The AP reports the DNC lawyers have come to a conclusion:
A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.
ADVERTISEMENTDemocratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party’s legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is “as far as it legally can” go.
John Aravosis says that it is time to stop playing games, the Poliblog claims her route to the nomination became more improbable, Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice says things are “not looking good” for the Clinton camp, and the Political Machine claims this is a “Clinton Setback.”
And each and every one of them is wrong, because this is precisely the kind of ruling the Clinton camp wants. Seating only half the delegations per DNC rules will provide those in the fantasy land that is the Clinton camp the opportunity to file appeals, turn this into a credential fight, and allow them to fight bitterly all the way to the convention. Rather than ending this, this will assure us we will get more Florida 2000/Zimbabwe/Civil Rights gibberish from team Clinton over the next few months, as the Clinton team prepares to wrestle away the nomination somehow, anyway they can, at the convention. Or hope that “something happens” in between now and then and the supers will abandon Obama.
The only thing that will stop this is if the supers immediately swarm to Obama after the last vote on June 3rd, but I have seen nothing to indicate that will happen- they have indulged Hillary’s bullshit to date, why stop now? And even if they do rush over and put Obama over whatever new number the Clintons dream up, they still will not concede. They will continue campaigning, continue to make statements and raise money and tour the country and take potshots at Obama and suck oxygen out of the room and make her supporters more antagonistic towards Obama until he is officially the nominee at the convention. They don’t care what the outcome is, this is about Hillary becoming President in 2008, and if that fails, in 2012.
And you are fooling yourself if you think anything else will happen, regardless of the result at the Rules Committee on May 31st. This is who the Clintons are, and it would be nice if some of you figured that out sooner rather than too late. Apparently only Rachel Maddow and I have figured this out.
*** Update ***
By the way, I hope I am super awful wrong and she will knock it all off after the June 3rd vote and all you Hillary supporters can come tell me how awful and terrible I am and that I have CDS (without remembering who accused people of BDS and why they did it) and I can go back to my busy schedule of ignoring the Clintons, which kept me very happy and content from 2001-2007.
Dreggas
Robert A George is right on the money here
cleek
remember back in the winter, when things were looking great for the Dems and the primary hadn’t started yet ? everybody was optimistic, but guardedly so: saying things like “i can’t wait to see how the Dems screw it up” ?
and now we know.
Tim C.
It’s not that I disagree with you John, I just hope you are wrong.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Oh, I have no problem believing they’ll take it to the convention.
I also have no problem believing that by that point she’ll be as relevant as Ron Paul.
Media Browski
First, what’s with the word “ADVERTISEMENT” in the block quote? You holding out on us?
Second, the SDs are coming on June 4th. Bet on it.
ThymeZone
Rachel Maddow is the best pundit on tv right now.
You’re in good company.
dougie smooth
I think you’re right about Hillary, but wrong in your calculation. I don’t think that many of her committed superdelegates are anywhere near as craven as she is, and I would imagine she has had to do some work just to hold them together throughout the primary process. That process ends in a week, and I highly doubt that all of her supers will continue support “Hillary first, party second”.
Watch for a superdelegate deluge next Wednesday, and if she doesn’t concede, watch for a significant defection of her supers.
zzyzx
Actually if they seat all of the delegates but give them a half vote like Democrats Abroad, there’s no Credentials Committee appeal anymore.
nightjar
I agree that Clinton will holler holy hell and likely take this thing all the way to the convention credentials committee. The problem is that if the RBC divvies up the delegates according to the illegitimate vote, she will scream that if your going to do that then the popular vote should count to. And she will take that to the credentials committee with a better case, I think.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
I did read yesterday that the Ocampaign is “banking” superdelegates and supposedly 3 dozen or so will declare after June 3.
I realize that won’t change anything to camp Clinton, of course.
I really would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and continue to hope, but every time I do, they smack me on the nose. I have abused puppy syndrome at this point.
pfrets
How spineless the supers are to let this run this far.
Commit already, assholes, and end this silly affair.
jnfr
I don’t think it really matters what Clinton does at this point, and am mostly ignoring her. As far as I’m concerned the primary is over.
ThymeZone
Hillary has been right about exactly one thing in this context, namely, that the Superdelegates exist to prevent a party tranwreck. And they will, and in about two weeks you will see them stop the Hillary train just before it goes completely off the track.
That’s my prediction. June 4, the supers start to take over.
mike in dc
I think Obama can still head off the convention challenge by urging the Credentials Committee(which meets in late June or early July) to issue a majority report recommending the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates. By the time they meet, he will have snagged enough delegates to ensure he’s the nominee no matter what, and doing this will ensure that Clinton has nothing to complain about at the convention. She will be forced to concede the race or be seen as a spoiler(who will consequently never be the nominee).
Jazz Shaw
Perhaps I am “wrong” or a “complete and total idiot” or possibly even a “f**king whore”. (It’s so hard to tell these days.) Or possibly I’ve just become a starry eyed optimist in my dottage. I fully believe that Senator Clinton’s one and only goal is the presidency, and have no doubt that she fully intends to play every card that can be played in an attempt to win. But I also believe that she and Bill are still Democrats, first and foremost, and that she is aware that she’s about out of cards. Call me foolish, but I’m still among those who believe she will find the grace to give a a dignified speech dropping out of the race shortly after the last primary and the movement of a significant number (not all) of supers over to Obama’s column.
Of course, I may be wrong and the Dems are about to crash and burn again.
mbuchel
Sorry dougie smooth, but I was once foolish and naive like you. I too believed that when it became clear that she could no longer win that her superdelegates would understand the math and state publicly that this is over.
But as we’ve seen over the last few months, if you turn on the Clintons you’re a Judas or a sexist or suffer from CDS or are “trying to cover it up because she’s winning the GE right now.” And no politician likes to be called names in public, let alone take a stand that leads to being called names in public.
I want to believe it ends early next week, but I refused to be sucked in only to be disillusioned by the impotence of our party members yet again.
So on we go to Denver.
passerby
I agree.
Hillary’s scorched earth brigade will charge through the summer all the way to Denver. UNLESS, illegal dealings that she and Bill have engaged in are trotted out for all to see.
Billary would have us believe that their baggage has been thoroughly rummaged through. I’m not referring only to the Paul suit that’s been lurking in the shadows of this campaign.
I’m suggesting that the Clintons, the Bushes, the Cheneys, and other global corporatists that run in the same circles are about to have their asses handed to them on the world stage.
T
Punchy
Just for slaps and tickles, just try to imagine the blog behavior of Big Dick Democrat if Hillary fails to steals the nommy from The Scary Negro.
He’ll make Powerlie look civil. He’ll make Malkin look hinged. Him and Jerry will go on a banning spree that makes RudeState jealous.
SnarkyShark
Wow, CBS tells the truth
Thats a sea change, or a rookie reporter who isn’t with the program.
Its time to call her bluff. Time to start to point out what she stands to lose. Her Senate seat for starters.
And its time to nuke whats left of her reputation.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
Jazz Shaw, keep the faith. I’m glad you don’t have abused puppy sydrome, yet. For me, this:
is what keeps me hopeful. I do believe the Clintons are egomaniacal power-grabbers. But I also believe that they’re smart, far too smart to actually believe the things they say. (Does anyone think that Hillary really believes Florida is like Zimbabwe?) Definitely smart enough to realize that a doomed, prolonged battle will torpedo any future chances at much of anything. And so I hold out hope that the egomaniacal shenanigans are just to wrangle as much leverage as possible right now towards whatever it is she wants in ’09.
dougie smooth
mbuchel, the difference is that all the primary contests will have played out. the undeclared supers have been holding their powder dry for that time (yes, they are giant political pussies). it is far, far easier for Clinton to hold the line with her wavering supers by requesting they hang tight until all the contests are over.
I’ll put money on this thing not going to the convention. John, let’s set up something where people can bet on this, and the losing predictors have to donate to camp Obama.
sunny
From your keyboard to God’s ears.
This has got. to. stop. Hillary is ripping the party a new one in service to her overweening ambition. She is doing everything possible to make sure her insame supporters never accept Obama. Quoting Bill-I’ve never seeen anything like it.
nightjar
Something that has been lost in all the CLinton’s shrieking about the “count all the votes” meme is what about all the people who didn’t go out and vote because, well, it was declared a bogus election by The DNC –who gets to decide such things. If the results of the FL election are honored in any way other than a fifty-fifty split, aren’t those folks being disenfranchised.
cleek
every time someone has said “after this, she can no longer continue”, she has.
protected static
…and that’s a good enough reason for another $25 in the kitty.
3 days to raise another $1675, folks.
Barbara
I realize and largely agree with the points John made. But at some level, if the rules are the rules, they have to be upheld. Don’t get me started — but trying to take shortcuts even if you think they are to the advantage of one party will not stop that party from using your shortcut against you as a basis for undermining your credibility and correctness when they appeal on other grounds. Bitter, real life experience speaking here. If there is an automatic penalty then it has already happened and is outside the jurisdiction of the RBC. If they ignore their own rules, Hillary will use that as a basis for challenging their other decisions if they are in any way less favorable to her than she wants.
MBunge
It doesn’t matter if Obama wins the majority of pledged delegates. It doesn’t even matter if the supers all flock to him, because they can always change their minds, remember? The Clinton approach to politics was forged in the government shutdown and impeachment. It’s essentially playing chicken – raise the stakes as high as you can and wait for the other guy to give in. The fact the GOP did give in on the govt. shutdown and that Bill and Hill survived impeachment even though Republicans didn’t give in, taught them that every political fight should be waged on those terms.
As of right now, John’s right. Hillary’s plan is to take it to the convention and hope that making a big enough stink or having SOMETHING happen to Obama will get her the nomination. She’s not going to drop out because of the supers supporting Obama. She won’t even drop out if her money completely dries up (without any more elections to contest, she won’t need much money).
There will come a point (likely in mid to late June) when she’ll realize how crazystupid she’s being but much like Iraq War supporters, she’ll rationalize that she’s come too far and done too much to just accept the “humiliation” of surrender.
Mike
cleek
if the “results” are honored at all, all the people who knew their vote wasn’t going to count for anything and therefore didn’t bother voting will be disenfranchised.
“The election results won’t count!”
“OK, I won’t vote.”
“No wait, the election results will count!”
“But I didn’t vote!”
“That was your choice.”
“Fuck you, Democratic Party.”
sunny
*insane*, of course.
Ron
John Cole listens to Rachel Maddow.
There goes the neighborhood. You’re a fucking liberal now, bud. Welcome to the smart side of the room.
crw
Hillary can continue all right, but she’ll be blowing through Chelsea’s inheritance. Once Obama clinches the magic number, the rest of her big money is going to dry up. Sure, the fanatics will keep pouring in money, but I don’t think there are enough of them to keep financing her campaign apparatus. And if she lets that go, she has no prayer in the GE.
Dreggas
just to add some interesting facts for the day…Raymond Burr was gay
Punchy
Oh shit…somebody send the Whaaaambulance:
From comments on TL, natch.
Zifnab
The supers are watching their own asses. No one wants to stick a neck out before the other. Politics isn’t so stable that Hillary couldn’t somehow coup the nomination via magical ponies. And no one wants to be on the other side of the fence with a President who’s been invested with Bush-era powers.
So I can understand hesitancy.
That said, if the Supers don’t all come out after June 4th, there will be serious shit hitting the fan. Obama’s best bet is to lock up the nomination regardless of Florida and Michigan. Clinton is already having to pitch total non-starter ideas for the delegate counts (forgive and forget, give undecided votes to her as well as Obama, etc etc). The crazier she sounds, the more people will bail on her. Obama wouldn’t be leading the Super count at all right now if it wasn’t apparent that Hillary was fizzling out.
This will likely die with a whimper rather than a bang in August. Expect the Charge Of The Light Brigade, with Obama playing the part of the guys with cannons.
strawmanmunny
The process has to play out. Being so close to the end of the primary season, the Supers have to let the last three contests go forward. That way, they can say that all the votes were counted. Then, when they go to Obama, it will not be viewed as “pushing out” Hillary.
The only tightrope that has to be walked now is to come to a conclusion where Hillary is not humiliated in a way that she will not get on board to promote Obama so her supporters will get behind BHO.
Face facts, this contest has been close. Hillary has broken many barriers for women, just as Obama has done for African-Americans. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to let the process go another week and then Obama can have his victory lap and Hillary should get on board.
So, I’m going to believe that in another week, this will be over. I understand how some think otherwise, but I really think Hillary will finally concede once it’s clear she can not win. I don’t see her risking her political future any more than she already has when she has such a weak hand to play.
TCG
Straw Man, hope you are right. But I reach the opposite conclusion.
We’lll know after Montana and SoDak. If she does not do the right thing then, and finally. We call all assumes that her intentions are ill.
John Cole
I don’t know where this “whore” crap came from, but it does seem like I am calling you (and the others) an idiot in the post, and that was not my intent. I toned it down.
Dreggas
this persons comment is proof you can, indeed, breathe with your head up your ass…
TrumanDem
This is one of the most absurd stories this election cycle. The MSM promoting the fact the DNC convention might be without seated FL and MI delegates and Hillary riding the back of that meme has transended annoyance. I don’t give a damn what the credentials committee recommendations are and what the rules and bylaws of the convention are either. The slate of delegates from each state are critical to the general election campaign for organization and contacts for local volunteer efforts for the nominee. Those delegates will be seated. The punishment is not being seated to reflect the delegate count in the aggregate total needed for the nomination. Whoever the nominee is he or she would make damn sure the delegates are seated. Period. At this point its only a matter of under whose terms will they be seated and how will they contribute to the overall total of delegates needed for the nomination.
FL and MI’s swing state status dictates that they will be feted and groomed for inclusiton in the convention.
The other forgotten point is this is all a show for Iowa and New Hampshire to assure all is being done to protect their first in the nation status. I just wish someone had the balls to tell them what they can do with that first in the nation bs.
I can’t believe this has even been a point of discussion. But I guess the MSM needs something to talk about so why not get everyone riled up that is ignorant of the DNC political process and have them contribute to the MSM meme of the moment.
We(Dems)are such f***ing patsies.
TrumanDem
Truman’s Conscience
“The Buck Stopped Here.”
http://trumansconscience.blogspot.com
dougie smooth
I think the “f**king whore” line was self-deprecating humor.
In any case, I didn’t take “complete and total idiot” personally, because Hillary has repeatedly made me one this year. I’m not sure why I continue to go back to rational analysis, when irrationality has ruled her ruin.
Billy K
FIX’D
strawmanmunny
TCG, I’m hoping. lol
I will say, if she doesn’t, she should be a pariah in the Democratic Party. I know, that if this party lets this happens, I’m done with it.
The only reason I have any rational thought left when it comes to Hillary is because my mother, who is 75, loves her and I have seen the pride she takes in a woman running for President. I sympathize with that, but she has lost, not because she is a woman but because she ran a bad campaign.
I will add, my mother will vote for Obama when he is the nominee. As much as she will be disappointed that Hillary doesn’t run, she knows that this election is something that can not be ruined by petty disagreements. I can only hope that most of Hillary’s supporters will understand this too.
wasabi gasp
Someone call a handyman.
Face
I just spent 30 minutes of my life at TalkLeft to see what the hell Punchy was referring to. Where do I go to get those 30 minutes back?
Good. Lord. It appears that there’s a whole cabal of commenters who are “leaving” the Dem party (whatever that means).
And here’s what makes no sense: they bitch and bitch about how Dems must nominate a candidate who can win in Nov….Yet they threaten to not vote Democratic if Clinton isn’t the nominee, thereby helping the Dems to not win in Nov.?
Isn’t this “my way or no way” attitude what you’d expect from, like, a 5-year old?
dougie smooth
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Bingo. SnarkyShark nails it.
After June 3rd (plus a few days for it to sink in) if she doesn’t play nice it is time to leave a horse’s head in soon to be former Senator Clinton’s political bed: Cut the crap and get behind the nominee and the party, or you will be subject to the most expensive and challenging Senate re-election campaign in US history. At this point I imagine a seriously pissed off netroots would be able to put up 100 million (easily) to send Hillary to the happy retirement home for Richard Nixon impersonators.
passerby
Me neither. After all, I once was a complete and total idiot, now, not so much.
T
sunny
strawmanmunny
I agree but what can we do when she keeps upping the ante in this Mad Max game of chicken? Sooner or later someone is going to HAVE to push her out I’m afraid, because John is right-nothing, no set back, no defeat will be enough to make her come to her senses. She will push on, inciting her supporters to ever lower depths of insanity just to ensure she gets her way.
cleek
fixt
cleek
and no amount of reason is going to talk them out of their position, just like with a 5-year old. they’re just going to have to kick their feet and scream until they get bored.
MDee
One thing Madame Inevitable is probably overlooking — not impossible to believe since this has been one of the most shortsighted campaigns I’ve ever witnessed — a summer of the meme “She’s a spoiler”. The party, the press the public.
Let’s think about this for a moment. With her high unfavorables with nowhere to go but up (because they haven’t fallen much) I suspect she’ll be hitting unfavorables of 60 by July. The press, after months of being kneecapped by her flacks will either ignore her or ridicule her. The public will be feeling Clinton fatigue at levels beyond any they have ever experienced.
I hope her bubble is really thick, otherwise it’s going to be a cold hard summer in Hillaryland. Perhaps the increasing cold shoulder from her Senate colleagues will be the only harsh reality she experiences for making this a convention fight.
It’s not just keeping Obama from the WH, Hills, you’re ruining Democrats chances from the top down in November. That will be seen as unforgivable. Are you willing to roll those dice?
Krista
Handywoman. Or handyperson.
You sexist.
Krista
cleek beat me to it. Damn you, cleek!
/shakes fist.
Lupin
I have to say that the degree of deep denial and outright lunacy I now see on a daily basis on TalkLeft, once a top notch site, has me worried.
I was never a big Obama or Clinton supporter; but I can recognize madness when I see it, and while some of the Obamatons on Dkos have been clearly deranged, the crowd on TalkLeft is now in Cuckooland.
The Grand Panjandrum
So Cole and Maddow believe Clinton will take the “NRA” approach (Pry it from her cold, dead hand …) to the nomination? Fine with me. I just hope its captured on a grainy video that appears on Youtube. Will it take a crowbar? Or, just a village?
Face
I cannot stop reading the TL comments. Someone help me! It’s similar to how hard it is to not look a nasty car wreck, or house fire. Part of me knows there’s suffering going on, but another half thinks, holy crap, look how fucked up that is.
I’m going to assume the 10 people or so pledging to abandon the party are living in Utah or Mississippi, and therefore have no effect on the state’s outcome.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
There was an article in the NYT yesterday about what it is like to go back to the Senate after a run at the presidency. The author hinted at the idea that the others Senators will have to be nice to Hillary, because…, well, unm because.., because if they don’t that would be so meeeeeeean and make them a bunch of doodyheads, that’s why.
strawmanmunny
Sunny, my hope is that once the final contests are over and Obama wins, even with the MI/FL delegations seated, she will pull back.
I understand that some don’t share my feelings on this, but I just can’t imagine her being that destructive. I mean, she’s been pretty destructive so far, but that would not only nuke her party but destroy her career in the Democratic Party.
Although weak, I can see her point in letting “all the votes count”(although this seems to be only her votes,lol) so once all contests are over, it’s time to get off the pot.
Let’s just say, I’m nervously crossing my fingers. lol
D.N. Nation
Doop-de-doo, just checkin’ out Taylor Marsh…
A lie.
Um…?
zzyzx
“Good. Lord. It appears that there’s a whole cabal of commenters who are “leaving” the Dem party (whatever that means).”
Key word – “appears.” Not everything on the net is how it seems. Besides there’s like 100 people, tops, in this cabal.
Billy K
Well, he’s a man. Can’t you sue him or go to a rules committee or something?
Bob In Pacifica
Jazz Shaw, I take the opposite position. Hillary isn’t a Democrat, not morally. Only in name. She and her husband have been the Corporatists’ best friends. The best way of stealing from someone is to have them think you’re not stealing. To have them think you’re protecting them, leading them.
Clinton is as good with math as anyone else here. She’s known since that string of defeats after Super Tuesday that she wasn’t going to win. She’s gone the low road, not to win, but to bloody Obama, you know, to get the “qualified” guy to commander-in-chief. It’s just that getting beaten at the Hanoi Hilton doesn’t qualify in Hillary’s book. It’s his relationship with the Corporatists.
If they give MI and FL full delegates the Clintons would complain, if not about these delegates then about something else. Maybe they’ll try to keep out delegates from caucus states. There is no way she’ll stop before the convention. Robert Kennedy’s corpse was a convenient, divisive excuse to extend her campaign. Expect more grotesque milestones on the road to the convention. She’s in it now to pay off her backers. You know, the guys who liked her work for NAFTA, GATT, and her hubby’s fantastic speeches in favor of the Colombia Free Trade deal (as if Bill Clinton, as ex-Prez, is the ultimate reason for the bribes as opposed to Senator/potential Prez Hillary).
It’s over but Hillary won’t stop until it’s common knowledge that she’s continuing for the benefit of her ownership. So it goes.
Tom Hilton
Actually, BTD has been relatively reasonable lately (emphasis on ‘relatively’); I think he had a ‘my god, what have I done’ moment when he realized just how completely unhinged the TalkLeft commenters (and Jeralyn) have become. The other day he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get folks to dial it back a little.
nightjar
Me neither, although I would prefer to be called a high-functioning Moron which is rated well above Idiot on early IQ tests. But that’s just me.
Me Jokes
KC
Does anyone really think, if Obama and Clinton were in opposite positions, that Obama wouldn’t be out by now and written off as a flavor-of-the-day candidate? And, does anyone really think that if Clinton had simply run a better and more competent campaign, say one similar to the campaign Obama ran, she would not be ahead right now? Anyone?
Punchy
I may just try to go full-on spoof on that site. Just to see if any of the commenters would notice. I’m guessing not.
slag
A lot of us have been saying this very thing for the last couple of weeks. Even Eugene Robinson at Wapo got in on the act (thanks to Rachel, I believe). But you’re right, the majority won’t listen. Here’s to hoping we’re all a bunch of conspiracy theorists!
and…
According to Krugman, those that demonstrate this behavior are actually Obama supporters. Someone’s going to have to inform those at TL and Taylor Marsh that all their inner psyches are actually Obamabots in disguise. That should go over well.
Davebo
That boom you heard was Taylor Marsh’s head exploding.
Clean up on aisle 9…
zzyzx
“The other day he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get folks to dial it back a little.”
He’s been doing that for a while now. I think he knows that some of the over the top people are just Republican trolls and he’s not willing to go there.
Dreggas
He beat you? The mysoginist!
SnarkyShark
I know exactly what you mean. Want to know how fucked up they are? Once Hillary gets offered something she can accept, and decides to play nice, those loons will turn on her
Watch. And remember I predicted it.
cleek
there’s almost 3500 of them, over here.
dr. bloor
I don’t doubt that HRC will keep things going after 6/3, but the wiser heads among the SDs (and they do exist) will see where the center of power is in the party (hint: it’s not wearing a pantsuit), and will naturally gravitate toward it.
Moreover, HRC’s efforts won’t be compelling teevee any longer, and that will suck the life out of her movement. There will be no more primaries yielding numbers that can be twisted at will, and no real reason to keep trotting Lanny Davis out for the daily message. The talking hairdos are already showing signs of being far more fascinated with The Adventures of the Old White Guy and the Uppity Negro on His Lawn.
cleek
she had it coming. don’t let her fool you.
SnarkyShark
Yep, its the new shiny thing. Hillary is so 5 minutes ago.
Dreggas
I want to respond to this with a crack about the “had it coming” bit, something along the lines of “was she wearing a particularly revealing pant-suit?” but….aww shit…
SnarkyShark
Cool, a ready made enemies list. Wiretaps and Tax audits for all!
What is that, like .0001 of 1% of the voting public?
I’m scared.
asl
I figured it out! Cookie, please! So right on the super delegates. Who knows what they’re going to do? Nothing pisses me off more about this campaign than that non-elected super delegates will dictate who and when will win.
NR
You think Hillary cares one whit about her Senate seat? All it ever was to her was a stepping stone to the presidency.
passerby
I think, in the final analysis, we all hope for the best.
But, since I graduated some years ago from being a complete and total idiot to now a Demi-fool (which is just shy of attaining the title high-functioning mowron)there is no dirty trick dirty enough to surprise me.
SnarkyShark
It means they will be shaving their heads and selling pencils at airports.
Or they will become republicans.
Either way, they will be working for Rev. Moon.
Stooleo
I noticed that yesterday watching Olberman. Barely a peep about HRC throughout the show.
cleek
what was the margin in FL 2000 ?
flyerhawk
John,
While Hillary may be willing to take it to the convention the Dem leaders won’t. They will make it clear that if she does that she will be finished in the Democratic Party. She can hang out with Joe Lieberman one that happens.
sfbevster
I’ve thought for a while now that Hillary’s real motivation is white-hot, seething anger at being outsmarted by some upstart first-termer from Chicago. Hillary’s campaign had the same access to the DNC nominating rules as Obama’s – hell, half the people working on her campaign helped to craft the damn things. He’s been a half-step ahead of her at every critical junction, doing just enough to win. Hillary’s lament that if only she were a Republican she’d have the nomination by now leaves this old battle-ax pretty cold. She knew what needed doing and she flat-out failed to do it. End of story. Except it’s not, clearly. She doesn’t know how it feels not to be the smartest kid in the room, and she’s just LIVID that someone else did a better prep job for the SATs. And you know, I can TOTALLY understand that.
SnarkyShark
Don’t forget about 2012. And power is all the Clintons care about. So yeah, if thats all she has left then she cares.
Do I think she cares about her NY constituents?
Hell no!
Genine
To be sure, if Obama was behind like Hillary was, people would be calling for him to quit. But, its more than that.
If Obama was behind and was running a relatively decent campaign, then yeah, people would want him to drop out. But I don’t think you’d get the din you’re seeing with Hillary right now.
I think the screaming for Hillary to drop out is due to the fact she is running a truly destructive campaign. She is running against her fellow Democrat as if he was a Republican. And, worse than that, she is employing techniques many people have come to dispise after 8 years of Rove and 15 years or so of slimey Republican politics.
If Obama ran the type of campaign Hillary has been running, his chain would have been yanked back in March because he is not part of some bog political machine.
PanAmerican
A comment at TM:
We are only a couple elections away from President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
MDee
ThatLeftTurn
Yeah, I read that too. As well as the WaPo article talking about the same thing. Those articles were written from the point of view or a rational, rather than post-rational Clinton ending her campaign. I think things will be slightly different if she takes the post-rational tone. She is, after all, a junior senator with fewer colleagues endorsing her.
The senior senators could make life very tough for her. She obviously has influence enough to make things tough for them in handing out funds, but they can stop her career cold if they so chose. They won’t, but they could.
Found it interesting about how she doesn’t have a hope in hell for Majority Leader as a consolation prize and how the senators resent the picture painted of her tromping back in and setting things right for them. Too funny.
Sadly though, those articles are right. She will not suffer her richly deserved comeuppance, at least not to the degrees hoped by many. That’s politics. One only need look at that pathetic buttmunch Lieberman to get an idea. Granted, she doesn’t have his seniority and doesn’t seem to have nurtured the deep friendships he has, but I’d be shocked if they dumped his worthless ass off committees when they reach the majority. That worthless traitor will suffer nothing for his treachery.
Clinton will suffer even less. Count on it.
SnarkyShark
True that. But this aint 1968, and it aint 2000. Its a historic sea-change election.
I think once O-man gets finished with McCancer, it won’t be anywhere near close, and those brave 3500 can go to the same place the Alamo guys went. And thats down for a dirt nap figuratively speaking
To repeat. Its not 2000, and Obama isn’t Gore, and we should not let these idiots dictate a damn thing.
Tsulagi
Mechanical Restoration Engineer.
You elitist.
kwAwk
Well I have to say. Good thing we had Barack Obama in this race in order to bring people together and to make sure that we are all being nice enough to the Republicans. Where would we be as a party without his graceous unfying presence?
In all seriousness though the Obama supporters may want to start trying to convince Hillary supporters of why they should vote for Obama and tone down the ‘Ha! Ha! Ha! WE WON!” bullshit.
I don’t owe my vote to Obama and he isn’t guanteed to get it. I’m also more of the mind that having moderate yet competant Republican President wouldn’t be worse than having a bad Democratic President.
The longer this goes on though, the more you guys tip your hands. This apparently wasn’t about how great a candidate Obama is, the common theme seems to be about how this was a vendetta against the Clintons. And it is a vendetta against the Clinton based upon vintage 1990s Republican talking points.
Hillary may be a typical sleazy politician. But atleast with the Clintons they are open and honest about it. Obama is every bit the sleazy politician but has to pretend that he isn’t. His whole campaign is a fairy tale just as Bill Clinton said. His ‘judgement’ arguement is based upon a vote he never had to take. His ‘unity’ arguement gets blown out of the water by his inability to unify the Democratic Party. His ‘post-racial’ arguement gets blown out of the water by is attendence at a radical church and his repeated use of the race card. His bi-partisan arguement gets blown out of the water by his inability to actually achieve bi-partisan results in Congress and his untra-liberal voting record.
There is no there there and the emperor’s heir apparent doesn’t have any clothes either.
cleek
from comments @ TM:
fucking retard
Martin
Actually, we know this. McAuliffe admitted they were running a 27 state campaign and expected to have this wrapped up by Super Tuesday. They had no expectation that anyone else would be in the race for the last half of the primary cycle even though it’s pretty apparent that there are enough delegates in the back 9 to win it. Obama was still trailing on Super Tuesday on overall delegates (was slightly ahead on pledged).
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
quAck says:
AlphaFactor
Oh great. Now we got paid-trolls lurking on the blogs.
NR
Even if every single Democratic superdelegate declares for Obama, Hillary will say “Delegates are free to change their minds; nothing is official until the convention” and keep going throughout the summer. All the while, she will scream that she won the popular vote and the nomination is being stolen from her. She will whip her supporters into a frenzy. Think that Hillis44, No Quarter, Riverdaughter, etc. are bad now? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Her scorched earth campaign will poison the well so badly that Obama will not possibly be able to win against McCain. Her hope is that the supers will see this and flip over to her side, giving her the nomination, but if they don’t, that’s okay with her, too, since once McCain wins, she can run again in 2012.
I can’t believe that most of the commenters here still don’t get this. The Clintons care about one thing, and one thing only – the Clintons. Anybody who believes that they’ll do the right thing on June 4th is dreaming.
AlphaFactor
um, these were the Bush years, you realize?
kwAwk
Doug H. (Fausto no more) Says:
That is the Obama campaign in a nutshell. No criticism of Obama is important cause he is the *awwww shucks* I’d like to have a beer with him candidate.
It doesn’t matter if he has no foreign policy experience cause he just seems like such a good guy and a he gave a speech about foreign policy once.
dougie smooth
You’re mind is a fucking idiot.
dougie smooth
…as is my grammar.
TheFountainHead
I forgot about all those young American men and women that Obama sent to another country to die, too. Damn him. And now that I think about it, didn’t Obama turn our country into a punchline in every other country in the world?? Damn him to heck.
Punchy
From that petition site. Wow. Just wow. Can anyone give me a dictionary, so I can look up “democracy”, please?
Martin
Yep, in 6 years they can launch ‘Pantsuit Juice’ – a blog where they bitch about all the crazy-ass shit that McCain is doing and wonder how they could have voted for him in the first place and how much better the world would be had they voted Obama in the first place…
[ducks]
Dreggas
There’s no haha we won bullshit unless it’s in that tiny little head of yours. As for people needing to convince Hillary supporters to vote for Obama, that’s Hillary’s job after the shit she and her supporters have thrown out there during this campaign. That you, or any clinton supporter would vote for a wingnut like McCain just proves you ain’t much of a Democrat to begin with.
Quit acting like you’re so fucking entitled you whiny ass twit.
cleek
no doubt.
such a shame those aren’t our choices, eh ?
Davebo
Err.. Dude.
Obama isn’t the one that’s had them pull over the campaign bus at every ice house to have a beer or shot of bourbon with those hard working white people…
TheFountainHead
PotD for stab and twist comedy at John’s expense.
Jazz Shaw
I’m a bit late getting back to the party here, John, but for the record I wasn’t taking offense at all. The “whore” thing was a (obviously failed) attempt at humor because Rachel Maddow was brought up, and it put me in mind of Air America, Randi Rhodes, and the “Hillary is a ****ing whore” episode, which was actually pretty funny.
So, no apologies required except mine to you for the misunderstanding. It was only a joke and pointing out that I’m still more hopeful for a quicker, cleaner ending to this, even though I may wind up with egg on my face if the Clintons march all the way to the convention.
Davebo
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
cfaller96
Jazz Shaw wrote
Ok, you’re foolish. Really, you are for thinking that Hillary is going to “do the right thing.” And like John Cole, I hope to God I’m wrong and you’re right.
Martin
As compared to who?
Kevin
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a tool.
mitch
kwAwk, please get a grip.
It’s not Obama pushing ridiculous memes and fantasy scenarios onto his supporters and urging them to fight another day when they have clearly lost the delegate race. He’s shown a remarkable amount of restraint in the face of some pretty heavy bullshit, from the Clinton camp’s ever-changing fantasy scenarios to the media’s vapid chatter. I didn’t have the ingrained intense distaste for Hillary that some here obviously do, but the way she has been operating the last couple months, her constant barrage of Republican-style talking points and what-if scenarios, has been quite sickening to behold.
From my point of view, she ran a clumsy campaign, put all her eggs in one basket, lost, then tried to change the rules of the game. That’s not what I want in a leader.
MDee
Oh man, you’re bad. But I’m laughing my ass off at the spot on brilliance of this comment, so I guess I am too.
SnarkyShark
Although I would like to smoke a doobie with him, you are quite clueless. Hillary has managed to put herself in the position where her position of power is in jeopardy. I tried to reach out in the spirit of unity on another blog once. I drew back a bloody stump. I won’t be making that mistake again.
Don’t expect anyone to grovel in order to try to win your support. Slamming Grandpa and winning the Presidency will be fun, and in my mind can be done without and in spite of youu. Maybe you guys that crossed way over the line can play if you apologize for having done so.
Not holding my breath.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
quAck says:
Davebo
Off topic, but hilarious.
Deep within the White House…
Mr President, the book is approximately 8 inches tall and 5 inches wide and appears to be roughly 1.5 inches thick.
It has a jacket cover with a picture of you and li’l Scotty on it.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
O/T, do take 30 seconds to watch this ad. Particularly notice the young lady at :25. Particularly notice her shirt.
MBunge
“Hillary may be a typical sleazy politician. But atleast with the Clintons they are open and honest about it.”
Ya know, at least with the nutters who think Hillary is the end-all-be-all, you can understand their anger and frustration over losing. But there also seems to be a weirdly large number of people who make comments like the above. They claim to have a relatively low opinion of Hillary, yet are still incensed that this candidate they don’t much like has lost. Is this just some concern-troll mutation or what?
Mike
Rick Taylor
I should resist temptation, but this recent argument for why Hillary should be the nominee when Obama is beating her in so many metrics is too funny.
Yup, “caucus bias” is why the super delegates should ignore the pledged delegate count and act on a metric that ignores caucus states and credits Hillary hundreds of votes to zero in a state where Obama wasn’t on the ballot. I’ll admit there’s an argument to be made that caucuses favor campaigns like Obama’s with lots of on the ground activists getting out the vote over campaigns that depend upon the name recognition of a well known candidate, but this is ridiculous.
From a commenter, who puts it better than i could:
Jeff
John-
I’m not quite as confident as you are that Clinton will continue beyond June 3, but I do see it as a real possibility
I brought this up on The Field, however, and Al Giordano was willing to bet me $100 that it would not go to the convention… He seems to think he has some inside info on some “talks” that are occurring between the two camps for Hillary to concede gracefully. I still find that hard to believe considering all the new nonsense that they spout every damn day (Like today’s letter to super delegates that she leads in “every poll, every analysis”.) Or the popular vote BS, or whatever… that’s certainly not helping matters… I’m sure that we could come up with several other ways for her to campaign that don’t include trying to delegitimize our nominee.
Krista
You’re just trolling for another group hug, aren’t you?
MDee
Derangement. If they did this, the Democratic part will completely implode. It will make 68 look like a fucking tea party. She’d lose in 2008 and be a complete laughingstock in 2012 if she dared to run again. Are they really this insane? We’ll see.
Dan
Keep running, Hillary! And keep singing, Elvis!
NR
MDee – Your mistake is in assuming that the Clintons care about the Democratic party.
Your mistake is in assuming that the Clintons care about anything but themselves.
protected static
1 vote.
passerby
Yes. Feels like political extortion.
I think that her kitchen sink approach to maintain political power will backfire.
Ambition trumps reason is a way of the past. That ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
The candidacy of Obama represents a politico-social paradigm change that is so profound that Hillary’s tribe is forced to bash their heads harder and faster against it–but, to no avail. Kinda sad.
T
T
Dreggas
And what FP experience does Hillary have again? Hmmmm? USO tours? Making tea in Ireland? After all most of her experience has been debunked. And your hero the Clenis had no FP experience when he was elected either…
Dreggas
Or a group grope, I’m not picky.
4tehlulz
That’s fine. Who do you think sh….oh wait, you meant McCain.
McCain = moderate and competent.
umm…no.
Dreggas
The Hypocrisy, it burns
bostondreams
Really? We have to CONVINCE you? Why? If you cannot see that Obama and Clinton are 99% alike in their policies, then you are a fool. And are you a prince? Do we have to court you? Why? You are a spoiled child upset that your candidate was simply INCOMPETENT. You fail to admit that she has screwed up and made a number of mistakes, from assuming the nomination was rightfully hers (it wasn’t) to forgetting to plan for either caucus states or for after Super Tuesday (oops). This does not even include her numerous verbal gaffes! Hell, she couldn’t even come back despite Obama’s own errors and problems! And you think she could win in November, and Obama could not? In what world?
As to McCain being a moderate..really? Perhaps in immigration..otherwise he is a doctrinaire conservative who actively sought the endorsement of avowed racists and bigots, basically called his own wife a slut, and bankrupted thousands, if not millions, of Americans in the Savings and Loan fiasco. He is both incompetent and immoderate.
Kwack, grow up. We owe you nothing. If you choose to leave the party, so be it. If you choose to vote for McCain, so be it. The consequences will not be the fault of the Democratic party, but of YOU.
kwAwk
I am seriously amazed when I come here at how indignant you guys are when somebody asks you to tell them why they should vote for Obama. If there is any sense of entitlement coming from anybody it is the Obama supporters.
On top of that Barack Obama has been treated with absolute kids gloves by everybody this election cycle. You guys whine to all holy hell about how dirty the Clinton’s are but for Pete’s sake I’m not aware of even a single ad run by the Clintons featuring the Jeremiah Wright sermon. Not a single ad with the Michelle Obama country pride statements.
Get over it guys. Because Hillary simply won’t roll over and submit to your will she is somehow destroying Obama or destroying the Party. If either the Democratic Party or Barack Obama is so weak that they will be destroyed by the small nomination fight that is going on, then they deserve to fall by the wayside.
Seriously, why are you guys in such a rush to nominate such a weak fragile candidate?
rawshark
You suck. You would actually put a republican in the White House out of spite. This election is more important than Hillary V Obama. We need to put a dem in the WH. I hate Hillary. Hate her. Liked Bill hate Hillary. The thought of her as my president gives me the vapors. But I will vote for her before McCain. McCain will appoint people to lead regulatory agencies who have spent years writing articles in wingnut think tank journals stating that regulatory agencies shouldn’t exist. Can’t let that happen again. No more republican SC justices. No members of cabinet who were convicted of crimes under previous republican administrations.
Get your head out of your ass and admit right now that you will support the dem candidate or just STFU and leave.
Cain
Deep within the White House..
Tool: Mr. President, it’s a book. It’s commonly used to gain knowledge by reading a page, and then turning it. You read each word until you hit a period. That’s called a sentence. You read each sentence until you get a paragraph. You keep reading a paragraph until you read a page. It’s as simple as that. In fact, they have whole buildings full of these things and stores too! They are called libraries and bookstores respectively.
Mr. President: huh huh.. period!
Tool: No Mr. President, not that period. *sigh*
cain
Dreggas
I am typing this, which means you have to read, perhaps you should so so very slowly, but if you can’t figure out why to vote for Obama but claim to be against McCain or republicans then perhaps you’re just a moron and for that you will be mocked. The case for Obama has been made repeatedly and obviously it’s good enough because he’s winning.
As far as being treated with “kid gloves” give me a fucking break. Better trolls please.
TheFountainHead
If he’s so weak and fragile, why is he winning?
And this is no “small nomination fight”, because this is for all the marbles. McCain can’t hope to beat either of them. And if it were a “small nomination fight” why would Hillary be putting her reputation and self-respect on the line as she is?
Kevin
Good question, why do you want to nominate Clinton, who can only get the nomination through devious shenanigans?
MDee
MR
You’ve made the wrong assumption.
I’m not mistaken about anything in regards to the Clintons. I know they don’t care about anything but themselves. I know they will go to the ends of the earth for power and burn anything down within their path.
However, eventually the pursuit of their current ambition becomes an impediment for their future ambitions (Chelsea anyone?). When I said we’ll see if they are that insane, that was to say, will they ever realize that their blind pursuit of the WH today may come back and bite them on the ass and jeopardize any future plans they may have.
They’ll screw any chance Chelsea may have in politics if the name “Clinton” becomes associated with irrational gutter politics (although it might be a step up from blow jobs and cigars) the same way the name “Bush” has been associated with stupidity and incompetence. (I’m sure the less incompetent and stupid Poppy and Jeb must be so proud of what his son/brother has done to their name). We’ll see just what’s important to the Clintons soon enough.
MBunge
“Seriously, why are you guys in such a rush to nominate such a weak fragile candidate?”
Why are you so pissed Hillary (that “typical sleazy politician) has lost? Given how close Hill and Obama are on almost every issue, why are you demanding that Obama and Obama supporters kiss your ass before you’ll vote for him?
Mike
dougie smooth
they or we, herr concern troll?
kwAwk
Kevin Says:
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever says that what the Obots say about Clinton will hurt her against the Republicans, but Obots can’t stop whining about how Hillary is destroying Obama?
Clinton isn’t weak. Obama is.
I’ve already conceeded that Obama will win the nomination, now I’m wondering why you think I should vote for him.
Obama and Hillary are not 99% in agreement on the issues. There are some fairly large distinctions between the two, not the least of which is Obama unwillingness to cover everybody with health insurance.
And btw, vote for Obama over McCain or you’re a moron is not a very convincing arguement. It sure seems to have worked well for Kerry over Bush in 2004.
demimondian
One word: troll.
Several acronyms: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Bot LaBeer
Off the topic, but has anyone seen the news out of Dunkin’ Donuts? Apparently Malkin and her flying monkeys still have their magical powers – Dunkin’ Donuts pulled the Rachel Ray ad {Boston Globe].
The more things change, the more things stay fucked up.
bostondreams
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
‘Weak and Fragile’? Ha! It’s YOUR candidate and her supporters who complain about the big bad media and the scary black man who is just sooooo mean! Hey, in her own words, can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Bye.
libarbarian
Bullshit!
The problem is NOT that Clinton is still in the race. She has every right to be. The problem is the WAY she is campaigning – by saying the nomination is being “stolen” from her illegitimately by a cabal of DNC “elites” who are pushing Obama on the party.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
A former co-worker of mine, her husband was badly injured in Iraq on his second tour there. She is a little bit bitter about Republicans, and neocons in particular. If the Hilltrolls would just pass along their phone numbers, please? I’ll give them to her so you can explain that you’re voting for the “moderate” McCain because you got your feelings hurt on Balloon Juice.
If you are looking for people to grovel to you, kwAwk, you will just have to look elsewhere. I’ve endured 8 years of people incapable of rational thought screwing up this country, and if they insist on coming ’round trolling, I’m going to be as rude to them as womanly possible.
dougie smooth
OK, dummy. Make me your argument for McCain over Obama, and I’ll entertain your trolly demands. That you prefer Hillary to Obama is moot.
cleek
concern troll is concerned.
Martin
Why do you compare supporters with candidates? Do you not recognize the difference between voters saying something in blog comments and the candidate saying something to CNN?
jibeaux frmrly Jen
Ah, yes, I remember comparing Obama’s health insurance plan to McCain’s health insurance plan. That sure was a tough pill to swallow, what with McCain promising to “cover everybody with health insurance” and all… Seriously, can you be left unattended with shoelaces?
Jeff
“Obama and Hillary are not 99% in agreement on the issues. There are some fairly large distinctions between the two, not the least of which is Obama unwillingness to cover everybody with health insurance.”
Yes, because John McCain’s health care proposal is clearly vastly superior to Barack Obama’s.
If Health Care is your biggest issue, then perhaps I can order the candidates in order for you:
Worst- John McCain
Better – Barack Obama
Best – Hillary Clinton
Seeing as how you’re conceding that Obama has won the nomination, wouldn’t you want to vote for the candidate with a “Better” Health Care plan?
What else can I help you with between McCain and Obama?
JGabriel
TL Commenter (via Punchy):
Hahahaha!
I’m in NYC and I know the WFP – basically a Labor-centric socialist party that frequently cross-endorses democrats so they can maintain their ballot line for local offices. Sometimes I even vote on their line if they’re cross-endorsing the Democrat I was going to vote for anyway – I like helping the underdogs get a say in things.
Anyway, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the WFP cross-endorses Obama in the General. Guess that particular commenter is gonna be shit outta luck come November.
.
Punchy
I fully agree. Jerry Wright, flag lapel pin, bitter voters, sexism. Wait, no I dont.
dougie smooth
Name some things Obama is saying about Clinton that you find so damaging.
Beej
Clinton is not going to be the nominee this year, and if she does take this to the convention and the discord she causes leads to an Obama loss in November, she is not going to be the party nominee in 2012 either. Even if she would somehow pull off the 2012 nominee trick, she will lose. The Democrats can’t win without the African American vote. Attempting to grab the nomination from Obama after he has won it following all the rules would pretty well insure that if Hillary were the nominee in 2012 AAs would stay home from the polls in droves. As would lots and lots of other people. If the Clintons are supplsed to be such astute political animals they should realize these things.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
quAck says:
kwAwk
McCain’s proposal isn’t vastly superior to Obama’s but enacting Obama’s proposal will fairly much ensure that the issue isn’t revisited in 4 years with a better policy enacted. Better to have a bad Republican than a bad Democrat.
jibeaux – I served a tour in Iraq and I’ll be happy to talk to your friend about the evils of neocons and Iraq any time you wish. But it doesn’t change anything.
For those of you who have taken to thinking I’m a concern troll you are more than welcome to visit here: http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/ and see three years worth of my posts. I’m no new comer to progressive/liberal politics.
Andrew
Fuck Dunkin Donuts. They are appeasers in the proper sense of the word, and, yes, I am making an indirect Malkin/Hitler comparison.
Krispy Kreme 4 lyfe, yo!
slag
Shhh! If you wake their inner Obamabots too soon, they’ll go into shock! You have to do it slowly…and avoid interjecting reality from the onset. First, start by talking about how much you enjoy kittens, and that will bring them to their happy place. Then, you can ease into it.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Yep, you’re willing to get more of your fellow soldiers killed in senseless wars all because Obama stole your binky. I thought the Army taught its soldiers to man up.
dougie smooth
Ooh, fun! Let me try:
I never knew I was for massive deficit spending and permanent tax cuts for the rich until Obama won the nomination.
Andrew
Shorter kwawk: I’d rather be shipped off to Iran than deal with the horrors Obama’s pretty decent health care plan.
Do you realize how absurd you sound?
bostondreams
I have no interest in convincing you of anything, because you have already made up your mind. And if you think that Obama and Clinton are NOT more alike than different, then you are simply ignorant of the facts. And as to health care..you prefer McCain’s over Obama’s plan? Really? Because Obama’s is a whole lot closer to Clinton’s than McCain’s is. Again, your continued ignorance of the facts, your blindness to reality, is stunning.
As to hurting Hillary in the GE, Hillary is NOT the presumptive nominee, as you state cleary. Obama is. And Hillary has her own issues as things stand, from her husband’s library’s financial backers to her continued problems with the truth and her ‘memory’ of events. Not to mention her incompetent management skills.
Clinton isn’t weak? Okay. She is simply incompetent. There is NO EXCUSE for not planning this campaign better, and she has not demonstrated any ability to handle this stress or manage her own team. Weak? Ha. Funny world you live in where the supposed weaker candidate is winning. Oh, right, I forgot, Hillary has just been betrayed. She never makes mistakes, nothing is ever her fault. It’s all a conspiracy.
So why should you vote for Obama? Okay, here are some reasons: pro-choice and women’s rights, pro-gay rights, reasonable and realistic health care plan (especially compared to McCain), far less likely to start a war with Iran, likely to work and accomplish things with a Democratic Congress, he is not part of the Keating Five, he is not a warmonger, he has not himself referred to his wife as a trollop…you need more than that, then you are simply, well, yes, moronic.
Tell me, why should Obama supporters vote for CLINTON, if she ‘wins’ the nomination?
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Hey, I’ve got another one: I never knew I was for torture and revoking habeas corpus until Obama won the nomination.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
How the Keerist on a chocolate chip cookie does electing MCCAIN instead of OBAMA not change IRAQ policy? I would ask what color the sky is in your world, but that presupposes there’s a “sky” and a “world”.
Considering that, unless you’re a Republican, this makes no fucking sense whatsoever, I disagree, which is why I would have been willing to vote for Hillary if she had won.
dougie smooth
I never knew I was against alternative energy and infrastructure investment until Obama won the nomination.
I never knew I was for a conservative supreme court majority until Obama won the nomination.
I never knew I was for belligerant cowboy foreign policy until Obama won the nomination.
Napoleon
At least he didn’t send 4000 plus American soldiers to their deaths like Hillary did in order to advance her own political career.
crw
Ah yes, and I’m sure Hillary’s plan would be enacted exactly as is by Congress. Or for that matter, I’m sure Obama would veto Hillary’s plan if Congress did pass it.
These campaign proposals are the start of the negotiating process, dude, not the final product. There’s no way either candidate’s plan will be passed just as they wish. They’re going to have to navigate a labyrinth of special interests to get anything through. The only guarantee we have is if McCain is in the white house, any strong plan the Democrats in Congress pass will be vetoed.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Ah, I thought that weblog sounded familiar. We really aren’t dealing with a Democrat here. Behold the genius of Ankle Biting Pundits’ front page:
Jeff
Really? It’s worse to have some progress on an issue than none? Really?
Honestly, I’ve never viewed either Obama or Clinton’s health care proposals as anything more than a holdover until we can get single-payor healthcare implemented. Clinton’s plan may be slightly better insofar as it already basically sets the base rules that everyone is insured (or rather, has to buy their own insurance), but I think Obama’s is probably the more pragmatic approach at this point. If you start actually talking about “single-payor” or “socializing healthcare”, a lot of people run away.
In any case, I think we need to start somewhere on the issue… It’s absolutely silly to me think that some progress on the issue would be worse than no progress… And let’s not even mention the fact that the next president will probably put at least 2 Justices on the court, likely replacing liberal ones… If McCain wins, it won’t just be a “crappy president for 4 years”, it’s more like Conservative domination on the Supreme Court for the next 20-30… and Roe v. Wade would almost certainly be turned over, and I can only imagine how many other crappy decisions we’d see that would roll back progress over the next few decades.
zzyzx
“Her hope is that the supers will see this and flip over to her side, giving her the nomination, but if they don’t, that’s okay with her, too, since once McCain wins, she can run again in 2012.”
If she takes it to the convention, hamstringing Obama to the point where McCain wins, the Clinton name will be worse than Nader’s. She wouldn’t win a single state in 2012.
D.N. Nation
Exactly. Assuming that HRC can get Michigan and Florida seated, like, doubly, and that she can get supers to switch over to her camp, and assuming it actually happens that she wins the nomination in Denver…what exactly are you Hillary concern trolls going to do to convince me to not sit at home after such nonsense occurs? What are you going to do to earn my vote? Because the current steps you’re taking- telling me I’m elitist, telling me I’m anti-democratic, telling me I’m stupid, telling me my birth and home states (NC and Georgia, respectively) don’t matter- aren’t exactly cutting the mustard.
So get cracking. What are you going to do to win my vote? Or the votes of the millions and millions who would be rightly pissed off at your shenanigans? Or the votes of, well, damn near every single African-American in this country? What. Are. You. Going. To. Do?
TheFountainHead
No. Actually. That’s just wrong. Even if Obama were a bad Democrat (He’s not) 4 years of a Bad Republican is not better than 4 years of a bad democrat. If we had just coasted through eight years of a good democrat in office, then MAYBE, but even then that’s getting too close to teh stoopid for my tastes. Also, lets not fail to mention that Hillary’s health care proposals are DoA by virtue of the fact that a.) she’s a terrible campaigner and a polarizing personality and b.) her proposals, though nothing to be ashamed of, are simply tone deaf to where the country is at politically. As much as we’d like to think we could implement such sweeping progressive policy, we’re still choc full of wingers who would rather bury their head in the sand and they’re going to take a boat-load of convincing even to swallow Obama’s more moderate plan.
In other words, please, don’t do drugs.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
Yes, not a concern troll, just a troll. Of course, Republican trolls and Hillary trolls are completely indistinguishable these days. The best part of the front page, actually, is the ads.
The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: Best Price: $.01
Back in Action: Best Price: $.01
Queixada
See, this is what a winning coalition does and acts like. The whole grassroots foundation becomes a think tank and source of funds simulataneously, while all 310 Hillary supporters rant and rave while the DNC is having a meeting.
In other news: Wonkette reports that Hillary vacays in SD. and the Press there– are assholes(read, misogynists)
dougie smooth
Wow, look at their who are we? page.
I applaud your brazen concern trolling, kwack. Well done.
slag
From purely a “getting more Democrats elected” perspective, I like Obama’s 50-state strategy and it’s ability to help get people like Donna Edwards elected. It cost him some in the larger states (as we hear from Hillary regularly), but in the long run, he’s shown it can succeed. Plus, there’s the amazing grassroots-style infrastructure he’s set up to make it happen. I think, as President, Obama can and will use his influence in this area to help bring about a real progressive majority in Congress.
And from a domestic policy perspective, I go back and forth on the differing healthplan proposals. I’m not delusional enough to think that either one will be implemented as-is, so I think it’s going to be an evolutionary process. In the end, I think Obama’s judgment and political instincts are vastly superior to Clinton’s (as evidenced by his position on the war and how he came from nowhere this election to unseat “inevitable”), so I think he’ll have a better shot at bringing about a change in our healthcare system. And I think it may actually be better than the one he is putting forth during this campaign.
And from what I can tell, Obama’s foreign policy mindset is vastly superior to the “obliterate them” attitude held by Clinton. We’ve had seven years of a President trying to prove he’s mas macho, and the havoc it’s wreaked will not soon be undone. But the first step is to point out to the country that this war-mongering attitude comes from a place of weakness rather than strength, which is exactly what Obama is doing.
Also, I like Obama’s focus on Constitutional Law and his understanding of the need for strong technological infrastructure in this country. He’s got a great infrastructure building strategy, touted by people such as Lawrence Lessig and the geeks at Tech Crunch. Understanding how privacy and the internet are deeply connected is just one first step toward protecting privacy in other areas of our lives.
And his endorsements by some big-time economists (formerly in the Clinton administration) give me confidence in his ability to deal with the serious economic hard times we’re facing.
Let’s see…was there anything else? But I guess you weren’t seriously asking to be convinced anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter if I forgot something.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
Naturally, this means that the most brazen lie kwack posted was about having been in Iraq…
dougie smooth
Actually, kwack is just a commenter on that site, but it’s an awfully strange place for liberal progressive to focus their time.
D.N. Nation
Nevermind, Doug’s got you rightly pegged. Nice try, fraud.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
Good detective work, Dougie. I didn’t last long there.
Wait….does this mean there’s a righty site that doesn’t ban oppositional commenters? There’s a righty blog that is procedurally superior to TalkLeft?
Dreggas
Forget it the sock is off the puppet, kwAwk is a rat fucker.
Martin
It’s not even a holdover. At most you look at it as a thumbprint for what principles each candidate puts forward. Obama proposes guaranteeing access to insurance and flattening prices and seeing what the outcome is, Clinton proposes doing the same but putting a mandate on it.
The difference is that when Obama’s plan fails, it’s a failure of free-market health insurance to do what the nation needs even when given a regulatory tap. When Clinton’s fails, it’s a failure of government to make the mandate work even with the regulatory tap. Both will fail, however, because the problem is not exclusive to insurance which is all either plan is tackling.
The GOP will hold tight to the free-market solution until it’s clear to the overwhelming majority of voters that there is no solution there (and probably even beyond, but voter pressure matters a lot). We aren’t at that point yet, I don’t think – getting closer. Both plans will ease the situation for consumers, but I think the problems continue forward. The question is really which plan sets us up for a single-payer scenario? I think that’s Obama, but that’s debatable. But I think his approach is far more likely to actually be tried. I don’t see the GOP accepting broad mandates for anything.
My C-level insurance family members are more receptive to Clinton’s plan since it more likely guarantees a customer base for them. If they can’t get their profits, they’ll at least get a larger customer base.
Dan
My big problem with the Clintons:
$109 mil in income, $165 mil library. Lots of people, foreign governments and corporations were expecting a lot of favors when Hil got elected. Bill is freaking now, cause they are gonna come looking for their money back.
“They took my thumbs, Charlie!”
dougie smooth
In fairness to kwawk, here’s a link to his actual stuff at ABP.
I think kwawk is left-leaning and take him at his word about Iraq. But it still qualifies as concern trolling to be so willfully ignorant about McCain vs Obama.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I never knew I was for supporting the Bush habeas corpus and Verschaerfte Vernehmung policies, and letting Phil Gramm write my economic policy to build on the success of subprime mortgage lending, until Obama won the nomination.
/hillnut
AlphaFactor
Sir, I am in your debt.
Genine
You are utterly ridiculous and demented, Kwawk. This NOT a vendetta against the Clintons for most of us. Sure, there are some who hate the Clintons already. But, apparently, their anger has some merit as the Clintons have shown themselves to be scum.
John has written a number of posts on how he was ready to vote for Clinton and presented a logical turn of events which explain why he changed his mind. I’ve read many commentors that voiced similar thoughts and stories and they mirror my own. Actually, I was a big fan of the Clintons and while I thought Obama would be a great candidate, I thought he wouldn’t be the nominee. Through my own series of thoughts and events, I’ve changed my mind as well.
I think the effect is a combination of things. Clinton’s air of inevitability started to crumble when her campaign began to go south after super Tuesday. People began to see a lot of ugly things coming from someone they did not expect it to come from. For me, the disillusionment came when she started whining about the MI/FL delegates after agreeing they wouldn’t be counted. That really jolted me. At the same time I was being jolted by that, I observed the Obama campaign and his message and how effective he is and I began to turn his way.
I do not know anyone who is voting against Clinton out of hatred or sexism or whatever. I’m sure there are such people, they just aren’t in my sphere of reality, because I don’t like to hang with reflexive, non-thinking people whether they support Clinton or Obama or anybody.
You, on the other hand, are silly and if the past 8 years is not enough to convince you that 4 more years of Republicans is not the way to go- nothing anyone can say will change your mind. Someone earlier compared such a mindset to five year olds. I find that insulting to five year olds everywhere.
kwAwk
jibeaux frmrly Jen Says:
They do a pretty good job of letting everybody post what they want which is why I post there. I do like to hear what the other side has to say.
I was banned from RedState after one post. What a bunch of pussies those guys are.
cleek
by virtue of having been here for the past few weeks, quack has obviously heard all of the pro-Obama arguments many times. don’t fool yourself into thinking he’s listening.
kwAwk
I would be willing to bet that if there had been blogs around for the 1976 election we would have seen similar comments. How horrible Nixon/Ford was ehh? But one term of Carter led to 12 years of Reagan Bush, the Repub Revolution in 94 and then to Bush Cheney. So lets not overplay our hand here.
As far as hearing all of the Pro-Obama arguements, I haven’t seen very many. What I have seen is mostly anti-Hillary and everytime I’ve brought the issue I am barraged with personal attacks.
jibeaux frmrly Jen
This is a very good point. My son is six, but he was probably five when he said the following very logical thing: (I think I have quoted this on this very blog, so I apologize, but it just may be one of my favorite things ever said.):
— this is in response to a caller on Car Talk, who is wondering whether or not he should clean out his car before a first date. The car has Dunkin’ Donuts (quite a theme today) wrappers in it, a “couple of pounds of sand”, etc.
Me: “I think he should clean out the car, what do you think?”
Son: “I don’t know why he doesn’t already know that. HE’S OLD ENOUGH TO DRIVE A CAR.”
jibeaux frmrly Jen
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that trying to make a pro-Obama argument to someone who thinks that the situation in Iraq doesn’t change between Obama and McCain is prooooooooobably a waste of type.
MBunge
“What I have seen is mostly anti-Hillary and everytime I’ve brought the issue I am barraged with personal attacks.”
Hmm. You suggest that conservative John McCain who wants war with Iran and has a sucky health care plan would be better as President than liberal Barack Obama. And you wonder why people attack you?
Mike
kwAwk
jibeaux frmrly Jen Says:
And that is a pretty good illustration of why elitist Democrats lose elections. Too arrogant to explain why leaving Iraq is better than staying.
You see I never said McCain and Obama would be the same on Iraq, what I’m not convinced of, as I’ve said here before, is leaving Iraq without regard for the consequences, every bit as immoral and callous as invading Iraq without concern for the consequences. Is it a moral obligation of the US at this point to sacrifice the lives of another 2,000 soldiers to save 1,000,000 Iraqi lives?
dougie smooth
That is some selective reading you’re doing. In this thread alone there is plenty for you to consider, all of it you have thus far ignored. Your game is to push buttons and then feign hurt feelings when people call stupid stupid.
If you’re going to state your liberal cred and then pretend McCain might be a better choice than Obama, then your personal opinion deserves to be attacked.
bostondreams
What? You don’t think the mistakes of the Clinton Administration in the first term (like, oh, the health care fiasco that the ‘co-President’ botched badly) and the impeachment didn’t, you know, have more to do with this? You would seriously have 4 years of McCain, who is actually, you know, NOT REALLY A MODERATE? And hell, what makes you think it would only be 4 years?
Let’s use Clintonite arguments in the other direction, shall we?
Why should Obama supporters vote for Clinton if she ‘wins’ the nomination? You and her other supporters have done nothing to win us over or suggest why she deserves our support. Instead, you spend all of your time attacking our favored candidate, giving your own a free pass on just about every mistake she makes, ignoring her huge flaws and inherent unelectability. You just rely on name-calling and blanket generalizations (ooo, Obama is misogynist/racist/unAmerican/Republican/Socialist/Gay/Cokehead), and label his supporters as a cult. You attack the base of the party, the group that has been most loyal to the Party since FDR, African Americans, despite the lack of support that the Clintons and the Party has shown THEM. You ignore the heart of the party, the coastal liberals that have given their blood, sweat, tears, and, most importantly financial support to the Party, throwing them away in some strange glorification of the incredible shrinking working class, the mythological Reagan Democrat, which are generally Republicans in all but name. You support the establishment candidate with a history of corruption in the last Democratic candidate (sex scandals/perjury/pardons for sale/wag the dog wars/Chinese money for technology). Why, oh why, do you seek to prevent the Democrats from winning this election?
Davebo
Seriously kwAwk
If you honestly feel a vote for McCain is preferable to a vote for Obama for a Hillary supporter what more can we say?
Insulting you is a waste of time. You out do us all at that.
bostondreams
Bad teacher! Typo! That should read Democratic administration. Oops.
I blame the sexist media for intentionally misreporting what I MEANT to say.
crw
kwAwk, I strongly suggest you look at Judis and Teixeira’s thesis in The Emerging Democratic Majority and compare the demographic trends today vs those in the 70’s. The basic gist is everything is trending Democratic right now. In particular, the Echo Boom/Millenial generation that’s coming of age now (and started becoming a factor in 2006) trends overwhelmingly Democratic on issues (more communitarian and socially progressive).
This generation is huge. I mean, mind numbingly huge. Larger than the Baby Boom generation that currently dominates politics. And the bulk of them aren’t even voting age yet. By 2012, the political landscape is going to look very, very different.
2008 is not 1976 or 1980. We’re not on the cusp of a Republican ascendancy because the party just isn’t aligned for the new demographic realities. The Democrats are. That’s why so many people are excited about Obama. He taps into this wave of young progressive/communitarian voices without threating the still substantial older independents, and could be the Democratic Reagan. I’d bank on him being more of a Reagan than a Carter, but that’s just my opinion.
jibeaux
We aren’t “elitist” and we don’t “lose elections” because we don’t sit down and argue with window-lickers on blogs.
This is what you freakin’ said. If you think staying in Iraq is better than leaving, then by all means vote for McSame. I’m not sure why you ever supported Hillary.
It is not freakin’ rocket science to say: My choice in the election is between Obama and McCain. I’m going to set aside for the moment the fact that I got my feelings hurt by commenters on Balloon Juice. Whose policies do I agree with more and would like to see enacted. Make a list if you like. This is what intelligent, rational, grown-up people do. You need to do this for yourself.
Richardson
June 4, 2008 = it’s over. Checkmate. They’re done. Too many blows, and the party abandons them en mass.
Now it’s time for the main course of Obama v. McCain, only it is one of those main courses that wasn’t nearly as good as the appetizer was.
dougie smooth
kwawk:
Obama:
I won’t even attempt to wade through McCain’s confusion and recalcitrance on the issue.
slag
I say…
kwAwk says…
Here’s a personal attack: Can you f’in read? If you don’t want to discuss the pro-Obama case, that’s fine, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Here’s another personal attack: You’re a jackass.
slag
I say…
kwAwk says…
Here’s a personal attack: Can you f’in read? If you don’t want to discuss the pro-Obama case, that’s fine, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Here’s another personal attack: You’re a jackass.
Dreggas
A political cartoon is worth 1000 words
bostondreams
I will be callous here, and say, no, it is not. Sorry. When I enlisted, I did not take an oath to protect and defend Iraqis. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So did these soldiers. They are not doing that in Iraq. And at which point can we leave? At what point are they safe? When they stop killing each other? When will that happen?
No, I’m sorry, I do not think we have a moral obligation to stay longer than absolutely necessary. We should not pull them out immediately, but, and this is a big one, our troops deserve to know this is not an open ended mission, and if our leaving means Iraqis kill each other, oh well.
It’s not as though we are keeping that from happening all that well, anyway.
Genine
I think I see where you’re coming from. Though I don’t agree. No one here needs to give you a reason to vote for Obama. Obama has a website with details, platforms and policy ideas. You can see all of that and I’m assuming you already have. If after reading all of that, you think voting for McCain is better than voting for Obama, its your right to do so. I don’t agree with it and, frankly, I think its asinine.
If your idea is that we get another bad Republican in office to really get the country to the breaking point- thus almost guaranteeing another one won’t be elected, then I don’t agree with that idea. Again, if that is your thought, I can see where you’re coming from but I do not agree. That idea is highly cynical almost to the point of nihilistic. But since you’re so turned off by Obama’s foundation of “hope” and “change” and “inspiration”. Its not really surprising.
Davebo
Huh?
So when Hillary said she’d begin withdrawing troops from day one it was all just hunky dory.
But now? Not so much?
I see, you want the troops to stay in Iraq until Hillary can take credit for withdrawing them.
Even if it takes forever.
BethanyAnne
Well, you are still around *now*, kwAwk. What about the arguments that were offered above?
Last time you asked for sites that were full of vitriol against Obama, like you perceive agains Clinton here. I listed them, and you never replied.
I’m beginning to figure out your pattern. Hop into a flamey thread, contradict the tide of the thread, and ask for information. When folk give you flames and information, respond only to the flames and pretend that the information doesn’t exist.
Gah! Who do I pay to get better trolls here?!
Chuck Butcher
And to that point is a quiet discussion with a bunch of Senate Democrats pointing out that seats on Committees can go away, co-signers on proposed bills can go away, the ability to co sign onto bills can go away, earmarks can go, appropriations requests can go, DSCC support can go, a whole lot can happen to make a NY Sen disappear into a political black hole.
Meredith Wood-Smith Chair of Democratic Party of Oregon today announced for Obama along with 2 other SDs. Mereidith is a pal of mine that I told awhile back when heat on supers was getting going that I trusted her judgement to be based on good thinking however she decided. I’m pleased with her decision, but I’d have supported HER regardless.
cleek
once you’ve reached the point of calling the other candidate an IslamoManchurian GOP-lite Black Power sexist fraud, it’s gotta be a little hard to convince yourself that a doddering old GOP fool isn’t better.
Davebo
It’s known as Sea Gulling.
Fly in, make a lot of noise, crap on everything, then fly away.
Catfish N. Cod
Some head clearing mathematics:
PocketNines at DailyKos (link is failing, google it) went ahead and worked out scenarios for 2025 (the current calculus) and 2210 (seating Florida and Michigan in full). However, this analysis does not include the possibilities now recommended by the DNC’s lawyers, which amount to seating half-vote delegations or half the delegations. Given the rhetoric from both sides about “fully seating the delegations”, I highly suspect the committee will vote to seat everyone with half a vote each.
That puts us in the scope of Scenario #3 of the Ultimate Delegate Counter. Let’s combine the two counters and see where we are.
First, in re: the non-FL/MI numbers, PocketNines calculates that Obama is due 44 delegates from the remaining three primaries/caucuses just for playing. His magic number as of today is 44. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, except for resolving Florida and Michigan, Obama won the nomination today. It’s all over but the shouting… but there’s a lot of shouting left.
Now, by the terms of Scenario #3 (FL and MI are seated with half votes, pledged and super alike), the needed-to-win number becomes 2117. However, Obama gains at least 51 votes (102 delegates) that even the Clintons do not contest. (The Clintons are currently arguing for awarding Obama 22 seats from Michigan.) In reality, 33 more seats (the rest of the Michigan “uncommitted”) or 17.5 more votes are really Obama’s, just awaiting the announcement by the delegates. (I have reports that some of these have already made their pledges at district conventions.) So Obama gains 68.5 votes even before the last three primaries — a current total of 2047.5. Add the 44 he is guaranteed in the last three primaries and Obama’s total on June 3 is, at minimum, 2092.
But wait! There’s more! Obama can still pick up 5 non-FL Edwards delegates, plus 15 FL delegates (7.5 votes). And at *least* 17 votes will likely come his way over the month of June as add-on delegates are voted upon by various state conventions.
This is enough for Obama to win by June 21 even in the absence of any more superdelegate endorsements at all… except that we know Obama will pick up a few superdels every day up to June 3, and a big bundle of them right afterwards.
I point all this out because Clinton’s campaign doesn’t really end when Clinton says. It ends when people start laughing at her, when her campaign becomes a sad yet annoying joke. The day no one takes her seriously, the day the press and the Democratic establishment decide she’s off her rocker and will have no further effect on Planet Reality, is the day all this ends. Absolutely anything she does after that point except shut up and soldier is pure self-inflicted damage after that.
But I don’t really believe she will continue past the point when the entire party shouts in her face that she has lost. Hillary knows that if she destroys the party in 2008, it won’t be there for her to be nominated in 2012. That’s why she will submit to her straightjacket when the nice men and women in their fine white coats come to take her away… but she’s going to fight like a lioness right up to that moment, because anything else is being a “quitter” and destroying the avenging persona she wants to wear in 2012 after the “inevitable” defeat of Obama.
Martin
What is your basis for the assertion that staying in Iraq is a positive and not a negative, at this stage?
To understand where I’m coming from, in 03-04 I was in the camp that we should have instituted a limited draft given that we’d already committed to this act, put in the troops that were actually needed, gotten the job done right, and gotten out.
Right now, our military is progressively losing potency. We can’t stop-loss them indefinitely. We can’t keep the reserve rotation going indefinitely. We have no allies to take up slack. Either we cede Afghanistan in order to hold the line in Iraq, we cede Iraq to clear the situation in Afghanistan, or we stay the course, in which we lose by attrition if we can be stalemated.
If your assertion is correct that we pay 2,000 to buy 1,000,000, what evidence do you offer to show that the bargain won’t ever end? That is, won’t the 1M always be bargained against another 2,000 unless and until we change the situation there? We’ve had a WWII of time to get this right and we have less to work with now than when we started. What magic wand will McCain wave to change this?
There’s two attitudes here:
1) stay and fight, effectively forever, because even without forward progress, we are holding things to a known level of deterioration there, and the moral obligation is to stay forever if need be.
2) get out, hoping that the deterioration there won’t be as bad as some fear, tackle Afghanistan, which we presumably still have the force to succeed at without breaking the military, and regroup and prepare for the next situation. Because right now, if anything else breaks outside of that region, we’re fucked. The military does have a moral obligation to the US public too, does it not?
We put ourselves in a no-win situation. Which outcome is best for the US public? If someone were to attack the US or US interests (which is the whole point of having a capable military available), which one will look like the more responsible option?
Chuck Butcher
She had better pray to her DC god that he doesn’t lose, making self-fulfilling prophesies is bad juju.
kind of an off white
kwAwk never knew he was for getting stoplossed and denied benefits until Obama won the nomination.
Hey, Cleek, that petition you linked to? When it first went up, they spelled “Barack” wrong. I should’ve taken one of those, whaddayacallem, “silkscreens,” but me no so good with electrimified computing machine.
I can’t believe they left in the “popularity contest” bit. Shame that’s not satire because it’d be admitably sly if it was.
kwAwk
I did try to respond to a lot of the points earlier but Word Press ate the post. But here it is again…..
If four years of a bad Obama Presidency results in another two decades of Republican dominance of the Presidency, that is a net bad.
And ofcourse the position one takes in a Presidential election, ie Healthcare, is a negotiation starting point. But when one negotiates it is best to start with the strongest position, ie the most you want, not start from the weakest position as your opening offer and negotiate down from there.
To go onto Iraq, nothing in the AUMF for Iraq required George W. Bush to invade Iraq, that was a decision that GWB made for himself. Blaming Hillary for that is just silly, she made a decision to give the President certain powers with the trust that he would use them judiciously. Bush didn’t live up to that trust. That really isn’t Clinton’s fault. Regardless of who is President when it comes to issues of war and peace they will need to have the Congress trust them on certain issues. Bush has caused great harm to the Presidency by abusing this trust.
But let me ask you guys. With over 15 years having passed since the first Gulf War, what is the situation Obama would have brought about with Iraq that would have resolved the issue so wonderfully? Would he have lifted the sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Would we still be engaged in no fly zones in perpetuity? What would the great judgement of Obama have been?
…. and you folks accuse me of nihlism if I say that four years of a bad Repub President is better than 4 years of a bad Democrat, but Martins post from above, which was very interesting, claims that both Obama’s and Clinton’s healthcare proposals are doomed to failure and that we are just voting to place the blame. Now that is nihlism.
Cain
I read today in the Oregonian. Good stuff.
Here is a link
kind of an off white
Can’t say for sure, but he probably wouldn’t have knocked over a secular dictatorship which served as the only regional bulwark against the militant Islam we’re supposedly fighting. But I don’t have foreign policy experience like Clinton and McCain, so what do I know?
kwAwk
Martin – I would say that the reduction in violence achieved by the Surge is evidence that our military presence is capable of making a positive difference. And what I do feel is that whomever the next President is has a tremendous opportunity to change the situation surrounding Iraq. Putting Iran and thus Hezbollah and Hammas back in the box, which could dramatically change the situation on the ground in Iraq.
This isn’t an issue where I’ve disagreed with only Obama, it is an issue of which I disagree with most of the Dem leadership.
My contention wouldn’t be that the 2000/1,000,000 issue would be permenant, but I would say that it would be a matter of having better leadership in Washington to prove that if we were to use all of our resources and power, military, diplomatic and financial that the problem couldn’t be resolved.
dougie smooth
And your reasons for thinking Obama’s presidency will be bad are…?
That you’re not sure withdrawal from Iraq is wise? That he and Hillary are both typical sleazy politicians, and that’s only OK if you’re “open and honest” about it? That you
prefer a different health care policyprefer to negotiate health care from a less realistic position? What else?Those are some pretty narrow nits to be throwing your lot in with McCain out of the fear that Obama might be bad. Do you really think that Hillary will be so much better than Obama in 2012 that our country should just suffer a little more reckless rule? Status quo for our troops in Iraq? Extra tours of duty? Neglecting Afganistan and the real WoT for four more years? Fiscal mismanagement? A conservative supreme court for the next century? Completely wasting a Democratic majority in congress?
Get a fucking hold of yourself, you twat.
Um, how about not bullrushing our country into a war of choice? How about not cherry picking intelligence and using propaganda to build support? How about letting the weapons inspectors do their job (why do you suppose they weren’t finding anything?). How about containment of a dubious threat, while we quashed the known threat? How about some international consensus so the US doesn’t look like the Slim Pickens of foreign policy?
dougie smooth
Yes, let’s give the Bush policies a do-over after 6 years of EPIC FAIL.
kwAwk
I would agree with you that Bush has been an epic failure for 7.25 years, but decisions need to be made going forwards and not back. We do need to recognize that Bush has been a failure, but that shouldn’t be the impetus behind our policies going forward. The question isn’t whether going to Iraq in the first place was the right thing to do, the question is what is the best way to resolve the situation now that we are there?
As far as what makes me think Obama wouldn’t be such a good President, that comes down to him being too willing to placate. Republicans really suck and problem solving, but what they are good at is finding weaknesses in others. And what they’ve found in Obama is this notion of ‘appeasement’. I won’t say that simply talking to other is the same as appeasement, that was silly, but his initial promise to sit down with anybody and everybody without preconditions was a bit worrisome.
His healthcare stance is a bit more worrisome. Obama and you guys have called Hillary’s healthcare plan unachievable because you don’t believe the notion of manditory coverage can pass so you’ve watered down your version not to include it. Basically you’ve appeased the far right on an issue at the core of the Democratic philosophy. Hillary as President may or may not have been able to deliver healthcare for all, perhaps she would have had to do some compromise but atleast she has shown a willingness to fight for the issue (twice) and not just give in at the first sign of resistance.
This is what makes me think of Obama as a weak candidate. If you’ve compromised before the fight has begun, how far are you going to go once you are in the fight?
PeterJ
Four years of McCain would mean that he would most probably appoint the successors of Stevens and Ginsberg. If instead Obama wins he will appoint those, and if Obama gets reelected, then both Scalia and Kennedy might come in play.
Also, we already had eight years of Bush, shouldn’t that lead to a democrat and not another republican?
Kwawk will now eat pie with rest of the trolls.
Rick Taylor
Only Fafblog can fully respond to this argument.
I was alive and paying attention back in 2003. I remember feeling crushed and betrayed when the AUMF passed with the approval of so many Democrats. Virtually every commentator and pundit knew that Bush was going to war given that authorization. I remember just one conservative commentator who said he didn’t think there’d be war, and he admitted he was going against the common wisdom. There’s a youtube video taken a couple weeks before the war of Clinton talking to code pink. There she talks about how sometimes it’s necessary to go to war without the full support of the U.N., as her husband did in Kosovo. When Bush went to war, absolutely no one was surprised. When war was started, I don’t remember Clinton making a big stink about about the authorization being misused.
I’d have more respect for Clinton if she could say she supported the war but she regrets it now.
I remember thinking at the time when we invaded, years later war supporters would be saying exactly this. One of the things like about Obama isn’t just that he opposed the war at the start; he’s choosing foreign policy advisors who opposed the war from the start as well. I was further influenced hearing a speech by Clinton on Iran, and while I have no doubt she’d be better than either Bush or McCain, it was still full of the big-stick saber-rattling way of thinking that got us into the mess we’re in now. It’s time for something different.
OriGuy
I think I have uncovered the stupidest of all posts regarding why Obama is the wrong choice. One Sylvia Welsh, who describes herself as a clinical psychologist and psychoanalist, says that Obama is too nice a guy, and the fact that he has apparently never cheated on his wife is evidence of that. She cites Maureen Dowd in support of her thesis. She calls this “the shrinkage factor”.
Rick Taylor
He was careless in the way he answered the question from the debate I think you’re thinking of. I haven’t heard anything since then that makes me think on the international seen he’d blindly sit down with foreign leaders without setting the groundwork for such meetings; he’s specifically denied he would. As for his dealings with Republican’s, so far given the way he’s campaigned against McCain, I have no complaints. The unity rhetoric did put me off at first, and still does, but no candidate is going to be perfect. I like some of the things he’s done in the past, and am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; maybe he can use this kind of rhetorical approach to accomplish at least some progressive ends.
I wasn’t crazy about his rhetoric on health care either, though either will be better than the Republican approach. Again, I’m not holding out for a perfect candidate.
Queixada
Placate.
nightjar
First of all, your repeating wingnut talking points on parsing the term preconditions. Obama has stated there must be preparations before he personally would sit down with our so-called enemies (so-called because repubs have characterized every nation we (they don’t like as enemies). Preparations, I strongly suspect would mean outlines of topics to be discussed and those that will not and outlines of parameters of solutions that would be considered. It would also mean lower level preceding talks.
The term “preconditions” wingnuts have distorted into meaning “you do every thing we want and then we’ll talk about it” and would negate any need for negotiations, or even any talks.
nightjar
Come on kwak, you should know that the reductions in violence has little to do with the small number of troops provided for the surge and everything to do with shifting strategies and alliances by the Iraqi’s. In other words, it was they (Sunnis) who decided to defang AQ and without that decision AQ would still be going as strong as it was.
Stop with the talking points already.
dmsilev
Dear Lord. And here I was thinking that it was mathematically impossible for anybody to out-stupid Lanny Davis and still actually have a pulse. I stand corrected.
-dms
crw
The whole argument is just another variation on the utterly mendacious appeasement meme. Anyone not looking for reasons to justify hating Obama realizes his ‘no preconditions’ means we aren’t going to require adversaries to make the very concessions we’re supposed to be negotiating on as a precondition of negotiation. His wording has been bad at times, but clearly he’s repudiating the Bush/neocon tactic of making impossible demands as a precondition to even starting negotiation, and then using the lack of negotiation/capitulation as an excuse to -wave his dick-go to war.
Notorious P.A.T.
Yeah, especially when those weaknesses don’t exist (Iraqis will welcome us as liberators, John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals, Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, etc.)
Andrew
kwawk, that’s pretty cool. It might have helped back when Hillary had a chance to win the primary. To bad your candidate is incompetent.
OniHanzo
What is loooooove… baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me no mooooore.
Vote for McCain, kwawk. You’re practically breaking your neck to warm his [expletive] in your mouth from those statements alone. The ‘appeasement’ scarlet letter doesn’t work like it used to because we’ve seen these nitwits at their zenith.
It’s all fucking gravity from here on in.
Honestly, I’m so tired of these pissed-pants Democrats who still think it’s 2004. *chattering teeth* WhatiftheRepublicansassociateObamawithIslam? *chattering teeth* WhatiftheGOPassociatesObamawiththeFrench?
Clinton’s been pitching the best of the Rovian curveballs and he’s. still. winning.
Simply put, the Republican boogeyman doesn’t have any teeth anymore. It’s bleeding every goddamn day and unless you’ve been in a self-induced coma the past 4 years, I shouldn’t have to be telling you that.
So stop shitting the bed over it.
cleek
O.M.F.G.
Jen
Is there a single Hillary defender left with a brain stem? I will give Anna Quindlen credit where credit is due. Any others?
cleek
maybe Wolcott. though he’s less of a defender and more of a supporter. he prefers Clinton, but he’s not participating in this day-to-day small-arms fighting (he never does on anything, really), and isn’t making up excuses for her, or threatening to vote for McCain if he can’t have his way. but then again, he’s a smart man.
Hypatia
You might want to think twice about taking that particular line of attack.
some guy
Why? You think there’s a valid comparison between Obama’s twenty years in Illinois (with a three-year timeout for Harvard Law School), working his way up through the ranks, with Clinton’s jumping directly to the Senate in a state she had never resided in, a state that just happens to have a lot of Democratic delegates?
cleek
i’m with Hypatia on that one. both Clinton and Obama launched their bids from a brief stint in the Senate. and Clinton at least went through the trouble of getting elected a second time (carpetbagger, running on her name, etc., sure).
IMO, there’s just no way Obama comes away looking better in that argument – which doesn’t mean it’s a particularly valid argument, of course: there’s no rule that says duration of Senate term correlates to Presidential prowess. (McCain’s been there for decades)
Jon H
“Would we still be engaged in no fly zones in perpetuity?”
Guess what?
I bet the amount of money and time spent patrolling over Iraq since 2003 (even excluding “major combat operations”) has far exceeded all the money and time spent patrolling the no-fly zones during their entire existence.
Jon H
cleek wrote “there’s just no way Obama comes away looking better in that argument”
Only if you fail to compare Obama’s time in IL to Hillary’s time, uh, hosting teas for dignitaries’ wives.
If you count pre-Senate activity, Obama wipes the floor with Clinton.
Jon H
The only reason the Clintons went to New York is that no other city could contain their combined egos.
Genine
I don’t think Obama is trying to “appease” anyone. That whole “appeasement” theme is silly anyway. As for his health plan: its not perfect. But he and his advisors created it for the purposes of it passing. And, believe it or not, in order to get things done we have to work together with those that do not agree with us. And, it has been my experience that having an attitude of working together to find a solution is better than one side “fighting” to have their way. Because one side “loses”, resentment builds, then they “fight” to have their way and the status quo remains.
By working together with people, we can come to some solution and with the effects of resentment diminishing, you can accomplish something greater and greater. Also, when Obama speaks about reaching out to republicans, he isn’t talking about the crime syndicate. He is talking about everyday people who vote republican and the (few) Republican politicians that are actually decent. I have some Republican friends who are very kind and friendly and helpful. They’re just fucked in the head. (Joking…kinda). So Obama is speaking of reaching out to those Republicans. The ones who do want good things for this nation but disagree on how to go about it.
Yes there are Republicans we’ll never reach, just as we’re learning there are Democrats we’ll never reach. Let them stay stuck where they are and the rest of us can move on.
Clinton has a better health plan, but with her polarizing technique, it would be watered down QUITE a lot. On top of that, the Republicans would then do everything they could to undermine it.
Maybe I sound like a naive flake, but we’ve been doing this “fighting” sides things for many many years. Why not try something new? Also, unlike my understanding of the Carter time, things are different now and Obama’s approach actually has the chance of working, imo.
But I know a lot of cynical people that don’t believe that and remember the Carter years and think Obama will be more of the same. I don’t share that belief. I won’t have fear dictating my actions. I’ll vote for Hillary if I have to, but I’d rather try a different way.
jibeaux
Genine is like the nicer, calmer, me who used to exist before I started hanging out on this blog. Get out, my friend, get out while you still can. This way lies madness, I tell you!
Sasha
If four years of a bad Obama Presidency results in another two decades of Republican dominance of the Presidency, that is a net bad.
cleek
but if we’re talking about “Senate term = stepping stone = bad”, the only person who wins that argument is McCain, since he’s been stuck there forever. by comparison, both Obama and Clinton are noobs looking for the big score.
Sasha
kwAwk, basing your opposition to Obama because he *might* do as badly as Carter and consequently *might* lead to a resurgence of the GOP is a pretty weak one. (And your argument applies at least as well to Hillary — please remember that part of the reason we have the current knucklehead in the Oval Office was as a reaction to the Clintons’ shennanigans.)
In my view, you have the argument backwards: Bush is the GOP’s Carter and Obama is Reagan — a Great Communicator for the Left that will ensure Democratic dominance and progressive thought as mainstream for years to come. (Hopefully anyway.)
nightjar
Hell no, we’re perfectly sane here. It’s all those other fuckers who’re crazy. Hahabwhahahabawhah heee hehe hawhaw.
Don’t Bogart that Kool-aid my friend,
Pass it over to me again.
heeeaww!
Genine
LOL That’s funny. It’s funny because its kind of true. But I meditate every day and recenter myself. So even when I fly off the handle, I come back on track. :)
But yeah, this blog is definitely chock full of some characters.
SamFromUtah
So… no picture of an opera Valkyrie for this post, I guess.
El Doh
Don’t forget, Obama’s the nice but weak candidate.
That’s why he’s winning against the do-or-die never-surrender fighter/brawler inevitable candidate who started with all the advantages including financial and early endorsement superdelegate lead.
A strong candidate would obviously be losing but fighting at this point.
Hypatia
They said pretty much the same thing about Robert Kennedy when he ran against the Republican Kenneth Keating in New York. A fair number of Democrats supported Keating for that reason – Keating was a very decent guy. It actually wasn’t entirely fair because the Kennedy family did move to New York while Robert was growing up. But for all intents and purposes he was a carpetbagger.
I agree that it’s not necessarily a strong argument. Both JFK and RFK essentially saw the senate as jumping off places for the presidency and neither was a particularly effective senator. (This was never true, incidentally, of Edward, who was an enthusiastic legislator even before Chappaquiddick short circuited his presidential ambitions.)
Keep it up, folks. Allowing the validity of this line of thought for the moment, however, as a practical matter pouring tea for dignitaries might well be better prep for the leadership of the free world than the Illinois state senate.
priscianus jr
I’ve read the post and I’ve read through the whole thread, and I’m afraid I don’t agree with your premise John. Yes, it’s very possible that Hillary will keep going even after the FL & MI delegations are legally seated, and after Obama sews up the majority of delegates. But at that point she ceases to be a threat and becomes a minor and ever-shrinking nuisance.
At that point it will be the Clintons vs. the Democratic Party. Simple as that. No serious politician is going to follow them there. She will be left with people like Taylor Marsh and the TL maniacs. She will continue her courageous quest for the nomintion right into crank territory. You know what a crank is…
5. A person full of crotchets; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects; one whose judgment is perverted in respect to a particular matter. [Colloq.]
[1913 Webster]
She will be self-parody, a joke. She’s dangerously close to that already.
Hillary’s problem is that she doesn’t remember what it’s like not to have power. She will find out very soon.
You say she’s in it to serve her big-money backers. But she can’t deliver anything for them. All she can do is pretend that she will be able to, i.e. by winning the nomination — which she can’t do. The ones that are sticking with her to the bitter end are as unbalanced as she is.
As for that junior senate seat, you’re right she doesn’t care about the people of NY. But she’s so wacked out right now she doesn’t even realize that the senate seat is all she’s got. Love it or leave it, Hillary baby.
El Doh
The excellent Al Giordano helps keep me calmer once again.
El Doh
Gah, link failed despite working in preview.
Try again:
Al Giordano
nightjar
But I guess we’ll never know now will we. Being that Hillary will NEVER be president. And I doubt HRC ever poured tea for anyone, unless it was served crazy pudding.
Chuck Butcher
appeasement
I spent a bunch of time trying to get something pretty controversial passed as official policy of DPO. I understood something going in that was strongly verified in the process:
Do not make enemies you don’t have to, there are already plenty.
That’s not selling out or appeasing, it is a matter of taking the sting out of a loss, getting what you can at the time, including others in the conversation, etc. Ah well…
Rome Again
John, I have only one quibble regarding this post, Hillary is NOT raking in the dough.
She can scream and cry all she wants, but eventually when she stops being able to pay the people who help her on this campaign (charade), her voice will falter and go silent when they take the microphones and then the meeting venues away.
rikyrah
FYI:
Obama has led in the PLEDGED DELEGATE RACE beginning January 3rd.
He has NEVER trailed Hillary Clinton in PLEDGED DELEGATES.
Period.
rikyrah
Seriously, why are you guys in such a rush to nominate such a weak fragile candidate?
Hillary Clinton had EVERY INSTITUTIONAL ADVANTAGE KNOWN TO ANY MODERN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
Barack Obama began from Ground Zero. WITH NOTHING.
No money. No infrastructure across the country. Minimal name recognition.
AND STILL HE BEAT HER.
The answer to you is…
WHY, with every ADVANTAGE…
Why couldn’t Hillary Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?
WHY was she beaten by a first-term Senator?
Joyce
05-28) 20:17 PDT San Francisco — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will step in if necessary to make sure the presidential nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama does not reach the Democratic National Convention – though she believes it could be resolved as early as next week.
Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said “I will step in” if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.
“Because we cannot take this fight to the convention,” she said. “It must be over before then.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/28/MNQE10V1UL.DTL&tsp=1
kwAwk
rikyrah Says:
But there in lies the rub. Obama wasn’t such a grass roots rags to riches success story. What he started with was 70+% of the black vote (which after playing the race card a few times went to 90%), which is a very important demographic in the Democratic Party and and undercurrent of anti-Clintonism. You guys can down play the effect all you want but if Obama doesn’t get 85% of the black vote across the board in this election, he isn’t even competitive.
For every advantage that Clinton did have, there was also a drawback of 16 years of Republican propaganda that has obviously sunk in with a hell of a lot more of the Democratic base than anybody expected. And I don’t exclude myself from that, I didn’t want a return to the Clinton years when this campaign started, but as things have played out Hillary was left as the best candidate standing.
And alot like Al Gore in 2000, she is running against a hologram. Obama doesn’t have a record to be attacked on so he is what you want him to be. He is free to be the ‘magic unity pony’ just as GWB was free to be the ‘Compassionate Conservative’.
A Hidell
“Martin Says:
The difference is that when Obama’s plan fails, it’s a failure of free-market health insurance to do what the nation needs even when given a regulatory tap. When Clinton’s fails, it’s a failure of government to make the mandate work even with the regulatory tap. Both will fail, however, because the problem is not exclusive to insurance which is all either plan is tackling.”
I know the thread is long over by the time I get to it, but Martin wins the prize on health care financing. Clinton’s plan is not better than Obama’s. All mandates do is give the illusion of full coverage. The results out of Massachusetts show that. That and they raise everybody’s hackles. They get everybody into an easy fight that can be used to scuttle everything. I am very interested in the uses that the Health Exchange that Obama has put forward can be put to. There’s potential there to win the battle without having to get in the fight in the first place.
Sasha
How do you account for his win in Iowa, where the electorate is mostly as white as it gets?
dougie smooth
Bullshit, kwawk. I liked and reconsidered Hillary every time she showed her honest, human side. Then she would pull some stupid, disingenuous shit and make me angry all over again. She has treated the electorate like idiot children and has displayed exactly zero principle. I thought she was qualified and competent, and still do. She started out with my goodwill and open mind, but continues to defile it in her ongoing political homage to “2 girls 1 cup”.
Tax Analyst
Well, this thread appears long-past dead, but I LOVE the “…ongoing political homage to 2 girls – 1 cup” analogy…lol – It’s absolutely, dead-on PERFECT.
Brachiator
The irony, of course, is that Senator Clinton’s candidacy is a fairy tale with little substantial behind it. Her only actual record of political accomplishment is her modest tenure in the Senate, and is marred by her cynically opportunistic vote to authorize war, and her stubborn refusal to reject and denounce her vote as the mistake that it obviously was. During the primary campaign, she has demonstrated a solid grasp of issues, but instead of elevating herself, instead resulted to ignorant pandering, as with her appropriation of McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal.
But apart from this, she has been a characterless chameleon, appealing to the fantasies of her supporters without offering anything real. She is the feminist icon who got to where she is by marrying the guy who became president. She was just another ceremonial First Lady, but pretends that every good thing her husband accomplished was half her responsibility, and that every bad thing her husband did was Al Gore’s fault. She also milks the fantasy that she and Bill will be co-rulers if she is elected, or that lovable rogue Bill will really be in charge or at least able to pull her pantsuit out of the fire if things go seriously wrong.
Or she is the Blue Collar Momma who don’t cotton to no elites, even as she relies on a gaggle of largely super-elitist women pundits and acolytes to whine that if Hillary isn’t given the nomination, all women in American will have to start wearing burkhas because there can never ever be a woman as qualified as the Sun Queen.