
Perry Como
He’s Tom Cruise?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
So how is that Mark Penn inspired juggernaut looking in Iowa? Colorado? Oregon? New Hampshire? Washington State? Wisconsin? Minnesota? Nevada? New Mexico? = 68 electoral votes, the same as Ohio, Florida and PA.
The problem with Hillary’s big state strategy is there is no room for error. If she loses even one of the big states she is counting on, there is no way for her to plug the gap. Obama on the other hand can shift the contest around and hit McCain where he is the weakest as a function of how the general campaign unfolds. That is one of the strengths of a 50-state strategy.
This also means that McCain’s VP choice is less damaging to Obama’s prospects on the electoral map than Hillary’s. What does Hillary do if McCain picks Crist as his VP in order to try to nail down FL? Where else is she going to make up that 27 electoral vote deficit if FL is put out of reach?
Ninerdave
yeah, um p.luk…she lost Texas and Ohio was made to order Clinton.
Brachiator
This worries me as well, since I had become accustomed to the stunning incompetency of aspects of the Clinton campaign. Penn’s departure seems to be related not only to issues relating to conflict of interest, but also to a typical foreign policy gaffe (first Bosnia over the sniper lie story, and now an insult to Colombia):
It’s interesting that the announcement does not clearly indicate who’s who in a new chain of command, but there is a hint that Senator Clinton is hoping for a big (or at least significant) win in PA, and is closely heading advice from big wheels in that state.
This is one of the few times in which the Clinton campaign has been shown clearly listening to — an following — advice from someone not part of their inner circle.
Incertus
Not to make Hillary’s case, because this would apply to Obama as well, but if McCain does this, he wins Florida, which he probably will anyway, but loses lots of other places once the stories about Crist’s fondness for men hits the national stage. Besides, even if the gay thing wouldn’t sink Crist, the Republican base doesn’t believe in McCain’s fundy-ness, so they want one of their own on the ticket. Crist, whatever his other issues, and trust me, I have them, ain’t that. In most things, other than tax policy and education funding, Crist is a moderate.
Pb
This is the best move her campaign has made since they canned Solis Doyle. Personally I think she didn’t go far enough, and that the Clintons are at least twelve years late on this one, but it is a step in the right direction.
p.lukasiak
keep repeating that — especially to people who aren’t MUPpets — and make sure to tell them how big Obama’s victory was.
Because every time you tell someone that Obama won Texas, people increasingly understand that the only reason that Obama has a delegate lead is because Obama won a lot of caucuses that do not reflect the will of real voters.
And the more they realize that, the more illegitimate Obama’s lead becomes. Sure, he got his lead ‘according to the rules’ but people expect the rules to be fair, and in a democracy, that means that the outcome should reflect the will of voters. So when you tell people “sure Clinton beat Obama by 4% when people got to vote in the election, but he cleaned up in the caucuses” they realize that the caucuses are anti-democrat, and that Obama’s claim to the nomination is based not on real support, but on exploiting the system.
Obama is to the Democratic nomination what George Bush was to Florida in 2000 — it doesn’t matter who people really want to elect, all that matters is that you can twist the facts long enough to win.
tBone
The Clinton campaign tried to mail a pink slip to p.luk too, but the Post Office couldn’t locate 123 Crackpot Lane in Crazy Town.
zzyzx
Ah, so there is one person who thinks that Penn was a good campaigner. I don’t see how anyone could feel that way in the way of the inevitable Clinton victory morphing into something that will require a floor fight at the convention where she won’t have the numbers to have a chance, but on the Internet, you can find backing for pretty much anything, including people who think that unofficial contests are more important than the real ones.
Pb
p.luk,
Keep it up; garbage like that is why Hillary can’t win Iowa against McCain now, when Obama can, easily.
Incertus
Every person who took part in a caucus just flipped you the bird, and so do I, even though I voted in a primary–it’s a primary that won’t count, and shouldn’t, but I voted in it all the same.
tBone
Despite my post above, p.luk seems to have no problem sending out missives from his address on Bizzaro World. Very curious.
zzyzx
Here’s Clinton’s intrade closing numbers. That takes some pretty impressive campaigning to get them to plunge that rapidly.
zzyzx
“So when you tell people “sure Clinton beat Obama by 4% when people got to vote in the election, ”
Does that include Michigan where people didn’t get to vote for Obama?
p.lukasiak
Do you understand the concept of the November election. Hillary Clinton is running for President. Barack Obama is running for the Democratic nomination. And guess what? Nobody gets a gold medal for breaking the Olympic record for the fastest first 200 meters of a 400 meter race.
Obama might be able to deny Clinton the nomination, but he’ll lose to McCain. I’ll vote for Obama, but he will lose to McCain.
p.lukasiak
Keep it up; garbage like that is why Hillary can’t win Iowa against McCain now, when Obama can, easily.
no, its the garbage that you and the rest of the NUPpets spew that might make it tough for Hillary to win Iowa in November — and its the exact same kind of garbage that will get thrown all over Obama if he gets the nomination that will make it impossible for him to win in Iowa.
PeterJ
In the Olympics, all the runners get to run the full 400 meter race. In a presidential election, if you aren’t in the lead after 200 meters you hit a rather thick wall…
Ninerdave
Jesus dude, are you an idiot? Who got the most delegates out of Texas? Obama. Thank you.
Ninerdave
continuing…
Caucuses are part of the game, have been my entire life. Just because Hillary cannot win one, doesn’t mean they don’t count.
Obama out organized here, why is that a problem?
zzyzx
Yes, I have figured out that there is a second election. That’s why I’m terrified of a floor fight continuing the bad blood into late August and not giving us enough time to unify the party.
If Clinton were significantly outpolling Obama in McCain matchups, you’d have a point. She’s not. If Clinton had wonderful favorable/unfavorable ratings and Obama didn’t, you’d have a point. That’s not the case. If Clinton had a clear electoral college win and Obama was projected to win IL and DC, you’d be set. That also isn’t the case; even MyDD has the races being O 265/273 loss and C 262/276 loss.
Might Obama lose to McCain? Sure. He’s a popular politician and the press loves him. Clinton might easily lose to him to. I’m not saying it’ll be a slam dunk either way, but I’m still waiting for the actual evidence that Obama is unelectable other than Clinton supporters hoping that that’s the case.
Ninerdave
…and for the last fuckin’ time. We do not elect the President directly. We elect delegates, to represent us. We are a Republic, not a democracy. Anyone that pretends otherwise is completely ignorant of our Constitution and laws that govern the election of our representatives.
calipygian
Party primaries have zilch to do with Democracy, Lukasiak. Last time I checked, parties could nominate the candidate that won a game of rock paper sicsors.
All your blubbering and whining about “if my mother had balls she’d be my father” is tiresome.
Quite frankly, caucuses are the better system because only the committed party people come out for them. That cuts down on the Rush Limbaugh bozos voting in the primary for Hillary because Rush told them to.
Rick Taylor
Hell, Taylor Marsh called for Penn to resign a month or two ago. I’ve never found anyone who likes him anywhere.
The Other Steve
I happen to live in a state which has a Caucus.
I’m curious exactly how it doesn’t reflect the will of real voters. Cause when I showed up, we had about 75 people from my precinct, and they looked real enough to me.
Andrew
If chewbacca lives on endor, then the race is 4 furlongs!
I vote that lukasiak has to share whatever drugs he is smoking, because he’s obviously having more fun than the rest of us.
Andrew
We’re going to need some affirmative proof that those “people” are not space aliens, commie-nazis, or islamofascists, and that they have never shopped at whole foods nor eaten sushi. Also, their RGB value needs to be (240,240,240) or higher. And their last name has to sound really, really manly and American, like Smith or Rodgers.
Soylent Green
P.luk, if Hillary rather than Obama had taken the caucus delegates, would you be calling those delegates illegitimate and labeling her wins as not expressing the will of real voters?
I didn’t think so. Way to stand on principle, douchebag.
Ninerdave
Of course not, and no Democrat has ever had a problem with the caucus system outside of the fact that IA is the first state in the vote.
The Grand Panjandrum
Whoa! Almost every report seems to suggest that Penn made this move on his own. The campaign owes him millions and he just lost a $300,000-a-year contract with the Colombian government. All this media scrutiny is bad for Penn’s real business, and this move, in my opinion, is the first sign that the Clinton campaign is on its last legs and the insiders are finally starting to admit to themselves that they can’t win. The campaign would have dumped this news on a Friday if they were trying to bury it, so I suspect this timing was Penn’s chosing.
Penn got tired of rearranging the deck furniture. He jumped ship into the first lifeboat and rowed away from the disaster he helped create. Nice.
Is that the Fat Lady I hear singing off in the distance?
Snail
It’s interesting that Obama cannot claim real support, when he outraised Clinton 2 to 1 last month, and from over 1 million individual donors. Imagine if he actually had the support of the people!
calipygian
Given that the deadbeat Clinton campaign has been stiffing contractors and skipping out on its bills left and right in Ohio, do you really think Mark Penn is going to see a penny for services badly rendered?
Incertus
I’m sure he’s already gotten a chunk of his money already. Clinton’s raised a shitload no matter how you look at it, and I’m betting Penn has already cashed more than a few checks.
Martin
And that’s why Hillary failed. The Democrats have proportional delegates. There is no win or lose. Obama is winning because the states he lost he lost by less than the states that Hillary lost. It’s that simple. That Clinton and Penn and McAuliffe (who used to run the DNC for fucks sake) couldn’t figure that out is stunning beyond belief.
And every time a Clinton supporter denies that caucuses are every bit as valid as primaries, or talks about popular vote (which does the same thing) another Obama supporter stops caring if people in Florida or Michigan are pissed. I don’t know why voters in MI and FL are supposed to matter more than voters in AK, WA, ID, MT, WY, ND, KS, NE, IA, HI, NV, ME, and probably a few that I missed but Hillary supporters keep making the argument that they do and it’s fucking dishonest.
Punchy
Who the fuck is Mark Penn, and why should I care?
t jasper parnell
I am not a registered Democrat; however, I have long had a problem with the caucus system. As I understand it, which is to say barely, its purpose is to allow activists to control or at least have a greater influence on the system because they are understood to be a key to general election success. This position is, obviously, an argument but is it true?
stuck in 200
… won a lot of caucuses that do not reflect the will of real voters.
They reflect the will of the most motivated voters. The fact that they can be unrepresentative make them no less real.
Caucuses favor above all else the candidate that can put together a grass roots organization. They should have been a strong point for Hilary!, who can draw on a network of contacts and favors nurtured over decades. Instead, what should have been a natural advantage has turned into an Achilles heel. This shows either political ineptitude or much softer support than advertised. Attempts to spin that failure into some kind of virtue are entertaining, but that’s about it.
TheFountainHead
Hmmm, back to that bit of malarky are we?
Fitting in a thread about Mark Penn though, I suppose.
KCinDC
Let’s remember that until the caucuses actually started happening this year, the conventional wisdom was that they favored Clinton because caucuses are dominated by party insiders, and those college kids and other nonserious goofs who supported Obama wouldn’t manage to show up for them. I can’t recall any candidate in previous elections whining that caucus victories by an opponent don’t count.
stuck in 200
TJP – I’ve never liked caucuses, either, although one of the entertaining afternoons of my life was watching Gary Hart’s precinct captains make a hash of wooing Jackson delegates in 1984.
That said, they have long been an accepted part of the process. The self serving attempt to portray them as less than legitimate now is a little too reminescent of the sudden controversy over the previously routine practice of recounting a close election in 2000. The time for a principled objection to caucuses was two or three years ago, not after one side figures out they’re going to lose most of them.
Well Informed
Shame on you Hillary and Obama!!! No need to go to Harvard University to get informed. GO TO COLOMBIA AND LOOK FOR YOURSELVES…THAT WOULD BE SMART
1) Have you ever been in Colombia.
2) What do you know about Colombia violence, syndicates and economy from 20, 15, 10 years to this day. Can you see any difference?
3) What does USA have done to eradicate drugs in the country? If there is a buyer market there will always be a seller market.
4) Who put the blood? Who pays the price? Who takes the risk?
5) Respect about talking and raising the voice about a country YOU DON’T KNOW AT ALL. You need to learn from yourself not from TV, old movies or gossip. Big disappointment. I was with you until you mess up with a country that is fighting so hard to survive a defeat many others. Shame on you Hillary and Barack comparing Colombia with Venezuela, Chavez and his follower. Colombians are smart people who believe in democracy. Colombians are fighter and hard working people paying the price of a violence supported by other government including the USA. Respect to Colombia!!! You all have a lot to learn from a terrific country proud of!
Marketing Consulting
Caucuses are a drag, seriously. Let’s just get this election over with.
bwaage
Wow, it’s good to see that p.luk cranked his crazy dial up to 11 right at the beginning of the thread.
The Other Steve
About the only thing Team Obama did to woo caucuse goersin Minnesota was to remember to call them.
Hillary apparently doesn’t know how to use a telephone.
Perry Como
So if, hypothetically, Obama is winning the popular vote, does that mean he would be reflecting the will of voters?
One thing I’ve noticed lately. I used to not really care about which Dem candidate got the nod; I’ll vote for either one. But goddamn you fucking Clinton psychopaths are really annoying. I gleefully mock overzealous supporters of any candidate. For some reason, some Clinton supporters aren’t only overzealous, but also downright delusional.
Seriously man, W.T.F.? Caucuses don’t count now? Since when? Popular vote doesn’t count? I have half a mind to proxy in here and troll as a MUPpet just to see if I can get your head to explode.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Nothing is nearly this certain at this point.
For anybody else who is interested, you might want to take a look at the site fivethirtyeight.com for some interesting what-if gaming of possible electoral map scenarios.
Their current projection as of 4/6 is an electoral vote split of:
Obama 260.9
vs.
McCain 277.1
or
Clinton 241.6
vs.
McCain 296.4
This gives the win to McCain in either scenario, but by a much smaller margin for Obama (the equivalent of 1 medium sized or 2 smaller states) than for Clinton (the equivalent of FL).
Notice that in Clinton’s case FL is the only state trending red (if she is the nominee) which is large enough by itself to catch McCain with if she can flip it, TX being the only other red state large enough to do the job (and that ain’t happening).
The other HRC-to-win combinations all involve her flipping several mid sized states (WA, MO and MI), or at least two of those mid sized states and 3 of the smaller states (WV, NH, NM) currently trending against her. If something goes wrong in any one of these states, then this strategy fails.
Obama on the other hand could win by flipping any two smaller states or one larger state currently trending against him. PA, OH and VA look the most promising.
This is where the Veep-stakes strategy comes in, as he only needs to flip 1of these states to win. Casey or a Webb as the VP might be enough to swing the electoral college balance in his favor even without a significant change in current polling trends.
The analysis seems clear to me – both Obama and Clinton are running behind McCain and have some catching up to do, but short of a collapse on McCain’s part Hillary has fewer different realistic paths to win than does Obama.
Which do you think would be harder for the GOP to defend against?
I’d go for spreading the GOP out and making them defend more ground, especially if we enjoy a large advantage in fundraising. Our money advantage will be less of a factor if the GOP only has to concentrate on a few key states to win.
Pb
He’s that guy Dick Morris hired on during Bill Clinton’s ’96 campaign, who took over after Dick’s hooker scandal. Much like Dick Morris, he’s slime, and much like Dick Morris had been, he’s been responsible for giving a lot of bad advice that the Clinton campaign has taken. FYI.
Tsulagi
And why wouldn’t “the fucking stupidest guy on Earth” think the fucking stupidest brain fart on Earth was brilliant?
Perry Como
That’s not true. My wife is a huge Hillary supporter. We were discussing the candidates (Hillary and Obama) during one of the debates and my wife told me how pissed she got at a fund raising call from the Clinton campaign. Actually, a couple of calls that got increasingly pushy about donating.
In this instance the Clinton campaign knew how to use it, but much like Mark Penn, don’t know how to use it right. If the Mrs. — as a Hillary supporter — got pissed off, imagine how us undecideds would feel.
Incertus
It’s just the ones who post at places they deem to be bastions of Obama-ism. Most Clinton supporters are sane–they’re just not around here much.
Perry Como
Given the history of posting at this place I assume people like p.lukasiak are doing a hell of a job spoofing. Of course, they are using talking points from the Clinton campaign, so…
Thinker
It’s outrageous the way democrats are treating Colombia. Whoever reads the news about the opposition of these hypocrites democrats to the Free-trade agreement with Colombia will think that that country is the worst in the world that does not deserve any consideration on behalf of these populist candidates (Clinton and Obama. The true is that both of them are desperate to get votes and for that matter they would do anything to get the favor of the unions who oppose the free-trade with Colombia alleging that there is not garanties for members of unions in Colombia. That’s simple is not true. Colombian union leaders have stayed in power for years making good money and profits from those organizations and nothing has happened to them.
Colombia is the only USA’s ally in South America and given the volatility of the region the government of the USA cannot afford to lose this partner
Lyssophobe
Have you read the comments at TalkLeft lately? Seriously? In all honesty, Obama is my third choice, so it’s not like I have a lot of personal investment in his candidacy…but most of the noise over at TL makes Billy Bibbit look like Gandhi.
jake
The fact that Columbia shit-canned his firm Friday (?) only adds to the hilarity. On Monday his dog will bite him and run away and on Tuesday his woman will take his pickup truck and leave him for another man.
Someone check the PluckBot, that PaulL syntax error is getting worse.
The Moar You Know
Look, sockpuupets!
Well-informed, thinking sockpuppets: NEWSFLASH: No one gives a fuck about Columbia.
Perry Como
Duh. That’s why we’re talking about Colombia.
GSD
Breaking News:
Mark Penn’s combover vows to stay with the Clinton campaign.
-GSD
John S.
LOL
That explains a lot about Clinton and her supporters. She thought it was smart to skip the Democratic nomination process and just start making a run for president and her supporters think that was a brilliant plan.
We see how well it’s working.
J. Michael Neal
I don’t give a fuck about Brown, Dartmouth, or Penn, either.
Now, I do give a fuck about Colombia, but I think that they need to get their act together before it’s time for a free trade agreement. Chile, Brazil, and maybe Argentina are the only countries in South America I’m on board with.
Tom in Texas
I can’t believe there were people calling to ban pluk. Seriously guys, this shit is FUNNY. Listening to pluk discuss this primary is like listening to the homeless guy next to me on the bus discussing religion. He isn’t convincing anyone, and is actually causing most people to scootch a little farther away, just so they don’t look batshit insane by proxy. One day you guys will realize how fruitless it is to argue back, since Paul is hearing imaginary voices and all.
Preach on Paul! Maybe someday you’ll finally torpedo this joke of a campaign.
Just a suggestion though — next time you decide to make primary reform your raison d’etre, try bringing it up BEFORE THE DAMN PRIMARY STARTS. It rings a little hollow to be bitching about caucuses when no one had the slightest issue with them until her highness lost a caucus.
Martin
Oh, for those who don’t know who Penn is, he wrote a book not long ago. You can learn a lot about him just from Ezra’s review. First graph:
Conservatively Liberal
A-FUCKING-MEN ninerdave. We ARE a republic, not a democracy. Delegates are the way, not the popular vote. While the popular vote is not representative of geographical preferences, it does provide an overall view of the ‘mood’ of the voters. But the system is based on delegates, and the states are free to determine the method preferred in distributing their delegates.
Just because a state does not distribute the delegates in a manner you prefer does not nullify the result from that state. It may be CONVENIENT for you to dismiss the results, but it does not change the facts. Keep howling at the moon but be prepared to accept that despite your ranting and raving the delegate totals will be the deciding factor, not the popular vote.
While it is true that Clinton nor Obama can win on pledged delegates alone and that the super delegates can be the final deciders in the matter, I sure would not want to be in the position of overriding the pledged delegate leader. If that happens, we can just save time and money and hand the election to McPain.
If Hillary wins it by somehow miraculously gaining the lead in pledged delegates, she deserves the primary win. Likewise for Obama. And that should be the end of it.
But you know it won’t.
As a side note, p.luk reminds me of one of those little toy monkeys that clash the cymbals together over and over. p.luk is more annoying though, he does not have an off switch. ;)
jake
I … almost have to admire a guy who could say that, with a straight face no less. His girlfriends probably don’t buy it tho’.
Of course, if he’s responsible for “Soccer Moms,” he must die, preferably alongside the bastard who came up with YUPPIES.
over_educated
Seriously, John doesn’t ban folks who disagree with him as long as they aren’t outright deliberately offensive, this isn’t friggin Redstate (or sadly, TalkLeft).
Krista
OT, but this IS kind of funny. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch will start removing his lips from this administration’s collective butt after this.
Government sues to collect indecency fines against Fox Television
Thinker
All these folks doing math on number of delegates for Clinton and Obama, talking about will of the voters, etc. There is no need to dig deeper with numbers, both democrat candidates will lose to McCain, that’s a fact, as you guys like to talk here. You do not like to add the ingredient of emotions to any discussion but I do and the fact is that democrats have been hypocritical in their treatment to Colombia. They do not recognize the hard fight that the Colombian government has been waging against the drug cartels inside the country and the good results that have been obtained. You don’t give a fuck about the reality that Venezuela is turning into a comunist country and is threatening with extending its influence in the region and the only country opposing it is Colombia. But I am reflecting now: probably you don’t give a fuck about South America in general, you don’t care about what you consider the backyard of your country. In conclusion, honest USA citizens: go for the less evil of all the candidates, go McCain.
dslak
Thinker is right. The United States’ relationship with Colombia is going to be at the forefront of voters’ minds this fall. This can only hurt the Democrats.
chopper
yeah, clinton’s strategy of focusing on a handful of blue states and arguing up and down that DNC rules should be ignored to put her over the top is a wonderful general election strategy. whereas obama building up a huge machine in most every state in the union is completely worthless when it comes to the general.
Dennis - SGMM
A sudden hush fell over Balloon Juice as everyone realized that it was again 1955.
Perhaps if Bush had bothered to pay attention to anything other than Iraq for the past five years these things wouldn’t be happening. Although it may be unfair to ask Bushco to walk and chew gum at the same time, I can’t help but notice that the Chinese have been very active in, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil (And practically everywhere else in the world) while the administration has been focusing all of its attention on Iraq.
KCinDC
It’s more like on Tuesday his woman tells the neighbors that she’s leaving him, but lets him stay as long as he uses the back door to come and go. Before the “firing”, Penn was doing polls and giving advice to the campaign. After it, he’s doing polls and giving advice to the campaign.
Ninerdave
No.
TenguPhule
The Cold War is now Subtropical!
Beware the Bikini Babes!
Martin
We are a democratic republic or representational democracy at the federal level. We have representatives like a republic but those representatives are elected democratically. They could be appointed by other officials (as senators used to be) or selected through bloodline or land ownership or whatever. A direct (or true) democracy acts directly though voter initiatives. So those goddamn ballot initiatives that states like CA have are how a direct democracy would work all the time (no states do this exclusively). It’d be wonderful if the only thing that mattered in the world was casino revenues and whether or not using horses for food should be a felony or not.
But at both the nomination and presidential election level, we have a similar system where we vote and have delegates or electorates represent our vote. We can argue whether or not this should be the case, but for this cycle it is, like it or not. Dismissing caucuses or superdelegates as not valid is no different than dismissing votes cast on electronic vote machines as not valid. The system is set up how it is and we need to work within that. National popular vote means fuck-all when we elect people through other mechanisms.
That said, the Democratic party nominating process, as opaque as it seems to be is actually reasonably democratic without ceding too much power to one subgroup – a real concern after the civil rights era party battles. Delegates are apportioned at the local level (so that no one region in a state can dominate) and at the state level to somewhat reflect the statewide popular vote (add-on delegates) and at the party level (superdelegates) so that other elected individuals (they are all elected in one capacity or another, even the DNC members) can influence what is best for the party. It’s a mess to try and keep track of and its designed to create protracted primary campaigns, but I think the GOP is in much worse shape (as is the national approach) because all-or-nothing means that minority groups (small states, etc.) tend to get ignored. You can’t ignore anyone in the Democrats system as Hillary learned.
The biggest failing in the Democrats system actually revolves around how delegates are apportioned in districts. Giving a district 4 delegates means that candidates are more likely to ignore them since a candidate needs to win >65% of the vote to get a delegate swing from 2-2 vs. a district with 5 which will give a candidate a delegate advantage of 3-2 with a single vote win.
Now, electorate vote and the GOP all or nothing amounts to a worse situation as we’ve seen in that winning a state by a single vote wins you the entire state. If we really wanted a better system, we should adopt a variation of instant runoff voting with no electorates. Rather than picking the winner, you rank order your candidates – I’d rather have this candidate, then this one, then this one. With this system you could also advance more than one candidate per party – say 3 candidates instead. The primaries would narrow the field to 3 per party and you could have Edwards, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney all running in the general. Voters would rank order who they like and the IRV process would pull out the least objectionable candidate rather than the one that got the most support from the right submajority. Rather than rewarding the highest favorable rating, IRV would (essentially) reward the candidate with the lowest unfavorable rating. We’d get a much better campaign out of it as well because the candidates would not only be fighting along party lines but also calling out support within the party as well. It’d radically change how politics run in this country.
Conservatively Liberal
Nope. Why should I care what form of government a country decides to take? It is their country, but for some reason the control freaks on the right think that we should be the ones who determine the type of government a country has.
The real story is that American business (and some international businesses who have a large presence in our country) is invested in these countries, and sometimes the ‘deals’ they make are not in the best interest of the people in that country. So we help to prop up the weak government of our choice so that our businessmen can rake in the profit.
Scream and cry about drug all you want, but the form of government a country takes does not necessarily mean that they would not be receptive to help in fighting their war on drugs. If they choose not to pursue the war on drugs, they have that right. It is none of our business.
But business wants us to make it our business.