Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 8, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

MOVING ON....Hillary Clinton insists, unsurprisingly, that she's going to press on, but I wonder if the rest of us have to press on as well? Instead of continuing the internecine warfare of the past couple of months, maybe the best thing to do is to start ignoring her — perhaps the worst fate of all for someone who seems to gain strength via umbrage. So if she says something outrageous, who cares? Just shrug and move on. After all, Barack Obama is, at this point, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, so why not start treating him that way? There's really not much point in fanning the flames any longer.

Kevin Drum 1:04 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (131)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Attention boyz and grrls,
Todays pie flavor is Boston Cream.

Posted by: optical weenie on May 8, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'll be happy to ignore her.

Posted by: acefranze on May 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe she could get together with Ron Paul and they could have a few beers together and have a gripe-fest.

Posted by: demisod on May 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. “It’s just a flesh wound, I’ve had worst” she proclaims after having her metaphorical arms cut off. It’s time we dismiss her as a very silly knight and move on, before she bleeds on us.

Posted by: fafner1 on May 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ignoring her is just going to make her more shrill. The top Dems need to make her play nice for the last couple of weeks. Playing nice does not mean you go around announcing "I've got the white vote!" Let her talk about issues and McCain and Bush. That's the way she should go out.

Posted by: tomeck on May 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Depends on the media. We don't have the power.

If the Media ignores her, it no longer matters.

Posted by: MNPundit on May 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I see nothing wrong with a continued debate. Listen to her, just remember to listen for policy, not in the expectation she will win.

Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton insists, unsurprisingly, that she's going to press on

Watch her outlays this week. I suspect she's already given up, but is collecting $$$ to pay off her debts to herself.

It's a hollow campaign.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on May 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I was just at Politico/Huff'Po' thinking that exact same thing after reading an article there about their plans to take it to Denver, and lo and behold my thoughts were the first post on here. So long as she does a Huckabee bow out, just surfs on name and name only to get through the last primaries, who really cares. I like the idea of letting all the states have a say in the primaries.
Just make sure the Big Media gets that message and we're good to go.

Posted by: Politico on May 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I was just at Politico/Huff'Po' thinking that exact same thing after reading an article there about their plans to take it to Denver, and lo and behold my thoughts were the first post on here. So long as she does a Huckabee bow out, just surfs on name and name only to get through the last primaries, who really cares. I like the idea of letting all the states have a say in the primaries.
Just make sure the Big Media gets that message and we're good to go.

Posted by: Politico on May 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

How many of her loyalists can be counted on to be ignored? [Is ignorant the base word of ignore]? Just asking.

Posted by: bobbywally on May 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I'm fine with her continuing on, as long as the campaign is a competition to see who can best articulate that John McBush would be a disaster for this country. Who will be nominee is clear. How Mrs. Clinton wants go out is not.

To be clear, I like Hillary, and think she's smart and capable. I think she'll do the right thing here, more or less. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Posted by: Jeff S. on May 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary isn't willing to throw in the towel yet. Seems she'd rather twist it up and lash out at her dwindling supporters.

After her bomb Iran comments, any shred of sympathy on my part vanished. We are done with military thinktalk.

At least Obama's being real with the voters.

Maybe Hillary will win after the next 6 million from her "self"
to her self (ish) campaign.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on May 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Would it be out of line to mention Sen Clinton is supported by virtually the same number of Democrats as Sen Obama. Do you think you, the insufferable pricks commenting here and the millionaire assholes on TV sticking your fingers in your ears is a productive strategy for Dems in November? Just asking.

Posted by: david on May 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I agree we should ignore her, especially if she is going to keep saying things in as poor taste as this (via Newsweek) to justify why she should stay in the race as an active candidate. "You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968, as, you know, Senator [Robert] Kennedy won that primary." There are plenty of other years to cite as precedent for long-running primaries -- '80 and '84 for the Dems and '76 for the Reps -- though they all resulted in losses for the party that dealt with them. The only reason to cite '68 is to recall RFK's assassination. This woman is a creep and, following Kevin's suggestion, is the last time I will note or care what she has to say.

Posted by: Scott on May 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

It is not the umbrage, it is mass public adoration that drives almost all politicians. (Umbrage may be the motivation of blog commenters.) I think Clinton loves to be loved by cheering crowds and does not want to give that up. Which politician does not love adoring crowds? Only the anti-politician W. Bush, seems to dislike attention from plebeians.

One thing many Obama supporters overlook is Clinton is almost as popular as Obama. She raises lots of money from small contributors and has a sizable following of committed partisans. They supply Sen. Clinton with the attention and love that motivates her. Public adoration combined with Clinton's physically loveless marriage may explain a lot about her, and will one day be the theme of a chapter in one of her biographies, if not its conclusion.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The guy I want the media to ignore is Lanny (Whiny) Davis. He was on the CBC's 'As it Happens' current events radio program last night and almost took a bite out the moderator for having the logic to suggest that Hillary has very little chance based on the delegate count. He went on and on about MI and FL and how HRC won those events, and how BHO prevented a re-vote which she would have won anyway, according to Davis. He spoke endlessly of the polling data that suggest that Obama cannot pull the blue collar vote, the old lady vote, and can only count on the African American vote. What the dick forgets is that HRC can't get the young vote, the college educated vote nor the black vote. When Hill packs it in, I'll be ecstatic about the fact that we won't have to put up with Lanny's bullshit any longer.

Posted by: Dilbert on May 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Did I miss something? Is Barack Obama the democratic nominee? I thought you had to have the afformation of 50 states. Did someone forget to read the DNC rules?

Posted by: annl on May 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Did I miss something? Is Barack Obama the democratic nominee? I thought you had to have the affirmation of 50 states. Did someone forget to read the DNC rules?

Posted by: annl on May 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Michigan and Florida forgot the rules, annl.

Posted by: Boorring on May 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all sure are impressionable.

Posted by: david on May 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I've got my answer. David won't be ignored. I wonder if he'll choose to vote for McSame should the math of the primaries prove insurmountable? Just askin'.

Posted by: bobbywally on May 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

No, bobbywally, your repulsive personality will not drive me to McCain, but I'm not your problem. Others conflate being put off by you with opposing Obama, good luck with them.

Posted by: david on May 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:
The Clintons' continued Race-Baiting, which you have so long said doesn't exist, is really a problem. If no on in the Dem establishment is willing to call her on it, then it hurts the party at all levels. This isn't just disgusting African-Americans.

Luckily, the white rural voters of Oregon and South Dakota aren't the slaves to our racist past that Clinton vocally expects voters of West Virginia to be. But Oregon won't change the screwed up dynamics this is creating for local and national political races right now.

Posted by: mirror on May 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:
The Clintons' continued Race-Baiting, which you have so long said doesn't exist, is really a problem. If no on in the Dem establishment is willing to call her on it, then it hurts the party at all levels. This isn't just disgusting African-Americans.

Luckily, the white rural voters of Oregon and South Dakota aren't the slaves to our racist past that Clinton vocally expects voters of West Virginia to be. But Oregon won't change the screwed up dynamics this is creating for local and national political races right now.

Posted by: mirror on May 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

If the Media ignores her, it no longer matters.
Posted by: MNPundit on May 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

If we ignore the media, can they no longer matter?

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on May 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

When Clinton implies that non-whites aren't hard working it's time for the hook to pull her off the stage. We can ignore it, but the party establishment needs to get her to knock it out.

Posted by: Marc on May 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not going to be [dramatic pause] ignored!

Posted by: Glenn Close on May 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

As an Obama supporter, I really don't see the harm in Hillary continuing her campaign. At the latest, it will be over June 3, and that's plenty of time for Obama to turn his guns on John McInsane, and paint him as the old, out of touch, Bushite that he is.

That is, as long as Hillary does not continue to reinforce RNC talking points about Obama, and does not, under any circumstances, praise McInsane's qualifications and experience. I like and respect Hillary, and I think she'll do the right thing when the time comes. That time isn't necessarily now.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Ignore who?

Posted by: santamonicamr on May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Nice way to fan the flames Kevin.

Posted by: Jammer on May 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I think we are already seeing some of this. Hillary says she is still in it, but I think we are getting into the "roll your eyes" territory.

As in this situation:

Crazy Uncle: Aliens ate my brain!
Me: Ok, Crazy Uncle. Now sit down and eat your peas.
Crazy Uncle: No, seriously!
Me: (rolls eyes)

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on May 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Noooooooo!

Ignoring her would be the worst thing to do. He ego demands attention, and if it doesn't get it she's liable to go to extremes to get it. Just imagine the desperate, damaging things she could say just to get the videotape rolling again.

Posted by: Chasm on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Keep it up people. You have wrongfully accused them of race bating, you have decried her in Republican terms, and you have the unmitigated gall to say SHE is echoing Republican talking points? Could any group of people be less gracious in victory? You have lost anywhere from 25-30% of half the party, you talk about winning without Florida or Ohio, you have the nomination in your hands and yet you STILL cannot resist the last nasty, snarky ugly comments? Everyone I know, and there are a lot of them, who is flaming angry this season, is not angry at Obama personally but at the Olbermanns, the Tweety's, the Gloria Bolgers, the Donna Brazill's, and most of all, at the nasty, snarky BS posted here and elsewhere about a candidate many people obviously like. If you all lose in the fall, dont blame her, look in the mirror. I am not an Andrew Sullivan fan, but there is one thing he got totally right: not blog comment boards.

Posted by: Jammer on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

If someone says that whites are hard-working it doesn't automatically imply that blacks are not. If she said white, rural voters of Indiana, would that mean that blacks are not rural? This is race-baiting by the Obama folks, not Clinton.

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Anonymous:

When you say you have the support of the hard-working whites, in the context of losing, the point you are making is very clear - my opponent is winning with the support of blacks and lazy whites.

The truth: the only demographic Clinton had a majority in Indiana was in the subset of the over 64 yos.

Clinton's main most solid base are the elderly afraid of change.

Posted by: mirror on May 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

posted by david: 'Would it be out of line to mention Sen Clinton is supported by virtually the same number of Democrats as Sen Obama. Do you think you, the insufferable pricks commenting here and the millionaire assholes on TV, sticking your fingers in your ears is a productive strategy for Dems in November? Just asking.'

WHAT HE SAID. The math hasn't changed. Nevada-Colorado-Virginia-Wisconsin still doesn't = Pennsylvania-Ohio+Michigan or Florida.

Posted by: moga on May 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Good post, Jammer.

Kevin, for shame. You are just channeling the vitriol from Obama supporters who have been on "the Witch" and worse for months on end to just shut up and go away and leave their "Precious" alone.

I will just laugh and laugh when the Emperor's new clothes of "principle" and "change" and "post-partisanship" leave this party in a worse place than where they found it.

Just like in this bitter primary, I can see the national seeds of destruction of the Democratic Party sown by the Obama campaign in their arrogance and greed for power.

Race-card? Divisiveness? Dismissive arrogance? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by: Wellstone on May 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Absolutely we should ignore her, except in one circumstance: everything she says that hurts her chances to become the vice-presidential choice needs to be hollered from the mountaintops.

Fortunately, she seems to be doing and saying everything she can to eliminate any chance of her becoming VP, and the MSM and the nets are making sure she has a megaphone.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on May 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

leave this party in a worse place than where they found it.

That was President Clinton.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

You are just channeling the vitriol from Obama supporters who have been on "the Witch" and worse for months on end to just shut up and go away and leave their "Precious" alone.

If you really believe that, then the door is that way.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on May 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Ignoring her is just going to make her more shrill. The top Dems need to make her play nice for the last couple of weeks. Playing nice does not mean you go around announcing "I've got the white vote!" Let her talk about issues and McCain and Bush. That's the way she should go out.

I think you overlook the fact that the Clintons consider themselves among the "top Dems," if not *the* top Dems themselves, and given their history and positions with the DLC, I'm not sure I'm inclined to disagree. Regardless, no one is going to make Hillary do anything she's not inclined to do on her own. I'm pretty solidly an Obama man, myself, and I strongly feel that it is time for both campaigns to sit down and talk candidly about the future, not dictate unilateral ultimatums. That trick never works.

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

What a stupid post. I mean really kevin, do you think this will actually help Obama? It's this type of discourse that has allowed her to remain in the race this long.

Has it ever occurred to any of you that by continually dissing the Clinton's that you have only made her campaign even more viable? Do you ever stop to consider that Obama has failed to rally the party behind him largely due to the fact that bloggers have joined with the media in trying to destroy the Clintons? People have really long memories about the 90's, the election of 2000, the impeachment for gawwds sake. We don't like our leaders being torn down, especially by the folks we're supposed to be on the same side with.

Your actions have succeeded in making a slam dunk election turn into a nail-biter. Your actions will make Obama the weakest GE candidate this party has nominated since Dukakis. He'll get my vote, even though he hasn't even had the courtesy to ask for it. I'm not so sure about others.

Posted by: JB64 on May 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nevada-Colorado-Virginia-Wisconsin still doesn't = Pennsylvania-Ohio+Michigan or Florida

Let's look at the percentages for Obama:

Colorado - 67% = 35 pt win
Virginia - 64% = 29 pt win
Wisconsin - 58% = 17 pt win
South Carolina - 55% - 28 pt win

Now for Hillary:

Pennsylvania - 55% = 10 pt win
Ohio - 54% = 10 pt win
Texas - 51% = 4 pt win
California - 52% = 5 pt win
Michican and Florida = Not Applicable

Obama is much closer to her in the all-importanta big states, and will do just as well as she would in the general. But in the states that are traditionally Republican, like South Carolina, he's a much stronger candidate. He may not turn them from Red to Blue or even to Purple, but he's gonna force John McCain to spend money there, which will most certainly not happen if a Clinton is on the ticket.

Obama makes it a 50 state race. Hillary makes it a 5 state race. Isn't it obvious which is better?

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

In the fall, when the states come in and Obama looses big... there will be lots of hand wringing and he will go from king to goat ... fast. When Pastor Wright hit the Teevee last week. Who was out there supporting him.. Kerry? McCaskill? Dodd, Kennedy? No way.. they were in hiding. He had MSNBC and all African American journalists. That's it. This is politics and it's a contact sport.. grow up. You want to be the leader of the free world? grow a pair... Ignore Clinton, treat her like crap and see what happens. The african american vote is small in most states.. The Latino vote is large and that's where Obama's biggest problems come in. They will not vote for him in large numbers in the fall..

Posted by: Moina on May 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

In the fall, when the states come in and Obama looses big... there will be lots of hand wringing and he will go from king to goat ... fast. When Pastor Wright hit the Teevee last week. Who was out there supporting him.. Kerry? McCaskill? Dodd, Kennedy? No way.. they were in hiding. He had MSNBC and all African American journalists. That's it.

Moina, you make and break your own point nicely. Obama was forced in the last month and a half to weather a pretty harsh game of hardball (or outright sleazy smear if one doesn't feel like being charitable with language) with virtually no one in the upper echelons willing to step up and speak on his behalf and he still came out ahead.

So... what exactly was your point again?

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

If you really think Obama will win South Carolina and Virgina in the fall, then you're obviously bathing in Kool-aid. He might win Colorado, but he will certainly lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Michigan looks iffy as well. Dudes got 47.5 percent of the Democratic vote, and a pathetic 1.5 percent lead on HRC, the most vilified woman in the western Hemisphere. Yeah, looking real strong in fall.

Posted by: JB64 on May 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

On the other hand, it might be good to have Hillary stick around, at least until Kentucky. There's no doubt Obama is going to lose in West Viginia and Kentucky by pretty big margins. I think it would look worse if he were to lose those states to a candidate that's no longer running, and Hillary winning them won't hurt him at all....

Posted by: Joe on May 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I was quite pleased to read today that Obama said that he doesn’t need Hillary’s supporters to win. He has built a new coalition of rich whites, young people, and African Americans. So, I don’t have to feel guilty at all about not voting for him.

So, keep up your attacks on Hillary and her supporters. Obama doesn’t care, which is becoming more and more obvious to many traditional Democrats.

Posted by: emmarose on May 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

If you really think Obama will win South Carolina and Virgina in the fall, then you're obviously bathing in Kool-aid.

I think the main point isn't that he win solidly red states, but the fact that he can force McCain to work them. If this primary campaign has done nothing else, it has apparently validated Howlin' Mad Howard's 50 State Strategy. In battle terms, it never concedes an inch of turf to the opposition. In more idealistic terms, it gives more than mere lip service to the idea that every vote counts. In economic terms, it is a battle of attrition of dollars, which Obama has plenty of to burn.

Can Obama really turn red states blue in November? From where I stand, it would appear that he has a pretty good chance in the swing states. I'm less sanguine on his chances in places like South Carolina, but the fact that he's prepared to fight for their votes will necessitate the GOP changing their tactics to match, and Obama's already got the momentum, the ground troops and the cash to meet with more than matching force.

Thanks for caring, though!

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

He'll get my vote, even though he hasn't even had the courtesy to ask for it.

Do you mean you haven't gotten a personal phone call from him? Or that he's failed to do a shout-out to Mr. Frank Jacobs during a speech? The guy is constantly talking about how Democrats in particular and Americans in general can successfully push back together against the failed foreign policy and corporate plutocracy-coddling domestic agenda of the last eight years. Is an engraved invitation necessary for you to realize that you're welcome at the table?

Posted by: Perplexed on May 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Apologies to Frank Jacobs. I was responding to JB64, not him.

Posted by: Perplexed on May 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I was quite pleased to read today that Obama said that he doesn’t need Hillary’s supporters to win.

How about a link for that, emmarose?

Posted by: Perplexed on May 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

I'm very uncomfortable associating myself with the abhorrent tactics of Sen Obama's campaign.

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary has “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

The pattern she identifies is simply this:

The more you fear/resent black blacks, and the more poorly educated you are, the more likely you are to prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It doesn't take a law degree from Yale to figure that out, Hillary.


Posted by: trueblue on May 8, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Perplexed: No worries :) The rapid-fire nature of these conversations makes it sometimes hard to keep straight to whom one is responding, what with no faces to discern one from another.

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

So, keep up your attacks on Hillary and her supporters. Obama doesn’t care, which is becoming more and more obvious to many traditional Democrats.

For the record, the only problems I have with Hillary's supporters are:

-Their attempts to change the rules after the fact regarding MI and FL. Your candidate new the rules, and so did you. In fact some of Hillary's closest advisers were decision makers who voted to strip MI and FL of their delegates. To try to change the rules now is ridiculous.

-Their refusal to acknowledge that this things been over since March 4th when Hillary failed to win overwhelming victories in Texas and Ohio. This is kind of coupled with my first complaint, because their refusal to acknowledge this is tied to their attempts to change the rules and seat MI and FL.

-Their attempts to portray Obama supporters as having some sort of mental deficiency. Either we're cultists, or latte drinking elitists, or we don't realize what we're doing...I mean we obviously couldn't have simply looked at the candidates and determined Obama to be superior.

Other than those, everything else is the normal back-and-forth of politics.

Posted by: Joe on May 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus Christ,

Some of you (Jammer, Wellstone) are really mad because of what people on, gasp, blog comment boards are saying about your preferred candidate? Get a fucking grip.

Posted by: Chef Jim on May 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure McCain isn't too concerned about SC, or Va, which I think he'd gladly give up for Pa, MI, and OH.

Posted by: JB64 on May 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

-Their attempts to portray Obama supporters as having some sort of mental deficiency. Either we're cultists, or latte drinking elitists, or we don't realize what we're doing...I mean we obviously couldn't have simply looked at the candidates and determined Obama to be superior.

That is really the only one that I find offensive, and particularly so because it is a notion that comes directly from Hillary and the officials in her campaign, and is merely amplified through the echo chamber of supporter dialogue. I'm somewhat ashamed when I see the same sort of ad hominem hateful talk among certain Obama supporters, but I have never seen any language of that sort coming from the Obama or his campaign (and no, "bitter" doesn't qualify as a pejorative; some folks need to look the word up in a dictionary).

The rest is all fair in politics, frankly. From the moment FL and MI moved their primaries I saw that clusterfsck on the horizon, but what can you do? Hands were forced by a combination of overzealous activists and state legislators. Florida, in particular, is a messy situation, since it was a solidly Republican decision to move the primaries up; the Democratic Party in Florida had no real input there to my knowledge (anyone, please feel free to correct me with a URL if I'm wrong - this does happen a lot).

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure McCain isn't too concerned about SC, or Va, which I think he'd gladly give up for Pa, MI, and OH.

All I can say in response to this brilliant piece of political strategery is that I pray you're speaking for McCain, here. :)

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

The guy is constantly talking about how Democrats in particular and Americans in general can successfully push back together against the failed foreign policy and corporate plutocracy-coddling domestic agenda of the last eight years.

Gee if he'd only tell me how he planned to achieve this, or any of his proposals. If he'd only take a stand by voting for or against something. If he'd only offer something besides empty platitudes.

It seems to be working though. At least with 47.5% of Democrats

Posted by: JB64 on May 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Make up your mind what you're offended about, JB64. If you think Obama's light on details, that's a separate issue with its own merits, but that's not an answer to why you were kvetching about not having received the "courtesy" of being "asked" for your vote. Are you going to respond to that or not?

Florida, in particular, is a messy situation, since it was a solidly Republican decision to move the primaries up; the Democratic Party in Florida had no real input there to my knowledge (anyone, please feel free to correct me with a URL if I'm wrong - this does happen a lot).

Every Democratic legislator in Florida agreed to the decision. Though the FL legislature is Republican-controlled, this was totally a bipartisan move.

Posted by: Perplexed on May 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

If he'd only take a stand by voting for or against something.

*Sigh* Here we go again. You can lead a low-information voter to the Congressional voting record, but you can't make 'em read.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK
Florida, in particular, is a messy situation, since it was a solidly Republican decision to move the primaries up; the Democratic Party in Florida had no real input there to my knowledge (anyone, please feel free to correct me with a URL if I'm wrong - this does happen a lot).

You've been lied to by Hillary. It was passed unanimously in one house (118 to 0) and nearly so in the state senate, 37 in favor 2 opposed.

Scroll down to "Vote History" for the tallies.

Also, the state democratic party was unanimous in their approval for moving up primary:

TALLAHASSEE - Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman and U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Orlando) today announced that the Florida Democratic leadership voted unanimously to accept January 29 as the date for the binding 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary in Florida.
Posted by: Augustus on May 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Every Democratic legislator in Florida agreed to the decision. Though the FL legislature is Republican-controlled, this was totally a bipartisan move.

Thanks for the clarification and the link, Perplexed. Always happy to admit when I've been mistaken.

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not particularly offended- your word, not mine.

I did say I was going to vote for him.. right?

A personal phone call would be nice though.

Posted by: JB64 on May 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

A personal phone call would be nice though.

How 'bout it? A couple of pizzas wouldn't hurt, either. What can I say? I'm from Chicago. Old school & all that.

Posted by: junebug on May 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

After reviewing the vitriol that still lingers between the camps, I've changed my position and now think a unity ticket would be the best route to go... Ed Kilgore makes a good case with several bullet points on Real Clear Politics, but I think the best reason is something we are overlooking; the emotional investment so many older women have put in Hillary is hard for a lot of us to relate to, but for many of them denying Hillary a shot would be extremely painful... as resented as Obama's core groups would feel about him being shoved aside. The energy Hillary generates in that demographic is something stronger than any advantage any other VP could bring, as far as I can see.

Posted by: loki on May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are absolutely right. Obama is the presumptive nominee and its time for the media to start acting like it.

Posted by: aline on May 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Would it be out of line to mention Sen Clinton is supported by virtually the same number of Democrats as Sen Obama.

No.

Do you think you, the insufferable pricks commenting here and the millionaire assholes on TV sticking your fingers in your ears is a productive strategy for Dems in November? Just asking.

What was that you were saying about "out of line," david? Just asking.


But seriously - this period is always very delicate. I remember going through the same thing with the Dean folks four years ago.
Tread lightly.
The people who are really worked up right now are partisan supporters, as in - people who really care - whether you or I happen to agree with them or not. It's important not to alienate them. Important enough to make her the VP? I'd say no - that decision should be made on its own merits. But we want Hillary partisans' energy working for us, not against us.

So be nice.

P.S. That works both ways, david.

Posted by: cazart on May 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I was quite pleased to read today that Obama said that he doesn’t need Hillary’s supporters to win.

C'mon, Emmarose, admit it. You just made that up.

If you didn't, please tell us where you read it. I completely missed him saying he doesn't need Hillary's supporters to win. Completely missed it.

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda funny how Obama and his supporters talk about how he will unify the country, and stop partisan bickering, yet the one thing they can't seem to entertain is the possibility of offering Hillary a VP slot.

Look, if you're going to talk about unity, and bringing people together, and getting past partisan bickering, I should think that you absolutely are required to set an example yourself.

All I can say is that I haven't seen even the suggestion of an indication of a hint of an intimation that Obama and his side would be willing to make that gesture. Instead I hear one claim after another that Obama shouldn't have to reach out in any way to the evil Hillary, whose sins are beyond forgiveness, however many Democratic voters may prefer her.

And so does the rhetoric of "unity" meet the realities of arrogance and aggrievance and entitlement.

Posted by: frankly0 on May 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda funny how Obama and his supporters talk about how he will unify the country, and stop partisan bickering, yet the one thing they can't seem to entertain is the possibility of offering Hillary a VP slot.

Well, I can only speak for myself here, so you can take this as one of those "anecdotal evidence" cases.

I have no real problem with the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket at all. I have a hard time visualizing it, though. The Clinton campaign has gone a long way in keeping the FUD campaign against Obama going. A lot of Hillary's supporters have a great deal of emotional investment in this, and have managed to convince themselves that Obama is Satan Incarnate. (I'm not really exaggerating. Go read some of the comments sections in blogs like NoQuarter. Right or wrong, the vitriol against Obama has gotten pretty caustic.)

I'll go so far as admit that I think the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket has a certain amount of appeal to me. I just wish I could see how we get there from here.

Posted by: Frank Jacobs on May 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

I have no problem with Clinton as VP, I just cannot understand why Clinton would want to be VP. Senator from NY is a much better and more powerful position.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm somewhat ashamed when I see the same sort of ad hominem hateful talk among certain Obama supporters, but I have never seen any language of that sort coming from the Obama or his campaign (and no, "bitter" doesn't qualify as a pejorative; some folks need to look the word up in a dictionary)."

You're kidding, right? Would "divisive," dishonest" and "will do anything to win" qualify as perjoratives to you? How about accusing the Clinton campaign of sending the turban photo to Drudge, based on no evidence? How about Hillary defending Obama in the 60 Minutes interview, and the Obama campaign showing their appreciation by taking a statement compltetly out of context and accusing her of perpetrating the Muslim rumors? How about Michelle Obama talking about how Hillary can't even keep her house in order? How about the memo from South Carolina detailing how the Obama campaign will use the race card? How about Jesse Jackson Jr. after New Hampshire. You guys don't focus on those things because it goes against the narrative you've constructed about Obama's wisom and integrity.

And you might dismiss the remarks of Obama's supporters, but it ain't that easy. The comment sections on virtually every significant political web site have turned into cesspools of Hillary hatred, with the most misogynistic, vile stuff being spewed about her on a daily basis. And please don't give me the "both sides do it" crap. Every single day, you can see Hillary casually referred to as the monster, the bitch, Shrillary, Hitlery, etc., while being accused of intentionally trying to destroy the party so she can run in 2012, all because she has the temerity to stay in a campaign after receiving mire than 14 million votes and winning over a thousand delegates.

Let's see how far the whining of Obama's supporters gets them in the GE. I see Obama supporters saying that Hillary is doing the Republicans' work for them. Not even close. How many Hillary ads did you see with Rev. Wright in them? How many ads with William Ayers? I saw Obama supporters complaining because a 527 ran an ad saying Obama had no economic policy. They called it "Rovian." Are you shitting me? Now we can't even say Obama has no economic policy without people bursting into tears. What a bunch of softies.

And by the way, Obama supporters like to keep talking about the delegate count, because it takes attention away from the fact that this triumphant nominee continues to lose elections. Other than 10 days in February when he ran off a bunch of victories, in part because of a snowball effect, he's lost a lot more than he's won. He got his 11 wins legitimately, and if those delegates prove to be enough to get the nomination, so be it. But if you guys are satisfied with him losing primaries he's working really hard to win, then you're not ready for the fall.

Posted by: ChrisO on May 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Frank Jacobs, you're agreeing a little too quickly. What no one is mentioning, although I suspect they know it, it that the Florida primary date was included in a bill to reqire a paper trail in elections, one that no one wanted to vote against. It's a common political ploy to make a legislator accede to an amendment they don't like because they can't be on record as having voted against the bill.

Posted by: ChrisO on May 8, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Other than 10 days in February when he ran off a bunch of victories, in part because of a snowball effect, he's lost a lot more than he's won.

Obama wins: 32
Clinton wins: 16

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

No problem with an Obama/Clinton ticket here, although I wonder if he hasn't offered it already.

Posted by: Chef Jim on May 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

HRC looks more desparate and foolish each day. She's spiraling out of control and can't stop herself. Hopefully her white friends will step before she implodes - she's permanently damaged her legacy with blacks.

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on May 8, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Obama should offer the VP slot to the person who is spending all of her time talking about how he can't win in November. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure the media and the Republicans won't have a field day with that.
I also can't see her ever accepting it anyway, her stupid pride won't let her.

Posted by: Ringo on May 8, 2008 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Not me! I think there is something going on here.
Most would think that the Clinton effort is stupid for sticking around. I certainly don't think Hillary is stupid. There may be more to this than we are willing to consider at this point. I think there maybe something none of us are aware of or privy to. It's interesting. Too interesting to ignore.

Posted by: fillphil on May 8, 2008 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Obama should offer the VP slot to the person who is spending all of her time talking about how he can't win in November. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure the media and the Republicans won't have a field day with that.

Look, Bush famously mocked Reagan for his "voodoo economics", yet became part of a very successful political campaign.

Obama offering the VP position to Hillary -- who, whatever her faults, has won the allegiance of half of the Democratic Party over Obama -- is as close to a political no-brainer as it gets.

But everything we've heard out of the Obama camp -- just listen to Nancy Pelosi, his thinly disguised representative, for example -- is that the very idea is unthinkable.

So can Obama be the man Reagan was when he offered the VP slot to Bush?

Only if his rhetoric means anything to him.

Unity begins at home; getting past your grievances begins at home; Obama will be in no position to preach his message if he can't apply it to his own political life.

Posted by: frankly0 on May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, for better or worse, we're stuck with him. Seeing as I live in Texas, my vote wasn't going to count anyway. I'll just put away my hopes for another 8 to 12 years, and ignore Washington the way it's ignored me for so long.

Posted by: jussumbody on May 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

No, Hillary is not stupid. She is a team player. She is sticking around to provide those dems who are in her camp (and there are lots!) an opportunity to have their say. She is sticking around, even in the face of all of those "drop out, Hillary" messages, to give hope to women - me, my daughter and granddaughters, - that a woman campaigning for president is a REAL candidate, not a token to be told, "OK, you've made a statement, now go away". She's not done and she has run a wonderful race (well, some things should have been left unsaid, but....). She may be beaten by Obama, but Obama needs her and her connection with women and blue-collar dems. And all of us dems need her and her constituents to win in the fall. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I think she strengthens us for the fall by staying in now. If WV, KY, Florida, and Michigan feel dissed - and if women feel patronized, and the enthusiasm of Hillary's voters is lost in the fall, then the democratic party has lost an historic opportunity. We need everyone on board to change the direction of the country. If and when Hillary decides the time is right to get out, she will do it. And I have every confidence that, in staying in the race, she has the best interests of the party at heart for the reasons I've stated, even though she is being trashed by some dems for doing just that.

Posted by: libby on May 8, 2008 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

I have no problem with Clinton as VP, I just cannot understand why Clinton would want to be VP. Senator from NY is a much better and more powerful position.

Ever heard of that glass ceiling thing?

Posted by: elmo on May 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I was quite pleased to read today that Obama said that he doesn’t need Hillary’s supporters to win. -Emmarose at 3:34 pm

C'mon, Emmarose, admit it. You just made that up. - [blank] at 5:40 pm

O.K. it killed me to do this, but I went out and spent 50 cents to buy the local paper. I read the original at a local coffee shop this morning. (I dropped my decades-long subscription two months ago after they endorsed Obama.)

It came from an article written by Nia-Malika Henderson of the LA Times-Washington Post, which, I assume, is a news service. The article was about whether or not Obama could beat McCain with the people who have been voting for him in the primary:

Obama…says he can, by putting together a coalition that looks different from the usual Democratic base. For one, new voters will bolster his solid coalition of African Americans, young people and the college educated—enough, he argues, to offset any weaknesses among blue-collar whites, his campaign says.

At that point I stopped reading in disgust. Now, I see that the campaign went on to say:

Ultimately, core Democrats will join the fold come November, given the choice between another Republican term and Obama.

Political analysts disagreed with this assessment, however, including one who said that polls show roughly a third of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the party’s nominee.

To me it has always been interesting that Obama is reluctant to reach out to working-class voters, the heart of the Democratic Party. It is almost like he is afraid of losing his new-to-the-party rich supporters, if he promises too much to the people who are really hurting in this brutal economy.


Posted by: emmarose on May 8, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Emmarose: to me it's interesting that Clinton is equating "working class" with "white working class." The last time I checked, black folks were the most reliable constituency in the democratic party, and plenty of them were in the working class. He's saying he'll draw new people in, and that disgusted you. The fact that you read a completely innocuous passage like that in a hostile way says a good deal more about you than it does about Obama.

Obama got more votes, he got more delegates, and Clinton lost. I'm really pretty disgusted by the various ways in which her campaign has been signalling that "the black guy can't win because too many Americans are prejudiced" without actually spitting the words out. And that is the *generous* interpretation. It doesn't help that it's refuted by the way that...he got more votes, and he won more delegates.

Posted by: Marc on May 8, 2008 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Marc, it was Obama who brought up working-class whites in the above quote.

enough, he argues, to offset any weaknesses among blue-collar whites

To me, it sounds like he is just trying to ignore the concerns of blue-collar whites with his vague promises of Hope and Change. Paul Krugman had a good column about this recently, about how Obama has painted himself into a corner by dissing the past achievements of the Clinton administration and refusing to offer specifics to people looking for answers.

Slogans can be appealing to people who already have college educations and health care plans. But, if you don’t have such luxuries, they are just words.

As for the many African-Americans who belong to the working class, I hope they are not disappointed by an Obama administration. I suspect they are only going to get lectures about pulling up their socks.

Posted by: emmarose on May 8, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'm far more hopeful. I've been pleasantly surprised by Obama in this campaign. I really wanted Gore, and would have voted for Edwards if he hadn't dropped out before I could. Obama was my third choice. I've consistently found him to be thoughtful, and in particular resistant to cheap fixes (like the gas tax bit recently.) He can inspire people, and that is tremendously important. His record is more cautious, but that's hardly a fair comparison for either him or Clinton. We've had a disaster in the White House, and nothing good can be accomplished until he leaves. The contrast with Clinton is pretty marked; the clues I can get don't reassure me that she is committed to fundamental change in the same way. He has the potential to be not just a good president, but a great one. It's not guaranteed, but an FDR/Reagan like realignment may be in the cards with a charismatic leader like him.

Posted by: Marc on May 8, 2008 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Kinda funny how Obama and his supporters talk about how he will unify the country, and stop partisan bickering, yet the one thing they can't seem to entertain is the possibility of offering Hillary a VP slot."

franklyO,

Well, at least Obama appears diplomatic enough to entertain the idea.

""There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.

In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.

Reuters

But you're right in one respect, as an Obama supporter I fervently hope he chooses someone else, anyone else.

Posted by: nepeta on May 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK
Would it be out of line to mention Sen Clinton is supported by virtually the same number of Democrats as Sen Obama. Do you think you, the insufferable pricks commenting here and the millionaire assholes on TV sticking your fingers in your ears is a productive strategy for Dems in November? Just asking.
I can't read so many liberal blogs anymore, and this cheap attempt to coronate Obama only adds insult to injury. I'm probably going to sit this one out unless Hillary is the nominee now; Obama deserves to lose. At other locales it has been admitted that these boys thought 'taking out the Clintons' was the point of this election.' A goddamned misogynistic hit job, and 'progressives' are wanking to every second of it. Your whole misbegotten movement needs to be defeated for you to realize what you've become and how you've sold your souls and wedded yourselves to the media figures determined to destroy the 2 most popular figures in our party. You've all gone way too far. Bye, Democrats. Posted by: Sisko on May 8, 2008 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK
The people who are really worked up right now are partisan supporters, as in - people who really care - whether you or I happen to agree with them or not. It's important not to alienate them.
You really have no idea what you've done. If you succeed in destroying Hillary's candidacy through this sham primary, it will be over for Dems in November. Just sayin' so you can look back and make sure to issue that mea culpa like about the Iraq war.
Important enough to make her the VP? I'd say no - that decision should be made on its own merits. But we want Hillary partisans' energy working for us, not against us
It's not going to happen short of a miracle. You obviously have been asleep. Meet Pres. McCain Posted by: Sisko on May 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta, do you think any of us can get through this without eating a little crow? If they don't get together, we don't win...

Posted by: elmo on May 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda funny how Obama and his supporters talk about how he will unify the country, and stop partisan bickering, yet the one thing they can't seem to entertain is the possibility of offering Hillary a VP slot.

Well, I just don't think it's a good fit. I have trouble visualizing Hillary being content to play 2nd fiddle....and then Bill would also be around. I think they'd have trouble deferring decisions to Obama.

Instead, I like the idea of Hillary being Majority Leader....she'd be in a better position to push through her version of universal health-care which I freely admit is superior to Obama's (though Obama's would be a huge improvement on the current situation....just not as huge as Hillary's).

Posted by: Joe on May 8, 2008 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Wah! Wah! Wah! Someone give the Obama babies their bottles.

Posted by: Ed Whitson on May 8, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Calling politicians and candidates names is pretty standard, if unfortunate, discourse. As a campaign heats up, so does the language.

But just because Ms. Clinton is a woman doesn't make it "vile misogyny".

Posted by: henry lewis on May 8, 2008 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think they'd have trouble deferring decisions to Obama.

If he is President, would they have a choice? Is Obama opposed to putting people around him that will give him their true opinions? Would he then make well rounded decisions based on all points of view? Probably, and the Clintons would respect that...

Posted by: elmo on May 8, 2008 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

they can't seem to entertain is the possibility of offering Hillary a VP slot.

How do you know this?

Anyway, no. Just no.

Maybe if HC wasn't a former president's wife. But no, Obama doesn't need, nor deserve Bill hovering in the background.

He's won, people. It's his show. Stop all the rending and gnashing.

"Now is the time for all good etc., etc."

Posted by: henry lewis on May 9, 2008 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Obama/Webb is the ideal ticket; it would bring much of the southern and Hillary wing. If the Clinton camp wants someone more identified with her, then select Wesley Clark.

Posted by: Vincent on May 9, 2008 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

"nepeta, do you think any of us can get through this without eating a little crow?"

Probably not, elmo. Perhaps Obama supporters' turn to eat crow will be a couple years from now. Certainly we should follow Obama's lead now in doing what we can to unify the party, although that doesn't necessarily mean choosing Clinton as VP. If the positions were reversed I wouldn't want Obama to be Clinton's VP. I can't imagine that Clinton would want to be VP, unless for the reason of 'cracking' the glass ceiling, first woman VP. I just don't see the two of them as making a strong or compatible team in the next administration. But what do I know? I run on instinct.

Posted by: nepeta on May 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

It's amazing to me that, in a democracy, anyone would suggest a candidate should get out of the race before everyone has had a chance to vote.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising since the candidate presently in the lead would like to discount two states' votes.

Really, if Democrats need to lose in November to figure out what a full democracy is, then so be it. While you're losing, you might as well try to get rid of caucuses and superdelegates.

Why are people so frightened of the campaign going on until the close of the convention? Divisiveness? Are we that incapable of handling a competetion? The hysteria of Obama and his supporters on the issue is getting to be comical!

Posted by: Laura on May 9, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

"It's amazing to me that, in a democracy, anyone would suggest a candidate should get out of the race before everyone has had a chance to vote."

But Laura, primaries often turn out with only one candidate continuing until the end! Look at the Republican primaries this year. If Hillary dropped out of the race tomorrow the remaining primaries would be held anyway, just as Republican primaries continue although McCain is the only candidate.

As for MI and FL, I just read that the powers that be in MI, many of them Hillary supporters, have come up with their final plan to seat delegates. Their plan calls for splitting the pledged delegates: 69 for Clinton, 59 for Obama. Considering the fact that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, that seems fair enough to me. How would you like to run in a race where you were identified as 'uncommitted'? In any case, Hillary has rejected the plan.

Finally, it isn't that people are frightened of the campaign continuing. It's Hillary's rather frequent disparagement of Obama, the probable, almost undeniable Dem nominee, that upsets those who want to see a Dem win the election in Nov. Potential voters are listening and each 'diss' is Hillary doing McCain's work for him. If Hillary does continue to the end, logical Dems who don't want four years of McCain hope that her speeches stick to policy matters and general Dem motifs rather Obama bashing.

Posted by: nepeta on May 9, 2008 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Ever heard of that glass ceiling thing?

Being Sen. from NY is more powerful then a VP. Sen.

Clinton would be as capable of president as Obama, the primary process just wasn't that into her.

Posted by: Brojo on May 9, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, ignore away...because her supporters sure aren't coming back. This one, a lifelong CA Latino Democrat sure isn't. And since Clinton and Obama are evenly matched in lots of places, that's a awful lot of folks you won't be seeing when you need your mere 535 votes to win the presidency.

Cheers!

Posted by: damato on May 9, 2008 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Why suddenly start ignoring her now, because Tim Russert and his gang said so?

Posted by: Jimm on May 9, 2008 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

damato, Sisko, one of the caricatures of Americans around the world is that you guys are for the most part childish, piss-poor losers. I usually argue against this idea of Americans being children in adult's bodies, self-focused and unwise, bawling at the world.

Am I wrong? Is the caricature an accurate one?

Posted by: snicker-snack on May 9, 2008 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

So can Obama be the man Reagan was when he offered the VP slot to Bush?

Oh my God! I can't believe you just endorsed the Reagan administration and all its policies!

Posted by: Hillary's spin doctors, now freelancing on May 9, 2008 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or does it seem that those who whine to not muscle Clinton out of the race, are the same ones trying to muscle her in as VP?

Posted by: JoeSixPack on May 9, 2008 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

You can keep talking about the vile things Hillary says about Obama but the fact remains that he and his followers injected race into the camapign in a negative way, and continue to do so to this day. Obama's camp, his supporters and the media talk incessantly about his black support. Every upcoming primary is viewed through the lens of how many black voters there are in a state, as a metric for forecasting the results. Yet any mention of race by Clinton is automatically racist. Obama has a problem with white working class voters. Everyone know it, yet it's a crime by Hillary if she says it. And when she said "hard working," she clearly meant working class whites, who, like it or not, are a demographic to be considered. Yet Obama supporte5rs immediately come out with this bullshit that she's saying blacks aren't hard working, which is an incredibly tortured reading of the situation.

For a guy who is supposedly going to "unite" the country, he sure has a lot of supporters who are more than happy to keep exploiting racial divisions.

And to the unnamed poster who posted
Obama wins: 32
Clinton wins: 16

in response to my point about Obama continuing to lose, nice way to avoid the question. My point, which I never see any Obama supporter respond to, is that Obama has been on a losing streak for some time, which is what I was clearly addressing in my post. Since the beginning of March, Obama has won three primaries and lost five, several in key states, and is in a position to lose at least three more by big margins. And he's losing to a candidate who is out of cash, and whose media coverage focuses almost exclusively on how much she's hurting the party and when she will leave the race. These are elections where Obama has gone all out to win. But he finally gets to a primary where a huge black turnout propels him to victory, and the media and his supporters breathe a sigh of relief and declare that everything's all better now.

The Wright controversy has something to do with it, but that should be little comfort to Obama supporters. Hillary has had everything thrown at her throughout this campaign, including some of the most biased media coveragre I've ever seen. Obama has one thing go wrong, and he immediately starts losing. And Obama supporters continue to pretend there's nothing wrong, and if Hillary would only quit everything will be OK.

The people who are going to faint at his rallies have all been identified. He'll get a significant number of Hillary supporters, but they won't be starry eyed followers. They'll mostly be loyal Dem voters, many of whom Donna Brazile doesn't think we need anymore. But independent voters who aren't already in his camp won't be so easily swayed.

It's not going to get easier, it's going to get harder. Despite what Obama supporters like to say, there's no evidence the Clinton cmapaign exploited Obama's Muslim rumors (as evidenced by Hillary's vigorous denial of the rumors on 60 Minutes). Do you really think the Republicans will be as reluctant to go down that road?

I'm afraid a lot of you dreamers are in for a rude surprise.

Posted by: ChrisO on May 9, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

My point, which I never see any Obama supporter respond to, is that Obama has been on a losing streak for some time, which is what I was clearly addressing in my post.

Oh. With your clearly wrong statement "Obama's lost a lot more than he's won" and your clearly false assertion that he's only won the clearly specific number of 11 contests, we thought you were clearly mistaken. Which is nicer than saying you were clearly lying.

Since the beginning of March, Obama has won three primaries and lost five

Obama wins since beginning of March: 5
Clinton wins since beginning of March: 5

(You're not going to start with the "caucuses don't count this year" thing now, are you?)

Thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by: Facts are stupid things on May 9, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

I just do not understand the hostility and anger of the Clinton supporters here. I was a big Dean supporter in 2004, but when he lost I lined up behind Kerry without thinking twice. As for Obama's supposedly "vile" campaign, many of Clinton's supporters were arguing after the PA debate that Obama and his supporters shouldn't complain because "politics ain't beanbag." So now your position is that, if your candidate loses, you're going to take your ball and go home? Mindboggling...

As for the electibility argument, didn't we go through all of this with Dean and Kerry? That didn't work out too well.

Posted by: RP on May 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

The criteria Obama should you when selecting a vice president is pretty simple:

1) Is this person competent?
2) Is this person someone I trust?
3) Is this person someone who will make it easier to get elected in the general.

I think the answer with Clinton is yes, no, maybe, respectively. Accordingly, Obama should look at other candidates as well and make his decision later.

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on May 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Just a quick observation based upon the ever-increasing childish nature of Clinton supporters:

What kind of a flaming asshole would abstain or vote for McCain because their candidate didn't win the primary ?

I mean, are you Clinton supporters really going to feel satisfied knowing that you helped to put another Bush in the White House for 4 more years ? If so, then I really worry about this country. This isn't American Idol, folks.

Hell, I was an ardent Edwards supporter, but I got behind another Dem candidate as soon his candidacy was done. I know which side of my bread is buttered.

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on May 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

As for Obama's supposedly "vile" campaign

I often feel that what's primarily vile to too many people is its success. It wasn't supposed to happen this way. How dare he come up with a strategy to counter her big state focus.

Posted by: snicker-snack on May 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

So now your position is that, if your candidate loses, you're going to take your ball and go home? Mindboggling...

It's not because their candidate lost, RP, it's because of the way Obama supporters treated their candidate. Guess they don't like it when you spit in their face.

Just a quick observation based upon the ever-increasing childish nature of Clinton supporters

LOL! You have got to be kidding me, OhNo! Stop your self aggrandizing, certain segments of Obama's supports have been embarrassingly childish and green.

Posted by: elmo on May 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

spit in their face

No one spit in the face of fellow Democrats more than when Americans for Jobs, a DLC front org., ran that commercial with bin Laden to smear Dean back in 2000. Dean supporters did not withhold their votes for the W. Bush lite Kerry, but that kind of Democratic smearing did not energize Democrats to swarm to the polls. Obama's campaign nor his supporters comments in opposition to Clinton have not come close to reaching the kind of spit in the face treatment the DLC used on Dean and his supporters.

Posted by: Brojo on May 9, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

So many pies. So many pies.

Posted by: keith g on May 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Back in 2004.

Posted by: Brojo on May 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

certain segments of Obama's supports have been embarrassingly childish and green.

Well, elmo, snicker-snack has an example right here in this thread ( I give you damato @ 3:41). What have you got?

Posted by: henry lewis on May 9, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

"LOL! You have got to be kidding me, OhNo! Stop your self aggrandizing, certain segments of Obama's supports have been embarrassingly childish and green."

So the f**k what ? What does that have to do with any Democratic goals in terms of moving this country in a better direction ? Both Clinton and Obama supporters were jerks to Edwards supporters, but you don't see me acting like a child about it. Shit happens, get over it and move on.

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on May 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

It's not because their candidate lost, RP, it's because of the way Obama supporters treated their candidate. Guess they don't like it when you spit in their face.

I stand corrected, but your interpretation is far, far worse. If many of Clinton's supporters are unwilling to support Obama and potentially allow McCain to become president simply because they're upset about what a few people said on the web, they have serious emotional problems. I hope to god you're wrong, because I find that possibility incredibly disturbing.

Posted by: rp on May 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, henry lewis, have you been by the Huffington post today? Have a look at the comments in their banner story.

So the f**k what ? What does that have to do with any Democratic goals in terms of moving this country in a better direction ?

You brought it up, shithead. I missed where everyone were jerks to Edwards, sure as hell wasn't me. And I never tore down Obama either, just his crazy supporters (and I'm not saying you all are crazy).

I'm right there with you, RP, but that's what is happening, sure as shit. I have friend I can't talk politics with anymore because they keep trying to talk me into voting for McFillin. I get "He's not a NeoCon like Bush" and "He's just acting like a hard core conservative to get the nomination" and so on. And those quotes are from a lesbian couple for Christ's sake! I'm not sure this flood can be stopped...

Posted by: elmo on May 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

And it's not just the internet. It's in the media and in the streets. I had a clerk at the supper market tell me a Hillary joke, just out of the blue. I told her to eat shit...

Posted by: elmo on May 9, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Everytime a douche bag on the internet attacks Hillary Clinton and dismisses her supporters as racist and uneducated, that douche bag is digging the Democratic Party's grave.

Posted by: Jon on May 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

"You brought it up, shithead. I missed where everyone were jerks to Edwards, sure as hell wasn't me. And I never tore down Obama either, just his crazy supporters (and I'm not saying you all are crazy)."

Geez, this is like remedial reading class.

What do you mean *I* brought it up ? You're the one saying that Obama supporters have been childish. And my response is again, so what ? Are you saying that somehow this justifies Clinton supporters voting for McCain or abstaining ?

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on May 9, 2008 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

What do you mean *I* brought it up ?

I don't know...maybe this...

Just a quick observation based upon the ever-increasing childish nature of Clinton supporters

OhNo!

Posted by: elmo on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin, as long as you've decided to show a level of respect consistent with a high school clique, let me return the favor in the same manner I did at that time.

Go fuck yourself. Ignore whoever you like, and get those who want to glom on to your popularity agree to your conspiracy. But you're being a bitch.

The silent treatment? Honestly? When is your sweet 16th? Is your daddy gonna give you a car?

Posted by: mere mortal on May 10, 2008 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't know...maybe this..."

Yeah, well, you see, it's hard to read your mind when you use the word "it" to describe what you're referring to. If you'd actually write complete sentences....oh wait, I get it - you do that because you're a total prick that likes to make people guess what the hell you're talking about half the time, right ? Perhaps it makes you feel more clever than you normally do when putting in your 40 hours at Best Buy ?

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on May 10, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Very nice site! cheap viagra

Posted by: John823 on July 17, 2009 at 5:03 AM | PERMALINK

Very nice site!

Posted by: John823 on July 17, 2009 at 5:04 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly