Why Should She?

While I do not think Hillary is going to win the nomination, articles like this sort of irk me:

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she’d drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I’m hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary’s political career. She won’t, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she’s in so much trouble in the first place.

Why should she get out now? She has spent years preparing for this run, has millions of supporters who want her to continue, she still has a shot (albeit a small one, I think) at winning, and I think she owes it to herself and those who have sacrificed so much to get her this close to continue on. Should she lose the next few states and really start to trail badly in delegates, I think she should probably get out, but it should be on her own terms. Trying to pressure her out right now doesn’t sit right with me, though. What is so bad about letting the voters have their say?






262 replies
  1. 1
    4tehlulz says:

    Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn’t.

    Wait, has he counted the delegates? WTF?

  2. 2
    Jake says:

    Why should she get out now?

    To make bobble heads like Alter feel relevant.

    NSSA2NSSQ Vol. I

  3. 3
    over_educated says:

    Yeah, for as much as I don’t enjoy the merry-go-round of idiocy coming out of her campaign recently, she has every right to stay in as long as she is viable. And she IS still viable.

    On anohter note, check this out:

    http://www.politico.com/news/s...../8659.html

    Republicans are doing polling to see how far they can go attacking the gender and/or race of a candidate. What the hell? It’s like they are TRYING to become cartoon-like villians.

  4. 4
    zzyzx says:

    She has the right to run, but if all she is doing is driving down Obama and not building herself up, one does have to ask what the point is.

    I wish some of her advisers would remind her that there is a general election to be won too…

  5. 5
    ThymeZone says:

    “Hillary should get out” stories are irrelevant until she can’t win. I would say that’s about nine days away.

    After that, if there is not a path to the nomination for her that doesn’t involve delegate tinkering and changing rules on the fly, then I think she should gracefully bow out. I don’t think she will, but I think she should.

    But there is no earthly reason for her to do it today.

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    The answer is in the first line:

    If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she’d drop out now

    Of course, if she doesn’t, then she can stay in. Apparently, she’s going to go down fighting.

    Trying to pressure her out right now doesn’t sit right with me, though. What is so bad about letting the voters have their say?

    If she were running a clean campaign, and uniting with Obama against McCain, I’d be totally fine with her staying in. But I’m not fond of the petulant scorched-earth “if I can’t have it you can’t either” tactics she’s using now. Still, yes, I hope that the voters will decide; may their voices be heard, despite whatever the Clinton campaign may be saying about them now.

    Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

    The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

  7. 7
    The Other Steve says:

    I think the March 4th date being drop dead is accurate. There’s a chance that if she won Texas and Ohio with 20 point leads she could turn this ship around, and I do agree with John that it’s reasonable for her to try to do so.

    It seems there are two arguments to be made for giving up now.

    #1. I support Obama, and it’d sure be nice.

    #2. But but! The Republicans will be mean to us if we don’t unite now behind one candidate.

    Of these I only support #1. #2 is pretty damned stupid, this idea that the Democrats are divided and fighting is going to make it easier for Yawn McPain to win. It’s a concern troll argument.

  8. 8
    Kirk Spencer says:

    One big reason I’m glad she’s waiting is the practice the ground games get before the general election. Learning what works and what doesn’t – for YOUR party – will make a huge difference in a few more months.

  9. 9
    cleek says:

    What is so bad about letting the voters have their say?

    if this thing is over after next Tuesday, there are ten states whose voters will have had no chance to have any say at all. if you really want voters to have their say, i assume you’re up for another 5 months of primary coverage ?

    that said… yeah, she should stick it out until at least next week. if she doesn’t utterly crush Obama in OH and TX, she should get out.

  10. 10
    Svensker says:

    Hey, you trying to get miq and pluk’s heads to ‘splode? Enuf with the nice stuff about Hillary.

  11. 11
    myiq2xu says:

    Why should Hillary quit? They’re still going to have the remaining primaries whether she’s there or not. Why not let the voter count for something?

    And since it is unlikely that either candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win outright, the nomination won’t be decided until the superdelegates vote in August at the convention.

    Six months is an eternity in politics. Despite what they might say today, by the time of the convention the superdelegates could be switching their votes.

    If Obama is the one, then he’ll still be the one in August.

    The whole meme that this process is “divisive” is bullshit. Elections are divisive because they force people to choose sides. But since when is the democratic process bad for democracy or the Democratic Party?

  12. 12
    crw says:

    Well, Hillary is effectively tied in TX and still has a commanding lead in OH and PA. This week is going to be all shades of ugly, but there’s no reason on earth for her to drop now. You can damn well bet McCain will not drop the week before November just because the momentum looks bad. He’ll go all in, the way Hillary is, only with even more dog whistles and smears. If Obama can prevail in the face of a full court press, I’ll feel a lot better about his chances in November.

  13. 13
    Jake says:

    From La Politico:

    “Fair or unfair, but that’s going to be a reality,” said GOP strategist John Weaver, a longtime confidant of John McCain. “The P.C. [politically correct] police will be out and the standards will be very narrow.”

    Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

    It’s fact-free smears against the op or nothin’ but the most obvious targets (genitals and skin color) are now off limits and might make things worse. Essentially, they’re admitting they can’t run a campaign based on actual issues.

  14. 14
    empty says:

    I was pretty pissed when Edwards dropped out. I figured if he stayed, even he didn’t win, he could use his delegates as leverage to influence the policy positions of the winner. But then one forgets sometimes that candidates are real people with lives that are severely effected by campaigns. Bottom line, its up to her to decide.

  15. 15
    myiq2xu says:

    Hey, you trying to get miq and pluk’s heads to ‘splode? Enuf with the nice stuff about Hillary.

    Hillary was my fifth choice among the Democrats, so I’m not exactly emotionally invested in her candidacy.

  16. 16
    jon says:

    I am glad she’s still in. I want Obama to have more debates, prove himself, get more experience, have more desperate bullshit be flung at him so he can fend it off, and be prepared for what is coming. Plus, the more I see of Obama, the more there is to like. Once this is wrapped up, I doubt there will be more than two GOP/Democratic debates. And I bet they will both suck.

    There is a point where Clinton going after Obama might hurt him in the general election, and it might be close or long passed. But I really don’t think there is much chance of either Clinton supporters or Obama supporters going to McCain in November. The chances of a low turnout are always there, and some of it will be blamed on Clinton’s Obamabashing of late, but low turnout is always a problem when my party loses. I hope those other guys are complaining about that come a year from now.

  17. 17
    Jamey says:

    Why? Because her attacks against Barack will have to become more and more negative and pointed. So in reality, all she’ll be doing is burning other peoples’ money and weakening the Democratic candidate before McCain even has the gloves on.

    That’s why.

  18. 18
    myiq2xu says:

    If she were running a clean campaign, and uniting with Obama against McCain, I’d be totally fine with her staying in. But I’m not fond of the petulant scorched-earth “if I can’t have it you can’t either” tactics she’s using now.

    Scorched-earth? ROFLMAO!

    If you think this is bad, wait until the general election. You should be grateful that Hillary is still around to draw fire away from Obama. The GOP is impatiently waiting for Obama to win the nomination so they can go after him with the Slime Machine in full excrement mode.

  19. 19
    John S. says:

    Hillary was my fifth choice among the Democrats, so I’m not exactly emotionally invested in her candidacy.

    Jesus, I’d hate to have seen how you rant and rave on behalf of your first choice of candidate.

  20. 20
    Xenos says:

    She has the right to run, but if all she is doing is driving down Obama and not building herself up, one does have to ask what the point is.

    Actually, every time she trots out a picture or some other bogus attempt to undermine Obama with Rovian tactics Obama just gets stronger and the Rovian tactics get discredited. Obama is getting inoculated by this, and the Obama-Clinton story continues to suck up all the oxygen, and McCain gets no favorable press.

    While I would like to think Hillary was being a bastard out of altruistic purposes, I don’t want her to stop, not now!

  21. 21
    myiq2xu says:

    Why? Because her attacks against Barack will have to become more and more negative and pointed. So in reality, all she’ll be doing is burning other peoples’ money and weakening the Democratic candidate before McCain even has the gloves on.

    Negative stories about Hillary is “calling her on her bullshit.”

    Negative stories about Obama is “weakening the Democratic candidate.”

  22. 22
    Davebo says:

    I don’t think Clinton should drop out either.

    But I wonder what the Clinton camp would be saying right now had she won the last 11 primaries?

  23. 23
    John S. says:

    You should be grateful that Hillary is still around to draw fire away from Obama.

    I am. I’m also glad that she is emulating a Republican and throwing the same kind of shit at Obama that they will.

    It’s good practice.

  24. 24
    4tehlulz says:

    OT:

    OH HO HO!!

    Josh Romney, one of former Gov. Mitt Romney’s five sons, says it’s “possible” his father may rejoin the race for the White House, as a vice presidential candidate or as the Republican Party’s standard-bearer if the campaign of Sen. John McCain falters.

  25. 25
    John S. says:

    But I wonder what the Clinton camp would be saying right now had she won the last 11 primaries?

    That Obama should get out of the race for the good of the party. And miiq2xu and p.lukasiak would be behind her 100% as bizarro-world versions of themselves.

  26. 26
    Pb says:

    myiq2xu,

    What, I’m supposed to be grateful that Hillary’s smears against Obama aren’t as quite as nasty as the expected Republican smears you seem to fear so much? You know, like that ‘patriotism’ smear we already had the other day? So how did Hillary being in the race draw any fire away on that one–did she defend him on it?

    Clinton has lambasted him all weekend for tactics she said were reminiscent of Karl Rove and dared him to “meet me in Ohio” to take up the dispute.

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  27. 27

    Hillary has to win Texas AND Ohio for her to go on past next Tuesday. It’s not going to happen. Texas is going to fall in with Obama at a 65/35. Ohio will be closer, 55-45.

    It ain’t over til the fat lady sings, and I see Hillary warming up as I write this.

  28. 28
    John S. says:

    It ain’t over til the fat lady sings, and I see Hillary warming up as I write this.

    Everyone knows I’m not a fan of Hillary, but I don’t find comments like this at all helpful. Besides, Hillary is in pretty good shape for a woman of 60.

  29. 29
    Badtux says:

    Well, the reason she could get out now without feeling like she’s giving up before the outcome is known is pretty clear. Looking at the upcoming races it appears Obama is going to win them 60/40. For better or for worse, a majority of the Democrats have decided on Obama, and Clinton simply isn’t executing in a manner that would overcome that, her campaign is chaos, she’s essentially out of money, she has no large volunteer network to take the place of paid staffers that she doesn’t have in upcoming states…

    Which is a shame, really. Clinton is scary smart and has a firm handle on all the policy wonkery needed to govern effectively, while Obama, while plenty intelligent himself, is no policy wonk. But Hillary made too many campaign decisions that simply didn’t work out, the most critical of them being to hire the same Democratic consultants who resulted in Al Gore and John Kerry losing to a lightweight like George W. Bush (and don’t give me the “but… but… Florida! Ohio!” bit, it shouldn’t have been close enough for some minor vote suppression operations to matter). Obama ran a different kind of campaign, and he got a different result.

    That said, if she’s going to get out of the race and endorse Obama now, Obama would need to give her something — probably the Vice Presidency. Her currency is going to only go down as she stays in the race, until it becomes worthless some time on. Problem is, I don’t know if Obama would want to give her the vice presidency. I suppose she could be the Dick Cheney on the Obama ticket, i.e., the hatchet man who is universally hated by everybody and the #1 reason why nobody has assassinated George W. Bush (who would want Dick Cheney as President?!), but it’s unclear how that would help Obama win an election given that he’s already going to win California and New York in any race against John McCain. John Edwards is probably out of the running for Veep also because no way is Obama going to win the South so there’s just no reason trying. McCain is probably going to win the mountain West due to his connections to the region, so it makes no sense to have a Veep from Nevada or Colorado, two states that have been trending Democratic recently. The logical place to select a Veep candidate would be from Ohio, a place Obama has a real chance to win, especially with a Democratic governor who can put the kabosh on the vote suppression activites that characterized the 2004 election. But I’m not sure there’s any Democrat from Ohio popular enough to make a difference there…

    – Badtux the Numbers Penguin

  30. 30
    Shochu John says:

    I echo the sentiment that I would have no problem with Hillary staying in if she could possibly run a positive campaign. As she has demonstrated that is not within her capabilities, she should go. The Right Wing Noise Machine does not need the Clinton campaign filling in as another rebroadcasting outpost. St. John is a ripe target for attack given his recent problems with the lobbyists and the campaign finance issues, and all credit to Howard Dean for doing his best to step in on that count, but we could be takign so much better advantage of it if Hillary were not keeping both her and Obama’s campaigns busy with her attack politics.

    I voted for Obama, and I have always had serious reservations about Hillary because of her hawkish foreign policy and because I am offended by dynasties, but I had always intended to vote for her in the general if she got the nomination. As of today, I no longer intend to do that. The type of campaign she has run as of late makes me genuinely think she is a bad person, and in the unlikely event she gets the nomination, I will not vote for her. I don’t believe I am alone.

  31. 31
    myiq2xu says:

    That Obama should get out of the race for the good of the party. And miiq2xu and p.lukasiak would be behind her 100% as bizarro-world versions of themselves.

    I’ve never said anyone needs to quit for “the good of the party.” I thought Nader should quit in 2000 for the good of the country and I was right, he sucked enough votes away from Gore to let Bush steal the election.

    Please explain how letting all the primary and caucus voters have a chance to cast a vote “bad” for the party?

    Maybe next time we should just let Iowa decide who our nominee will be.

    What the “she should quit” meme really means is “My favorite candidate is in front, let’s declare Him the winner before that bitch makes a comeback.”

  32. 32
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    That Obama should get out of the race for the good of the party. And miiq2xu and p.lukasiak would be behind her 100% as bizarro-world versions of themselves.

    Damn straight.

    That said, I think Hillary should stay in as long as she has a chance. If she trounces Obama on the 4th then she will have shown that she is not out of it yet. Anything less than a trouncing means that it is over in my mind.

    Still, she can stay in until the cows come home if she wants to.

  33. 33
    myiq2xu says:

    Looking at the upcoming races it appears Obama is going to win them 60/40.

    What polls have you been looking at? All the ones I’ve seen say the races are too close to call.

  34. 34
    chopper says:

    i dunno. i think a lot of people who don’t like hillary just wish that she would up and quit. i’m sure most everyone at hillaryis44 would prefer that obama, despite being ahead, would just up and quit right now for the good of their candidate the party.

    it’s all pretty stupid. why would i want to even consider a candidate who quits when the heat is on? screw that. obama may be ahead, but he isn’t ahead by that much.

    that being said, there comes a time when you should bow out gracefully. if its clear after the votes are counted that the democratic voters sincerely want obama instead yet she continues to try to take the guy down or walk away with the nom using underhanded tactics i’m through with her and i’m through with the democratic party.

  35. 35
    John S. says:

    I’ve never said anyone needs to quit for “the good of the party.”

    I realize that. Did you misunderstand what a bizarro-world version of yourself is (it’s the opposite)?

    Please explain how letting all the primary and caucus voters have a chance to cast a vote “bad” for the party?

    Why? I don’t think it is bad for the party and I think Hillary should stick around at least until March 4th.

    Maybe next time we should just let Iowa decide who our nominee will be.

    Fuck no. I think them and NH should have their pretty little statuses stripped before 2012.

    What the “she should quit” meme really means is “My favorite candidate is in front, let’s declare Him the winner before that bitch makes a comeback.”

    Yup. Which is why I don’t agree with it.

    And hey, did you see Obama dresses like a Black Muslim?! Hillary told me so.

  36. 36
    myiq2xu says:

    I love this meme that Obama is 10-0 so Hillary should quit.

    The Pats were 18-0 and had already beaten the Giants once. Nobody in their right mind was predicting a Giants win, the only question was would they beat the spread.

    That’s why they play the games.

  37. 37
    chopper says:

    What polls have you been looking at? All the ones I’ve seen say the races are too close to call.

    actually, they’re pretty close in TX and hillary’s ahead in OH.

    then again, it seems that obama tends to surge at least a bit in the week before the primary when he really starts getting his campaign on (i guess a well-organized ground game helps a lot in that regard), and he always improves over the polls from even the day before. like if the day before he’s ahead by 5, he ends up winning by 10.

    maybe its due to many obama voters being the sort who don’t get called by polling firms. i dunno.

    either way, if i were clinton and saw a dead heat a week before a primary, i’d be nervous.

  38. 38
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Davebo Says:
    I don’t think Clinton should drop out either.
    But I wonder what the Clinton camp would be saying right now had she won the last 11 primaries?

    She and her surrogates would be calling on Obama to drop out for the good of the party.

    In other news: Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach

    Blasting “companies shamelessly turning their backs on Americans” by shipping jobs overseas and railing that “it is wrong that somebody who makes $50 million on Wall Street pays a lower tax rate than somebody who makes $50,000 a year,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton increasingly sounds like one of her old Democratic rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina…

    Now she’s a populist. I thought that NAFTA, which enabled shipping jobs overseas, was a part of her “eight years of White House experience.” Before someone jumps up and says that she was really opposed to NAFTA from the beginning, I looked up Senator Clinton’s legislative history on the Library of Congress Website. She never so much as offered an amendment to NAFTA.

  39. 39
    John S. says:

    The Pats were 18-0 and had already beaten the Giants once. Nobody in their right mind was predicting a Giants win, the only question was would they beat the spread.

    Ah, the tired old football meme.

    Ignoring the obvious flaws of such a comparison, I think it is safe to say that Hillary is coming up with about 2 minutes left in the game and she is down by 4 points. If she doesn’t drive down the field on March 4th and score a toucdown, the game is over. A field goal gets her close, but it won’t win the game.

  40. 40
    John S. says:

    I looked up Senator Clinton’s legislative history on the Library of Congress Website. She never so much as offered an amendment to NAFTA.

    Because she was for it. Before she was against it.

    /Kerry

  41. 41
    myiq2xu says:

    that being said, there comes a time when you should bow out gracefully. if its clear after the votes are counted that the democratic voters sincerely want obama instead yet she continues to try to take the guy down or walk away with the nom using underhanded tactics i’m through with her and i’m through with the democratic party.

    It irks me to see Hillary accused of underhanded or “Rovian” tactics.

    Watch the 60 Minutes story about Don Seigelman if you want to see what that stuff really looks like. The US Attorney scandal, John McCain’s “black love child,” Swiftboating, voter caging, Diebold, now that’s underhanded Rovian tactics.

    And yeah, Hillary was over the top accusing Obama of using those tactics too.

  42. 42
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Because she was for it. Before she was against it.

    /Kerry

    Kinda’ like that Iraq thing.

  43. 43
    zsa says:

    This is all pretty simple … let whoever the hell wants to run for as long as they want to run.

    Any sort of crap that the Hillary camp puts out about Obama is nothing compared to what the VRWC will pump out in the general. In fact, it’s good that the pictures of the funny-looking black guy in the goofy turban come out now, and if it doesn’t kill, him it makes him stronger.

    The Hillary camp are fucking wussies when it comes to character assassination and racist messaging.

    The GOP is full of racists. They used to be Democrats, but the Democratic party left them, remember? Now they’re Republicans and the dogwhistling and race-baiting will be running 24×7 from the conventions till November.

    You’re going to see Photoshops of Obama breaking into cars to steal the stereos. You’re going to see Obama with a crack pipe in his mouth. You’re going to see Obama’s head ‘shopped onto a black man fucking a white woman. You going to see “gangstabama”, Obama covered in bling with a Beretta 9mm in his hand and his foot on the head of a dead white police officer. You going to read articles about Obama being brainwashed as a Muslim.

    You’re going to see nooses dangling from trees.

    We’re going to see the nasty side of the American racial id here, kids. It’s probably a good thing because sunlight is the only cure for this kind of crap. But it’s gonna be ugly.

  44. 44
    John S. says:

    It irks me to see Hillary accused of underhanded or “Rovian” tactics.

    I believe it does. And I’m sure you aren’t thrilled with her campaign’s non-denial non-denial of circulating that photo of Obama in African garb.

    That’s why I refrain from outright calling you a shill like p.lukasiak – because I think you actually attempt to call them like you see them, sans spin.

  45. 45
    chopper says:

    In other news: Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach

    well, she is campaigning in ohio. she’s basically given up on texas so ohio and penn are her last stand. unfortunately, her support of NAFTA is really killing her in those areas.

    this ‘in secret i really was against it, my friend here will vouch for that’ excuse doesn’t work too well tho. it makes it out like she’ll shill for anything, even a policy she is dead-set against, which doesn’t make her look very trustworthy.

    if she came out and admitted that she did support NAFTA in error, it takes a big bite out of her central plank of running as the ‘competent’ candidate who’s ‘ready to lead on day one’.

    she has to be very careful how she handles this lest her support of NAFTA is turning into Kerry’s ‘i voted for it before i voted against it’.

    if i were obama i would quit responding to the stupid distractions about kenyan garb and lapel pins and continue to hammer clinton on this issue. obviously, clinton knows how bad the issue is for her and is tossing up every foil and red herring in the book to keep obama’s camp busy.

  46. 46
    ThymeZone says:

    Hillary was over the top accusing Obama of using those tactics too.

    Oh noes! When you’ve lost myiq, you’ve lost …. well, Bakersfield, I guess. Or Fresno? Where are you?

    And — gasp — is lukasiak next? Et tu, lukasiake?

  47. 47
    Pb says:

    chopper,

    Obama’s support has been hell on the pollsters — he’s been getting out the vote, and therefore messing up their turnout models by winning the votes of voting blocs that don’t usually vote that much.

  48. 48
    Horselover Fat says:

    HRC still as a good chance to wind up with a lead in the popular vote. And Obama still has no prospects to win enough delegates to lock it up before August. The more delegates and popular votes she can take to the convention, the more influence she will have over whatever she chooses to fight over. So why shouldn’t she? Or do you all think she doesn’t care about stuff like platform, nominating process, etc?

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s why they play the games.

    Um, this is not an elimination tournament. Obama has the states, the votes and the delegates. You don’t really think she is going to pull even on March 4, do you?

    I predict that her delegate gap will be larger in nine days than it is now. Are you hoping that the Kenyan gown and the Shame On You You Naughty Interloper crusade are going to win the thing for your side?

    You are, aren’t you? Admit it, you are.

  50. 50
    myiq2xu says:

    Ignoring the obvious flaws of such a comparison, I think it is safe to say that Hillary is coming up with about 2 minutes left in the game and she is down by 4 points. If she doesn’t drive down the field on March 4th and score a toucdown, the game is over. A field goal gets her close, but it won’t win the game.

    The game doesn’t end on March 4th, no matter who is ahead. The deciding votes won’t be cast until August.

    That’s one of the problems with these front-loaded primaries and caucuses. Most people aren’t paying that much attention to the campaigns, then we rush from Iowa to New Hamster to Super Duper Tuesday and most of the time we are 6 months from the convention with the race over.

    We should have regional primaries (no caucuses) spaced a month apart from February through June. No superdelegates.

    And we need some kind of public financing or party financing of the campaigns. The nomination shouldn’t go to the person who can raise the most money.

  51. 51
    ThymeZone says:

    she has to be very careful how she handles this lest her support of NAFTA is turning into Kerry’s ‘i voted for it befor

    Not relevant, Obama is doing it for her, quite effectively. NAFTA is her albatross right now, she couldn’t shake it if she did the macarena 24 hours a day.

  52. 52
    Punchy says:

    speaking of not done yet…

    ha!

  53. 53
    ThymeZone says:

    The deciding votes won’t be cast until August.

    Right. In August, the woman without the votes, the delegates or the states will win?

    That’s really what you want to happen?

    Because there is no other scenario possible, is there?

  54. 54
    myiq2xu says:

    I believe it does. And I’m sure you aren’t thrilled with her campaign’s non-denial non-denial of circulating that photo of Obama in African garb.

    I don’t get the deal with that. So what if he wore traditional African garb? All politicians do stuff like that.

    If I was running Obama’s campaign I would have said “Here’s some better shots” and sent out more pictures.

  55. 55
    ThymeZone says:

    The nomination shouldn’t go to the person who can raise the most money.

    You mean, the most money directly from voters, don’t you?

    It should go to the person who gets the largest contributions from corporations, lobbies and other moneyed interests, right?

    I mean, the fact that the little people are out-contributing the rich people is just … piffle, isn’t it?
    Silly? Hope you can Xerox? Delusional?

  56. 56
    crw says:

    It all comes down to money. As pointed out, neither candidate is going to have enough candidates to lock it up any time soon, and a lot can happen in 6 months. If Hillary keeps flailing, though, I think her donors will start abandoning her. They’ll want to back the perceived winner because they want ROI, as always in political fund raising. And it’s money that determines if a campaign can keep going or not.

    However, if Hillary lands a solid punch on March 4th, the dollars will keep coming and she’ll keep campaigning.

  57. 57
    empty says:

    Dennis – SGMM Says:

    Blasting “companies shamelessly turning their backs on Americans” by shipping jobs overseas and railing that “it is wrong that somebody who makes $50 million on Wall Street pays a lower tax rate than somebody who makes $50,000 a year,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton increasingly sounds like one of her old Democratic rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina…

    … Before someone jumps up and says that she was really opposed to NAFTA from the beginning, I looked up Senator Clinton’s legislative history on the Library of Congress Website. She never so much as offered an amendment to NAFTA.

    Wow. An actual substantive criticism of Hillary On Balloon Juice. Mark the calendars!!!

  58. 58
    crw says:

    er, enough delegates to lock it up
    /facedesk

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    if Hillary lands a solid punch on March 4th,

    Loses by fewer than 15 points, you mean?

  60. 60
    chopper says:

    Not relevant, Obama is doing it for her, quite effectively. NAFTA is her albatross right now, she couldn’t shake it if she did the macarena 24 hours a day.

    it sure is her albatross, which is why she’s trying very hard to distract obama’s campaign with all sorts of stupid shit right now. we all know that she (or her advisors) learned something very important from kerry’s campaign – don’t admit that you ever change your mind on anything of importance, it’ll kill you on the campaign trail.

    she’s really stuck between a rock and a hard place with her nafta support. she’s trying to triangulate (in the classic clinton manner) a way out, but ‘i was always against it, even though i praised it in public’ is the best she’s really going to come up with. she’s just lucky her support was only vocal and doesn’t come with a voting record attached or she’d really get hammered on it.

  61. 61
    John S. says:

    I don’t get the deal with that.

    What don’t you get? The part where it panders to the fears of racists and xenophobes or the part where Hillary’s campaign won’t deny being behind it?

  62. 62
    John S. says:

    Wow. An actual substantive criticism of Hillary On Balloon Juice.

    There have been plenty. You must not be paying attention.

  63. 63
    ThymeZone says:

    If Hillary keeps flailing, though, I think her donors will start abandoning her. They’ll want to back the perceived winner because they want ROI, as always in political fund raising. And it’s money that determines if a campaign can keep going or not.

    Nope. Sorry, that’s old politics. We have never seen the grassroots outpouring of money from people who are giving $25, $50 and $100 at a time that we are seeing right now. Never, not even close. These are not people who back a perceived winner or care about ROI.

    This is a new ballgame. You really aren’t paying attention.

  64. 64
    myiq2xu says:

    Because there is no other scenario possible, is there?

    There’s the “plane crash” scenario, the “Manchurian candidate” scenario, the “secret love-child” scenario, and the “Obama killed Jon-Benet” scenario.

    Shall I go on?

  65. 65
    crw says:

    Loses by fewer than 15 points, you mean?

    No, I think she need an actual victory to avoid the scarlet L and donor flight.

  66. 66
    ThymeZone says:

    There’s the “plane crash” scenario, the “Manchurian candidate” scenario, the “secret love-child” scenario, and the “Obama killed Jon-Benet” scenario.

    Shall I go on?

    Um, no, I think you covered it :)

  67. 67
    John S. says:

    And we need some kind of public financing or party financing of the campaigns.

    I would argue that the candidate that has received the bulk of his donations from nearly 1 million Americans is already receiving public financing.

  68. 68
    ThymeZone says:

    I would argue that the candidate that has received the bulk of his donations from nearly 1 million Americans is already receiving public financing.

    FTW, ladies and germs. FTW.

  69. 69
    Martin says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t have minded that she stay in it except for how she’s running. I’ll happily cheer my kid on in a foot race that he’s losing as well, but as soon as he pulls out a rock to take out the kid ahead of him, I’ll be the first to yell ‘stop!’

    Anyone who thinks that Hillary’s tactics are beneficial to Democrats prospects in November are delusional.

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    You mean, the most money directly from voters, don’t you?

    It should go to the person who gets the largest contributions from corporations, lobbies and other moneyed interests, right?

    I mean, the fact that the little people are out-contributing the rich people is just … piffle, isn’t it?
    Silly? Hope you can Xerox? Delusional?

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  71. 71
    crw says:

    Nope. Sorry, that’s old politics. We have never seen the grassroots outpouring of money from people who are giving $25, $50 and $100 at a time that we are seeing right now. Never, not even close. These are not people who back a perceived winner or care about ROI.

    That’s true for Obama’s campaign. It’s part of the generational rift we’re seeing between the campaigns. I’d argue, based on the fact that so many more of her contributers are maxed out, Hillary’s donors are very much old skool and DO care about things like ROI. Therefor, if she loses Texas and Ohio, even by small amounts, I think it will be much more devastating than if Obama takes a narrow loss. Obama can keep on keeping on precisely because his money isn’t about to dry up. Hillary doesn’t have that luxury. She NEEDS a win to keep the money flowing.

  72. 72
    Steve T says:

    “And Obama still has no prospects to win enough delegates to lock it up before August. ”

    I’m not so sure about that. True, he won’t be able to lock up *pledged* delegates before August. But I suspect that if we see clear wins by Obama in both of Clinton’s latest firewall states (not that we necessarily will), we’ll start seeing the uncommitted supers coming out of the woodwork to endorse Obama, and maybe some of Clinton’s already endorsing supers.

    This could put him over, or at least make the writing on the wall clear enough for everyone to read.

  73. 73
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s right, myiq, you HAVE been apparently sleeping for the last eight weeks and missed out on the primary campaign.

    It’s over, dude. Give it up.

    Nothing worse than a loser who won’t just …. lose.

    Repeat after me, you will want this in November:

    We won, get over it.

  74. 74
    ThymeZone says:

    She NEEDS a win to keep the money flowing.

    True, if I misread your earlier, my bad.

  75. 75
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    This is a new ballgame. You really aren’t paying attention.

    Neither, apparently, is Hillary. Needing to loan her campaign five mil suggests that, although this is indeed a new ballgame, Hillary is still playing duck duck goose.

  76. 76
    Billy K says:

    Hillary was my fifth choice among the Democrats, so I’m not exactly emotionally invested in her candidacy.

    IIRC, there were six in the beginning. So you basically said, “Anyone but The MUP?”

    well, she is campaigning in ohio. she’s basically given up on texas so ohio and penn are her last stand. unfortunately, her support of NAFTA is really killing her in those areas.

    So, Wisconsin was her last stand, until it became Texas and Ohio, and then it was Ohio and Pennsylvania…

    She’s running out of last stands.

    That’s why they play the games.

    There is almost no way in reality she can win back the delegate lead – even if they seat Florida and Michigan. “The Math” just doesn’t allow it. She would have to win every state from now on 70-30 or so, seat Florida and Michigan, and win every undeclared Super Delegate.

    It’s not happening. I’m not saying she should drop out. I’m saying she should start running a more honorable campaign.

    (sorry late to thread)

  77. 77
    Billy K says:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton increasingly sounds like one of her old Democratic rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina…

    I hear both she and Obama talking more populist these days. Maybe it’s because of Ohio, or maybe they’re both courting Edwards’ endorsement. he better make it soon if he’s gonna. This thing could be wrapped up in a couple weeks.

    Wow. An actual substantive criticism of Hillary On Balloon Juice

    How is that more substantive than lots of other stuff that’s been said? Because the poster said s/he “looked up her record?” OK, I’m gonna start all my posts from now on with, “I looked at the record, and…”

  78. 78
    ThymeZone says:

    Neither, apparently, is Hillary. Needing to loan her campaign five mil suggests that, although this is indeed a new ballgame, Hillary is still playing duck duck goose.

    I agree. I think she and her brain trust — ahem Mark Penn ahem — sat down and looked at the STUPEFYING numbers coming in on Obama’s website and … misread it. They thought it was some kind of fluke, or … something.

    What they don’t see is that in February, they are going to make January look small by comparison. The impossible January gives way to the unthinkable February, and still the cash register keeps ringing.

    She really doesn’t get it.

  79. 79
    myiq2xu says:

    I would argue that the candidate that has received the bulk of his donations from nearly 1 million Americans is already receiving public financing.

    The problem with the current system is that a politician needs to raise millions from special interests in order to position themself to start getting lots of small donations.

    If there was some kind of public or party based financing, at least in the primaries, then the content of the message and not the volume of it would be decisive.

    IOW – Imagine a regional primary where 6-8 candidates basically have equal amounts of money to spend, and all have equal access to candidate forums and debates.

    Of course, there would need to be a fair system for determining who those 6-8 candidates were.

  80. 80
    myiq2xu says:

    Nothing worse than a loser who won’t just …. lose.

    Isn’t a loser who won’t lose a winner?

  81. 81
    Sinister eyebrow says:

    What about the Obama-Natalie Holloway scenario (love child plus dastardly murder)? That’s my favorite. Now we can all look forward to different Republican operatives posting video of themselves mutilating watermelons to prove it.

  82. 82
    Z says:

    Hillary is clearly engaging in dirty campaign tactics, and I condemn her for it. I don’t view it as ‘practice’. I view it as unethical. Those are the same kind of tactics the Republicans use, and part of the reason I can’t stand that morally bankrupt party.

    However, the voters are the ones who are going to decide this. If she can’t win (ie loses in both Texas and Ohio by good margins), then she should get out. As long as she has a chance, she should stay in the race.

  83. 83
  84. 84
    chopper says:

    So, Wisconsin was her last stand, until it became Texas and Ohio, and then it was Ohio and Pennsylvania…

    She’s running out of last stands.

    i think you have me confused with someone else.

  85. 85
    myiq2xu says:

    IIRC, there were six in the beginning. So you basically said, “Anyone but The MUP?”

    My first choice was Gore, but he didn’t run. Then it was Edwards, Dodd, Biden, HRC, Richardson, Kucinich.

    But don’t feel bad, I had Obama ahead of Gravel.

  86. 86
    ThymeZone says:

    The problem with the current system is that a politician needs to raise millions from special interests in order to position themself to start getting lots of small donations.

    In Clinton-Bushworld, yes. In Obamaland, no.

    In Obamaland, a politician can talk sincerely, if imperfectly, to the real concerns of real people, not patronize them, not try to scare them, not demagogue them, not talk down to them, not lecture them …. and ask for their support in a tone that makes them feel like he is speaking sincerely and directly to them, and they will open their wallets in droves because they are so GODDAM sick of the other kind of crap they get from the other politicians all the time.

    And when somebody does that and does it well …. well, watch and learn, (gr)asshopper.

  87. 87
    empty says:

    John S. Says:

    Wow. An actual substantive criticism of Hillary On Balloon Juice.

    There have been plenty. You must not be paying attention.

    Wasn’t it you who attacked someone for criticizing Obama by asking if Obama had screwed his wife? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

  88. 88
    John S. says:

    Wasn’t it you who attacked someone for criticizing Obama by asking if Obama had screwed his wife? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

    No. Yes. In that order.

  89. 89
    Billy K says:

    In Obamaland, a politician can talk sincerely, if imperfectly, to the real concerns of real people, not patronize them, not try to scare them, not demagogue them, not talk down to them, not lecture them ….

    Yeah…with a teleprompter!1!

  90. 90
    myiq2xu says:

    In Obamaland, a politician can talk sincerely, if imperfectly, to the real concerns of real people, not patronize them, not try to scare them, not demagogue them, not talk down to them, not lecture them …. and ask for their support in a tone that makes them feel like he is speaking sincerely and directly to them, and they will open their wallets in droves because they are so GODDAM sick of the other kind of crap they get from the other politicians all the time.

    Okay, I have a question for you.

    What flavor is the kool-aid?

  91. 91
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    OK, I’m gonna start all my posts from now on with, “I looked at the record, and…”

    Billy K, here’s the The Library of Congress: Thomas website. You can look up the legislative record of any Senator or Representative as well as any bill either by number or keywords.

    I looked at the record, and Senator Clinton has sponsored 150 bills and resolutions during her time in the Senate. Obama has sponsored 113 in his. (:

  92. 92
    Billy K says:

    But don’t feel bad, I had Obama ahead of Gravel.

    I don’t. I was for Edwards and Dodd before I was against them.

  93. 93
    Billy K says:

    Billy K, here’s the The Library of Congress: Thomas website. You can look up the legislative record of any Senator or Representative as well as any bill either by number or keywords.

    Thanks. I’m not really gonna look at the record before I post, though. I’m just gonna say I did. Saves a lot of time.

  94. 94
    Fausto Carmona says:

    Now we hear from the He-Man Obama Haters- er- Clinton supporters that “this will go to August”. This, after Ohio and Texas were supposed to be her last firewall. Those goalposts move pretty fast, don’t they.

    It’ll, in all likelihood, be over by March 4th. If Clinton can’t crush Obama in Ohio, everybody and their grandmother will know that the campaign’s over regardless of what Mark Penn or BTD may be spinning that evening. Howard Dean and the DNC will just hand Hillary a revolver and ask her to do the honorable thing before the ‘Sore Loserman’ signs come out of the woodwork.

  95. 95
    ThymeZone says:

    What flavor is the kool-aid?

    You tell me. I don’t drink Kool-Aid. I drink Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water (which I assume comes out of a septic tank somewhere, through a filter of course) and Green Tea with Citrus. An occasional sip of Coke, and far too much coffee for my own good.

    You?

  96. 96
    myiq2xu says:

    Wasn’t it you who attacked someone for criticizing Obama by asking if Obama had screwed his wife? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

    I’m pretty sure it wasn’t John S., cuz I was the “someone” that attack was directed at.

    John S. is the one who said I was making “unhinged diatribes.”

  97. 97
    John S. says:

    I looked at the record, and Senator Clinton has sponsored 150 bills and resolutions during her time in the Senate. Obama has sponsored 113 in his.

    But I heard that Obama hasn’t done anything in the Senate!

    How dare you challenge my unfounded notions!

  98. 98
    ThymeZone says:

    Those goalposts move pretty fast, don’t they.

    I think they are mounted on the back of a LIRR car.

  99. 99
    myiq2xu says:

    Thanks. I’m not really gonna look at the record before I post, though. I’m just gonna say I did. Saves a lot of time.

    I agree. Facts are a pain in the ass anyway.

  100. 100
    John S. says:

    John S. is the one who said I was making “unhinged diatribes.”

    It’s a fair cop.

  101. 101
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Thanks. I’m not really gonna look at the record before I post, though. I’m just gonna say I did. Saves a lot of time.

    LOL! Forgot my college years, along with much of the Bronze Age.

  102. 102
    tom.a says:

    I think Jonathon Alter is better than most political reporters out there, but he seems to be arguing that he’s tired of reporting on the Obama/Clinton race and he’d like to spend HIS time reporting on the Obama/McCain race. After all, there’s no new “news” with Obama/Clinton anymore, we’ve now heard it all.

    This article just shouts “I’m lazy, give me some new candy.”

  103. 103
    empty says:

    I’m pretty sure it wasn’t John S., cuz I was the “someone” that attack was directed at.

    My bad. I was just trying to remember the substantive discussions.

  104. 104
    myiq2xu says:

    Now we hear from the He-Man Obama Haters- er- Clinton supporters that “this will go to August”. This, after Ohio and Texas were supposed to be her last firewall. Those goalposts move pretty fast, don’t they.

    Find a quote from me saying that Ohio and/or Texas was Hillary’s last firewall.

    The deciding votes will be cast in August, although they very well could be nothing more than a formality.

    BTW – Do you really think I look like a “He-man?” I’ve been working out but I didn’t think it showed.

  105. 105
    ThymeZone says:

    The deciding votes will be cast in August, although they very well couldbut they almost certainly will be nothing more than a formality.

    Corrected.

  106. 106
    myiq2xu says:

    My bad. I was just trying to remember the substantive discussions.

    You mean like the ones about whether Jen is really male or female?

  107. 107
    Billy K says:

    Do you really think I look like a “He-man?”

    Please tell me you get the “He-Man” reference (and no, it has nothing to do with Castle Greyskull).

  108. 108
    ThymeZone says:

    Isn’t a loser who won’t lose a winner?

    Yeah, if you’re Dale Earnhardt. Before he drove into the wall.

  109. 109
    empty says:

    You mean like the ones about whether Jen is really male or female?

    Did that ever get decided?

  110. 110
    John S. says:

    I was just trying to remember the substantive discussions.

    Hmmm.

    It seems as if you have filed “Salacious” under “Substantive”.

  111. 111
    ThymeZone says:

    You mean like the ones about whether Jen is really male or female?

    If Jen could keep that straight, the rest of us wouldn’t have such a problem with it.

  112. 112
    p.lukasiak says:

    lets see now… in the popular vote Hillary Clinton was ahead in the states up to and include Super Tuesday by 2.5%. She was also up in the delegate count too.

    But no one was saying “Obama should quit for the sake of the party.”

    Now, after a good two weeks, Obama is finally ahead in the popular vote by 1.5%, and looks to be ahead in delegates.

    And people are saying that Hillary should fold.

    The absolute worst thing that could happen for the party and for Obama at this point is for Clinton to fold her tent, and go home. See, if Clinton folds now, and Obama locks up the nomination with pledged delegates, the GOP smear machine will be out in full force against Obama for the next six months… and the odds of Obama going into the convention as severely damaged goods goes up. If Clinton stays in, and keeps the nomination in the hands of the super-delegates, the party can avoid a severely damaged Obama as the nominee — and the GOP smear machine might not work so hard if it knows that its work can knock Obama out of the nomination.

    Finally, if the Obama campaign cleans up its act and stops with the sleazy attack mailings, there are a lot of advantages in continuing the race. First off, it will keep the media focussed on the issues that the Democrats want front and center — McCain will start to fade in the polls from simple neglect. Second, there are a lot of battleground and potential battleground states left, where its important for voters to get to know Obama before the smear machine swings into high gear. By campaiging in states like PA, IN, NC, WV, KY, OR, and SD now, Obama gets the chance to introduce himself on his own terms to voters — and makes it much easier for him to run “credible” campaigns in likely Republican states like IN, NC, WV, KY, and SD for November, and easier to win in PA and OR in November.

    Hillary Clinton can do no more damage to Obama by continuing her campaign than the right wing smear machine can do with six months of full time attacks on Obama before the conventions. Obama supporters should recognize that much.

  113. 113
    Brachiator says:

    Why should she get out now? She has spent years preparing for this run, has millions of supporters who want her to continue, she still has a shot (albeit a small one, I think) at winning, and I think she owes it to herself and those who have sacrificed so much to get her this close to continue on…. Trying to pressure her out right now doesn’t sit right with me, though. What is so bad about letting the voters have their say?

    Edwards bowed out when his supporters still wanted him to stay in, so I am not sure how viable the “owes it to her supporters” argument is. And Senator Clinton should consider the party as well.

    But apart from this, I largely agree with you. It’s Senator Clinton’s call, and she is certainly not in a Huckabee position of not being able to win the nomination.

    What especially galls me in the Alter piece is this little nugget:

    The pundit class hasn’t been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire.

    What a load of self-important hoo-ha! I have a fundamental disrespect for lazy reporters, but something closer to disgust for pundits who are not only too lazy to do any original reporting, but who think that their opinion and commentary should carry any kind of weight.

  114. 114
    myiq2xu says:

    Please tell me you get the “He-Man” reference (and no, it has nothing to do with Castle Greyskull).

    I actually have a “Castle Greyskull” in my bedroom (it was my son’s) but yes, I got the other reference.

    BTW – She-Ra is hotter than Darla.

  115. 115
    John S. says:

    Find a quote from me saying that Ohio and/or Texas was Hillary’s last firewall.

    You may not have – but Bill Clinton did:

    “If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you,” the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech.

  116. 116
    crw says:

    I’d point out that Ron Paul has been raking in millions in small donor contributions. And he’s a fucking dog whistling, black helicopters anti-government kook. TZ’s right. The Internet really does change the fund raising dynamic for those who understand it. You don’t need millions in lobbyfunds to kick start it so much as you need a message that resonates. Free media blowjobs help, too.

  117. 117
    John S. says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Obama sucks.

    Thanks for the update.

  118. 118
    myiq2xu says:

    You may not have – but Bill Clinton did:

    Since when did you care what the Big Dog says?

  119. 119
    tBone says:

    My bad. I was just trying to remember the substantive discussions.

    Point us to all of your substantive criticisms of Obama. We’ll show you ours if you show us yours, champ.

  120. 120
    The Other Steve says:

    Now we hear from the He-Man Obama Haters- er- Clinton supporters that “this will go to August”. This, after Ohio and Texas were supposed to be her last firewall. Those goalposts move pretty fast, don’t they.

    Yeah, I’ve changed my mind.

    Hillary should bow out now. Solely on the basis that her supporters are irritating me with their st00pid.

  121. 121
    ThymeZone says:

    lukasiak, I have never been your pal, much, but damn, I’m trying to do you a favor: Rein it in, man. You are in the realm of farce now. Seriously.

    The takeaway from your post is that HRC should stay in a lost race as long as possible to save our nominee from being taunted by the bullies on the other side of the schoolyard.

    Oooohkay. I don’t know if you have caught on to this, but our guy seems to thrive on adversity. Do yourself a favor, and draw a little chart. Make a vector showing the rise in adversity against him in the primary, and then another one showing the rise in his vote totals and fundraising success. Do you see a correlation?

    Study that. Please. Or something.

  122. 122
    empty says:

    John S. Says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Obama sucks.

    Thanks for the update.

    Another substantive response from John S.

  123. 123
    tBone says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Hillary. Obama sucks. But I’m objective, really!

    Fixed.

  124. 124
    myiq2xu says:

    Yeah, if you’re Dale Earnhardt. Before he drove into the wall.

    That was his last firewall.

  125. 125
    ThymeZone says:

    CNN has the Kenyan Gown photo up. But relax, they have Susan Molinari talking about it.

    Not making this up.

  126. 126
    The Other Steve says:

    Edwards bowed out when his supporters still wanted him to stay in, so I am not sure how viable the “owes it to her supporters” argument is. And Senator Clinton should consider the party as well.

    I think this just means Edwards supporters are even more delusional than Clinton ones.

  127. 127
    ThymeZone says:

    That was his last firewall.

    Yes. Alas, that MarkPennCo safety gear let him down ……

  128. 128
    Krista says:

    BTW – She-Ra is hotter than Darla.

    She-Ra rocked. I wanted to be her when I grew up. I still haven’t grown up yet, so there’s hope.

  129. 129
    Krista says:
    Yeah, if you’re Dale Earnhardt. Before he drove into the wall.

    That was his last firewall.

    Oh, that just wasn’t nice at all, you guys.

  130. 130
    John S. says:

    Since when did you care what the Big Dog says?

    Are you kidding me?

    I have to care what he says in order for his views of his wife’s campaign to have relevance?

    Seriously?

  131. 131
    myiq2xu says:

    Oooohkay. I don’t know if you have caught on to this, but our guy seems to thrive on adversity. Do yourself a favor, and draw a little chart. Make a vector showing the rise in adversity against him in the primary, and then another one showing the rise in his vote totals and fundraising success. Do you see a correlation?

    Don’t know about the money but here’s his poll numbers.

    Reminds me of what I was told when I hit 40: “Once you’re over the hill you start to pick up speed.”

  132. 132
    John S. says:

    Another substantive response from John S.

    Garbage in – garbage out.

  133. 133
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Finally, if the Obama campaign cleans up its act and stops with the sleazy attack mailings…

    And Hillary would never do anything like that. From Factcheck.org:

    A direct-mail piece sent to voters by the Clinton campaign twists Obama’s words and gives a false picture of his proposals:

    * It says he “wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars,” a big distortion. Obama has said a “good option” would be to apply Social Security payroll taxes to incomes over $97,500 a year, but that would only affect taxes paid by 6.5 percent of individuals and couples. And he hasn’t formally proposed such a move anyway.

    * The Clinton mailer says Obama has “no plan” for a moratorium on foreclosures such as the one Clinton has proposed. That’s true, but Obama has his own plan for homeowner relief. The mailer leaves the impression that Obama has “no plan” at all, which is false.

    * It says Obama “voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies,” another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

    At least take the good time and trouble to come up with some informed sycophancy.

  134. 134
    empty says:

    tBone Says:
    ..

    Point us to all of your substantive criticisms of Obama. We’ll show you ours if you show us yours, champ.

    Google is your friend t. Go for it. Though, I must say I didn’t know I had that much power over you. It seems my emptiness has lead to your lack of substance.

  135. 135
    tBone says:

    Don’t know about the money but here’s his poll numbers.

    Please use smiley faces when you’re linking to TalkLeft so we’ll know you’re joking. Thanks!

  136. 136
    John S. says:

    Don’t know about the money but here’s his poll numbers.

    Sorry, but TalkLeft ceased to be a valid source for anything on this election ages ago – even when citing data from elsewhere. And Gallup is merely one source.

    Try Pollster (aggregate data). See that trend line that looks like a hockey stick? That’s Obama.

  137. 137
    Punchy says:

    I still cant believe Fausto Carmona is busy blogging here instead of getting ready for Spring Training games. Remind me to bet against him on Opening Day.

  138. 138
    The Moar You Know says:

    myiq:

    “It irks me to see Hillary accused of underhanded or “Rovian” tactics.”

    Me too. Especially when she does.

    She’s going to need to dig upwards to reach bottom. How sad that she’s come to this.

  139. 139
    p.lukasiak says:

    Oooohkay. I don’t know if you have caught on to this, but our guy seems to thrive on adversity. Do yourself a favor, and draw a little chart. Make a vector showing the rise in adversity against him in the primary, and then another one showing the rise in his vote totals and fundraising success. Do you see a correlation?

    actually no. His adversity line is basically flat, with a few small bumps. His popular vote totals are all over the map, but the trend is pretty flat… up until the week after Super Tuesday….and I don’t remember a whole lot of “adversity” hitting the Obama campaign in the week after ST, do you?

    Seriously, the primary states since ST, Obama got 23.5% more of the vote than Clinton (that doesn’t include the WA beauty contest) where he’s up by less than 6% over Clinton.)

    Do me a favor… don’t try to bullshit me about numbers. I’m the guy who wrote that “controversial” piece at Taylor Marsh’s (Count Whose Vote?), and I’m finishing up a second piece — looking at Independent vs Moderate voters. I KNOW the numbers. And there is absolutely no question that the only reason that Obama is doing well right now is that his campaign put far more effort (and did so far earlier) into the post ST states than Clinton’s did.

    I mean, do you REALLY think that there was a 25 point swing in Democratic voter sentiment between 2/6 and 2/12?

    And do you REALLY think that it had something to do with Obama facing adversity?

  140. 140
    Zifnab says:

    Garbage in – garbage out.

    Around here we recycle.

  141. 141
    Martin says:

    I looked at the record, and Senator Clinton has sponsored 150 bills and resolutions during her time in the Senate. Obama has sponsored 113 in his. (:

    Geez, if you are going to argue facts, at least argue the right ones. Those are just this Congress, that is, just this year. Look up all of them (it’s harder, sorry) and look up the content of them (harder yet). Declaring this to be national asparagus awareness day isn’t exactly reflective of a good legislative record.

    I did the research myself and concluded that Obama made more substantive legislative progress than Clinton. They were in the ballpark of each other on volume (size doesn’t matter *that* much) but his bills were much more direct and relevant to problems on the ground. Hers were more idealistic. I give him the progressive nod, as a result.

    As an example, lead poisoning in kids. Hillary put forward a bill to give subsidies to building owners to offset the cost of having lead paint removed. Now, we haven’t sold lead paint in this country since 1977. I don’t see how a subsidy will motivate people to do this that have avoided repainting in 31 years and in all likelihood have no fucking idea if they have lead paint in their building or not. Sure, the bill looks good, but I don’t see it having any meaningful effect at all.

    By comparison, Obama put forward a bill making lead paint a hazardous substance, and making it illegal to transport it and any products containing it in the US. At the same time, he spoke out that China wasn’t our trade enemy and we shouldn’t make them out as such. That might seem hypocritical, but it looks like brilliant politics to me. 1) it solves the problem at a level that the government can *actually* enforce without casting blame 2) it fixes the problem without attacking the source which would force China to push back lest anyone think that China was deliberately pushing lead toys to the US. If we had put this forward as a trade issue with China (as the Lou Dobbs followers would propose), manufacturers could just move to Indonesia and do it (and they might already do it for all we know) and China could have a legitimate complaint that we are being discriminatory toward China. By making it illegal to transport inside the US, the problem is nicely contained, fixed, with minimal political fallout. (People forget that in a communist country, the government assumes responsibility for everything that goes on – they can’t defer to ‘this company did this and we had no idea’ since that attitude completely undermines the very principle of communism. China *has* to fight back against the lead paint charge lest communism itself loses credibility. China has made a challenging situation for itself with this capitalism experiment.)

    I should note that he introduced this last May before the issue had become a ‘national crisis’, so I don’t see that it could have been to score political points, and that it died in committee presumably out of concern for our trade status with China.

    But a lot of Obama’s legislation have that feel to them – very practical, implementable, without forcing some group to defend itself. I think that attitude will bring the less-partisan Republicans on board.

  142. 142
    myiq2xu says:

    I believe it does. And I’m sure you aren’t thrilled with her campaign’s non-denial non-denial of circulating that photo of Obama in African garb.

    Uh, what was your source?

  143. 143
    Billy K says:

    I’m the guy who wrote that “controversial” piece at Taylor Marsh’s…

    And there it is.

  144. 144
    Jamey says:

    Hillary barely stands a ghost of a chance — if that. She’s just bleeding other peoples’ money and denying her constituents a functioning Senator.

    This is about maintaining appearances. And, yes, Hillary supporters, would you be so magnanimous toward Obama if your gal had swept the past dozen or so primaries?

  145. 145
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    p.lukasiak Says:
    I’m the guy who wrote that “controversial” piece at Taylor Marsh’s…

    Figures.

    I KNOW the numbers.

    So did Karl Rove in 2006.

    And there is absolutely no question that the only reason that Obama is doing well right now is that his campaign put far more effort (and did so far earlier) into the post ST states than Clinton’s did.

    No sense working for the nomination when you’re inevitable.

  146. 146
    Jamey says:

    http://www.politico.com/news/s...../8659.html

    The best defense, then, is to stop being fucking racists , sexist pigs.

    But that would be hard work.

  147. 147
    ThymeZone says:

    Erm, Krista, “Refuse to lose” was a hook from the movie about Dale Earnhardt. That was supposedly his motto.

    Lowiq made the R2L mistake, and I pointed out what happens when one adopts that strategy.

    I don’t think it’s either inappropriate, or irrelevant.

    But, that’s just me. I’m a guy and I still get goosebumps when the green flag goes down, just like I did when I was a kid. I think that the green flag at Indy is the most electrifying moment in sports. True, it’s insane and absurd, but …. that’s what makes it great.

    Billy Vukovich, RIP.

  148. 148
    Zifnab says:

    Do me a favor… don’t try to bullshit me about numbers. I’m the guy who wrote that “controversial” piece at Taylor Marsh’s (Count Whose Vote?), and I’m finishing up a second piece—looking at Independent vs Moderate voters. I KNOW the numbers. And there is absolutely no question that the only reason that Obama is doing well right now is that his campaign put far more effort (and did so far earlier) into the post ST states than Clinton’s did.

    So Obama succeeded in getting more votes than Clinton because he actively campaigned. I don’t see how this is exactly a strike against him. Kinda like saying “the only reason McCain beat Romney was because his campaign inspired more people to vote for him.” Well, then… gee… I guess we should go back to a Clinton/Romney contest if McCain and Obama were only winning because they got more votes.

    I mean, do you REALLY think that there was a 25 point swing in Democratic voter sentiment between 2/6 and 2/12?

    Um… to a certain degree, yes. I think a great number of voters were on the fence and Obama’s campaign successfully mobilized said voters into turning out for his campaign.

    And do you REALLY think that it had something to do with Obama facing adversity?

    I think Obama has played the underdog remarkably well. One could call his come-from-behind insurgency campaign “Clinton-esque” in so far as he is mirroring or exceeding the last Dem-who-would-be-President to run this route.

    Either way, I think it would be insane for Clinton to back out before March 4th. Why? The Giants had more reason to back out of the Super Bowl than Clinton has to give up now. She can, conceivably, turn it around. I doubt it. But if I was running for President, I wouldn’t pick this moment – of all moments – to throw in the towel.

  149. 149
    p.lukasiak says:

    Geez, if you are going to argue facts, at least argue the right ones.

    Martin, while I disagree with your position, I do thank you for writing something substantive on behalf of Obama.

  150. 150
    Billy K says:

    I KNOW the numbers. And there is absolutely no question that the only reason that Obama is doing well right now is that his campaign put far more effort (and did so far earlier) into the post ST states than Clinton’s did.

    You’re right about one thing, though, p.luklsiack. The MUP didn’t really start to gallop until ST. But the secret reason isn’t in numbers or maths or whatever. I mean, you’ve made it VERY CLEAR I can’t bullshit you about those!

    No, the reason is, the “averge joe and jane” finally got to see and hear The MUP. Before that, most people outside of Illinois didn’t even know who the guy was.

    So I won’t bullshit you about numbers, and you don’t bullshit me about simple logic. K? K.

  151. 151
    myiq2xu says:

    Lowiq made the R2L mistake, and I pointed out what happens when one adopts that strategy.

    yeah, they “WIN”

  152. 152
    ThymeZone says:

    And there is absolutely no question that the only reason that Obama is doing well right now

    Oh Christ man, you are certifiable.

    He is doing well right now because people like him.

    It’s.That.Fucking.Simple.

    You need to find another obsession. This one is making you look silly.

  153. 153
    ThymeZone says:

    yeah, they “WIN”

    Chuckle. Who said that, Karl Rove?

    You guys are such hoots.

  154. 154
    myiq2xu says:

    No, the reason is, the “averge joe and jane” finally got to see and hear The MUP. Before that, most people outside of Illinois didn’t even know who the guy was.

    And that was when his numbers began to flatline.

  155. 155
    Martin says:

    The problem with the current system is that a politician needs to raise millions from special interests in order to position themself to start getting lots of small donations.

    Not really. Obama got that ball rolling after the 2004 convention speech. What you are seeing now is just a large version of what has been going on with Illinois dems and some that were paying attention before the rest of us. They’re the ones that jumpstarted this at the start of 2007. Obama just invested that early money wisely in building out the netroots and getting the ground effort running so when attention came to him it was easy for undecided voters to jump on board. Hillary put more of her money into consultants which didn’t give her any way to ride momentum with the voters, instead favoring connections to big donors and large fundraisers. It wasn’t necessarily a bad tactic, but with contribution limits and an unprecedented contributor pool by Obama, it wound up being an inflexible tactic.

  156. 156
    myiq2xu says:

    Not really. Obama got that ball rolling after the 2004 convention speech. What you are seeing now is just a large version of what has been going on with Illinois dems and some that were paying attention before the rest of us. They’re the ones that jumpstarted this at the start of 2007.

    Are you claiming that Obama hasn’t taken special interest money and ALL his donations are from small rank & file donors?

  157. 157
    Billy K says:

    Flatlining?

    Yes, it’s Gallup, and yes it conflicts with another Gallup Poll. But since we decided to toss out logic today, I’m using this as IRREFUTABLE PROOF* of Obama’s dominance.

    *Irrefutable means it can’t be refuted. So don’t even try.

  158. 158
    Jen says:

    Did that ever get decided?

    It depends on whether or not you think I’m “dishonest”. TZ either does, or he’s just trying to finagle nudie pics out of me. I am not aware that anyone else thinks I’m “dishonest”. Annoying and self-important, absolutely.

  159. 159
    Billy K says:

    Annoying and self-important, absolutely.

    Rather masculine traits, wouldn’t you say?

  160. 160
    Jen says:

    Are you claiming that Obama hasn’t taken special interest money and ALL his donations are from small rank & file donors?

    Well, the campaign does categorically reject any donation from registered lobbyists. Obviously, he has donors contributing the maximum allowable, although far fewer than HRC.

  161. 161
    ThymeZone says:

    I am truly amazed at the brilliant politics we are seeing this year:

    McCain: Iraq is forever, the lost jobs are forever, Vietnam is forever, patriotism is forever, never surrender.

    Clinton: Refuse to lose, I believed the intelligence, I was against NAFTA before I was for it, I defeated healthcare once, I can do it again.

    Why, one wonders, are these messages not resonating with the people? Why? WHY?

  162. 162
    Jen says:

    Rather masculine traits, wouldn’t you say?

    But copping to them? Notsomuch. :)

  163. 163
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ either does, or he’s just trying to finagle nudie pics out of me. I am not aware that anyone else thinks I’m “dishonest”. Annoying and self-important, absolutely.

    Heh. Fully clothed pics are fine. As for annoying and self important …. those are required to get in the door here. No points off.

  164. 164
    Zifnab says:

    Why, one wonders, are these messages not resonating with the people? Why? WHY?

    We’re still just looking for a candidate we can have a beer with. Hillary is too shrill and McCain can’t life his arms over the counter.

  165. 165
    Martin says:

    Are you claiming that Obama hasn’t taken special interest money and ALL his donations are from small rank & file donors?

    I’m saying that Obama hasn’t, in this election, taken special interest money at a level that supports your claim. I don’t doubt that some is in there, but what Obama has built is an operation that makes it easy for a random voter to A) donate and B) volunteer. And when a voter volunteers, they are FAR more likely to bring on board another random voter to donate and volunteer than a comparable amount of money and effort from Mark Penn would. Obama built an operation that supports and grows itself based on it’s own success. If it failed, it would fail big. If it succeeded, it would succeed big. Hillary went for a tactic that minimized the chance for it to fail big, but the rules of the game also precluded it from winning big as well. She was banking that she wouldn’t need to win big on fundraising and support in the primary and that was the wrong call.

    There is no way that Obama banked 36M in January on special interest money. He runs almost no organized fundraisers.

  166. 166
    Zifnab says:

    It depends on whether or not you think I’m “dishonest”. TZ either does, or he’s just trying to finagle nudie pics out of me. I am not aware that anyone else thinks I’m “dishonest”. Annoying and self-important, absolutely.

    Tits or GTFO!

  167. 167
    Billy K says:

    I am truly amazed at the brilliant politics we are seeing this year:

    McCain: Iraq is forever, the lost jobs are forever, Vietnam is forever, patriotism is forever, never surrender.

    You forgot McPain’s “don’t believe in hope.” That one’s a killer.

  168. 168
    Jen says:

    Tits or GTFO!

    I choose Get the Funk On! Cue the Grandmaster Flash!

  169. 169
    John S. says:

    Uh, what was your source?

    My source was Talking Points Memo – not Daily Kos.

    At least argue the facts if you’re going to make a point.

  170. 170
    Tom in Texas says:

    Clinton draws Republican support too:

    Jose Ortiz, 28 — a Hillary Clinton supporter — is behind bars after stabbing his Barack Obama-supporting brother-in-law, Sean Shurelds, following a political argument, according to KYW1060.com.

    Voter registration records reveal that Ortiz, who supports Clinton, is registered Republican.

  171. 171
    dslak says:

    Another anti-Hillary screed from John Cole at Balloon Juice? No wonder Sojourner left!

  172. 172
    p.lukasiak says:

    So did Karl Rove in 2006.

    I don’t know what numbers Rove was looking at — but it wasn’t the kinds of numbers I’m looking at — actual results

    ***************
    So Obama succeeded in getting more votes than Clinton because he actively campaigned. I don’t see how this is exactly a strike against him.

    its not meant as a strike against him. He’s running a primary campaign like a guerilla insurgency… and doing it brilliantly in terms of maintaining support for him among the populace. But while successfully defended just about every important “province” on ST, Obama took a lot of under-defended territory that day and after — including a few key provinces afterwards.

    ********
    Um… to a certain degree, yes. I think a great number of voters were on the fence and Obama’s campaign successfully mobilized said voters into turning out for his campaign.

    mobilizing voters and over-all voter sentiment are two different things. Let me put it this way, Clinton actually did better than Obama in Virginia among voter who dedided “in the last week” than among voters who had decided previously. Those earlier deciders constituted 72% of the vote, and went for Obama by 65% to 34%. The later deciders (who made up 27%) went for Obama by 60% to 40%. The final vote total gave Obama a 64% to 35% edge — almost exactly what the “early deciders” had decided on.

    And the same thing holds true for MD. Obama had 61% of people who decided more than a week prior to the primary, he had 53% of the people who decided in the last week, and wound up with 60% of the vote.

    There may have been a small swing in support toward Obama, but its pretty obvious that voters in primary states already knew who they were going to vote for when they woke up on Feb 6.

    I think Obama has played the underdog remarkably well.

    agreed, but less of an underdog he became, the better his performance has been in primary states. That doesn’t correlate with improving in the face of adversity.

  173. 173
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    You forgot McPain’s “don’t believe in hope.”

    Seeing as how McCain is old enough to hope that he sees another sunrise, that’s a bit dismissive.

  174. 174
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    But while successfully defended just about every important “province” on ST, Obama took a lot of under-defended territory that day and after—including a few key provinces afterwards.

    So much for being ready to be Commander in Chief on Day One – eh?

  175. 175
    p.lukasiak says:

    Are you claiming that Obama hasn’t taken special interest money and ALL his donations are from small rank & file donors?

    Martin didn’t say that Myiq, or even imply it. Instead, Martin gave an excellent summary of what the Obama campaign did that lead to his success, and what Clinton campaign did that has lead to a disasterous post-ST two weeks.

  176. 176
    John S. says:

    The latest non-denial non-denial from the Hillary campaign regarding the Obama photo:

    “We have over 700 people on staff. I don’t know if someone on our staff sent it out or not,” Elleithee said. “If someone on our staff makes the point that we are treated differently by the press than Sen. Obama, we agree with that sentiment. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there’s nothing divisive about that.”

    He also tried to push back at Obama: “We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo.”

  177. 177
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    empty Says:

    tBone Says:
    ..

    Point us to all of your substantive criticisms of Obama. We’ll show you ours if you show us yours, champ.

    Google is your friend t. Go for it. Though, I must say I didn’t know I had that much power over you. It seems my emptiness has lead to your lack of substance.

    this is a little late and harsh, but: That’s a fucking cop-out, empty. You’ve been challenged. If it’s so fucking easy to google it, you’d have done it and presented it, with the bonus of your own spin _and_ you could have withheld information not helpful to your argument.

    Put up or STFU. You’re helping us believe that Hillary has nothing going for her.

    (Also, if you’d like to challenge someone else, try asking “do have any substantive…”, instead of trying to pull off a pathetic insult)

  178. 178
    myiq2xu says:

    I’m saying that Obama hasn’t, in this election, taken special interest money at a level that supports your claim. I don’t doubt that some is in there, but what Obama has built is an operation that makes it easy for a random voter to A) donate and B) volunteer. And when a voter volunteers, they are FAR more likely to bring on board another random voter to donate and volunteer than a comparable amount of money and effort from Mark Penn would. Obama built an operation that supports and grows itself based on it’s own success.

    My point was that it takes money to make money – which you denied. Yes, Obama has a money raising operation in place now that takes in money like an Indian casino. But he needed start up money.

  179. 179
    John S. says:

    Are you claiming that Obama hasn’t taken special interest money and ALL his donations are from small rank & file donors?

    Yes.

    I am claiming that, and I will back it up:

    Barack Obama – Source of Funds

    Individual contributions $137,431,938 99%

    PAC contributions $25 0%

    Candidate self-financing $0 0%

    Federal Funds $0 0%

    Other $799,632 1%

    Hillary Clinton – Source of Funds

    Individual contributions $117,313,786 87%

    PAC contributions $1,045,419 1%

    Candidate self-financing $5,000,000 4%

    Federal Funds $0 0%

    Other $11,177,284 8%

    Clearly, one of these candidates has taken special interest money, and it isn’t Barack Obama.

  180. 180
    myiq2xu says:

    The latest non-denial non-denial from the Hillary campaign regarding the Obama photo:

    You left out the first part. From TalkLeft:

    Big Tent Democrat

    I am on a Howard Wolfson press conference call and in response to an Andrea Mitchell question about whether the Clinton camp was involved in pushing the Obama Somali garb photo. Wolfson answered “No, not that I am aware of.” (emphasis added)

  181. 181
    John S. says:

    Yes, Obama has a money raising operation in place now that takes in money like an Indian casino. But he needed start up money.

    And so did Hillary Clinton. According to the article you cited, she is the reigning queen of special interest and lobbyist money:

    Obama’s main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs — leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.

    Clinton’s campaign declined to comment.

    Zing!

  182. 182
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Clearly, one of these candidates has taken special interest money used their right to free speech, and it isn’t Barack Obama.

    Why does Hussein hate the first amendment??1

    [/wingnut talking point]

  183. 183
    John S. says:

    Wolfson answered “No, not that I am aware of.”

    Ah, the anatomy of plausible deniability. I’m convinced.

  184. 184
    p.lukasiak says:

    The latest non-denial non-denial from the Hillary campaign regarding the Obama photo:

    The suggestion, of course, being that Clinton herself (or at least the upper-levels of her campaign) was sending out the photo. Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence of that.

    The photo itself had run in the February 4th edition of the National Examiner — and had appeared on numerous wingnut websites prior to Drudge getting sent a copy. And the message that accompanied the photo to Drudge was about the double standard in press coverage. (Quite frankly, Obama looks pretty ridiculous in the picture, wearing a bright red t-shirt under an elegant white ceremonial gown. If Hillary had her picture taken looking that ridiculous, it WOULD HAVE attracted a lot of attention.)

  185. 185
    Billy K says:

    Why does Hussein hate the first amendment??1

    I can’t believe you even have to ask. He’s a MUSLIM, duh!

  186. 186
    myiq2xu says:

    And so did Hillary Clinton. According to the article you cited, she is the reigning queen of special interest and lobbyist money:

    Wow! What the fuck does “Hillary did it too” have to do with this? Did you pay any attention at all to my original point about how we need to eliminate the need for massive fund raising?

  187. 187
    Martin says:

    Clinton actually did better than Obama in Virginia among voter who dedided “in the last week” than among voters who had decided previously. Those earlier deciders constituted 72% of the vote, and went for Obama by 65% to 34%. The later deciders (who made up 27%) went for Obama by 60% to 40%

    Ok, you simply don’t know how to interpret polling data, then.

    Those late deciders are ‘insufficient information’ voters. Usually some combination of low-information voters and high-information voters, but ones that don’t have enough distinguishing info to pick one over another. That is, generally they are the voters that are least likely to be deciding based on informed trends, and tend to be the group that incumbent candidates love. In a close race, you’d expect them to go 50/50 (coin flip). In an incumbent race, you’d expect them to go overwhelmingly in favor of the incumbent. Since in Virginia it was a close race and because Hillary is running as if she were the incumbent, that Obama beat her is really problematic. It doesn’t fortell diminishing momentum from him, rather that if nothing more were said about the race, Hillary would be toast, and that if anything, she needs to substantially increase the information gap between her and Obama just to draw even. Given that the national narrative has been that these two candidate are both landmark candidates for political progress *and* very similar on issues, it only underscores that Hillary needed to significantly widen either the character or electability perceptions between her and Obama. She didn’t do that going into VA. She didn’t do it going into WI. That’s why you see the polling trends that you do.

  188. 188
    myiq2xu says:

    Ah, the anatomy of plausible deniability. I’m convinced.

    It’s more like “As far as I know no one associated with the Hillary campaign had anything to do with it but if it turns out someone did then you’re not gonna call me a liar.”

    Do you have anything beside Drudge to prove Hillary’s campaign was involved?

    Or are we enforcing the usual “guilty until proven innocent” rule on Hillary?

  189. 189
    Billy K says:

    FYI:

    Just visited TPM.

    A new poll from Public Policy Polling (D) shows the Ohio primary to be at its narrowest margin yet from any pollster. Hillary Clinton still has the lead, but it’s a bare 50%-46% edge over Barack Obama.

    and

    CNN Poll: Obama Up 4 Points In Texas
    The new CNN poll of Texas has some big news — for the first time, a reputable poll now puts Barack Obama ahead in this important March 4 primary, although the results aren’t quite conclusive.

    Here are the numbers, compared to last week:

    Obama 50% (+2)
    Clinton 46% (-4)

    I don’t think Texas counts, though. Regardless, Obama is just doing well because he has campaigned well and people like him and his message.

  190. 190
    myiq2xu says:

    Those late deciders are ‘insufficient information’ voters. Usually some combination of low-information voters and high-information voters, but ones that don’t have enough distinguishing info to pick one over another. That is, generally they are the voters that are least likely to be deciding based on informed trends, and tend to be the group that incumbent candidates love. In a close race, you’d expect them to go 50/50 (coin flip). In an incumbent race, you’d expect them to go overwhelmingly in favor of the incumbent

    Shorter version: They’re stupid

  191. 191
    TheFountainHead says:

    I was really really hoping this campaign wasn’t going to come to this kind of crap. It makes NO ONE look good.

  192. 192
    p.lukasiak says:

    re: the photo…

    like the “muslim” email, this photo has doubtless been around the block numerous times, and people have like drudge have doubtless had it forwarded to them numerous times.

    Wait long enough, and someone associated with the clinton campaign is going to get forwarded a copy, and act like an idiot and forward it on to someone like Drudge.

    Its obviously NOT a story when the right-wing noise machine is circulating this photo. It only becomes a story when the it can be tied, however tenuously, to the Clinton campaign.

  193. 193
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Or are we enforcing the usual “guilty until proven innocent” rule on Hillary?

    It’s closer to “who are we going to see first about this broken store window, the drunk that’s been roiling for the last 6 hours (Hillary), or the drunk that’s just getting out of the liquor store and crushing his second beer can now?”

    (granted, it could’ve been someone else, but that’s no fun for anyone, apparently)

  194. 194
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    or the drunk that’s just getting out of the liquor store and crushing his second beer can now?

    by which, I meant McCain.

  195. 195
    Martin says:

    My point was that it takes money to make money – which you denied. Yes, Obama has a money raising operation in place now that takes in money like an Indian casino. But he needed start up money.

    No, I denied that it takes special interest money to make money, which was your claim. I put forward that Obama has an operation that can run directly off of individual contributions from day one. Hillary does not. The FEC numbers support my assertion.

  196. 196
    TheFountainHead says:

    Shorter version: They’re stupid

    The vast majority of Americans fall into this category by pretty much any standard of measure. What’s your point. Teh stoopid in America has been controlling this country since day one. The price you pay for anything resembling a true Democracy, or a Republic, in this case.

  197. 197
    TheFountainHead says:

    like the “muslim” email, this photo has doubtless been around the block numerous times, and people have like drudge have doubtless had it forwarded to them numerous times.

    Wait long enough, and someone associated with the clinton campaign is going to get forwarded a copy, and act like an idiot and forward it on to someone like Drudge.

    I’d like to see some evidence that this photo HAS been floating around for some time. As someone pretty well wired into the internet and this primary season, this was the first I’ve seen of it, and I’ve received the “Oh NOES! Obama is teh Muslim!” e-mail at least a half-dozen times.

  198. 198
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    myiq:

    The problem with the current system is that a politician needs to raise millions from special interests in order to position themself to start getting lots of small donations.

    Martin:

    No, I denied that it takes special interest money to make money, which was your claim. I put forward that Obama has an operation that can run directly off of individual contributions from day one. Hillary does not. The FEC numbers support my assertion.

    Yeah, Martin’s right. Obama proved that it is possible to quit the money cold turkey, even if it hurts like a bitch in the beginning.

    However, I think that Obama’s boyish charm and people’s minor incredulity at his prospects probably kept him protected in the beginning from being tested.

    However-to-the-however, this was a _freaking long_ primary.

  199. 199
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    However-to-the-however, this was a freaking long primary.

    However-to-the-however-to-the-however (however^3), this freaking long primary is probably what gave Obama enough room to get past the cold turkey. Like a Galaxy-class airplane that needs two miles of runway and a head-wind just to get its wheels barely off of the ground.

  200. 200
  201. 201
    Zifnab says:

    I was really really hoping this campaign wasn’t going to come to this kind of crap. It makes NO ONE look good.

    Dude. Whatever. How you can complain about Clinton and Obama when McCain/Romney/Huckabee were all competing for the coveted “most offensive to Latinos” medal of honor is beyond me.

    This race had nothing on Kerry/Edwards/Dean. I honestly think Clinton will walk out of this election with the best reputation she’s had in a generation, even if she does lose. And Obama has more fanboies nationwide than any three other candidates combined. People sacrifice first-born sons for an election this good.

  202. 202
    jake says:

    Crap. Wrong thread.

  203. 203
    myiq2xu says:

    I’d like to see some evidence that this photo HAS been floating around for some time.

    Right here:

    The photo itself had run in the February 4th edition of the National Examiner—and had appeared on numerous wingnut websites prior to Drudge getting sent a copy.

  204. 204
    TheFountainHead says:

    Zif, I don’t completely disagree. But what if you’re a muslim, or a latino?

  205. 205
    jcricket says:

    Either way, I think it would be insane for Clinton to back out before March 4th. Why? The Giants had more reason to back out of the Super Bowl than Clinton has to give up now. She can, conceivably, turn it around. I doubt it. But if I was running for President, I wouldn’t pick this moment – of all moments – to throw in the towel.

    Sober minds (i.e. not most BJ commentors) think this is a perfectly reasonable argument. But as usual, in every thread where TZ decides this is Galipoli he thinks shouting a lot and his age make him the winner. It’s one of the most tiring things since the trolls left.

    Personally, as a Hillary supporter, I don’t want her to drop out and see no reason for her to do so except to make Obama supporters who believe he’s everyone’s 1st choice (show me that popular vote margin again?) and the only candidate that can win ™ happy. Fuck that.

    Every call for Hillary to drop out right now is 5% substance and 95% posturing because you voted for Obama. And sure, I can 100% guarantee HRC supporters would be posturing exactly like Obama supporters are right now, were the situation reversed. But that’s neither here nor there.

    If Hillary can win TX and OH, even by small margins, I want her to continue. Let’s have more debates. What if people in PA and other states vote for Hillary more than Obama? Should we just discount those states. Remember how you (rightly) ridiculed her posturing dismissal of various contests Obama has one.

    Personally, I know it’s a long shot, and the best case scenario (for Hillary) I can imagine is that they go into the post-April period with her having a small lead. I don’t know what happens here, but I’d be happy with a Hillary/Obama ticket in that scenario. I know you Obama fans wouldn’t be, but whatever.

    Republicans posture all the time to get Dems to fold before they even try to push a bill this way or that (i.e. present it as a “done deal” so as to cut off an in-person negotiation).

    So get ready for at least another 2 weeks of campaigning, and if Obama loses TX and OH, another month+ (can’t see Hillary folding before PA in that scenario).

  206. 206
    p.lukasiak says:

    Ok, you simply don’t know how to interpret polling data, then…It doesn’t fortell diminishing momentum from him, rather that if nothing more were said about the race, Hillary would be toast, and that if anything, she needs to substantially increase the information gap between her and Obama just to draw even.

    Martin, while I agree with most of what you said, you seem to be implying that I said something I didn’t regarding the polling data — i.e. that it had something to do with diminishing momentum. My point was simply to demonstrate that there hadn’t been this enormous shift in public opinion between Feb. 6 and Feb 12 — that voter sentiments in the post ST states was pretty much already set by ST, thanks to superior strategy of the Obama campaign.

    I personally think that the “late decider” data itself is meaningless, because it doesn’t differentiate between people who are genuinely “undecided” during the last week, and those who are leaning one way or the other. Polls taken in VA in the immediate aftermath of ST show, at most 11% undecided.
    (I don’t know where Pollster.com got the 15% undecided for the one poll from… the linked site shows only 11% being completely undecided, and 17% for completely undecided and leaning.)

  207. 207
    TheFountainHead says:

    Okay, so the picture has been around for a few weeks. Not nearly as long as the Obama is a Muslim e-mail which has been around for literally a year or more, and even to this day is being given credence by the MSM.

  208. 208
    myiq2xu says:

    No, I denied that it takes special interest money to make money, which was your claim. I put forward that Obama has an operation that can run directly off of individual contributions from day one.

    From my earlier link:

    But behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

    In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns — $296,000 of $461,000 — came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

    Obama’s US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton’s Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

    In addition, Obama’s own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions — including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries — to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

    Y’all need to back the fuck up from acting like Obama’s shit don’t stink.

    From Yahoo:

    “But the Exelon-Obama link is especially strong. Exelon employees and others close to the company have given almost $195,000 to Obama, according to the latest records. Exelon is surpassed among corporate Obama donors by only Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman Brothers and a couple of other companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

  209. 209
    John S. says:

    Do you have anything beside Drudge to prove Hillary’s campaign was involved?

    Yes, her campaign’s reaction.

    See, the correct response would have been:

    We find this type of campaign tactic to be reprehensible, and as far as we know it did not originate with our campaign. If we find out otherwise, that person will no longer be employed with our organization.

    Not:

    We have over 700 people on staff. I don’t know if someone on our staff sent it out or not,” Elleithee said. “If someone on our staff makes the point that we are treated differently by the press than Sen. Obama, we agree with that sentiment. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo.

    See how easy that is? Maybe I should run her fucking camapign.

  210. 210
    Billy K says:

    I always liked Robert Reich. He fought crime with Conan O’Brien.

    It is easy for cynics to write off Obamania as a passing fad, as lofty rhetoric that can’t and won’t hold up on close inspection — another bout of the kind of naive and romantic enthrallment that occasionally claims American voters until common sense sets in. This is surely what Hillary Clinton and my friend from forty years ago are counting on. But if the Clintons stop to think back to what they felt and understood in those years leading up to 1968, they may come to a different conclusion, as have I.

  211. 211
    John S. says:

    Y’all need to back the fuck up from acting like Obama’s shit don’t stink.

    You need to get with the times. Yes, Obama took PAC and lobbyist money in years past – there is no denying that.

    We are in 2008, discussing the campaign for the presidency. In that regards – and specifically related to financing – Obama’s shit smells a whole lot prettier than Clinton’s.

    Did you even fucking look at the numbers from the current election cycle I posted?

  212. 212
    Martin says:

    Shorter version: They’re stupid

    No, shorter version – they’re essentially undecided and are making the best choice they can based on what to them is limited information.

    Given your analytical approach it be just as easy to argue that the early voters are the stupid ones because, by deciding so early, they are clearly either racist or sexist by completely ignoring the most recent information.

    Honestly, the only real conclusion you can draw on undecided and late-deciding voters is that they are reasonably close to undecided, and then walk back how undecided voters traditionally vote. p.diddy is failing to acknowledge that there is some fundamental difference between early and late deciding voters and assuming that if there is some 2nd derivative trend in the late deciders/undecided pool that it suggests a first-derivative trend in the entire sample. That is, quite simply, retarded.

  213. 213
    myiq2xu says:

    I personally think that the “late decider” data itself is meaningless, because it doesn’t differentiate between people who are genuinely “undecided” during the last week, and those who are leaning one way or the other. Polls taken in VA in the immediate aftermath of ST show, at most 11% undecided.

    It also ignores people who lie to pollsters.

    But there is an amusing meme (I believe someone mentioned it above somewhere) that “Obama does better when the voters get to know him.”

    That’s generally true of all candidates except Rudy Guiliani.

    But there are also missing variables. In Iowa, it was a multi-candidate race where all the candidates had been campaigning for months. New Hamster was similar, but it was affected by Iowa and then the “Tweety Effect.”

    By South Carolina is was down to three and we had the whole “race card” bullshit.

    We have only had Hillary and Obama running head to head for a few weeks, with only a couple debates and each successive campaign taking place a few days apart.

    And there is also the effect of all the Hillary Haters (you know who you are) banding together under one candidate.

  214. 214
    myiq2xu says:

    We are in 2008, discussing the campaign for the presidency. In that regards – and specifically related to financing – Obama’s shit smells a whole lot prettier than Clinton’s.

    It still don’t smell like roses.

  215. 215
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    But behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

    In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns—$296,000 of $461,000—came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

    Obama’s US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton’s Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

    In addition, Obama’s own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions—including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries—to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

    Y’all need to back the fuck up from acting like Obama’s shit don’t stink.

    my eyes are a-rollin’. OK, Obama took money before. That’s not awesome, obviously.

    We’re still impressed that he said, with bluster, “I won’t take money from special interests”, and actually did it.

    We’re used to misdirection and misinformation, and this little stunt didn’t turn out to be either (at least, not yet). That’s applaudable, no?

  216. 216
    ThymeZone says:

    He’s running a primary campaign like a guerilla insurgency

    That’s right — the sneak is holding rallies and talking to voters. Why doesn’t the bastard stick to the scientific analysis of demographic actuarial realities like you do?

    Keep that spreadsheet warmed up, Paul. You’ll need it in November.

  217. 217
    myiq2xu says:

    No, shorter version – they’re essentially undecided and are making the best choice they can based on what to them is limited information.

    Your original comment was:

    Those late deciders are ‘insufficient information’ voters. Usually some combination of low-information voters and high-information voters, but ones that don’t have enough distinguishing info to pick one over another. That is, generally they are the voters that are least likely to be deciding based on informed trends, and tend to be the group that incumbent candidates love.(emphasis added)

    Perhaps they kept an open mind until they had all the latest information? You asserted that they are “low-information” voters. Do you have any data on who these people are and how much information they had available?

    Given your analytical approach it be just as easy to argue that the early voters are the stupid ones because, by deciding so early, they are clearly either racist or sexist by completely ignoring the most recent information.

    Or perhaps they never saw any reason to change their minds.

  218. 218
    John S. says:

    It still don’t smell like roses.

    What part of the fact that 99% of all Obama’s money came from individual donors smells “bad” to you?

    Sorry, but in reference to the 2008 campaign, his shit smells pretty damn nice, and I fail to see what you are holding your nose at.

  219. 219
    jcricket says:

    We have only had Hillary and Obama running head to head for a few weeks, with only a couple debates and each successive campaign taking place a few days apart.

    And there is also the effect of all the Hillary Haters (you know who you are) banding together under one candidate.

    This is the positive spin (and it’s how I’d spin it, as a Hillary fan). It’s also possible Obama is going to be a far better crossover candidate, and that’s what’s gonna keep him increasing his lead in the coming weeks or months.

    If that happens, so be it.

    If not, there’s something different happening, and I’m sure the Obama fans will find new rationalizations why he’s not crushing Hillary into little tiny Clintonite particles.

  220. 220
    myiq2xu says:

    We’re still impressed that he said, with bluster, “I won’t take money from special interests”, and actually did it.

    Was that a royal “we?”

    BTW – He’s been known to flip-flop on issues, like 527 expenditures.

  221. 221
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Was that a royal “we?”

    Jesus christ, if you could just stop fucking running your mouth like a petulant child, we might just be able to get to the end of an adult conversation with you. You wanna throw snark, fine. You want to talk with us, then talk. Otherwise, STFU. I’m getting sick of telling between snark myiq and buzzkill myiq.

    BTW – He’s been known to flip-flop on issues, like 527 expenditures.

    I’ll keep my eyes open, then.

  222. 222
    empty says:

    Caidence (fmr. Chris) Says:

    empty Says:

    tBone Says:

    ..

    Point us to all of your substantive criticisms of Obama. We’ll show you ours if you show us yours, champ.

    Google is your friend t. Go for it. Though, I must say I didn’t know I had that much power over you. It seems my emptiness has lead to your lack of substance.

    this is a little late and harsh, but: That’s a fucking cop-out, empty. You’ve been challenged. If it’s so fucking easy to google it, you’d have done it and presented it, with the bonus of your own spin and you could have withheld information not helpful to your argument.

    Put up or STFU. You’re helping us believe that Hillary has nothing going for her.

    O Jeez, its macho man John Wayne Caidence again. Hey Duke, googling is teh easy. Trust me. And no one is challenging anyone to a shootout here. t was doing a pivot – I am not going to respond to your statement, I am going to accuse you of something.

    But, just for you, because you are so gosh darn adorable when you strut around with your spurs all a jangle, here is one.

    empty Says:

    He would be the first socialist to have the backing of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Here are his top ten contributers in order according to opensecrets.org:

    Goldman Sachs, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Exelon Corp, Kirkland & Ellis, U. of Chicago, Lehman Brothers, Sidley Austin LLP, National Amusements Inc, Citigroup.

    I suppose it could be the socialists at the Univ. of Chicago.

    Now this post argues that Obama is not a socialist and is in fact beloved by Wall Street. Notice the short succinct nature of the prose. And I will let you google the context for yourself. Consider it an exercise.

  223. 223
    p.lukasiak says:

    re: the new CNN poll… can anyone find the actual polls, as opposed to stories based on a press release?

    because, for all intents and purposes, this press release is meaningless. And its not because of the margin of error.

    This is what a meaningful poll looks like

    if you look at this data, what you see is that while the “headline” would be “Clinton 50, Obama 45”, only 82% of people have actually “made up their minds”. 5% are genuinely undecided, and the leaners are pretty evenly split.

    (btw, I’m not presenting this poll to say that Hillary is ahead… just to present the fact that press releases don’t give an accurate reflection of where public opinion really is, and “margin of error” is far less important than what percentage of voters can still be considered “in play”)

  224. 224
    ThymeZone says:

    his shit smells pretty damn nice

    Request for new campaign slogan, REJECTED.

    We’e sticking with Yes We Can.

    But, thanks.

  225. 225
    John S. says:

    Request for new campaign slogan, REJECTED.

    Aw, shucks. And I even had a brand name picked out…

    Excremints

  226. 226
    Martin says:

    Martin, while I agree with most of what you said, you seem to be implying that I said something I didn’t regarding the polling data—i.e. that it had something to do with diminishing momentum.

    You are correct, my mistake.

    My point was simply to demonstrate that there hadn’t been this enormous shift in public opinion between Feb. 6 and Feb 12—that voter sentiments in the post ST states was pretty much already set by ST, thanks to superior strategy of the Obama campaign.

    I don’t see how you can conclude that without a larger breakout of the data. You assert that everyone had essentially decided by 2/5, and that the ST trend of mixed wins by candidates should be transferrable to any future primary based on minimal change in voter attitudes between 2/5 and 2/12. It’s equally valid to assert that in order for voters to lean towards Clinton they must be reached by Clinton early and often, otherwise they lean toward Obama, and that any state that Clinton didn’t campaign in early is unlikely to go for her given a late approach (she really didn’t campaign in any of the 2/12 states). Now, that might be an argument that had Clinton campaigned in all states that she’d be better off, but that’s just a subsection of the ‘electability’ argument, in that if the ‘better’ candidate can’t manage a win in November, they should be eliminated in the primaries. Clinton supporters seem intent to wave that off, but honestly, in November do you think the GOP would give us back the White House if we could show conclusive statistical evidence that had we run a different campaign that the Dems would have won? Of course not, so they really need to STFU on that.

    As to whether it suggests that HRC can win this yet, I’d say no because she continues with the strategy – focusing only on 3 states while Obama focuses on all. If that trend were to hold, she gets crushed in the states she isn’t competing in (taken as a group), whereas in the states she is competing in, he can keep her from winning by large margins as he has up to now. So, the conclusion is that without a fundamental strategy change she still loses. Has she changed her state campaign strategy? No, she changed her national campaign strategy by going negative which has shown no evidence of working.

  227. 227
    myiq2xu says:

    O Jeez, its macho man John Wayne Bobbit Caidence again.

    Fixt

  228. 228
    myiq2xu says:

    Aw, shucks. And I even had a brand name picked out…

    Excremints

    POTD!

  229. 229
    Z says:

    As an Obama Fangrrl, I’d be happy with an Obama/Clinton ticket. I don’t think it will happen, but it would be completely awesome.

  230. 230
    tBone says:

    Now this post argues that Obama is not a socialist and is in fact beloved by Wall Street.

    This is your example of substantive criticism of Obama? Honestly, after that huge opening I left you, I expected better.

  231. 231
    p.lukasiak says:

    We have only had Hillary and Obama running head to head for a few weeks, with only a couple debates and each successive campaign taking place a few days apart.

    actually, they’ve only run “head to head” in a limited number of states on Super Tuesday. The Obama campaign does not appear to have much effort in some states that Clinton won (AR, NY, and MA… the extent of her win there looks to me like the Obama campaign let Duval Patrick run things there), and the Clinton campaign made little effort in most of the states that Obama won.

    (sneak peak from my next project)

    In the states where the margin was under 15%, Clinton overall vote total was 6.1% higher than Obama’s. In states where the margin was greater than 15%, Obama’s overall vote was 6.2% higher than Clinton’s.

  232. 232
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Consider it an exercise.

    I work for a living, and I’m on here at least trying to give jerks like you a chance to change my mind. You want me to see your way, *you* make it easy for *me*.

    You say “google it”, I <strike> it out and replace it with “I’m full of shit and have nothing to show for it, PLEASE RAPE MY FACE”

    Nothing more needed about that. It’s a cop out, and it doesn’t require spurs to call a waste of a div tag what it is.

  233. 233
    Tom in Texas says:

    In the states where the margin was under 15%, Clinton overall vote total was 6.1% higher than Obama’s. In states where the margin was greater than 15%, Obama’s overall vote was 6.2% higher than Clinton’s.

    So he either barely loses or blows her out?

  234. 234
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    You say “google it”, I strike it out and replace it with “I’m full of shit and have nothing to show for it, PLEASE RAPE MY FACE”

    Nothing more needed about that. It’s a cop out, and it doesn’t require spurs to call a waste of a div tag what it is.

    I fucking hate the formatting on this site. Really. Just, damn.

    PROTIP for the techies: it apparently will take your gt; and lt; entities and build an html tag, and then interpret the tag in a second parse phase. God only knows why.

  235. 235
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    O Jeez, its macho man John Wayne Bobbit Caidence again.

    And _now_ I have to keep you away from the knives. Great.

    ~not yet though, I need to get my cup first~

  236. 236
    empty says:

    This is your example of substantive criticism of Obama? Honestly, after that huge opening I left you, I expected better.

    Nice try t. You want substantive, read myiq2xu, p.lukasiak, or jcricket. I am just empty.

  237. 237
    p.lukasiak says:

    I don’t see how you can conclude that without a larger breakout of the data. You assert that everyone had essentially decided by 2/5, and that the ST trend of mixed wins by candidates should be transferrable to any future primary based on minimal change in voter attitudes between 2/5 and 2/12.

    well, not quite. I don’t think that everything was decided by 2/5, just that Clinton didn’t have a whole lot of room to grow, and a very limited amount of time to grow in.

    Nor do I think that ST trends should be automatically transferred to the uncoming states — just that the post-ST state data is likely to be far less predictive than ST data for states like Texas and Ohio. (I read somewhere recently that the Clinton camps is STILL not doing much in VT — I mean, could someone hand them a clue — and there I think the post-ST data will probably be a better indicator of results.)

    It’s equally valid to assert that in order for voters to lean towards Clinton they must be reached by Clinton early and often, otherwise they lean toward Obama, and that any state that Clinton didn’t campaign in early is unlikely to go for her given a late approach (she really didn’t campaign in any of the 2/12 states).

    except that in Texas and Ohio, voters were leaning toward Clinton without being “reached” by her campaign, because they weren’t being “reached” by the Obama campaign either. Or as you might put it, after ST a big percentage of TX and OH voters remained “low information” voters (after all, the media was telling them that it would all be over on ST), and since then those voters have focussed on the campaign, and the race has tightened considerably as one would expect with two good candidates.

    My guess is that the Obama campaign had set up skeletal infrastuctures in TX and OH, and began filling them in after ST, and went in big after the Potomac primary (and right now, have their skeletal structure ready in PA). Clinton, on the other hand, had nothing of any consequence in OH and TX… and has been playing catch-up organizationally since ST. So while TX and OH voters were getting contacted the week after ST by Obama, Clinton was still putting her organizations together in those states.

    everything else I pretty much agree with. As I noted earlier, I expect Clinton to get crushed in VT (don’t know what is going on in RI) and in Mississippi and Wyoming in the week after March 4. But then, the primary calendar is essentially empty until Pennsylvania on April 22 — and as long as she wins in Ohio by a decent margin, and stays close in TX, I think her campaign will have enough time to revamp and contest all the post-PA primaries.

    (in one way, I hope she loses big on March 4 — I live in Philly, and after March 4, Pennsylvania is going to be the new Iowa…times 10.)

    It’s equally valid to assert that in order for voters to lean towards Clinton they must be reached by Clinton early and often, otherwise they lean toward Obama, and that any state that Clinton didn’t campaign in early is unlikely to go for her given a late approach (she really didn’t campaign in any of the 2/12 states).

  238. 238
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I am just empty.

    I am SO modifying the pie filter for empty just so it says this. Just for him.

    He wants me to waste brain cells on empty crap, I’ll save the cells and help him out with his composition.

  239. 239
    tBone says:

    You want substantive, read myiq2xu, p.lukasiak, or jcricket.

    Christ, you’re a spoof. How did I miss that?

  240. 240
    empty says:

    tBone Says:

    You want substantive, read myiq2xu, p.lukasiak, or jcricket.

    Christ, you’re a spoof. How did I miss that?

    Well, hell t. You can’t be right all the time.

  241. 241
    ThymeZone says:

    During President Obama’s first term, Paul Lukasiak will be hired by John MCain to investigate why Hillary Clinton was denied the nomination she earned fair and square but lost to Obama on some kind of razzle-shazzle vote count mambo bijambo.

  242. 242
    Martin says:

    Perhaps they kept an open mind until they had all the latest information? You asserted that they are “low-information” voters. Do you have any data on who these people are and how much information they had available?

    I asserted they were low-information or insufficient information voters. They could be extremely high information voters that haven’t quite seen enough to decide (what you call open-minded). Even for that group, the perceived differences between them are small – that is, non-compelling. What you seem to be missing is that they are all making the same decision. A rabid Hillary hater ultimately makes precisely the same decision as the guy who says “Eh, I’ll give Obama a shot…” The difference is that the former is probably an early decision maker and the latter is probably a late decision maker. For the late decision makers, lots of other variables therefore come into play – underlying prejudices, inevitability, and so on. They may not be worse decisions, but they tend to be more predictable decisions based on factors outside of what was sent to them in the mail and the debates they watched.

    In other words, they tend to be predicable in broad ways around the nature of the election itself rather than the issues or traits of the individuals running. These are the people that often go in rationally wanting to vote for the black guy (“I’m no bigot!”) but convince themselves otherwise when they get in the voting booth (“But the fact that he doesn’t wear a pin really bothers me”). (Or I’m not sexist!, but her voice drives me crazy) Or just don’t know and reason that the incumbent, though he totally sucks is a known quantity and therefore the magnitude of suckage is known and they vote for him. Neither of these trends reflect in any way on the candidates positions, issues, character, or anything else that the candidate has control over. Basically, the voters with insufficient information on the candidates more or less dismisses *all* of the information on the candidates (as it cancels itself out) and bases most of their decision on a different set of data. And so those late-stage voters are poor reflections of the candidates as individuals and better reflections of the voters themselves – which is why they are predictable.

  243. 243
    myiq2xu says:

    So he either barely loses or blows her out?

    No, if he loses he blows her. And vice-versa.

    It’s a little side bet they made.

  244. 244
    p.lukasiak says:

    So he either barely loses or blows her out?

    no. Obama won in a few “competitive” states (MO +1, CT +4, DE +11, AL +14), and “barely lost” in only one (NM -1). He also lost AZ (-8), CA (-9), NJ (-10), and TN (-13) by respectable margins.

    The only real blowout state (states where the margin was 28% or more) on ST were AR (+44 Clinton), IL (+32 Obama) and GA (+35 Obama). But Obama’s “all to date” totals also include blowouts in SC (+29), VA (+28), and DC (+51). Hillary’s SOLE blowout state has been her home state of Arkansas.

  245. 245
    ThymeZone says:

    Are we questioning the existence of “low information voters?” Sizebable numbers of them don’t believe in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old, and are sure that they and their Jesusloving friends are going to be snatched right up out of their pickup trucks on the epressway during rush hour and taken right to heaven.
    They think that Terri Schiavo was one turkey dinner away from writing a novel.

    Yeah, we have a few low information voters out there.

  246. 246
    myiq2xu says:

    Well, hell t. You can’t be right all the time.

    I’m still waiting for “once.”

  247. 247
    p.lukasiak says:

    correction… the data I cited for more competitive/less competitive states included all primary states (except WA, with its ‘beauty pageant) not just ST states. So add to the list of competitive states Clinton’s +2.6% win in NH to the list.

  248. 248
    empty says:

    He wants me to waste brain cells on empty crap,

    See I am nice. If I wasn’t your brain cells would be full of crap. On the other hand, maybe I am not.

  249. 249
    myiq2xu says:

    Are we questioning the existence of “low information voters?”

    We’re talking about Democrats, not Republicans

  250. 250
    ThymeZone says:

    (MO +1, CT +4, DE +11, AL +14), and “barely lost” in only one (NM -1). He also lost AZ (-8), CA (-9), NJ (-10), and TN (-13)

    Curiouser and curiouser. Your brain slowly takes on the appearance … and functionality … of swiss cheese.

  251. 251
    tBone says:

    I’m still waiting for “once.”

    Low blow, coming from someone who had Kucinich at the top of his list.

  252. 252
    p.lukasiak says:

    Martin, if you are still reading this, its been a pleasure discussing this stuff with you.

    oh, and TZ

    Curiouser and curiouser. Your brain slowly takes on the appearance … and functionality … of swiss cheese.

    thanks for sharing. Now go fuck yourself. Thank You.

  253. 253
    ThymeZone says:

    Now go fuck yourself

    Well argued, Paul. Really. Another week of you, and Clinton will be coming in third.

  254. 254
    ThymeZone says:

    Paul, can you pack those numbers of yours closer together?

    Also, subscript and superscript will help.

    thanks in advance!

  255. 255
    myiq2xu says:

    Now go fuck yourself. Thank You.

    Don’t take it personal Paul. TZ is a sales rep for a new Apoplexy medication and he’s just trying to drum up business.

  256. 256
    empty says:

    TZ is a sales rep for a new Apoplexy medication

    and his own best customer.

  257. 257
    jake says:

    Don’t take it personal Paul. TZ is a sales rep for a new Apoplexy medication and he’s just trying to drum up business.

    Apoplexy?! God fucking damn it, that lying bastard said it’d make my …

    Um.

    Never mind.

  258. 258
    ThymeZone says:

    Don’t take it personal Paul.

    No, he should take it personally. I have never seen anyone here go so completely in the tank for something. Bizarre.

  259. 259
    John S. says:

    The latest from SUSA:

    Texas: Obama 49%, Clinton 45%

    In a Democratic Primary in Texas today, 02/25/08, 8 days till votes are counted, Barack Obama moves ever-so-slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton, though at the edge of the margin of sampling error, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KTRK-TV Houston, KTVT-TV Dallas and KRLD-AM radio Dallas. Today, it’s Obama 49%, Clinton 45%. Compared to a SurveyUSA tracking poll released one week ago, Obama is up 4 points, Clinton is down 5 points.

    Wow, a nine point swing in seven days.

  260. 260
    Googootz says:

    She has the right to run, but if all she is doing is driving down Obama and not building herself up, one does have to ask what the point is.

    I wish some of her advisers would remind her that there is a general election to be won too…

    It’s real simple: Since Clinton isn’t going to be president this time around, she has to set the stage for 2012. If Obama wins the presdiential race, a run in 2012 for Clinton will not be possible and her lifelong burning desire to be president will be unfulfilled.

    Therefore, she has to make sure McCain wins in 2008.

    Poison the wells. Burn down the village in order to save it.
    Yup.

  261. 261
    jcricket says:

    No, he should take it personally. I have never seen anyone here go so completely in the tank for something. Bizarre.

    This is FUCKING RICH coming from the master of making mountains out of molehills and fighting every last tiny battle as if it was Iwo Jima, Pearl Harbor, D Day and whatever else all rolled into one.

    Seriously TZ, can you not fucking see how often you queer a thread by your insistence that you’re the only knowledgeable person about a subject and shouting louder and louder and louder proves it?

    I’ve been her a long time (probably not as long as you, but since the Terri Schiavo thing) and I remember your history. So you calling other posters out for their behavior is pretty bold. Perhaps your advanced age has turned your cajones to stone.

  262. 262
    jcricket says:

    Therefore, she has to make sure McCain wins in 2008.

    Poison the wells. Burn down the village in order to save it.

    To me this argument, when advanced seriously, is an example of applying the “Clinton rules” to Hillary. Because she’s not willing to line up behind the MUP and is willing to go negative against Obama (which often works, just maybe not this time) she’s trying to destroy the Democratic party?

    C’mon. She’s running to win. She’s got a lot of popular votes, and has won many states. Obama has the momentum, and it doesn’t look like that will change, but it could.

    Unlike those who seem to ascribe such negative motives to the Clinton (when I think it’s really just poorly thought out tactics on their part), I bet if Obama continues to build his lead this next month, Hillary will wail and gnash her teeth, but then drop out and get behind him.

    Stop being ridiculous and paranoid.

Comments are closed.