Of course Mark Penn said that Obama can’t win the general election and I am not sure why this is such a big deal. That is essentially what the Clinton camp has been saying since Super Tuesday. It is, in fact the thrust of their entire campaign at this point- Obama can’t win the big one, he can’t win the big states, that is why it is justified for super-delegates to vote for Hillary and not for Obama, who has the most delegates, has won the popular vote, and has won the most states.
I don’t know why anyone thinks this is controversial- of course he said it, as that is what they have been saying all along. At some level, though, I think it does boil down to this:
At the risk of being offensive, etcetera, it’s because they can’t scream “nigger!”
I know. Bad word. But it’s the word that they are GOING CRAZY from not being able to say, and, thus, this.
Has anyone else noticed this shitstorm of absolute and utter trivial nonsense? I mean, Geraldine Ferraro finally screamed her lunatic meme (“He’s only leading because he’s a black man”) and everybody flibbered and flabbered about the 1000 pound gorilla in the room. Obama was right: it was “ridiculous.” But the crypto-racist press can’t grow up and can’t move on, and so they endlessly parse, in hopes that they can scream the word they desperately want to scream.
That is what I have grown to see as the not so subtle argument of the Clinton campaign- America isn’t going to vote for a black man in the general election. It is their own version of fear-mongering- the Republicans have terrorism, the Clintons have the fear of a third Bush term. Be afraid, and vote for Hillary, because America is the ugly place you don’t want it to be.
*** Update ***
Listen to this interview (via Sully). Hillary Clinton is insane. I don’t know what else to conclude after listening to her state, the Michigan and Florida elections were fair, to state that she never claimed McCain was experienced and Obama was not, to claim she has not hinted that Obama would be her VP. It was like Say Anything, the political edition. Sullivan is right- she is a sociopath. There really is no other way to describe it.
wvng
As sully said a short while ago: “I wonder if the Clintons understand what they are doing to people – people who weren’t Clinton-haters in the first place, people whose votes they need.”
I have gone from being a strong Clinton supporter who was happy with all our candidates to an Obama supporter who would happily vote for Hillary as the nominee to an Obama supporter who might not be able to support Hillary. And yes I know that she would be a vastly better President than McCain but I am simply starting to despise her.
It is a remarkable thing that their campaign has done. Possibly even unprecedented.
But not in a good way.
Zifnab
Nah, I think you’re reading too much racism into this (well, except for the Ferraro comment – she was just being a dumb bitch on that one). Hillary continues to think – despite all evidence to the contrary – that only she can win the Presidency because only she is Hillary Rodem Clinton.
If she’d been facing John Edwards or Chris Dodd or Dennis Kuccinich or the freak’n Pope or whomever, her argument would be the same. Manifest Destiny. She’s the woman for the job. The woman has been running for President since she was 16 years old. Her campaign is just a personification of that ego. She’ll say anything, do anything, to win it. But she’s no more racist than anyone else in America.
“He’s black” is just another way of her saying “He’s not me”.
libarbarian
Its also a long-term tactical move if Obama gets the nomination but loses the general because she can then do to the party what Obama is currently doing to her – “I was right, and all of you were wrong, on the most important decision that the Democratic Party faced in decades. Next time, listen to me!”.
I cant read minds but she is behaving exactly as she would if she wanted McCain to win, in the event that she doesn’t get the nomination, because she wants to run in 2012.
dslak
Zifnab, you don’t have to be racist to exploit racism for your own political benefit. I don’t think Clinton herself is a racist. Nor were many Republicans who have exploited racism for political gain.
Pb
That would be the Lee Atwater school of campaigning:
lockean
It’s funny how the sort of people who were saying America wouldn’t vote for a black candidate now claim black candidates have an advantage.
Pb
dslak,
I’d argue that if that isn’t somehow racist, then it’s worse. Not racist, but happy to perpetuate racism anyhow? Gee, thanks.
dslak
I wasn’t saying it’s better. Both Bill Clinton and Bush are personally tolerant of homosexuals, but have been willing to exploit their hopes to have legal recognition of their relationships and all the rights and benefits that entails, for short-term political gains.
Far be it from me to suggest that that’s better than actual homophobia.
Wilfred
Race baiter, sociopath, serial liar – but you’ll vote for her anyway. Great.
When people stand up and say – No.I.Won’t. – she’s finished. In the meantime, you’re just enabling her sociopathy.
Rarely Posts
Nice. In one post you’ve made everyone that supports Hillary a racist or one who uses black people, if there is a difference.
Thanks, man.
firebrand
FINALLY! It may have taken you a while to get there John, but you’re where the rest of us are now.
dslak
This statement is nonsense itself, but I think that Often Hacks is suggesting that it is beyong belief that anyone would accuse someone like Hillary of using race for her own political advantage. Hillary’s not some uppity Negro, after all!
Good to see that Often Hacks is back at it.
Davebo
So the only group left supporting Clinton is her campaign advisors?
Wow!
jack-of-all-thumbs
Also moving along the path described by wvng above, I too was stunned as I listened to Hillary’s interview this morning. The questioner was more direct than usual, forcing her to flatly lie about multiple things she’s said in recent weeks. Though I’m new to Balloon Juice, I pay a fair amount of attention to political matters. Yet I was struck by the insightful analysis of the comments to this single post: dslak’s note of the use of racism by someone who’s not necessarily racist, libarbarian’s look at Clinton’s behavior through the lens of 2012, and lockean’s have-it-both-ways assessment of Obama’s opponents with regards to his race (almost identical to their response to his religion, hinting that he’s a non-Christian while slamming his ties to his Christian minister). I’ll be visiting more often.
ThymeZone
I’m afraid this is so, and some of us have been saying it here basically for a month and a half.
All our threads now are belong to the Hillaspoofs, such as RarelyPosts, who are just doing this nose-in-air routine as if somehow their candidate is, you know, above all this.
Just like McCain who sniffs and pretends that he is above corruption and influence in his relationships with lobbyists.
The reason why Hillary campaigns for McCain, and claims that he and she are the only True Candidates in the race is because they both belong to the same Liars Club, the club of people who “get” lying and being lied to and doing whatever it takes. These are the Ends Justify Means politicians and officials.
It’s organized lying. Don’t you understand how this works? The GOP lies about FISA and tells you that we need their idiotic measures to protect us, and the Dems go along with the ruse. The game is that the GOP and Dems swap the hits they take on the liberty issues, and wink at each other knowing that it’s all a game aimed at keeping us, the rubes, just a little off our feet and just slightly scared that maybe we should just let the government do what it needs to do and not be bothered with us. Did you think that the failure to rein the government in was just an oversight or a failure of character? It’s all part of the deal.
If anyone thinks for a second that Hillary Clinton is going to stand up to the Lying Machine for you, or for us, all I can say is, I feel sorry for you.
Rarely Posts
Not being able to scream nigger.
You guys are too much.
Has anyone in US History used as a primary campaign strategy that their opponent wouldn’t able to win in a general election? I’m really curious about this because I was under the impression that it was a pretty common strategy.
Anyone know?
Kirk Spencer
Wilfred,
The problem – and it’s a huge problem – is that if the choice comes down to HRC or McCain… HRC is in my mind the better option.
It is analogous to saying I’d rather have measles instead of polio.
The easy-to-say solution is either don’t vote or vote for a third party. Opt out, or choose someone who cannot win. Both of which mean I’m probably going to end up with polio (in this analogy).
Now, if the Republican brand name goes through one more presidential cycle with the same poor approval levels, there is actually a good shot at a third-party becoming viable. Which creates the possibility of MORE than one viable alternative – for a while, anyway. But not this year.
So this year, if HRC wins the Dem nomination I will probably vote for her. Only because the alternative is worse.
Dennis - SGMM
“It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.”
— An American major after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre.
“It became necessary to destroy my party in order to save me.”
— Hillary Clinton rationalizing her campaign tactics.
Notorious P.A.T.
And yes I know that she would be a vastly better President than McCain
May I respectfully ask: why?
Her position on the Iraq war is the same as McCain’s. Her campaign has been a travesty–she took first place and a commanding lead and parlayed it into imminent defeat from a relative newcomer. When things get tough she lashes out, or whines, or throws race into the mix. This is not who I want as president.
joe in oklahoma
she does seem to be a sociopath.
we have another sociopath in the White House right now.
we don’t need another.
Dennis - SGMM
And yes I know that she would
be awear vastlybetter Presidentmore pants suits than McCain…Just a suggestion.
Ted
You’re going to attract comments from myiq2xu with that!
Via Sadly,No!, take a look at TalkLeft. I’ve never frequented that blog in the past, but I might have to now just to watch the rabid Hillary fans spin all this shit. It’s Hillary Haven over there.
zack
That’s funny, I hear them screaming it all the time – oh, sure, they use a dog-whistle so the sound is audible only to those who frightened silly by the sight of a dark person – but they’re screaming it nevertheless.
Heck, even David Duke doesn’t use that word anymore, he doesn’t have to; nor does he need a white hood to protect his identity, a suit is just fine. What he does need to do is use “code words” and he’s still able to get his message across just fine.
No, Ferraro didn’t actually use the term Affirmative Action Boy to describe Obama, but the message was received loud and clear.
You just have to want to hear it. And, sadly, that’s the case for quite a few Hillary supporters.
Dan
What wvng said. Back in the 90s I was very vocal in my opinion that she would have made a better President than Bill. That was no backhanded compliment: at the time, I liked Bill. But because of her actions, if she wins the nomination I am honestly not sure whether I will vote for her or abstain entirely. But I am leaning toward the latter more and more every day.
Can we agree on one thing here though? Clinton has, intentionally or not, done plenty to make her campaign seem racist. How about if we all avoid calling her a bitch or making any other comments that could be easily interpreted as misogynistic? There are plenty of valid reasons not to like Clinton; being a woman is not one of them and there is no good reason to create that impression.
Rarely Posts
It’s Rarely Posts. See the space?
ThymeZone – I don’t think Hillary is above it all. I also don’t think she’s a sociopath that is afraid to scream nigger. And I don’t think Obama is a reflection of the people that post all these negative, hate filled rants against Hillary.
Have a nice evening.
dslak
It’s Often Hacks. See the hackery?
Chuck Butcher
No, Hillary is not a sociopath, I don’t like her a bit, but she’s not that. She is a political opportunist of the same school that Rove and Newt and some Dems are. Take no prisoners, take no reponsibility, and devil take the hindmost. It is neither new nor is it suddenly unacceptable in certain circles. Certainly there is a mindset there, it’s an old one, “the ends justify the means.” It’s real easy to justify troublemaking if you figure you’ll make all better once you’ve won.
Look, Whitewater came down to crummy ethics being made alright by the profit at the end, not crummy ethics for their own sake. Republican opportunism in that issue wasn’t that lying and harrasment were good in their own right, but that the outcome of hamstringing the opponent made it alright.
Damn, what the Clinton campaign is doing to the Democratic Party, DNC, and the electorate infuriates me. But you cannot combat something by seeing it as something other than what it is. You fall into the trap BushCo is in regarding Iraq, they did not look at what was, rather something else. It may feel good to call Hillary a sociopath, but try making that argument to voters. On the other hand naked political opportunism is something they can wrap their heads around and that can be supported by evidence. It will not sway people engaging in messianic thinking, no matter who a candidate is, but large swathes of the electorate are not that type. The “undecideds” are particularly not that type, they are deeply skeptical of any politician and even any Party. You want them, then don’t sound like or look like a loon, first or a rabid partisan.
Over half of the Hillary supporters on these comment forums sound exactly like loons and a good portion of the Obama people as well. Neither is persuasive. They’re messianic in their thinking and their representations of their candidates. It’s silliness, both these people are POLITICIANS not Christ returned. They have operated in a deeply flawed system and society and flourished to the extent that they can credibly run for President. Damn.
BFR
Even though I really don’t like Hillary, I’ll play the role of Hillbot for today – I think this is a load of horseshit. Hillary Clinton has a lifelong ambition to be president. She is at a point now where it is slipping through her (and her supporters’) fingers which has to be agonizing.
However, she looks at the process and concludes that she still has an opportunity to become president, so she and her campaign are figuring out ways they can win and doing the best they can to articulate why she should be the nominee.
She’s in a losing position, so her arguments are going to seem increasingly ludicrous (like 9iu11ani’s were towards the end) but it’s not by choice – it’s by necessity.
She can either go all-in or bow out. I were in her shoes, I’d probably be going all-in as well – and I’m a well-adjusted Obama supporter, thank you very much. It’s her last chance of realizing her ambitions. It’s Obama’s job to poke holes in her campaign, not hers.
Dennis - SGMM
I gave in. Rarely, Sojourner, DugJay, PaulL and pluk are pie posting for the foreseeable future. I am not without a sense of humor: myiq’s comments still show as they were posted.
Wilfred
A better analogy is that it’s like committing suicide to avoid being killed. Much better to live, this by forcing her out now, making it clear that she CANNOT count on support if she wins the nomination by submarining Obama, gaming the system and treating voters like ignorant peasants.
dslak
Surely Sojourner doesn’t deserve to be pie-scripted. I think she’s a bit trigger happy on the “OMG! MISOGYNY!” meme, but she’s no hack or troll.
Dennis - SGMM
I suppose it’s a matter of perception. It’s also a matter of economy: once you’ve read one of Sojourner’s posts you’ve pretty much read them all.
Martin
Hillary is a political sociopath. Let’s not get carried away here.
True, but its the manner in which they make that case that counts. Hillary started with ‘all words’, she tried ‘no solutions’, ‘no experience’, she tried ‘ideas you can xerox’, ‘CinC threshold’, and all kinds of delegate math explanations. She’s tried a LOT of ways to make that case, and they are annoying and disingenuous at times and hypocritical at other times, but they were politics and fair game – and unfortunately for her they haven’t really worked too well. Certainly not as well as she needed. She could have tried other things, but Obama doesn’t give her much to work with that doesn’t also work against her. Obama has been wise to keep standing close to her ‘our policies are 95% the same’ because it gives Hillary no room to operate. You can’t push a guy down the stairs when he’s tied to you at the hip. I honestly think she hit him on everything that was available – his words, his crowds, his speech composition, the experience difference which mostly involves her time in the WH, the health care differences, NAFTA, and the perception that he offered no solutions. What else is there? He didn’t attack her enough for her to leverage even that and he hasn’t made any terribly egregious errors. I guess she could have hit him on Rezko, but Bill has far more loose threads in his foundation to pull on (that likely lead nowhere as Rezko does) which would probably backfire.
But starting right around Texas is when thing got dire and it’s around then that it started to seem the impulse was to yell ‘nigger’ – basically the only thing left to differentiate them. Not because she meant it, but because she needed *something* and something big, and that was all that was left so Ferraro was called on to swallow the gun because she did it once before. The question is whether it will work?
dslak
I’m tired of this misogynistic crap from Obama supporters, but I know that they don’t reflect poorly on Obama (who can’t win the general, poor man!).
Delia
Last night I took a spin through some formerly fine blogs I used to frequent. No Quarter, which used to offer excellent military and middle east analysis, is now of course nothing but anti-Obama tabloids all the time. Things like Talkleft and Taylor Marsh we know about. Another one I used to like, Tennessee Guerrilla Women I discovered was also filled with hillbots, these informing me that if I’m a feminist woman I have to be campaigning for Hillary because she’s the hope of women everywhere.
And the thing is, none of the hillbots will entertain the slightest suggestion that their idol ever ever does anything wrong. They will slavishly justify her most egregious and obvious lies and false steps. It’s always somebody else’s fault. I don’t detect that mentality here with Obama, to be honest. People are quite willing to jump on his faults and missteps. The latest thing they’re screaming about is Keith Olbermann, who exhorted Hillary to come back to the fold of those who play nice in his special comment last night. They’re all screaming like wingnuts that they’ll never watch MSNBC again. Oh, well . . . .
John Cole
Hey- I happen to like Sojourner, so be nice. As a matter of fact, I like most of you. Don’t confuse my bellicose and cranky nature with my feelings regarding people and their value.
I should probably add, I am exceptionally pissy today. I have an outer ear infection, was prescribed medicine, and not one of 15 pharmacies has my medicine. I have to overnight it while waiting. in agony.
BFR
PA will probably make it look like it’s working and all the talking heads will scream ‘Hillmentum!!’ and then she’ll get clobbered in OR, NC etc and then it’ll be over and we can all stop talking about it and focus on what a jackalope McCain is.
Rarely Posts
Really…you think she got Ferraro to say that, huh? Do you also think Obama got the minister to say those things about Clinton?
I doubt it seriously in either case. Seriously. If you have some evidence to offer I’d like to see it, otherwise I think it is wrong of you to post such comments.
Chris Johnson
Jeez. I hope you feel better soon, John. That sounds awful.
empty
Hell, why don’t we just call her the devil incarnate and give up all pretense of rational discourse.
zzyzx
I post on Talk Left all the time. I’m terrified about staying in the bubble of people who believe with me so I always make a point of engaging with people with whom I don’t.
Of course I remember when this site and Andrew Sullivan were my rational conservative sites… it doesn’t work when the people you’re arguing with suddenly agree with you :)
Conservatively Liberal
Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton’s campaign manager at the time, said this last year when the DNC blocked the results from Florida and Michigan due to the scheduled primary dates:
So her campaign agrees with the DNC decision and signs the pledge not to campaign or participate in those races. The pledge states:
Now here is Hillary herself said last October on a radio show in New Hampshire when asked why she did not remove her name from the Michigan ballot when Edwards and Obama had:
Ok, so it is clear to her that the results of the Michigan primary was not going to count, right? So what does Hillary say in an interview today?
In other words, she says what she needs to say when the situation calls for it. Some refer to this as ‘situational ethics’, and it is familiar ground for those who do not speak the truth. Hillary said what she had to before the primaries started so the lead states would know that they were the ones that mattered. Once she got past those initial races and found out that those states did not treat her as she expected, she pulls her ace out of her sleeve and starts demanding that Michigan and Florida be counted.
IMO, she is plainly and simply a bold faced liar. As John said, a sociopath. She cares little about anything or anyone, it is all about her. She will say or do anything to win, and now she is framing the Florida and Michigan ‘problems’ as Obama’s fault. Not removing her name from the ballot in Michigan was a calculated move on her part. She chose to stay and ‘participate’ in Michigan when Edwards and Obama in good faith pulled their names from the ballot there. She was not acting in good faith, and now she makes it clear that it was a calculated decision on her part. A ‘wise’ decision.
We do not need that kind of wise in office. She signed a pledge and deliberately violated it. That she can sit there and argue with a straight face that the Michigan and Florida delegations are fair and should be seated as it should tell you that she defines what is fair and what is not. Again, another example of Clinton Rules.
(H/T to BoBo2020 at Kos)
Sasha
Shamelessly lifted from NPR. Now this kind of snark is the smack talk I want to see more of from candidates.
Obama Campaign Skewers Clinton E-mail Statement
Wednesday morning, the Clinton campaign sent reporters and bloggers covering the campaign a statement that consisted of questions and comments under the title of “Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground.”
The Obama campaign’s communications department decided to annotate those questions and comments with some comments of their own… and boy, they held nothing back.
Below you’ll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign’s comments are in bold.
To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]
The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?
[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]
After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far — every state except his home state of Illinois.
[If you define “setback” as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]
Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.
[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE’VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we’re still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only “important” states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]
But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.
[Huh?]
This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.
[I don’t think Clinton’s strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]
In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans — all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.
[“A candidacy past its prime.” These guys kill me.]
For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.
But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups.
[That’s true, if you don’t count all the winning we’ve been up to. As it turns out, it’s difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]
In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.
[I’m sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I’m sure Rush Limbaugh’s full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn’t make any difference. Right]
Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?
[You mean besides the fact that we’re ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]
In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.
[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]
So the late deciders — those making up their minds in the last days before the election — have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.
[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]
If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.
[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us … I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]
[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]
p.lukasiak
The problem is that both race and gender play a big role in how people vote.
The recent SUSA poll state-by-state crosstabs show as much. In most states, there is a much larger difference between how men and women vote when Clinton and Obama are matched against McCain (the gender gap is much larger when Clinton is the nominee.)
In general, the race issue seems to be related to the percentage of african americans among the voting (and one assumes, general) population. In states whith few african americans, white voters tend to give greater support to Obama — when the proportion of black voters reaches about 10%, the pattern shifts, and more white voters prefer Clinton. (I’m going to be writing this up eventually…)
Hillary Clinton is already clearly defined in the minds of male voters — and she’s probably bottomed out and can only go up in terms of her appeal to male voters. Obama is not clearly defined — and a GOP ‘dog-whistle’ campaign that appeals to the subconscious racism of a large part of the electorate is not unlikely to succeed.
ntr Fausto Carmona
John Kerry says, “What the heck did you think ‘electability’ meant?”
ThymeZone
Oh man, Otitis Externa! Painful and infuriating.
Swimmer’s Ear, as they call it.
Hang in there, you will feel better within 12-24 hours of taking your antibiotic.
Sasha
Dunno about that. I’m one of those who’ve undergone the would-gladly-vote-for-her, would-vote-for-her, would-vote-against-McCain cycle in regards to Hillary and I know that I could walk farther down that road. I suspect many guys feel that she could indeed dig deeper.
Obama has shown that he can win over large amounts of white voters with enough effort (eg: the Iowa caucuses).
Martin
Was Ferraro on her staff or not? Is Wright on Obama’s or did you just promote him?
Is Ferraro part of her political team? Is Wright on Obama’s or did you take a member of the clergy and make them a political target?
Did Ferraro hit the pundit and news circuit with her comments knowing they’d be broadcast? Did Wright say those things to anyone outside of that room?
When asked on NBC news why she quit the campaign, her reply was that she wanted to keep it out of the news. While being on the news. This wasn’t a slip, she didn’t want to keep it out of the news. She went on O’Reilly even.
The comments were timed to use the MS results to bolster her claim. This was a calculated move.
And if you want a parallel to Wright’s statements, bring us back video tape of what Clinton’s minister has been saying, please.
Why is it wrong that I accuse a politician of playing politics with race? Ferraro was on her staff. A prominent member. Said these things. Wasn’t fired or denounced for 4 days while she kept saying them. We know that Ferraro said just the opposite a year before so the charge isn’t true by their own thinking. We know that they must be aware that Clinton held the lead on black voters shortly before going into Iowa and that the charge isn’t true on the facts. What other conclusion would we draw?
raff
You know what’s ironic? Over the years liberal bloggers have opined for a candidate that could get down in the gutter & fight conservatives eye for an eye, using the right’s basest tactics against them.
Well, liberals, you got your wish but it turned out to be a monkey’s paw. Hilary is exactly that candidate to get down & dirty, to do whatever it takes to win & sink to the right’s level to do it. Unfortunately, she’s focusing her efforts on one of her own. Not only that, she’s tacitly/implicitly supporting McCain along the way (‘There’s 2 out of 3 people in this race that are presidential material & guess what? Neither of them are black!’).
So, to all liberals: Hilary is what it looks like when a liberal adopts rightwing tactics to win at any cost… even at a cost to her own party. To all conservatives: Please stuff your outrage. If you want to get pissed about something, then whine that Hilary is stealing your tactics & talking points… that, at least, would be an honest arguement.
If & when Obama becomes the dem candidate, you can expect McCain’s campaign & surrogates to not only recycle Hilary’s primary anti-Obama dog-whistles, but come up with a lot more of their own. I can only hope I see the same amount of vitriol aimed at McCain when that happens as is aimed at Clinton right now.
zzyzx
“If & when Obama becomes the dem candidate, you can expect McCain’s campaign & surrogates to not only recycle Hilary’s primary anti-Obama dog-whistles, but come up with a lot more of their own.”
I’m no longer sure I believe that. All of the silliness right now largely comes out of the fact that Clinton and Obama agree on everything. They need to come up with some reason why we should vote for one over the other.
McCain vs Obama would have enough issue differences that I could see the campaign focus there. There’s also the issue that McCain and Obama are both campaigning as a nice candidate; losing that image could hurt either one. Clinton never went that route so there’s only so much she can lose by going negative.
CFisher
Oh, I don’t think she’s the Devil. I think she’s the GOP’s wet dream.
ntr Fausto Carmona
There is an easy way to describe it: Desperation.
Put it this way: The Clinton campaign saw Ohio and Texas as more than just firewalls. Win there, and they could reverse Obama’s February momentum and start their march of triumph. So they threw everything above board – and a little below – that they could into those two contests. Mission accomplished: Clinton gets both primary contests, including a big win in Ohio.
Only they didn’t quite think their cunning plan all the way through. It turns out, the momentum isn’t working like they thought it would. A week later, and we’re back to where we were before March 4th: Obama leading in fundraising, national polls, and – most importantly – walking away with the smaller contests.
Plan A: Super Tuesday failed. They won Plan B: March 4th tactically, but didn’t make a dent strategically. Now the shot clock is off and they’re scrambling for Plan C. There’s no way they can win on delegates or momentum, so now its all about persuading/scaring/conning the superdelegates by any means neccessary. Pure desperation.
People are starting to notice too. Clinton’s already lost smaller stars of the party like kos and Keith Olbermann. What happens when she starts losing bigger names like John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore?
ntr Fausto Carmona
Augh, ow, augh. That sounds worse than awful.
Rick Taylor
They certainly lost me. I’ve been wondering for a long while what all the frothing at the mouth about Clinton from so many right wing writers has been about. I’m still not ready to call her a sociopath, I still don’t think she compares with Rove or the GOP for sheer win-at-any-costs maneuvering (McCain’s illegitimate baby. . ..purple heart bandages for Kerry. . ) but I’ve gone from supporting her in the primaries to being appalled at her tactics, and wishing Obama would do well enough so that she’d drop out. I doubt I’m alone.
tBone
Welcome. I have just one tip: stay away from the open threads if you don’t want to be disillusioned. Especially that Spitzer hooker one from yesterday.
I agree. If we started pie-scripting everyone who stubbornly continued to argue their position no matter how many people piled on, Balloon Juice would be pages 1-300 in a Google search for “pie.”
I think you should apply your prodigious analytical skills to horse racing. Pick out the horse you think is closest to Glue Heaven and put everything you have on it. Sure, you’ll probably lose, and badly – but hey, if you beat the odds, you’ll be a huge winner!
Martin
The problem with the FL/MI argument is that people are arguing it from Hillary’s frame. So what if she said/didn’t say something. That doesn’t mean they should or shouldn’t be seated, just that people should stop listening to her.
Florida shouldn’t be seated because Florida fucked up. Florida Democratic party fucked up and sold out their voters and now want to pin the blame on Obama and Dean for their fuck-up. Here’s the latest
So, rather than hold the Florida Dems accountable for selling out their voters, they want to hold Dean and Obama accountable instead, and that’s pissing off every other state party because they’ll have been punished for not trying to pull the same stunt.
Xenos
It would be a hell of a lot less likely to succeed if Hillary, who has already lost this race, was not out promoting a neo-Atwater crypto-racist set of memes.
Try this on for electability: the black folks and all white progressives under the age of 40 sit out the election. Have a nice nice November, jackass. We will be busy setting up the Social Democratic Party, maybe the New Democratic Party (hat tip to the folks up North) – maybe we will call it the Democratic Constitutional Party (Kerensky’s old outfit, one would hope it would survive longer).
In conclusion: Don’t piss in our punch bowl. If you do, we can drop some turds in yours.
The Grand Panjandrum
Before Clinton or Obama fans stomp off whining “I will never vote for …” it might do some good to remember that this is the alternative.
(h/t Mike Lux @ Open Left)
p.lukasiak
Obama won 38% of the caucus goers in Iowa — there is no entrance polling data on race in Iowa, but given its demographics its safe to say that he won around 38% of the white caucus goers in a crowded field.
But two weeks later, in Nevada, when the field was far less crowded, he won only 34% of the white caucus goers.
moreoever, as I noted, in general Obama does far better among whites where the percentage of african americans is low. Despite his overwhelming victory against Clinton in Virginia, Obama only gets 37% (3% better than Clinton) among whites in the general election match-up, despite winning the white vote in the Virginia primary 52-47%.
I’m not saying that Obama is unelectable because of his race, any more than I’m saying that Clinton is unelectable because of her gender. All I’m saying is that, because Obama is not clearly defined in the minds of most people, he presents a far greater risk because of the potential success of “dog whistle” campaigning.
TheFountainHead
p.luk, take your concern for Obama’s campaign and shove it where the corn don’t grow! We all know how much you really give a shit.
On that note, where in the name of all that is profane and fucked up is the Democratic leadership?? Can’t they see what the end result of all this is!?!?
The Commander Guy
I can’t say she is a sociopath. I’m not qualified. But it looks more evident everyday that she is willing to burn her own house down before she lets Barack win. Its amoral, but does that have to do with anything, if it gets in the way of HER ascendancy.
Machiavelli says that virtue and honor have limited place in politics, because acting virtuously for the sake of being virtuous gets you canned in the long run, because the other side will use it against you jujitsu style. The Clintons know this and accordingly have abandoned this antiquated notion.
So Obama should expect more beatings and more mud from Penn and cast of clowns. And he’s gotta be ready to deflect it.
Perry Como
Perhaps a creative Clinton supporter can do a remake of Badger, Mushroom with the words “nigger” and “Muslim”.
p.a.
As a Patriots fan, Hillary’s campaign reminds me of that ugly day in February; the Patsies took the field expecting to win, only to get punched in the face right at the start. They floundered and flailed around looking for solutions, but changing tactics doesn’t necessarily matter if you are the inferior team. (Consider this praise for Obama’s ‘ground game’). The Pats did right the ship late, but lost in the end when they had at least three chances to make game-winning plays and made none. Not a perfect analogy because I don’t think Hillary et al have really righted the ship, but the clock is ticking and it’s desperation time.
And desperate times show true character- or in Hillary’s case lack thereof.
p.lukasiak
really? Which set of memes is Clinton out promoting?
The simple fact is that any substantive criticism of Obama regarding his preparation for the job will have a greater impact than the same criticism leveled at a white male — not because there is any racist intent, but because a large percentage of whites see black people an an “other” — someone that they cannot assume is the same as them. White women already see Obama as an “other” because of his gender; and where the criticism of his preparation is most effective is with white males, because they have a harder time identifying with a black male than with a white male.
BFR
Not really the most civil comment but wanted to respond anyhow. It’s not really newsworthy to note that the GOP would try to paint Obama into one of a couple of different boxes:
1) Crooked Chicago pol
2) Angry Black man
3) Closet muslim
4) Far-left peacenik
Clinton, as Pluk states is more clearly defined, they can just throw ‘crooked + far left’ at her and hope it works, there’s not much else they can do and not much long-term risk.
Obama on the other hand, probably scares them more since ‘crooked+peacenik’ doesn’t get them all the way there. If they bring in either of the other two, they run the risk of being permanantly branded as the redneck cracker party. This gets them on the outs for a Hoover-esque period.
I suspect that there is a decent percentage (even going beyond Limbaugh who has obvious financial incentiveS) who would rather lose to Clinton than beat Obama.
My point being, I think it’s not out of line to think that Clinton is a better bet if you want to win now, while Obama is perhaps a better bet if you want to risk 2008 for the shot at crippling the modern GOP.
p.lukasiak
Democratic leadership?? Can’t they see what the end result of all this is
you mean what the end result of the kind of CDS you display will result in?
ThymeZone
We now enter the phase of Lukasiak Agonistes wherein Paul denies that he is currently reading the paper, or getting any news at all.
numbskull
Martin, you make excellent points.
p.lukasiak
its not necessary to paint Obama as an “angry black man” — a crooked, far-left person who “happens” to be a black male is all they will need. (Think Al Sharpton — and get ready to see the pics of Obama hugging Sharpton all over the place if Obama wins the nomination.) Also expect to see any affirmative action case that shows up in any court in the nation to become news.
BFR
I disagree – once they start bringing in Sharpton et al, then it’s out there. Whether people decide that the GOP is a bunch of racists or not would the be officially out of their hands & out of their control.
My opinion is that there’s a fine line between dog-whistle (states rights! Willie Horton!) and overt racism and I’m not sure the GOP wants to find out where that line is, given how badly they’re already doing among the younger tranches of voters.
Personally, if I were running the GOP and Obama were the candidate, I’d thank John McCain for his lifetime of service and ask him to take one for the team.
Xenos
Howard Dean has done this just right. There are rules to be followed, and if the states can come up with revote, or mail-in, or convention, or caucus, or whatever that fits within the rules they can go ahead and do it. That was Dean’s position in September, that is his position now. The crybabies in Florida knew his position back in the fall, and could have started working on a solution back then. Instead, the blew it off in the hope that it would either not matter, or that hey could bully their way through when it came to it.
The issue is critical in the long run because next time around we hope to be shifting to regional primaries. New Hampshire and Iowa will break off to set themselves apart, and they will screw it up if there is no precedent for locking them out if they do it. It makes for a messy situation today, but it is essential.
p.lukasiak
actually, I am reading the paper, and getting the news. That’s why I know that it was the Obama campaign that hyped the race card (starting with Jesse Jackson Jr being offended “as an African American” because Clinton didn’t cry over Katrina). And I know that Obama is now accusing the Clinton campaign of “leaking” a photo that was widely distributed through the right-wing websites well before it ever made its way to some low level staffer at the Clinton campaign.
Rarely Posts
Martin,
Speculation isn’t evidence.
Nice try.
p.lukasiak
This kind of stuff isn’t going to come from the GOP or the McCain campaign — its going to come from groups like Freedom Watch and other “independent” organizations. FW supposedly is raising $250 million for its own efforts, and that’s just one group.)
BFR
AKA ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ AKA the GOP. Maybe there’s some research out there that says otherwise, but I’m not sure they’re fooling that many people.
ThymeZone
Paul, this is not the 700 Club. Please don’t post shit you made you made up and expect us to swallow it.
The photo was widely distributed and then a low-level staffer saw it? You really expect anyone to believe that piece of shit story? Who told you that, and why the fuck would you believe them? If you’d believe that kind of crap then you’d believe there were WMDs in Iraq, Saddam was running Al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski.
If you want to believe such horseshit, go ahead, but don’t insult our intelligence.
This is BJ, the Balloon-Juice blog, not BJ the Blow Job.
K?
Rarely Posts
BJ doesn’t mean blow job? Pardon my surprise.
What is this love level staffer thing you are talking about…please don’t tell me you people have taken to believing drudge.
p.lukasiak
TZ..,
did you check out the link that I provided?
Do you have any evidence at all that it was anyone besides a low level staffer? In fact, have you read the original Drudge story, that makes it clear that the question that was being raised was press coverage — and suggests through the use of the word “obtained” (rather than received) that it did not come directly from a Clinton staffer at all?
oh, btw, are you ever going to address the race-baiting crap that JJ Jr. has said? Or how JJ Jr. has threatened african american public servants if they don’t support Obama? Or that he has asked at least one black superdelegate if he wants to be the one person who keeps an African American from becoming president?
p.lukasiak
Reading Drudge is like reading Cole now — he tells a “truth” but does so by leaving out the context, leaving a false impression about what actually happened.
Take the Penn quote at the top of the page…. what Penn said was a gaffe, taken completely out of context. IMHO, Penn should be muzzled, because he likes to hear himself talk, and thinks he knows how to spin — but (as in this case) he gets carried away with his own spin, and says something stupid.
But unless you listen to the whole thing, the truth isn’t obvious. (What I found most interesting is that Wolfson asked Penn to “read back” what Penn had said in his opening statement — and Penn couldn’t do it. In other words, it appears that Wolfson had a copy of what Penn was supposed to say, and Penn went off the reservation and started extemporizing.)
Jorge
Obama is starting to slam McCain personally and he needs to keep on doing it – he needs to show the country that he campaigns differently againt Republicans than he does versus Democrats. When asked about it he should say,
“The contest between Hillary and me isn’t about what’s best for the country. We are philosophical allies. The contest is about who has the best judgement and can best achieve our goals. The fight between John McCain and me is about the future of our country. You fight that fight differently.”
This way, he maintains the high road but shows that he can play big boy politics when he needs too. It also reveals that Hillary is so paranoid and so damaged that all she knows how to do is fight mean and dirty.
libarbarian
Just because a person is the target of irrational hatred by a bunch of assholes doesn’t mean that person isn’t also a total asshole as well.
Jorge
Lukasiak –
So, whe shouldn’t listen to what Hillary’s top communication/message consultant says when he isn’t reading off a script? And yes, I listened to the audio. Wolfson had to come in to try and save him and Penn still came back to basically say the same thing except hedging it a bit.
skippy
i’ve gotta say that i’m also getting so turned off by the clinton strategies that i’m seriously considering not voting for her if she gets the nom.
i know all the whines about “what about the supreme court” and “mccain would be a terrible president.”
but to be very very honest, we gave the dems a huge huge chance to show what they are made of in 2006…and they did show us. they are made of nothing.
if this is how clinton runs her campaign (ie, either incrdebily disorganized or manipulative), who wants that in the presidency?
if she had worked this hard in the beginning of the campaign, she’d be ahead. but she coasted, and then when she saw she was losing, she became desperate. who wants that in the presidency?
in reality, the only difference i see between clinton and mccain is that one has balls and the other’s an old man.
btw, i’m relatively new to balloon juice, so what’s pie scripting?
myiq2xu
John has really jumped the snark this time.
He says:
on the same day he says:
Things couldn’t get more bizarre around here unless John announced that Cindy Sheehan was pregnant with his love child, and that after he completes gender-reassignment surgery they will be moving the Massachusetts to get married.
My work is done here.
tBone
I think you need to fire your paperboy, p.luk. He’s obviously not delivering your papers in a timely manner. If he was, you’d be addressing the race-baiting crap that Ferraro continues to push instead of releasing two-month-old jackalopes.
As My Great Grandmother
What a douche Penn is. Obama and Hillary will get the same base vote, but Obama also appeals to independents and some conservatives. No way in hell does she have a better chance of winning the general than Obama.
Dennis - SGMM
You need to use Firefox as your browser and then install a plug-in called Greasemonkey. Then you get Cleek’s disemvoweller script for Balloon-Juice. If there are any posters whose comments you’d prefer to skip then you edit their screen names into the script and instead of whatever they post you get various comments about pie. Thus:
You can turn off Greasemonkey if you wish to read what the person actually posted.
John O
I think sociopath is too strong a word.
Ruthless politician? Sure. Someone who thinks the whole thing is a game? Sure, but that description more accurately fits the entire GOP governing philosophy.
But “sociopath?” Nah. She’s just playing to the uninformed, often plain stupid, often racist, homophobic, xenophobic giant chunk of the American electorate.
That’s not sociopathic until politicians from both parties say to those constituencies, “I don’t want your vote.”
We’re a ways from that.
myiq2xu
John admits Sully has CDS
John agrees with Sully about Clinton
Do the math.
ThymeZone
Cut the crap. Here’s what I know about the truth of the Clinton campaign’s involvement: Nothing. SAME AS YOU.
My point was that you don’t know, and there is no reason to believe their story. I have no reason to believe it, period. If I believe a story like that then I should believe the next WMD story told to me by Dick Cheney.
These people have credibility. And frankly, your pimping for them at this point doesn’t add to that credibility.
You are touting a story that anyone could have made up, fronted by people who aren’t believable, and talking as if we all have to swallow it hook line and sinker without question.
Uh, two words come to mind. Fuck, and you, in that order.
ThymeZone
Sorry, I am so fed up your bullshit I left out a word:
They have NO credibility. None, zero, zilch, nada.
If the Clintons told me that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning, I would buy every flashlight battery in Arizona.
If the Clintons saw a drowning man, they’d throw him both ends of the same rope. Fuck.Them.
TheFountainHead
Obama: Appealing to voters of all ilk.
Clinton: Appealing to the lowest of low voters.
Asti
Well, I can tell you one thing: I will not vote a woman in the general. That doesn’t mean I’ll never vote for any woman to be president, just not THAT one.
I WILL NOT HAVE ELECTORAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! ;)
Asti
Umm, TZ? You cannot HAVE every flashlight battery in AZ because flashlight batteries also run BOB and I will not go without BOB. ;)
Martin
Ooh, don’t go there…
He was calling out Clinton’s loyalty to the AA community again. His argument is that if Clinton really wanted to be seen as sensitive then she could have demonstrated that sensitivity at a time when people needed it and had it provide a meaningful benefit to people. Instead, we got the tears because people thought she wasn’t sensitive – her feelings were hurt. But 1600 people died? Nothing to cry over.
But black voters were still buying their own shit that the Clintons were on their team because it was politically expedient for blacks to believe that. It was reciprocal. But when it comes down to it, the Clintons don’t really care after all. That’s not to say that the Clintons don’t care about black people, but when things that really matter to people (white, black, gay, latino, you name it) get tossed into the political calculus, don’t expect a caring modifier on your particular variable because the Clintons will sell out your cause if it is politically expedient to do so. The black community never really got burned on that by the Clintons and they hoped that it would carry them through this election. January was the month that little bubble burst, and Jackson was part of that move.
He wasn’t hyping the race card, he was fact-checking what the black community ever really got out of the Clintons and pointing out that there really wasn’t anything there.
Chuck Butcher
So PL’s says:
You can’t blame Clinton because her staff are idiots, but they’re only idiots off script and when not taken in cotext of being idiots who don’t actually reflect the thinking of the campaign because Penn is a particular idiot who is actually very smart when Wolfson is looking out for him because the the best CiC hires idiots so she’ll look good and have somebody to blame when idiots do what idiots aren’t supposed to do and I can’t catch my breath but you’re unfair by using actual quotes of unscripted statements by official campaign staff…eeek, kak, kak.
gadzooks
Asti
I had a thought on my way to work this morning: does anyone here realize that the Hill-bots are acting like victims, and yet we keep seeing “CDS” all over the place, and not once have I seen anyone mention “ODS”. Ummmm, what is the only conclusion I can come to? Hill-bots are self-appointed victims.
ThymeZone
Asti: Roger that!
Asti
Oooooh, I have to rename BOB! ;)
Xanthippas
John,
I like your blog and all, but this is Andrew Sullivan territory. They can’t scream “nigger”? You seriously cite to that with approval? I’m not a huge fan of these tactics either, but can we acknowledge that a lot of what Clinton is doing is just running a very hard-nosed campaign to win? Was anybody expecting anything else from her? It doesn’t make her “insane”; it means she’s driven to win, because she wants the office that badly and she thinks she’s the best person for the job. This makes her different from how many Presidents that we’ve already elected? I don’t agree with her about any of this MI/FL primary stuff, Ferraro is a nut, and a lot of this is unfair to Obama…but he’s a big boy, and if he can’t get past Hillary Clinton’s tactics, what makes anybody think he’ll be the Republicans in November?
Honestly, you can go too far with this stuff. Just…back…away.
ThymeZone
Ah, my pun was not lost on you. I admire a girl who can pun.
Dave_Violence
No one in the Clinton campaign is a racist. They’re not. However, they are a cynical bunch and have come to the conclusion that the lowest common denominator voter (white people who just don’t have the education that Hillary! does) has a deep-down, genetic fearhatredterror of black people. Thus, exploit it to the maximum extent practicable.
This is about winning, only. It’s not personal, it’s not racist.
This kind of stuff works, too. Maybe.
Asti
Awww, leaving so soon? Don’t let the door hitcha…
Asti
Girls just wanna have pun?
Asti
Apparently you don’t understand the definition of racism. They are trying to put down a black man (literally, make him lose the nomination) by bringing up his race. How is that not racist?
Asti
Some people will excuse any tactics, so long as the prize is a Democratic president, even if it’s at the expense of someone else who has a better chance of being a Democratic president.
ThymeZone
Exactly. We cannot tolerate Ends Justify Means politics.
For one thing, it leads to Ends Justify Means government.
For another, it erodes the ethical armature on which our system must rest. In short, Ends Justify Means is not compatible with democracy.
Asti
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the address of the White House, it’s symbolic and necessary to her goals.
Telstar
I’m with several of the other commenters here… I started out this election cycle being very comfortable with the idea a Hillary Clinton presidency, but her tactics in the primaries have been so cynical, and so reeking of desperation, that I’m now completely disgusted by her. Put simply: There’s absolutely no way I’ll vote for her in the General Election.
Asti
That’s exactly the reason why I said:
Randolph Fritz
There seem to be many more accusations of racism than actual racist remarks (if indeed there are any at all–it could be Ferraro just put her foot in her mount) and I think Obama is a ruthless pol, too–he’s just better at it. But Clinton (and let’s stop calling her by her first name–it’s patronizing) also represents a very large voting block of older women, and it is important to the Democrats to get these people to turn out and support the eventual nominee. Damnit, I want to win this election. We haven’t seen what the Republican smear machine has planned for Obama, we don’t know what Bush is going to do, and the economy is tanking. Please, everyone, whoever you support, let’s sing kumbyya and get rid of the crazies.
Asti
Honestly, I don’t think I can hold my nose for her. If she wins the nomination, I think I have to sit it out this time. I see her not only not being able to bring in the independent/conservative voters, but losing a bunch of Dem voters as well. While I am currently an Independent, I was Dem before that, and I will always be Dem in my heart. The only reason why I changed my affiliation was because the Dem Congress was pissing me off. I am a Dem at heart, and Hillary will not gain my support if she’s the nominee.
Asti
I’ll sing Kumbaya when Hillary starts the chorus, and not until! I’m not holding my breath.
Xanthippas
Respectfully, that is insane. If you are “Dem at heart” you will vote for the Democratic nominee, because no self-respecting Democrat would be able to stomach the thought of McCain as President.
Asti
Serves her right. She started out this campaign believing she had it in the bag and couldn’t lose. Ha!
Asti
They are testing the windsock, because they have no idea what the outcome will be. People like me confuse them, because why would a white woman want to vote for a black man when there is another white woman running? How about because her tactics sicken me?
Asti
The only part of Hillary that is democratic is the big fat D at the end of her name. Sorry, I will not vote for her, ever.
Asti
By the way, you forget, she was a Goldwater Girl (still is, I think).
Asti
Oh, you mean she’s (dare I say it) an OPPORTUNIST?
I never did like opportunists.
empty
No, there is one other conclusion. You have a reading comprehension problem. Do point me to all those posts where Obama is referred to as a psychopath, as insane, a bitch, licking lipstick of a dick (you can replace the last two with appropriate male references). So ummm, how about actually doing some reading? k?
tBone
I keep seeing this pop up, and I’m compelled to keep pointing out that the Clinton campaign has “Hillary” plastered all over everything. It’s not patronizing, it’s just an easy point of differentiation with another well-known politician with the last name Clinton.
John Cole
I believe I agreed that she is behaving insane and like a sociopath, but the rest of that crap I have never said. Nor will I, as I find it disgusting.
The Clinton campaign, if it upsets them to have Hillary’s behavior labelled insane and like that of a sociopath, have a very easy solution.
Stop acting like sociopaths. Not sure if you remember this, but I was the one defending Hillary not too long ago. It was her campaign that changed, and it changed after she wasn’t annointed on Super Tuesday. My cardinal sin (as far as the Hillaryis44 crowd goes) is noticing that she changed and refusing to adjust my worldview so that her campaign’s twisted behavior is somehow acceptable.
She is running a shitty campaign that is base and disgusting and I will continue to say so until she and her surrogates knock it off. If that upsets you dearly, TalkLeft is thattaway.
tBone
Welcome to HillaryIs44.com. Enjoy your reading.
Asti
Obama is a black man, not a white woman who used to be “First Lady” and suffered embarrassment due to her husband having an affair, so, you will not see that. You will see “Obama is a radical” and “Obama is a muslim” and “Obama is lucky to be where he is because he is black”. Thanks for the strawmen though, quite amusing, and disingenuous.
empty
Not sure if your outer ear problem is effecting you but you might note that I was responding to Asti, not you! Unless you are posting under the name of Asti STFU and let Asti defend himself/herself. And do point out the posts where I supported/praised Hillary. Or did you pull that Hillaryis44 crap out your rear end? Maybe you are Asti
Asti
And point out where I ever said any of that. I never did. I haven’t even called her insane or a sociopath. The only description I have for her is “overly agressive”.
Asti
Thanks for opening the door for me. NOw, point me to where I ever said any of those things, since have have to “defend” myself.
empty
Somebody on Balloon Juice said Obama is a Muslim? I don’t remember him being called a radical either here though I might have missed the post. I haven’t seen any poster here claim he is lucky for being black either – though again I might have missed it. So if Obama is not being slimed why should anyone scream ODS? Ummm you want to try picking up those reading skills?
John O
Xanthippas,
Right on. There seems to be a lot of derangement syndrome of all kinds in play lately.
I can’t read Taylor Marsh until this is over, nor can I read any of the Obama versions. I learned long ago that most people had their good qualities, most had their bad qualities, and depending on which qualities you, personally, find appealing and/or compelling is highly correlating with your opinion of the person in question, one way or another.
For me, it’s a lot easier, and this is why I find the cannibalism weird and revealing in itself: The object of the game is to win in the fall. I give slight kudos to Obama here, since he’s done his best to keep his race out of the discussion. He can’t lay down if it becomes an issue, and we should all try to remember that Big Media has a vested interest in stirring this debate, of all debates.
There are heroes, but no fewer in real life than in politics. Get a grip, y’all.
It will be funny to read/watch/listen to all the “I told you so’s” when or if either loses in November. It’s all set up.
J
John D.
It…may be tactically unwise to tell your host to STFU. Just sayin’.
Asti
Try this on for size, after seven years of Bush, I know what Bush is like. With Hillary’s tactics, I dare say, I am not sure she might not be worse.
empty
No you idiot, you said you had seen people yelling CDS but not ODS. Yeah, I can see Hillary supporters yell CDS if their candidate is being called names here. For Obama supporters here to yell ODS they would have to see Obama being slimed – so you want to show me which posters here have been calling Obama names? Or would you like to stop now?
Dave_Violence
Asti Says:
…
Apparently you don’t understand the definition of racism. They are trying to put down a black man (literally, make him lose the nomination) by bringing up his race. How is that not racist?…
Not only do I understand the concept of racism (which you don’t, obviously), but I am even able to understand that it is more important to win at any cost for Hillary! than anything else, something you’re just not grasping. These are the Clintons and you’re playing into their game.
Their actions are not racist – though I will agree that they use the perceived racism of others to their advantage (which is not racist in and of itself, it isn’t!); if Hillary! weren’t running and Obama was the Dem candidate, the Clintons would back him 1000%. This is about winning an election and nothing else.
empty
So, I get banned. I need to get some work done anyway :)
myiq2xu
Don’t chip your teeth!
Sasha
So the deal is it doesn’t matter how badly Clinton acts or campaigns or how dishonorably she achieves the nomination, we just have to accept it and vote for her no matter what ’cause otherwise McCain will win?
Bullshit. That just rewards bad behavior and I’m sick of bad behavior being condoned (re: the last eight years). The entire point of knocking the GOP from their positions of power this election is a rebuke against their malfeasance. I will not reward a Democrat who acts like a Bush Republican.
Clinton hasn’t gone so utterly off the reservation that I won’t vote for her (with severe reservations), but if she keeps down this path, this November I will vote but write in either “Barrack Obama” or “None of the Above.”
tBone
Oh, come on. Are you really going to make some claim to objectivity here?
“I only bash O-bots, I don’t praise Hillary!” Yeah, that should stand up in court.
John D.
Yo, empty (of thought) —
“slimed” and “called names” are not equivalent. Not even close.
There are several strident anti-Obama posters here at BJ (P. Luk, myiq, Rarely Posts all spring to mind fairly quickly), as well as several anti-Hillary ones. You could have found this out with, oh, 60 seconds of effort. Try to do your own homework next time.
John O
C’mon, Asti,
I got pets that couldn’t be worse. I’d vote for YOU before I voted for McCain.
I don’t disagree that Hillary probably has a wide-on about the power she can get. I still think she’ll use it for a lot more good than McCain will.
McCain is a bit…um…actually crazy?
The pendulum swings slowly.
Asti
We discuss these things all the time, because they are the major points that the American electorate are using to try to attack Obama. Did I ever say I was limiting this just to BJ? No, I never did. If we’re going to limit this to BJ comments, I’ll bet I can find 100 negative comments about the MUP by Sunday (I’ll start Friday night, I will not take on this project while I have to work). You want to take up this challenge? And, again, why do I have to “defend” myself when I never called Clinton any of the things you apparently are implying I did also?
empty
So John D. Show me a post where myiq, or p. luk has called Obama a dick. I presume that would be the equivalent of calling Hillary a bitch? By your post, this should be real easy to do.
Asti
Please point me to where I said I would vote for Son of Cain? I said I would sit it out if Hillary is the nominee.
tBone
You may not know this, but there other “web sites” on the “Internet” that are accessible via “hyperlinks.” Thus, posters here can and do view comments on hillaryis44.com, where Obama is slimed 24/7. Or does it only count if the posters are here on Balloon Juice? Convenient, that.
Asti
Oh Gosh, your argument gets so lame when you have to limit it so. Why not be fair and ask for any negative comments of any sort? I can find hundreds of those. No, we have to find the exact phrase that Obama is “a dick”.
You are losing and you don’t even realize it.
John O
I respect that, Asti, I really do.
I vote third party as often as I think reasonable, for the same reason.
But if it is HC, she’s going to need every vote she can get, since her ceiling is probably a whopping 53%, and It is at least a 51-49 bet that McCain would be worse.
Ya gotta take what you can get.
Asti
Absolutely Sasha! Awesome post. I refuse to reward Hillary’s behavior in this campaign.
John O
All this with the caveat that if HC steals it, you’ll hardly be alone.
If Obama gets 45% in PA I don’t see how she could possibly make the case, on delegates, states, or popular vote. If she loses the trifecta, all this is moot, save for the fact the GOP will be “doing the Hillary” times about 3.
I also don’t disagree with the sentiment that this race deal is better dealt with now. Emotions come first, and after that comes rational thought. Not everyone will make it, but time is on the side of sanity.
John O
All this with the caveat that if HC steals it, you’ll hardly be alone.
If Obama gets 45% in PA I don’t see how she could possibly make the case, on delegates, states, or popular vote. If she loses the trifecta, all this is moot, save for the fact the GOP will be “doing the Hillary” times about 3.
I also don’t disagree with the sentiment that this race deal is better dealt with now. Emotions come first, and after that comes rational thought. Not everyone will make it, but time is on the side of sanity.
John O
All this with the caveat that if HC steals it, you’ll hardly be alone.
If Obama gets 45% in PA I don’t see how she could possibly make the case, on delegates, states, or popular vote. If she loses the trifecta, all this is moot, save for the fact the GOP will be “doing the Hillary” times about 3.
I also don’t disagree with the sentiment that this race deal is better dealt with now. Emotions come first, and after that comes rational thought. Not everyone will make it, but time is on the side of sanity.
myiq2xu
IIRC, you started supporting Obama before Super Tuesday. It seems like you try to get a lot of mileage from a few tepid, lukewarm statements defending Hillary that you made a couple months ago.
And the only people I know of that frequent the Hillaryis44 site are Obama supporters.
I’ve never even been to that site, because I suspect that it is a spoof site run by Obama trolls.
John O
Sorry about the double-post. My brand spanking new MacBookPro is hauling ass. :-)
Still can’t figure out how to receive e-mail, though.
John O
Sorry about the double-post. My brand spanking new MacBookPro is hauling ass. :-)
Still can’t figure out how to receive e-mail, though.
John O
Heyzues!!!!
Apologies again. I’m gonna try a single this time.
empty
Actually tBone that is all I do. Whether it will stand up in court or not is moot. I will vote for Obama come November if he is the nominee and it sure looks like he will be. I find several things troubling about him – chiefly his foreign policy team and his (at least initial) position on health care. I find neither to be an unsurmountable problem if there is sufficient pressure on him to stick to the straight and narrow. Hence the criticism. If people read into him qualities that are not there then they will not be vigilant when he does stray. And things are shitty enough because of the neocons for us to not wait to find out how much crap the “liberal interventionists” can generate. So, that was a serious answer. We can go back to name calling now.
Asti
If you want a Hillary presidency, you can vote for one. I don’t and I won’t.
myiq2xu
That was actually a rare “triple-klutz”
myiq2xu
If you look at my comments through the last few months, you’ll see that most of them:
A) Defend Hillary from attacks
B) Bash Obots
C) Point out that Obama isn’t perfect and isn’t that different from Hillary.
I have never said he is unqualified or that I would not support him if he is the nominee.
John O
LOL, myiq2xu.
Indeed.
jack-of-all-thumbs
OK, perhaps my first post to Balloon-Juice some 7-8 hours ago was premature. Seems that much of the thoughtful analysis disappears with the daylight.
However, ‘Martin’, ‘Chuck Butcher” and a handful of others made the trip through the comments worthwhile.
Please. Take it from an old guy, we loose our high frequency hearing first. Those really shrill rants just….disappear.
empty
John O. Do you have some posts from myiq2xu that claim Obama is unfit?
John D.
How convenient of you to ignore the first sentence of my post.
Well, convenient for *you*. Luckily, through the magic of teh interwebz, everyone can see what I said.
I’d also like to know how it suddenly morphed into “someone called Obama a dick” rather than “Obama was slimed”. OK, I don’t really want to know, since I pretty much do already (Goalpost shifting: it’s not just for breakfast any more.)
I, personally, have not uttered an unfair attack on Hillary. Ever.
I have quoted her, her campaign, her spokespeople and her ads at length, often questioning WTF she thinks she’s doing, for it is my *opinion* that the tactics she is espousing will lead to ruination of either candidate’s chances come November. I am firmly of the opinion that quoting someone (including context, naturally) is by definition “fair”.
Selling her experience over Obama’s? Completely cool, and useable. Selling her and McCain’s experience over Obama? Fucking retarded. McCain totally dominates her in the experience department, sorry. I happen to think his experience is precisely the wrong type to lead our nation, BUT SHE DIDN’T MENTION TYPE. She simply made it about “experience”. That’s a losing issue for HER. Which is why it’s retarded.
Pointing out she’s winning the large traditionally Democratic strongholds? Completely cool. Dismissing smaller states as unimportant? Fucking retarded. Every vote counts. Growing the brand counts. Welcoming these new voters counts. Dismissing them as unimportant can IN NO WAY help the turnout in the general election. The absolute best result from her comments in this area is a slight negative in the general election. The worst is catastrophe. That’s why it is fucking retarded.
I have reached the point where I have a completely rational dislike of the Hillary Clinton campaign. I don’t hate her. I don’t hate her campaign. I simply dislike the tactics she has chosen, since they seem to be short-sighted, counterproductive, and wrong. If you feel that’s CDS, so be it. I’ll continue to think you’re a mouthbreathing twit.
empty
Convenient or inconvenient as you said people can follow the back and forth if they wish. I never said you had CDS and I don’t really disagree with much of what you wrote above. My argument was with Asti’s comment about the absence of ODS which was in response to a post about CDS here. That argument too I think has run its course.
empty
Good night folks!
Randolph Fritz
“So the deal is it doesn’t matter how badly Clinton acts or campaigns or how dishonorably she achieves the nomination, we just have to accept it and vote for her no matter what ‘cause otherwise McCain will win?”
From my viewpoint both of the Democratic front runners are unattractive candidates. It doesn’t matter; it’s hard for me to imagine how they could be worse than McCain. It’s lesser evil time.
“I never did like opportunists.”
Well, but opportunism is part of politics.
myiq2xu
So is rank hypocrisy, spin, and all the lying that the candidate can get away with.
There are three candidates remaining in this race; Hillary, Obama and McCain. All three are (gasp!) career politicians.
They are all smart, skilled and ambitious as hell.
Only the supporters of Hillary have no illusions about their candidate. McCains biggest fans (the lapdogs) think he is a “straight-shooter.” Of the three, he has shown the least adherence to any moral principles or acquaintance with the truth.
The Obots seem to think that Big O is the Obamessiah. He might be able to turn water into whine, but that’s about it. And their constant hyperventilating that Hillary is the Antichrist (she isn’t) is not only annoying, it doesn’t help Obama win converts.
Asti
What has Obama done to make you consider him unattractive? I’m curious. I see a man who is trying to stay above the fray and is being dragged into it by an aggressive candidate from his own party. Show me where I’m wrong, please.
myiq2xu
Puh-leeze! Big O went negative long before Hillary.
That he went negative doesn’t bother me. Politics ain’t beanbag. What bothers me is the Obots acting like he’s “different.”
ThymeZone
Obama “went negative?”
Uh huh. What I read was that he looked at the public history of a candidate who wants to ride her husband’s coattails into the office he held, and simply pointed out the obvious dark side of that set of assumptions.
The single biggest factor in Clinton’s lack of appeal to some voters is simply this: Do we really want those people in the White House again? Those people, the people who brought you Monica and Impeachment and Pardongate and Ah feyul yoar pane? Does she really claim that being his wife is marektable experience? Well then let’s take a close look at it. Let’s wipe off the tire shine and see what is really underneath.
That’s not negativity. Negative campaigning would be to suggest that she can’t do the job because she is a woman, or that Bill Clinton is still trying to get blowjobs in public buildings. But pointing out their known and documented shortcomings?
Don’t tell me that politics is hardball and then use those examples of “negative” politics. Aside from the Hsu thing, there’s nothing there that isn’t what anyone running against that nauseating pair wouldn’t use.
ThymeZone
What do you say when your opponent says “Hsu?”
Gesundheit.
——//
Hsu?
Hsme.
Hsalright?
Hsalright.
myiq2xu
If y’all are gonna tag-team me, does that make this a threesome?
myiq2xu
If the Hsu fits, wear it.
myiq2xu
I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there!
ThymeZone
Tag team? Nah, our plan is to kidnap you and throw you into Mono Lake.
Dont forget your noseclip …..
ThymeZone
Good work. You made ppGaz smile.
Asti
Tag teaming? I didn’t say shit about your link. I haven’t read it yet. I asked a fucking question, you answered, TZ arrived and decided to give his input, that is not tag-teaming. You get upset because TZ and I read the same blog? Or because TZ and I read the same blog and talk off the blog as well? We’re not tag teaming you NoIQ… when I have an opinion, I’ll give it. I will study this and dissect it first.
Asti
And it made me laugh as well ;)
That was very good SomeIQ, you’ve been elevated, at least temporarily, don’t piss me off or you’ll be demoted again.
ThymeZone
Only in your dreams, my friend.
ThymeZone
Yes it is, and that new NY governor guy is refreshingly real, isn’t he? I like him a lot.
Asti
Nope, sorry, I don’t like to share.
borg
Well jeshus, I thought everyone agreed that psychopaths make the best leaders? THEY GET SHIT DONE. That is exactly why I am voting for Hillary. Obama is too much of a wimp. He’ll be wanting to be friends with all the world leaders and they’ll ride roughshod over him.
The Republicans would rather Obama get the nomination, what more do you need to know?
ThymeZone
Me either. We could invite him over for tea and some of my cyanide puffs.
myiq2xu
Most people just call it “teabagging”
ThymeZone
I must now retire to MUPony dreamland.
You, MikeU, must recline on your bed of nails and consider your sins.
Till tomorrow.
skippy
what about if i just skip the comment?
myiq2xu
Then you miss out on all the fun of excluding ideas and opinions you don’t already agree with.
The pie filter is a strategy favored by people who have no confidence in their beliefs and opinions.
myiq2xu
Since it’s late at night and nobody else seems to be around, I want to go on record:
Steve Benen says:
I say the standard should be:
1. Popular votes
2. “Battleground states” won
3. Pledged delegates
4. Total states won
Fuck money raised and polls.
The reason I put them it that order is that “popular votes’ reflects the will of the Democratic party. “Battleground states” are what we need to win in November. “Pledged delegates” are not a reflection of #1 and if the candidate had enough to win outright the SD’s votes wouldn’t matter. “Total states won” is last because the Electoral College doesn’t care.
Money raised and polls are off the list because they are irrelelvant.
If Obama goes into the covention leading in popular votes, and unless there is some new compelling reason not to, give him the nomination.
By “new compelling reason” I mean a scandal or new development, not a new theory.
Randolph Fritz
Asti, from my viewpoint he’s far too conservative. If you look at his campaign positions they’re basically things that *Bill* Clinton advocated, nearly 20 years ago. Times have changed. He is consistently running to the right of Hilary Clinton, which is bizarre, since she is also a conservative Democrat. But, in stated positions, they are so close as to be fraternal twins; Obama is a great orator and Clinton is not. He’s courted the Christian right, people who hate me and the majority of my friends. “Ereposte”, over at the Left Coaster, has a list of Obama negative campaigning, with dates. He’s such a pleasant speaker, he can say the most nasty things and make them sound nice; my girlfriend, a professional interpreter, a writer, and a sometime performer, who’s very attentive to language, is convinced he’s extremely dishonest. Me, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but the more I read of the positions he’s published, the less I trust him–his environmental position, a particular interest of mine, is very questionable.
But there’s a more important reason I am concerned about all of the the candidates. This is not 15 years ago. The next President will face perhaps the greatest peacetime challenges–environmental, economic, foreign and domestic policy–of any president in history. Conservatism of no form is going to do. And, actually, Obama may fare somewhat better than Clinton in that test; at least he does not seem to have strong conservative-Democrat ties. On the other hand “ya got to dance with them what brung you”, and he’s making exactly no concessions to progressives, probably figuring (correctly) that he’d have to turn out to be the devil himself to lose our votes. But when the time comes for real change, as opposed to talking change, he’s going to have some dues to pay.
myiq2xu
This is funny. The article is good, but the best part is the pic at the end.
“Nobody gets a pony”
Aw, okay, the article:
merlallen
I don’t think he has a chance either. A lot of his “support” is coming from repigs who will vote for the NVA’s best pilot.
Rarely Posts
I know this is probably pointless to ask since I’ve apparently been pie scripted by the people of BJ that only want to talk to others that agree with them, but what have I ever posted that was anti-Obama?
myiq2xu
To many Obots, failure to acknowledge His Transcendantness and drink Kool-aid from His trough is being “anti-Obama.” Even defending Hillary is heresy to them.
You should consider getting pie scripted as a badge of honor.
“The few, the proud, the unhinged”
Rarely Posts
Us liberals always were reality based.
Maybe I’ll get a tee-shirt made.
“I got pie scripted at Balloon Juice”
I’ll wear it on alternate days with “I got banned AGAIN at Red State”
Dennis - SGMM
Ugh, ya’ got me!
Couldn’t be that we get a tad tired of being automatically called misogynists? Just a thought.
dslak
Often Hacks doesn’t attack Obama herself. She just defends any attack on Obama from the Hillary campaign or her surrogates (e.g., when Ferraro said “Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he were white,” what she really meant was “Black men got the vote before white women”). Then she wails about how everybody is so mean to Hillary.
That is hardly anti-Obama. On the other hand, I think this site is actually run by Hillary supporters who want to make Obama supporters look bad.
Andrew
I’m sure you’re going to count the thus far untabulated caucus goers as well in the “popular vote” totals.
Also, where do we send the tissues once Obama destroys Hillary in the popular vote total? I hate to see trolls cry.
Randolph Fritz
Offhand, I think that Clinton is using her complaints to get the party leadership to do something about Florida and Michigan. As a pol, she’s going to ask for the moon and the stars and a pony, and I don’t think the DNC is going to give them to her. But it may get them to move on this issue, and that is important–unless those states are in the process, the Democrats may lose them, and that would probably lose them the election. James Kitchens, a partisan pollster, but still an actual pro, comments:
And Sullivan, to me, comes off as a concern troll as well as an absolute sexist jerk, echoing right-wing talking points about Clinton that we’ve been hearing for over 15 years now. If Hilary Clinton weren’t tough, I think he’d be trashing her for being too weak. So instead he trashes her for being too strong. Feh. Old news: he’s trashing her for being a woman who wants to be in public life. Sociopaths don’t write books titled It Takes a Village, not if they mean it, and there is every indication that she does mean it. She doesn’t fit the profile; if she did, she’d probably either be in jail or a crime boss. This does not make her a Nice Person, and I don’t think she is, but she’s not a sociopath, either.
myiq2xu
Don’t look in the mirror then.
ThymeZone
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.
Callisto
He wouldn’t be where he is today if he wasn’t blind. In fact, I’d say he’s lucky to be blind – New Yorkers are just getting caught up in it. And if you have a problem with that, it must be because you hate me for having sight.
myiq2xu
Somebody asked him how hard it was to be blind in politics. He replied “At least I’m not black.”
ThymeZone
Racist!
tBone
Easy to fix:
Impossible to fix, but hilarious:
myiq2xu
You have to change and distort my words to “win.”
How lame.
tBone
Fair answer, and a more thoughtful reply than my post probably deserved. Aside from differing policy specifics, your comment more or less describes how I felt about Clinton up until Super Tuesday. Her recent campaign tactics have upped my reservations about her significantly, though.
Pb
myiq2xu,
Given your metrics and the state of the race, do you think Hillary should bow out once it’s clear to everyone that she can’t reasonably expect to win? One problem with the popular vote as a metric is that it’s harder to predict — at least the number of pledged delegates is fixed. But let’s say, going forward, that Hillary would need to win the popular vote by something like (consult back of envelope) at least 57-43 if not a bit more to overcome Obama’s lead. I don’t think that’s at all likely. And her current “campaign for McCain” strategy isn’t helping.
Also, insofar as money is important in a Presidential contest, and polls measure the sentiment of the voting public, they both matter, FYI.
tBone
Win? There are no winners here, only varying quantities of fail.
tBone
Win? There are no winners here, only varying quantities of fail.
Go back to your boutique, you latte-sipping elitist.
tBone
No idea what happened there. I blame Hillary.
myiq2xu
Yes, if and when that happens.
If it happens it will be in August, at the convention.
As for polls, which ones?
Martin
That argument has been invalidated now. I’m seeing more and more comments for Hillary to say in even if Obama reaches the delegate mark because Wright will damage Obama so much that he can’t be elected and that Clinton should make the case at the convention that the delegates should support her, even if they are pledged to him.
Which, as I said, was the reason why Ferraro went out there in the first place. Not sure if enough people will go down that road, but a bunch of them are.
Randolph Fritz
I hesitate to drag in this much negativity, but when I said the problems are the worst any “peacetime” president has faced, I believe that to be literally true. Climate disasters. The economy tanking. International trade conflicts. Iraq. The rise of the far right, who aren’t going to go away just because they lose an election. (There would be more links, but the blogging software doesn’t seem to allow that many.) Anyhow, I’d much rather go back to the subject at hand; this is a depressing list, and we can only hope that we (and our leaders) face these problems with grace and fortitude.
Callisto
I think the situation FDR faced in the 30’s was a bit worse than what we have now, economically speaking. Also, the environmental situation he faced was also pretty grave.
Pb
myiq2xu,
For the popular vote, it’ll be significantly before that. Or is that in fact not your metric here after all?
All of them, for what they’re worth. They give us valuable information about the state of the nation, at a given time, plus or minus a few percentage points, within a 95% confidence range. Taken together, the accuracy is a bit better than that. What they’re saying right now, by the way, is that Barack Obama is favored to win against John McCain, whereas John McCain is favored to win over Hillary Clinton.
myiq2xu
I wish you Obots would read all my comments instead of just part of them.
So let’s say the last primary is held, and Obama has a lead in delegates and popular votes, but does not have enough pledged delegates to win outright. Should Hillary quit? No.
What if in mid-July, Obama is caught widestancing in a airport men’s room, or is discovered to belong to some unamerican organization like the Toronto Blue Jays fan club?
That would be a “new development.”
Why the fuck are Obots afraid of democracy? The primaries will be held anyway, so let them matter. Let’s have a convention, let all the delegates vote, and unite behind the winner.
Quit trying to short-circuit the process. If Hillary wants to quit, it’s up to her.
If Hillary surges into the popular vote lead with a big win in PA, I won’t be suggesting that Obama should quit.
Gus
I don’t like Senator Clinton, and I want Obama to win the nomination. But I think “he can’t win in the general” is a pretty standard primary argument. As for the interview, really? A politician denying she said something that she obviously said? Whoever heard of such a thing? C’mon, there are plenty of reasons to really dislike Clinton without making shit up.
Pb
myiq2xu,
Yeah, fuck you too.
Well, she could “suspend her campaign”, because…
What if Hillary is as well? There’s still John Edwards. See above, etc.
I didn’t ask her, I asked you. I’d be interested in her answer as well, however.
LOL. I might if she won PA by 90-100% or more, but it’s a moot point. If Hillary wins the PA Democratic primary by a 900k+ vote margin, then that’d imply that the “new development” you’re oh-so-eagerly hoping for has already come to pass. You do know that there were less than 800k votes in the 2004 PA Democratic primary, right?.
Temple Stark
Yep, Clinton just wants to scream “nigger.”
You jumped the Althouse here John Cole. Pathetic and, in respect to his only, FU.
Temple
Temple Stark
>>And the thing is, none of the hillbots will entertain the slightest suggestion that their idol ever ever does anything wrong.
Assuming you mean hillbot to mean Hillary supporter, what complete garbage Delia. That is willful blindness. (and if hilbot is just a subset of supporters that won’t see anything wrong with Hillary, then your statement deserves a big, ole “duh.”) We don’t see the same things as many of Obama’s online supporters; some of us have done the research and realized almost all of the racist angle is garbage – and recognized that there is still room for the possibility that some were indeed offended, even without reason – such as Clinton’s “MLK / LBJ comment.”
Even before March 4 it has translated into pure hatred and the happy airing of Drudge, Dick Morris not as concern trolls but as legitimate sources of allegation. Again, pathetic.
But in the face of just one spoof here (no one here is sincere tho’ ) being able to answer “What has Obama done wrong”, when I asked your idea stinks to high heaven. Want to give the question a go?
Temple Stark
Crap, sorry. Accidentally hit “submit comment.”
OK, actual comment – they called Bill Clinton a sociopath, too.
Not true then. Not true now. Uninformed and unoriginal.