The Increasingly Deranged Clinton Camp

Where up is down, down is up, and everything can be spun:

In Monday’s ed board meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was asked about the basic math obstructing her path to the nomination.

Specifically, she was asked her plans if, come June, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., remains in the lead with pledged delegates, how she would try to convince superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers?

“I just don’t think this is over yet,” she said, “and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.

And the bullshit continues in earnest about FL and MI:

The Clinton campaign will not let go of the discounted Democratic primary votes in Michigan, where Sen. Hillary Clinton “won’’ as the only major candidate on the ballot, and in Florida, which Clinton “won’’ in an uncontested election.

The argument seems somewhat moot, now that the Michigan legislature has given up on the idea of a “re-do’’ of the Jan. 15 primary that the Democratic National Committee refuses to recognize because it violated party rules in going so early, and with Florida’s Republican governor uninterested in financing a replay of the Sunshine State’s Jan. 29 primary vote, which has drawn the same penalty by the DNC.

Yet camp Clinton wants to place the blame for inaction in the lap of camp Obama, which has maintained that it played by the rules in Michigan and Florida.

“Sen. Obama is turning the Audacity of Hope into the audacity of nope,’’
said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, with a reference to Obama’s campaign book in a conference call with reporters this morning.

It is almost as if they inhabit a different universe than I do. I know that I am susceptible to charges of merely being a Clinton hater (because, let’s face it- I did hate them when I was a Republican. It sucked having your ass kicked in by Bill Clinton on everything through the 90’s.). I understand that I may have residual hate for them that is spilling over. But I really tried to give them a chance. I chided Sullivan for his full-on Clinton Derangement Syndome (something he admits to having), I defended Hillary from bullshit attacks. I recognize there has been a lot of sexism chucked her way.

But I simply can not be alone in thinking the entire Clinton team has gone insane, and it bothers me when I read David Brooks and he sounds like he is right. David Brooks sounds sane. David Brooks was the dumbest man at the NY Times before they hired Bill Kristol. And now he sounds sane.

Meanwhile, the constant drip of nonsense from the Clinton camp has me wishing I had never even started to follow politics. I am so turned off by a group that simply can not face reality, simply can not be honest. They can not even admit the Bosnia statements were bullshit, something that even Taylor Marsh recognizes was a mistake. Instead of saying I was wrong, it is “I misspoke” or Hillary made a “misstatement.” And I won’t even dwell on the fact that this means fucking Sinbad has a better memory and a better grasp on reality than a potential President. Think about that for a minute.

Maybe that is the Clinton camp plan- they are trying to drive us all insane with their nonsense. And then, when we are all jacked up on lithium and drooling into our jell-o cup, we can all shake our heads and agree with the latest Wolfson spin-

“Yes, Howard, you really did win Michigan and Florida. Yes, Howard, pledged delegates can vote for whoever they want. Yes, Howard, only states Hillary has won count. Yes, Howard, caucuses don’t count. Yes, Howard, super-delegates should contemplate the electoral college.”

This scenario is the only one that makes any sense.






121 replies
  1. 1
    mds says:

    And I won’t even dwell on the fact that this means fucking Sinbad has a better memory and a better grasp on reality than a potential President. Think about that for a minute.

    Okay, so? Looking back over Presidents since 1981, I don’t really think this is setting the bar particularly high for Sinbad.

  2. 2
    over_educated says:

    Sinbad 2016 bitches!

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    This is basically just another myiq2xu thread, right?

    Soon his “Obama lied too” posts will be all over it.

    What’s the point? Everybody in the world knows that your top post here is spot on, there’s really nothing more to say about the Clinton campaign, it’s the most hideous trainwreck I have seen in this party since 1968.

  4. 4
    tballou says:

    John – don’t discount the fact that Clinton and her entire entourage have a whole lot invested in this campaign, and at this level it really takes a supreme act of will to walk away. I know they seem desperate at times, and I think the math is working against them, but she is still close and you never know what will happen between now and the convention. Let us all just ignore the foolishness and spin and let the voters in PA and NC have their say. Odds are that Clinton and Obama will read the writing on the wall and they will put together a unity ticket and kick ass in November.

  5. 5
    Jake says:

    Any chance she decides to try and run on an Independent ticket if she loses the Dem nomination? I’m not sure if it’s possible given the timing, but if it is – it seems to me they’d find a way to justify it.

  6. 6
    Phil says:

    Here’s the plan:

    Hillary knows she can’t win at this point, but she doesn’t want Obama to win the general. She’s planning to run again, and she would much rather do it at age 64, after another disastrous Republican administration, than at age 68, after a possibly successful Obama administration.

    So, she takes Obama down, doing everything she can to destroy his electibility without being too overt (as in the “Commander-In-Chief threshold” nonsense). As long as the Clinton camp can maintain some shred of the fiction that she has a chance (hey, 5% is still a chance!), she can keep hammering away at him.

    Then, if Obama does lose in November, the Clintonites say “I told you so!” loudly & longly. Then they go to work, rebuilding networks, leaning on weak allies, kneecapping enemies (starting with Howard Dean, who will have an “accident”), and generally rigging the system & destroying potential rivals so that in 2012 it is a sure thing for Hillary.

    The Clintons don’t like to lose. They play to win. Karl Rove? Ha! Think Don Corleone.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    John – don’t discount the fact that Clinton and her entire entourage have a whole lot invested in this campaign, and at this level it really takes a supreme act of will to walk away. I know they seem desperate at times, and I think the math is working against them, but she is still close and you never know what will happen between now and the convention. Let us all just ignore the foolishness and spin and let the voters in PA and NC have their say. Odds are that Clinton and Obama will read the writing on the wall and they will put together a unity ticket and kick ass in November.

    This is where you are wrong. Wait until the night of the PA primary and the inevitable vote fraud charges start rolling in and the Republicans get to laugh and talk about corrupt Democrats for a few more weeks.

    Then Bill can bust out his dogwhistle in Indiana and NC, and we can go through the whole race thing again.

    This race is going nowhere but down, Hillary can not make up the delegate differential, and she is counting on making things as ugly as possible and having the superdelegates hand it to her.

    I wish I was wrong.

  8. 8
    libarbarian says:

    The Clintons don’t like to lose. They play to win. Karl Rove? Ha! Think Don Corleone.

    Please don’t overcredit the Clintons by comparing them to Don Corleone. They may be as cold-hearted but they are not as smart or long-sighted.

  9. 9
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    It is almost as if they inhabit a different universe than I do. I know that I am susceptible to charges of merely being a Clinton hater (because, let’s face it- I did hate them when I was a Republican. It sucked having your ass kicked in by Bill Clinton on everything through the 90’s.). I understand that I may have residual hate for them that is spilling over. But I really tried to give them a chance.

    John C.,

    It isn’t just you. I’m a die-hard Dem. I remember every presidential election since 1968. Last December I was truly flipping coins between Hillary, Obama and Edwards. I figured Obama was the best choice if we wanted to smooth-talk the GOP, Edwards would be the best to put ’em up against the wall, and Hillary was sort of a middle of the road compromise between the two approaches. I honestly didn’t know which was the best choice, and thought that all 3 would make good candidates and an excellent POTUS, and I would have been happy to roll the dice on whichever one of them came out on top.

    To my surprise, this primary season has instead proven to be a deeply polarizing experience, almost entirely due to the HRC campaign and their repeated insistence that white is black, up is down, and we have always been at war with East Obamasia. I can’t stand to listen to Hillary or her surrogates any more – they literally make me want to throw things at the TV. Only GWB and Nixon have ever done that before.

    I am sick of the spin, the lies, the smugness, the entitlement mentality, and the conviction that we are bunch of #$!@ morons who can’t think beyond a 3rd grade level, that continually oozes from their campaign like a toxic miazma of contempt for the voters. The central premise of Hillary’s campaign seems to be that we really are that stupid, as if the country deserves to be punished for voting in GWB by being forced to endure 4-8 more years of the same.

    No other Democrat has ever had that effect on me, and believe me I’ve held my nose with industrial strength clips more than once.

    P L E A S E — M A K E — T H E M — G O — A W A Y

    oh, one other thing – This campaign has made me realize that I really hate the Boomers, even tho’ I’m more than half a one myself. Most narcissistic generation evah.

    The Clinton’s are the concentrated essence of Boomerdom.
    No wonder they suck.

  10. 10
    wvng says:

    John, as a long-time Hillary supporter I can say that you are not “alone in thinking the entire Clinton team has gone insane.” She is actively driving people, supporters like me, away.

    Still better than McCain, but by less every single day. Her willingness to persist in the obvious “sniper fire” lie in the face of overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary is kind of the last straw. If she can lie about that, frankly it’s hard to know what she won’t lie about.

    Just think of Short and Shearer synch swimming and you’ll make it through the day.

  11. 11
    chopper says:

    Any chance she decides to try and run on an Independent ticket if she loses the Dem nomination?

    none. she’d rather hold on to her senate seat than deal with the aftermath that would come from that.

  12. 12
    cleek says:

    Sen. Obama is turning the Audacity of Hope into the audacity of nope

    well, someone is trying to do that. i’m pretty sure it’s not Obama, though.

  13. 13
    ploeg says:

    So Clinton is saying that her delegates can defect to Obama? Interesting.

  14. 14
    cleek says:

    Still better than McCain

    the only thing that makes her better than McCain is the D next to her name: as a Dem, she’d bolster the Dem Congress.

    but take away the politics, and judge her simply on character, and McCain beats her, badly. and if i’m judging simply on character, Obama beats both of them like rented mules.

  15. 15
    Mike P says:

    Phil,
    That’s funny because over at Tom Watson’s place, he thinks Carville was wrong to call Richardson Judas but thinks that calling him Fredo is the more appropriate comparison.

    I said it there and I’ll say it here…this campaign is driving everyone insane.

    John, I’m with you…I am a pretty big political junkie and this whole experience has me shaking my head every other day. It can’t end soon enough…and THEN we have a general election to deal with.

  16. 16
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Here’s what sticks in my craw the most: Obama has run his campaign as if the last 7 years of stoopid (here I’m talking about the electorate, not the admin.) under W was a temporary aberration, which can be repudiated and put behind us. Hillary has run her campaign as if the last 7 years are normative and we should expect nothing better than more of the same.

    Now you can make a case one way or another about which view is more realistic, but that leaves out an important factor. In a democracy people get the government they deserve, but also our leaders get the kind of electorate they deserve. Bad leadership is both a cause and a symptom of bad followership, the causation runs both ways.

    I can’t vote for a candidate who thinks that America sucks and is doing what she can to ensure that we get more of the same.

  17. 17

    I am so turned off by a group that simply can not face reality, simply can not be honest. They can not even admit the Bosnia statements were bullshit, something that even Taylor Marsh recognizes was a mis take. Instead of saying I was wrong, it is “I misspoke” or Hillary made a “misstatement.”

    Al Giordano has an interesting bit on fake “combat” experience and what happens to those people. Most of them attempt to maintain at least a semblance of dignity, so they resign or bow out of a political race. You know, just to maintain the tiniest shred of dignity. So, why hasn’t Clin … oh, I think I just answered my own question.

  18. 18
    wvng says:

    cleek said:

    the only thing that makes her better than McCain is the D next to her name: as a Dem, she’d bolster the Dem Congress.

    but take away the politics, and judge her simply on character, and McCain beats her, badly. and if i’m judging simply on character, Obama beats both of them like rented mules.

    I agree about Obama, but see little about McCain that isn’t equal to Hillary’s dissembling and falsehoods. Kevin Drum posted a widely quoted piece about McCain’s “cred” that hits the mark:

    Let’s recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. “Man of conviction” cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

    Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....013394.php

  19. 19
    L Boom says:

    So Clinton is saying that her delegates can defect to Obama? Interesting.

    Nah. I’m sure the situation will be that Obama’s delegates can go to Clinton, but Clinton’s delegates are locked in completely and for every delegate that abandons Clinton, the Obama campaign and Al Qaeda would each murder a puppy.

    Can’t wait to hear the spin out of the Clinton campaign if Obama is forced to start going after Clinton’s delegates.

  20. 20
    TenguPhule says:

    It’s so fucking stupid.

    The Republicans hand the Democrats a fucking sledgehammer.

    And Hillary is fucking swinging away with it at Democratic kneecaps.

    Defeat from the jaws of victory….EVERY FUCKING TIME.

  21. 21
    PeterJ says:

    This primary season has taught me one thing.

    I don’t want to give the presidential powers that Bush has amassed during his eight years to Clinton. (Or McCain for that matter.)

  22. 22
    4tehlulz says:

    Speaking of McCain, does anyone else find it odd that no one has heard a peep about his VP search?

  23. 23
    D-Chance. says:

    John Cole wrote:
    I know that I am susceptible to charges of merely being a Clinton hater (because, let’s face it- I did hate them when I was a Republican. It sucked having your ass kicked in by Bill Clinton on everything through the 90’s.).

    Yes, he kicked Republican ass so badly that they ended up with a majority of governorships, Representatives, Senators, and the Presidency at the end of his terms. Quite the ass-kicking, there, Bill…

  24. 24
    AkaDad says:

    A while back, I said that I used to date Scarlett Johanson. What I meant to say, is that I used to date a woman that looked nothing like Scarlett Johanson. I misspoke. Minor blips happen.

  25. 25
    TheFountainHead says:

    M favorite part about the Bosnia thing (and by favorite part, I mean the part that makes me giggle uncontrollably in my new straitjacket) is that it makes her look like a carbon copy clone of Bush and his Diligent Dissemblers. No mistake is worth admitting to them. It’s unfathomable to admit error, and while no politician, Obama included, likes to have to do it, or does it often, my money is on Obama to admit he fucked up if he does. I’ll take that any day.

  26. 26
    Tlaloc says:

    “And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.”

    It may not be artfully worded but it is factually correct. No delegate places any vote at all until the convention. They can in fact change their vote utterly regardless of the primary or caucus that chose them (based on their “I’ll vote of x” position). So, no, Clinton isn’t inhabiting a differnt universe, in this case she just knows a little more about how the universe you share actually works.

    On the other hand it isn’t exactly an endearing strategy to openly ask for delegates to jump the fence. So while she’s factually correct she is politically wrong.

  27. 27
    John S. says:

    Defeat from the jaws of victory….EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    Now, now…let’s take a moment and relax.

    There is a LOT of time between now and the election. After the PA primary, Hillary is done. Her campaign knows it and she knows it, but they just want to stick around until then so that p.lukasiak’s head doesn’t explode.

    She will come out hard for Obama after her less than graceful exit – I guarantee it – and between then and November, Obama will destroy Mr. Bullshit Express in every possible way.

    You can quote me on it in November.

  28. 28
    PaulB says:

    Any chance she decides to try and run on an Independent ticket if she loses the Dem nomination?

    No.

    Quite the ass-kicking, there, Bill…

    Well, that’s kind of the problem with the approach of Bill, Hillary, and the DLC — it’s short-term and personal rather than long-term and party (and country). Bill did indeed madden Republicans with his personal victories over them. In the process, though, he did little to build the party, little to reframe the debate, little to advance progressive issues and little to fight against the right-wing narrative.

  29. 29

    Speaking of McCain, does anyone else find it odd that no one has heard a peep about his VP search?

    I suspect McCain is still trying to track down that Shia-AQI link, so it might be a while before we hear about it.

    I agree about Obama, but see little about McCain that isn’t equal to Hillary’s dissembling and falsehoods.

    McCain’s only Cred is his Experience, and, as is the case with Clinton the experience (although I do think his experience is authenthic, unlike Clinton’s) doesn’t lead to Expertise. Greenwald has a pretty good post on it.

  30. 30
    JWeidner says:

    I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November.

    I think that’s more a money statement than almost anything else in the article as she’s clearly willing to put Obama in a position that might disadvantage HIM in November. Clearly, it’s not about the Democratic party winning, it’s about her. Not that this is any surprise, but still….

  31. 31
    PaulB says:

    On the other hand it isn’t exactly an endearing strategy to openly ask for delegates to jump the fence. So while she’s factually correct she is politically wrong.

    She’s likely factually incorrect, as well, if you consider that the underlying fact she’s depending on is that the Obama delegates will jump to her side. All of these delegates, Clinton’s and Obama’s alike, are chosen for their personal loyalty to the candidate of their choice. Absent an earth-shattering change in the primary dynamics or a deadlocked convention resulting in vote after vote after vote, these delegates just aren’t going to shift allegiance, certainly not in the numbers that Clinton needs.

    She’s trying to pretend that her campaign is still viable and she has a path to victory with this crap but it is indeed crap.

  32. 32
    ploeg says:

    McCain’s only Cred is his Experience, and, as is the case with Clinton the experience (although I do think his experience is authenthic, unlike Clinton’s) doesn’t lead to Expertise. Greenwald has a pretty good post on it.

    McCain’s experience is in bombing small countries. He’s very good at it. Actual diplomacy, not so much. Clinton has vastly more experience at actual diplomacy than McCain has.

  33. 33
    John S. says:

    McCain’s only Cred is his Experience, and, as is the case with Clinton the experience (although I do think his experience is authenthic, unlike Clinton’s) doesn’t lead to Expertise.

    Gallup had an interesting poll to this effect:

    More Americans say John McCain (70%) and Hillary Clinton (65%) have the experience necessary to be a good president than say the same about Barack Obama (46%). However, only 22% choose experience as the characteristic they say is most important to their vote for president.

    A majority of people see Obama as less experienced, but they really don’t care. They prefer leadership to experience.

  34. 34

    A while back, I said that I used to date Scarlett Johanson. What I meant to say, is that I used to date a woman that looked nothing like Scarlett Johanson. I misspoke. Minor blips happen.

    I have a similar problem with Sigourney Weaver. I’d like to date her one more time.

    (Woops! I misspoke! I would like to date her one more time … just to make it an even once.)

  35. 35
    John S. says:

    She’s trying to pretend that her campaign is still viable and she has a path to victory with this crap but it is indeed crap.

    But if she sprays it doen with Chanel No. 5, will it still smell like crap?

  36. 36
    wvng says:

    Here’s hoping I can quote John S. on “it” in November. If he’s right, I will.

    Gawd but I hope he’s right.

    The question is not whether John S is right on the merits, but whether or not some actual truth can penetrate the msm’s McSame shield. New book on that subject coming out – “Free Ride: John McCain and the Media.”
    http://atrios.blogspot.com/200.....3273866887

  37. 37
    Paul says:

    Don’t you understand?!

    It’s HER Turn. HER turn. Not some jumped up Senator from Illinois. Not some has-been VP running mate from 04. HER turn. HER turn.

    It’s inconceivable (h/t Vizzini) that anyone else should be the nominee.

  38. 38
    dadanarchist says:

    Don’t worry John, I’m with you. This DFH hated the Clintons in the 90’s, too, though undoubtedly for different reasons than yourself. It is depressing to see that might hunch about them is coming to fruition: that they are without principles, and would gladly sell out the Democratic Party to advance their interests.

    “David Brooks was the dumbest man at the NY Times before they hired Bill Kristol. And now he sounds sane.”

    I don’t know, there are a lot of dumb people at the Times – what about Tom Friedman? Is there anything that he writes that isn’t a cliche? And Maureen Dowd! Jesus, when you think about it, the only people who write for that editorial board that are close to sane are Krugman, the dull Herbert and Kristof, and, well, I guess Vernyn Klinkenborg is pretty good. But he talks about plants most of the time.

  39. 39
    wvng says:

    I met Sigourney Weaver once.

    Really.

    But I didn’t date her.

  40. 40
    NR says:

    There can be no doubt now that Hillary’s goal is to do so much damage to Obama that he loses to McCain in November. She has to know that she can’t get the nomination, so she’s trying to make sure that Obama loses so she can run again in 2012.

    It’s time for the superdelegates to end this thing.

  41. 41
    Anna says:

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    (h/t Inigo Montoya) :)

    Even my 2 year old daughter isn’t as childish as Hillary & her campaign are acting.

    Btw, this is my first comment here, though I’ve been following you John since you “saw the light” on the inmates currently running the asylum of our country. We need Obama in the White House!

  42. 42
    bootlegger says:

    No mistake is worth admitting to them. It’s unfathomable to admit error, and while no politician, Obama included, likes to have to do it, or does it often, my money is on Obama to admit he fucked up if he does. I’ll take that any day.

    BHO has said on numerous occasions that his relationship with Rezko, or at least the real estate transaction, was a mistake. He’s also willing to tell the electorate we will have to actually sacrifice to make our country better. He’s also willing to go into churches and tell them to respect atheists, jews, muslims and homosexuals. He’s also willing to tell parents to turn off the TV and video games and read to their children. He’s also willing to tell the AA community that they need to take responsibility for their future. And so on.

    This guy is so willing to say things that no other politician will that I feel like he’s speaking to me as an adult (and my wife will tell you my adulthood is not certain). This is why I donate and will vote for him in our May primary.

  43. 43
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Long ago I said that Hillary would pull this crap, and I was derided as having CDS and told to shut up. I saw through the Clinton guise long ago, and now people who were quick to dismiss it are getting their glimpse of the ‘real’ Hillary (and Bill). The game has always been all about them, and Obama pulls the spotlight off of them. They can’t have that happening.

    If Hillary wins the primary, Hillary wins it. If Hillary wins the general, Hillary wins it. Everything and everyone else are fashion accessories to her, all that matters to her is her. She is not doing this for the Democratic party or the people of America, she is doing this for herself.

    Hell, her lying about Bosnia says it all. Can’t figure out why she will not admit her mistake with the AUMF? Look at her Bosnia lies, and that will explain it all. She can not tell the truth about anything. Even when she is caught red handed, she explains it away like nothing is wrong. She will not admit fault, period.

    Just like Commander Chimpy, she believes that she is right and everyone else is wrong. That is why I will never vote for her, never. But I am not a Democrat, so I do not feel obligated to give the party my support if they do not have a candidate that I care for.

  44. 44

    He’s also willing to tell the AA community that they need to take responsibility for their future.

    I didn’t realize Obama had a position on alcoholism and alcoholics.

  45. 45
    The Other Steve says:

    Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

    I can’t hear you.

  46. 46
    myiq2xu says:

    This is basically just another myiq2xu thread, right?

    I sensed my mane being used in vain and here I am!

    From MyDD:

    Current Attack Meme Lie Number One:

    “Hillary has no chance of winning” feeds into…

    Current Attack Meme Lie Number Two:

    “Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election” (so she can run in 2012) which feeds into…

    Current Attack Meme Lie Number Three:

    “Hillary really wants McCain to become President and hopes to be in his Administration”

    These are the current talking points being used to take down Hillary Clinton. They have been seeded into the echo chamber. It doesn’t matter that they are lies, they are good ways of tearing Hillary Clinton down.

    These smear talking points ARE a scorched earth policy, because they insult the intelligence (literally) of the half of the Democratic Party that wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and become our candidate in the Fall Election. Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected. Good luck with that.

    If Hillary “can’t” win, why hasn’t Obama won yet?

  47. 47
    wvng says:

    continuing on the judgement theme, Sully has a new post that opens with:

    “Obama warned of the impending mortgage crisis a year ago. Here’s the relevant letter on mArch 22, 2007. On this and on Iraq nd on Pakistan, his actual judgment simply put him on a level far beyond Clinton and McCain, let alone the current president. Judge for yourself:”

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlan......html#more

  48. 48
    vwcat says:

    John, I have been a lifelong democrat and cannot stand the Clintons. Actually, around mid 90s I figured these two were full of it and it was spin and games all the time.
    So, it is not because you are a former republican.
    The Clintons are just too annoying and self absorbed.
    And that is why they play this game now. They act like it’s still the 90s and think they can scam everyone. The only ones buying it are their hard core supporters.

  49. 49
    SmilingPolitely says:

    As Ralph Wiggum would say, “It tastes like burning… ”

    That about sums up Clinton’s campaign.

  50. 50
    PaulB says:

    If Hillary ‘can’t’ win, why hasn’t Obama won yet?

    Oh, he has. We’re just waiting for the news to make it to Hillary and her supporters. They tend to be a bit slow, particularly the latter.

  51. 51
    John S. says:

    If Hillary “can’t” win, why hasn’t Obama won yet?

    ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

  52. 52
    John S. says:

    The question is not whether John S is right on the merits, but whether or not some actual truth can penetrate the msm’s McSame shield.

    Actually, my prediction is based in part on the merits of ThymeZone’s arguments about McCain. He’s been stuck with him as his senator for quite some time, and when he says he will be a lousy candidate (for various reasons), I believe him.

    Not even the lovestruck media will be able to save the man from himself.

  53. 53

    …everything can be spinned

    Spun.

    I’m sensing a pattern here… :-)

  54. 54
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh, he has.

    Diebold huh?

  55. 55
    zzyzx says:

    Ah, she finally went there.

    Another example of her wonderful instincts. There’s no way that this comes across as anything other than an attempt to bring this back up when she’s being hit hard. You can do that, but you have to look subtle when you do.

    If Clinton were to get the nomination, she’d get, what? 10% of the AA vote?

  56. 56
    John Cole says:

    Spun.

    I’m sensing a pattern here… :-)

    Wow. That is bad.

    Both my parents are English teachers, too. If they could they would ground me for that.

  57. 57
    Teak111 says:

    They thought she was a slam dunk for so long, its hard to make the adjustment. They harder they try, the more convinced I become that its time to move past the Clintons. I just wonder what difference it would make if Hill had a completely different election staff. Probably would have helped. Too late now.

  58. 58
    John S. says:

    Ah, she finally went there.

    I’m shocked — SHOCKED — I tell you!

    Why do you think folks like myiq¼xu are drawn to her campaign? They like her style because it emulates their own.

    Hey look over here! Rezko! Wright! Don’t look at me!

  59. 59
    Pb says:

    “Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election” (so she can run in 2012)

    Yeah, I don’t think anyone should be saying this unless Hillary is actually tearing down her fellow Democrat instead of going after the Repbulican in the race.

    Stay classy, Hillary.

  60. 60
    ThymeZone says:

    McCain’s experience is in bombing small countries that represent no threat to the United States.

    Just slightly truthized.

  61. 61

    zzyzx Says:

    Ah, she finally went there.

    I saw the same thing at TPM. I am officially on the Clinton Get the Fuck Out Now bandwagon.

    Paraphrasing James Carville when referring to Bush I: If her heart was on fire; I wouldn’t piss down her throat to put it out.

  62. 62
    PeterJ says:

    After the PA primary, Hillary is done. Her campaign knows it and she knows it, but they just want to stick around until then so that p.lukasiak’s head doesn’t explode.

    She was going to be done after the March Super Tuesday too.
    They are constantly moving the goalposts and they won’t stop doing it.

    I harbor no illusion that she will end it after PA.

  63. 63
    Jen says:

    If Hillary “can’t” win, why hasn’t Obama won yet?

    Oh, for goodness’ sake.

    UNC is playing Arkansas in a regulation 40 minute basketball game. With a minute and a half left, Arkansas has 75 and UNC has 103. Can Arkansas win? No. Has UNC won yet? No.

    Does that help?

    Of course, it’s not a great analogy, because in basketball, everyone wants and expects Arkansas to stay in it until the end, because it doesn’t hurt UNC’s chances of beating Duke.

  64. 64
    tim says:

    Ummm…please help me out:

    If THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY HILLARY CAN WIN the nomination, as John and many other Hillary haters on the left scream at me on their blogs each and every day, then why doesn’t Prince Obama just ignore her and go about his merry way thru the rest of these primaries, and then assume the throne as is apparently inevitable at the convention? Why the over the top hysterical screaching for THAT FUCKING BITCH to get out now? If BO has won, then what’s the problem? Is she just fucking up the coronation and standing in the way of additional rose petals being tossed or what?

    Also, when and if BO is the dem nominee, it will be sad but entertaining to watch all the dirt come out during the general campaign. The rise of his wife’s career and salary in direct parallel to his political stature in Illinois is very very illuminating.

  65. 65
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    If anybody wants to earn some street cred for daring to venture into a real war zone, they could go visit Basra right now:

    Sadr urges ‘civil revolt’ as battles erupt in Basra

    A ceasefire crucial to recent security improvements in Iraq was today under severe strain after Moqtada al-Sadr called for “civil revolt” following a crackdown on Shia factions in Basra.

    Iraqi security forces in the southern Iraqi city encountered heavy resistance as battles broke out with gunmen from Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.

    Officials in Basra said 22 people were killed in the clashes, with a further 58 wounded.

    Following the clashes, Sadr appeared to threaten to end the ceasefire, which was declared last August.

    “We call upon all Iraqis to stage sit-ins all over Iraq as a first step,” he said in a statement. “And if the people’s demands are not respected by the Iraqi government, the second step will be to declare civil revolt in Baghdad and all other provinces.”

    The cleric then went on to threaten an unspecified “third step” suggesting he could abandon the ceasefire.

    Sadr’s followers responded in Baghdad, where Shia gunmen were visible in several neighbourhoods and the US-protected Green Zone came under mortar or rocket attack.

    The US embassy said no deaths or major casualties were reported.

    Police told Reuters that Mahdi Army fighters loyal to Sadr were battling gunmen from the Badr Organisation, the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in Basra.

    Major-General Ali Zaidan, the commander of Iraqi ground forces in the Basra operation, said its aim was to “wipe out all the outlaws”. “There were clashes and many outlaws have been killed,” he told Reuters.

  66. 66
    Jen says:

    Is she just fucking up the coronation and standing in the way of additional rose petals being tossed or what?

    I thought it was clear to even the rock-stupidest among us that it is hurting the Democrats’ chances in the general election as McCain continues on his merry barbecuing free ride Straight Talk Express. Is there any conceivable way this could be more obvious?

  67. 67
    zzyzx says:

    Of course, it’s not a great analogy, because in basketball, everyone wants and expects Arkansas to stay in it until the end, because it doesn’t hurt UNC’s chances of beating Duke.

    A better analogy would be if Arkansas were constantly committing very hard fouls the whole time and injuring players.

    From that same article, btw, you get this:

    On saying last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.”

    How do you make up an entire story out of whole cloth because you’re tired? I could see slurring a word or something, but telling a long, completely false story? And what’s the explanation for her other times she said that?

    For that matter, doesn’t that undercut the whole 3 AM argument? If she can’t remember if things are true when she’s tired, I don’t want her answering that call.

  68. 68
    Jen says:

    The rise of his wife’s career and salary in direct parallel to his political stature in Illinois is very very illuminating.

    This is a fascinating comment from a supporter of
    the wife
    of
    a
    former
    president.

    My word.

  69. 69
    PaulB says:

    then why doesn’t Prince Obama just ignore her and go about his merry way thru the rest of these primaries, and then assume the throne as is apparently inevitable at the convention?

    Since that’s precisely what he’s doing, I’m not sure what point you think you’re making.

    Why the over the top hysterical screaching for THAT FUCKING BITCH to get out now?

    Well, mostly because of her ill-advised support of John McCain, I think, and her pretense to foreign policy and security credentials that she does not, in fact, have.

  70. 70
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    They are constantly moving the goalposts and they won’t stop doing it.

    Good plan they had with the goalpost, eh? Weld it into the back of a pickup truck, then hire some drunk to drive all over the country with it.

    She is worse than Lucy with the football. I wish Obama would do what I always thought Charlie Brown should have done, kick Lucy instead of the football.

  71. 71
    myiq2xu says:

    UNC is playing Arkansas in a regulation 40 minute basketball game. With a minute and a half left, Arkansas has 75 and UNC has 103. Can Arkansas win? No. Has UNC won yet? No.

    The problem there big guy is the score is a lot closer than you describe.

  72. 72
    Pb says:

    if BOHC is the dem nominee, it will be sad but entertaining to watch all the dirt come out during the general campaign. The rise of his wife’sher career and salary in direct parallel to his political stature in IllinoisArkansas is very very illuminating.

    Fixed.

  73. 73
    Jen says:

    A better analogy would be if Arkansas were constantly committing very hard fouls the whole time and injuring players.

    That’s true. Please revise the analogy accordingly. Include sniper fire if you wish.

  74. 74

    Why the over the top hysterical screaching for THAT FUCKING BITCH to get out now?

    I see exactly one comment in this thread using the B-word. Any guesses which one that is? You get three guesses.

  75. 75
    bootlegger says:

    We’re discussing the essay/book “On Bullshit” at our weekly colloquium. I was just watching John Stewart’s interview with the author where they talk about bullshit and politics.
    Enjoy:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi.....yDate=true

  76. 76
    Jen says:

    The problem there big guy is the score is a lot closer than you describe.

    Please explain, state by state, how Hillary is going to exceed Barack Obama in pledged delegates by the end of this race.

  77. 77
    reid says:

    wvng says that the “sniper” brouhaha is his last straw. For me, that straw came with her handling of MI/FL. First, campaign surrogates dropped hints that they thought the votes should count, then Hillary herself started making the claim. It’s blatantly unfair and dishonest, and no decent person would try to make the case. Whatever it takes to win, I guess.

  78. 78
    mrmobi says:

    …it will be sad but entertaining to watch all the dirt come out during the general campaign.

    Yeah, right, you sound really sad about it.

    The rise of his wife’s career and salary in direct parallel to his political stature in Illinois is very very illuminating.

    How long have you been a Republican? Was this your attempt to deflect the conversation from the latest lie from HRC’s campaign?

  79. 79
    over_educated says:

    I see exactly one comment in this thread using the B-word. Any guesses which one that is? You get three guesses.

    Actually TGP, in the second post of thread I call all of you the B-word in support of the inevitable candidacy of Sinbad in 2016.

  80. 80

    Actually TGP, in the second post of thread I call all of you the B-word in support of the inevitable candidacy of Sinbad in 2016.

    Oops. I mis-typed. I … I … I … It must have been all the sniper fire in my den that distracted me.

  81. 81
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    If BO has won, then what’s the problem? Is she just fucking up the coronation and standing in the way of additional rose petals being tossed or what?

    Yes.

    To unpack it in more detail, the problem here is due to the dynamics of negative campaign tactics. The HRC campagin has gone heavily negative ever since they declared it was kitchen sink season leading up to the TX and OH primaries.

    There are two problems with this, if you want the Democratic nominee to win in November. For starters friendly fire attacks carry more weight than partisan sniping from the other party, because more voters are inclined to shrug off the latter kind as dirty politics and ignore them.

    More importantly, negative attacks have always had the following peculiar characteristic: they drive down the approval ratings of both the target and the candidate who is attacking. The reason they are used at all is that if done correctly they drive down the approval rating of the target more than they drive down the approval of the attacker, gaining a net advantage for the latter.

    This makes tactical sense in a general election, because once the election is over the successfull attacker who went negative has plenty of time to build back up their own approval rating by getting things done while in office, before the next election cycle. To a lesser extent this also applies early in a primary season when more than 2 candidates are competing, because it is not a zero-sum game, and the eventual winner still has plenty of time to recover from early attacks.

    This makes little tactical sense later on in a primary, because no matter who wins (the attacker who went negative or the target of the attacks), both candidates will have to face the opposing party’s nominee with lower approval ratings. It decreases the chances of either potential nominee in the general election.

    Hillary is doing McCain’s work for him, and also taking the blame for it while he doesn’t have to get his hands dirty. If she wins the nomination, she has less support because her approval rating is down. If Obama wins the nomination, he has less support because his approval rating is down. McCain does not take a hit for this because he wasn’t the one slinging the mud.

    Hillary is using tactics that do not belong in the end-game stage of a primary contest between 2 candidates. In conventional political terms the only rational explanation for what she is doing is that if she cannot win, she would rather see McCain win over Obama than visa-versa.

  82. 82
    Jake says:

    If you want to imagine the future picture Sinbad, stamping on a human face. For ever.

  83. 83
    over_educated says:

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ – Can I copy and paste that response in every thread where I hear that retarded “well then why hasn’t he won yet?” argument…

  84. 84
    John Cole says:

    Shorter ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    What Hillary is doing is destructive, counter-productive, will not help her win, and will make it harder to elect any democrat in the fall.

    I am almost to the point where I don’t vote and just say fuck it all and move in to a Parisian condo with Barbra Streisand.

    To hell with the Clintons.

  85. 85

    From her Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interview:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor made.

    “He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” (my emphasis added)

    What? She didn’t choose to marry Bill? Maybe she “misspoke” again?

    Fucking tedious does not begin to describe the Clinton campaign.

  86. 86
    Andrew says:

    A better analogy would be if Arkansas were constantly committing very hard fouls the whole time and injuring players.

    Does this mean Tyler Hansbrough is Judas now?

  87. 87
    bootlegger says:
  88. 88
    Jen says:

    Does this mean Tyler Hansbrough is Judas now?

    Only if he throws a game to Duke, which he can’t do since they lost in the second round bwahahahahahahaha

  89. 89
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    over_educated – no copyright claimed. If you like it, use it.

    Shorter ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    What Hillary is doing is destructive, counter-productive, will not help her win, and will make it harder to elect any democrat in the fall.

    Thanks for the props John.

    This isn’t rocket science – anybody who has studied politics for more than a few campaigns knows this stuff.

    At this point I have 3 theories to explain why the HRC campaign is doing what they are doing: (1) pure jealous rage, especially coming from Bill who is still PO’d about Obama’s comments evaluating Bill’s legacy vs. Reagan’s legacy back during the Nevada contest, or (2) 1972 redux – they really are cynically planning to kneecap Obama this time to set up a run in 2012, or (3) they really still believe Hillary has a close to even shot at getting the nomination and winning in November. I just don’t see how (3) can still be true, the Clintons are too smart and savvy politically not to realize that they’ve burned their bridges with far too many of the AA voters and other Obama supporters for this to be credible.

  90. 90
    Tlaloc says:

    “Please explain, state by state, how Hillary is going to exceed Barack Obama in pledged delegates by the end of this race.”

    Neither of them is going to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. NEITHER OF THEM. It’s also quite likely that by the convention both of them will have very similar levels of popular votes and delegates.

    So why exactly should Clinton drop out? She can’t win without Superdelegates…true, but barring some freak occurance neither can Obama. He’s leading in populare vote… true for the moment but is likely to be too close to really matter by the convention.

    The people yelling that clinton must drop out of the race are saying it for only one reason- she isn’t their candidate, and hence they can and should be ignored as blind partisans.

    Frankly I have no love for either Obama or Clinton but 9 times out of 10 if one candidate’s supporters are pissing me off with childish rants and petulant demands they are supporters *him*, not her.

  91. 91
    Tlaloc says:

    “More importantly, negative attacks have always had the following peculiar characteristic: they drive down the approval ratings of both the target and the candidate who is attacking. The reason they are used at all is that if done correctly they drive down the approval rating of the target more than they drive down the approval of the attacker, gaining a net advantage for the latter.”

    While generally true looking at all the polling this doesn’t seem to be happening (probably at least in part because nobody is actually paying attention). That kind of negates your entire argument:

    “What clinton is doing _could_ harm the democrat party!”
    “Okay, but it isn’t _actually_ doing any harm at all.”
    “…Oh, yeah.”

  92. 92
    Liberal Masochist says:

    over_educated – that’s two great comments in this thread from LeftTurn that I want to use elsewhere (the other one is about getting the govt. you deserve – 11:44AM).

    LeftTurn is starting to supplant TZ as my favorite commenter on this blog (TZ – too much pie lately?).

  93. 93
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    The people yelling that clinton must drop out of the race are saying it for only one reason- she isn’t their candidate

    Tlaloc – it is about the tactics she is using, not the mere fact that she is still in the race. If she were out bashing McCain, and trying to appeal to Democratic voters by showing that she can bash McCain more enthusiatically and effectively than Obama can, scarcely anyone would be calling for her to stop. She and Obama should be tag-teaming on McCain (not the other way around), but instead she keeps going out of her way to endorse and support the credentials of the GOP candidate.

    Why is that? Please explain to me why supporting the GOP candidate is a credible path to the Democratic nomination?

    And before you answer: negative is what works, please address the points I made above about the dynamics of negative attacks and approval ratings.

  94. 94
    Justin Timberlake says:

    For the record, I dated Scarlett Johansson AND Jessica Biel. In the same month. And no, that was not a misstatement.

  95. 95
    Thepanzer says:

    HRC has put her finger to the wind 7 years too late and decided to tack her sails to Bushco’s strategeries.

    Bushco/HRC checklist:
    Actions are irrelevant, spin is all that matters. Check.
    Inability to admit mistakes. In rare event mistake is admitted blame someone else and then continue with mistake since “its already been addressed”. Check.
    Lies go further than truth, bigger lies go further still. If you get caught lying keep lying until everyone gets tired of pointing out your lies and just lets you lie as a matter of course. Check.
    Insult whole demographic communities to make them irrelevant if they don’t support you, push increasingly outlandish or bizarre metrics to prove support. If outlandish metrics and hail mary passes won’t support you just say “so” and keep right on trucking. Check.
    Behave in a generally incompetent manner, when advised your incompetent blame someone else, when peers question your competence you question their loyalty. Check.

    The thought of 4-8 more years of Bushco standard operating procedure from Mcsame or HRC makes me want to feed myself into a woodchipper. It would be faster and less painful than the years of upcoming spin, bullshit, and excuses for why obviously shit plans lead to obviously shit outcomes.

    I’ll take my chances with the MUP.

  96. 96
    cleek says:

    the Clintons are too smart and savvy politically not to realize that they’ve burned their bridges with far too many of the AA voters and other Obama supporters for this to be credible.

    i don’t know how smart they are, but they could be counting on Dems to hold their noses and vote D, no matter what, when the time comes. and they might be right. note how we’ve all been told again and again, recently, that only deeply-unserious DINOs would withhold their vote from a Dem this year (SCOTUS! Iraq! SS!). i’ve said multiple times here and elsewhere that i’ll pass on voting for Pres altogether, if Hillary’s on the ticket, but i still get little pangs of dread that i couldn’t do it, if the race is close in NC.

    i bet the Clintons are counting on the fact that the bulk of the Dems are going to vote for whoever the Dem is; and that gives them a lot of freedom to fuck around until then. they’ll take whatever paths look promising, no matter what it looks like in March, knowing most voters won’t be able to vote R in November.

  97. 97
    Andrew says:

    tlaloc, even clinton staffer have admitted that she only has a 10% chance of winning. What chance of winning does she need to have for it to be worth 3 more months of her trashing the likely candidate? Is that 10% good enough?

  98. 98
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    While generally true looking at all the polling this doesn’t seem to be happening (probably at least in part because nobody is actually paying attention).

    Tlaloc,

    That is because Hillary negatives were already so high that they are less elastic now. She isn’t taking as much of a hit for the negative attacks launched by her campaign as a different candidate would because she is already widely disliked (also Bill is doing a lot of the mud flinging), and her remaining support is with people who are very loyal to her. That is a good thing if you want a highly polarized race – i.e., the Clintons, you’re either with them or against them.

    Despite all the MUPet talk, many Obama fans such as myself are not so much personally loyal to him as they are just sick and tired of this all or nothing style of politics. He just happens to be the one who is offering an alternative – it could just as easily have been one of the others (Dodd, or Richardson for example) if they had stepped up to the challenge. They didn’t, he did.

    The style of politics which Hillary is running with now had its chance – we spent decades on it, and how much do we have to show for it? Would it really kill us to try something different for just one stinking election? God help us all – it might actually work. And if it doesn’t, how could the results be any worse than what we’ve already obtained via the old methods?

    If insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result, then some of us are fed up with insane politics. Obama is holding open the door to the looney bin and saying: escape this way, if you wish to.

  99. 99
    Soylent Green says:

    She will come out hard for Obama after her less than graceful exit – I guarantee it

    So with that big phony smile Hillary is going to come out and say “You know, I’m delighted to support my good friend Barack, and you know, I didn’t mean any of those things I said about him earlier, it’s just politics.” Is that going to carry any weight? Her entire campaign rests on poisoning Obama’s image and trashing his appeal. How do six months of that get erased?

  100. 100
    binzinerator says:

    The Republicans hand the Democrats a fucking sledgehammer.

    And Hillary is fucking swinging away with it at Democratic kneecaps.

    If she were a farmer, she’d be eating her own seed corn in a year of plenty.

    The goopers sure had this figured out. “Know thy enemy”, and in the course of years of hounding the Clintons and trying to make their bullshit stick, they became the Clinton experts. They know exactly how a Clinton will react, how they think, and, given a fork in the road, the path they will take.

    The Limbaughs and Coulters knew Hillary’d do the most damage to the Dem party in trying to claw her way to the nomination, which is why they thew their support behind her.

    On the face of it, it seemed absurd. It seemed as if they were the ones kneecapping their own party. But it was actually a shrewd move: If you realize you’re going to lose, it’s best to have your enemy’s victory be a Pyrrhic one.

  101. 101
    Tlaloc says:

    “Tlaloc – it is about the tactics she is using, not the mere fact that she is still in the race. If she were out bashing McCain, and trying to appeal to Democratic voters by showing that she can bash McCain more enthusiatically and effectively than Obama can, scarcely anyone would be calling for her to stop. She and Obama should be tag-teaming on McCain (not the other way around), but instead she keeps going out of her way to endorse and support the credentials of the GOP candidate.”

    It isn’t really a secret that Clinton and Obama are appealing to two different parts of the Dem party. And they both *are* parts of the dem party. Clinton is very much a centrist DLC-er. Obama is appealing to the harder left. Given that McCain has a, probably undeserved, reputation as also centrist it does make a certain sense that Obama is a bigger target for both of them.

    Now you certainly don’t have to agree with this position, or like it, but it isn’t really traitorous at all.

    Similarly I find it hard to understand why it is that Obama’s followers regard everything negative that is hurled at him as clearly a function of the Clinton campaign (usually with no evidence in that regard) while pretending that none of the ugly stuff thrown at Clinton could possibly be coming from his campaign.

    In other words if you think your political favorite is pure as driven snow you’re wrong, no matter who the candidate is. Clinton’s made negative attacks. Obama’s made negative attacks. McCain’s made negative attacks. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think Clinton’s are any more egrigious than either of the other two, nor that they are atypical of a primary in this country.

    Short version- this is all politics as usual. Commence panty untwisting on my mark: _mark_.

  102. 102
    tballou says:

    And another thing – since when have Dems become such a bunch of over-sensitive panty waists? Oh wait, I guess that has been pretty much forever.

    If you all think Hillary is being mean and vicious, I guess that is just proof that South Carolina politics really are the dirtiest around, because down here, the stuff she has thrown at Obama is nothing but softballs.

    I guess in a perfect world a contest between the Democratic contenders would be nothing but tea and cookies, but we all know that is not the case.

  103. 103
    Tlaloc says:

    “That is because Hillary negatives were already so high that they are less elastic now.”

    That’s simply not true. Her negatives are not all that high at all. This is one of those things that is widely believed and repeated but simply not true. Pollster.com has a track of her favorable/unfavorable rating going back two decades. Take a look at it:
    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/.....eunfav.php

    Her negatives are only high amongst republicans…

    “Despite all the MUPet talk, many Obama fans such as myself are not so much personally loyal to him as they are just sick and tired of this all or nothing style of politics. He just happens to be the one who is offering an alternative – it could just as easily have been one of the others (Dodd, or Richardson for example) if they had stepped up to the challenge. They didn’t, he did.”

    I’ll take your word for it in your case. I can say however that I have heard a number of Obama supporters who speak of the man in distinctly religious terms and that scares the shit out of me. The last thing we need is for both political parties to be over run with fucking fanatics.

    “The style of politics which Hillary is running with now had its chance – we spent decades on it, and how much do we have to show for it? Would it really kill us to try something different for just one stinking election? God help us all – it might actually work. And if it doesn’t, how could the results be any worse than what we’ve already obtained via the old methods?”

    I have no problem with wanting to try something new.

    here’s my take on the race-
    Hillary represents things I don’t particularly like but I know her history. I know she’s capable and I trust she isn’t going to go apeshit in the office. She’s the safe choice.
    Obama *says* stuff I like but shows no aptitude so far as I can tell to actually accomplish anything. On top of that I have absolutely no idea what he’d do in the Oval office. Most likely he’d be fine, but I can’t say for sure he wouldn’t nuke canada just because he felt like it- there’s no history there for me to trust, he’s effectively an unknown. He’s a gamble- maybe a big payoff, maybe the worst thing ever. I’m not sure given the state of the country I want to take that risk right now.

    Personally I wish Gore had jumped in. He had the experience and I generally like what he has to say. But that’s not to be. Between the choices we have I unfortunately probably lean towards Hillary, and Obama’s supporters by and large aren’t doing him any favors.

    “If insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result, then some of us are fed up with insane politics.”

    Personally I recall 1991-1998 as being alright. It had problems, sure, but compared to the period before and after I vastly prefer it. Maybe Hillary supporters _don’t_ expect different results. Maybe they were just happy with the last Clinton administration.

  104. 104
    PeterJ says:

    “I think Governor Richardson was obviously free to endorse whoever he thought was the best candidate for president. I wish that he had followed the people of his state and endorsed Hillary Clinton, but it was certainly his right to endorse Barack Obama.,” – Howard Wolfson, May 24, “Morning Joe.”

    So superdelegates should have to endorse the candidate that wins the state they represent?
    The idea here was that they should vote like their voters, nothing more…
    But I guess if they are “automatic” delegates then there really isn’t room for any free thought…

  105. 105
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Personally I recall 1991-1998 as being alright.

    I do too. We should be so lucky as to obtain another decade like that. But the set up this year is not what we had going in back in 1992:

    1991 End of Cold War = Peace dividend
    2008 Broken Army, needs expensive rest and refit, lots of wounded vets to care for.

    1991 GHB breaks campaign promise not to raise taxes, begins the process of bringing the Fed. budget into balance, continued by Bill Clinton.
    2008 Stoned drunk monkeys could do a better job with our finances.

    1991 National debt to income ratio under control.
    2008 WTF happened?

    etc… you fill in the rest of the details.

    I have a big problem with the implication that if we just elect HRC we get to jump in a time machine and go back to the 1990’s. Hillary just proposed a commission to look at the mortgage meltdown problem

    to be composed of Volker Rubin and Greenspan

    which will be headed by Greenspan.

    Does anyone here seriously think Alan Greenspan should be involved in this – given that he more than anyone helped to create our current ghastly mess in the 1st place? The only way this comission makes any sense is if Volker gets to whack Greenspan in the face with a baseball bat every time he opens his fool mouth.

  106. 106
    Tlaloc says:

    “I have a big problem with the implication that if we just elect HRC we get to jump in a time machine and go back to the 1990’s.”

    Fair enough, my point was just that it isn’t insanity to try a clinton when the last clinton presidency was overall pretty decent.

    I would like to raise a tangential point though:
    Look at the list you started articulating about how 2008 differs from 1991. I don’t particularly disagree with it and I concur that we could add several more entries to the list, most all of them bad.

    That being the case is this really the time to hand power over to a Neophyte? The US is at (hopefully) a modern nadir in terms of world respect, political influence, military strength, geopolitical advantage, et cetera. I really think the next president is going to have to tackle more and bigger problems than any modern president. The economy is a shambles. The military is beat to hell. The middle east is stirred up and chaotic. Russia is making more and more disturbing moves. China is flexxing some muscle. North Korea… is North Korea, and hence insane. The internal controls of government have been neutered by 8 years of sloppy management and cronyism. The DoJ is politicized and distrusted. Energy/food prices are killing the poor.

    It isn’t one big challenge like the cold war or Vietnam. It’s ten thousand medium to big challenges and the next president is going to have to deftly handle all of them.

    That’s not a time when I think we should play “roll the dice.”

  107. 107
    Andrew says:

    I’ll take your word for it in your case. I can say however that I have heard a number of Obama supporters who speak of the man in distinctly religious terms and that scares the shit out of me. The last thing we need is for both political parties to be over run with fucking fanatics.

    Dude, seriously, WTF? Like you haven’t seen the nutballs over at Hillaryis44?

    Clinton’s made negative attacks. Obama’s made negative attacks. McCain’s made negative attacks. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think Clinton’s are any more egrigious than either of the other two, nor that they are atypical of a primary in this country.

    Oh, really? Like all the times that Obama said McCain was way more qualified to be President than Hillary?

  108. 108
    Tlaloc says:

    “Dude, seriously, WTF? Like you haven’t seen the nutballs over at Hillaryis44?”

    I’ve certainly seen some Hillary supporters that were out of touch with reality. I have not seen any that seemed cult like. That seems to be exclusively the provence of Ron Paul, and Obama (with some iffys for Fred Thompson), this election cycle.

    “Oh, really? Like all the times that Obama said McCain was way more qualified to be President than Hillary?”

    If you were to ask me if McCain were more qualified than Obama to be president I would have to say yes. That doesn’t mean I prefer McCain to Obama, but it is simply true that Obama’s government experience is minimal, to be kind. McCain meanwhile has multiple decades of experience in federal office. Hence singling out a true statement as something beyond the pale doesn’t impress me.

    On the other hand take for instance the repeated claims by the Oamab campaign that various inoffensive remarks were in fact “dog whistle” racism. That’s easily as bad in terms of poisoning the electorate as anything Hillary’s campaign has done, and far worse than observing that McCain has experience and Obama doesn’t.

  109. 109

    For the record, I dated Scarlett Johansson AND Jessica Biel. In the same month. And no, that was not a misstatement.

    Carbon dating doesn’t count.

  110. 110
    MBunge says:

    “Hillary represents things I don’t particularly like but I know her history. I know she’s capable and I trust she isn’t going to go apeshit in the office. She’s the safe choice.”

    Here’s Hillary’s history. She was put in charge of health care reform in the 90s and turned it into a debacle of historic proportions. She spent the rest of Bill’s administration being in the general vicinity when other people were making decisions. She was then basically handed a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the country and has been an utterly unremarkable Senator since, including her going along with so many others in authorizing the Iraq war.

    Now just look at her campaign, where she started out with a 20 point lead and EVERY POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE ANY CANDIDATE COULD EVER WANT OR NEED…only to find herself on the losing end and essentially needing a miracle to win.

    Doesn’t Hillary’s performance in this campaign, where she’s sucked at everything except debates (and those were debates where no one was going after her very hard), undermine every preconceived notion of Hillary’s capabilities?

    Mike

  111. 111
    tim says:

    Hey Jen, you dumbass:

    I never said I was a Clinton supporter, did I? Huh? Did I? Huh, you idiot?

    I just enjoy watching and commenting on the hysterical stupidity that passes for political discourse in this country.

    Interestingly enough, you sound both hysterical AND stupid.

  112. 112
    Tlaloc says:

    “Here’s Hillary’s history…”

    And yet she *far* outshines Obama in this regard. Given how bad you evidently think she is on this front, what does that say about him?

  113. 113
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    That being the case is this really the time to hand power over to a Neophyte? The US is at (hopefully) a modern nadir in terms of world respect, political influence, military strength, geopolitical advantage, et cetera. I really think the next president is going to have to tackle more and bigger problems than any modern president. The economy is a shambles. The military is beat to hell. The middle east is stirred up and chaotic. Russia is making more and more disturbing moves. China is flexxing some muscle. North Korea… is North Korea, and hence insane. The internal controls of government have been neutered by 8 years of sloppy management and cronyism. The DoJ is politicized and distrusted. Energy/food prices are killing the poor.

    It isn’t one big challenge like the cold war or Vietnam. It’s ten thousand medium to big challenges and the next president is going to have to deftly handle all of them.

    That’s not a time when I think we should play “roll the dice.”

    Tlaloc,

    The is a substantial point that I take seriously. Thank you very much for bringing something to the table like this. I don’t have time for a long response now, hopefully later. The short version is that at the beginning of the primary campaign I thought the same thing. I liked Hillary because of the experience, and we are in perilous times right now. Several things changed my mind:

    (1) The govt is far more than just the POTUS. Look at W’s administration – much of the damage has been done by guys like David Addington and John Yoo and Wolfie and Gonzales and all sorts of other people most of whom voters had never heard of before 2000. We select an administration as much as we select a POTUS. Take a look at the two campaigns, Obama’s and HRC’s – ask yourself which one has been better run, against steeper odds. Then tell me who you think will do a better job of picking talent to staff the executive branch.

    (2) Much of the damage and or peril we need to deal with will require getting legislation passed, and the behavior of the GOP since 2006 suggests we need a minimum of 60 votes in the Senate. We either elect more Dems in red states and purple states, or the President has to sweet talk the Reps. in the Senate, like the way Reagan got Dems to vote for his iniatives during the 1980’s. Which of Obama or HRC can do a better job in either of these areas?

  114. 114
    Tlaloc says:

    Left turn-

    1) The best arguments I hear against Hillary generally revolve around her advisors. People like Shrum and Carville, you know- assholes. I think it’s a valid point. I wouldn’t say Obama’s circle blows me away but it is a decided step up from Hillary’s.

    2) Honestly Hillary has a pretty good record of working in the senate across the aisle depite how much venom the right hurls at her. That impresses the hell out of me. Let’s face it no republican senator is going to score points with his party by saying he worked with the woman they regularly cast as Faust’s mentor.

    Now Obama had a good record in the Illinois Senate but that doesn’t mean much to me. In the first place state politics just aren’t the same. In the second Illinois is right up there with Louisiana in terms of corrupt state governments. Mostly though it’s just that I very much doubt the state Illinois GOP pushed anywhere as hard as the National party will to sink him. Obama is certainly a charismatic speaker but I really don’t see any proof that he can twist arms, and the Senate republicans will *not* roll over for sweet talk.

    Short version- Obama did well in a reasonably friendly environment. Clinton did well in the most hostile environment imaginable.

  115. 115
    Tlaloc says:

    Ah if only most discussion of their relative merits were as pleasant. :)

  116. 116
    Brachiator says:

    Who the fuck does Senator Clinton think she is?
    And I mean this with all due respect. Here is the latest bit of imperious nonsense (Obama releases tax returns, says Clinton should too):

    Clinton, in Pennsylvania campaigning for the state’s primary on April 22, told reporters she hoped her returns would be released within the next week. But she and campaign aides pressed Obama to release records from his days in the Illinois legislature and his earlier tax returns.

    “I am pleased that Senator Obama has released his tax returns. I think that’s a good first step,” Clinton said in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. “Now he should release his records from being in the state Senate and any other information that the public and the press need to know.”

    Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said she already had released more than 20 years of tax returns and hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the White House.

  117. 117
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Ah if only most discussion of their relative merits were as pleasant.

    The feeling is mutual. It is so nice to debate with somebody who leans towards HRC without vitriol. I’ll try to engage the points you’ve posted above in a thoughtful way later tonight.

    For now all I’ve got is a continuation of my previous comment with additional factors that are important for me in evaluating all the candidates are:

    (3) Grass roots party building, especially at the local and state level. Many new voters, both younger voters and voters previously disengaged from politics, have come out in the primaries. Based on exit poll data more than half of them are voting for Obama, although I do have to give Hillary credit for bringing out large numbers of women (many of them younger voters) both to vote for her and in seeing her as a career role model that encourages them to get involved in politics.

    The Democratic party has a historic opportunity to establish itself as a favored brand with this younger generation. For many people their political identities and party loyalties are formed early and remain remarkably stable thereafter. We would be fools to pass up the chance offered in this election to encourage a Democratic party affiliation on the part of voters who will begin to dominate future elections in 2016 and beyond (as the Boomers age).

    Which candidate is better positioned with this group?

    (4) Shared sacrifice. Many of the problems we are facing, especially economic ones, cannot be solved with policy tools alone. Cultural changes and adjustments are needed – the American people need to learn to do a better job of living within our means and making less profligate use of the resources we do have. I really think this is going to be the single most daunting challenge the next POTUS faces – how to ask us to stop wasting our efforts whining and fighting with one another, suck it up and get the job done.

    Which candidate do you think can do a better job of telling hard truths to the American people, and asking us to get past our discomfort, role up our sleeves, and get to work fixing things – and not just by expecting the govt. to do it for us, but rather by echoing JFK’s inaugural?

    Which one of these candidates can you better envision giving an FDR style “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” speech if things really fall apart on us with the economy?

    more to follow later…

  118. 118
    Tlaloc says:

    Left turn-
    I’m not always watching these forums. Feel free to drop by Swordscrossed.org (where Obama tends to get the most support, btw). :)

  119. 119
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Left turn-
    I’m not always watching these forums. Feel free to drop by Swordscrossed.org (where Obama tends to get the most support, btw).

    Tlaloc,

    I understand. These multi-hundred count threads do get tedious after a while. Thanks for the invite and I’ll drop by some time. I usually lurk for a while (before posting) to get a feel for the style of a blog that is new to me, so it might be a little bit before you hear from me over there. Not as long as the 2 years I spent lurking here at BJ before posting, but it might take a few days/weeks.

    Thanks for the civil exchange. We need a lot more of those. Best of luck to you!

  120. 120

    I followed John’s link to Taylor Marsh and read that post…then I read a large chunk of the comments. This is pure Swiftboating and BO is worse about it…

    My brain cells quit cooperating with it after awhile, and I’m not an Obama fan. Myiq is positively scintillating and a person of the utmost reason – well, in comparison anyhow.

  121. 121
    wobbly says:

    There is nothing deranged about the Clinton camp.

    They are toughing out the system, playing to the crowds, gaining votes, staying in the race BECAUSE DESPITE ALL THE CRAP we read, hear, and want to believe, a lot of people have voted for her, and will continue to do so, because a lot of what she says makes a whole lot of sense.

    What’s deranged, in my opinion, is this whining from the “newbies” excited by Obama, enticed for the first time in their pathetically self-centered, uniformed, self-indulgent lives to like…get off their asses and VOTE in a friggin’ PRIMARY…Jeez, you BLOG about this?

    Oh my God, you finally got up off your ass, voted, went home, and waited for your man to win. As a result of your personal investment in the process???

Comments are closed.