Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by midwestdem at March 7, 2008 11:09 AMHuh?
If a Democrat runs in November on who can start more wars, McCain will win.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 7, 2008 11:35 AMThat little point about Repubs voting for Hillary over McOld on hawkish "national security" grounds?
Delusional. Not reality based.
Posted by euzoius at March 7, 2008 11:37 AMliving as i do in a red state (red: conservative, hmmm...irony there!) i can assure you the republicans i know will never see Hillary as tougher on national security than McCain.
she might pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 10 years and also to invade Iran ...they will still vote for McCain.
and Hillary, once elected (NOT!) will invade Iran to prove she has GOP balls. interesting how these people are ready to kill other peeps for their own political sake.
Posted by joe in oklahoma at March 7, 2008 11:56 AMIraq? yeah, that was a great decision (right, pants pissing peter?): "borrow around a trilllion from the Chinese to give Iran a new client state next door, occupy it for the next thirty years, and still keep oil at $106 a barrel...."
All Hillary has to do is convince people she is acceptable on the national security issue. Part of that is demonstrating she has the experience and toughness to handle the job. She can easily make that case.
Obama must pass the same test. His reliance on his speech on Iraq back in 2002 will not be enough. Not by a long shot. He has the much harder case to make.
Posted by Alvord at March 7, 2008 12:10 PMThe answer to this "What if" scenario is that...Hillary Clinton won't be president.
Posted by Mike P at March 7, 2008 12:15 PMThat's absolutely what's going on. Hillary is going to make it as tough for McCain to beat her on national security issues as possible. This isn't going to be Kerry/Gore redux - that's the one thing we know. The entire point of the non-binding Kyl Lieberman amendment was to provide Dems with something to beat Clinton over the head with in the primary, and should she not win the nomination - beat the Democratic winner over the head with in the general. Clinton is the only one who didn't fall for it. Edwards and Obama both took the GOP bait.
The primary was always going to be Clinton's toughest battle. But she's going to be near impossible for a Republican to beat in the general. And she is not going down on national security issues.
Think about that press conference where she said she and McCain have passed the commander in chief benchmark. Smart strategists for McCain just realized their job got tougher. A lot tougher.
I literally have no idea why any thinking Democrat would be hammering Clinton on her war vote. If you beat her, that hammer will be used against you in a big way in the general.
Posted by lorelynn at March 7, 2008 12:15 PMClinton is down in Mississippi hinting again that she might accept Obama on her ticket. Two thoughts..one, in a state where African Americans make up a large % of the voters is she just playing politics? two- since Obama is nothing but an inexperienced Gas Bag, why would the super-experienced Clinton want someone like that as a vice president....poor judgement wouldn't you say?
Posted by T2 at March 7, 2008 12:20 PMI literally have no idea why any thinking Democrat would be hammering Clinton on her war vote.
I don't know... maybe because a supermajority of Americans think the war was a bad idea?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 7, 2008 12:40 PMRight before the Ohio primary, The News Hour was talking to people in Ohio. One guy said he was a lifelong republican, but didn't like McCain's idea that it was ok to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He said he was probably going to vote for Hillary. Not all republicans hate her and whether they like her or not, I think they trust her on national security.
Posted by CG at March 7, 2008 12:50 PMClinton is down in Mississippi hinting again that she might accept Obama on her ticket. Two thoughts..one, in a state where African Americans make up a large % of the voters is she just playing politics?
Perhaps she's appealing to those who like her but would also like to see an African-American man on the ticket too?
two- since Obama is nothing but an inexperienced Gas Bag, why would the super-experienced Clinton want someone like that as a vice president....poor judgement wouldn't you say?
So he can gain valuable experience for his own run in 2016?
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 12:52 PMHere are some contemparary polls from 2002. Opposition to taking action against Iraq was not quite as overwelming back then.
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 01:02 PMObama the antiwar candidate? Is that so? A 2002 speech won't convince many, especially not me. It's a fairy tale, as BC named it.
Posted by Prabhata at March 7, 2008 01:07 PMThanks for that 2002 poll link, snark.
It demonstrates that Obama's opposition to the foolish invasion in 2002 was quite impressive and politically brave.
The swiftboating of him on that issue is what has burned me the most.
Posted by euzoius at March 7, 2008 01:10 PMlorelynn- That was the smartest thing that has ever been posted on this blog. I completely understand the anti-war rage and anger. It will not win a general election. Having seriously anti-war (as opposed to anti-Iraq war) people vocally trashing her is the best thing that can be happening to Clinton right now. People are agaist the Iraq war now, but even that can turn very quickly. They are looking for someone who knows how to get us out without completely risking all middle east peace for decades. That's what McCain is also trying to say but in a we will not surrender way. No one really believes he has the energy or appeal to beat Clinton. But he will beat Obama.
Posted by perry at March 7, 2008 01:10 PMI think it's brilliant. But what if she loses the left wing blogosphere over this! oh my! ha ha...
Posted by rcity at March 7, 2008 01:11 PMWhat was the result of the Texas caucus? I can't find it anywhere.
Posted by nerdoff at March 7, 2008 01:12 PMBTW, did anyone notice that the official certification of California's primary occured the other day? Obama picked up another 4 delegates; Hillary lost 4; net gain of 8 more delegates for Obama. In the end Hillary only won California by 8 percentage points--not at all the blowout some have suggested.
Posted by at March 7, 2008 01:17 PMOBAMA WINS TEXAS. This is the reason I asked about the caucus results: (from the dreaded Kos)
UPDATE 3: MSM Finally Admits Obama Won Texas
by MaverickModerate [Subscribe]
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM PST
So far it's just NPR but it's a start. The are finally admitting what was evident late Tuesday night. With 41% of the Texas caucus vote in, Obama's 12 point lead (56/44) is insurmountable.
NPR is reporting a net 3 delegate lead for Obama once all is said and done.
MaverickModerate's diary :: ::
This is how this works, first there is the TX primary:
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.
Followed by the TX caucuses:
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates
Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98
=======================
Obama wins by 3!
I diaried yesterday that the MSM narrative of Clinton winning Texas was false. It may be up to us, to make sure that this narrative must be changed to accurately reflect what really happened. Clinton did NOT have a 3 to 1 victory over Obama, it was a 2 to 2 tossup.
The media loves to jump the gun and sensationalize whenever it looks like there is a good story, such as another Clinton comeback. But in this case it is particularly reprehensible because as of Tuesday night these same results were evident with about 30% of the vote in. If nothing else, instead of illegitimately declaring Clinton the winner, they should have done what they did in Florida in the 2000 general election, wait for the final outcome before they declared the winner.
They jumped the gun and Obama paid the price by appearing to have lost his Mojo. Well I'm delcaring his Mojo is back!
Posted by at March 7, 2008 01:21 PMIt demonstrates that Obama's opposition to the foolish invasion in 2002 was quite impressive and politically brave.
Clearly opinion was split. I don't take anything away from Obama for his opposition in 2002. But he hasn't distinguished himself from CLinton since has he? And he did take his speech off his website when the invasion looked like a success did he not?
Point is, yes, people are against the war now but the voting public isn't clammering for the heads of those in Congress who voted to give Bush the authorization. They just aren't. Taking McCain down on Iraq isn't gonna be done over the fact that he supported it in 2002. It's gonna be done over the fact that he still supports it and has said he'll support it for another 100 years. Obama's 2002 opposition doesn't really give him any edge on the issue. People aren't voting on the past. They're voting on the future.
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 01:30 PMPeople aren't voting on the past. They're voting on the future.
Exactly. And TEXAS!!one!!11! was days ago. And it's Friday. No one cares anymore...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 01:35 PMShe won the popular vote in Texas: therefore, she won Texas.
I swear this obsession with delegates makes the obama crowd look desperate. Do you honestly think that average folks are counting delegates here? Don't you realize trumpeting that he won by losing makes the whole thing looked rigged against Clinton? I mean Nevada was bad enough, but this is ridiculous.
Shades of 2000 all over again, and we're supposed to be DEMOCRATs
Posted by JB64 at March 7, 2008 01:37 PMiamcoyote...you've lost it. Obama won Texas. Hillary did not. The when doesn't matter, the delegate count does. There was no Comeback.
Posted by T2 at March 7, 2008 01:42 PMJB64, Obama's caucus win basically cancels out Clinton's popular vote win in the primary. Around 1,000,000 people participated, so Obama's 56-44 win would net him about 120,000 votes while Clinton won the primary by about 100,000. So, the delegate allocation and popular vote are pretty closely aligned, with both narrowly favoring Obama.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 7, 2008 01:49 PMYou don't understand T2, I don't really care. We're still in the same boat, neither candidate can reach 2025 or whatever the number is. The leadership is going to have to figure something out, and it doesn't look like they're in all that much of a hurry. All this yelling and screaming isn't gonna change anyone's minds, it isn't gonna change the numbers, and it isn't going to make Republicans lose. But jump up and down if you need to, if it helps you feel better.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 01:49 PMWell, obviously, jeff!
Hillary is playing this very well.
Susan rice pretty much torpedoed his chances already by saying that he is not ready to be CIC.
Of course, she tried to reverse "me too" the question, saying McCain and Hillary are not ready either... but that won't fly.
...so Obama's 56-44 win would net him about 120,000 votes...
There's really no way of knowing that though. Is there? How are the caucus results recorded? By voting district of by individual votes? Putting a popular vote number on his caucus win is a guesimate, no?
Wanna know what it all tells me? They basically were both equally popular in Texas. Which means there's no reason for Clinton to quit and there's no reason to hand the nomination to Obama just yet.
Posted by snark at March 7, 2008 01:54 PMAbout that supermajority of people against the war... Right now 48% of Americans believe that the Iraq was is going reasonably well and the "get out now message" is not resonating with them.
Sad, but true.
A mojority of Americans believe the war was a mistake but we are split down the middle on what we should be doing about it.
About that supermajority of people against the war... Right now 48% of Americans believe that the Iraq was is going reasonably well and the "get out now message" is not resonating with them.
Sad, but true.
A mojority of Americans believe the war was a mistake but we are split down the middle on what we should be doing about it.
JB64, the purpose of a primary or caucus is to elect delegates loyal (theoretically) to one candidate or another, who then go to the convention and vote for that candidate. While some states may use popular vote to select who gets all the delegates, winner take all, many states do not. Texas is one of those. Texas is proportional. So in Texas, if you are the winner of the most delegates, you are the winner. Regardless of the popular vote. Therefore Obama WINS Texas. That's it.
Posted by T2 at March 7, 2008 02:46 PMand iamcoyote, you may not care now, but you were pretty happy with the Comeback when it appeared Clinton had taken TX. Now its only a historical footnote. Yes, I voted for Obama and am glad he got the delegate win, so shoot me. I've always said I'll support whomever the Dems nominate and I will. One with a wee bit more pleasure than the other.
Just show how fucked up caucuses are.
Posted by TSL at March 7, 2008 03:11 PMT2, I wasn't depressed, but I never gloated or shouted "Comeback Kid" since I don't like that term. And I've never busted people for choosing Obama. The ones I jump on the liars, the gloaters and the sexists as well as the starry-eyed dreamers who think Obama can do no wrong. I also try to be kinder to people like you and SoS and euzoius, and others who have all been fellow commenters here for years. (though it may not seem like it, I'm sure) I've always said that I'll vote for whichever dem gets in, even though I don't really like Obama. He's still better than McCain.
But the nitpicking at this point is useless, the Dems have a big problem on their hands - especially if that story about Obama people planning violence in Denver is true, and with the emotions going around, I think it is. They need to figure out what they're going to do, or it's gonna blow up in all our faces.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 7, 2008 03:16 PMlorelynn -
well said, very analytical,
and, in the current hot fog of democratic war, courageous, too.
thanks.
i'm with you and perry on this.
from my perspective,
it would be real nice if americans in general and democrats in particular could get it thru their idealistic noggins that the best person to fight what happens in washington everyday, every year, all years -
is not someone who claims to be an outsider,
but rather someone who has lived long in that chaotic environment, knows what is going on, and has the personal discipline, decency, and determination to change things.
my sense is clinton is just such a public person. such people do not come along every day in this country.
it is frustrating and infuriating to me to watch the candidate who i believe likely to be the most ruthlessly reforming, clinton, be treated as a conniving pariah,
while the candidate i regard as an example of a talented ego (very much like john kennedy in 1960 (whom i supported unreservedly in those years)) willing to gamble the nation's future on his knowing what he probably does not yet have the experience to know. and this on top of eight years of a moron of a president who also had a world class ego.
eight more years of our having to teach another great ego how to govern the united states (and, in a sense, the world), might really prove disastrous.
Posted by orionATL at March 7, 2008 05:44 PMCA Pol Junkie,
Your analysis of the Texas caucus vote is flawed. Obama may win more delegates, but Clinton will win the popular vote regardless of the caucus outcome. She got 100,000 more votes in the primary. I had not heard that 1,000,000 attended the caucus, but even if that is true and Obama wins by 12% in the caucus, he doesn't net 120,000 additional voters because those are the SAME people who voted in the primary. If the primary and caucus were separate elections, your analysis would be correct, but they were not. Only people who voted in the primary could attend the caucus, so the caucus voters were a subset of the primary voters. (If I'm wrong about this, please let me know but this was my understanding of how it worked.) Therefore, Clinton still has 100,000 more votes in Texas than Obama. This doesn't change the fact that he won more delegates due to the rules of Texas delegate allocation, but she did get 100,000 more votes than he did. In my opinion, that allows her to say that she "won" the election although it doesn't help her pledged delegate count.
Big Tent Democrat has a post at Talk Left speculating on why the Obama campaign has not mentioned its “win” in Texas—because Texas undermines their argument that pledged delegates, and not popular vote, is the meaningful metric to sway undecided superdelegates.
Anyway, that’s not my point. My point is that Clinton still has 100,000 more votes than Obama in Texas even including the caucus results. Caucus voters shouldn’t get counted twice when considering the popular vote—even though the rules state that they are counted twice when allocating pledged delegates.
i don't know who paul bua is, but i'm firmly convinced that he's right on this. i've thought it for some time, and that's why i don't give hillary too much grief over her so-called hawkishness.
Posted by kangeroo at March 7, 2008 06:05 PMMy first night at The Left Coaster, thinking I'd found a new place to hang out with reasoned discussions, and a DailyKos sideshow breaks out. WTF? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere?
Posted by RUKind at March 7, 2008 09:10 PM"Hillary will seize the national security issue away from the Republicans..."
Yes, indeedy, once she puts that issue to bed, she steps up to homeplate, swings her bat, and knocks Old McSame outta the park with "It's the economy, stupid!"
Hillary is a fighter and as tough as the other side. I so surprised that the "so-called" progressive blogs that constantly berate the "spineless" democrats in congress also want to eviscerate the only Fighter/Winner we got in favor of a candidate that wants to play nice-nice with the thug party that stole the election. Personally, I think they are spiking the kool-aid.
PS. Obama's campaign of Hope is just that -- hoping he can destroy Hillary with the politics of personal destruction...I count just about 30% of these attacks as "personal" and ad nauseam repetition of the right wing hate machine.
http://www.attacktimeline.com/ (Disclosure: This is a Clinton site)
"...The entire point of the non-binding Kyl Lieberman amendment was to provide Dems with something to beat Clinton over the head with in the primary, and should she not win the nomination - beat the Democratic winner over the head with in the general...."
The American people HATE the current quagmire in Iraq, why the hell would they support someone who wants to do the same thing in Iran?!?!?!?
"...People are agaist the Iraq war now, but even that can turn very quickly...."
Really? And what polls do you base that on, pray tell.
Tie Iraq around McBush's neck like an anvil.
"...People aren't voting on the past. They're voting on the future."
And the American people know that someone who fucked up in the past, say by voting to give Dear Leader the power to go to war in Iraq, is less likely to be trusted in the future.
and yeah, orionATL, the American people just love Washington insiders, ROFLOL
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 07:32 AMyep, the Bush-Iraq recession needs to be tied around McBush's neck
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 07:35 AMThis guy is smart.
I have to laugh at the Dimocrats. The KKKlintons are the only successful Dem politicians in 40 years, and you Obama cultists are turning on them.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 09:05 AMAnd the American people know that someone who fucked up in the past, say by voting to give Dear Leader the power to go to war in Iraq, is less likely to be trusted in the future.
The majority of Americans believed Hussein needed to be confronted back in 2002. They aren't holding the vote on the AUMF against those in Congress who voted for it regardless of what they think of the war now. But McCain wants to continue the war for another 100 years. Neither Clinton or Obama do. That's how the Iraq issue is gonna play in the general.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 09:30 AMAnd a different Hussein needs to be confronted in 2008! Robert Byrd will probably hang him in similar fashion.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 09:33 AMAren't you a witty one!
You made a funny!
Here's a cookie, now back to your D&D game.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 09:48 AMwhile the candidate i regard as an example of a talented ego (very much like john kennedy in 1960 (whom i supported unreservedly in those years)) willing to gamble the nation's future on his knowing what he probably does not yet have the experience to know. and this on top of eight years of a moron of a president who also had a world class ego.
The same John Kennedy who cut taxes and jumpstarted the defeat of communism by helping to launch the war in Vietnam?
Pacifist Obama is nothing like this man.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 10:00 AMVietnam? oh, you mean the war that Bush and Cheney made damn sure they never served in
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 01:43 PM