Admit it. You fell for it:
Desperate Hillary Clinton will stay in the White House race even if she loses tomorrow’s pivotal primaries in Texas and Ohio, top aides claimed today.
The former First Lady had staked her political future on wins – with even her husband, former President Bill Clinton, saying she would drop out if she lost the make-or-break contests.
But, as rival Barack Obama closed in on Mrs Clinton’s once formidable leads in the two states, her spin machine has changed their tune and insisted she would not give up.
Neck and Neck: Hillary Clinton will stay in the race if Barack Obama wins tomorrow
Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, said: “There are 16 remaining contests after Tuesday.
“There’s nothing wrong with letting the people in the remaining jurisdictions have their say.”
And Mrs Clinton’s communications director Howard Wolfson, insised “onus” was on Obama to win Texas and Ohio as well as the tiny states of Vermont and Rhode Island which are also holding primaries.
While I have no problem with the generic principle of her staying in the race, we are now approaching the point where it is mathematically impossible for her to win without the super-delegates over-turning the vote of the people. She needs to win Ohio and Texas by large margins. Not win by a point or two, not lose by a point or two, but win 65-35 or better. Not to mention, I am more than a little tired of her people cutting the McCain campaign commercials. but the nagain, you knew it would come to this. You have no one to blame but yourself if you were surprised that all of a sudden, Ohio and Texas don’t matter.
A rundown of possible scenarios here.
The Grand Panjandrum
But … but … but … Weeeeeeeeeeeeee! Lets rearrange the deck chairs!
fishbane
but win 65-45 or better.
That would indeed be an impressive win; I’d say for the entire Democratic party. Talk about giving 110%!
cleek
i wouldn’t mind it so much if Clinton had shown even 1/20th of this fighting spirit in her job as Senator. instead, she’s been a passive, Bush-enabling, failure.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Silly? Yes.
Bad? Not necessarily.
This might just help the country come to understand what it is that’s despicable about modern politics. And if Obama doesn’t crack, Hillary will show them a world of angst.
I _am_ still worried though that Hillary — full of energy but without message — will drift off the left side of the map and appear on the right side.
Hillary Clinton, in studio with Hannity. (Not a prediction, but I’m stating it’s a possibility.)
John Cole
See what posting in a hurry does?
Roonieroo
Just got back from voting in my precinct. It was fun here in little Manor, Texas. The line was quite long and we were all just chatting waiting for the line to inch forward. Texas primaries are such that you have to declare which one you are voting in and get that accompanying ballot.
The Republican judge comes out and calls for any Republicans and about 3 break out of the line and walk ahead. Then about 15 minutes laters she comes out and says, rather loudly, “Any Republicans? No waiting line for Republicans!” Needless to say the very long line of Democrats could not contain the fit of giggles.
The Republican election judge smiled with a very genuine sense of the humor of the situation as about 5 more Republicans broke out of the mob of Democrats.
I’m going to the caucus tonight. That should be a TON of fun in a very, very small building with a LOT of Democrats showing up.
taodon
I have to say that I am disillusioned. I am a supporter of Sen. Obama, but I am quickly becoming resigned to the fact that Sen. Clinton will stop at nothing to be the Democratic nominee, even if it means destroying the party in the process.
Elvis Elvisberg
Not a shock they’d say something like that today. If it actually happens, that’s the time for the outrage.
Rarely Posts
Wow, did her aides really say desperate? I kind of doubt it. You people need to calm down. She isn’t going to destroy the party and she certainly has the right to give it her best shot.
Zifnab
Hey, let Clinton run the McCain commercials early. If we get to hear Yawn McPain trout out the exact same talking points as Hitlery Clinton, after Obama scored smashing wins nationwide in the primary, I can’t imagine repeatedly chanting “Not experienced! Not experienced!” for another six straight months is going to find the Republicans any new voters.
Besides, McCain’s foreign policy consists of various powers of ten that we should remain in Iraq for. That’s not exactly a winning platform at this stage of the game.
jrg
So, is HRC trying to “out-nader” Nader, or “out-huckabee” Huckabee? Either way, she looks increasingly unhinged.
Dennis - SGMM
With respect, she gave it her best shot and she lost eleven in a row. She gave it her best shot and her double digit leads in Ohio and Texas are down to a dead heat. Her utterly clueless campaign suggests that she is the only Democrat who could manage to lose to Senator Methuselah in the general election.
Poopyman
Let ’em.
Let them hang in the race as the percentages she needs steadily goes up. Let them run Bill’s reputation into the ground. Let them prove just how desparate Hillary is to win the nomination.
With Obama’s winning margins to date I don’t think the superdelegates are going to bolt for Clinton. They’re politicians, and pay attention to which way the wind is blowing. And right now it’s blowing a gale for Obama.
The longer she stays in, the more irrelevant she’ll be after August. And that may just be what the Democratic Party needs now.
Pb
And, therefore, approaching the point where Hillary will never get my vote for any office, ever, period. Now cue the Hillary-over-party crowd to tell us all why this is such a great move for her.
ThymeZone
Well, most of these candidates do their “I’m in it to the end” routines the loudest just before they finally give up. That’s pretty standard behavior, so if she doesn’t get the strong wins she needs in TX and OH, she just might call a press conference in the morning and hang ’em up.
What really troubles me is that myiq and lukasiak won’t give up, even if she does.
The Grand Panjandrum
If Clinton gets the nomination are we to take her at her word and vote for the most experienced candidate? No thanks.
After 28 years of Bush/Clinton in the Executive branch I’ll pass on that. I remember the experience of the Clintons whining about the VRWC. I remember the experience of Bill Clinton, with full knowledge that the VRWC was out to get him, giving that same VRWC an opening by fooling around with the Fat Girl. I remember the experience of defending Him. No, it should not have been an issue, because it really is not anyone’s business, but guess what. The Clintons knew the VRWC was out to get them, and Bill gave them an opening. I’ve had about all the experience I can take after the last 16 years.
No more Bill, Hillary, W, Jeb, or anyone with those family names for at least 100 years. Please.
4tehlulz
There are rumors, via Tom Brokaw, that 50 superdelegates are going to Obama tomorrow regardless of the outcome today.
She may be finished by the end of the week if this starts a landslide of defections (I’m not holding my breath though).
Predictions:
Obama – Vermont +20, Texas 10 to 20 delegate net.
Clinton: RI +9, OH +7
TheFountainHead
I agree Dennis. She was the candidate with the money, the connections, the main stream media (at least until they met Obama in late 2007) and she was the “inevitable” candidate. Her campaign has been poorly run (and that’s putting it nicely) and she’s engaged in campaign tactics that help no one but herself at the detriment to her colleagues and her party. The fact that she’s behind a 150 pledged delegates and has lost 11 straight contests in the last month and is STILL being considered a valid candidate by the media shows you just how powerful her friends and husband are. I’m a political junkie, drawn to the power of words and even the smallest acts of government to improve the lives of its people, but even I can’t stand to watch this primary contest any more. If the Democratic party, let alone, the American people, cannot at this moment in history elect a man like Barack Obama, it will be a powerful blow to hope that we are not destined for mediocrity and a quiet whimper.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I’m just amazed that her best shot at destroying the party isn’t that good.
Myiq thinks she’s a vindicive, chainsaw wielding maniac. She’s getting pwned by a newb do-gooder. Should we start a pool on when myiq’s heart finally breaks?
Conservatively Liberal
I remember awhile back when I said that Clinton would do this and the Clintonistas raged away at me for even thinking it. I agree with Bill Richardson, whoever has the delegate lead after today should be the Democratic nominee.
The way I see it, Hillary told me yesterday that Yawn McCain has ‘experience’ like her but that Obama only has speeches. Well, if it is experience that counts in a McCain and Clinton matchup, I would say that McCain has a heck of a lot more experience than she does.
Sorry, I could never bring myself to vote for Hillary. Nope, not gonna happen.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Nah, myiq will form the Dolchstoss Left and maybe start campaigning for Nader.
Luk will say he was ALWAYS for Obama, citing the 32.4% of posts he made slighting Clinton on minor process issues, and that 65.3% of his posts never counted.
Punchy
Aren’t delegates winner-take-all? So can you explain why she must win by so much? IOW, is there really a difference, besides psychological, between a 2 point win and a 20?
TIA.
chopper
4tehlulz, i do think that hillary’s recent statements have left a bad taste in the mouth of many democrats. i can see why many supers might be looking to go with obama if they see clinton putting herself above the party.
as to clinton leaving the race, it’s a balance. most candidates don’t want to overstay their welcome or try to tear things up forcing a brokered convention against the odds (the DNC has made it clear that they don’t want a brokered convention). though clinton comes off as more tenacious than most, i doubt she wants to look like the huckabee of the democratic party.
at the same time, the longer the horse race is the more we get to see the real side of a candidate as well as see what goes on in the minds of their closest advisors (what, you think candidates kick their advisors to the curb as soon as they win?). and the more people in the later-primary states have a reason to get off their asses and vote. it sucks for states like penn. to have such a late primary cause it always seems like by the time they get out to vote the choice has already been made.
lastly, clinton has to be very careful she doesn’t piss off too many rank-and-file democrats in this primary. if she goes too far in putting herself above the party, or resorts to chicanery or still tries to take down the clear choice for the nomination she’s going to catch hell when she’s up for reelection in the senate ala lieberman.
Chubbs
How about the Canadians trying to sandbag Obama? Nice of them to “leak” that memo when they did.
I’ll vote Democratic in November, regardless of the nominee, but if Clinton somehow pulls this out, come December I’m changing my party affiliation to independent. I’m tired of the Democrats being spineless and I’m tired of supporting a party that seems to think Republican-lite is the way to go.
ntr Fausto Carmona
This comment from the TNR piece is worth repeating:
Jim
Face the facts, she is going to win both Texas and Ohio today, and she will be in it to the end. I have no clue how it will play out, but assuming Obama wins this weekend’s contests, but Hillary wins in Pennsylvania, she will claim she can win the big purple states. The lead up to the convention will be fascinating to say the least, although it may just put McCain in the White House. A McCain/Clinton matchup may be just the thing to make me swear off politics altogether. It may also be just the thing to let the Republicans keep the White House for another 4 years at least. We will have a very conservative Supreme Court for the next 25 years.
TheFountainHead
Have you been under a rock, Punchy? These delegates are by no means winner-take-all.
Kirk Spencer
Punchy, no, they are not winner-take-all. They’re proportioned.
The Republicans have some WTL contests. The Dems specifically wrote their rules to forbid it.
cleek
most of the Dem primaries are proportional, while most of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all.
John S.
You are on the exact same page as me. Nice to know I’m not just howling at the moon.
Jen
A text msg exchange with my sister, the reluctant Obama Ohio voter…
Can you sense the reluctance?
Punchy
Thanks. I had no idea.
Can I shift my support to Mike Gravel?
John S.
No, he won’t. I do not believe he will vote for McCain over Obama, or for a useless third party candidate. Nor do I believe that p.lukasiak would, either.
They know the stakes are high for the next four years, and I for one look forward to having such rabid supporters gunning for Obama – if it comes down to that, of course.
John S.
The fact is that winning won’t be enough. It is – and always has been – about delegates. She may stick around until November if she likes, but if she doesn’t outperform today, the math will not be on her side.
She can claim whatever she likes, but again, the math simply will not be on her side. The only way she can win this thing without huge victories today is to cut a backroom deal with the super delegates.
And that will prove to be a pyrrhic victory at best.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
p luk is an obvious Dem shill, so yes, he’ll switch.
But myiq? Nooooo no no noooo. I can’t believe that. I honestly believe that those who desperately — emotionally — want a bloody and violent war and don’t find one go off looking for a fight. Iraq is a partial example.
Obama won’t give myiq a war. McCain _might_. But Nader will, because Nader is that kind of self-important douche.
Face
Eggs-actly. And it will happen. And it will be hugely unpopular. And she’ll get a ton of bad media for it, and get waxed in November. Yea?
John S.
If that’s how it goes down, yeah.
That’s the very definition of a pyrrhic victory: You win the battle, but at a cost so dear that you lose the war.
reid
Setting aside personal preferences (Obama! oh, pardon), does anyone else think it’s interesting how much exposure Hillary’s been getting the last several days? Big deals like SNL and Daily Show, plus the usual array of talk shows. I’ve seen very little of Obama. She’s done pretty well in her appearances, too. I understand she’s running herself ragged these last few days in a last-ditch effort, but shouldn’t he? I may just be watching the wrong shows.
Another observation is that it seems like 90% of the news headlines the last few weeks (at least) revolve around Hillary on my yahoo home page. Even when it’s a dual-item, like “Day of reckoning for Clinton, Obama”, they’re showing a picture of her. I’m not sure what to make of it, but it just adds to the feeling that she’s getting lots more publicity for better or worse.
Jake
Great. Good. Let her. We all know the Republicans aren’t that good with the two-front war thing.
Having to deal with HRC and BHUSSEINO keeps them off balance and praying they won’t have to re-write their “Oh Noes, Hitlery Clenis Blow Job!” scripts. Maybe the RNC will blow the rest of its cash [$512.36 and a Canadian quarter] trying to go after both of them at once.
cleek
yeah, she has been all over the media this last week. it makes me wonder why Obama hasn’t.
ntr Fausto Carmona
I don’t know. The ball’s in the superdelegates’ court and whoever they don’t back is going to feel screwed regardless. With both sides digging in and with less and less time left to patch things up before November, I’m getting a bad feeling either way.
ntr Fausto Carmona
Its possible his campaign has seen the poll numbers, realized today wouldn’t be decisive, and has been stocking away resources for the next round.
Michael
Oh…
For a second there, I thought this was going to be a post about
telecom amnesty, sorry, “targeted immunity,” and people who thought Democrats in Congress were ever going to do anything other than give Mr.19% exactly what he wants.Again.
But nice post on Clinton anyway…
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
SNL: I think they’re shilling because the HRC Campaign offered to make MSNBC the next Fox News. Yes, this is a wild-assed guess: Hillary follows the Rove playbook like it’s Gospel. Since they can’t have Fox, they have to elevate one of the others. Further crap evidence: Dana Milbank’s attempts to make Hillary look good without breaking journalistic ethics (it doesn’t work too well).
The Daily Show is easy to explain. If Obama didn’t generate his own media so effortlessly, he’d be on TDS. Since he’s not, and he’s got most of the spotlight, TDS isn’t getting used as much. And frankly, Clinton would have to be braindead not to take opportunity of new low, low rates on TDS face time.
You’ve seen very little of Obama because he’s doing the hard footwork, off camera, with the Little People. He’s not just popular: he’s putting some sweat into stopping into as many places as possible. Quite respectable.
reid
Obama may have some inside info on polls, but it makes me uneasy that he may be easing off. It doesn’t cost money to get on the talk shows. I suppose he could be hiding in order to avoid some sort of macaca moment. The dreaded prevent defense: it always works!
L Boom
Just for some background, I’m very much an Obama supporter generally consider myself an ex-moderate now Democratic partisan with a fairly strong leftward tilt and a fairly hardcore civil libertarian. Point being: I’m no Naderite.
That said, this would be an incredibly disheartening election for a huge chunk of the population if Clinton manages to squeak out the nomination through whatever sort of backroom deals she can. Thinking about it really makes me feel like we’re standing on the edge of a Russian-style oligarchy precipice and regardless of the outcome of the fall’s election the system will at that point be too heavily rigged for anyone currently outside of power to break in.
What the hell country are we living in? Depressing thought, especially after reading about what happened to that Austrian ski team coach here:.
L Boom
Quite the opposite, actually, as Caidence (fmr. Chris) says above. His travel schedule has been insane with several campaign stops a day every day. Tons and tons of personal appearances, even going to Rhode Island which is solid Clinton territory and therefore Not Supposed to Matter™.
Cassidy
He’s already campaigning against McCain.
cleek
oh, b.t.w., fuck Hillary
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Relax: He’s not easing off.
You’re used to the usual campaign method of the candidate stopping in town for an hour, and then turning to news cameras and saying “See, I stopped and talked to people. Aren’t I darling?” That’s supposed to amplify their supposed “connection” with the people, by telling the local news they care.
Obama seems to have more comfort in going a longer distance shaking hands and holding forums; I’m guessing he did that a lot while in Chicago. That’s why all of the Obama videos are of him holding a town forum that was well received, instead of him stumping into the camera.
Radio silence can be a good thing.
Billy K
Like Caidence said, I think he’s doing the “under the radar” kind of grunt work in the states. I live in Texas, and he’s been here lots. Plus his ads are EVERYWHERE. I don’t think he’s “letting up.”
Also, I thinkt he media can see the writing on the wall – Obama’s gonna take the nom. They’re not gonna have her in the general so they want to get some face time for Hillery. She’s evokes a strong reaction – good for ratings. Plus, they also have an interest in keeping this competitive for as long as possible. Plus, plus, the media’s crush on Obama may be coming to an end.
In other words – lots of reasons.
reid
I hope you guys are right that Obama is putting in the time in the important places. Not being in one of those states, I don’t see it, but I do see the national spots like SNL. You can hit a lot of people at one time doing something like that, and it burnishes her image. The media now seems to be giving her a bit of “momentum”. I guess we’ll see which strategy is better….
Focusing more on McCain and less on Hillary would be poor strategy, I’d say. It’s time to finish her off.
I’ll be glad when today is over….
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Aren’t ads like that supposed to be tagged with “This has been a message from (someone that’s not a news organization)”?
Admittedly a sleazy attempt, but I’m not sure I can get upset if they followed (what I think are) the rules.
I love how that campaign takes people for information-unaware fools. hehehehehe
Zifnab
Obama’s ground game continues to amaze me. Its his ability to put boots on the ground and turn that into votes at the polls that is going to win this election for him – in the primary and the general. And his victory is going to landslide him support in the House and Senate.
He’s going to Reagen the country come 2008. By then it’ll just be a question of whether the country made the right choice. God, I hope it did.
zzyzx
I’ve given up on Ohio, but I’m hoping that Tejas can come through tonight to end this.
Pb
Time to ask the AP if they’re actually on the Clinton payroll now, instead of just in the tank…
4tehlulz
AP should sue for improper use of its trademark.
Wouldn’t that be hilarious?
ThymeZone
Um, virtually every single scenario and discussion about the Dem primary system references the fact that delegate pledges are proportional. The whole “gotta win big in TX and OH” thing that has been the drumbeat of the story since a month ago, based entirely on this fact.
Even with a state sweep today, it is unlikely that Clinton could overcome Obama’s delegate lead no matter what happens in subsequent states. And a sweep for her today is very unlikely.
THAT’s why there is a constant call for her to get out. Not because we don’t like her, which we don’t, but because it is almost impossible for her to win without grotesque maneuvers such as rule changes, delegate challenges, or desperation appeals to superdelegates.
THAT’s why, when she acts like she won’t give up, people get so pissed off. She can’t win the delegate pledges and win outright. Too late for that unless Obama is shown to be the 21st Terrorist. Which I am sure she is working on as we speak. She cannot win at the voting booth now, only by back room maneuvers.
That’s why tomorrow morning the hue and cry will go out for her to get out of the race. And why she should.
Napoleon
MUP has been all over the media here in Ohio for weeks. Actually I have questioned if HRC is being stupid to take time out to do the higher profile national items like SNL and TDS, when its not a national election but one in just 4 states.
Temple Stark
The update on the “uniting” Fuck Hillary link above?
>>UPDATE: The spot, although not the transcript — which came via the Obama campaign — begins with, “I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.” Which makes it a lot less likely that anybody would mistake it for a news report.
P3wned?
Temple
reid
Napoleon: And the original “macaca moment” was at a local rally, wasn’t it? Obama would really have to be hiding if avoiding that was his strategy.
I kind of agree regarding SNL, but her Daily Show appearance was via satellite from Texas. It didn’t cost her much to make that appearance; just 15 minutes of her time. Obama could have countered with the devastating Colbert bump!
As I mentioned before, being an outsider today, I found it a bit disturbing that Hillary is seen as turning things around, even if just at the national level. Defeats in TX and OH would surely quell that mo’.
Face
Did you even read the post above? She’s not quitting. No matter what.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Obama isn’t easing off. Yesterday Obama basically “ad blocked” Ohio and Texas by buying up all the time available for commercials in those two states.
dslak
Obama can have Hillary’s presidency when he pries it from her cold, dead hands.
orogeny
Don’t want to interfere with all the Clinton hate, but the rest of the Politico article reads:
Typical Clinton trick, putting the disclaimer at the beginning instead of the end of the ad.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No.
If Clinton is publicly airing something, there’s no problem in Obama repeating the airing for interested parties.
Thanks for playing. Try harder next time.
John S.
Ding, ding, ding – we have a winner!
It is further evidence of the ineptitude of Hillary’s campaign. While she’s busy laughing it up on national comedy shows, Obama is quietly working at the state and local level. That is why he has been so successful. It’s also indicative of both their styles. She prefers high profile theatrics and he prefers the low profile grind.
ThymeZone
And in case anyone isn’t 100% sure about what has been going on the last couple of weeks media wise ….
Media viewership depends right now on a prolonged struggle. Therefore, they are going to do whatever it takes to prolong the struggle. For example, if you thought that Hardball running all three Clinton campaign ads yesterday, in full and virtually without editorial comment, was an accident of programming …. guess again. Hardball repeats at the 3-hour interval, so she got 6 full national spots on MSNBC for $0 yesterday evening. You know, on the eve of a critical election day.
Any questions?
peach flavored shampoo
OT:
Uh oh (via S,No):
It’s so easy to establish an impartial justice system when a foreign country is operating it, pulling all the strings.
Call it the Scooter Libby Effect.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That’s what I thought.
Although she still racks another notch on the Pathetic Meter because she thought she had to call it an Election News Update, as if she needs to qualify the information she wants to tip us off on.
How strange that she can’t just climb on the radio and say “Wanted to let you know the Obama camp’s message is different in Canada. Toodles!”
It’s as if she thinks were all Fucking Stupid and only she and her staff know how to speak to us in our Chimp sign-language.
ThymeZone
Hardball pundithead yesterday: Clinton wants to stay in the race, because she knows that the longer people get to see Obama, the more they will discover that he is just another politician.
Matthews: Good point.
Good point, get it? Um, which “point” do you think he was acknowledging? The Clinton point (she wants to stay in) or the Obama point (he’s just another politician)?
This little exchange was juxtaposed with the three free Clinton campaign ads that Hardball inserted into their program to, you know, inform the viewers.
Questions?
demimondian
I think it’s relatively likely that she wins Ohio going away, and quite possibly wins Texas, too. If she loses either one, then, she should drop out. If, however, she wins both — and even if one of those is by a small margin — then she should stay in.
Zifnab
She never writes, she never calls…
Hillary’s ground game is nearly non-existent as far as I can tell. I haven’t been asked to volunteer for her campaign, no one has come to my door to get out my vote, and I’ve received a grand total of zero solicitations to donate to her campaign.
She’s got her core little group of hispanics and democratic insiders, and I’m not in it. By contrast, the MUP has offered me a ride on half a dozen occasions.
Obama’s going to win the primary and leave real, established groundwork for his national campaign. He’s been all over Texas and Ohio, at rallies and in people’s homes. People will remember Barack Obama more kindly in November than they would remember Clinton.
Jorge
At 34, I don’t have any personal history wtih a same party election ever being this harsh and divisive. So maybe things will change – but I honestly can’t see myself voting for HRC versus McCain.
And about 75% of is personal – I’m growing to feel about her the way I feel about the shrub. She might be on my “side”, but I see absolutely no difference between the way she is attacking Obama and the way Rove would have done it. And it isn’t just Hillary, it has been the way her supporters in the media have attacked Obama as if he were the devil. I’ve literally stopped listening to my Sirius left between 9 AM and 3 PM because Alex Bennett and Lynn Samules have been so rabid.
It is hard to vote for somebody if you have a negative visceral reaction to them.
Compound that with the fact that I generally tend to like McCain alot and I really don’t see myself pulling the lever for HRC.
orogeny
I think the problem might be that Obama is selectively quoting the ad (leaving out the leading disclaimer) to give the impression that Clinton is trying to make voters think the spot is a new piece rather than a political ad. Putting the disclaimer at the beginning of the ad makes it pretty clear that that it not her intention.
Dennis - SGMM
I’d go even further and say that the media is pulling for a Clinton/McCain general election. They have all of their scripts made up for that one. It would be just like those old Fifties Sci-fi movies with two sad lizards made up to be dinosaurs “fighting” in strained closeup. The media will add the roars to the soundtrack.
orogeny
Jeeze…guess I need to start putting tags around things. Seems to me that putting the disclaimer at the beginning of the ad was designed specifically to show that it was a political ad rather than a real news update.
Temple Stark
Caidence, no, the point is that the Barack Obama campaign sent an incomplete transcript of the ad for an incomplete reason.
Small stuff clearly but entirely worth a good old “fuck Hillary.” But “fuck Hillary” makes sense, sure, and clearly shows that the Hillary supporters are divisive.
She must have started that C.U.N.T. 527 group, right? It’s her fault. (I just found out that thing was actually real. I thought it was a sick joke.)
I’ll vote for Obama without holding my nose if he’s the nominee by the way.
ThymeZone
Watching folks pull stuff right out of their ass never gets old here, does it?
orogeny
For some reason, the snark tag I put in my last comment disappeared.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Agh goddamnit! It’s always been the journalist’s responsibility to fill in the blanks!!
We’ve been dealing with this lazy journalism for 8 years now, and everybody is OK with it?!?!
When Bush says “We don’t torture”, the media is supposed to say “That’s what Bush says, but he’s wholly wrong.”
If Obama says “Clinton put out a sleazeball ad”, it’s the *journalist’s* responsibility to fill in: “But not very sleazy, seeing as the full ad cops to it being a political message”
And the reason for this? Because Obama’s campaign just wanted to say “Hey, dude, check this out. Stupid HRC ad, over here.” I’m sure Clinton’s campaign does this all the time, and neither campaign should be expected to write the journalist’s story for them!
What if HRC is suspicious of something (Rezko), and wants the suspicion to be made public? They have to spend $5 mil on a private investigation just to say “Obama has some shady friends”? FUCK NO!!
/arrrrgggh!!
zzyzx
Yes I read the post, but if Obama wins Texas, Clinton will be shown the door one way or another.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Check above post. Neither campaign is responsible for crappy journalism. The Obama campaign would have to willfully keep journalists from information (which was obviously available to us) in order to declare them unethical.
I have no freakin’ clue what you’re trying to say. I’ll preempt: I just bash Hillary because she’s incapable of accounting for the fact that I’m just as aware of reality as she is, yet she acts like I’m some fucking moron. “I have experience” is her best line yet, and it’s weak sauce against Obama, and complete shit against McCain. It goes downhill from there. At least Obama isn’t making claims he can’t back.
I don’t care.
orogeny
I thought when you wrote “Aren’t ads like that supposed to be tagged with ‘This has been a message from (someone that’s not a news organization)'” that you were insinuating that HRC was trying to deceive the public with a faux news item. I figured that the intention of the Obama camp in leaving out the disclaimer in their release was to give that impression.
I must have misunderstood, sorry.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No no, I wrote that poorly; you were reasonable to have misunderstood.
cleek
yes, the little disclaimer at the beginning makes it all better.
could you be more disingenuous ?
chopper
the disclaimer is there because it’s the law. yes, of course clinton is trying to make voters think the spot is a news piece. that’s why they made the ad that way.
it’s like when you’re looking through a newspaper and you see what looks like a newspaper story pimping some product. the story looks just like the newspaper print, same font, headline and everything. but at the top there’s a lil banner saying ‘advertisement’. that’s there because it has to be there. and yes, the people who made the ad are definitely trying to make it look like its a news story rather than an ad.
Temple Stark
i wasn’t asking you to care, and you’re not the one who said fuck Hillary. And if you can’t read that the Obama campaign sent the incomplete script, and think he can do no wrong, that’s nothing to do with me.
I’m not actually calling you anything so step back from the ledge and don’t whine.
The Citizens United Not Timid is an actual anti-Hillary 527 group. That’s what I’m talking about. Hillary’s divisive so the conventional wisdom goes and it MUST be her fault that groups like that show and that Democrats call her a bitch and hate her with a right-wing passion. The point is people don’t say Barack Obama is divisive when equally disgusting people say nasty shit about him. (And I said I’d gladly vote for him over a Republican this election to show I’m not a burn-my-bridges idiot who says they won’t support the other candidate) And hillaryis44.com is thought of, around here, it often seems as the be all and end all of criticism against Barack Obama.
Too many thoughts in a short space there? Sorry for the strain.
orogeny
No problem.
I just don’t understand the outrage over this ad. It is pretty mild in comparison to things I’ve seen in other campaigns, bot primary and general. The NAFTA issue is a darned good wedge in states like Ohio and Obama’s people were pretty stupid to give it to HRC. I don’t believe that the Michael Wilson is lying about the conversation he had with Goolsbee. Even Goolsbee isn’t denying it, he’s just saying his comments were “misinterpreted”. To say that Clinton shouldn’t use something like this in the campaign is pretty silly…no politician would turn down a plum issue like this.
TheFountainHead
These people can’t even stand each other…how the hell are they going to lead the free world??
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I still think it’s overkill to be bashing HRC on this. Sure, newspaper ads have ~advertisement~ hiding somewhere, but HRC was forced to put “This is a campaign message” in plain language, so this is moot.
Now, if she had gotten one of those guys thattalkreallyFASTpastthefineprintsoyoucan’tunderstand what. the. trick. is., then THAT would be significant.
Splitting Image
Screw Clinton. She would never have been my favourite candidate, but at the start of the campaign I would certainly have regarded her as a good choice for president.
Watching their respective campaigns made me prefer Obama to her, but not in the sense that I thought of her as a potential disaster.
After hearing her endorse McCain over Obama on national security, however, that’s the end of it. She really is nothing more than a junior-league Bush.
Temple Stark
It can be that Ben Smith is a hack journalist – of course it shouldn’t be put out there without listening to the ad himself – AND that the Obama campaign was trying to mislead, no?
>>I must have misunderstood, sorry.
ditto on what orogeny said. That was the point I was launching from.
orogeny
This is not a newspaper ad. It’s a Radio Spot. It opens with the words “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message”. It ends with “Paid for by Clinton for President.” How much more obvious do they need to get??
chopper
i have no real beef with the ad, former chris. i just think it’s loopy to act like the clinton campaign didn’t want to make it sound like a news story. of course they did.
John S.
I tend to agree, although I think it is more about delegates than “wins”.
If she wins enough delegates to eat into Obama’s lead, then she should stay. If she loses Texas, that isn’t going to happen, and she should definitely consider a graceful exit.
John S.
If you catch the radio spot in the middle, the disclaimers aren’t worth a shit.
I have no real beef with the ad itself, but speaking as someone in advertising, I’m not a huge fan of the advertorial. The whole point of one is to trick people into thinking an ad is something else, disclaimers or not.
Jake
With Tweety, probably the one at the end of his beak.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I did. I told you what’s supposed to happen. Why should Clinton and Obama do all of the journalism when they’ve got enough on their plate already?
I didn’t know Obama’s campaign wrote the published piece.
What the hell is wrong with you? You posted first:
_then_, completely out of left field, you posted
Your stupid “C.U.N.T.” thing is off the topic you, yourself, initiated. (Also, something so disgustingly super-sexist gets no positive mention in front of us, and I haven’t ever seen it spoken of positively here; you’re the first to bring it up.)
Get with it: Hill put out a silly, mostly-harmless ad, Obama tipped someone off, the tip-receiver farted it off like a lazy fuck, and you’re blaming Obama because he didn’t proofread the journalist’s shit story. Because obviously Presidents have to run the Media, too.
Stop trolling.
Temple Stark
Speaking as someone recently in editorial / news, I don’t like the advertoiral either. It’s not usually the same font as the newspaper though.
Chris Johnson
NICE. I’m in Vermont and I just went out and voted for him, even though this blog considers my state ‘tiny’ (sob!). A lot of the reason I’m actually downright pleased to do so is, it’s not a ‘defensive’ vote. It’s not about who’s electable or who can sling mud worse than republicans. The impression I get is that this guy actually will pay attention- to things that matter to us Vermonters, and not only that he’ll be paying attention to the things that matter in Mississipi which we have no sympathy for at all.
It makes total sense that he’d spend time talking to Rhode Islanders even though it ‘doesn’t matter’ to his campaign. Because THAT WILL BE HIS JOB and he’s already doing it.
And not to compile a focus-tested list of positions that will win elections, because we Americans can be fools sometimes. But to LISTEN and understand us better, rather than brainlessly celebrating us or brainlessly condemning us.
Here’s hoping he doesn’t get shot in the face by Dick Cheney, because if I get to vote for this dude in the general election, it’ll be like having voted for FDR or JFK- it’ll be one of those rare moments where a guy steps up and is prepared to be the real thing, at at time when people are tired of nonsense and bullshit. He won’t please everybody, but the union will totter along a few more decades thanks to his common sense.
The amazing thing is, the simple fact of Obama being honest with people and concerned with them to my mind completely overshadows his race. In normal times, First Black President would be an astonishing thing and a big step, but these days it’s almost moot.
We’ve got the Neocon Circus in there- they’ll laugh! they’ll spy! they’ll bomb! they’ll shoot you in the face at golf! …and compared to that and Hillary’s wild ambition, Obama is by far the most normal person in the whole election. What would really be cool is if a black man could be President in a race where his opponents weren’t insane, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it…
Temple Stark
Speaking as someone recently in editorial / news, I don’t like the advertorial either. It’s not usually the same font as the newspaper though.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
OK, I take back the accusation that you’re trolling. Sorry ’bout that.
D-Chance.
Clinton is staying in because she needs to tear down Obama as much as possible for the general election campaign. An Obama win means she’s gone from the presidential picture until 2016. A McCain win means she begins her campaign for the 2012 elections on 01/21/09.
And don’t think the Republicans don’t know (and approve of) this.
Temple Stark
Jeez Caidence we’re coming to an agreement and you’re getting pissy?
I think what I wrote is called, an “example.”
An example of what you appeared to be doing at first, which was blame Hillary for the “deception” in this ad, when in fact it appears to the Obama campaign who sent the incomplete script to someone they figured might not check.
demimondian
There are a number of MUP true believers who manage it every day.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
When I do so, it won’t be followed with a question mark. Teh intargooglies aren’t good for flowing rhetorical questions. I’ll just state it.
Bobzim
OK, I’m done with this blog. I understand the need for advertising, but I refuse to be hit over the head with it.
cleek
did you read the transcript Time got from the Obama campaign? did you read all the way to the end ?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
/headpalm/
Go figure. Had I not been flying through the text, I could have ended the above tussle before it started.
I deserve that humiliation as much as the next guy.
ThymeZone
More of the same gotcha politics. Trade agreements are not something that can be turned on and off with a switch, any more than wars can be stopped on a dime.
Nobody is going to pull the plug on NAFTA in a hurry, and Obama’s assurances to the canuckistans are quite appropriate. What’s also appropriate is taking responsibility for getting us into NAFTA in the first place. If you think it was a good thing to do, fine, stand up for it. Educate the voters who hate it and try to convince them that it was a good idea. But to basically be a part of its inception and then try to act like maybe we aren’t really all that much in favor of it now, sort of like the way Clinton did with the war and AUMF, doesn’t really feed the bulldog.
I am no expert on trade, and really have never had a strong opinion on NAFTA one way or the other. Capital flows like water, you can’t stop it from flowing to where gravity wants to take it. If cheaper labor is available, capital is going to go there. Trying to rein in the flow of capital in order to save jobs that have become obsolete due to their high cost seems to me to be a fool’s idea. If people in Ohio, or anywhere else, are not smart enough to understand the realities of the new world, then let them thrash around and make bad choices. Eventually they will either figure it all out, or they won’t.
I think that the Canadian NAFTA thing is a smokescreen by the Clintons to deflect from the fact that they have NAFTA tatooed on their foreheads, and they don’t want the voters in Ohio to see it.
John S.
But that’s the whole point. People do not read carefully – they skim. That’s a bona fide fact. And that’s exactly why there are advertorials, because advertisers are counting on people not catching the little disclaimer.
myiq2xu
It’s all my fault.
I told Hillary if she stayed in the race no matter what happened today, John Cole’s head was gonna explode.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Last time we did that, their bad decision preceded egregious war crimes, massive expenditures, and Stalinesque political prosecutions. I’m a little afraid to let them get behind the wheel, you know?
Temple Stark
Yes John S. but was it worth a “fuck Hillary”? And again, the disclaimers were at the beginning and the end.
Caidence, I’m just glad my confusion wasn’t quite as confused as I was beginning to fear.
– Temple
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I dunno… I know I skip over the [advertisement] [/advertisement] tags (or whatever), but I can usually tell when someone is being unusually didactic.
“You know what’s TOTALLY RADICAL, DUDE?? Like, TOTALLY? PVC plumbing pipe! Yeeah! Screw lead piping! Yeah, man, fuck that guy!”
I go: “lolwut?”
/glance upwards/
/notice “~advertisement~”/
/move on/
I think people are bright enough to notice that the “news update” is awfully focused on a minor discrepancy.
I just think it’s sad that Hillary thinks people can’t tell the difference.
Temple Stark
Last post on this thread, promise … but what would the Obama campaign be doing releasing the script from a Hillary ad anyway unless they wanted to create a misinterpretation?
-temple
cleek
yes. and so is this.
John S.
Oh, definitely not. Besides, there are so many other things one could have that sort of reaction to. Although I think for some people, the “fuck Hillary” response is aggregate and not necessarily based on any one thing at this point.
But I think I made it clear I personally have no beef with her advertorial, I’m just not a fan of them in general. And it leads people to think she would be inclined to have fake press conferences (Bush style) if elected to office.
myiq2xu
Looks like the MUPpet heads are ready to pop.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
and we return to the core issue: the _most_ important purpose of advertising and journalism to simply to let you know that something exists.
Do I give a shit that Burger King’s (fictional) brand new 2/3 lb. burger is flame-broiled and topped with everything? Hell no. But if I’m hungry, it’s good to know that there’s a 2/3rd lb. burger available across the street. I’ll apply my own adjectives afterwards.
Obama neither gains nor loses points for tipping a journalist to something notable. Now, if Obama had started pushing a message “You know, this totally means Hillary’s a bitch, because she’s SO disrespectin’ teh nooz!”, then Obama starts to accrue negative points, because he’s trying to influence opinion.
My opinion is my job, not theirs.
For further example, see the “Xerox” screw up. She said Obama plagiarized. People said “I understand, but I’m not sure yet”, as normal. She then said “Change you can Xerox”, trying to force the opinion, and people punished her for acting as if she could be the ultimate judge of history. No good; can’t do that.
mrmobi
And the worst part is, I think it might just have worked in Ohio. Obama and Clinton both backed off immediate abandonment of NAFTA during the last debate (Timmeh did not get his “gotcha” moment on that question).
As to your point about NAFTA, I couldn’t agree more. While it would be a great thing to ensure that American workers don’t see their health and safety undermined by a treaty, that won’t mean a lot if the change results in even less jobs, will it?
You know, a while back I said in here that I’d be delighted to pull the lever for either Democratic candidate. Hillary is not doing herself any favors with folks like me. Her latest “point” is that McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama. That’s true, but a less politically motivated person than me might just take that as a reason not to pull any lever in November.
Face
Uh huh. And I’ll nail Mary-Kate Olsen, one way or another. Wow. I had no idea it was that simple!
Punchy
LOTS of angry people here today.
cleek
they released the transcript because they want to show that Clinton is trying to mislead voters with ads that sound like actual news stories – legally-mandated disclaimers aside.
this is not a tricky topic.
John S.
This is the sort of thing that makes me disgusted with Hillary:
Every time she does McCain’s dirty work for him, I lose a little more respect for her.
Cassidy
That’s a question for Bill!
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Are you losing respect for her because she’s fighting mean, or because she won’t bow out gracefully?
If the former, we disagree. She should urge if there’s something there. The _whole point_ of that is to say “if McCain has dirty work to do on Obama, you better ditch him and go with me”
Of course, this assumes she’s can still win, which most people are believing impossible.
Scrutinizer
Ah, no. This doesn’t come close to being the most devisive ever. Off the top of my head, Taft-Roosevelt (the other one), Kennedy-Johnson, (both prior to the primary system as we know it today, but plenty contentious), Reagan-Ford, even Reagan-Bush (the one with the brain) after that—remember voodoo economics? Sadly Poppy got stoopid, but during the primary, it was plenty rough. Then there was Mondale-Hart-Jackson in ’84 (in which election superdelegates played an important role), and the whole thing with Hart and whats-her-name in 1988.
Even with the sniping and sink-slinging, this primary has been relatively tame for the Democrats.
Cassidy
Hillary is 44 is bieng pansies…moderating comments and all…
John S.
Then we disagree.
I find it disgusting that a Clinton is looking to do a Whitewater job on somebody else.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Hey, she’s only urging. She’s leaving it up to the press to do the work, and it looks like the press can’t find shit. If they could, we’d have something.
Now, if she were manufacturing false evidence, _then_ she’d be doing a job.
Napoleon
You left out Kennedy/Carter in 80, or McGovern/Muskie/Humphrey/Wallace in 72, which arguably has continued to be refought over the years in the party (well except the Wallace part, that went to the Republicans.
Bob In Pacifica
After today the superdelegates will all flock to the eventual winner, Barack Obama. It’s over. 2:36 Pacific time.
Davebo
Hey dude, don’t go dissing Hillary and the Magical Unity Pantsuit.
It’s up at 3:00AM while you’re dreaming about hating your country!
Splitting Image
“Are you losing respect for her because she’s fighting mean, or because she won’t bow out gracefully?”
I’m losing respect for her because she’s trying to gain “fighter” cred by attacking Obama instead of the guy who was happy to end the Washington state caucus with 13% of the vote uncounted, seems to have had a nice relationship with a well-placed lobbyist, and has recently sidled up to the worst anti-Catholic bigot in the country.
If she spent half of the time that she’s spent dealing with Obama attacking McCain and showing she could do a better job of it than Obama could, his whole campaign would flatline.
Instead, all she’s done is declare publicly that McCain has the experience to be President and Obama does not.
This needs to be over. Now.
myiq2xu
The MUPpets will be so sad without Hillary to hate on.
Then again, as the months pass and November nears, they will still blame her when the voters cry out “real ponies don’t oink!”
Conservatively Liberal
Vermont has been called for Obama on MSNBC. Three more to go. I hope he kicks ass in those too.
I do not hate Hillary, I don’t like her brand of politics. Her positions suck, and she makes poor decisions. It is that plain and simple, no misogyny involved. The Clintonistas really hug that hate/misogyny tight as if it validates their poor position in the primary.
People like to joke about the MUP supporters being delusional, but in my mind it is the Hillary supporters who are delusional. If Obama was in her position, her supporters would be screaming that it is over and he should give up. The only reason Hillary is still running is because of her name. Anyone else would have dropped out by now.
If Hillary is handed the primary win by the SD’s, she will singlehandedly depress Democratic turnout in the general, increase Republican turnout to vote against her and hurt downticket Democrats. Yet her supporters ignore these issues and call the Obama supporters delusional.
Makes for great comedy though! ;)