Groundhog Days

So Hillary wins by ten in Ohio (54-44), ekes out a 3% win in Texas (51-48), and the delegate lead doesn’t change one bit, but somehow we are supposed to believe this has radically changed the race. It hasn’t, but such is the narrative of spin.

Meanwhile, Republicans celebrate, and the Clinton campaign has learned that dumpster diving and going negative pays off.

I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty.

*** Update ***

And I forgot the worst thing- I am in the Pennsylvania television markets. I am going to have to suffer through weeks of Clinton commericals lying about Obama.






465 replies
  1. 1
    Arsenio Billingham says:

    What are the delegate estimates for 3/4 at this point?

  2. 2
    pharniel says:

    goddamnit. *sigh* teh MUP needs to coup de gracie them.

  3. 3
    SGEW says:

    (T)he Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out . . . .

    I truly believe that the current primary race is not, in fact, tearing apart the Democratic party. We (i.e., obsessive blog readers) may be, but the vast majority of voters appear to be pretty content with the state of the race, and would be satisfied if either candidate wins the nomination.

    The left-wing, so-called netroots maybe getting ripped asunder, but,I would say, the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are not.

    I hope.

  4. 4
    chopper says:

    So Hillary wins by ten in Ohio (54-44), ekes out a 3% win in Texas (51-48), and the delegate doesn’t change one bit, but somehow we are supposed to believe this has radically changed the race. It hasn’t, but such is the narrative of spin.

    to the victor goes the spin. yeah, clinton was ahead by 20+ points in both states as little as a few weeks ago, and most everybody who ran the math knew she needed huge (really huge) victories in OH and TX to remain viable, but in reality all you need is to eke out the tiniest win to claim to be on top and the pundits will agree.

  5. 5
    SGEW says:

    Oh, and as an aside:

    I already hate being a Democrat.

    Aw, you broke your cherry! Welcome to the Democratic party, champions of perennial disappointment and bitterness.

  6. 6
    Tim H. says:

    So start your own party. I’m up for it. Let’s see if we can get the Johns in power.

  7. 7

    What the fuck did you expect, John? We are not members of an organized political party, we are Democrats! In this, those of us who have been members of the party for decades have an advantage over you; we’re used to our unwillingness to coalesce like good sheep behind a Leader, no matter how distasteful.

    I’m sorry you don’t like Clinton, but, frankly, if she wins the nom, it’ll be by fighting against a strong and well-funded opponent who ran a decent, but not great, campaign against her. If Obama, with his vastly superior ground-game and astounding fund-raising ability, can’t win the nom, then he is deeply flawed *as a candidate*, and needs some grooming before he’s ready to run on his own.

    He’s shown himself inexperienced when it comes to running campaigns — and that, folks, is the prerequisite to any other kind of experience. The primary system’s purpose is to find that kind of thing out, and it has done so. Now that we’ve found the spaghetti that sticks, it’s time for Obama to show that he can scrape it off the wall.

  8. 8
    Cassidy says:

    He’s shown himself inexperienced when it comes to running campaigns

    So how many states do you have to win for this stement to be considered not true? Call me crazy, but I’m under the impression that Obama went through an 11 (10?) state ass whupping, and HRC has only been able to claim a victory last night.

    My details may be wrong, but the gist of the argument is still the same.

  9. 9
    Face says:

    The left-wing, so-called netroots maybe getting ripped asunder, but,I would say, the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are not.

    Exactly. Blogs are all in a huge brawl, but a majority of Dems would vote for either, happily. Like me.

  10. 10
    Cyrus says:

    I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out engaging in spirited debate and activism while staying on the front page so that we can might continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty choose a candidate who’s only somewhat more to the left than Kerry and only slightly less electable.

    Fixed. Being all Pollyanna-ish doesn’t suit me, but my worst-case scenarios would include Hillary winning by superdelegates; or a long close fight over seating Michigan and Florida’s delegates; or really serious racism or sexism coming into play in the primaries, not this Mickey Mouse bullshit about “periodically” and “boy.”

    The nomination race going for another month or two, maybe even all the way to the convention, isn’t in my top five worst.

  11. 11
    AkaDad says:

    I’m sorry you don’t like Clinton, but, frankly, if she wins the nom

    How can Hillary win the nomination without cheating?

  12. 12
    Jen says:

    Asked on CBS’s “The Early Show” whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said:

    “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

    I’d like to take this opportunity to re-declare my hatred of Ohio and their perpetual wrongness. Thanks for Bush, Bush, and Clinton, and I hope you get a stomachache from buckeyes and “pop”.

    I’m really grumpy. It’ll pass. I completely expected her to win Ohio, but the fact of it still makes me grumpy. I think after the caucus results come in, Texas will be a tie, which I also expected. There’s just something about not having your expectations exploded by pony dust that makes it feel like a disappointment.

    Hillary just has unmitigated gall in talking like this. There ARE other states besides Ohio, they can’t ALL be unimportant. I really don’t think this is headed towards these two sharing the ticket. Besides the obvious dislike for each other at this point, what does having 2 relatively inexperienced Senators together get us?

  13. 13

    John, I’m going to agree with and expand upon SGEW’s comment. Yeah, it looks rough, but it isn’t – not really. And there are several significant advantages to the campaign continuing.

    First, and probably the keystone – the vote in every state matters. There is a cascade of consequences.

    – the ground game gets practiced in every state. Practice is where you find the ‘oops’ points and fix them. Practice is where you discover ‘this little thing’ gets amazing returns.

    – free advertising. Yes, everyone knows McCain and Clinton and Obama are running. Now, how much press did each one get in Ohio and Texas and Vermont (not to mention everywhere else)? Probably as important, how much attention got paid to what they said – their policies and habits?

    – buy in. If it matters, people attend. And having attended – having expended a bit of energy and commitment – they’re much more likely to go the extra.

    – tactical frustration for the Republicans. this one is harder to grasp, and worse can be squandered. Basically, McCain can’t run against THE Democratic nominee – he’s got to run against both of them. Obama started that last week, and there are signs Clinton has begun as well. Now if McCain can get the two to ignore ‘the brand’ in their fights, he can pull that particular issue off. But it’s still going to be a pain for him. (an opportunity as well, so long as he can APPEAR to keep his hands clean. I don’t think he can – he’s already been digging.)

    Oh, one final point — this is the way the primaries are SUPPOSED to work. Take two (or three) possibilities, run them through a long vetting period to see not just their flash but their substance, then make a final decision after everyone has had their chance to comment. Yes, it’s clumsy and ugly and seems to go waaay too long. Welcome to our system.

  14. 14
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    we are supposed to believe this has radically changed the race

    According to myiq, you’re also supposed to flail your arms about, and cry “Oh, I weep for Obama!”

    Because Clinton is somehow ruining our happy moment, or something.

    the Clinton campaign has learned that dumpster diving and going negative pays off.

    They learned that they still have supporters in other parts of the country. They _desperately want to believe_ that dumpster diving and going negative pays off. Because that’s all they know how to do.

    If they have to start rebuilding a sound policy platform, they’re hosed.

    /oh, wait, they’re already hosed.

  15. 15
    Cyrus says:

    AkaDad Says:
    How can Hillary win the nomination without cheating?

    The term “cheating” is ambiguous; winning by superdelegates might be regarded as illegitimate, depending on exactly how it goes, but it would definitely be within the rules. Also, doesn’t Edwards have 30-odd pledged delegates? That would help her, if he endorses her. And FSM help us, there’s always the “dead girl or live boy” scenario for Obama. To be clear, I support Obama, but I like playing Devil’s Advocate, and like I said: Pollyanna-ish.

  16. 16
    Zifnab says:

    The nomination race going for another month or two, maybe even all the way to the convention, isn’t in my top five worst.

    At this point, those who have been glued to our poll-number-counting-boxes are burnt the fuck out already. That said, the joes down in Pennsylvannia and Mississippi undoubtably welcome the opportunity to have their votes counted.

    All this does is build the Democratic ground game for November. McCain can give the Prez big hugs, indulge in media photo-ops, and generally putter around his new campaign HQ unopposed. But he doesn’t know which candidate to set his sights on – which means he can’t really start campaigning until after the convention. And he’s so cash strapped, it almost doesn’t matter.

    Keeping Dems coming to the polls, keeping the campaign dollars flowing and the ads running and the faces plastered on TV, just maximizes the Democrats’ exposure. That’s a good thing.

  17. 17
    chopper says:

    Call me crazy, but I’m under the impression that Obama went through an 11 (10?) state ass whupping

    12 in a row, technically. also, super tuesday belonged to obama despite hillary going in the clear leader in polls.

    its funny to see many hillary supporters (like p.luk) who were so adamantly defensive against opinions that her candidacy was ‘DOA’ after a long string of obama victories now turn around and act as if obama isn’t viable because he lost two states that were supposed to be hillary strongholds.

  18. 18

    I listened to the BBC overnight and the news said Obama although Obama “may” still lead, the race was once again “wide open.” Whatever the final delegate awards, Obama will lead by 140 to 150 pledged delegates.

    But even more telling. I heard Art Torres, the head of the California Democrate Party, on the news last night. He was echoing what Richardson was saying a few days ago, that it was time to wrap this thing up.

    This is what I see. Obama, unless his Secret Service protection gets worse or they can find a Muslim terrorist bomb-making factory in the love nest that Rezko and Obama share, is going to win. Between now and Pennsylvania he’ll roll off more wins, and like all the other states Pennsylvania is closing. Hillary will not go to the convention with anything near the number of superdelegates she’d need to flip this. If there are redos in Florida and Michigan there won’t be any appreciable flip to Clinton.

    In short, the powers in the Democratic Party see no good of Clinton continuing this. Expect more supers to announce for Obama while Party bigwigs try to convince the money people to cut Hillary off.

    And expect either Goolsby’s leash to be tightened by Obama, or gone altogether.

  19. 19
    Fecapult says:

    I truly believe that the current primary race is not, in fact, tearing apart the Democratic party. We (i.e., obsessive blog readers) may be, but the vast majority of voters appear to be pretty content with the state of the race, and would be satisfied if either candidate wins the nomination.

    Based on the talk at my watercooler this morning, I’d have to disagree – people who I don’t count by any means as Obama enthusiasts are horrified at the thought of a Hillary /McCain runoff to the presidency. Most of the people who have been loquacious about last night have said they’d be willing to sit at home rather than vote for her or that woman.

    These aren’t bloggers, or people who pay much attention to politics. A lot of em aren’t dems. They’ll vote for Obama without thinking too much about it. They’ll stick a hot poker up their asses before they vote for Hillary.

    I guess this doesn’t say much about tearing the party apart, per se, because these people probably don’t identify themselves as Dems anyways. But it is telling in terms of how independents or less informed voters might be inclined to behave come election time.

  20. 20
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    what does having 2 relatively inexperienced Senators together get us?

    McCain.

    Seriously, if the Democratic party doesn’t find their spine soon and wrest Clinton away from the race, she’s going to give the country right back to the Republicans and we’re going to need another failed war to wake the country back up. Oh, and torture will be validated.

    But — wait — I sense something… I sense a Clinton supporter coming in to tell me how this is all Obama’s fault for winning 12 in a row and rallying independents to the blue ticket!

  21. 21
    Marquis de Sade says:

    Nobody has to suffer through commercials if they shoot their TV. But the Clinton Camp is big on those automated phone messages and I’m not quite ready to shoot my phone. I’m in MA and received 5 from Clinton in the run up to our Primary, compared to none from Obama. Why anyone thinks those automated calls are an effective tool is beyond me. And when I get them repeatedly from the same candidate I really start to question the way they spend other peoples money.

  22. 22
    4tehlulz says:

    Pennsylvania will determine ticket position.

    Sadly, since I have a job, I cannot be drunk for seven straight weeks, nor can I shut off the media, but at least I won’t be assaulted by the MSM. I feel for those who live in the PA media market, though. I recommend drinking regardless of employment status.

  23. 23
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    It occurred to me this morning, that a substantial number of super delegates, maybe a plurality, are Democratic members of the House and Senate. I know: “Duh!” One of the troubling things about this is that these are the folks who, in many cases, voted for the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, the AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, Bankruptcy Reform, confirmations of Alito, Roberts, Mukasey, Telecom Immunity, etc. No, I didn’t expect the Dems to parlay thin margins into a transformed government but I sure expected more than capitulation and Strongly Worded Letters.

    My only fear is that no matter which nominee they settle on, they’ll change their votes if George W. Bush threatens to veto their first choice.

  24. 24

    As an indy, I have already washed my hands of the Dems… if they can’t see that Obama can expand the party while Hillary has a very real ceiling on her support, then they deserve the result they get in November.

  25. 25
    chopper says:

    Asked on CBS’s “The Early Show” whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said:

    “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

    i can’t see a combined ticket. if there were a combined ticket, it would be determined by delegate count which is going to go to obama, and clinton isn’t going to be anybody’s vice president.

  26. 26

    Sorry. “Democrate” should be “Democratic.” For a second I was in Latin class again.

  27. 27
    SGEW says:

    The term “cheating” is ambiguous . . . .

    Precisely. However, many people are reacting to the potential reseating of Michigan and Florida’s delegates as, if not actual “cheating” (the DNC is allowed to change the rules: they are the referees in this game) as being, well, unsportsmanlike.

    Also:

    This is the way the primaries are SUPPOSED to work . . . .

    True enough. But we (people under a certain age) are simply not used to such a long primary process. In fact, this particular primary season will be pretty much unprecedented in its longevity if this thing goes neck-and-neck all the way to the convention (after all, the contest began months before the primaries even started).

    You have to admit that the continual intensity of this is particularly wearing on high-information, overly-informed, partisan political junkies. I was (mostly) just saying that we don’t count for very much, in electoral percentage terms.

  28. 28
    Scotty says:

    Hillary just has unmitigated gall in talking like this. There ARE other states besides Ohio, they can’t ALL be unimportant.

    Well Wyoming won’t be considered important – Cheney comes from there. And don’t even get her started on Mississippi. Too many I’s and S’s for even remote consideration of importance.

  29. 29
    Garrigus Carraig says:

    The left-wing, so-called netroots maybe getting ripped asunder, but,I would say, the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are not.

    Wisely spoken. Outside this echo chamber, I imagine there are people out there who can’t decide between JSM3 and MUP, or between JSM3 and HRC.

  30. 30
    zzyzx says:

    I already hate being a Democrat.

    I hope you didn’t switch parties based on our decades of electoral success.

  31. 31
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    wrest Clinton away from the race

    it would be determined by delegate count which is going to go to obama, and clinton isn’t going to be anybody’s vice president.

    I just saw the play the Dems need to use to stop Clinton, while reading chopper:

    They need to show Clinton the super-delegate count, which ostensibly reflects preferences in policy for Hillary, and then they need to show her the regular-delegate count forcing Obama to be an issue. They need to give her an option: Destroy the party along with yourself, or take the support of your Superdelegates and become SenMajLeader.

    I believe Clinton is self-destructive, but she won’t waste an easy walk into SenMajLeader.

  32. 32
    Scotty says:

    Two questions on the argument of Obama’s campaign tipping off Canada not to worry about changes to NAFTA. Doesn’t Canada follow NAFTA rules, whereas Mexico is the country doing more polluting and having poorer working conditions/wages? -and- Shouldn’t the focus be more on how countries are following or not following the guidelines set forth by NAFTA?

  33. 33
    The Moar You Know says:

    I already hate being a Democrat.

    I’ve been one for 24 years. It has not been fun. But I don’t seem to have the requisite knack for sheer evil that Republicans possess; they make it look so easy and fun!

  34. 34
    Davebo says:

    Bottom line is that despite her wins last night Hillary will go into the Pennsylvania primary even further behind Obama in delegates than she was coming into March 4th.

  35. 35

    H. Clinton’s negative attacks (and her allies, like Rush L., who called on his listeners to vote for Hillary) worked. When I saw the Globe article in the checkout line at my grocery store two and a half weeks ago, this is what I suspected would happen.

    The problem for Clinton with going negative is that she’s already got such high negatives that she erodes any hope for November for waging this war. Her bounce in Ohio was based on two things: the phony, er, inaccurate NAFTA memo and voter fears of Muslims in high places. H. Clinton, for all her 35 years of experience, couldn’t quite figure out Obama’s religion on 60 Minutes last Sunday.

    Going negative for the next seven weeks is going to ruin Clinton as much as it ruins Obama. Maybe more. As we blog the Party bigwigs are telling Clinton’s money people to close their wallets. It’ll be ugly, but it’ll be behind closed doors. The Party bosses aren’t stupid.

  36. 36
    AkaDad says:

    Even if Hillary wins every state the rest of the way with 60% of the vote, she still won’t have enough delegates to win.

    I’m sorry, but there is no point to staying in the race.

  37. 37
    The Moar You Know says:

    Caidence:

    You don’t appear to be too terribly acquainted with “Clinton Rules”; Hillary has no qualms about demolishing the party, believe me. She’s not going to call it a day and take the silver medal; if she can’t have the gold, no one gets the gold.

  38. 38
    SGEW says:

    The Party bosses aren’t stupid.

    This statement flies in the face of most of the evidence I have seen over the last twenty years. I hope that I will be proved wrong this time, but my Enchanted Hope Gland (now with extra MUP) can’t take that extra step.

  39. 39
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    You don’t appear to be too terribly acquainted with “Clinton Rules”

    lawl.

    I have trouble believing that some spineless junior Senator that hasn’t seemed to take a single stand on principle is impossible to buy out.

    Can’t someone just sit down with her and say “Mrs. Clinton, if you don’t calm down and take SenMajLeader, I’ll be _really_ mad at you, and I’m taking your picture *off my wall*” and watch her fold like a house of cards?

  40. 40
    zzyzx says:

    Going negative for the next seven weeks is going to ruin Clinton as much as it ruins Obama. Maybe more.

    My guess is that she won’t go negative for 7 weeks because that would backfire. She’ll wait and she’ll wait and she’ll wait and then about 10 days early will start attacking.

  41. 41
    Jim says:

    He’s shown himself inexperienced when it comes to running campaigns

    So someone who loses one big state by 10 points and another one by three, yet only has a net delegate loss of 6 or 7 doesn’t know to run a campaign? Given how Obama has built a solid if narrow 140 delegate lead by shrewdly making the most out of the arcane delegate system employed by the Dems, this may qualify as the dumbest post I have ever seen.

  42. 42
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    my Enchanted Hope Gland (now with extra MUP) can’t take that extra step

    They have pills for that.

    But if it stays active for more than 4 hours, you have to see a doctor.

  43. 43
    SGEW says:

    She’ll wait and she’ll wait and she’ll wait . . . .

    Hillary Clinton does not sleep. She waits.

  44. 44
    cleek says:

    Even if Hillary wins every state the rest of the way with 60% of the vote, she still won’t have enough delegates to win.

    you’re assuming the rules won’t change between now and the convention. my prediction is: she’ll stay in the race, fighting as she has been, losing overall, but staying close. but, along the way, a so-far-unknown legal avenue will open up for her, which she will exploit, sending the party into disarray, but eventually giving her the nomination.

  45. 45
    Scotty says:

    Bottom line is that despite her wins last night Hillary will go into the Pennsylvania primary even further behind Obama in delegates than she was coming into March 4th.

    Plus Obama can trumpet a 14-3 record in the previous 17 primary/caucus states, after he wins Wyoming and Mississippi, until Pennsylvania votes.

  46. 46
    MNPundit says:

    Ha, your state is going Clinton too. Heh.

  47. 47
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Groundhog Day is right.

    We’re headed straight for another 6-8 swing-states-only campaign, another narrow loss, in the process eating a lot of down-ticket races that could have strengthened the only firewall — and it’s a weak one — a Demoratic Congress — between the Republic and the final triumph of the Lizard People.

    But Mr. and Mrs. Clinton will be have gotten what they think is due them, Howard Dean will wind up back in medical practice, or teaching at UVM, Tom Vilsack will head the DNC, everyone already in the DLC treehouse will still have a job, and the Democratic world will still revolve around a few thousand people one city on the Potomac.

    And isn’t that what really matters, after all?

  48. 48
    mrmobi says:

    I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty.

    Sorry about that, John. Being a Democrat means you relish a fight.

    Lots of hysteria in the blogs these days. I’m an Obama supporter myself, and my Senator just had a really bad week, probably the first bad week he’s had in this primary season.

    I had a strong feeling before going to bed at a reasonable hour last night that I’d wake up to a Clinton near-sweep. Obama is in some trouble here, I believe, and will probably be on the defensive for the next several weeks unless he comes up with a strategy to deal with the newly intense smear campaigns that are beginning to erode his support.

    Hysteria aside, I’m amazed and delighted to see the incredible, record-setting turnout across the country by Democrats. What exactly is the problem with letting this process continue? Isn’t Democracy supposed to work like this?

    Perhaps it’s because John W. McCain is such a superior candidate. I watched his victory speech last night. There was a moment where the teleprompter malfunctioned that was priceless. He briefly looked like a deer in the headlights. On the other hand, less jobs, eternal war, and religious bigotry are a pretty compelling platform. Add torture into the mix and you’ve got the base energized.

    If either of these candidates can’t beat John W. McCain, we are in serious trouble as a country.

  49. 49
    Cris says:

    I don’t know why this “combined ticket” business is suddenly coming up again. I still agree with Pollak’s perspective on the subject.

  50. 50
    myiq2xu says:

    I am going to have to suffer through weeks of Clinton commericals

    He he he

    Too bad the MUP couldn’t get it done. All he had was a massive money advantage, a knob-slobbing press and blogosphere, organization and momentum.

  51. 51
    PaulW says:

    And I forgot the worst thing- I am in the Pennsylvania television markets. I am going to have to suffer through weeks of Clinton commericals lying about Obama.

    Strike back. Make your own commercials that lie about Clinton.

  52. 52
    ThymeZone says:

    There’s no mystery here. The Clinton camp has adopted the politics and the ethics of the Rove-Bush-Cheney regime. Ends justify means. Win at any cost.

    Their candidate declares that only she and John McCain are qualified to be president, and behind the scenes, prepares maneuvers designed to subvert the nomination process if necessary in order to gain a win. And the supporters declare that this style of politics is actually a good thing because it tests, and possibly tempers, their opponent for what he might expect from the Republicans.
    Mind you, a tactic that essentially disses half of the people who have voted in this primary is deemed necessary and proper by these shitheads.

    About the only thing the Clintons haven’t tried yet is declaring that Obama doesn’t support the troops.

    These people suck, and I don’t particularly want to share a party with them, although we are stuck with them. But the idea that this kind of crap is the best we can do in this party, at this time in history, is genuinely sickening.

    Like I said last night, I am coughing up the last of my spare change for the Obama campaign today and doing whatever I can to keep him on a winning path for this nomination. I urge all Democrats who have any principles intact after the last eight years to do the same.

  53. 53
    PaulW says:

    I truly believe that the current primary race is not, in fact, tearing apart the Democratic party. We (i.e., obsessive blog readers) may be, but the vast majority of voters appear to be pretty content with the state of the race, and would be satisfied if either candidate wins the nomination.

    This is absolutely right. Much in the same way most Republicans have fallen in step behind McCain, most Democrats will fall in step behind whomever wins the D side, despite how the MSM is portraying the current feuding between Hillary and Barack.

    And take comfort in the knowledge that voter turnout is overwhelmingly Democrat (almost 2 to 1 in every state, and in some places 3 to 1). The drive to throw out the Bush Republicans is reaching tsunami-like levels.

  54. 54
    cleek says:

    Hillary should be proud.

  55. 55
    myiq2xu says:

    This thread is as good as last night’s. All the MUPpet heads are exploding!

    It’s like watching a pack of attack chihuahuas going on an ankle-biting frenzy.

  56. 56
    jcricket says:

    Hysteria aside, I’m amazed and delighted to see the incredible, record-setting turnout across the country by Democrats. What exactly is the problem with letting this process continue? Isn’t Democracy supposed to work like this?

    I for one, completely agree. And if others would get over their unnecessary/irrational hatred of Clinton (yes, she and her 2 million+ voters in OH are planning to tear the party down) that’s how they’d see it too. I’m not saying their sexist or anything – just that the hate is really unreasonable in a lot of circumstances and I don’t think this whole “she’s tearing the party apart” thing is her goal in any way – regardless, it only becomes true if the Obamanauts see it that way.

    Sure, maybe I’m blinded by my support for Hillary, but I just don’t see the decreased turnout/down-ticket negativity that other people are speculating about. I think that’s hyper-partisan overly-involved-in-politics blinders being put on. My water cooler conversations have people all over the map on who they would/not vote for. And my super-liberal friends are already on the “I’ll vote for any Dem” train after the whole Nader debacle in 2000. Even my Obama supporting mom (Obamaniac, manning the phones, caucusing, etc.) has said she’ll gladly vote Hillary.

    I think Josh Marshall has a good summary of last night from a sober, if well-educated, perspectuve.

    Record turnout is good for everyone, and Hillary certainly has a lot of fans. Her negative ads have worked, and they’re certainly not as negative as the Obama fans seem to believe, especially compared to the eventual Republican attacks. Her fundraising numbers and margins in Ohio prove she’s not Huckabee.

    On a related note, here’s a funny about who should get out of the race

    BTW, to repeat myself for the 1000th time, I still think Obama’s the likely nominee, but excuse me if I don’t take stuff said in the comment threads or talking heads as gospel about a political campaign that isn’t over.

  57. 57
    jcricket says:

    . I urge all Democrats who have any principles intact after the last eight years to do the same

    Of course TZ is the arbiter of who has principles and who doesn’t. Whatever.

    I have a pretty sober head about this – I don’t think Obama’s “on the ropes” or a “failed candidate” or anything. I think both candidates are really close, there are a couple rounds left in the fight and if anything this is going to increase eventual turnout.

    Sure, I could be wrong, but so could we all. There’s more speculation and spin going on here right now than fact – because the facts won’t be determined until the race is done.

  58. 58
    Davis X. Machina says:

    I don’t think this whole “she’s tearing the party apart” thing is her goal in any way

    No drunk driver leaves a bar intending to hit a pedestrian. Their intent is to get home.

    This would not be an affirmative defense in court, however.

  59. 59
    cleek says:

    Plus Obama can trumpet a 14-3 record in the previous 17 primary/caucus states, after he wins Wyoming and Mississippi, until Pennsylvania votes.

    and PA is a closed primary – no crossovers allowed.

  60. 60
    Svensker says:

    He he he

    Too bad the MUP couldn’t get it done. All he had was a massive money advantage, a knob-slobbing press and blogosphere, organization and momentum.

    You know, having miq defend Clinton to the death around here has been mildly annoying and occasionally enlightening. I disagreed most of the time, but sometime the posts made me think. But another “he he he” and I will projectile vomit THROUGH the intertubes. Then you’ll find out what a reverse spit take really means.

  61. 61
    Dug Jay says:

    I am going to have to suffer through weeks of Clinton commericals lying about Obama.

    Seems like a fair “punishment.”

    For all of the other Clinton enablers here (not including Cole,who was not in that camp) who have defended any and all actions of the Clintons during the 1990s this outcome must be especially ironic. I guess it sort of proves that there may just be some kind of Supreme Being after all.

  62. 62
    GSD says:

    Sometime in June 2009:

    Scene: Press conference in the Capital rotunda, Chuck Schumer steps up to the microphone bank and says:

    “We, the Gang of 14 have met with President McCain and we’ve reached an agreement to forward his choice for Supreme Court John Yoo, who has proven in his testimony to be a moderate man willing to look at both sides of the issue. Thanks and congratulations to future Justice Yoo.”

    -GSD

  63. 63
    John Cole says:

    As a side note, the phrase magical unity pony appears to be, by and large, a Balloon Juice phenomenon. The first time I remember using it was this post.

  64. 64
    Raenelle says:

    “I already hate being a Democrat.” I know how you feel. But that brings to mind that old saying about democracy being a terrible form of government. But its better than the other forms.

  65. 65
    Jen says:

    sober, if well-educated

    I like that.

    Reminds me of a line from “Next Stop Wonderland”….”I’m looking for a woman who is tall, yet clean…”

  66. 66
    Harley says:

    Oh, John. But it gets far worse than that. Hillary made it clear this morning, that she would consider having Obama as her Vice President. Gosh. How humanizing of her.

    Gack.

  67. 67
    crw says:

    Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we ultimately want a candidate who can stand up to the Republican Slime Machine? Hillary’s tactics lately have been the lite version of same, and if Obama stumbles in the face of that, it does not bode well for him in the general. I voted for Obama in TX, but I find myself once again rather disappointed by his inept handling of the slime. In this case, his campaign bungled the response to NAFTAgate and he wasn’t very forceful fighting back against the “not ready for CinC” attack. I thought he should have hammered on the judgment issue a lot harder, and perhaps emphasized the huge support he’s getting from actual grunts in the military.

    I understand he’s trying to run a clean campaign, but haven’t the last 2 presidential cycles shown us that doesn’t work??

  68. 68
    cleek says:

    Hillary made it clear this morning, that she would consider having Obama as her Vice President. Gosh. How humanizing of her.

    even more important: it makes it sound like she’s in control now. she’s offering him the job, as if it’s hers to offer.

  69. 69
    Jen says:

    My husband is twittering “I’m gonna mess with Texas”. I guess we’re taking on states, proportional to our sizes, this morning.

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    I don’t think this whole “she’s tearing the party apart” thing is her goal in any way

    No drunk driver leaves a bar intending to hit a pedestrian. Their intent is to get home.

    Hmmmm.

    yeah, clinton was ahead by 20+ points in both states as little as a few weeks ago

    If Clinton had big leads until recently, who exactly is tearing the party apart?

  71. 71
    Garrigus Carraig says:

    Ooh looks like I was wrong about people ‘out there’ being undecided. HRC backers like them some walnuts.

    If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton’s primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama’s supporters would do the same.

    Sheesh.

  72. 72
    mrmobi says:

    These people suck, and I don’t particularly want to share a party with them, although we are stuck with them. But the idea that this kind of crap is the best we can do in this party, at this time in history, is genuinely sickening.

    I agree, TZ. This is why I support Obama, and will continue to support him. However, I think we’re watching a critical moment in his campaign right now.
    Yesterday or the day before, he had a presser in Chicago (about Rezko) in which he answered some questions, got into an argument with Carol Marin, and then said, “I’ve already answered all these questions,” and left. There’s blood in the water, and he’s going to need to address these repeated charges of impropriety. This is not good news for his campaign, as he heads into several weeks of attacks on his lack of experience from both McCain and Clinton. If you think Clinton’s 3am ad was fear-mongering, wait till you see what the Party of Torture comes up with.

    I also think he should fire the guy who told the Canadians the NAFTA talk was “just politics.” Obama saying he “didn’t have all the information” just isn’t going to cut it. He’s starting to look like other politicians, and that’s not going to help. I didn’t particularly think the revelation of the NAFTA discussion was important, but it appears to have really hurt him in Ohio.

    The Obama campaign is at a shaky moment right now. I hope they can turn it around.

  73. 73
    Llelldorin says:

    Personally, I’d say the odds of either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama just went WAY up. If we go into Denver within a hundred votes of tied, the superdelegates will want a face-saving compromise that both myiq2xu and TZ might support.

    It might be a really good ticket, for that. Clinton’s far from hopeless–she’s got a terrible campaign team, but she’s a ferocious debater, she’s very good at legislative wonkery, and (to the dismay of many of us backing the MUP) she’s incredibly hard to stop. If we could fuse that to Obama’s incredible organizational and speaking abilities, we’d have a chance at knocking McCain out decisively.

  74. 74
    Z says:

    The same Obama vs Clinton arguments get recycled over and over here, and you aren’t going to see minds changed, particularly with the die hard Clinton supporters. They might understand the need to change leadership from Republican to Democratic, but they don’t see anything wrong with current politics. The reason for this stems, in my mind, from some flawed underlying assumptions. I think they largely, but not exclusively, generational, because the same assumptions underlie a lot of the horrible things Republicans have done. These assumptions are:

    1. The ends justify the means- Screw the rules. It doesn’t matter how your team wins, as long as they win. It doesn’t matter what the long term consequences of that victory are, because see #2.

    2. Live for today and don’t worry about tomorrow- What matters is now, we’ll deal with tomorrow then.

    3. Identity (based on ideology) is more important than pragmatism- You vote for someone because they are on your team. Your team may have a governing ideology, but that is only important as a purity test. You can throw it out the window, though, if it means winning (see #1).

    How does this translate to the Obama vs Clinton argument? Easy…

    -It is pointless to talk about how bad Clinton’s tactics are, see #1.
    -It is useless to point out how bad a protracted battle is for Democratic chances in the GE, see #1 and #2.
    -It is pointless to show how she can’t win enough pledged delegates to win in the long run, see #2.
    -It is useless to warn Clinton supporters that the supers not voting with the pledged delegates will turn off a lot of Democrats and the younger voters who are the future of the party, see #1, #2, and a dollap of #3.

    I don’t think I have to point out how the same kind of thinking underlies the Republican support for torture, authoritarian policies, the politics of personal destruction, etc. Always, it is all about getting what you think you need now, with no thought for the long term consequences.

    In the short run (4 years), it would be bad for America if McCain wins. If Clinton wins, another generation of political consultants will say that all those assumptions underlying her style of politics are valid. We, as a nation, will continue to punt on major problems because we can’t work together to solve them. That seems like a huge mistake to me. I hope I am wrong.

  75. 75
    ww says:

    Its called a democratic election. Don’t whine about a contest that brings in more people than have been involved in ages.

    Roughly 100 delegates separate the two candidates. Neither will win the nomination outright. The primary process is so convoluted one can scarcely claim Obama has the clear support of the Dem electorate. If the delegates were not awarded proportionally Hillary would likely be ahead.

    I live in MI. My vote doesn’t even count. Neither do the others who live here. The Florida primary was thrown into turmoil by republicans. Edwards delegates have not been released. Obama has no rightful claim to the candidacy at this point. Neither does Hillary. It’s far from over, rightfully so.

  76. 76
    Jen says:

    If the delegates were not awarded proportionally Hillary would likely be ahead.

    In a charming turn of phrase I once read on this blog, if my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa.

    If the R delegates were awarded proportionally, McCain and Romney would still be fighting for the nomination. So….?

  77. 77
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If Clinton had big leads until recently, who exactly is tearing the party apart?

    Perhaps the candidate that praises the opposition’s front-runner in order to take shots at her colleague?

    Seems fairly simple to me.

    You know, this _would_ just a bunch of hysterics if Clinton kept in mind that Obama’s win isn’t the end of the world. Unfortunately, her (somewhat successful) attempts at scare tactics argue differently.

  78. 78

    if my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa.

    If my Grandma had balls, the Republicans would have persecuted him for loving the wrong kind of person.

  79. 79
    mrmobi says:

    1. The ends justify the means- Screw the rules. It doesn’t matter how your team wins, as long as they win. It doesn’t matter what the long term consequences of that victory are, because see #2.

    In her victory speech last night, Hillary said she had “won” in Michigan and Florida, speaking of screwing the rules.

    While I do think this process is a healthy thing, if she gains the nomination by stealing delegates that everyone (her included) agreed beforehand would not count, that would be really, really bad.

    There is no way to spin that, except to call it what it is, which is cheating.

  80. 80
    myiq2xu says:

    There’s blood in the water

    Yes there is, I knew it was coming but I was afraid it would come too late to save Hillary.

    I find the MUPpets’ reaction very amusing “We don’t need to look at any evidence because He is innocent!”

    How do you know he’s innocent until you look? Of course, some MUPpets are so in the tank they wouldn’t believe a confession.

    At least John Cole has come out of the closet as a HillaryHater.

  81. 81
    AkaDad says:

    Why hasn’t Hillary released her tax returns? What is she hiding?

  82. 82
    Z says:

    I just saw that TZ also made a comment about the ends justifying the means. Good to know that great minds think alike!

  83. 83
    myiq2xu says:

    Why hasn’t Hillary released her tax returns? What is she hiding?

    He he he.

    That’s a trap, go ahead and stick the MUP into it.

  84. 84
    Marvel says:

    The Clintons do suck. And half the country agrees with me. So why are the democrats even contemplating nominating HRC? Her only chance at winning is to adopt the tactics that remind those of us who hate her why we’d never vote for her under any circumstances.

    Happily for me I’m an Independent. McCain was my second choice. Distant second, granted. But at least the Republicans coughed up a candidate I can actually vote for. (Had they pooched it with Romney, I’d have had a conundrum.)

  85. 85
    Jen says:

    What is she hiding?

    I’m guessing $50 million or so.

  86. 86
    John Cole says:

    At least John Cole has come out of the closet as a HillaryHater.

    This is like dealing with that retard Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush. I will say this one more fucking time, and then if you accuse me of being a Hillary hater again, I ban you. I think I have banned maybe five people total in 6 years, but you will go on the list. So listen the fuck up:

    I do not hate Hillary. I will, in fact, support her in the November election should she win the nomination. I will probably even send money and volunteer, I think it is so important to get the Republican crime machine out of Washington. That is, btw, FAR MORE than the morons at hillaryis44 will do for Obama should he win.

    I do, however, hate a lot of the people working for her. I detest Mark Penn. I LOATHE Wolfson, he of the upper lip sweat. I find terry McC to be pretty appalling.

    I also find some of her campaign’s practices, particularly the Obama is a muslim bullshit, to be pretty detestable. I find her 50+1 strategy to be shortsighted and bad for the party.

    And most of all, I find the sneering, preening, in your face, end justifies the means Hillary supporters, most ably demonstrated by you and P Lukasiak, to be pretty offensive.

    But I don’t hate Hillary. Do we understand, myiq2xu? Say it again, and the site will be rid of the most annoying troll as of late. So stop being an obnoxious shitheel, and knock off the accusations of Hillary hate, or be gone.

  87. 87
    Garrigus Carraig says:

    We, the Gang of 14 have met with President McCain and we’ve reached an agreement to forward his choice for Supreme Court John Yoo

    Oh thanks for sayin’ this, GSD. What are the chances either Dem will make progress on Iraq policy or Afghanistan policy? Meh. Chances he/she will ‘fix’ the economy? Snort. Chances he/she can change the Court for the better for the next 25 years? Purty durn high.

  88. 88
    ThymeZone says:

    Of course TZ is the arbiter of who has principles

    Why don’t you give us your principled view of the idea that

    John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the only candidates left standing who are qualified to be president?

    Your candidate advanced the idea. Defend it, and defend it in a way that keeps the millions who have voted against her in the fold.

    Go ahead, the floor is yours.

    And when you are finished with that one, then address the principled view of her apparent willingness to claim delegates from states where no contested and recognized process actually took place.

    Give me the principled view of the idea that somebody who failed for 15 years to gain healthcare reform after spending most of that time either in the White House or the Senate and talking about it all time, can now claim to be the person we should count on to get that done?

    Draw me the principled picture of a person who voted for a war and then later, when the war went horribly wrong, basically asked for a Mulligan?

    What’s the principled version of manufacturing a “plagiarism” charge out of whole cloth and foisting it on the public just hours before a critical primary election?

    Yeah, I’m the arbiter of any principles that are put before me in a political contest and on which I am asked to make a choice. That’s what I’m supposed to do.

    You do the same, apparently, and come out on the side of the Clintons, who are not only unprincipled, but are tiresome and destructive and are people of whom at least half of this country is sick to fucking death.

    I don’t.

  89. 89
    Tsulagi says:

    Aww, poor little MUP got his nose punched by a 60-year-old granny. Okay, not a granny, but definitely old enough to be one. I’d shed a tear for him, but it looks like that’s already pretty well covered here.

  90. 90
    mrmobi says:

    I find the MUPpets’ reaction very amusing “We don’t need to look at any evidence because He is innocent!”

    My critique of Obama on this issue was simply that he’s going to have to react more forcefully.

    The facts in the Rezko case are simple, Obama is not charged with anything. He admits his association with Mr. Rezko was “boneheaded,” but there is no “quid pro quo” here, only a smear. He’s given tens of thousands of dollars donated from Rezko to charity.

    This won’t stop you from gleefully pushing the smear campaign, I understand, but it doesn’t make it true.

  91. 91
    Zifnab says:

    How do you know he’s innocent until you look? Of course, some MUPpets are so in the tank they wouldn’t believe a confession.

    *Yawn* How about we see some hard Bob Ney/Duke Cunningham/Scooter Libby kind of evidence before we start pardoning people or dragging them off to the gallows, eh? It’s always fun to “allege” things in the thick of voting season that never seem to see the inside of a courtroom.

    But I’m not going to leaf through another “Whitewater” report to find out that Obama is guilty of losing money on a land deal or forgetting to sign a tax form in triplicate.

    At least John Cole has come out of the closet as a HillaryHater.

    :p He’s not too fond of Romney or McCain, but I don’t see you bitching about that.

    Since when did we all start having to be lock-step party lovers to have a valid opinion?

  92. 92
    AkaDad says:

    I’m guessing $50 million or so.

    Does she have a Swiss bank account? I think we have right to know that.

  93. 93
    Buck says:

    SGEW: “Welcome to the Democratic party, champions of perennial disappointment and bitterness.”

    myiq2xu: “It’s like watching a pack of attack chihuahuas going on an ankle-biting frenzy.”

    Gawd I love reading this blog.

  94. 94
    Zifnab says:

    Say it again, and the site will be rid of the most annoying troll as of late. So stop being an obnoxious shitheel, and knock off the accusations of Hillary hate, or be gone.

    To be fair, he really isn’t the worst troll we’ve had on here by a long, long shot.

  95. 95
    The Other Steve says:

    This won’t stop you from gleefully pushing the smear campaign, I understand, but it doesn’t make it true.

    FUD doesn’t have to be true.

  96. 96
    ww says:

    Jen, nice cherry picking. The statement was part of the larger point that Obama and supporters are trying to claim the win based on the math. The math alone does not sufficiently represent actual voter sentiment, which is what they are trying to lay a claim to. Simple, really.

    I realize the process is the process. But that also includes super-delegates. Revealingly, when it comes to that score Obama supporters suddenly don’t like the process so much fearing that they could win more delegates (not the same as winning enough for the nomination outright) but lose via superduper-delegate count.

    They can’t have it both ways. Well, really, all any of us can vote and voice an opinion. The nominee will be decided by the party, as is has been in countless elections before this one.

  97. 97
    mrmobi says:

    I think it is so important to get the Republican crime machine out of Washington.

    I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say, “God Bless you, John Cole!”
    Of course, I don’t believe in God, but you get the idea.

  98. 98
    ntr Fausto Carmona says:

    To be fair, he really isn’t the worst troll we’ve had on here by a long, long shot.

    He did say ‘as of late’, though. When was the last time anyone saw Darrell?

  99. 99
    AkaDad says:

    The math alone does not sufficiently represent actual voter sentiment

    Winning the popular vote, the delegates, and more States, doesn’t represent voter sentiment?

  100. 100
    Joe Max says:

    Damn, I follow these blogs religously and I still can’t keep up with the acronyms.

    Would someone please tell me what an “MUP” is?

  101. 101
    myiq2xu says:

    But I don’t hate Hillary. Do we understand, myiq2xu? Say it again, and the site will be rid of the most annoying troll as of late. So stop being an obnoxious shitheel, and knock off the accusations of Hillary hate, or be gone.

    Your blog, your rules.

  102. 102
    Davebo says:

    Gee, it’s after 11:00AM on the morning after and my head still hasn’t exploded.

    What’s a guy gotta do to live up to the myiq2xu fantasy?

    Oh well, perhaps if Hillary actually gains on Obama in the delegate race I’ll experience the explosion.

    But for now, not so much.

  103. 103
    zzyzx says:

    I do, however, hate a lot of the people working for her. I detest Mark Penn. I LOATHE Wolfson, he of the upper lip sweat. I find terry McC to be pretty appalling.

    I also find some of her campaign’s practices, particularly the Obama is a muslim bullshit, to be pretty detestable. I find her 50+1 strategy to be shortsighted and bad for the party.

    Agreed. When Clinton speaks on policy, I usually love her. It’s just when I have to hear about how they don’t want my vote because I live in the wrong state, drive the wrong car, and wear the wrong shoes, that it makes me wonder why I should work for her in the general.

  104. 104
    crw says:

    I hate to do this, but I have to agree with myiq and others. Obama has led a charmed political existence. The extended campaign is not a bad thing. Yes, it sucks that our triumphalism proved to be premature. Get over it. It’s pretty clear now Obama needs more practice figuring out this bare knuckles thing. It’s pretty clear Obama needs to figure out how to play the media when it isn’t in the tank for him, too. I’d rather he get bruised a little now than he go in unprepared to deal with the Slime Machine and the inevitable media complicity in spreading Republican FUD.

  105. 105
    tBone says:

    I will say this one more fucking time, and then if you accuse me of being a Hillary hater again, I ban you.

    He doesn’t really mean it, myiq2. Go ahead and call him a Hillary Hater again. Please.

  106. 106
    zmulls says:

    “MUP” is Magic(al) Unity Pony. It is a credulous reference to (what is perceived as) the naive belief that Obama will magically bring everyone together, despite the evidence to the contrary on the scorched-earth right.

    The “pony” reference goes back to Reagan who loved to tell the story about the boy who was spoiled and was given a room full of manure to teach him a lesson. But the boy dug in eagerly, thinking there must be a pony in there somewhere. Also, since the cliche is that children want a pony, when someone believes something to be true despite all evidence (e.g., “cutting taxes raise revenues!”) you can comment ironically that they must expect a pony as well.

    The “Magic” reference can possibly be traced, unfortunately, to Rush Limbaugh and his song about Obama to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

    Those who think the praise of Obama is overblown and filled with magical and unrealistic dreams, can refer to him as the “Magic Unity Pony” or “MUP” for short, and regular readers will know what they mean.

  107. 107
    jnfr says:

    I am unfazed. The party is not being torn asunder. This is the messy process called democracy, and I love watching it proceed. Do you realize that between them, these two candidates raised nearly $100 million just in February? McCain raised 12. Do you realize that in frakking Texas we turned out twice as many primary voters as the Republicans?

    This is a great time to be a Democrat, at least if you’re not particularly invested in which candidate wins. Which, honestly, most Dems are not. They consistently say, in overwhelming numbers, that they would be happy with either candidate.

    Don’t give yourself a headache worrying too much. Focus on attacking McCain now, relentlessly, and getting ready for the general election.

  108. 108
    Brachiator says:

    So Hillary wins by ten in Ohio (54-44), ekes out a 3% win in Texas (51-48), and the delegate lead doesn’t change one bit, but somehow we are supposed to believe this has radically changed the race. It hasn’t, but such is the narrative of spin.

    Good point. What the media loves more than any particular candidate is an easy narrative hook that they can use to frame news stories. It doesn’t matter whether it is particularly accurate. So you get all these stories of Senator Clinton as “The Comeback Kid,” even though their own team earlier were suggesting that they would win big in Ohio and Texas in order to prove their worthiness.

    Meanwhile, Republicans celebrate, and the Clinton campaign has learned that dumpster diving and going negative pays off.

    The LA Times has a similar story about the effectiveness of going negative: Going negative proved positive in Clinton’s comeback.

    This bit of narrative conventional wisdom misses how Senator Clinton found a way to play to her strengths. She has consistently been naturally dour, unimaginative, scolding and almost contemptuous of the idea that a candidate might appeal to voters’ hopes and dreams (this is fascinating psychologically because it disavows much of her husband’s themes and appeal even as she sells herself as his natural heir). She loves to remind voters that the presidency is a tough, serious job and that the world is a dangerous place.

    But in the ads that she ran in the run-up to March 4, she was able to re-shape her message so that it retained the core of her persona, but would also resonate more with down-to-earth voters in Ohio and Texas. So:

    Original Recipe Clinton:
    I will work hard on solutions for the American people.

    This was too wonkish, to abstract, and too self-centered.

    New Coke Clinton:
    I will work hard for you.

    This was getting better, but too much of a steal from John Edwards

    The Right Stuff Clinton:
    I will work hard, like you do.

    Finally, in ads and appearances at restaurants and factories, Senator Clinton hit her stride and found a way to make her message less about herself and her efforts, and more about constituents.

    And no more tears. This kind of thing would not play well in front of people who are losing jobs, sliding downwards economically despite years of working their asses off.

    Of course, this is still not the same as Obama’s mor inclusive message, “together we can work to change America,” but it’s the best that Clinton can probably do.

    In addition to this, she would mix up speeches in which she would criticize or scold Obama (“Shame on you,Senator Obama,” etc.) with her later more relaxed appearances on SNL, Ellen Degeneres and The Daily Show, all designed to show her more human side, but carefully crafted cameos.

    She also called in favors from columnists like Paul Krugman and Sean Wilentz to sing her praises and certify her bona fides as the bestest, most knowledgeable-ist candidate ever, and to slam Obama as a lightweight.

    All in all, not a bad day’s work. It got ‘er done. And it may work in Pennsylvania.

    On the other side, Obama cannot simply stand pat on revisions to his standard stump speech, nor can he simply react to whatever Team Clinton throws at him. However, if he takes the bait thrown out by the cynics that he just has to “go negative,” without expanding on his previous ability to connect with voters, he will find that he is playing Clinton’s game, not his own.

  109. 109

    he really isn’t the worst troll we’ve had on here by a long, long shot.

    Indeed. John, you never banned Darrell, and you have (correctly) never banned EEEL or Veeshir. You’ve never even banned *me*, for God’s sake, and I’ve certainly earned it.

    I don’t understand why you’d ban myiq. Annoying? Yup. Self-righteous? You betcha. But *bannable*? It’s your blog, and you make the rules — but I don’t see what he’s done to deserve banning.

  110. 110
    John Cole says:

    Your blog, your rules.

    It isn’t that, it is that you are lying about how I feel about Hillary. You are being like these douchebag Republicans who, when you point out their policies suck, claim you have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    Was I just being stealthy with my consuming Hillary hate when I was attacking Obama 2 months ago?

  111. 111
    Napoleon says:

    Would someone please tell me what an “MUP” is

    MUP = Magical Unity Pony = Barack Obama

  112. 112
    Bernie says:

    John, dude, chill the fuck out. This is what the Democratic Party does. We don’t nominate a fuhrer and then march in lockstep behind them (that is the Republican Party). Besides, does anybody remember 1992? Bill Clinton had a brutal primary battle with Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. Those two going head to head with Clinton made him a stronger candidate in the general. Also, the party is far more unified than it was then and the Republican Party has been exposed as the fraud it is. This is going to help us, not hurt us.

  113. 113
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Obama has led a charmed political existence.

    You’re talking about something other than what I think is the core grievance.

    You’re saying that Obama needs more time in the ring, more time to perfect that left hook. Sure, wouldn’t hurt.

    The core grievance, I think, is that Hillary is playing this like “anybody-but-Obama”, and before this blog was passing around the Pony-bong, this blog was saying “Anybody-but-the-Republicans”

    I know it’s a quick assumption that anything about Clinton would be about defending our hallucenogenic steed, but in this case, it’s about inadvertently enabling torture, perpetuating war, and destroying the economy.

    We’d _much_ rather Clinton gets into office than a Republican, but the math is saying that can’t happen, and we’re worried about getting to a painless resolution.

    Of course, that’s what I think. I shouldn’t speak for everyone.

  114. 114
    myiq2xu says:

    I guess I misinterpreted this:

    Meanwhile, Republicans celebrate, and the Clinton campaign has learned that dumpster diving and going negative pays off.

    I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty.

    and this:

    I am going to have to suffer through weeks of Clinton commericals lying about Obama.

    and this:

    Admit it. You fell for it:

    and this:

    I have a ton of stuff going on, and I am actually sick of the primaries. Sorry for the lack of posting,, but all I really have to say right now would start to sound like Sullivanesque Hillary Derangement syndrome.

    And this:

    I really am looking froward to a Clinton free era.

    That’s just the last couple days, there are similar threads going back much farther. I’m sorry if I offended you John, but as a Hillary supporter that’s what it looked like.

    BTW – Since when does expressing an unpopular opinion make someone a troll? I’ve been careful to avoid personal insults, even though I’ve received many.(obnoxious shitheel)

    I make arguments in good faith, backed up by evidence. I acknowledge the truth, even when it goes against me.

  115. 115
    Snark Based Reality says:

    she’s very good at legislative wonkery

    So legislative wonkery is now code for “Not Voting” on key votes?

  116. 116
    Ed Drone says:

    and PA is a closed primary – no crossovers allowed.

    I guess it’s time for a massive registration drive, then, isn’t it? Time to turn all those “I” folks into “D” folks.

    Or is registration-changing closed already? I’m sure there’s a deadline, but is it long enough to close off this option?

    Ed

  117. 117
    jnfr says:

    What Clinton has tossed at Obama is nothing compared what the Republicans are going to hit him with. He needs to figure out his effective come-backs, and get them polished and ready to roll. I mean this seriously, those of you who want Obama as the candidate (and I believe he most likely will be the candidate) should be pleased that he’s going through this rough and tumble primary season. He’s a better debater now than he began as, and he’ll be a better candidate overall.

  118. 118

    myiq…it’s not your opinions, it’s how your express them.

    John, for better or for worse, has both a deeply held sense of personal rightness and a quick temper. In particular, he takes very badly to being insulted — and calling him a hillary hater really was a personal insult. In my experience, he doesn’t hold a grudge against anyone, which is one of the reasons this place is as much fun as it is — if you had been banned, you’d have joined some illustrious company, including the inimitable ppGaz Himself, whom you know under his current handle, ThymeZone.

  119. 119
    Cyrus says:

    Marvel Says:
    Happily for me I’m an Independent. McCain was my second choice. Distant second, granted. But at least the Republicans coughed up a candidate I can actually vote for. (Had they pooched it with Romney, I’d have had a conundrum.)

    What is it you like about McCain, exactly? The hundred years in Iraq (but only as long as no Americans get killed, however that would work), or the supply side economics, or the approach to all kinds of policy that boils down to “I’d tell them to cut the shit,” or something else?

  120. 120
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    but I don’t see what he’s done to deserve banning.

    it’s partially that he’s doing something like spoofing, but he’s not exactly clear about it.

    Spoofing is cool, when done in a civilized, communicated manner. But myiq has been switching between faux-Clinton-support and real-MUP-hate so frequently he’s agitating the flow of conversation.

    And it’s helpful if every once in a while he opens up a cathartic fight, but it’s getting tiring.

  121. 121
    tBone says:

    I make arguments in good faith, backed up by evidence. I acknowledge the truth, even when it goes against me.

    Just like Darrell.

  122. 122

    Heh. Good catch, Steak. That’s a phrase with a history here, eh?

  123. 123
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    BTW – Since when does expressing an unpopular opinion make someone a troll? I’ve been careful to avoid personal insults, even though I’ve received many.(obnoxious shitheel)

    You’re usually not a troll, but lately you’ve been looking solely to pick fights where you know there’s one waiting for you, and then sticking around for the shouting match. That is, by definition, trolling.

    Preemptive Example:

    This thread is as good as last night’s. All the MUPpet heads are exploding!

    It’s like watching a pack of attack chihuahuas going on an ankle-biting frenzy.

  124. 124
    Zifnab says:

    BTW – Since when does expressing an unpopular opinion make someone a troll? I’ve been careful to avoid personal insults, even though I’ve received many.(obnoxious shitheel)

    I make arguments in good faith, backed up by evidence. I acknowledge the truth, even when it goes against me.

    Yeah, I think its the whole “HillaryHater” thing. That’s not even a real word, myiq. The man is a college professor. He doesn’t have to put up with your grammatical shit.

    Most of us are pissed at the Clinton game plan. You can call that sentiment naive or hypocritical if you wish, but Mark Penn is still an ignorant douchebag and Hillary hasn’t fired him yet. So you can’t possibly blame people for not liking her campaign.

    The insinuation that John has a visceral dislike of the Clintons doesn’t really do much to address his visceral dislike of Clinton cronies and Clinton penny-wise / pound-foolish policies. You might as well accuse people of hating Edwards because of his haircut. It misses the point entirely and just pisses people off when they feel so trivially dismissed.

  125. 125
    John S. says:

    I make arguments in good faith

    You may want to avoid such Darrell-esque phrasing.

    Especially in light of the fact that lately your comments are little more than trolling the waters with fresh bait.

    Do you really not understand how someone can not hate (or even like) Hillary, but feel a bit dismayed at seeing the GOP close ranks for the next two months while the Dems wage an ugly and public internal war? Try looking through the prism of wanting a Democrat to win in November more than who that Democrat actually is. Big picture and all.

  126. 126
    Evinfuilt says:

    So legislative wonkery is now code for “Not Voting” on key votes?

    No, I’m pretty sure its voting to authorize Bush to invade Iran, and say its not what she meant.

    Only a few years after doing the same with Iraq. After having access to the actual information, and deciding it was best to not read it.

    Otherwise, you’re right. She’s good at skipping out on important votes (and Obama isn’t perfect there either.)

  127. 127
    John S. says:

    Shit, tBone made the same point I was making while I was still typing it.

    Damn your superior speed.

  128. 128
    John S. says:

    What Clinton has tossed at Obama is nothing compared what the Republicans are going to hit him with. He needs to figure out his effective come-backs, and get them polished and ready to roll.

    I said the same thing last night.

    Clinton makes a fantastic Republican sparring partner, and Obama needs to treat her as thus.

  129. 129

    I’m not sure that myiq goes back to the Days of Darrell.

    myiq — Darrell is a figure of legend here, and one that I still think the Cole wrote himself. Trust me, you *don’t* want to be compared to him. Ever.

  130. 130
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Correct me if I’m suffering from selective memory but, it seems to me that Clinton’s most prolific supporters here almost always jump to “Hillary Hater,” “misogynist” or “Clinton Derangement Syndrome’ when responding to criticism of their candidate. On the other hand, I don’t see Obama supporters calling his critics “Obama haters, “racists” or accusing them of suffering from “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”
    Just an observation.

  131. 131
    Googootz says:

    H. Clinton’s negative attacks (and her allies, like Rush L., who called on his listeners to vote for Hillary)

    The dittohead strategy is this:

    Knock Obama out of the race. If Obama makes it to the general election, he beats McCain in November. They believe that McCain wins in a McCain vs. Clinton general election.

    That may be so, and the Clinton camp probably believes that too, but it’s still a palatable situation for Clinton if she does indeed lose to McCain in 2008; she’d get another shot in 2012, because it’s not likely McCain would run for a second term.

    If Obama went on to win the presidency, Clinton would be locked out until 2016. By then, her opportunity will have expired.

  132. 132
    The Other Steve says:

    Interesting. Apparently both Gen. Keane and Kenneth Pollack have come out and reassured everybody that even though Hillary says she’ll pull out of Iraq. Really she won’t.

    They are, after all, her foreign policy advisors, so they would know.

    Kenneth Pollack, a Persian Gulf specialist who worked for the Clinton White House, and who has become a proponent of the military surge in Iraq since leaving government, said yesterday: “I don’t know what she would do as president. But all of my experience with her when she was first lady is that this is a woman who would put our nation’s interests first and any campaign promises a distant second.

    If Senator Clinton can best Senator Obama in today’s round of primaries and caucuses and go on to capture the White House, a co-author of the surge strategy in Iraq says he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq.
    “Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense,” he said. “I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January ’09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made.” Mr. Keane added that he could not imagine any president in the White House making that kind of decision.

  133. 133
    The Other Steve says:

    I’m not sure that myiq goes back to the Days of Darrell.

    Oh come on. It’s clear myiq is Darrell. They both argue in the same good faith way.

  134. 134
    Davebo says:

    The Other Steve..

    In fairness to Hillary it should be noted that Kenneth Pollack is not a member of her campaign. Nor is he a “policy advisor”.

  135. 135
    ww says:

    AkaDad: “Winning the popular vote, the delegates, and more States, doesn’t represent voter sentiment?”

    In a primary process that allows crossover voting, has arcane caucuses, and convoluted formulations for apportioning delegates the closest it can be is an approximation.

    The state count is irrelevant in any case.

    The popular vote is tainted by crossover voting, which we know is happening, even if we don’t know the extent. But lets look at that to see if there is a clear winner:

    State – Obama – Clinton

    Popular Vote Total – 12,946,615 – 12,363,897
    Popular Vote (w/FL) – 13,522,829 – 13,234,883
    Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* – 13,522,829 – 13,563,192

    Not really a clear winner there so far, nor is there likely to be. The delegate count is so ridiculous no one knows for sure what the count is.

    So, the answer to your question would yes, if the numbers themselves were accurate and derived by a process with integrity. In this case, however, not so much.

  136. 136
    John Cole says:

    What pisses me off about the Clinton campaign is as simple as can be. I left the GOP after 20 years because I saw what the party of Rove had become- a well-oiled smear machine that did little more than destroy the opposition in order to get back to the business of passing catastrophic and self-enriching legislation.

    Don’t like Dick Durbin opposing you- call him a traitor and front several 527’s (Move America Forward, anyone?) to ruin him. Kerry standing in the way of rule- smear him as a war criminal. I saw what my party became, and I got out.

    Now, I look at two candidates in the Democratic party with similar agendas (agendas, I might add, that I don’t fully agree with to begin with, but I am a team player and I know the GOP alternative will be worse), and one seems to be working to try to change things and to try to excite the electorate and bring them together to enact some policies. The other seems to think the key to winning is to out-Rove the party of Rove and to keep us divided, afraid, and looking to Dear leader to keep us all protected.

    So when you act like I am all sorts of Hillary hating because this is what I see, it is probably wise to remember what perspective I am coming from. I see a lot of what we already have in the GOP when I look at Hillary’s operatives. I didn’t like it then, I don’t like it now. I still do, however, think Hillary is a decent person. I think she is at her best when she is ignoring the shitheads who feed her the “change you can zerox” lines and other bullshit like that.

    This country has some monumental problems facing us. Four or eight more years of a divided public screaming about Hillary or McCain Derangement Syndrome is not going to fix them. That is why I am voting for Obama. The entrenched interests want us afraid and divided and looking to a leader to lead us “from day one.” That should tell you something.

  137. 137

    Good news if indeed the MUP’s campaign goes there:

    “We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we’ll continue to do that,” said Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod. “If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate. We’ll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I’ve said before, I don’t know why they’d want to go there, but I guess that’s where they’ll take the race.

    (my emphasis)

    You see the fun is just beginning. And we thought Obama wasn’t tough enough? Heh. He just doesn’t play all his cards at once. AND they do have a Plan B.

    Now all you folks go hit that Obama donation button one more time.

  138. 138

    Correct me if I’m suffering from selective memory but, it seems to me that Clinton’s most prolific supporters here almost always jump to “Hillary Hater,” “misogynist” or “Clinton Derangement Syndrome’ when responding to criticism of their candidate. On the other hand, I don’t see Obama supporters calling his critics “Obama haters, “racists” or accusing them of suffering from “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”
    Just an observation.

    You’re suffering from selective memory syndrome, Dennis. One word: TZ.

  139. 139
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    You’re suffering from selective memory syndrome, Dennis. One word: TZ.

    Thanks, Demi. At this point in life, any remaining memory is to be mistrusted.

  140. 140
    Ninerdave says:

    Shorter WW: Clinton is winning! Really! I’m just not sure how yet.

  141. 141

    And we thought Obama wasn’t tough enough? Heh. He just doesn’t play all his cards at once. AND they do have a Plan B.

    All right!

    Now, this is what gets the blood going. Obama has shown that he can finish strong — now, show me that you can play the midgame, Barack! Go for it, man!

  142. 142
    ww says:

    I agree that this country has some monumental problems facing us. But jeez, but bareknuckle politics has been around forever. What we are witnessing between the Dem camps is nothin’.

  143. 143
    ww says:

    I agree that this country has some monumental problems facing us. But jeez, bareknuckle politics has been around forever. What we are witnessing between the Dem camps is nothin’.

  144. 144
    ww says:

    apologies. I saw a typo and thought I stopped the load in time. Not.

  145. 145
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    So when you act like I am all sorts of Hillary hating because this is what I see

    Would it make you feel better if I assured you that they call you a “HillaryHater” because they need you to be one, so that your criticisms against Hillary are rendered invalid? It’s the same thing the Republicans do to opposition, except disorganized and likely unintentional: discredit en masse.

    What a strange poison modern politics has become.

  146. 146
    crw says:

    The core grievance, I think, is that Hillary is playing this like “anybody-but-Obama”, and before this blog was passing around the Pony-bong, this blog was saying “Anybody-but-the-Republicans”

    Look, I understand people are raging mad at Clinton’s tactics and to some extend I agree. They’re deplorable and dishonorable. They’re also effective in a close contest. I can’t really blame her for pulling this shit any more than I can blame a snake for its venom. She wants to win, and this is the only way she can. She’s no MUP and she knows it.

    OTOH, I think people here have bought a little too much into the myth of Clinton scumfuckery. Yes, they’re somewhat slimey campaigners and definitely are willing to go to great lengths to win, but I honestly think when push comes to shove they wont tear the party apart. They’re smart, see, and their goal is power. They cannot achieve power if they turn half the Democrats against them. They’ll toe the line to be sure, and push things just to the breaking point. But they’ll ultimately triangulate a compromise that maximizes their advantage. That’s really what this is about right now, I think. They’re working to get the biggest lever they can come the convention, because they know damn well no one is going to have enough pledged delegates to take it on the first ballot.

  147. 147
    ntr Fausto Carmona says:

    Now, I look at two candidates in the Democratic party with similar agendas (agendas, I might add, that I don’t fully agree with to begin with, but I am a team player and I know the GOP alternative will be worse), and one seems to be working to try to change things and to try to excite the electorate and bring them together to enact some policies. The other seems to think the key to winning is to out-Rove the party of Rove and to keep us divided, afraid, and looking to Dear leader to keep us all protected.

    [stands up, applauds]

  148. 148
    The Other Steve says:

    In fairness to Hillary it should be noted that Kenneth Pollack is not a member of her campaign. Nor is he a “policy advisor”.

    His name keeps coming up along with O’Hanlon and Keane as a policy advisor.

    I just think it’s interesting that her advisors are out there reassuring the neocons that she doesn’t really mean what she says about Iraq.

  149. 149
    norbizness says:

    From James Fallows’ site:

    In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002” line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience” part of that sentence?…

    I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of “experience,” knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience.* But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special.

    Some weird gambit going on here; I think she may like McCain better than Obama.

  150. 150
    ww says:

    Ninerdave Says:

    Shorter WW: Clinton is winning! Really! I’m just not sure how yet.

    Nice. But wrong. I clearly say neither can lay a claim. Try offering an argument instead.

  151. 151
    Original Lee says:

    Did anybody notice that Hillary is using “Yes, we will!” as one of her new campaign slogans? Cheez.

  152. 152
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Good news for Democrats: Bush is on the tube right now, from the Rose Garden, endorsing Senator Methuselah. Cheney would have likewise have endorsed the good Senator but the latter is a combat veteran and therefor leery of getting within buckshot range of Cheney.

  153. 153
    ThymeZone says:

    On the subject of banning myiq, I am opposed.

    As aggravating as he/she can be, he’s done nothing to warrant banning.

    I am under no illusion that the blog is a democracy and that we get to vote on this. I know who the deciderator is around here. But for my two cents, let’s shelve the talk of banning myiq.

    thx.

  154. 154
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Some weird gambit going on here; I think she may like McCain better than Obama.

    She and McCain have more in common.

  155. 155
    Ninerdave says:

    The other seems to think the key to winning is to out-Rove the party of Rove and to keep us divided, afraid, and looking to Dear leader to keep us all protected.

    Problem is John, it worked. I don’t seem them stopping these campaigning tactics now.

  156. 156
    Punchy says:

    I havent see a tickle fight like this current one on this blog for awhile. And John trying to moderate it all is equally amusing.

    Time to sit back, read, and laugh my ass off.

  157. 157
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    We’ll do it on our terms

    OK, it’s fighting back like that which makes me all giddy for the pony. I can be all “meh” most of the time, but when Obama says “I’m gonna fuck you up *and* do it with class”, I swoon.

    /at least, I hope “class” is what he means by that.

  158. 158
    Jen says:

    Shorter WW: Clinton is winning! Really! I’m just not sure how yet.

    Also, if the rules were completely different, she would definitely be winning.

  159. 159
    ThymeZone says:

    Did anybody notice that Hillary is using “Yes, we will!”

    Started a month ago. It’s just one of many things that one can detest about her. This is a person who will derisively mock one of the best candidates our party has ever put forth, for a vote. Not challenge, or question, or refute, but derisively mock like a fucking high school kid would do.

    Frost: Why did you (do that rotten thing in 1948) when running for Congress?

    Nixon: Well, you have to win.

    I don’t know about you, but I am a little tired of that kind of crap.

  160. 160
    Punchy says:

    He just doesn’t play all his cards at once. AND they do have a Plan B.

    Which is good, cuz getting knocked up and actually having the abortion during the campaign might turn off some moderate voters.

  161. 161
    The Other Steve says:

    OTOH, I think people here have bought a little too much into the myth of Clinton scumfuckery. Yes, they’re somewhat slimey campaigners and definitely are willing to go to great lengths to win, but I honestly think when push comes to shove they wont tear the party apart.

    The thing is. I used to think it was a myth. But her campaign has proven I am wrong.

  162. 162
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I think she may like McCain better than Obama.

    Don’t think it. Know it.

    McCain is Hillary’s opponent in Rovean politics. If she loses, she can continue to fight.

    But Obama is her world-ender. Her Omega. Death followed by horsemen, four in number.

    If Obama’s political demeanor becomes mainstream, Hillary has to retire. Not so with McCain.

  163. 163
    cleek says:

    Some weird gambit going on here; I think she may like McCain better than Obama.

    oh come on, give her a break! a woman can only scorch so much earth at a time!

  164. 164
    Rick Taylor says:

    I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty.

    The Democratic party had three leading candidates (now reduced to two) that were all good choices that I could be happy with in November. The Republican slate had a line of candidates that were all disasters. I wouldn’t trade places for anything. The primaries are annoying, but as I can support either candidate, I’m content to wait it out.

    The Democratic primary system is horribly screwed up, but that’s not either candidates fault. There’s an excellent post on the state of the race at the left coaster:

    The most basic fact that everyone needs get through their heads is that the superdelegates are going to decide the Democratic nomination. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will win enough pledged delegates to clinch it. The key, then, for both candidates, will be the ability to make the case that they best represent the will of the Democratic voters. Obama supporters who now obsessively point to the current pledged delegate count, insisting that Clinton cannot catch him, miss the point entirely. Obama is not going to win on pledged delegates.

    Many Obama supporters have fallen back on the argument that the winner of the pledged delegate count should win the support of the superdelegates. This is but a partisan attempt to game the rationale in their favor. There are literally no objective grounds for claiming that the pledged delegate count is what matters most. Given the complicated and arbitrary system for allocating delegates, with arbitrary thresholds within precincts, and given that caucuses are wholly undemocratic, the pledged delegate count can in no way be said to represent the popular will. It is but an artificial system, and it now favors Barack Obama; but anyone who relies on that arbitrary system as determinant of the rightful nominee has to accept that the same arbitrary system also allows for the superdelegates to override it.

    He goes on to argue for the popular vote, but given our screwed up system, even that’s difficult to evaluate.

  165. 165
    ww says:

    “Jen Says:

    Shorter WW: Clinton is winning! Really! I’m just not sure how yet.

    Also, if the rules were completely different, she would definitely be winning.”

    (sigh) I have no desire to engage in BS schoolyard tactics. Believe what you want. Bye.

  166. 166
    ThymeZone says:

    A pundit on the Diane Rehm Show today:

    Obama has the votes and the delegates, but Clinton has the story this morning.

    Get it? It’s the story that counts.

    So I guess the rule is, whoever scores last, wins?

    Thus making the 5-month primary contest sort of a prolonged tv sweeps period, that serves no other useful purpose I guess.

  167. 167
    Quackers says:

    So Hillary beat Obama by 10 point in Ohio? I think someone should be checking out the absolutely staggering number of Republicans who crossed over for Hillary yesterday.

  168. 168
    TheFountainHead says:

    Too bad the people of Ohio are too dumb to figure out that, /shock, the CaNAFTAda debacle was completely contrived and that 1 in 5 of them voted on race and 8 in 10 of those voted for Clinton.

    Oh well. Guess we get to keep going.

  169. 169
    Jen says:

    I have no desire to engage in BS schoolyard tactics.

    So why are you here, exactly?

  170. 170
    F says:

    John,

    You should revel in being a Hillary Hater, there is no downside to attacking Hillary. The Republicans love it, a sizable portion of the Democratic party loves it and even those of us who support her have gotten so used to it we mostly just shrug our shoulders now. I mean the over top Sullivanesque quality becomes a little creepy after awhile but I think you have the restraint to not slip too often into that mode. I’m going to write yesterday off as an aberration brought about by it being an election day.

    Please return to your normal game of hating all equally.
    /snark>

    In the span of the last 24 hrs you’ve authored 5 posts with 4 being focused on the election and all with a combined 750 comments (and counting).

    – Groundhog Days
    – Another Election Open Thread
    – Open Thread
    – Suckers

    Two of the posts directly attacked Senator Clinton (Suckers and Groundhog Days), one (Another Election Open Thread) quickly denigrated into an attack on Senator Clinton and that is just within the past 24 hours!!

    Signed,

    No serious hating going on here, move along, move along

  171. 171
    ThymeZone says:

    I think someone should be checking out the absolutely staggering number of Republicans who crossed over for Hillary yesterday.

    I’m sure lukasiak has that number. I’ll wait for his analysis.

    Meanwhile, it’s nice to see that Rush Limbaugh, having lost his ability to affect the outcome of the GOP primary, is now having fun with ours.

    It’s heartwarming to see Democrats line up to support the Limbaugh strategy. Really, I mean it.

  172. 172
    cleek says:

    I think someone should be checking out the absolutely staggering number of Republicans who crossed over for Hillary yesterday.

    here ya go

    Hillary should be proud

  173. 173
    ThymeZone says:

    Shorter F:

    I’m okay with whoring for a candidate that two thirds of Americans hate. So what?

  174. 174
    TheFountainHead says:

    F, I can’t speak for him, but I don’t think John hates Hillary. I think, like me and many, many others, he simply loathes the type of politician she is.

  175. 175
    4tehlulz says:

    F Says:

    tl;dr

  176. 176
    The Other Steve says:

    You should revel in being a Hillary Hater, there is no downside to attacking Hillary. The Republicans love it, a sizable portion of the Democratic party loves it and even those of us who support her have gotten so used to it we mostly just shrug our shoulders now.

    I realize you are trying to use the Hillary Hater argument to belittle people and beat them into submission.

    But you must realize, it’s having the opposite effect.

  177. 177
    Chris Johnson says:

    I think that as a democracy, if the overwhelming majority of this country ARE freakin’ monsters who want to torture towelheads, kill anybody who won’t pretend the dollar is the one true currency, and basically continue to follow the neocon dream, then we could end up getting McCain and we could end up in a really brutal decline and fall, already underway.

    I’m not sure that’s the case as polls don’t indicate Bush is still popular, and the biggest threat he offers is things like martial law and Halliburton detention camps on US soil. I think a lot of democratic brown-nosing is actually a matter of cutting secret deals to stop Bush from going full-on criminal and suspending democracy, and things might look different if he’s ‘allowed’ to step down as if he wasn’t a criminal.

    I think it’s a very, very good point that Hillary won’t be in a position to use ‘resources’ like that, declare martial law etc: but I’d point out that we’re talking about putting her in a position to do it should she win, and she is not showing evidence of standing on principle over expediency. That’s what the wingnuts always said about her and even though they are now voting for her in primaries (because they’re crazy?) there’s a lot of truth to that. She’s not going to care about the principles of this country, she’s going to continue to be authoritarian, largely because she’d be handed it on a silver platter thanks to Bush.

    I voted for Obama. I think my dream outcome would be this- Obama becomes President. Clinton becomes senate majority leader, vengeful, and proceeds to dismantle all the Bush-era executive branch godliness and grab rabidly for more power for herself and the Senate- thus restoring the balance of power we were intended to have in this system of government.

    Idealist and negotiator president inherits ridiculously imbalanced power of office and lets a lot of that power go as concessions to get his stuff done-

    Brutally unprincipled mad-dog senate majority leader inherits a Democratic majority, perhaps supermajority, but is mostly concerned with her own power as leader of that body, which has been toothless and MUST regain its importance-

    Both work to handle new Supreme Court appointments, but being both Democrats they fight which means that anybody really stupid or party-hack won’t fly. The only liberal judges that would get past that combination would be liberal, but not specifically favoring one branch or the other. Which would be correct for a judge.

    I think my deepest feelings are just selfish, really. I want Obama as president because I honestly believe that if he is, the normal balances of our government will work to bring things closer to sanity. Do we really want Hillary because she is MORE capable of being a monarchical executive that outranks the congress and the courts? Wrong answer. The country actually needs a leader, not a ruler. We’re supposed to have three- president, congress, courts. Not one ultra-ruler.

    This is selfish because if Hillary wins, I am one of those 90% Obamans who will not sulk and go home, who actually CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS DAMN COUNTRY that embarrasses me so, and I will still try to get her into that White House she craves so badly. Hear that Hil? STFU with treating me- and my chosen presidential candidate- like an enemy.

    EVEN IF you destroy him, endorse McCain over him, etc etc, I will STILL pick you over McCain simply because we cannot have Mr bomb bomb Iran in there, even if the neocons don’t like him either. The party flag has to change even if you’re not real different, even if everybody running is nothing but a poll-driven shell of a candidate playing games.

    The difference is, if Hillary becomes president, I already know that I will have to become a full-on political activist just to help FORCE her to do the things that must be done. I won’t be able to sit back and trust the process will work, it will force me to get ever more involved just so the decline doesn’t continue to accelerate. And I already don’t have much of a life and am pretty exhausted just with survival and trying to chart a path through an impending economic collapse- I’d like the luxury of just taking care of my own lifeboat, not staying on the Titanic bailing with a lil’ bucket.

    But whatever… whatever it has to be, you got it. I’m an American too, and that used to mean something good.

  178. 178
    F says:

    So Republicans vote for Hillary and its a bad thing, Republicans vote for Obama and its cross over appeal.

    I give up, the MUP has won. I will not fight the Obammentum any longer. I am now a MUP believer.

    Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, Hillary is FAT, etc. etc. etc.

  179. 179

    I’m okay with whoring for a candidate that two thirds of Americans hate. So what?

    Do you really think that two-thirds of Americans hate Obama?

  180. 180
    John S. says:

    You should Clinton reveled in being a Hillary Obama Hater, there is no downside to attacking Hillary Obama. The Republicans love it, a sizable portion of the Democratic party loves it and even those of us who support her him have gotten so are getting used to it we mostly just shrug our shoulders now.

    Fixed!

    Oh, and the non-story about Clinton’s campaign making Obama look more ‘ethnic’ just got more interesting:

    Asked about this by Fox News, the Clinton campaign responded:

    Despite the strong similarities between the ad on the DailyKos site and the original ad on Clinton’s Web site, Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said he spoke with the campaign’s chief ad maker, Mandy Grunwald, who said emphatically the ad on DailyKos “was not their ad.”

    “We don’t know what is up there, but it is not our ad,” Carson said.

    Yet as Troutnut notes, the ad is right here at Clinton’s campaign website, so the Clinton campaign is clearly lying.

    Of course, this is just more Hillary-hate.

  181. 181
    ThymeZone says:

    I never really hated her before. I couldn’t stand her on a personal level, but I sat right here on these pages last year and said, she is going to be the nominee, let’s get behind her.

    Well, she proved me wrong. Now I do hate her, and I have no desire to support her at all even against John McPain.

    Sure, I will do the Lesser of Two Weevils thing and vote for her in November if I have to, but I will have to do it while mourning the giant pile of shit my party has become in the process if she wins the nomination.

  182. 182
    John S. says:

    Do you really think that two-thirds of Americans hate Obama?

    Nah, only about half.

  183. 183
    ntr Fausto Carmona says:

    I’m okay with whoring for a candidate that two thirds of Americans hate. So what?

    Oderint dum metuant.

  184. 184
    Zifnab says:

    Some weird gambit going on here; I think she may like McCain better than Obama.

    Only because she’s not running against him at the moment.

    McCain is Hillary’s opponent in Rovean politics. If she loses, she can continue to fight.

    But Obama is her world-ender. Her Omega. Death followed by horsemen, four in number.

    If Obama’s political demeanor becomes mainstream, Hillary has to retire. Not so with McCain.

    If Hillary losses to McCain in ’08, she won’t be allowed to have a rematch in ’12. She’ll be heckled out of the party as the suckiest suck to ever suck a suck. Kerry didn’t receive much love after losing in ’04 and we didn’t have a nation-shaking movement in ’04.

    Hillary will be more than happy to open up full bore on her Republican opponent. But without the media on her side, I don’t know what dirty tricks she could pull that could reverse the combined might of every major news agency hammering on her neck. I think Obama has a better chance of surviving the media games we’ll expect to see later in the year. He’s got more of a “Golden Boy” image, and it’ll be much harder for smears to stick on someone so nationally admired.

  185. 185

    He’s got more of a “Golden Boy” image, and it’ll be much harder for smears to stick on someone so nationally admired.

    Hey, Zif? What color is the sky on your planet?

  186. 186
    Billy K says:

    OTOH, I think people here have bought a little too much into the myth of Clinton scumfuckery.

    Bullshit. I call it.

    I’ve backed Hillary and Bill countless times. Always given them the benefit of the doubt basically my entire life. I’ve openly mocked Sullivan and those like him for his CDS. NowI’m left feeling the fool for putting my trust in her.

    I also believe she is a decent person, and I genuinely like her. But the shit her campaign has dished out would piss me off if they were dishing it to a Republican. They’ve been serving it to their allies.

    Enough.

  187. 187
    cleek says:

    EVEN IF you destroy him, endorse McCain over him, etc etc, I will STILL pick you over McCain simply because we cannot have Mr bomb bomb Iran in there

    hooray for the two party system.

  188. 188
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    those of us who support her have gotten so used to it we mostly just shrug our shoulders now

    “Use of the word ‘woman’ is sexist. Hillary is a person”
    “Misuse of the word ‘woman’ is sexist. Hillary gets to determine how her femininity is used”
    “Failure to use the word ‘woman’ is passive-aggressively sexist. We all know you meant to say ‘woman’, and your lack of use is like using it.”
    “Stop saying ‘Hillary’. Her last name is ‘Clinton'”
    “Stop saying ‘she’ and ‘her’. You’re trying to bring up her gender by using pronouns. From now on, call her ‘The Candidate'”
    “‘periodically’ is sexist”

  189. 189
    ThymeZone says:

    Do you really think that two-thirds of Americans hate Obama?

    Um, when you can figure out what you meant by that, let me know.

    On the other hand, don’t bother.

    I don’t care.

  190. 190
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    No serious hating going on here, move along, move along

    It’s just plain hatred that makes anyone question Clinton’s votes on the AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman – innit it? And you must be a hater if you question her weak record as a legislator, her failure to vote on telco immunity or her paean of praise to Senator McCain. Shame on us. Shame, shame on us.

    Hate is unreasoning, an aversion to Clinton not so much.

  191. 191
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    So Republicans vote for Hillary and its a bad thing,

    Admittedly, that should be a good thing. Unfortunately, Limbaugh has been saying for months now “OMG we should all, like, vote for Hillary so McCain will win lol”

    That leaves us worried that this shift towards center isn’t going to stick, ya know?

  192. 192
    p.lukasiak says:

    I already hate being a Democrat

    wow, Cole…. yesterday I predicted this would happen, just not quite so soon. I thought you’d at least wait until a Democrat got into office before deciding you’d been betrayed by the party…. but clearly, your ego is so overwhelming that the minute it starts to look like your MUP is heading to oblivion, you have another hissy fit.

  193. 193
    Doubting Thomas says:

    Trust me, you don’t want to be compared to him. Ever.

    I hope this site always has a Darrell or Myiq2xu. The regular posters here do some of their best writing when refuting these posters.

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I miss Darrell! I got some of my best talking points with conservative friends from reading everyone’s replies to his outrageousness.

  194. 194
    Tsulagi says:

    Now, I look at two candidates in the Democratic party with similar agendas (agendas, I might add, that I don’t fully agree with to begin with, but I am a team player and I know the GOP alternative will be worse), and one seems to be working to try to change things and to try to excite the electorate and bring them together to enact some policies. The other seems to think the key to winning is to out-Rove the party of Rove and to keep us divided, afraid, and looking to Dear leader to keep us all protected.

    I’d go along with most of that. But I’m not excited by Obama. Don’t get me wrong, I luvs me some transcendy talk as much as the next guy, but I don’t trust him to pull the trigger when it counts.

    This assessment of Obama by Joe Wilson covers some of my problems with Barak. Wilson essentially pegs Obama as an empty suit. Harsher than I would go. Must be the MUP dust in my eyes.

  195. 195
    F says:

    TZ,

    I’m okay with whoring for a candidate that two thirds of Americans hate. So what?

    This is whats meant by hating;

    You inflate statistics in order to denigrate your opponent
    – If 2/3s of the “Democratic Party” hated Hillary she wouldn’t have won a state.

    You accuse your opponent supporters of not being honest supporters
    – I guess the word “whoring” has now become an accepted synonym for passionate supporter.

  196. 196
    Davebo says:

    His name keeps coming up along with O’Hanlon and Keane as a policy advisor.

    Madeleine Albright
    Richard Holbrooke
    Wesley Clark
    Joseph Wilson

    Those are the significant foreign policy advisors for Hillary. Neither O’Hanlon or Pollack have any positions in the campaign.

  197. 197
    Jen says:

    the minute it starts to look like your MUP is heading to oblivion,

    yeah, I don’t think her cutting the lead by a dozen delegates or so has done that, but thanks for playing the expectations game.

    Also, Ohio’s weirdo chili with the cinnamon in it, on top of spaghetti, is awful. Take that!

  198. 198
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If Hillary losses to McCain in ‘08, she won’t be allowed to have a rematch in ‘12. She’ll be heckled out of the party as the suckiest suck to ever suck a suck. Kerry didn’t receive much love after losing in ‘04 and we didn’t have a nation-shaking movement in ‘04.

    Yeah, but there’s still a difference between being hit by a car and having a meteor destroy the Earth. One can be survived, and the other simply can’t.

    She’ll defeat McCain.

    She’ll *destroy* Obama. If she must.

  199. 199
    ThymeZone says:

    You inflate statistics in order to denigrate your opponent

    If the country is half Dem, then actually about 3/4 would oppose her: All Republicans and half the Democrats.

    I gave her the benefit of any doubt and called it 2/3.

    And mind you, we are not talking about just any old dislike here. We are talking about a person who is half of a couple that has a 16-year history of irritating and aggravating the fuck out of people in this country to the point of complete disgust. And tops it off with an ugly and divisive campaign that shits on the best new candidate we’ve seen in close to fifty years.

    I’ll stick with what I posted.

  200. 200
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    yeah, I don’t think her cutting the lead by a dozen delegates or so

    Current count is Obama ahead by 1 delegate, with adjustments for possible final outcomes.

    “he he he”

  201. 201

    Ohio’s weirdo chili with the cinnamon in it, on top of spaghetti, is awful.

    You’ll only get it in Cincinnati. Which doesn’t take away from the fundamental correctness of your assertion.

  202. 202
    Jen says:

    YGlesias

    I dismissed Rush Limbaugh’s efforts to get conservatives to go vote for Hillary Clinton in order to make things easier for John McCain. Markos’ efforts to do something similar on Mitt Romey’s behalf didn’t achieve anything. And, after all, why should it work — the motive for voting is mostly expressive, so people are disinclined to do this kind of thing. But Dave Weigel rounds up some evidence that the Rush effect was real and put Clinton over the top in Texas.

    And, of course, it worked. Clinton still won’t win the nomination — after Mississippi and Wyoming she’ll be further behind in the delegate count than ever with fewer than ever delegates still up for grabs — but for another couple of months McCain will have a high-profile anti-Obama surrogate in the field telling people the likely nominee is unfit for executive leadership.

  203. 203

    If the country is half Dem, then actually about 3/4 would oppose her

    No — if the country is half TZ. Half Dem? You really are selectively ignoring reality today, aren’t you?

    Jeebus, man…is you persona supposed to be crazy here, or have you gone over the edge?

  204. 204
    p.lukasiak says:

    I’m sure lukasiak has that number. I’ll wait for his analysis.

    well, you know I can’t resist this kind of thing, TZ…

    In Texas, Republicans represented 9% of voters. 47% of them voted for Clinton, 52% for Obama.

    In Ohio, republicans also represented 9% of voters and they split 49% to 49%.

    Adjusting for total votes cast in each state, in the aggregate the GOP vote in the Democratic Party was 3% more staggering for Obama than for Clinton.

    (the really interesting news, btw, is what happened with independents. Remember how Obama dominated the independent vote in earlier primaries — in Texas his lead was 50% to48%, in Ohio 49% to 48%.)

  205. 205
    jenniebee says:

    Now, I look at two candidates in the Democratic party with similar agendas (agendas, I might add, that I don’t fully agree with to begin with, but I am a team player and I know the GOP alternative will be worse), and one seems to be working to try to change things and to try to excite the electorate and bring them together to enact some policies. The other seems to think the key to winning is to out-Rove the party of Rove and to keep us divided, afraid, and looking to Dear leader to keep us all protected.

    I just don’t get this. I’m not a Hillary supporter particularly (I’m still mourning the folding of the Edwards… no, I’ll be totally honest, the Dean ’04 candidacy) but I just don’t see it. I mean, I guess I get why she might be called a ballbuster or a bitch or whatnot, but I don’t see why those are necessarily bad things in a potential president. Is she tone-deaf? Yes. Is she DLC? unfortunately, again, yes, but Obama doesn’t differ from DLC positions in any particular. Is she an authoritarian who believes in unified executive power? Well, I haven’t seen any sign of it if she does.

    Has she been kicked around and vilified as the worst kind of unfeeling, power-mad harridan possible for a decade now? Yes. If you were in her position, would you find hard, irrefutable evidence of your own popularity personally gratifying? You bet your sweet bippy. Do I think it’s a bad thing to have a candidate who will fight, and fight hard, for the nomination? It’s a feeble candidate who doesn’t.

  206. 206

    Paul, I’m gonna need to see your citations for that. If it’s true, then Yglesias has some serious apologizing to do.

  207. 207
    F says:

    lukasiak

    Your facts have butted into TZs reality, change them please.

  208. 208
    Jen says:

    Current count is Obama ahead by 1 delegate, with adjustments for possible final outcomes.

    Stupid work keeps me behind the curve.

    So, it’s a draw? Can someone map the route from Point A, now, to Point B, Hillary deigning to pick Obama as her VP?

  209. 209
    Hypatia says:

    People, look at 1968. Now THAT was a destructive primary season, and even so Humphrey came very close to winning in November. Get your panties untwisted and relax. I’m happy for the people of Pennsylvania, who may get to vote in a primary that matters, for once. Which is how it was supposed to be in the first place – a meaningful primary season that sorted out the candidates and gave the voters a real voice in the process, and that’s what’s happening here. It may be that if their voice isn’t clear enough, the party honchos step in and make an executive decision, and that’s legitimate, too.

    Can’t someone just sit down with her and say “Mrs. Clinton, if you don’t calm down and take SenMajLeader, I’ll be really mad at you, and I’m taking your picture off my wall” and watch her fold like a house of cards?

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Senator Clinton over the past few months, it’s that she doesn’t fold like a house of cards.

    I note also the continuing double standard. If Clinton criticizes Obama, it’s dirty pool. If Obama criticizes Clinton, it’s fair comment. And on we go….

  210. 210
    p.lukasiak says:

    yeah, I don’t think her cutting the lead by a dozen delegates or so has done that, but thanks for playing the expectations game.

    thanks Jen, for spinning the results in such a way that the average American who just saw Obama have his ass handed to him will realize just how empty the arguments of the Obots are.

    At least when us Hillary supporters had our asses handed to us the week after Super Tuesday, we admitted we had been handed our asses — then we started spinning.

  211. 211
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    I already hate being a Democrat

    wow, Cole…. yesterday I predicted this would happen, just not quite so soon. I thought you’d at least wait until a Democrat got into office before deciding you’d been betrayed by the party…. but clearly, your ego is so overwhelming that the minute it starts to look like your MUP is heading to oblivion, you have another hissy fit.

    Can we at least get Cole to ban this fucktard? He’s spent his entire time invalidating everybody and every state because he’s got magical polling tables that allow him to ignore the intrinsic property of 1 vote = 1 fucking vote.

    He birddogs for sexism, and when he finds something that barely involves a woman, he accuses the poster of sexism. When Krista, of all people, defends the poster, he accuses her of being a man because of his own wholly sexist psychological rubric.

    And now he’s insulting the host because said host is frustrated by the in-fighting within the party.

    Can _anyone_ tell me what this prick has contributed here??

  212. 212
    John S. says:

    The number crunch:

    Go and check the exit polls. In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were “conservative,” and Obama won them 59-40, a bigger margin than he won with liberals or moderates. Tactical voters who said Obama stood a better chance of winning in November? They went for him 87-13.

    Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were “conservatives,” and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48. (Obama did better with them than he did with liberals and moderates.) Those tactical voters who thought Obama could win gave him a 80-18 victory, a margin twelve points smaller than the margin in Wisconsin.

    It’s a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton’s best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

    Ohio didn’t wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

    What’s this mean? Psychologically it’s hilarious: Every joke that’s ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can’t decide if it’s better for Hillary or Obama, but it’s a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)

    Interesting perspective on Paul’s “this can only be good for Hillary” statistics.

  213. 213
    TheFountainHead says:

    thanks Jen, for spinning the results in such a way that the average American who just saw Obama have his ass handed to him will realize just how empty the arguments of the Obots are.

    Cutting a 20 point lead to a 10 point win in three weeks is getting you ass handed to you how?

    Losing a state by three percentage points when the demographics were against you from day one is getting your ass handed to you?

    Huh?

  214. 214
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Senator Clinton over the past few months, it’s that she doesn’t fold like a house of cards.

    If she was as energetic about following through on her policy as she was about campaigning, I’d be happy to back you up.

    Unfortunately, Clinton seems to have her priorities backwards. Campaigns are _less_ important than keep your full word, not more.

  215. 215
    Jen says:

    thanks Jen, for spinning the results in such a way that the average American who just saw Obama have his ass handed to him will realize just how empty the arguments of the Obots are.

    At least when us Hillary supporters had our asses handed to us the week after Super Tuesday, we admitted we had been handed our asses—then we started spinning.

    Okay, I’m spinning by saying that a draw is a draw? Please see my earlier question and draw the map for me.

  216. 216
    p.lukasiak says:

    Demi…

    go to page 4 of the Texas exit polls here

    and go to page 3 of the Ohio exit polls here

    sorry, no direct link to specific pages — which has been a REAL pain in the ass when I’ve been doing big projects.)

  217. 217
    Billy K says:

    Paul, I’m gonna need to see your citations for that. If it’s true, then Yglesias has some serious apologizing to do.

    p.luk doesn’t show his work. That’s part fo his, er, “charm.”

    In other news, I just walked by a TV showing CNN. Ben Nelson is talking about the DNC bankrolling a new election in FL/MI. Hey guys! There’s a reason you didn’t have one int he first place!

    OK, so if we have primaries in all 50 states and Hillary still isn’t ahead, can we have do overs in some states? Or maybe just do Ohio again?

    Seriously…WTF?

  218. 218
    John S. says:

    If Clinton criticizes Obama, it’s dirty pool. If Obama criticizes Clinton, it’s fair comment.

    That’s complete nonsense, and you know it.

    All over the threads, Clinton supporters are saying that if Obama fires back with the same style negative attacks Clinton has been using, that it’s wrong and proves he is a phony. They even use the same expression Clinton herself used, “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”

    Double standards go both ways in this contest.

  219. 219

    […] But right now, coming off of a full few days in my life in general, I just feel exhausted, even more so at the start of the year when I was just antsy for the whole campaign to finally begin on a formal basis. Two months later and a lot of twists and turns along, the fact that there’s no final resolution is kinda annoying, but at the same time some part of me likes the stasis and that people are still trying to figure this one out. I’ve withdrawn from much in the way of political blog viewing at the moment — Balloon Juice is about the only thing I’m looking at for now, and even John’s feeling the blahs (his post title sums it up even better): I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty. […]

  220. 220

    Thanks, Paul.

    OT, but can I say again how much I F*CKING HATE web 2.0 dynamically generated web pages w/o a “direct link” feature?

    –demi “yeah, they make money. And I care why?” mondian

  221. 221
    ThymeZone says:

    In Texas, Republicans represented 9% of voters. 47% of them voted for Clinton, 52% for Obama.

    So in other words, her Republican votes put her over the top.

    Got it.

    ;-)

    Actually, so that the record is clear, I have made no assertions whatever about the effect of GOP voting in any Dem primary so far, that I know of. So if anyone is keeping score, make sure you mark that one down.

    However, this fact is irrefutable: Texas and Ohio voted for Rush Limbaugh’s candidate in their primaries. To my knowledge, Clinton is the only candidate, of the three remaining, that has been recommended by Limbaugh.

    Ahem.

  222. 222
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Can we at least get Cole to ban this fucktard?

    I want to revise this: I don’t want myiq banned, and I don’t want to make it sound like I was hoping for it. Myiq’s brain functions, when he brings it to the party.

    sorry, my bad.

  223. 223
    Andrew says:

    Paul is completely unable and unwilling to address the delegate issue, which makes him a complete joke.

  224. 224
    Jen says:

    Look, I’m disappointed in the results because I wanted Obama to shut this thing down and get down to the business of going after McCain. I didn’t expect it, though, as I said before, I expected her to win Ohio and I expected Texas to be very close. The polls actually seemed pretty accurate this time. Because of the weirdo primacaucus, it looks like the delegate lead won’t change much at all. She didn’t change the math. There isn’t any “spin” whatsoever in saying any of this.

  225. 225
    Martin says:

    Yglesias is wrong. Yes, there was some effect, but Rush didn’t get over 100,000 people out there to vote against Obama. The effect really wasn’t much more than Clinton supporters (and her campaign itself) has been arguing has been happening in Obama’s favor in the past. People need to stop arguing whether that field goal should count when the game is 80 points in favor of one team. It’s not going to matter.

    What the party needs to accept is that Hillary won 2 states out of 15 by avoiding almost all campaigning in 12 of them and focusing on 3. Since super tuesday, she’s fought in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio. She got killed in Wisconsin and Texas is a wash. You can’t win the general election by skipping campaigning and concentrating every last resource in a few places. She’s running a serial campaign – 1-2 races at a time, skipping any real effort at parallel contests. Nobody seems to be recognizing that the general is a completely parallel effort. She’s bringing nothing to that kind of a contest. Sure, she can show that she can win big states so long as she has time to jump from one to the next, but that’s not how this is gonna work.

    She said that Pennsylvania is next, ignoring both Wyoming and Mississippi, where another 45 delegates are in play. Odds are that Obama will not only erase any losses from last night there, but stretch his lead out further in those races.

  226. 226
    Lonny Martello says:

    TEH FUCHING FERRET HAS PICTURES OF HILERY CLINTEN AND BARREK O’BAMBA SITTING TOGETHER EATING HUMMUS. THE REPUBLICANS ARE CONFUSED AND THNK THAT IS A MIDDEL EASTERN TERROREST GROUP. TEH FUCHING FERRRET IS USING THE PICTURE AS BLACKMAIL AGAINST CLINTEN AND O’BAMBA SO THAT THEY WRECK EACH OTHERS CAMPAINS AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR JOHN MCCANE TO WIN. JOHN MCCANE HAS PROMISED HIS SOUL TO TEH FUCHING FERRETS IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR HELP IN BOMBING IRAN SO HE CAN SEAZE THEIR HUGE SUPPLY OF EYE LINER. CINDY MCCANE USES SIX TO EITE TONS OF EYELINER PER WEEK AND ONCE WENT INSEANE AND STRANGLED A CAMPAIN STAFFER WITH HIS OWN COLEN WHEN SHE RAN OUT. MCCANE IS AFRAID OF THE SAME FAIT AND WANTS TO SECURE THE WORLDS SUPPLY OF EYELINER. HE DOESNT UNDERSTAND THAT THE FUCHING FERRETS HAVE NO INTAREST IN HIS SOUL BUT WANT TO MARENATE HIM AND CUBE HIM AND TURN HIM INTO A TASTY SHISH KEBAB.

  227. 227
    Billy K says:

    Paul, I’m gonna need to see your citations for that. If it’s true, then Yglesias has some serious apologizing to do.

    First of all, Yglesias is just repeating what Dave Weigel said. Secondly, Weigel (and by extension, Yglesias) used those who self-identified as “Conservative,” not “Republican” to make his claims.

  228. 228
    ThymeZone says:

    Can we at least get Cole to ban this fucktard? He’s spent his entire time invalidating everybody and every state because he’s got magical polling tables that allow him to ignore the intrinsic property of 1 vote = 1 fucking vote.

    He birddogs for sexism, and when he finds something that barely involves a woman, he accuses the poster of sexism. When Krista, of all people, defends the poster, he accuses her of being a man because of his own wholly sexist psychological rubric.

    And now he’s insulting the host because said host is frustrated by the in-fighting within the party.

    Can anyone tell me what this prick has contributed here??

    Any talk of banning anyone today around here is completely uncalled for. These are tumultuous times and the threads will be raucous. So be it. Stop already with the banning talk.

  229. 229
    TheFountainHead says:

    What the party needs to accept is that Hillary won 2 states out of 15 by avoiding almost all campaigning in 12 of them and focusing on 3. Since super tuesday, she’s fought in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio. She got killed in Wisconsin and Texas is a wash. You can’t win the general election by skipping campaigning and concentrating every last resource in a few places. She’s running a serial campaign – 1-2 races at a time, skipping any real effort at parallel contests. Nobody seems to be recognizing that the general is a completely parallel effort. She’s bringing nothing to that kind of a contest. Sure, she can show that she can win big states so long as she has time to jump from one to the next, but that’s not how this is gonna work.

    She said that Pennsylvania is next, ignoring both Wyoming and Mississippi, where another 45 delegates are in play. Odds are that Obama will not only erase any losses from last night there, but stretch his lead out further in those races.

    QFFT.

  230. 230
    Billy K says:

    Paul is completely unable and unwilling to address the delegate issue, which makes him a complete joke.

    No, he addressed it. He said – CORRECTLY – that neither has the 2,025 necessary to secure the nomination. Isn’t that addressing the question in good faith?

  231. 231
    Punchy says:

    If the country is half Dem, then actually about 3/4 would oppose her: All Republicans and half the Democrats.

    What? First of all, you said “hate” originally. Now you say oppose. There’s a huge difference between those words in Reality Land.

    #2, who says half the Dems hate Hillary? Just becuase someone prefers one candy doesnt mean they must hate the other. Sorry, but your analyses reek of superfluous hyperbole and unsubstantiated innuenndo and stale subjectiveness.

  232. 232

    So Yglesias didn’t check his facts? Billy, p.luk pointed me to stats, and they refute Yglesias. Ergo, he should have checked his numbers before he published them.

  233. 233
    chopper says:

    Agreed. When Clinton speaks on policy, I usually love her.

    when the clintons speak on policy, it’s great. but when it comes to getting said policy enacted and they throw it under the bus the moment it looks like it might take a bit out of the old approval rating, it sucks.

    some of us who are for universal health care and gay rights still remember the 90’s.

  234. 234
    cleek says:

    Can anyone tell me what this prick has contributed here??

    his enthusiasm for pie is infectious.

  235. 235
    dslak says:

    Imagine the number of people who likely got banned from commenting at hillaryis44.com today. Do we really want to be like them? We’re better than that!

  236. 236
    Jen says:

    I dunno about the Republican mischief-makers, that seems to be a very small effect if any, which might be relevant if the states were winner-take-all but as it is, not so much — but Yglesias is right about this part:

    Clinton still won’t win the nomination—after Mississippi and Wyoming she’ll be further behind in the delegate count than ever with fewer than ever delegates still up for grabs—but for another couple of months McCain will have a high-profile anti-Obama surrogate in the field telling people the likely nominee is unfit for executive leadership.

  237. 237
    crw says:

    OTOH, I think people here have bought a little too much into the myth of Clinton scumfuckery.

    Bullshit. I call it.

    I’ve backed Hillary and Bill countless times. Always given them the benefit of the doubt basically my entire life. I’ve openly mocked Sullivan and those like him for his CDS. NowI’m left feeling the fool for putting my trust in her.

    I also believe she is a decent person, and I genuinely like her. But the shit her campaign has dished out would piss me off if they were dishing it to a Republican. They’ve been serving it to their allies.

    Enough.

    Well, I voted for Obama in TX so I partly agree. I just like Obama better, and think he presents an opportunity for real healing in this nation. If he can get past the Republican Slime Machine and the Dead Enders who will do everything in their power to stop him.

    I don’t like Clinton. I think she stands for the same old same old. But I also think y’all are building her and her campaign up to be far more evil than it is. And like it or not, I’m also cynical enough to recognize that sometimes this political slime is necessary. Go ahead, pretend you’ve transcended political nastiness with the MUP. But admi it, you’ll be cheering when she digs up the dirt on McCain and gets a little slime on him.

  238. 238
    ThymeZone says:

    Sorry, but your analyses reek of superfluous hyperbole and unsubstantiated innuenndo and stale subjectiveness.

    Who said it was analysis? It’s opinion, and if you don’t like it, you can kiss my entire ass.

    Back to you.

  239. 239
    Andrew says:

    He said – CORRECTLY – that neither has the 2,025 necessary to secure the nomination. Isn’t that addressing the question in good faith?

    No, it’s not at all. In fact, it’s quite bad faith and childish. Obama will have the pledged delegate lead. He will likely have the popular vote lead. A hillary win will require a huge superdelegate vote that ignore the pledged delegates and the popular vote. Hillary supporters are okay with the superdelegates ignoring the voting results?

  240. 240
    Andrew says:

    hillaryis44.com

    This may be the single best reason to keep Hillary out of the white house. Those fuckers are totally batshit insane.

  241. 241
    p.lukasiak says:

    Cutting a 20 point lead to a 10 point win in three weeks is getting you ass handed to you how?

    there was no 20 point margin three weeks ago. By that point, the margin was about 14 points. But what is really important is that the polls during the last week of February showed Obama within five points (except for ARG, which has been consistently off in clinton’s favor). In other words, what ever margin you want to start with, Obama had closed a week before the primary…and then it opened up again.

    There is a consistent dynamic at work here in closely contested races….

    1) Hillary has a big lead among ‘mind made up’ and leaners, with lots of undecideds a few weeks out
    2) The campaign gets serious in the state, Obama catches up as lots of his “leaners” become “mind made up”, and undecideds start leaning toward Obama, and some Hillary leaners go “undecided”
    3) In the final week of the campaign, Hillary leaners become “mind made up” for Hillary, undecideds start to lean to Hillary, and Obama leaners go back to undecided
    4) Hillary wins on election day.

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t, and people retreat back to Clinton.

  242. 242
    Billy K says:

    So Yglesias didn’t check his facts? Billy, p.luk pointed me to stats, and they refute Yglesias. Ergo, he should have checked his numbers before he published them.

    I disagree. It doesn’t “refute” them. It’s a different way of assessing them. What’s the difference between a self-identifying “Republican” and a “Conservatiuve” with regard to voting for the opposite party in a primary? I have no idea. But it doesn’t render Weigel’s analysis false.

  243. 243
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Any talk of banning anyone today around here is completely uncalled for. These are tumultuous times and the threads will be raucous. So be it. Stop already with the banning talk.

    I’ll stop for good will’s sake, but I think Cole is onto something. Intellectual dishonesty is starting to get out of hand here.

    Because I was bored, I scanned through the Fark threads on the elections. My god: full-on sexism, racism, and dishonesty of all sorts. Each side was displaying full vitriol.

    Here, we have HRC people like Tsulagi and srv taking reasonably fair pot shots, and us Pony addicts honestly try to make a defense. Most of the Hillbots are within the lines, and the Obamaniacs here are patient if not pleasant. This is a pretty good deal.

    I’m worried about assholes coming in and throwing pollution into the conversation to try to turn this into another flamewar that proves Hillary is Teh Victim. There’s gotta be a bottom-line somewhere in this.

  244. 244
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Can anyone tell me what this prick has contributed here??

    A pastiche of wishful thinking, data massaging and calumny. Nonetheless, I don’t think that p.luk should be banned.

  245. 245
    Billy K says:

    There is a consistent dynamic at work here in closely contested races….

    Well, in Texas and Ohio, at least. Right?

  246. 246
    Cassidy says:

    Hillary supporters are okay with the superdelegates ignoring the voting results?

    Yes.

  247. 247
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    his enthusiasm for pie is infectious.

    hahahahaha. Early nom for POTD.

  248. 248
    Billy K says:

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t,

    Yet he still holds an insurmountable lead in deleagtes at this point in the contest. If that’s “not closing the deal,” then I wish to “not close the deal” with Scarlett Johansen. Like, now.

  249. 249
    p.lukasiak says:

    p.luk doesn’t show his work. That’s part fo his, er, “charm.”

    y’know, this is what kills me. When I publish a large analysis as a guest poster somewhere, all my tables are included, all calculations explained, and all data sources are cited. See, for instance here

    nevertheless, I get accused of not showing my sources, cherry picking data, lying about the data, etc, etc.

  250. 250
    Jen says:

    But admi it, you’ll be cheering when she digs up the dirt on McCain and gets a little slime on him.

    The thing is, dirt on McCain is fish in a barrel, and we’re going to be distracted from shooting those fish while Hillary and Obama shoot at each other, and the fish will grow strong and healthy. Or something. I’m not very good at analogies, but it’s no skin off my stiff upper lip.

    Serious nerd points for anyone getting that reference.

  251. 251
    TheFountainHead says:

    There is a consistent dynamic at work here in closely contested races….

    Disqualified on its face for using the word “consistent” when describing what the electorate is doing in any of these states during this primary.

    Disqualified on a second count for suggesting that the polls in the week leading up to any contest in the race have been remotely indicative of the actual outcome. Certainly not consistently enough to draw a pattern from as you have attempted to do.

    Disqualified or not though, I’ll counter your main thrust anyway. Obama’s not “failing to close the deal” as Mark Penn would love you believe, he’s simply struggling against racism (a factor worth looking at particularly in Ohio) and Hillary’s non-stop attacks, most of which appeal to fear. That has worked in Ohio and Texas, and it will probably work in Pennsylvania, but I don’t think this “close the deal” argument makes any sense whatsoever when you consider the “see what sticks” style of campaign Hillary ran in those two states.

  252. 252
    Cassidy says:

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t,

    I believe the voters of Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia would disagree.

    Oh shit, that’s right! They don’t matter. They only matter, after the fact, if Hillary won.

  253. 253
    Billy K says:

    I’m not very good at analogies, but it’s no skin off my stiff upper lip.

    Serious nerd points for anyone getting that reference.

    Trixie?

  254. 254
    Cassidy says:

    but it’s no skin off my stiff upper lip.

    Love me some Bloom COunty.

  255. 255
    ThymeZone says:

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t, and people retreat back to Clinton.

    Um, no, I don’t generally challenge your specific assertions like these, but in this case, it has to be done.

    First of all you are quoting poll figures as if they are gospel. As if the day to day numbers can be taken to mean anything in particular, even when the movements are within MOE. Second, you are making up the dynamics. You don’t know why the plus five turned into the minus three, or whatever. You aren’t taking turnout into account, or any of the other variables that could be at play.

    You also cherry-picked the timeframe to fluff up your argument. The fact is that within very recent memory the blatherators were talking about 20-point Clinton margins, that shrunk considerably. Your assertions that Obama has to quickly overcome a huge deficit and win convicingly in order to show merit are just absurd.

    The fact is, the guy has overcome gigantic obstacles and is the leading candidate at the present time against tough, mean, well funded and well organized competition. That’s the bare bones story here, one which you don’t seem to want to tell, Paul. Every word you say is Clintonized and spiffed up to put her in the best, and him the worst, possible light.

    Eh?

  256. 256

    But it doesn’t render Weigel’s analysis false.

    Yes, it does. For whom would the “conservative Democrats” have voted? McCain? Perhaps, but only if they thought their votes didn’t matter.

    At the end, Republican votes cancelled each other out, as is usually the case in open primaries. As a result, Weigel’s/Yglesias’ asinine argument is that “conservative Democrats don’t count”. So…conservative Republican-leaning states do count, and conservative Democratic-voters don’t.

    I call Pony-manure.

  257. 257
    Billy K says:

    nevertheless, I get accused of not showing my sources, cherry picking data, lying about the data, etc, etc.

    I would not accuse you of lying.

  258. 258
    John S. says:

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t, and people retreat back to Clinton.

    And that’s all you need to know about Paul arguing in ‘good faith’.

  259. 259
    p.lukasiak says:

    Well, in Texas and Ohio, at least. Right?

    no, i spot checked other states, to see if the dynamic was the same. It was. I don’t have data on all states, because I rely on SUSA polls in order to make sure that there is some internal consistency, because they are the only organization that does a lot of state polling and provides crosstabs.

  260. 260
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    nevertheless, I get accused of not showing my sources, cherry picking data, lying about the data, etc, etc.

    That’s why you POST your evidence HERE. Or, you can use the Website field and then say “see my site”

    When the hell are people going to learn it’s not our job to google-up the proofs for other people?

  261. 261
    Billy K says:

    Yes, it does. For whom would the “conservative Democrats” have voted? McCain? Perhaps, but only if they thought their votes didn’t matter.

    There are a LOT of Conservatives who no longer consider themselves Republicans because they believe the GOP is either too liberal or too conservative. They may not consdier themselves “Republicans” any more, so they just call themselves “Conservatives.” In fact, that word probably better describes this voting bloc than “Republican.”

  262. 262
    Jen says:

    Dammit, guys, Cassidy?! C’mon! Help me out here! Our commonalities are starting to freak me out a little.

  263. 263
    Billy K says:

    no, i spot checked other states, to see if the dynamic was the same. It was. I don’t have data on all states,

    How can you even type that with a straight face?

    Oh wait – you’re not. HA! You got me!!

  264. 264
    ThymeZone says:

    There’s gotta be a bottom-line somewhere in this.

    Yes, it’s called Hot Air, aka Balloon-Juice.

    Relax, it’s just another fun day here. It will get louder before this year is over. Enjoy it.

  265. 265
    Billy K says:

    Dammit, guys, Cassidy?! C’mon! Help me out here!

    Sorry. Never cared for Bloom County. Thought you were talking about this.

  266. 266
    Cassidy says:

    Dammit, guys, Cassidy?! C’mon! Help me out here! Our commonalities are starting to freak me out a little.

    Maybe I am the normal one….

  267. 267
    Cassidy says:

    …minus the PTSD anyways.

  268. 268
    Jen says:

    minus the PTSD anyways.

    Unfortunately, myiq’s comments are not considered “service-related”

  269. 269

    Oh wait – you’re not. HA! You got me!!

    Billy — that’s called “calling someone a liar”. It’s usually considered impolite.

    –demi “takes one to know one” mondian

  270. 270
    p.lukasiak says:

    I disagree. It doesn’t “refute” them.

    Billy’s right. What the data shows doesn’t so much refute Yglesias, as demonstrate how absurd his argument is. Sure, if no Republicans had voted for Clinton, and Obama kept all his Republicans, Hillary would have lost by about 1% in Texas. But the converse is also true — if Clinton kept all her Republicans, and Obama lost all of his, Clinton’s margin would have been aroun 7%.

  271. 271
    Billy K says:

    Billy—that’s called “calling someone a liar”. It’s usually considered impolite.
    —demi “takes one to know one” mondian

    What I meant was, he was laughing while posting it becauyse he is a smart guy and he had to realize how ridiculous it sounds.

  272. 272
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    some observations (probably way too close to the end of the thread, but oh well):

    John – no banning please. One of the best things about this blog is that it still preserves some tattered shreds of diversity in opinion. Also, that isn’t the Democratic party way. You need a whetstone to sharpen a knife – abrasive commentary that gets under your skin is a challenge to improve your arguments, not to get angry. If what the other person has to say is stupid or insulting, they discredit themselves – why pass up a free gift? Let it go.

    On Obama vs. Clinton, and “dumpster diving”:

    GWB has done a lot of damage to our country that needs to be rolled back and repaired. I see this on two levels – the first and more superficial is at the level of policy – bad decisions, incompetence and cronyism, etc. The deeper level lies in the Rovian politics of fear and smear, divide and conquer (here I’m addressing the 2002-2006 elections primarily). I think the former is at least in part a symptom of the latter. Bad politics enables and helps to create bad policy. Ends justifying means become a slippery slope leading to corrupted ends – look at how the management of the Iraq war has been subordinated to domestic political considerations, etc., etc.

    The most important thing about this 2008 election is that it is our best chance to repudiate everything that GWB has brought about, on both levels. It won’t be our only chance, but mandates delivered in future elections will be a much less forceful rebuke than what happens this year. I want to repudiate both the policies of GWB and the Rovian politics that enabled them.

    This is why HRC’s turn towards negative campaign tactics is so deeply disappointing. If she wins by going Rove-lite on Obama, then we will still have the chance to repudiate the policies of GWB, but the rebuke to Rovian politics will be watered down, possibly lost altogether. I am very worried that if we clean up after GWB on the policy level alone, without remaking our politics in a more positive manner, that the resulting policy changes will be very shallowly rooted and subject to easy reversal. Look at Bill Clinton’s administration – how well did that work out? Did Bill leave behind a lasting legacy that the Republicans found difficult to overturn once they took power in 2000? The victories that Democrats won under Bill were all tactics and no strategy, and they left nothing to show for it in the end.

    Obama’s appeal to me lies in that he is addressing root causes as well as the symptoms of our political malaise. If he is elected on a mandate for opening up government, trying to get the support of indys and moderate Republicans, and rejecting smear-and-fear campaign tactics, then the chances of getting another GWB type candidate a few years down the road will have diminished. If HRC is elected using negative campaign tactics and her base rooted in the traditional Dem. party infrastructure, then that door will be left open. Also, the chance for the Democrats to establish themselves as a dominant brand with the younger generation now entering politics will be lost or watered down.

    Obama is not the 1st candidate to run as an insurgency/movement challenger to the established party insider candidate. What is different about him is that he is much better organized and funded than these sort of candidates have been in the past, and he is running at least partially from the political center rather than from the left wing of the Democratic party. He is also very close to succeeding. This is literally a once in a lifetime opportunity. For us to pass on it and go with a more traditional insider campaign would be a national tragedy IMHO, and greatly increase the chance of another GWB. When Obama says that this election is about the future, he speaks to my concerns, not just in 2008 but much further down the line.

  273. 273
    Punchy says:

    believe the voters of Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia would disagree.

    Who? You mean rednecks, polar bears, tree-huggers, degenerate gamblers, colored foul, more rednecks, newlyweds, ATF-hating psychos, farmers, more farmers, nothing but farmers, clearly non-swimmers, lobster-eating wierdos, got nothing, swedes, meth addicts, just a ridiculously high-percentage of farmers, Confeddy-flag wavers, thrice (currently) married crackers, skiers, looks like vagina, Microsoft employees, cheeseers, and felons, respectively, really care?

  274. 274
    John S. says:

    Billy—that’s called “calling someone a liar”. It’s usually considered impolite.

    But you can call someone an “authoritarian brownshirt”, and that’s perfectly okay.

    Don’t worry about demi’s lessons Billy – he’s just playing the role of school marm these days.

  275. 275
    Martin says:

    basically, Obama is given the opportunity to close the deal, and can’t, and people retreat back to Clinton.

    So why does Obama need to close the deal and Hillary needs to do nothing? Why can’t she close the deal? Why can’t she even make headway against Obama? The only way that she avoids having to ‘close the deal’ by the same measure is if we presume that she is ‘owed’ the white house and it’s Obama’s job to take it from her.

    And I call bullshit on that reasoning. If she is owed it, then she is owed it by what measure? Because she had to put up with Bill’s blue dress or because she is a strong woman in the party and the party and country deserve a woman president? If its the former, then a decent chunk of the Clinton supporters want nothing more than social promotion. Seems that Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy have earned it first. If it’s the latter, then there are a lot of women who have been holding office longer than she has – longer in fact than when Bill got elected. Why aren’t they here? Because Clinton beat them to the campaign? Fine – then why can she win on merit up to this point and then she gets to win on some kind of debt owed her? Why can she step ahead of more senior Democrats but less senior Democrats can’t step ahead of her?

    Y’all need to either apply a common standard or at least come up with a consistent uncommon standard, because I don’t see that the excuses aren’t being tailor made to fit the situation of the moment.

  276. 276
    Billy K says:

    Who? You mean rednecks, polar bears, tree-huggers, degenerate gamblers, colored foul, more rednecks, newlyweds, ATF-hating psychos, farmers, more farmers, nothing but farmers, clearly non-swimmers, lobster-eating wierdos, got nothing, swedes, meth addicts, just a ridiculously high-percentage of farmers, Confeddy-flag wavers, thrice (currently) married crackers, skiers, looks like vagina, Microsoft employees, cheeseers, and felons, respectively, really care?

    Now THAT’S what a POTD looks like!

    Nice work.

  277. 277
    jcricket says:

    Wow, go do some work and come back and all hell has re-broken loose.

    Was I just being stealthy with my consuming Hillary hate when I was attacking Obama 2 months ago?

    John – I hope you’re not lumping me in with some of the other Clinton supporters here, although I understand why they are responding like they do. Personally, I think you can sometimes be a little over-the-top with your reaction to Hillary, that’s fine and I understand it (I do the same with my reaction to some other political figures). Visceral reactions and emotional considerations are just as important as any “sober evaluation of policy” when considering which candidate to support.

    I think it comes down, for me, to what Atrios said this morning:

    I don’t have a problem understanding why some people support Obama and some people support Clinton. It really puzzles me why lots of people don’t get that simple fact. The point is not that the candidates are identical and no one should be a supporter or care who wins, it’s that you should recognize that the other person’s supporters aren’t necessarily deluded or stupid. You may disagree with their reasons, but they have them.

    (emphasis added). I, for one, have never espoused the more egregious arguments about Obama that some Clinton supporters have (he’s not incapable of winning, he does have a lead, he’s not so inexperienced as to be a terrible candidate), but I have, in fact, been subject to a near constant barrage of the reverse (attacks about my motives, intelligence, commitment to the party, etc). It would be nice for someone (other than Jen or Demi) to acknowledge that the millions of people that support Hillary are not out there trying to tear the Democratic party apart. They may believe different things than you about each candidate, and they may even believe things incorrectly, but calling all the HRC supporters morons and traitors is just unacceptable and unnecessary.

    Hillary and Obama are running very different campaigns, and I’m fully aware of how some (most?) of you feel about Hillary’s campaign. I’m not asking you to stop complaining about that or articulating why Obama is better. I’m just asking that you realize that not thinking Obama is the “best ever” or not agreeing that Clinton is a she-devil-party-traitor is not a sign of being a crypto-Republican.

    Step back and realize more people voted yesterday in the Democratic primary in Texas for two candidates than voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. Each candidate has broken countless records for turnout and fundraising, month after month. Interest is increasing, not decreasing, the more this goes on. There may be a point where that’s not true, but then again I’ve been wrong at every point when I thought the turnout would start decreasing.

  278. 278
    Jen says:

    What’s “colored foul”?

  279. 279
    Cassidy says:

    Now THAT’S what a POTD looks like!

    Nice work.

    I second the nomination.

  280. 280
    ThymeZone says:

    The point is not that the candidates are identical and no one should be a supporter or care who wins,

    Um, we have already had this discussion, and that point of view lost. It’s total bunk.

    You cannot boil down politics to policy decisions and voting records. It’s about people and character and intangibles and things that are hard to quantify.

    The idea that we should just list voting records and policy statements and then check off our preferences is just beyond ludicrous. You have to wonder what kind of COMPLETE FUCKING MORON would write something like that?

    Seriously. No difference between these two candidates?

    Get the fuck outta here, or get serious.

  281. 281
    Cassidy says:

    What’s “colored foul”?

    Never mind….begging for a joke, but half wouldn’t get it and the other half would get pissed.

  282. 282
    jcricket says:

    Hey – does anyone know what the deal is with the Edwards delegates? I know there aren’t many, but I was just reading that they haven’t been pledged to Obama or Clinton yet. Any chance of that happening soon-ish? Or do we have to wait until convention time?

  283. 283
    jcricket says:

    Seriously. No difference between these two candidates?

    Can you read? It says “the point is not…” The point, if you cared to read the statement again, is that you can support Clinton (or Obama) without hating the other side, being stupid or being deluded. C’mon TZ, you’re really losing it now.

  284. 284
    Snark Based Reality says:

    Who? You mean rednecks, polar bears, tree-huggers, degenerate gamblers, colored foul, more rednecks, newlyweds, ATF-hating psychos, farmers, more farmers, nothing but farmers, clearly non-swimmers, lobster-eating wierdos, got nothing, swedes, meth addicts, just a ridiculously high-percentage of farmers, Confeddy-flag wavers, thrice (currently) married crackers, skiers, looks like vagina, Microsoft employees, cheeseers, and felons, respectively, really care?

    Haha, Nice.

    POTD indeed.

  285. 285
    jcricket says:

    I think for anyone who’s willing to listen, Kevin Drum describes a compelling way to view the current situation, or at least a counter-argument to the idea that we’re all doomed because of the continued primary shenigans.

  286. 286

    PotD for “clearly non-swimmers” alone.

  287. 287
    Cyrus says:

    It would be nice for someone (other than Jen or Demi) to acknowledge that the millions of people that support Hillary are not out there trying to tear the Democratic party apart.

    You can count me with Jen and Demi, I guess.

  288. 288
    No thanks, Obama says:

    This on going debate that Obama is somehow running a cleaner campaign is ridiculous. Anyone who has taken the time to hunt down the original and complete quotes of any of these ‘campaign faux paux’ know that most of this debate is moot.

    Much of the racist hoopla were comments originating with Obama’s campaign. And the Clinton’s answers were responses to media questions that were fragmented to look as horrible as possible. Even black leaders who had watched the whole thing unfold said as much.

    Everyone knows that Clinton’s Iraq/Iran votes were her bona fides for war and being a female. Just like Obama’s shared votes to fund the war are his bona fides for war and being President. The fact of matter is Obama hasn’t gone against the Dems while voting in the Senate, so why are we to believe he would if he was truly capable of voting? It goes beyond logic to accept that as the truth when he never has has the courage. You know as well as I do, he needed to look like a patriot. Which is why he was also too spineless to vote against the Patriot Act.

    That is the fairy tale Pres Clinton was discussing. And anyone saying any differently is being divisive and lying to you. Obama and Michelle included!

    It is odd when Obama is finally asked some real questions about serious topics and he runs. No thanks, I don’t need another Dubya hiding from the truth. That is exactly who he reminds me of.

    Any fool, should have been able to see who Dubya was surrounding himself w/during the 2000 campaign. Even Sullivan should have seen quite clearly that we were going to war with Iraq with that cast of characters. And those cruise missles a few weeks after Dubya took office, should have been the confirmation of those huge war mongering clues.

    Well, now Obama surrounds himself with the very man who help to form al Qaeda, Zbig. Does that sound like a good idea? The man who didn’t think that there is long term implications to teaching religious zealots how to take down a superpower? Does this look like ‘change’ or status quo?

    This looks like a continuation of Dubya’s antagonism of Russia. Which completely throws under the bus, the work of Reagan/Bush to resolve the cold war. And now that Dubya has started a new arms race, Obama hires the guy who has the biggest hard on for Russia there is.

    Anyway, another probelm with Obama is his “End Global Poverty” tax. Frankly, it looks like a huge bribe to UN leaders and despots around the world, because we all know this never makes it to the people that really needs the help.

    Obama knows this too, since the Iraq food for oil scandal has been unfolding in front of us all. Or maybe his was too busy ‘not voting’ in the US Senate to notice? However, this gem is tied to our GDP by .7%, so essentially if those world leaders help us exploit their people and resources more effectively. They get more. YUCK!

    Oh and the best of all they think they want to place a .35 to $1 gas tax for this idea. So, it makes me wonder. Does crushing American business during a recession help or hurt us? And does that mean those countries have to be exploited even more ruthlessly for a profit to be made?

    Finally, the fact that Obama can’t buy his own children a house without the help of a known corrupt and money man is disgusting. He was so greedy that he decided that simply saying it was a mistake would be enough. Illinois taxpayer’s were defrauded with his help, while others were left in the cold.

    I just can’t vote for this man. He stole MLKs tone….stole JFKs words….stole Ceasar Chavez’ battle cry….and help Rezko steal Illinois’ taxpayers money.

    And I’m supposed to be impressed. Yuck. He reminds me of Dubya in so many ways it is disturbing.

    The fact that Sullivan is talking up Obama on Maher as a way to get out of Iraq, just looks like CYA. Sullivan simply doesn’t want to be wrong about supporting the war in Iraq when it was abundantly clear it is was ruse long before 3/03. Well now, his blind support is going to help the cold war start up again.

    Oh God, the 80s and perms! It’s coming back…..and Sullivan is it’s cheerleader!

  289. 289
    Snark Based Reality says:

    It would be nice for someone (other than Jen or Demi) to acknowledge that the millions of people that support Hillary are not out there trying to tear the Democratic party apart.

    No, the people who vote for her are not. Meanwhile the people who are _in_ her campaign clearly are.

  290. 290
    4tehlulz says:

    tl;dr

  291. 291
    crw says:

    jcricket:

    Well said sir. I agree completely. With the exception of a few folks being intentionally obtuse, I think we all come by our opinions honestly and intelligently. In the end, it all comes down to who you identify more closely with and who you think has a better chance to git ‘er done. You don’t have to be an idiot or a hack to identify with Hillary or feel skeptically about Obama’s optimistic message. Likewise, you don’t have to be some starry-eyed naif or CDS sufferer to find Obama more compelling or feel Hillary is stuck too much in the fights of the past. It’s the tribalism that discounts the legitimacy of opposing views that will tear the party apart, more than anything. And I thought that was part of Obama’s hope anyway – that you can disagree while recognizing other people have legitimate concerns.

  292. 292
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Now THAT’S what a POTD looks like!

    Nice work.

    agreed. Fourthed.

  293. 293
    Jen says:

    “No thanks”, that’s the most inane thing I’ve read all day, and I’ve read everything P-Luk’s written. If I were you, I’d fix the typos before forwarding on that particular smear email, or whatever the hell that’s supposed to be.

  294. 294
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    No thanks, Obama Says:

    This on going debate that Obama is a big meanie…

    Not only tl;dr, but makes new arguments without giving support. Like “Much of the racist hoopla were comments originating with Obama’s campaign.”

    Show me articles or GTFO.

  295. 295
    Dork says:

    tl;dr

    What’s this mean?

  296. 296
    Billy K says:

    No, the people who vote for her are not. Meanwhile the people who are in her campaign clearly are.

    QFT. Most people who vote for her just like her last name. They’re innocent more or less.

    Yep. I said it.

  297. 297
    Billy K says:

    tl;dr mean “too long; didn’t read”

    It also means the poster spend too much time on unsavory boards.

  298. 298
    jcricket says:

    It’s the tribalism that discounts the legitimacy of opposing views that will tear the party apart, more than anything. And I thought that was part of Obama’s hope anyway – that you can disagree while recognizing other people have legitimate concerns.

    Yep, that’s basically how I feel. I can recognize my own tribalism enough to know that I: A) Shouldn’t generalize it to apply to people less wedded to either candidate; and B) Know that I should put it away when it comes time to build on the Democratic control of US politics come November, regardless of the primary outcome.

    And this:

    No, the people who vote for her are not. Meanwhile the people who are in her campaign clearly are.

    Is a perfect example, imho, of a reasonable, if strong, opinion. I may not agree with it (I don’t think the tactics will even tear the party apart) but it’s not a personal attack on the voters who support Hillary.

    Attacking Hillary – fair game. Attacking her surrogates – fair game. Attacking her campaign tactics – fair game. Attacking/Impugning the motives of the voters – not really fair game unless I get to do it to you :-)

  299. 299
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    It also means the poster spend too much time on unsavory boards.

    There’s nothing unsavory about cake. In fact, it is delicious cake.

    You know what to do with it.

  300. 300
    jcricket says:

    Some interesting facts/analysis about the impact (or lack thereof) of primary intra-party divisiveness on the general election.

    If one of them wins and the other says “S/He stole it from me, all my supporters should go home” that would be a disaster. But I think, given where we are right now (so evenly divided), they both got on the magical unity train (split ticket, one campaigning for the other – whatever form it takes), I think we’ll be unstoppable in November.

    There are too many real world circumstances conspiring against the Republicans, and too much interest and enthusiasm with both candidates supporters for it all to fall apart barring major gaffes or the scenario in my second paragraph (which I think has 0% chance of happening).

  301. 301
    Cassidy says:

    that particular smear email

    I’m sure you’ll find something amazing close in the Hillaryis44 comments section.

  302. 302
    Cyrus says:

    Unfortunately, I can’t do a comprehensive job with this. There are only so many hours in the day.

    This on going debate that Obama is
    “Ongoing” is one word.
    Anyone who has taken the time to hunt down the original and complete quotes of any of these ‘campaign faux paux’ know that most of this debate is moot.
    First of all, quotes intended to convey irony should be double quotes, not single quotes. Second, you misspelled “faux pas.” And third, you don’t have subject-verb agreement there. “Anyone … who know that,” is wrong; “know” should be “knows.”
    And the Clinton’s answers were responses
    You aren’t using the possessive correctly here. I assume you meant to leave out the word “the,” which would have given you a grammatically correct phrase. Alternately, if you wanted to refer to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, you could have said “the Clintons’ answers,” with the apostrophe after the s, not before it.
    Clinton’s Iraq/Iran votes were her bona fides for war and being a female
    That makes no sense. I think you have the meaning of “bona fide” wrong.
    1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit
    2 : made with earnest intent
    3 : neither specious nor counterfeit
    the fairy tale Pres Clinton was
    “Pres.” is an abbreviation, and therefore should have a period at the end.
    throws under the bus, the work of Reagan/Bush
    The comma there is unnecessary.
    the people that really needs the help
    See above about subject-verb agreement.

  303. 303
    No thanks, Obama says:

    BillK,

    It isn’t my fault your reading comprehension couldn’t last for the length of that post.

    However, I’m not going to do your research for you and I certainly won’t if you can’t be bothered to read. What would be the point? How could you be expected to read those? lol

    And finally, the boards I spend my time on at least have the intelligence to understand that not all posts are sound bites.

    That these are important topics and deserve our utmost attention, even if it takes longer than a second to explain them.

    Now do you have an actual opinion about my post that isn’t based on an assumption or lack of initiative?

  304. 304
    Cassidy says:

    they both got on the magical unity train (split ticket, one campaigning for the other – whatever form it takes), I think we’ll be unstoppable in November.

    As long as Ohio thinks she should be on top, screw everyone else.

  305. 305

    Yeah, that’s pretty a pretty vile smear email.

    DougJ, is that you?

  306. 306
    jcricket says:

    As long as Ohio thinks she should be on top, screw everyone else.

    I can’t tell – is there some kind of anti-woman-on-top bias in your post? :-)

  307. 307
    Krista says:

    Attacking Hillary – fair game. Attacking her surrogates – fair game. Attacking her campaign tactics – fair game. Attacking/Impugning the motives of the voters – not really fair game unless I get to do it to you

    Sounds good. That didn’t work out so well in practice though. When I attacked her campaign tactics, I was informed that I’m a misogynist male.

    ‘Twas news to me.

  308. 308
    4tehlulz says:

    However, I’m not going to do your research for you

    Ah yes; the typical troll argument form:

    Person 1: Rancid copypasta.

    Person 2: Prove it.

    Person 1: NO U! I WIN BY DEFAULT LOL.

    Why should I take you seriously?

  309. 309
    jcricket says:

    When I attacked her campaign tactics, I was informed that I’m a misogynist male.

    ‘Twas news to me.

    Let’s be clear, that wasn’t me. I can’t speak for the other deranged Hillary supporters :-)

    The only person I accuse of being deranged is the persona now known as TZ. But that’s not specifically because he opposes Hillary.

  310. 310
    No thanks, Obama says:

    Cyrus

    Wow….spelling and tense errors…LOL

    Rather than discuss the topics.

    Uh…ok.

    Do any of you have real opinions that weren’t handed to you by the main stream media?

    Can any of you actually debate a real topic!?

  311. 311
    John S. says:

    But I think, given where we are right now (so evenly divided), they both got on the magical unity train (split ticket, one campaigning for the other – whatever form it takes), I think we’ll be unstoppable in November.

    That may have been possible, but unfortunately Hillary has poisoned the well. Or if she didn’t play games like pretending that Ohio should have the definitive say on the order of such a ticket. But between her going extremely negative and framing everything as if she is still the presumptive nominee, I see the scenario as possible, but not terribly likely.

  312. 312
    Cassidy says:

    I can’t tell – is there some kind of anti-woman-on-top bias in your post?

    Depends on how many Tequilas she’s had….one slip and it’s all over.

    Think about Hillary like that….hahahahahaha!

    Do any of you have real opinions that weren’t handed to you by the main stream media?

    Okay, I have been overtly critical of the regular crew in these here parts, sometimes unfairly, but you can take this shit our of here. For all there faults, being force-fed by the MSM isn’t one of them.

  313. 313
    Cassidy says:

    deranged Hillary supporters

    A small hub of net activists who are very clear in their allegiance to Hillary before the party. They’ve also shed their progressive principles like panties on prom night.

    Not to be considered normal Hillary voters.

  314. 314
    4tehlulz says:

    Everyone knows that Clinton’s Iraq/Iran votes were her bona fides for war and being a female.

    You lost me here. Your saying she voted for AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman to prove she was tough because she was a woman?

    Do Clinton a favor. Go support McCain.

  315. 315
    Jen says:

    Can any of you actually debate a real topic!?

    Nope. You win, with your exhaustively researched, well-documented, top-notch cut and paste. I can’t think of a single rebuttal to any of your excellent points. You filled a much-needed void. I now see that Obama is the Black Dubya. You can leave victorious!

  316. 316
    Billy K says:

    No thanks, Obama Says:
    BillK,

    It isn’t my fault your reading comprehension couldn’t last for the length of that post.

    I wasn’t talking to you. I was answering a question from user “Dork.” I didn’t comment on the length of your rant. I didn’t read it. I don’t comment on things I don’t read.

    I will comment on your reading comprehension, though. It is shit.

  317. 317
    No thanks, Obama says:

    4tehlulz,

    Psst….why would I do research for someone who admitted they don’t read anything of length?

    Psst Pssst….That is probably why they are ignorant of the subject. ;)

    And please explain why exactly should I take your circular firing squad seriously?

    Thanks for laugh and the continuing the board’s tradition of a complete lack of an opinion. It’s abundantly clear the Obama/blind are going to get a rude awakening.

    Oh and by the way, Hillary or McCain are just like Obama.

    They will still be in Iraq in four years, there will still be a Patriot Act. There will be inflation. There will be more homes and jobs lost.

    Good luck!

  318. 318
    Jen says:

    Oh and by the way, Hillary or McCain are just like Obama.

    WTF? A Paultard?! I thought they were extinct! Someone start a captive breeding program, stat!

  319. 319
    4tehlulz says:

    4tehlulz,

    Psst….why would I do research for someone who admitted they don’t read anything of length?

    Because you made an assertion. Backing it up is your job.

    I’ll give your trolling a 4/10 though. You have promise.

  320. 320

    That may have been possible, but unfortunately Hillary has poisoned the well.

    Horse hockey, John.

    Here’s a tough nut to swallow: you and I don’t matter. We DO NOT matter. We will come out and vote no matter what, and neither of us will vote Republican if our state is in any way in the balance. If it’s close, we’ll get out an pull the Dem lever instead of casting a blank ballot or voting for a third party. The campaigns know that.

    The people who matter do not think that the well is poisoned, and, yes, both campaigns know that. And, yes, both campaigns know how the names on the ticket are going to be spelled; the only question is the order in which they appear.

    Ironically, Clinton’s great crime here lies in telling an unpleasant truth: that the ticket will be the two of them, that if Obama shows he can fight to the end and can put a real opponent down, he gets the presidential slot, and if not, then she does. Conversely, if she shows that she can change strategy and win in small states (which will require that she shed a bunch of her more unpleasant advisers), then she will have earned the nod, if she doesn’t (in which case Obama will have extended his lead significantly), then she won’t.

  321. 321
    No thanks, Obama says:

    My Bad…BillK…a newbie on a new board.

  322. 322
    tBone says:

    Let’s be clear, that wasn’t me. I can’t speak for the other deranged Hillary supporters

    If you want to be included in the deranged Hillary supporters club, you’re going to have to try a lot harder, jcricket. You can start by ruthlessly suppressing your reasonableness and developing an affinity for spreadsheet logic. Frankly I don’t think you’re up to the challenge.

  323. 323
    Punchy says:

    When I attacked her campaign tactics, I was informed that I’m a misogynist male.

    ‘Twast news to me.

    fizz’ixed for misogynyers.

  324. 324
    Cassidy says:

    fizz’ixed for misogynyers.

    I Caun’t hear you!

  325. 325
    No thanks, Obama says:

    Jen,

    Oh please, you can’t dispute the fact that they are all the same, so you insult.

    Now you are victorious….. How lame!

    And no I’m not voting for Paul nor Nadar nor…but of course more assumptions and insults.

    I almost hope Obama gets the nomination just so you guys can see that you are all fools to believe the dog and pony show called politics.

    It will be great to watch millions of people finally wake up to the fact that ‘there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference better the Dem and Reps’

  326. 326
    No thanks, Obama says:

    uh oh…another typo

    will the board explosed in complaints….LOL

    ‘difference between’

  327. 327
    tBone says:

    It will be great to watch millions of people finally wake up to the fact that ‘there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference better the Dem and Reps’

    Appallingly stupid or bad spoof? I can’t decide.

  328. 328
    jcricket says:

    The people who matter do not think that the well is poisoned, and, yes, both campaigns know that.

    Yep, hard as it may be for us deeply involved political junkies to admit, the rest of the voters, even the passionate ones, just see things differently. And history (as a couple links I’ve posted argue) shows that the internal battles fade and then pale in comparison to external circumstances and the differences between the parties.

    The way I see it, we can either continue to believe/argue that continued campaigning screws us, or argue that it will encourage ever greater interest, turnout and fundraising (which it has so far). I choose to be the optimist, based both on what I hear “on the ground” and some historically analogous situations, and believe that once this is all decided, the battles of the past and next few months will fade away and the Dems will actually unite (mostly, we can’t be silly here) behind the ticket and carry it to a big victory in November.

    Frankly I don’t think you’re up to the challenge.

    Nope, unlike Obama, who clearly inspires his supporters to new-found heights of glorious splittle-flecked (encrusted)? blog posting, us Hillary supporters trudge through our days down-troddenly offering our meager, logic-deficient support of a candidate we know can’t win, because deep down inside, we really hate ponies. Oh, and we probably don’t even get to use Macs (not sure how I ended up with one at home, maybe Clinton stole it for me from Obama) b/c we’re not k00l enough.

    Ironically, Clinton’s great crime here lies in telling an unpleasant truth: that the ticket will be the two of them,

    See – even as a Clinton supporter I’m not sure I see this. If Obama wins PA and increases his lead with super delegates, what does she really add to the bottom of his ticket? He would certainly add a ton to the bottom of her ticket, but I guess I just don’t see it in reverse. I’m not gonna say she wouldn’t argue that she should be the Veep in that scenario, but I just don’t think Obama would be as likely to offer it to her as Clinton would to him.

    Not even gonna get into whether or not either would accept the VP nod. I think that’s just premature speculation with little basis in fact.

  329. 329
    4tehlulz says:

    Appallingly stupid or bad spoof? I can’t decide.

    I’m going with emotard myself.

  330. 330
    Jen says:

    A nihilist!?! Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

    And someone besides Cassidy better get that one.

  331. 331
    jcricket says:

    I’m not gonna say she wouldn’t argue that she should be the Veep in that scenario, but I just don’t think Obama would be as likely to offer it to her as Clinton would to him.

    In fact – I think her pushing for the “split ticket” right now is a campaign tactic that might actually “work” in gaining her some voters who support Obama. Not the ones who post here, but there are actually some on the fence people, or people who would only support Clinton if Obama was in the mix too. Kind of an interesting tactic on her part.

    Can’t see Obama engaging in the same. No point.

  332. 332
    jcricket says:

    Appallingly stupid or bad spoof? I can’t decide.

    Don’t be a so simple-minded: Why can’t it be both?

  333. 333
    jcricket says:

    And anyone – what about the Edwards delegates. With all this brainpower (ha) why can’t I get an answer on that one. Do I have to do the research myself? What’s the fun in that?

  334. 334
    tBone says:

    Nope, unlike Obama, who clearly inspires his supporters to new-found heights of glorious splittle-flecked (encrusted)? blog posting, us Hillary supporters trudge through our days down-troddenly offering our meager, logic-deficient support of a candidate we know can’t win, because deep down inside, we really hate ponies. Oh, and we probably don’t even get to use Macs (not sure how I ended up with one at home, maybe Clinton stole it for me from Obama) b/c we’re not k00l enough.

    Eh, I knew I should have snark-tagged that comment. Actually, jcricket, it was supposed to be a roundabout compliment – you’re one of the sane Hillary supporters here, and I respect your opinion even when I disagree with it.

    None of which excuses you for disliking ponies, you dirty hippie Mac user.

  335. 335
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    4tehlulz Says:

    4tehlulz,

    Psst….why would I do research for someone who admitted they don’t read anything of length?

    Because you made an assertion. Backing it up is your job.

    I’ll give your trolling a 4/10 though. You have promise.

    I came to say this. Instead, I’ll second it.

    No Thanks: We do not necessarily have access to the evidence you supposedly have. To assume that we do, and our failure to use it is ignorant, is straight up fallacy.

    If you make a loose hypothesis, you won’t be demanded to show your work; this isn’t a philosophy class. But when you make explicit statements, especially never-before-seen ones, you have to prove yourself credible, or you won’t even get out of the gate.

    It’s *your job* to prove your own work. No exceptions.

  336. 336
    Cassidy says:

    A nihilist Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

    I’m tired…Clerks?

  337. 337
    Jen says:

    Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

    The Big Lebowski.

  338. 338
    jcricket says:

    Eh, I knew I should have snark-tagged that comment. Actually, jcricket, it was supposed to be a roundabout compliment – you’re one of the sane Hillary supporters here, and I respect your opinion even when I disagree with it.

    I actually knew that. My response was equally snark-filled and non-serious. I’m not that dense (but I’m sure close).

    This was an interesting comment over at TPM Cafe:

    We’re going to see (or just guess about) a lot of back-room wheeling-dealing, pleading, threatening and so forth to shift delegates and super-delegates. Some might not like it, but it’s good practice for getting legislation through Congress and getting party members to act like a party. The Republicans have been good at getting members to toe the line, even the “moderates” some people seem to love. Let’s see if the Democrats can follow a chow line, and which candidate can better form one.

    To me this is one more reason to think that far from “poisoning the well” or “turning people off”, continued campaigning might actually give us a window into each candidate’s ability to govern, and might even improve that ability.

  339. 339

    After about the third time in this string that I saw “myiq2xu” typed “he he he” I was reminded of the son of a couple who were my parents’ friends when I was a child. The kid was brilliant and he knew it. He was my age and he knew nuclear physics when I was having trouble grasping algebra. But he had no social skills, so when my folks visited his I’d get stuck having to hang with him for hours. He was a true genius but he was butt-stupid and insipid when he tried to communicate with people. “He he he,” my ass. Then again, maybe her/his real name is “myiq1/2u.”

  340. 340
    jcricket says:

    None of which excuses you for disliking ponies, you dirty hippie Mac user.

    Note that both the DFHs and Mac users appear to be winning these days! And horses are bad for the atmosphere, with all the methane and what-not. Or is that cows? Or is methane good for us again. So confusing.

  341. 341
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    I already hate being a Democrat.

    Ah, you’re coming along quite nicely; you’ve already reached the self-loathing stage.

    Most of the people who have been loquacious about last night have said they’d be willing to sit at home rather than vote for her or that woman.

    “I wanted a PBJ with strawberry jelly, but alas, my idiot roommate bought grape jelly instead. I really, really wanted strawberry. Oh well, I guess that moldy egg salad that’s been sitting in the back of the fridge for the last eight weeks will have to do.”

    It’s about that rational an argument.

  342. 342
    Cassidy says:

    The Big Lebowski.

    Sounded like something Randall would’ve said. To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the Big Lebowski. It just didn’t do it for me, although John Toturro(sp?) was great.

  343. 343
    jcricket says:

    “I wanted a PBJ with strawberry jelly, but alas, my idiot roommate bought grape jelly instead. I really, really wanted strawberry. Oh well, I guess that moldy egg salad live salmonella virus that’s been sitting in the back of the fridge for the last eight weeks will have to do.”

    Fixed for current crop of Republicans.

  344. 344
    Cassidy says:

    Ah, you’re coming along quite nicely; you’ve already reached the self-loathing stage.

    Come on down to quasi-libertarian…it feels good.

  345. 345
    Jen says:

    John Turturro’s awesome. Somehow he manages to pull off any ethnicity he wants to, despite being pretty much just a swarthy-looking Jewish guy. The Big Lebowski is a strange one, and I’m not one of its cult fans, but it has some fantastic one-liners. That one is John Goodman’s.

  346. 346
    The Other Steve says:

    To me this is one more reason to think that far from “poisoning the well” or “turning people off”, continued campaigning might actually give us a window into each candidate’s ability to govern, and might even improve that ability.

    There is some truth to this.

    Similarly, at this point if Obama wants to seal the deal, he’s going to have to start hitting Clinton. That means going negative, which he hasn’t done up to this point.

    It’ll be interesting to see how he pulls that off, plus it would be nice to finally see Hillary having to defend some of her own actions instead of those of Bill.

  347. 347
    Cassidy says:

    Similarly, at this point if Obama wants to seal the deal, he’s going to have to start hitting Clinton. That means going negative, which he hasn’t done up to this point.

    I disagree. He’s made it this far without any serious negative campaigning. And he’s done quite well. Regardless of what he does, there is no clinching the nomination (I’m not a math genius, so correct me if I’m wrong). So why lower himself and his campaign? By continuing to take the high road, he’s only letting HRC step on her own crank.

  348. 348
    ThymeZone says:

    The point, if you cared to read the statement again, is that you can support Clinton (or Obama) without hating the other side

    No, the point is that somehow we should not allow ourselves to have strong reactions to these candidates. As if they are somehow just collections of policies and positions.

    As if either is “okay” because, you know, whatever, duh.

    Nope. That isn’t the case. I do hate Clinton at this point, I hate who she is, I hate what she is, I hate her politics, I hate her caculating scheming lying bullshit, I hate her lies about “experience” that she doesn’t have or isn’t any different from anyone else’s experience, I hate her puffery about healthcare and defense, about being “ready at 3 am,” about being in any way better than her opponent, I hate her shrill annoying voice, I hate her assumption that eight years of being a hostess makes her qualified to fly the plane, I hate her arrogance that somehow she is entitled to this nomination, her refusal to take real responsibility for her considerable shortcomings and failures over the years, and for acting like we are somehow all screwed up if we like her opponent better.

    I hate her tactics, her worldview, her excuses, her weaseling, her willingness to tear down her opponent, her derisive and snide mockery of her opponent, her whining about better treatment from the media.

    Not only that, but this hatred of her is totally rational and based on facts and quite within the scope of what it is my purview to judge and base a decision on, and I don’t have to listen to your smarmy bullshit telling me otherwise.

  349. 349

    Do I have to do the research myself? What’s the fun in that?

    For you? None. For the rest of us? Getting somebody else to do the work on your behalf — priceless.

  350. 350
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I disagree. He’s made it this far without any serious negative campaigning. And he’s done quite well. Regardless of what he does, there is no clinching the nomination (I’m not a math genius, so correct me if I’m wrong). So why lower himself and his campaign? By continuing to take the high road, he’s only letting HRC step on her own crank.

    It’s a double edged sword. Base Democrats are pretty normal these days. They just want a leader with a plan, and their too tired to put up with shit.

    However, base Republicans may want a leader, but their gravy is in lifting their fragile egos by discounting the opposition.

    The same mechanism that disintegrates Hillary will not necessarily work on McCain. I _may_, however, force McCain to drift right-ward where people don’t like him as much.

  351. 351
    tBone says:

    I actually knew that. My response was equally snark-filled and non-serious. I’m not that dense.

    Apparently I am, though. D’oh!

    Note that both the DFHs and Mac users appear to be winning these days! And horses are bad for the atmosphere, with all the methane and what-not. Or is that cows? Or is methane good for us again. So confusing.

    Cows: stinky and contribute excess methane to the atmosphere – bad. DFHs: stinky, and pot smoke contributes particulates to the atmosphere – bad. Mac users: stinky (from body sprays), but black turtlenecks absorb excess solar radiation – on balance, good.

  352. 352
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    *they’re
    *It _may_

    /i suck

  353. 353
    Billy K says:

    Mac users: stinky (from body sprays), but black turtlenecks absorb excess solar radiation – on balance, good.

    FWIW: I’m an Apple user since 1981, and I much more resemble John Hodgman than Justin Long.

    And with that, I think I’m done posting for the day. For some reason, I just can’t figure out the correct syntax for the previous sentence. Brains hutdown is imminent. (Some would argue that’s when I should START posting to fit in better here. Them would be right.)

  354. 354
    The Other Steve says:

    I disagree. He’s made it this far without any serious negative campaigning. And he’s done quite well. Regardless of what he does, there is no clinching the nomination (I’m not a math genius, so correct me if I’m wrong). So why lower himself and his campaign? By continuing to take the high road, he’s only letting HRC step on her own crank.

    Since Hillary has been comparing herself to McCain, it seems to me that he can easily start attacking McCain as a proxy for Hillary.

    The only real negative point towards Clinton is that her past needs to be vetted better. She has yet to release her tax returns, for instance.

  355. 355
    The Other Steve says:

    FWIW: I’m an Apple user since 1981, and I much more resemble John Hodgman than Justin Long.

    OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A LIE
    IF YOU TRULY WERE AN APPLE
    USER SINCE 1981, YOU WOULD
    TYPE LIKE THIS

  356. 356
    jcricket says:

    Mac users … on balance, good.

    But what about all our smugness and haughty superiority? Certainly that’s bad for the ozone layer?

  357. 357
    Jen says:

    Re: Obama going negative

    There’s fair negative, and there’s unfair/ineffective negative. The stupid “plagiarism” flap, for example, was dumb, hypocritical, and ineffective — just desperately looking for an attack, and it fell flat. If Obama does that, it will fall even flatter, since of all the things the Clintons are considered, “above the fray” is not one of them.

    But substantive negatives — like why, precisely, should we have to wait until April 15 to look at your tax returns? What, exactly, foreign policy emergency decision-making experience do you have? — are fair, and important to make the distinctions, not to mention call bullshit on her “Commander in Chief” arguments.

  358. 358
    John S. says:

    Horse hockey, John.

    That’s a mighty fine authoritarian streak of your own, there.

    Here’s a tough nut to swallow: you and I don’t matter. We DO NOT matter.

    Nah, I’ve already realized this. That’s why I have been taking this stuff in stride recently. You may be right about the inevitabilty about a joint ticket, but I just don’t happen to agree just yet.

    We’ll just see how it pans out.

  359. 359
    Brachiator says:

    It will be great to watch millions of people finally wake up to the fact that ‘there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference better the Dem and Reps’

    Appallingly stupid or bad spoof? I can’t decide.

    Ralph Nader posting in the thread?

  360. 360
    Billy K says:

    OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A LIE
    IF YOU TRULY WERE AN APPLE
    USER SINCE 1981, YOU WOULD
    TYPE LIKE THIS

    Is that supposed to be 40 char/line? I had the 80 char extension card.

    But what about all our smugness and haughty superiority? Certainly that’s bad for the ozone layer?

    Smug? Superior? Who cares? I own three Macs, an iPhone and 4 iPods.

  361. 361
    Jen says:

    Eh, Nader would’ve probably spelled his own name right. Unless that’s all part of the devious plan! To convince us that Nader is an idiot. Which should be fairly easy. So it shouldn’t require a lot of deception.

    Okay, I give up, that poster just cannot be scruted.

  362. 362
    John S. says:

    But what about all our smugness and haughty superiority?

    If we could harness it to run our cars on, the energy crisis would be solved.

  363. 363
    jcricket says:

    We’ll just see how it pans out.

    I think that’s where, at the end of the day, the reasonable ones among us are. Not saying we should stop arguing in favor of our candidate or giving money, but I can’t see all the blog argumentating adding up to a hill of beans in the face of what’s gonna go on between now and PA’s primary in April. I’m just gonna sit back and enjoy things like this good post on Kos about turnout in TX:

    Hillary Clinton received more votes than all Republican candidates combined in Texas last night, Barack Obama received nearly as many. Clinton doubled the vote total of Republican nominee John McCain, Obama nearly did as well.

    Remember, this is in Texas, home of George W. Bush, a state where we haven’t won a Senate race since Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, or a Governor’s race since Ann Richards in 1990, where no Democrat has won the state’s electoral votes since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

  364. 364
    ThymeZone says:

    But what about all our smugness and haughty superiority?

    It’s cute, like watching a little terrier with a bone.

  365. 365
    Jen says:

    But do you have this?, Billy K?

  366. 366
    4tehlulz says:

    “[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

    “I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

    “Of course, well, you know, I’ve got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama’s whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.”

    Someone tell me why HRC thought equating herself with the Republican nominee was a good idea. After all:

    If McCain = Bush
    And Hillary = McCain
    Then why shouldn’t the party conclude that Hillary = Bush?

  367. 367
    jcricket says:

    If we could harness it to run our cars on, the energy crisis would be solved.

    But I thought all Mac users took public transit or just zenned out at home having made it big in the tech boom?

    You may be right about the inevitabilty about a joint ticket,

    Maybe I should change my handle to jticket.

  368. 368
    Billy K says:

    But do you have this?, Billy K?

    I dunno. What I *do* have is a filter at work that blocks YouTube. :(

  369. 369
    Krista says:

    “I wanted a PBJ with strawberry jelly, but alas, my idiot roommate bought grape jelly instead. I really, really wanted strawberry. Oh well, I guess that moldy egg salad live salmonella virus that’s been sitting in the back of the fridge for the last eight weeks will have to do.”

    Putting Nair in the roommate’s shampoo bottle isn’t an option? You people are no fun.

    Yeah, I hate grape jelly just that much.

  370. 370
    Billy K says:

    Then why shouldn’t the party conclude that Hillary = Bush?

    Hell, lots of us have been saying for a long time now she’s no better than Bush. Add to that the fact she’s WORSE THAN HITLER…

  371. 371
    Jen says:

    What I do have is a filter at work that blocks YouTube.

    Bummer. You should break out one of your Macs.

    It’s the iPhone Shuffle sketch from SNL.

  372. 372
    PeterJ says:

    There’s a good post by PocketNines over at Daily Kos showing that Clinton has no chance in hell at getting ahead in the pledged delegates count.

    Clinton is obviously aiming for 2012.

  373. 373
    Krista says:

    You may be right about the inevitabilty about a joint ticket,

    I think the only inevitability is that this campaign is going to drive a lot of people to drink or drugs. Or both!

  374. 374
    4tehlulz says:

    Clinton is obviously aiming for 2012.

    If she damages Obama to the point that McCain gets elected, she won’t want to be president in 2012.

  375. 375
    Jen says:

    Hi Krista! I’d like you to know that being accused of misogyny, and of being a man, appear to be Badges of Honor, or something, for women on this blog. I’ve got mine. It’s shaped like a pink, sparkly pony.

  376. 376
    4tehlulz says:

    pink, sparkly pony.

    Homophobe

  377. 377
    Billy K says:

    Hi Krista! I’d like you to know that being accused of misogyny, and of being a man, appear to be Badges of Honor, or something, for women on this blog. I’ve got mine. It’s shaped like a pink, sparkly pony.

    As a man, I don’t think you have any right to ay that.

  378. 378
    Jen says:

    I think the only inevitability is that this campaign is going to drive a lot of people to drink or drugs

    Mojitos symbolize both the possibility of a Cuba policy that isn’t butt-stupid, and yumminess.

  379. 379
    Jen says:

    It’s shaped like a pink, sparkly pony.

    And it smells like roses.

    Ooh, another ’70s toy reference, Kris. I had a paper flower maker, where the paper was floral scented. You could layer the petals. What the hell was that, did you have one?

  380. 380
    Krista says:

    Hi Krista! I’d like you to know that being accused of misogyny, and of being a man, appear to be Badges of Honor, or something, for women on this blog.

    Thanks Jen! I’m glad you pointed that out, as I really had no idea how things worked around here.

  381. 381
    Billy K says:

    Are you “gals” gonna braid each others’ hair?

    (sexist)

  382. 382
    Cassidy says:

    We’re all adults here….break out the jello and bikinis…

  383. 383
    Krista says:

    Ooh, another ‘70s toy reference, Kris. I had a paper flower maker, where the paper was floral scented. You could layer the petals. What the hell was that, did you have one?

    No idea — it sounds great, though. Didn’t have one of those. Most of the toys I remember would be from the 80’s. Although I did have an awesome Fisher-Price ride-on horse (a precursor to the MUP?) that I adored.

  384. 384
    Krista says:

    Cassidy Says:

    We’re all adults here….break out the jello and bikinis…

    You first.

    /hands Cassidy a leopard-printed Speedo.

  385. 385
    Billy K says:

    We’re all adults here….break out the jello and bikinis…

    Well…OK…if you insist…

    Oh wait – the girls. Sorry. MY BAD!

  386. 386
    Cassidy says:

    No, no, no…it’s just for you womenfolk….to celebrate your womenfolkness…or something and someother….something empowering…yeah….

  387. 387
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    So, focusing on the Texas results for a little bit, the latest at CNN shows Clinton getting 65 primary delegates, Obama 61. So for all that she gained 4 whole delegates.

    That’s not what I would call an ass-whuppin’.

    With 39% reporting, Obama leads in the caucuses, 56-44. That will undoubtedly change as more results come in, but if that kind of margin holds, Texas will have officially been a wash, and not have mattered after all.

    Whee!

  388. 388
    ThymeZone says:

    Hi Krista! I’d like you to know that being accused of misogyny, and of being a man, appear to be Badges of Honor, or something, for women female impersonators on this blog.

    If Jen was any more eager to curry the favor of Krista, I’d wonder if maybe there wasn’t some gal on gal love thing going on here.

    You do that a lot, Jen. Sucking up to people. Is that a female trait, do you think? Because I hadn’t noticed the other, um, real gals doing it to that extent.

    Just wondered. I’ve never tried to spoof a female character so I have no idea what the drill is.

  389. 389
    jcricket says:

    Texas will have officially been a wash, and not have mattered after all.

    delegate-wise, you may be right. But I think both candidates ending up with more votes than the Republicans combined, in a Red state is something pretty impressive.

  390. 390
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    That’s not what I would call an ass-whuppin’.

    It is, in the Kindergarten version of politics that Hillary’s campaign has been competing in.

    Not only did Obama get an ass-whuppin’ because Hillary won infinity+1 delegates, but Obama now has cooties.

    And everyone now knows the truth that Obama’s a doodyhead.

  391. 391
    Krista says:

    Just wondered. I’ve never tried to spoof a female character so I have no idea what the drill is.

    Question for you, Herb: does it matter? I mean, really? If Jen is indeed a male impersonating a female, then a) what does he have to gain from it really? Nothing. And b) in the grand scheme of things, what is it affecting? Nothing. Personally, I think that Jen is a female. But if it turns out that I’m wrong, it really doesn’t change a damn thing, does it? I mean, we don’t care if BIRDZILLA is really a bird/monster hybrid, or if AKADad really is a dad. You yourself say frequently that ThymeZone/PPGaz is a persona. So if Jen is a woman or if Jen is a 10-year old boy playing a woman, how is that any different than the persona you put on when you come in here?

  392. 392
    Hypatia says:

    If Obama wins PA and increases his lead with super delegates, what does she really add to the bottom of his ticket? He would certainly add a ton to the bottom of her ticket, but I guess I just don’t see it in reverse. I’m not gonna say she wouldn’t argue that she should be the Veep in that scenario, but I just don’t think Obama would be as likely to offer it to her as Clinton would to him.

    I agree that she doesn’t do much for him, unless something happens to alienate the mass of her supporters. If Clinton pulls this off, she may have to offer Obama the second spot, but under other circumstances I don’t think she would want him or that he would necessarily add much to her ticket. She would probably choose someone like Wesley Clark, a Clintonista with military credentials. As things are, however, she’s not likely to have many options.

    That’s complete nonsense, and you know it.

    Eye of the beholder, etc.

    I hate her shrill annoying voice

    Almost as bad as that of Eleanor Roosevelt, who inspired much the same sort of spittle flecked I Hate Her outrage and who also took heat for her looks and voice. Oh for a manly baritone to save the nation from this scourge of shrill voiced Democratic harpies!

  393. 393
    p.lukasiak says:

    So why does Obama need to close the deal and Hillary needs to do nothing? Why can’t she close the deal? Why can’t she even make headway against Obama?

    IMHO, Clinton has closed the deal. Every time she goes head to head in an important state primary, she comes out the winner — with the sole exception of Missouri, which she lost by 1%.

    To me, its a question of quality vs quantity. Obama wins when Clinton doesn’t bother to fully compete against him (a tactical error) and/or in states that absent a landslide, aren’t going Democrat this year. Even when he’s outspending Clinton by 2-1, he only gets close in Texas, and winds up 10 points behind in Ohio.

  394. 394
    jcricket says:

    I agree that she doesn’t do much for him, unless something happens to alienate the mass of her supporters. If Clinton pulls this off, she may have to offer Obama the second spot, but under other circumstances I don’t think she would want him or that he would necessarily add much to her ticket.

    This is exactly what I feel… Before Super Tuesday in mere speculation-ville I couldn’t see either person adding the other to the ticket. Not just because it’s rarely done, but because each is already “a minority” (bear with me) and would basically “have to” pick a middle-aged white guy.

    Now, with turnout, expectations, hype and fundraising, I’m not as sure. I think if Clinton does the improbable and ends up the Pres. nominee, she has to offer the VP slot to Obama, and I don’t see it doing anything but good in that scenario.

    Again, I suppose she could get the VP nod from him, but more likely is him picking someone else and as others have suggested, her being Senate Majority Leader or whatever.

  395. 395
    jcricket says:

    Not only did Obama get an ass-whuppin’ because Hillary won infinity+1 delegates, but Obama now has cooties.

    Hmmm, sounds racist.

    And everyone now knows the truth that Obama’s a doodyhead.

    doody = brown = RACIST!

    I got your number Mr.

  396. 396
    p.lukasiak says:

    If Obama wins PA and increases his lead with super delegates, what does she really add to the bottom of his ticket?

    If Obama wins in PA, Clinton should drop out, because it means that he has finally shown the potential to beat McCain in November. I still would think that Clinton is the better candidate and make a better president, but if he wins PA, he’s earned the nomination.

    As for Clinton for VP… very bad move. The media would obsess over every little thing the Clintons said and did, and draw attention away from Obama himself.

    Obama for VP makes a lot more sense. He is the future of the Democratic Party, and his presense on the ticket would ensure that any advantage that the GOP would have in exploiting Hillary hate among its base would be neutralized by the enormous number of new voters that Obama will bring to the polls.

  397. 397
    John S. says:

    Eye of the beholder, etc.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

  398. 398
    John says:

    So I guess Americans want another 4 years of Republican fuckuppery eh?

    Are Democrats really so fucking stupid as to think Hillary can win this? Jesus Panty-Sniffing Christ America sucks right now. Is it not obvious that she doesn’t stand a chance? It’s like you all just drank a bottle of retard juice.

    I know this sounds harsh, but as somebody who can’t vote for the supposed “leader of the free fucking world”, it gets a little tiring watching you numbnuts screw up every five minutes.

    Frankly the United States deserves to fail as a nation, but the problem is that you will go down with all the grace of Jerry Lundigar in Fargo, and take the rest of us down with you.

    Can you all kindly kick yourselves in the ass for me? Thanks.

  399. 399
    John S. says:

    Every time she goes head to head in an important state primary, she comes out the winner

    Mark Penn would be proud.

    Obama wins when Clinton doesn’t bother to fully compete against him (a tactical error) and/or in states that absent a landslide, aren’t going Democrat this year.

    Howard Wolfson would be proud.

    Even when he’s outspending Clinton by 2-1, he only gets close in Texas, and winds up 10 points behind in Ohio.

    Yes, despite battling horrendous press coverage for two weeks at Hillary’s behest, a barrage of negative campaigning and coming back from much larger deficits in the polls from a few weeks ago, he is still a failure.

    I marvel at your inability to realize how much like a caricature you really sound like.

    Obama for VP makes a lot more sense. He is the future of the Democratic Party, and his presense on the ticket would ensure that any advantage that the GOP would have in exploiting Hillary hate among its base would be neutralized by the enormous number of new voters that Obama will bring to the polls.

    The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

  400. 400
    jcricket says:

    This is a great hypothetical back and forth between Clinton and Obama arguing the strengths of each’s argument.

  401. 401
    Andrew says:

    IMHO, Clinton has closed the deal.

    Shorter p.luk:
    Fuck all y’all in those other states.

  402. 402
    profbacon says:

    Sigh… if Clinton gets the nomination, I am really considering Nader or the Green Party. I couldn`t do it in 2000… but I really don`t know if I can reward such crap behavior.

  403. 403
    p.lukasiak says:

    Yes, despite battling horrendous press coverage for two weeks at Hillary’s behest, a barrage of negative campaigning and coming back from much larger deficits in the polls from a few weeks ago, he is still a failure.

    what horrendous press coverage? The fact that the name Rezko was interjected a few times in the media’s Obama-worship isn’t “horrendous” press coverage.

    And sorry, but the “red phone” add wasn’t “negative campaigning” — at least not compared to what Obama is gonna face if he does become the nominee. If Obama can’t handle the heat from a lighted match in the kitchen, how will he do when the right-wing smear machine sets the whole damn kitchen ablaze?

  404. 404

    Obama wins when Clinton doesn’t bother to fully compete against him

    Like in Iowa, Alabama, Connecticut, and Wisconsin!

  405. 405
    p.lukasiak says:

    Shorter p.luk:
    Fuck all y’all in those other states.

    yup. Fuck Georgia. Fuck South Carolina. Fuck Alabama. Fuck Utah. Fuck all those deep red caucus states — and pre-emptively fuck Wyoming and Mississippi. Oh, and fuck Oklahoma too — even though Clinton won there, fuck it, because it ain’t going Democratic unless there is a landslide.

    Welcome to the real world, where magical unity pony dust doesn’t make every state a potential win for the Democrats in November.

  406. 406
    Krista says:

    If Obama can’t handle the heat from a lighted match in the kitchen, how will he do when the right-wing smear machine sets the whole damn kitchen ablaze?

    Could the same not be said about your candidate? She (and many of her supporters) have been saying that Obama is inexperienced, sans substance, etc. Shouldn’t she have mopped the floor with him quite easily? But that’s not been the case. So if an “inexperienced empty suit” can give Clinton such a run for her money, to the point where he’s actually leading her in delegates, then how on Earth will she do when up against someone who has a LOT more experience than her?

    The point is that really, either of them would make an excellent president. But this prolonged primary season is a double-edged sword. One one hand, the eventual Dem nominee will have had a chance to fend off some mud and sharpen their wits and their campaign. On the other hand, the acrimony between the two candidates is giving the Republicans a lot of material for their attack ads.

    And I think that’s why so many Obama supporters are irked with the Clinton campaign. AFAIK, Obama’s campaign isn’t giving McCain ammunition with which to hit Clinton. The worst charge that I’ve really seen against her was that she voted for the war. Well, so did the Republicans, so they can’t use that against her at all.

    But Clinton has been using attacks that can easily be picked up by the Republicans. She even said that she and McCain are experienced, but Obama isn’t. She endorsed McCain over Obama, for crying out loud! If Obama does become the nominee, Clinton will have made the Republicans’ jobs a LOT easier. And that’s what’s leaving the bad taste in so many peoples’ mouths — it’s almost a “Geez, whose side are you on anyway?” kind of sensation.

  407. 407
    ThymeZone says:

    how is that any different than the persona you put on when you come in here?

    Why do you care?

    What are you, the post police?

  408. 408
    ThymeZone says:

    You yourself say frequently that ThymeZone/PPGaz is a persona

    Right, did you think maybe that was the real name on my birth certificate?

    Of course I am a frigging persona. So what? Am I therefore disqualified from posting whatever I want to post and asking whatever I want to ask?

    Mind your own beezwax. Or do you have some vested interest in the fate of the “jen” character?

  409. 409
    chopper says:

    p.luk, hillary could eat a live baby on television and you’d argue that it ‘really showed resolve, and in my opinion she just closed the deal’.

    Obama wins when Clinton doesn’t bother to fully compete against him (a tactical error)

    ‘doesn’t bother’ makes it out like she just doesn’t care. while not giving a fuck about half of the states is consistent with her campaigns statements, that’s not the reason why she ‘doesn’t bother’ to fight obama in those states. that’s an afterstatement, an excuse to avoid admitting that the other guy won.

    hillary ‘doesn’t bother to fully compete’ against obama in those states because she doesn’t have much of a ground game to speak of. she has very little organization and thus has to concentrate everything she’s got into a handful of states. obama, on the other hand, has a massively multi-parallel organization working in numerous states at once. which is great when it comes to the general election, as hillary won’t have the benefit of trying to take on one state election at a time like she does here.

  410. 410
    ThymeZone says:

    I’ve got mine. It’s shaped like a pink, sparkly pony.

    Oh, is that what you are calling it?

  411. 411
    chopper says:

    and fuck virginia! oh, wait.

    p.luk, your disdain for most of the country is unsettling.

    you may look forward to a cynical clinton campaign only shooting for the states that kerry won in 04 with a desperate hope of picking up ohio to put them over the top in the electoral college, but the rest of us are looking for a slightly better strategy.

  412. 412
    Krista says:

    Of course I am a frigging persona. So what? Am I therefore disqualified from posting whatever I want to post and asking whatever I want to ask?

    Mind your own beezwax. Or do you have some vested interest in the fate of the “jen” character?

    Don’t be a dick, darling. I was just curious as to why the Javert side of you comes out in full force when it comes to Jen.

  413. 413
    ThymeZone says:

    If Obama is blacker, it must be Pennsylvania.

    If this has already been handled, then … okay.

    But fuck me with a sharp stick … is this asshole Clinton actually going to get away with something like this?

    I am going to start making plans to go to Denver and turn that fucking convention upside down if it turns out that her campaign had anything to do with this.

    W.T.F?

  414. 414
    ThymeZone says:

    I was just curious

    That question has been asked and answered twice, at some length.

    I’m done answering it.

    Look it up if you want to.

  415. 415
    Krista says:

    I’m done answering it.

    Look it up if you want to.

    Nah, too lazy. :) I guess I’m just not quite curious enough.

  416. 416
    ThymeZone says:

    I guess I’m just not quite curious enough.

    No problemo. I wouldn’t expect someone else to care about it just because I do.

  417. 417
    chopper says:

    If Obama is blacker, it must be Pennsylvania.

    i’m still not sure what to make of that. i understand that with attack ads you usually pick a bad picture of someone, but to take a good picture of a black man and darken the skin and stretch the features like that comes off as kinda sinister.

    remember how much shit time magazine ate over doing a similar thing to OJ? i dunno.

  418. 418
    ThymeZone says:

    This is from WaPo via Kevin Drum:

    “Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination — and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates and appeals, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.”

    I couldn’t have said it better.

  419. 419

    I’m actually very troubled by this blacker ad flap. My guess — and it is only a guess — is that it’s probably a rendering issue in the particular browser. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Clinton’s team to blacken Obama, and I would certainly agree that would be very bad indeed, but I also know, from painful experience, that jpeg’s in particular, do show color deviations in different browsers.

  420. 420
    ThymeZone says:

    (Update: In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002” line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience” part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama’s anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

    I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of “experience,” knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience.* But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can’t think of it now.

    The conclusion of Spinney’s (and Gerson’s) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

    Fallows, also via Drum.

    What Clinton probably won last night was a lot of votes for John McCain. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is smarter than we thought?

  421. 421
    ThymeZone says:

    My guess—and it is only a guess—is that it’s probably a rendering issue in the particular browser. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Clinton’s team to blacken Obama, and I would certainly agree that would be very bad indeed, but I also know, from painful experience, that jpeg’s in particular, do show color deviations in different browsers.

    My guess is that you have idea on earth whether it’s a rendering issue or not. My guess is that if you can see a lighter and darker version of the same photo side by side in the same browser, as you would if you click on the link I supplied, then you cannot attribute that difference to the browser, but in fact, would have to attribute it to the image object’s characteristics. Which is the whole point of the interest in the thing.

    WTF are you talking about?

    Do you think that your best move here as a supposed geek is to help the perpetrators of the blackened photo hide behind some confusion about browsers and rendering?

    This is what you want to bring to that discussion? It coulda been the browser? It coulda been that some people had dirty lenses in their glasses, too, couldn’t it? People just see photos differently, don’t they?

  422. 422
    PeterJ says:

    But Clinton has been using attacks that can easily be picked up by the Republicans. She even said that she and McCain are experienced, but Obama isn’t. She endorsed McCain over Obama, for crying out loud! If Obama does become the nominee, Clinton will have made the Republicans’ jobs a LOT easier. And that’s what’s leaving the bad taste in so many peoples’ mouths—it’s almost a “Geez, whose side are you on anyway?” kind of sensation.

    Exactly.

    I’m ok with attacks on issues. I’m ok with attacks on experience as long as she doesn’t compare him with McCain. That will end up in an ad in the fall.

    Also, not ok with telling voters in some states that they don’t matter. Neither am I ok with things like the altered photo.

    A long primary can be great for the party as long as the candidates don’t forget that there is a presidential election that a democrat needs to win.

    If Clinton isn’t running for 2008 any longer then she should quit. If she want start running for 2012 then she should wait. A scorched earth tactic in the primary won’t help her in 2012 or 2016.

  423. 423
    Hypatia says:

    This is a great hypothetical back and forth between Clinton and Obama arguing the strengths of each’s argument.

    Thanks for that link. A good read.

  424. 424
    John D. says:

    IMHO, Clinton has closed the deal. Every time she goes head to head in an important state primary, she comes out the winner—with the sole exception of Missouri, which she lost by 1%.

    Um, what?

    WI – 58%/41% in favor of Obama
    VA – 64%/35% in favor of Obama
    SC – 55%/27% in favor of Obama
    IL – 65%/33% in favor of Obama

    How are these NOT important states? How are the caucus states like CO or MN or IA not important?

    This argument is why I’m fed up with so many of Hillary’s supporters. ALL states are important. ALL votes are important. Fuck this 50%+1 strategy. Let’s have a landslide. Let’s fucking well embarrass the scum who have done their level best to ruin my country for the last 7 years. How about we do that, rather than dismiss every fucking vote that doesn’t go the way we’d like?

    Does that work for you, Paul? Are you willing to finally stop being a dick? Are you willing to stop treating all of the people who don’t vote for your preferred candidate as an idiot who doesn’t matter anyway?

    I’m getting seriously tired of this tactic. It was complete and utter bullshit when Mark Penn used it. It is complete and utter bullshit when you use it. And it will continue to be complete and utter bullshit when it gets used again in the future. THERE ARE NO VOTES THAT DO NOT MATTER.

    Got that?

  425. 425
    ThymeZone says:

    R. Wolfe, Newsweekk, appearing on Countdown (this is my version of what he said, I dont have a transcript):

    “The media have fallen into a hole. We “call” states during these elections as if somebody has won or lost a state, which is quite misleading. What really matters is the delegate count, not the states.”

    In terms of the delegate count, here’s what happened yesterday: Nothing, which means that two big states voted and gave Clinton no real delegate advantage, didn’t advance her position.

    Clinton today (again, my paraphrase): “The superdelegates were put there for a reason, to make the right choice. We’ve proven that we can win the critical states.”

    So you see, it’s not about delegates, it’s about the size of the state, in electoral terms, that the candidate wins.

    In case there was any confusion about why we have the primaries and caucuses, now you know.

  426. 426
    p.lukasiak says:

    you may look forward to a cynical clinton campaign only shooting for the states that kerry won in 04 with a desperate hope of picking up ohio to put them over the top in the electoral college, but the rest of us are looking for a slightly better strategy.

    Give me a break…there are a whole slew of states that Obama won that I didn’t say “fuck” to… here’s the list of states that Obama won that Kerry didn’t that I think should get fucked… Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, and Louisiana (and LA, just makes the cut-off.)

    The states I listed earlier are those that Kerry lost by 16% or more.

    Fuck ’em. They’re not even worth spending money on. The only two states that Kerry lost by more than 16% that I think money should be spent on are Texas (which Clinton lost by (IIRC) around 6% in 1996… Bush’s favorite son status put them out of reach in 2000 & 2004, and there are too many EC votes there to just write off) and Indiana — in the 2006 congressional elections, a whole bunch of GOP seats were won by Dems — and it looks like its worth not writing off.

  427. 427
    John D. says:

    Fuck ‘em. They’re not even worth spending money on. The only two states that Kerry lost by more than 16% that I think money should be spent on are Texas (which Clinton lost by (IIRC) around 6% in 1996… Bush’s favorite son status put them out of reach in 2000 & 2004, and there are too many EC votes there to just write off) and Indiana—in the 2006 congressional elections, a whole bunch of GOP seats were won by Dems—and it looks like its worth not writing off.

    So, by your reasoning, the Democratic Party should just go suck off a shotgun, because once a state ever falls below that magical 16% line, it’s gone for good (unless it’s TX or IN)?

    Fuck. That. Noise.

    Fighting to retake those states is just as important as winning this election. Laying the groundwork for a shift nationwide is a good goal in and of itself, yet is one you feel is worthless. Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?

  428. 428
    p.lukasiak says:

    How are these NOT important states? How are the caucus states like CO or MN or IA not important?

    SC is not an important state… there is no way that SC goes dem without a landslide, and then we won’t need it to go dem anyway.

    The other three were states that Clinton didn’t really campaign in at all (Illinois — Obama’s home turf) or had no campaign to speak of until the last minute (WI and VA).

  429. 429
    ThymeZone says:

    The only two states that Kerry lost by more than 16% that I think money should be spent on are Texas (which Clinton lost

    One reason why nobody listens to you on this, Paul, is that you talk as if the primary is a miniature version of the general election, with its electoral overlay.

    It’s not. It’s a primary, and the putative goal is gaining the pledged delegates. That’s it.

    Who’s ahead? Who will be ahead when all the delegates are spoken for?

    Are you still going to be here suggesting that that delegate lead is somehow secondary to some other set of considerations?

    Did you imagine that the real primary, the one that counts but isn’t counted, is the matrix of numbers and demographics that one might produce to prove some imagined hypothetical point or another?

    Do you really think that the side with the most delegates is going to stand by while the others side tries to engineer a convention coup based on some numbers mumbo jumbo?

  430. 430
    jcricket says:

    Don’t be a dick, darling. I was just curious as to why the Javert side of you comes out in full force when it comes to Jen.

    I think it’s congenitally impossible for TZ not to be a dick when he’s on his “high horse” about something. For those of you who read comic books, I think of TZ as the Rorscharch character from the Watchment comics, only older and with melanoma damage.

  431. 431
    p.lukasiak says:

    Fighting to retake those states is just as important as winning this election. Laying the groundwork for a shift nationwide is a good goal in and of itself, yet is one you feel is worthless. Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?

    I’m thinking of making sure that a democrat is in the white house in 2009.

    and whether you like it or not, Axelrod is thinking the exact same way that I am, when it comes to the GE.

  432. 432
    ThymeZone says:

    Axelrod is thinking the exact same way that I am, when it comes to the GE.

    And this would make a difference to me because ….?

    You didn’t answer the question. What is the purpose of the primary series, if it isn’t to amass delegates? And if the person with the most delegates doesn’t win, then …. please explain the process to me again.

  433. 433
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ not to be a dick when he’s on his “high horse”

    I have a news flash for you, you little fuck: I don’t have a horse. I make posts here just like you do, I pay the same price to be here that you do, and if you don’t like something I post, you can make an argument against it. Otherwise you can shove it up your ass.

  434. 434
    John D. says:

    SC is not an important state… there is no way that SC goes dem without a landslide, and then we won’t need it to go dem anyway.

    OK, genius — how do we get SC to *become* a dem state, then? Hmm?

    We ignore it until it comes begging for attention? That seems to be the tactic you’re shooting for.

    Here’s the thing I don’t get, most especially in this election cycle. You are advocating — stridently, I might add — a cautious allocation of resources, targetting those states/voters who are “important” in your eyes (that is to say, the “swing voter”)

    This, in an election cycle when we have TWO candidates, on the same side of the aisle, absofuckinglutely SHATTERING fundraising records. In case you are missing my point:

    YOU ARE BEING AN IGNORANT SKINFLINT WHILE ROLLING ON PILES OF MONEY.

    This is the time, of all times, to do our level best to force a tectonic shift everywhere. It is vanishingly unlikely I’ll live to see another time where popular opinion is so strongly against the crooks in office. Even Nixon didn’t plummet this far. So why do you feel that the candidates need to be parsimonious, limiting themselves to the base and the swing voters?

    You are, respectfully, a shortsighted fool, if this is what you believe.

  435. 435
    p.lukasiak says:

    Clinton today (again, my paraphrase): “The superdelegates were put there for a reason, to make the right choice. We’ve proven that we can win the critical states.”

    So you see, it’s not about delegates, it’s about the size of the state, in electoral terms, that the candidate wins.

    its about the size of the state, and whether there is a chance to either get a Democratic win there, or turn it into a credible battleground. Sorry, but Axelrod is thinking the exact same thing in terms of the GE.

    Listen, Obama ran credible campaigns in all these “crucial” states — and just because he lost them doesn’t mean that he should be denied the nomination. But I want to see him win in a state like OH or PA before I hand him the nomination on a plater.

  436. 436
    ThymeZone says:

    its about the size of the state

    What is? What rule or rule interpretation produces that conclusion?

    If a state holds an election of caucuses, and there is proportional allocation of delegates, and two candidates basically split the allocation, then according to you, the SIZE OF THE STATE determines whether or not the popular vote total should count for more than just the allocation of the delegates, and the candidate who ends up with the most delegates may lose because he or she didn’t win the BIGGEST STATES? In other words, land area or population of the states becomes a SuperRule that overrides the obvious stated rules?

    Is this your assertion?

  437. 437
    John D. says:

    I’m thinking of making sure that a democrat is in the white house in 2009.

    Read for content, Paul.

    Fighting to retake those states is just as important as winning this election.

    A careful reader will note that I did not say it was more important. I said it is just as important.

    I find them both to be critically important, just to head off the inevitable “well, you could be saying neither is!” type of crack.

    Yes, Paul, some of us are not myopic. Some of us have a clear vision of where we’d like the country to go, beyond the next 12 months. Some of us see the steps needed to get there. Some of us see a Dem president in 2009 as what is commonly known as “a good start”, rather than an end point.

    Some of us aren’t shortsighted fools.

  438. 438
    p.lukasiak says:

    You didn’t answer the question. What is the purpose of the primary series, if it isn’t to amass delegates? And if the person with the most delegates doesn’t win, then …. please explain the process to me again.

    the purpose of the primary season is to find a candidate with enough support to lock in the nomination — and failing that, to use the results from the various states to help decide who the party nominee should be.

  439. 439
    p.lukasiak says:

    In other words, land area or population of the states becomes a SuperRule that overrides the obvious stated rules?

    why do you keep forgetting that the stated rule is that you have to get 2024 delegate — and that “most delegates available in the primaries and caucuses” is not found in the rules. The rule you cite DOES NOT EXIST, and thus cannot be “overriden” by any other consideraion.

  440. 440
    p.lukasiak says:

    Yes, Paul, some of us are not myopic. Some of us have a clear vision of where we’d like the country to go, beyond the next 12 months. Some of us see the steps needed to get there. Some of us see a Dem president in 2009 as what is commonly known as “a good start”, rather than an end point.

    and some of us haven’t had MUP dust sprinkled on us.

  441. 441
    ThymeZone says:

    to use the results from the various states to help decide who the party nominee should be.

    To “help decide?” In what way, and to what degree? What is the weighting of the “help decide” factors, what are the other factors, and who makes the weighting decisions?

    The truth is, your imaginary “big state” or “big demo” stuff is all just imagined, speculative, having no actual relationship to any actual decision process at all, right?

    In other words, your entire argument rests on something like “We won Ohio, which is a really big state, so … give us the nomination!”

    But in fact , we didn’t “win” Ohio, as if it were a winner take all contest. We just got a few more delegates than the other guy did. In a contest based on delegates, the campaigns, the apportionment of time and energy and money and adverstising, the very messages delivered to the voters … are all aimed at winning delegates, not winning an electoral college. If you tell the contestants that their job is to win delegates, then the contestant that wins the most delegates won that contest. If you then come along and say, oh, sorry, we meant “win delegates but more importantly win the big states” then you’d have a completely different strategy, would you not?

    Who gets to decide that after the fact, after the contest are over, some people will come along and arbitrarily start weighting the results based on state populations and other factors that were not part of the original definition of the contest?

    Do you seriously think that the candidate with the most delegates is going to sit by and be told that the other candidate won based on state size? This is your end game?

  442. 442
    p.lukasiak says:

    damn 440 comments in this thread.

    Somebody needs to get John to come up with another of his usual hillary hatefest posts so we can continue this discussion, because this many comments loaded is slowing down my puter.

  443. 443
    ThymeZone says:

    The rule you cite DOES NOT EXIST, and thus cannot be “overriden” by any other consideraion.

    So, in your view, unless the delegate pledges seal the deal, the nomination is then just wide open to whatever bullshit considerations people want to make up?

    Demographics? State sizes? Early versus late delegate wins? What is the rule set, Paul, and who wrote it?

    And if there isn’t one, and it’s all just then a smoke-filled-room process, then what the living fuck have you been blathering about for two months? Aren’t you just basically making up a bunch of bullshit and browbeating people to see the thing a particular way?

    That’s it, right? It’s all about browbeating, maneuvering, cajolery, persuasion, strongarm tactics? Back room deals?

    How does it work? What is the guiding principle? Who said so?

  444. 444
    John S. says:

    My guess—and it is only a guess—is that it’s probably a rendering issue in the particular browser.

    Then why did Hillary’s campaign lie about it?

    There is no doubt that the clip on Clinton’s website depicts a much darker Obama than anything I’ve seen elsewhere online – at least on my optically calibrated monitor. If it was an accident, you don’t have to say this:

    “We don’t know what is up there, but it is not our ad,” Carson said.

  445. 445
    John D. says:

    and some of us haven’t had MUP dust sprinkled on us.

    Oh, fuck off, Paul. There is no “MUP dust” here. My candidate order is Obama > Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCain. I’m voting Dem in the fall, straight ticket, for the first time in my life. I want these fuckers gone that badly. You seem to be saying you’d vote for anyone but Obama.

    I don’t need snark, Paul. I need you to explain, clearly, how Clinton winning NY, MA, CA or any other deep blue state should matter, since those are going dem anyway. Isn’t that the logic you’ve been using in dismissing all of Obama’s wins? Do you see how ridiculous it is?

    Or how about explaining how winning a primary in a state by a few percent, when there is record turnout, is indicative that either candidate will lose in the general? Both Obama and Clinton are pretty much lapping the ENTIRE Republican field, in almost every state. Do I think that holds in the general? Of course not. But I do think that the Dem voters are far more energetic, far more enthusiastic, and will turn our it far larger numbers come November than I’ve ever seen before. I like it. You should too, rather than being so dismissive.

  446. 446
    PeterJ says:

    And it’s just not the skin color, the shape of his face has also been altered.

    Good luck explaining that…

  447. 447
    ThymeZone says:

    Some browsers have trouble rendering the faces of black people. Right?

    We’ve all seen it.

  448. 448
    jcricket says:

    I have a news flash for you, you little fuck… Otherwise you can shove it up your ass.

    Yeah TZ, you’re eminently reasonable when you respond to people when you disagree with their opinion. You’ve never gone of the deep end in insulting others who’ve been, for the most part, reasonable to you.

    You’re an unreasonable, judgmental, belligerent, foul-mouthed jerk. Despite asserting that you “pay the same price as everyone else” to be here, you nearly always acts in a way that make it clear you think you’re in a superior position to others.

    I’ve been here long enough to watch you descend, time and again, into vicious flame wars with whomever your latest target is. You assert you’re being logical, in each case, but I think the pattern is quite clear.

  449. 449
    ThymeZone says:

    You assert you’re being logical, in each case, but I think the pattern is quite clear.

    Fuck you, asshole. You come at me with your “high horse” bullshit and I am going to be right bere to call you on it.

    Keep doing it, and I will ride you like a mule. You treat me with respect and I will do the same.

    You don’t talk to me that way. If other people want to take that shit from you, that’s their problem. I will not.

    Get the fuck out of my face.

  450. 450
    ThymeZone says:

    And another thing, cricket: I’ll tell you once and once only, you are not the posting police. You don’t tell me what to post, what to say, or how to say it.

    You have a problem with a post of mine, make an argument against it. If you attack me, I will attack you harder.

    If you don’t like that, then take it up with somebody else because I am taking NO shit from you now, or any other time. Got it?

  451. 451
    John D. says:

    You don’t tell me what to post, what to say, or how to say it.

    Irony. It’s not just for breakfast any more.

    (Sorry, but it had to be said.)

  452. 452
    ThymeZone says:

    400 posts on this thread, and as far as I know I never even addressed this guy, and he decides to attack me. I’m not taking that crap from him.

  453. 453
    Asti says:

    You do that a lot, Jen. Sucking up to people. Is that a female trait, do you think? Because I hadn’t noticed the other, um, real gals doing it to that extent.

    Aww come on TZ, I suck up to you all the time, babydoll ;)

    Sorry, I just hadda do it! LMAO!

  454. 454
    Asti says:

    I did see a lot of personal attack and not much on arguing a point. What’s up with that?

  455. 455
    Asti says:

    Yeah TZ, you’re eminently reasonable when you respond to people when you disagree with their opinion. You’ve never gone of the deep end in insulting others who’ve been, for the most part, reasonable to you.

    You’re an unreasonable, judgmental, belligerent, foul-mouthed jerk. Despite asserting that you “pay the same price as everyone else” to be here, you nearly always acts in a way that make it clear you think you’re in a superior position to others.

    I’ve been here long enough to watch you descend, time and again, into vicious flame wars with whomever your latest target is. You assert you’re being logical, in each case, but I think the pattern is quite clear.

    The term “ad hominem” comes to mind. Ummm, jcricket, do you have something to say regarding politics or is this smear TZ day?

  456. 456
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Since this Franken-thread is headed for 500 posts if we can keep it up, let me just say:

    54-40 or bust!

    Oh yeah, also, about this:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    Shorter p.luk:
    Fuck all y’all in those other states.

    yup. Fuck Georgia. Fuck South Carolina. Fuck Alabama. Fuck Utah. Fuck all those deep red caucus states—- and pre-emptively fuck Wyoming and Mississippi. Oh, and fuck Oklahoma too—even though Clinton won there, fuck it, because it ain’t going Democratic unless there is a landslide.

    Welcome to the real world, where magical unity pony dust doesn’t make every state a potential win for the Democrats in November.

    Leaving aside for a moment the general electoral strategy issues, and the effect on down ticket races in Nov., if the Democratic nominee wins they will win something more than just a trip to Disneyland. Last time I checked, the US in POTUS stands for United States. How well is a President going to govern, when they’ve already said, in effect, “you don’t count” to a large part of the country?

    Does anybody other than me see a problem here?

    Do ya think that actually showing some sort of minimal level of respect for every American in every state might be a good idea when the time comes to actually govern the country? How well has the “piss off you don’t matter to us” strategy worked out for Rove and GWB? Is there a reason why Democrats should be rushing to copy this strategy.

    What kind of effect will this have on say, I dunno – maybe recruitment for our volunteer Army, if all of the red states have been told “fuck off, we don’t need you”? IIRC a pretty large chunk of our military comes from those states. Might this give the officer corps a bad taste too – and how well did that work out in 1993? I seem to remember another President named Clinton was sandbagged by the Pentagon right out of the chute by a controversy over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which got his political agenda for that entire year off to a bad start.

    This election is about more than just putting a Dem in the WH. Others may differ, but I want this election to be as massive a repudiation of GWB’s legacy as possible. Take everything that Bush has stood for and stomp on it as hard as we can. The idea that you only need to win elections with 50%+1, and that everybody else who didn’t vote for you can go take a flying leap is one of the most odious things to come out of the last 7 years. If that is really Hillary’s strategy, she should not be the Democratic nominee, because thems ain’t the values of the Democratic Party. “I got mine – fuck you” is a Republican value, in case you need reminding. Nothing that GWB has done should be getting that kind of endorsement from Democrats.

  457. 457
    John D. says:

    Does anybody other than me see a problem here?

    Well, from upthread:

    ONE

    TWO

    (That’s the problem with 450+ replies — it’s hard to see everything.)

  458. 458
    TenguPhule says:

    I keep myself in control by telling myself this will all be fucking over one way or another by September.

    And then all that bile and venom and spite being fired in the Democratic circle can be directed where it belongs, sending Bumboy McCain to an early grave along with his tapdancing supporters.

  459. 459
    TenguPhule says:

    If Hillary losses to McCain in ‘08, she won’t be allowed to have a rematch in ‘12. She’ll be heckled out of the party as the suckiest suck to ever suck a suck. Kerry didn’t receive much love after losing in ‘04 and we didn’t have a nation-shaking movement in ‘04.

    Atrios said it best.

    I don’t care who wins the Democratic nomination, but they better beat the Republicans or they will become the most fucking hated person in the Democratic party Civilized World.

  460. 460
    TenguPhule says:

    I don’t care who wins the Democratic nomination, but they better beat the Republicans or they will become the most fucking hated person in the Democratic party
    Civilized World.

  461. 461
    over it says:

    Obama will end up with the nod.
    It is mathematically improbable (highly so) (not ‘impossible’ because Obama might yet be caught eating small children) for Clinton to win.
    She will, however, drag this all out far longer than she should.
    Either she will bow out once she comes to terms with the math…or it will go all the way to the Convention (with her being as slimy and mudslinging as a Republican going after a Democrat) and she will lost it there when the Supers go to Obama (who will, undoubtedly, have won more states, more delegates, more votes than Clinton).
    Obama will end up with the nod.
    I just wonder how far Clinton is willing to go in her attacks of him until he does so.

  462. 462
    bernarda says:

    I notice that Obama groupie sites like this one mostly engage in Hillary Bashing.

    Why can’t they give a list of things that they like about Obama’s imaginary program?

    Give a list of 10 or 20 things you like about Obama’s plans, and I don’t mean his rhetorical hot air. If anyone is full of balloon juice, it is Obama.

  463. 463
    Cassidy says:

    You first.

    /hands Cassidy a leopard-printed Speedo.

    Right before I left…

    Get the fuck out of my face.

    After I leave…

    And you all think I’m confrontational.

  464. 464
    Splitting Image says:

    “I notice that Obama groupie sites like this one mostly engage in Hillary Bashing.

    Why can’t they give a list of things that they like about Obama’s imaginary program?

    Give a list of 10 or 20 things you like about Obama’s plans, and I don’t mean his rhetorical hot air. If anyone is full of balloon juice, it is Obama.”

    You must be new here if you think this is an Obama groupie site.

    The owner is a formerly batshit-insane G.O.P.er who came to his senses and started looking for a Democrat who could beat the snot out of the idiots. The fact that he prefers Obama to Clinton should be instructive.

    (Actually, if I remember correctly, John Cole originally expressed a preference for Chris Dodd. I myself preferred Edwards, and a bunch of others were either endorsing one of those two, Bill Richardson, or Ron Paul. The fact that most of us seem to have ended up with Obama should also be instructive.)

    But to answer your question:

    1. Obama was the first major candidate to say that he would open discussions with heads of state that the U.S. officially doesn’t like. He was openly criticized for this, but a good many people have ended up agreeing with him and supporting Bush for starting to do the same thing.

    2. He understands the notion of winning changes incrementally. Edwards and Clinton pushed for universal health care, but when asked how they would make sure everyone got enrolled, all they could come up with was automatically enrolling the naysayers and garnishing their wages to pay for it. That’s beyond foolish. Obama’s plan fails in obtaining universality, but covers people who currently aren’t, and unlike the others, has a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed.

    3. Obama’s way of doing things is to create a governing coalition, then decide policy. Clinton is doing it the other way round. Look at the “Reagan Revolution”. Reagan gave his party such a stranglehold on power that twenty years later it could do whatever the hell it wanted without fear of opposition. THAT is the way to get universal health care in this country. Clinton is so invested with “her” plan that she is pushing it to the voters before attaining power and resisting criticism and attempts to change it. This is making people resist both her and her actual plan, even when it really and truly would benefit them to support it.

    4. Obama seems to be concerned with winning as many states as he can, not simply getting enough votes to win. He has campaigned on the ground in nearly every state that has had a primary so far. His behaviour and Clinton’s after Texas and Ohio is typical. Obama went to campaign in Mississippi and Wyoming, the next states on the table, while Clinton went to Pennsylvania, the next “important” state on the table. A lot of voters in the small deep-red states HATE this, and it’s one of the main reasons they’re deep red in the first place.

    5. Obama has campaigned in a way that doesn’t require him to change his whole platform moving into the general election. His stump speech is the same whether he is campaigning against Clinton or against McCain. Clinton is going to have to do some major backtracking against McCain if she is the nominee, since she’s been making hay against Obama by stressing experience and national security – McCain’s strong points.

    I may think of more to add later, but I have to head off to work.

  465. 465
    bernarda says:

    Spitting image, only point one is valid. The others are just rhetoric. Except for point one, you spend as much time bashing Hillary as you do presenting a supposed Obama program.

    Point two, you mention each candidate once.

    Point three, you mention Hillary twice and Obama once.

    Points four and five, you mention each twice.

    You Hillary bashers just can’t help yourselves.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] But right now, coming off of a full few days in my life in general, I just feel exhausted, even more so at the start of the year when I was just antsy for the whole campaign to finally begin on a formal basis. Two months later and a lot of twists and turns along, the fact that there’s no final resolution is kinda annoying, but at the same time some part of me likes the stasis and that people are still trying to figure this one out. I’ve withdrawn from much in the way of political blog viewing at the moment — Balloon Juice is about the only thing I’m looking at for now, and even John’s feeling the blahs (his post title sums it up even better): I already hate being a Democrat. The other party is united around a doddering old warmonger who they swore just a few weeks ago they would never vote for, and the Democrats are busy tearing the party apart from the inside out so that we can continue the 28 year old Bush/Clinton dynasty. […]

Comments are closed.