Post got duplicated by mistake. You might see the older version for a while longer with a different title "Sen. Obama's Politics of Self-Destruction". Ignore that one...this is the latest version. (I chose the new title because I thought the old title might be misunderstood - the "self-destruction" was a reference to the Obama campaign's ill thought out claims discussed in the post which are in my view self-destructive to their own campaign. But I decided to change the title to something milder at the last minute).
Posted by eriposte at March 7, 2008 07:05 PMI am not trying to call a halt or anything. It is apparent that it would be useless to do so. But the ranting and raving of the partisans of Clinton and Obama is getting really out of hand. Wait, not true, it got out of hand a while ago.
Clinton supporters talk as if they hate Obama; Obama supporters talk as if they hate Clinton. Can these tirades really be an accurate reflection of peoples' honest beliefs about these candidates?
I'm just a Democrat who didn't pick either one, but who will support and vote for either one. I find the talk disgusting and the potential product of it, President McCain, really scary.
Are people who feel as I do a majority of the Democratic electorate, or are we just a thin slice of the whole?
If the former, then you all better think about the long term effects of your words.
Posted by James E. Powell at March 7, 2008 07:08 PMClinton supporters talk as if they hate Obama; Obama supporters talk as if they hate Clinton. Can these tirades really be an accurate reflection of peoples' honest beliefs about these candidates?
Although I support Obama, up until a couple weeks ago I was more or less a defender of Clinton at DailyKos - thinking that she would put the interests of the Party ahead of her own interest. I hope I'm wrong, but I now truly believe that she is willing to rip the Party to shreds to get the nomination. If somehow she were able to pull it off, I'd still fill in the oval for her in November, but that would be the extent of my efforts for her.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 7, 2008 07:59 PMMr Hope is damaged goods by lying about NAFTAgate. If Democrats nominate Mr Hope, we will lose. Mr Hope got caught red-handed with a memo to boot. Sometimes, when you and your team are so arrogant, bad stuff can happen to you. I don't think Mr Hope's experience or lack theteof would hurt him but NAFTAgate will.
Did y'all see this from the NYTimes
No money to offset John McCain's campaign...better open you checkbooks folks. As SurveyUSA's polls indicated...this election isn't all in the bank as many of y'all thought, especially with the stalemate in twinning the Democrats right now.
Posted by peter at March 7, 2008 08:10 PMCA Pol Junkie:
You know what McCain wil do to Mr Hope right if he is nominated? McCain will wave the NAFTA memo in front of TVs across America and ask Mr Hope to explain it. It is over even before it began.
I can see it already in that first debate. McCain will pull it out and ask if Americans know what it is then turn to Mr Hope and ask him to explain it. It is over for Mr Hope. If Mr Hope has an ounce of dignity, he should end his campaign tomorrow but we all know he won't.
Posted by john at March 7, 2008 08:11 PMTo further john's comment above, Ms. Powers, while in England, inferred that Obama's antiwar rhetoric about removing troops from Iraq is only a "best case" scenario. All bets are off real quickly next January 20th, if he gets elected. More speechifying from the great orator. He won't do as you expect...that dog don't hunt.
Posted by peter at March 7, 2008 08:16 PMAll that said, no amount of Sen. Clinton's invocation of her or Sen. McCain's experience will damage Sen. Obama more than the damage he and his campaign have inflicted upon themselves with his (and Susan Rice's) ill thought-out comments discussed at the beginning of this post.
Sigh...what a bunch of baloney. Obama's response didn't inflict a whit of harm on him.
I suggest you reread the statement. Obama didn't say that HE had no experience in answering the 3 a.m phone call. He said that NOBODY did. Last time I checked, "nobody" included Hillary and McCain.
Beyond that, Obama expressly DISMISSES longevity (i.e. beltway "experience") as a criteria for determining who is qualified to answer that 3 a.m. call. And that is the difference between Hillary's statement and Obama's. Obama expressly rejects McCain's years in D.C. as preparing him to be Commander in Chief and Hillary expressly accepts it. Not that complicated, really.
Posted by space at March 7, 2008 08:28 PMSorry, eriposte, Obama was asked what specific experience he had for the mythic 3 a.m. phone call. None of the three have had that experience. I'm not sure we've ever had a President who's had experience for a 3 a.m. phone call. JFK had a lot of tense moments surrounding the Cuban missile crisis, but he was surrounded by officials, it stretched over a week or two, and he didn't have to get out of bed at 3 a.m. Not sure what time it was in Washington when Pearl Harbor was bombed, but FDR and his staff had no decision that had to be made at 3 a.m. They had a whole four years of war, not final question on Jeopardy.
So what kind of experience do any of these candidates have for a phone call at 3 a.m.? Well, what kind of phone call comes at that time of the night? A nuclear strike against America? Believe me, at that point everything's automatic and if the initial strike is from, say, Russia or China then everything glows for awhile and the remnants of humanity may come out of it in a few hundred years. If it's an attack by, say a suitcase atom bomb, then you have to determine who did it and then whoever did it is in trouble. But you don't have to do it at 3 a.m.
In fact, the whole concept is stupid.
John McCain bombed women and children in North Vietnam. He didn't make the decision to do it at 3 a.m., someone told him where and when to do it.
Clinton gave a rousing speech about women's rights in Peking. She didn't do it at 3 a.m. their time.
Basically, the question is a scare tactic for a nation of scaredy cats. It's a stupid reactionary invention to make people afraid. Maybe eriposte gets afraid at 3 a.m. and the idea of Hillary Clinton answering the phone comforts him. So be it. Let's go check what the color code is from the Homeland Security.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 7, 2008 08:43 PMThe latest Rasmussen poll on the 3AM call show a 42 to 25 to 25 result with McCain being the favorite. Amongst indi's he best both Democrats too. What Obama dismisses doesn't matter. Not complicated at all...McOld has it, Obama doesn't...and neither does Clinton. Thanks for the ad Sen. Clinton.
Posted by peter at March 7, 2008 08:46 PMnice post! thanks so much for twice today bringing a bit of sanity into the blogoshpere.
Posted by cdo at March 7, 2008 08:49 PMIt's my belief that HRC would not attack McCain on his national security credentials because it would not be helpful. I'm a Democrat and I believe that McCain is capable and has the credentials in that area, but I don't think Obama has the foreign experience necessary. McCain has other weaknesses that are very exploitable, such as his desire to stay in Iraq forever, poor understanding of economic issues, and his temper. He may have excellent understanding of foreign policy, but I certainly don't want someone with a short fuse near the nuclear button. Because there are two wars, the world is more complicated than when GW or BC took office. The US needs someone with more experience in dealing with foreign policies as well as dealing with a deteriorating economy.
Posted by Prabhata at March 7, 2008 11:47 PMI read many comments blaming HRC for "tearing" the Democratic Party to get the nomination. I'm thankful that Obama is being vetted and forced to answer HRC. The Republicans will not be as kind as Clinton. I can see that photo of Obama with the turban and a question: DO YOU WANT THIS MAN IN THE WH. The Republicans will do that and more, and all the whining from Josh Marshall or Kos will not save Obama. I'm getting to the point that I don't care. If those who support Obama are so blind that they don't see the weaknesses of their candidate, then I'll just have to accept that McCain will be in the WH in 2009. I know HRC weaknesses, but she has a better chance against McCain.
Posted by Prabhata at March 8, 2008 12:10 AMPrabhata, does HRC mean Her Royal Cuteness? I live among HRC supporters, all are women and all are gay or closeted gay assholes.
The Republicans are out to destroy Democratic Party. All signs are out there. Which is cool, it's a done deal anyway with the failed 2006 election that put pussy Dems in the majority to no avail. Rove left the WH for precisely this reason, to work hard at the destruction. And the MSM is as always, helping nicely and the American public who pay out monstrous fees for their cable, are lapping it all up.
Speaking of Monstrous, the Monster remark made by some aide to one of the comedy duo in that Brit rag,is sooooo Rovian it makes one weep with despair at his genius.
Posted by Telemundo at March 8, 2008 03:39 AMWhy do people hate Kos? Because he's a Greek? Or because he's smart?
Posted by Telemundo at March 8, 2008 03:45 AMRead the source material, Eriposte, Obama says he's the person to take that call, clearly so.
I don't get your post, Eriposte. It makes no sense. Bob's right, this won't cost Obama anything and it's ridiculous to say it will. If anything, it might help him, because, again, he says pretty clearly that he's the man to get the 3 a.m. call.
You really need to get more substantive, Eriposte. This piece you wrote isn't analysis. This post -- what you wrote -- is just crap, 100% pure and utter, nonsensical shit.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 04:10 AM"if longevity is the measure by which we determine who's got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he's been there the longest."
So glad McOld is getting five months of a free ride brought to him by the stupid Democrats. That along with comments such as this sure helps McOld's run for the Presidency.
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he would be more willing than Hillary Rodham Clinton to work with Republicans."
Until they hand him his head on a platter. I would say Mr. Hope is very naive about the new GOP Party and how they operate. Unless, of course, he can work with them because he is one of them.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2008 05:13 AM"Prabhata, does HRC mean Her Royal Cuteness? I live among HRC supporters, all are women and all are gay or closeted gay assholes."
and all the Republicans supporters are child abusers or pedophiles. Smarter and less prejudice trolls please.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2008 05:19 AMWHEN HILLARY COMPARED A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE FAVORABLY TO A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE, THAT CROSSED THE LINE! Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but I know too that if he had did what Hillary did, I would be upset with him. While Hillary may indeed be confident of getting the nomination (which is, of course, delusional), she can't be certain of it, and what she did was undermine a potential nominee should he have to face McCain in November, giving McCain ammunition to use.
Moreover, what kind of "experience" does McCain have that does in fact compare favorably to that of Obama? Killing the poor Vietnamese? Being older? Being near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy whilst Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School? Getting involved in shady dealings (Keating) later requiring an apology? Supporting the Bush and Republican agenda over the years? Flip-flopping on torture? Is this the kind of experience Hillary favors?
Posted by Herman at March 8, 2008 05:45 AMThe wisest course for our Democratic candidates right now would be to stop running against each other and attacking each other and, instead, run against clueless, doddering John McCorpse. This would enhance the stature of both their candidacies and keep them from damaging each other in anticipation of the fall campaign.
I wish this blog would create a link that would allow readers to contact both camps and Howard Dean to express their concerns but this blog is getting as bad as that windy militaristic harpy Taylor Marsh so I don't hold out much hope for a rational solution to the continuing mess.
Have a nice fucking day.
Posted by George Tafelski at March 8, 2008 05:51 AMI am no foreign policy expert, but I fail to see how that is vital quality for either candidate. The day foreign policy becomes the product of a single individual and not the collective judgement of experienced hands (experts in the bureaucracy) and scholars, then I will concern myself with these silly claims. It is clear to me that all of this tit-for-tat is purely spin and contains zero substance.
A 3 AM call on the red phone will only mobilize or not mobilze the people around the President to wake-up, focus on the dilemma get up to speed on the intelligence, and commumicate with one another. The day the President has to wake-up and just say "fire the missiles" is long over.
Posted by gtash at March 8, 2008 06:03 AMHillary originally gave a similar answer to Obama on this question--no one has that experience unless they've been president. Apparently, she has since come up with something better.
I don't like the way national security is ceded to McCain. The election will be all about nat'l security because McCain's the nominee. If Romney were the nominee, it would be all about the economy? Don't the dems have a say in what it's "all about"? It should be all about health care and the deficit and the economy and the Iraq war and hey, how about homeland security--remember ports and inspecting cargo? That's been a democratic issue so why aren't we hearing about it? Why does the mere fact that McCain is the nominee make this race all about what McCain wants it to be about??
Posted by CG at March 8, 2008 06:24 AMJames,
I agree we need to take it down a notch.
I think that we are, as you say, just a sliver of the Democratic vote which is a good sign for the party.
I for all my battling Clintonistas, would vote for her in a heart beat. I suspect it is the same the other way around (even if people don't want to admit it yet).
If you are reading these blogs I doubt your grudge against other Democrats could ever outweigh your commitment to get the country back on track.
Posted by midwestdem at March 8, 2008 06:31 AMGeorge,
Good point.
That would raise the level of the debate, ensure that neither candidate is damaged before the GE, and let them both show us who is really better prepared to defeat McCain, which seems to be both candidates' claim to the nomination.
Not to mention it would get the general public to start thinking about whether they want a Democrat period or McCain and keep our issues front and center.
Posted by midwestdem at March 8, 2008 06:42 AMpants pissing peter: "To further john's comment above...."
why are you furthering YOUR own comment?
and poor pants pissing peter, 22% of all Americans and 11% of independents think the country is on the right track
and the Democrats do need to attack McBush on national security, the old fool wants us to be in Iraq for the next 100 years. Americans in the Bush-Iraq recession will not agree.
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 07:00 AMThis red phone stuff is a Republican talking point. That Clinton thought that using it would gain her a temporary advantage in the primaries is more a commentary on her current status (she's lost the pledged delegates and won't win the nomination) than anything to do with reality.
The Republicans always win the scare tactic. They will always build more bombs to keep you nervous, they are always willing to torture more brown people to keep you nervous. They will always claim more power to keep you nervous. Have more secrets to hide from the public because to tell you would make you even more nervous. As everyone should have already learned, these people can always outright you. The last Dem to outscare the Repub was when JFK pulled the missile gap out of his arse. That's over fifty years ago.
Like I've said, McCain has had a lifetime of bad judgements. He didn't climb into a cockpit at 3 a.m. and decide which city block or village he was going to bomb. But he decided to get squeezy with Keating. That's a bad decision, for both him and the country.
Clinton can stand in front of flags and have a hundred generals shoulder to shoulder, but she will still just be Republican-lite, and Republicans hate her. Maybe with that kind of display will help eriposte forego his ambien. But that's not the test.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 07:18 AMPosted by CA Pol Junkie at March 7, 2008 07:59 PM
I'm with you - only I started out a Clinton supporter, who's been swayed by the tone and idealism of Obama (yes, yes, it's the words, stupid). Plus, I'm sure that the breaks MSM have given her this past week will evaporate in the GE. She's a fighter, but the perception now is that she fights "dirty" - old school politics. More than that, I don't know if Dems realize how many Rep voters truly hate Bill and Hillary; they will come out in droves to defeat her to the detriment of other Dems on the ballot. Too many Dems are becoming disgusted with her scorched-earth tactics (not to mention arrogance - Obama can be my VP!?!) and I'm not sure how many independents she'll convince with her experience ads - they're not stupid; she was First Lady ,not President. Plus, McCain stands a better chance of winning against her because of her voting record which is Rep-lite at best.
The commercial about the 3am phone call does not say who is most experienced. It asks "who do you want to be on the receiving end of that phonecall. Texas decided that they would rather have Hilarry Clinton answer that phone. After seeing her support from the Flag Officers and the slip-ups of Obama's foriegn policy advisor, I agree with Texas.
Posted by Glenn McGahee at March 8, 2008 07:48 AMWhy is it acutomatically assumed that McOld has all kinds of Foreign Policy experience?
I don't think that military experience equals Foreign Policy experience...unless your only foreign policy is to bomb the shit out of foreign countries.
Also, is there really anyone who thinks that anyone coming to this blog are still trying to make up their minds in the Primaries (the few that are left...)?
At this point I do not see any persuasion going on - just a whole lot of "waaa, my candidate is better and your's sucks, waaaa" BS - which does not help the Democratic Party at all. Seems that the only people being helped by this continuing crap are the Pukes and this Nation and this world cannot survive another 4 years of GOP rule.
Would it not serve our purposes so much better to turn some of this research time and posting time in propping up Dems against the crazy Pukes rather than tearing down one Dem over the other.
Most people have made up their mind...and if they have not made up their mind yet - I really doubt that it will be made up with the kind of histrionics that is spewed across the blogosphere.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2008 07:51 AMGlenn McGahee, Texas did not decide they'd rather have Hillary answer that phone. The caucus results won't be known for sure until after party officials receive the mailed-in results which will be sometime after this weekend. However, at the rate it is going, it appears Hillary lost Texas by about three delegates, at least. So, Texas apparently chose Obama to answer the red phone.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 08:23 AMOf course the GE battle will be over national security because that is the only thing McCain can run on. I trust either Dem candidate to go on the offensive and make the #1 issue the economy, which it will be in voters minds anyway.
Posted by at March 8, 2008 08:27 AMBrian -- Keep reminding Democratic folks that the popular vote doesn't matter and that it's all about the electoral college, oops I mean, the delegate count. Works for me.
Posted by w2 at March 8, 2008 08:30 AMmidwestdem,
Thanks. I have contacted other blogs that are focused on winning rather than sniping as well as Howard Dean but have received no response as yet. I am going to contact my friends sometime today and see if enough like-minded voters want to win enough to request a halt to this destructive behavior before it's too late.
Best,
GT
W2, Obama leads the popular vote as well as the delegate count, not just by a little bit, but by over a million votes.
So, if popular vote is the standard you want to use, I am comfortable with it.
Obama leads in the popular vote even with Florida and Michigan counted in, and he's only losing by 10 delegates while winning the popular vote if FL and MI are counted in.
Why the hell do you think Obama supporters such as myself are fuming about the Hillary campaign, W2? It's mathematically practically impossible for her to gain a delegate lead, and it's extremely unlikely that she'll get a popular vote lead.
You need to learn your side's talking points, W2, which is to say Hillary's campaign's talking points. Those talking points are:
-- The voting Democratic populations of a majority of the states in the union doesn't matter;
-- The majority of the voting Democratic population of the U.S. as a whole doesn't matter;
-- The pledged delegates assigned to each candidate, earned through contests such as primary elections and caucuses to determine the popular will of the people, don't matter, either;
-- When a candidate loses an election and/or caucus and it's a close loss, that loser can go on TV and claim a victory and the media will report it as such, ad infinitum (see Texas and Nevada caucuses and primaries and Hillary campaign talking points for details);
-- The only thing that matters is what the superdelegates, the party leaders, decide.
Those, W2, are Hillary's camp's talking points. If you want the Democratic nomination for president determined by the popular voting results, I am all for it, because Obama's currently winning it by over a million and he's projected to win that.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 09:02 AMLike I said, ignorant prick.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 09:17 AMEconomy? Voting for tax tax tax anti free traders is a suicide pact on the economy.
We elected Mr. Hope before. He was named saint Jimmy Carter, and he was railroaded out of office in what I believe is the 2nd worst performance by an incumbent in our history.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 09:19 AMSnark, how am I ignorant? Arrogant, maybe. Ignorant, no. Everything I wrote there is supported by facts. Also, I see you still don't understand where "ignorant slut" came from, which was supposed to be a joke for Coyote, a joke that I thought 2 "fogeys" like Coyote has implied herself to be and myself would understand and laugh over. It turned out she's not so old, though. So, give it a rest, I didn't really call her "ignorant" anything. You on the other hand are just rude and stupid, obviously. Like I said, ignorant? What's ignorant? What fact have I gotten wrong here? Nothing. I am 100% right on.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 09:38 AMYou're correct Brian, you're not ignorant.
You're just a partisan hack who employs facts selectively.
I stand corrected.
Still a prick though.
And here's a little secret....we all know the Chase/Curtain skits from SNL. But I know you're slow that way.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 09:45 AMPlunk your magic twanger, "fogey".
Posted by TIKI AL at March 8, 2008 09:48 AMwhich was supposed to be a joke for Coyote,
You're still on that? Sheesh. It wasn't the SNL reference, Brian. We all got that. It was the incongruity, considering the adversarial interactions we've had, of your using that particular phrase, thinking we'd all "have a laugh."
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2008 09:52 AMSnark, apparently you don't know the skits and you don't really get the reference either, because it was Dan Akroyd that said it, not Chevy Chase. Moreover, it's Jane Curtin, not curtain spelled as in reference to drapery.
Coyote, I only mentioned it because Snark brought it up, again. Personally, I've never seen us as adversaries, merely as involved in a "family" squabble, which is that if the party decides that the nominee ought to be the candidate who has not won the popular vote nor the pledged delegate vote -- which is Hillary -- then I am out of here, and I'm under the impression tens of millions of African-American and far-left Democrats are saying they are out of here, too. I expect that threat wouldn't bear out, but it might be enough to swing the election and sink the Democratic Party forever. Still, we're not adversaries, yet. We just disagree on Hillary.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 10:31 AMWay I read it he's just calling McCain old.
Posted by Siberian at March 8, 2008 10:37 AMExpansion on snark's public service message for bb:
I remember experiencing most of the bits first hand from the following:
1. SNL
2. Laugh In
3. Carol Burnette
4. Dean Martin
5. Johnny Carson
6. Amos n' Andy (tv)
7. Buster Brown
8. Roosevelt's Fireside Chats
Ok Brian. However you like it.
Take your vote and go home because you don't like the rules.
And still with the popular vote crap. There is no meaningful national popular vote when you've had 50 different votes with 50 different sets of rules about who can and can't vote spread out over the course of several months with the list of candidates changing as the contests progress. You know it. Thé party knows it. So you can keep counting up meaningless numbers if it makes you feel better about yourself but give the rest of us a break. Neither candidate has crossed the threshold. THe public hasn't expressed a clear choice.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 11:50 AMLook can you stop perpetuating this war on terror lie? Al Qaeda is the boogie man invented by the CIA. They needed a group to make it look like some vast conspiracy so they called Osama Bin Laden the leader when it is Khaleed Sheik Mohammed who too responsibility for the plane attacks. Please educate your self and stop feeding into this purposely overexaggerated threat of terrorism which the elites have used to control and manipulate the population. Here is documentary called "The Power of Nightmares which explains the fabricated lies" http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
Posted by at March 8, 2008 12:09 PMNow, you're talking, Snark, real points, not name calling. You really believe that 1,000,000 popular votes is a meaningless number? That the voting Democratic public has not made a clear choice? How can that be meaningless? How is that not a choice? You're saying that 1,000,000 ordinary folks' votes don't count. I think that's ridiculous. Yes, with the superdelegates, you can claim it doesn't matter, that the party will decide, but what kind of position is that when the name of the party IS Democratic? It's a contradiction at the most basic level of the party's identity, that I don't see how Hillary and her supporters can go along with the idea of candidate selection by the superdelegates. It's wrong.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 12:21 PMBrian,
All those votes were perfectly meaningful in the particular primaries they were cast in. Beyond that they are meaningless. Collectively they are an aberration used by people like you who seek to shortcircuit the process and ignore the party rules. At least the ones you don't like.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 12:29 PMIf the voters had expressed a clear preference either Obama or Clinton would have enough delegates without the super delegates having to come into play. They don't because the voters haven't expressed a clear favorite.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 12:34 PMHow can you dismiss a million votes for Obama, Snark? It doesn't matter what set of rules they voted under or when they voted. They voted FOR Obama. It's blatantly undemocratic to ignore that. Party rules state that there's superdelegates. It doesn't state they have to not follow the popular will of the people.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 12:38 PMParty rules state that there's superdelegates. It doesn't state they have to not follow the popular will of the people.
I don't believe I ever claimed that Party rules said any such thing.
I have no problem with the Party rules. And I'm not the one threatening to cry instead of vote if the super delegates don't use their votes the way I think they should.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 12:53 PMI'm not threatening to cry, I'm threatening to walk away, and I'm a swing-state voter. So, it counts.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 01:34 PMlordtyranus2 (gay porn name): "We elected Mr. Hope before. He was named saint Jimmy Carter, and he was railroaded out of office in what I believe is the 2nd worst performance by an incumbent in our history."
with of course the 1st worst performance being Dear Leader Bush
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 01:38 PMOh, and, right, I know you don't disagree that the party rules don't prohibit the super-delegates from voting with the popular will.
But, if the popular will is a million votes more for Obama than Hillary, how can you justify having the super-delegates choose Hillary over the will of those million votes? That's not democratic. It's very undemocratic.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 01:45 PMThat's not democratic.
So, take it up with the rules committee. I don't understand what you expect snark to do, other than agree with you. And that still won't change the rules.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2008 04:24 PM...and I'm a swing-state voter. So, it counts.
Riiiiiight....cause you're from a state that MATTERS in our oh so very democratic electoral system.
But, if the popular will is a million votes more for Obama than Hillary, how can you justify having the super-delegates choose Hillary over the will of those million votes?
Hmmmmm....that's a tough one. Oh wait! I've got it! It can be justified because it's within the rules that the party established!
The fact of the matter is that neither has obtained enough support to give them the omination without the super delegates. The pledged delegate race is basically moot at this point. The will of the people has not broken clearly enough in favor of either to establish a nominee. So the 795 (if that's the number) super delegate party insiders will now have their say. Just as the Party rules dictate.
Posted by snark at March 8, 2008 05:05 PMAre you counting all the republicans that voted in the democratic primary?
To be included in the will of the people you have to BE a people.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 8, 2008 05:10 PMFirst, I'm not sure this will necessarily come back to haunt him, if he comes back with: your "experience" is fabricated. Hillary's speech in China and her "tea party" in Ireland are the best she's come up with, and they are complete bullshit. Ditto McCain: he has the RESOLVE to make tough decisions, but he's also a hothead (or so goes the meme). There are many, many ways Obama can exploit the "experience" aspects.
Secondly, the HRC campaign has made a number of comments that I think are greater liabilities in the general: dismissing the "insignificant" states (which include decisive battlegrounds like MO, CO, VA, WI, IA...), playing into the GOP strengths on "security," "experience," etc.
This isn't to say that the attacks on Obama haven't been wholly unfair, and I agree that it's better to tarnish him somewhat now so he can regain his mojo later. However there's a fine line between this and hurting either Dem's chances in the general. Also not to be overlooked: Obama would seem to have very long coattails in the general, whereas Hillary functions more as an albatross (check out Survey USA stuff, crossposted on Kos).
Oh, lastly: forget the NAFTA thing. It turns out the Canadians contacted both campaigns about it, and they both said the same thing. Only HRC's campaign made hay out of it (foolishly). And McCain wouldn't wave that in Obama's face, but because he's an adamant free-trader: even with Obama's flap there, McCain is in much worse position on that issue.
Posted by Dirk Gently at March 9, 2008 11:24 AM