With Tony Rezko shady land deal with Obama and Pastor Wright anti-America scandal, thank God we still have 2 candidates left on the Democratic side to choose from. Imagine if Hillary had granted the request to bow out as demanded by Obama's friends in the MSM, we will now be left with a candidate that can not win in November.
The media just loves a fight, so they've kept this nomination process going long after Hillary would otherwise have passed her past due date.
What a hapless and irresponsible bunch of hacks, complicit in the election of the worst president in this nation's history, they - and you - now seem intent on helping to tear down the most inspirational candidate we've had since JFK, in order to nominate a grotesque party hack who will tear the party apart in order to further her own outsize ambition.
Thanks for backing the most divisive candidate we can, one sure to lose in November while dragging down the entire Democratic ticket. Let's hear it for the politics of smear, sleaze, distort and cheat! Well done!
I read that Susie Madrak piece last night, it's great, Suburban Guerrilla has been a daily read of mine for a long, long time.
Posted by paradox at March 18, 2008 07:16 AMThanks for backing the most divisive candidate
Waitaminit! eriposte is backing Hillary, not Obama...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2008 07:22 AMbalthus,
Your spirit of unity is an inspiration to us all!
Posted by Vast Left at March 18, 2008 07:27 AMBut, in fact, Clinton cannot win the pledged delegates, even with a blowout in Pennsylvania (and it's unwise to ever count out Obama closing in a race). She has been losing the super delegates since Super Tuesday. She has been losing the goodwill of many Democrats with the tenor of her campaign. Now with the collapse of any attempt to revote in Florida there is no chance for Clinton to catch up in popular votes. I know in some corners of the blogosphere people who point out the the mathmatical obviousness of this are dismissed in favor of the magical thinking of Clinton supporters. But magical thinking doesn't trump mathmatics.
It is over. Pelosi and others have been telling you this over and over. iamacoyote and eriposte and the others here will at some point have to make a decision to either support Obama, the Democratic candidate, or help to elect John McCain. I suggest some meditation, the letting go of the hate and anger you are feeling, and then the acceptance of what it.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 18, 2008 07:54 AMLast phrase: "the acceptance of what is."
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 18, 2008 07:57 AMHate and anger, Bob? That's coming from the Obama end, from what I've seen. As for taking your word that "it's over," well, you and the other Obama supporters have not been the most trustworthy of sources, so I'll just wait until Hillary closes shop, thanks. And unlike the majority of Obama people who come here, most of us TLCers have said that we will support the nominee. Doesn't mean we have to like him, if it's Obama, or believe he's anything other than a calculating politician who'll do anything and everything including lying, cheating and stealing to win. Sadly, you're the one having trouble "accepting" that fact.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2008 08:05 AMWhat I want to know...is where can I get the "Shrinking..." T-shirt.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 08:15 AMMy fabulous Hillary 2008 Lapel Pin arrived today -- just in time to join the Shrinking Band of Paranoid Holdouts! Perfect.
Posted by Klio at March 18, 2008 08:22 AMeriposte, Senator Clinton is welcome to run as long as money and support hold out, but I hope you realize that there is almost nothing the Senator nor her supporters can still do to attain the nomination, certainly not without the destruction of the Party. This is the time to run a positive campaign you can be proud of, and not spew more bile and throw more mud. We need to focus on McCain, who is far more deserving of what you spew.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 18, 2008 09:17 AMOn Sunday I saw a car turn into a Phoenix church with a faded Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on one side, and a shiny one next to it that read:
"Hillary, dillary, dock. That louse will take your Glock."
That's the mentality we are dealing with here, folks.
Huh, after all the hoopla over Ferraro, it turns out Obama himself said pretty much the same thing in '06:
Mr. Obama has pointedly acknowledged that he benefits from his race, noting last year that a new white senator from Illinois would hardly have stirred comparable interest or intrigue. So Mr. Obama has embraced his role, but he has strived to be defined by more than color alone.
It looks to me like he's planned all along to run on race issues, knowing full well what a challenge it would be during the most important election the US has faced in decades. Who is he to make that decision when a Dem president is vital to saving our country? I wonder when the decision was made to try to destroy not only Hillary's chances for the nom, but the entire Clinton legacy and maybe even the Dem Party itself. If he's got the nom, I'll vote for the Dems, but it'll be holding my nose and my nausea. Selfish bastard.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2008 09:37 AMI'd much rather an argument about why I should switch my support from Obama to Clinton (and I am in fact persuadable) than read yet another smug, snarky commentary replete with silly stuff about the Shrinking Band of Paranoid Holdouts. Oh, and I forgot the "trademark" superscript....
Give the sarcasm a rest and give me a cogent argument, please.
Posted by joeldanwalls at March 18, 2008 09:51 AM“Despite the evidence, President Bush is determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq until he leaves office,” Clinton said.
EVIDENCE. Now that's a curious word for Hilary to use. She never bothered to read the "evidence" in the intelligence reports before authorizing War with Iraq. EVIDENCE. She cannot read the handwriting on the wall, that she cannot win the Democratic nomination except by stealth, and so she continues with her destructive polemical harangues. EVIDENCE. She will not listen to her own staff, and bow-out gracefully, as her futile efforts only sabotage the party and the nation. Let's take Hilary's words above, and substitute several referents:
“Despite the evidence, Senator Hilary R. Clinton is determined to continue her failed ambitions until she destroys her party,” she said.
EVIDENCE, Hilary, is right in front of YOUR face. Your recalcitrance, entitlement, and arrogance serves only ONE purpose: Your own arrogant self-ambition. Even the Oxford English Dictionary has a word for her behavior: BITCH: (3) A woman, esp. (formerly) a promiscuous one or (now) a malicious or treacherous one. (4) Something difficult or unpleasant. colloq. (5) A person who makes malicious or spitefully critical comments.
Posted by The Gay Species at March 18, 2008 10:05 AMGive the sarcasm a rest and give me a cogent argument, please.
What, like the one Gay guy here gives: Hillary is a bitch? And you wonder about the sarcasm...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2008 10:22 AMIt looks to me like he's planned all along to run on race issues, knowing full well what a challenge it would be during the most important election the US has faced in decades.
Have you been watching the same campaign as the rest of us? He avoids talking about race issues because his prime directive is to not scare white voters. His hand was forced, so he talked about it.
I wonder when the decision was made to try to destroy not only Hillary's chances for the nom, but the entire Clinton legacy and maybe even the Dem Party itself.
Clinton has only herself to blame for losing the nomination. She needed to compete and minimize her losses in Georgia, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, and caucus states. She chose the Some states don't matter and Super Tuesday is the end strategy and it didn't work.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 18, 2008 10:34 AM...or believe he's anything other than a calculating politician who'll do anything and everything including lying, cheating and stealing to win. Sadly, you're the one having trouble "accepting" that fact.
coyote, The exact same sentences could be applied to Hillary.
Your own arrogant self-ambition
in the mind of the beholder.....but I have yet to hear it of a MALE politician
Capoljunkie: Have you been watching the same campaign as the rest of us? Michelle Obama in SC saying to a group of black supporters "They've kept us down, they've kept our kids down, it's OUR turn" is playing the race card. And there's nothing wrong with that. You get votes anyway you can. But you can't play the race card and then accuse the other side of playing the race card. Micelle is not Jesse Jackson with his 'Hillary didn't cry over Katrina'; she's the candidate's wife. Bill got hit - Michelle too should get hit.
Posted by jmac at March 18, 2008 10:51 AMactually read the dnc rules?
where do you get these ideas of yours, e'rip.
of the sources you listed, i found jon winkleman's q and a, down about half way thru his march 17 post at mydd,
very informative.
thanks.
Posted by orionATL at March 18, 2008 11:02 AMThe exact same sentences could be applied to Hillary.
And they have been, SoS, over and over, even when it's not true. All while pretending Obama's running a "clean" campaign.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 18, 2008 11:21 AMWhen Obama loses the presidential election, I hope that people like 'Bob in Pacifica' and 'The Gay Species' will finally acknowledge in their hearts what so many reasonable democrats have been saying for so long - that it will be YOUR fault for being so foul and obnoxious that many of us will not be able to bear voting for Obama due to the kind of hateful supporters he attracts. There is simply too much evidence for this to be an accident at this point.
So, for the 1000th time: your vile language and hatemongering towards Clinton and her supporters are the very reasons why Obama will lose. You've succeeded, through your juvenile angry boy attitudes, in alienating so many voters that he simply cannot win now. Hope you're happy! Good job for your man!
Something tells me, though, that you won't be able to honestly acknowledge the result of your actions and those of your brethren. Cuz that takes a dose of emotional and intellectual maturity.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 11:25 AM"it will be YOUR fault for being so foul and obnoxious that many of us will not be able to bear voting for Obama due to the kind of hateful supporters he attracts."
Oh jeez, "did we get our little feewings hurt?"
Grow up, for pete's sake. The future of the country may be in the balance in this election.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 11:42 AMAnd another perfect example - thanks for proving my point that the ability to see what you're doing is unattainable.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 11:48 AMEveryone can have Hillary, Mark Penn, the DLC, and their weak minded 10 state strategy.
I'll take Obama, the DNC, a strong 50 state strategy.
And you may not like it but Kos is right, there will be a civil war in the Democratic Party. And it will be the Clinton's fault.
Only one strategy for the Democratic Party has a future for this country. The other will show defeat for years to come... again!
Maybe most of you can figure it out. I certainly have!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 18, 2008 12:07 PMUnfortuantely, Obama is toast. Why, in his 20 year friendship with Rev. Wright, didn't he turn the Reverend around. Obama and his wife are the American Dream (and they are black). Calling them black is not a racist comment, it is just a fact. (Like Ferraro's comments were just statements of fact.) What a great example Obama was for Rev. Wright. Why didn't he speak to Rev. Wright as he has spoken to his coalition. Instead Obama sat there for 20 years and drank the kool-aid of Dr. Wright and turned himself into a hateful, spiteful, lying racist. Obama is a racist of the worse kind. He has taken full advantage of this country and turned to spit in its face. Rev. Wright has inflamed 8500 people in his church for many years. They only know hate for this country. They have been indoctrinated with the foulist language I have heard in a church and they all sat there clapping and nodding their heads.
Why couldn't Obama turn Rev. Wright around to his (supposed) way of thinking,i.e. uniter. Something smells in Obamaland. This country is in real trouble if we elect Obamaman our President.
Posted by Kathy at March 18, 2008 12:12 PMAnalyzing Niger documents is where your expertise lies. And your opinion on such things really matters. But Please don't join No Quarter's Obama hate fest. They are both decent human beings, Barak and Hillary, and if you think she's the best choice, tell us why. But don't fall into the republican trap like so many bloggers have done.
Posted by Mickey at March 18, 2008 12:55 PM"And another perfect example - thanks for proving my point that the ability to see what you're doing is unattainable."
Huh? Unattainable? That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by at March 18, 2008 01:56 PM"Everyone can have Hillary, Mark Penn, the DLC, and their weak minded 10 state strategy.
I'll take Obama, the DNC, a strong 50 state strategy.
And you may not like it but Kos is right, there will be a civil war in the Democratic Party. And it will be the Clinton's fault.
Only one strategy for the Democratic Party has a future for this country. The other will show defeat for years to come... again!
Maybe most of you can figure it out. I certainly have!"
Yikes! This is exactly why Republicans are laughing and salivating in anticipation of the election in November. Because the Democrats will do what they always do, fail to present a cohesive vision. Right wing conservative radio may dislike John McCain, but when they thought he was UNFAIRLY attacked, they came to his defense bc ULTIMATELY, they take care of their own. Can the same be said about Liberal Bloggers? No, why? Because they'd rather skewer Hillary Clinton in ways worse than the Republicans even when the attacks on her are unfair and misogynistic bc Democrats consistently EAT THEIR OWN. The Republican party knows this and they revel in it.
I find it interesting that the common talking points of the Right Wingers for the last 16 yrs are now the talking points of the left wing bloggers. Pretty Ironic and rather sad.
The Clintons aren't destroying the party, the people within the party who are the liberal equivalent of Christian Conservatives are doing their damnest to destroy it because like a 5 yr old in a candy store, they keep throwing massive tantrums every time they don't get exactly what they want. They do this all the while blaming every one but themselves for the destruction.
Posted by kacey at March 18, 2008 07:09 PMkacey, Maybe you can explain how Clinton will revert to a 50 state strategy after she and her campaign has dissed 40 of them? We were just gaining ground in these states. The Clinton's and the DLC will set back Dr. Dean's work for another 20 years.
I'm trying to look forward to a Democratic future. Hillary is a slash and burn candidate. She doesn't care what it takes or who it alienates to win her coronation. If you can tell me how this will not split the party between the DLC and DNC, I'm all ears.
If Obama gets thumped in PA, and has quite clearly lost momentum in the rest of the races, with the Wright flap clearly hurting him, the superdelegates can reasonably flip the thing to Clinton.
Obama gave a fine speech, but his negligence has allowed Republicans to inject poison into the campaign and hung an albatross around the Democratic neck.
Posted by bob h at March 19, 2008 05:20 AMMe, I say that most people would rather vote for the candidate who says their state caucaus doesn't matter than the one whose pastor says "God damn America!"
Oh jeez, "did we get our little feewings hurt?"
Thank you for illustrating the point about being juvenile and patronizing.
New Clinton/Obama rule;
When Obama fans threaten to riot if their man doesn't get the nod, they're "standing up for principle."
When Hillary fans say they will stay home if Hillary doesn't get the nod, it's because "they got their feewings hurt."
Posted by Blue Jean at March 19, 2008 09:57 AMErioposte, I was a Clinton supporter, and very strong one as you may recall. But her implication that McCain is better qualified to be President than Obama is simply unforgivable. If she really thinks that she has no business in the Democratic Party, period. It’s giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Besides it’s completely untrue. McCain is neither intellectually or temperamentally qualified to be President, as you well know. Yet he’s very likely to be the next President, especially if Clinton is the nominee. So I reasoned last January when I switched to Obama. That is still my reasoning. What the hell is Clinton’s case against McCain That’s what I want to know. Her reputation for honesty and candor? Her consistent and clear sighted opposition to Bush’s foreign policy? The purity and integrity of her political conduct? Look, I don’t think Obama is a saint or the second coming of Honest Abe. But he’s the most articulate and intellectually sophisticated politician that I’ve seen in a long time, and I campaigned for Hubert Humphrey in 1968, so I go back a while. On the central issues facing the country he has the best message and is the best messenger. Clinton, on the other hand, is demonstrating that she has a very instrumental sense of morals. I’m a Florida voter and native of Michigan and I know that she’s trying to game the system. To include only voters in the January 29th Democratic primary in a revote would have violated all Michigan precedent and is pretty undemocratic when you get down to it. More to the point, the Clinton efforts here flies in the face their clear acceptance of the rules of the Democratic Party. At this point I have to tell you that I would have great deal trouble supporting Clinton, or even voting for her in the General Election. That’s a very hard thing for me to say, as a life-long Democrat and someone with a fairly sophisticated grasp of politics and public policy (M.A. University of Chicago 1979).
Please note that I have not made any aversions to either Clinton or Obama supporters. It is time for everyone to calm down and think rationally about this extremely painful situation. Please let’s all recall Mr. Jefferson’s words: “Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things.”
It occurred to me that I didn’t discuss Clinton’s strongest substantive argument, her experience. If she was indeed a participant/observer in major policy making in the Clinton Administration then she is indeed uniquely qualified. But the evidence for this is mixed to put it charitably. Moreover, I have a two word rebuttal to anyone who things that experience is the most important factor is choosing a president: Dick Cheney. Indeed, since Eisenhower the nominally most experience candidate usually loses. Nixon in 1960, Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush I in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000.
Posted by Reference Librarian at March 20, 2008 05:30 PM