Oh fuck, halleluiah... a voice of reason at TLC!
Best move Steve could have made at this point!
Just when I ripped eRiposte... sorry!
Oh fuck, halleluiah... a voice of reason at TLC!
Aw, man... now I'll never have a career in cable news.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 12, 2008 09:35 PM... let’s save the mud slinging for the Republicans, OK?
Thank you for some sanity. I was really starting to hate the constant whining of perpetual victim-hood. My trips over here where getting fewer and fewer, and I really do love this blog.
Now that Hillary has done the right thing and ousted that weasel Penn, she can now start to work on repairing her tattered reputation.
Maybe some of the once well respected front pagers can do the same.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 09:39 PMAw, man... now I'll never have a career in cable news.
I'm sure MSNBC has a spot for you! ;)
And certainly not a position in the Clinton Administration if she wins.
Clinton's campaign certainly could have used a devil's advocate before Super Tuesday.
After the SF mess, things can happen. We'll see if he's peaked or not. We'll see how many turn away disgusted at the leader. Sanity, Hannity, that's what this is.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh told reporters that the comments should be taken into account by super delegates who have yet to make up their mind about whom to support, while former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a former small-town mayor himself, called the comments "condescending and disappointing."
Posted by peter at April 12, 2008 10:13 PMWe'll see how many turn away disgusted at the leader. Sanity, Hannity, that's what this is.
What in the hell are you talking about? How in the hell can you say Hannity and Sanity in the same sentence? How does it feel knowing you and Redstaters are kindred spirits?
This won't hurt Obama. You thought Reverand Wright was gonna hurt him, and he turned it around big time.
He will, and already is turning this around. What you Hallary guys don't understand is that Obama will use the spotlight to go around the controversy and take new ground that the old style DLCers and RNCers didn't even know were there.
Obama is change for real, and a lot of your fellow Americans realize this, even if you don't
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 10:33 PMOh dear, not the "math" again. If HRC is going to lose, as the Obama camp swears, don't worry be happy. It must be humiliating for a winner to lose CA, PA, MA, OH, and popular vote in TX. That's Obama's attempt in that dinner, when he faulted the voters in PA for clinging to their guns and religion to compensate for their job loses. BO just offended voters from WY, MT, NY, PA, OH, MI, and on and on. I say let the vote continue, and yes, let the mud slinging come from a Democrat before the Republicans bury the nominee in November. That's part of the nomination process, and nobody should save either BO's or HRC's ass from being questioned not only about policies, but their ability to deal with the vetting process.
Posted by Prabhata at April 12, 2008 10:34 PMHallary=Hillary
were=was
Duuuoooohhhh?
let's save the mud slinging for Republicans, OK?
Go fuck yourself. It's Clinton, or we lose to McCain in the GE. You think BO is going to get away with disenfranchising millions of voters? You think BO is going to get away with his elitist crap and his bigoted preacher and his pal on trial for corruption?
Big CA Pol Junkie arrives on the scene to tell us how it's all going to play out and to let us know it's time to get together. Puke.
Prabhata, sorry, but they are going to use math when they add up who the delegates from each state vote for at the convention. As we saw with the Wright thing, real voters don't care about faux outrage.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 12, 2008 10:47 PMss, general election voters aren't going to vote based on talking points that haven't worked for Clinton in the primaries.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 12, 2008 10:53 PMOh for gawd's sakes the whole math argument got destroyed awhile ago. He can't sew up the nomination either.
We need to focus on winning the election November. That means nominating a candidate who can actually win something besides caucuses in red states. As for his other state wide victories, check out his standing in those states with the new polls post Wright and post "bitter clinging." It's also particularly telling to check out the differences between tiny caucuses and state-wide primary results within states that held both (Washington? Texas?).
If he can't handle the a democratic primary, then how can he handle the GE? Oh that's right, it's been awhile since he faced actual competition. In Chicago he used technical rules to eliminate his democratic opponents. Then he relied on an improbable scandal -- a popular republican dragging his beautiful actress wife to public sex clubs --- to end up facing Alan Keyes. Come on.
Enough with the nonsense. Yes, many of you "hate" the Clintons. Get over it. We are playing with real money and real lives this time.
It must suck to be the inevitable nominee, and then not.
Obama will win all those states too in the General.
Go fuck yourself. It's Clinton, or we lose to McCain in the GE.
Such anger, so much incoherence. We are to believe that is Cal pol doesn't bugger himself, McKrany's going to win? Oh what? I misinterpreted what you said? Hmmmm, I wonder where I have seen that before?
Its just like telling an Acholic they have a problem.
Same reaction, same denial of reality.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 10:53 PM
Oh that's right, it's been awhile since he faced actual competition.
So your saying Hillary isn't actual competition? That'll be a good point in her favor vis a vis the SuperDs(tm)
Myself, I think she's better competition than McKranky, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 10:59 PMI think SS speaks for how a lot of Hillary supporters really feel. LOL!
Seriously, this blog has played a small role in engendering those feelings. If The Left Coaster wants to play a small part in bringing the Hillary supporters around to support the presumptive nominee, that's great. But The Left Coaster staff have their work cut out for them if that's what's desired, and that work starts with some of the staffers, CA Pol Junkie. Some of your fellow Left Coaster staff bloggers are still spewing Obama hate on a regular basis. Your readers only react with "mud slinging" because that's what they see their candidate do and their blogs, like this one, which is another good reason why Hillary ought to drop out and NOT keep running.
Why waste the money, create bad feelings within the party and injure our nominee, Obama? It'd be one thing if Hillary were running a feel-good campaign, it's quite another when her tactics consist of trying her damndest to make Obama, our future nominee, look awful. All she's really doing is helping McCain at this point.
Good luck with brining your blog readers together, CA Pol Junkie. You're going to need that after this blog played a small part in creating such a monster.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 12, 2008 11:04 PMWe need to focus on winning the election November. That means nominating a candidate who can actually win something besides caucuses in red states. - cdalygo
Since Obama has won more primaries than Clinton and more blue states than Clinton, does that mean you are supporting Obama for the nomination?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 12, 2008 11:07 PMIt'd be one thing if Hillary were running a feel-good campaign, it's quite another when her tactics consist of trying her damndest to make Obama, our future nominee, look awful.
Thats what I'm saying. I never hear why Hillary's the better canidate, only how horrible and unelectable Obama is.
Taylor Marsh and her ilk are not helping or building, only destroying.
So much rage, just like the wingers. Status Quo lovers who see their little world being engulfed by events and acting out like little children.
Very unhelpful in every regard. Hillary could do great work in the Senate, but not if she keeps nuking bridges.
Oh goodness, I might be being an elitist. That would be terrible if I gave a f*ck, but I don't. I was an ELITE when I was in the Ranger Battalion too, and I was damn proud of it. Elite as it is currently used means CaCa.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 11:18 PMI couldn't agree with you more on the mudslinging.
And end to the misogny and the manipulation of Hillary hate would be a very good start.
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA at April 12, 2008 11:32 PMAnd the re-enfranchisement of FL and MI would be even better.
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA at April 12, 2008 11:33 PMCA Pol Junkie,
Should I assume that your reference to mudslinging was a reference to my work here?
If it is, I'd like to ask the following.
1. As long as you believe the race should continue, there will be attacks against Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama and his supporters. Since I support Sen. Clinton, do you believe I should have the right as a blogger to respond to those attacks and correct the record if I believe Sen. Obama or his supporters are making false, wrong or stupid statements? Or would this fall under the category of "mudslinging"?
2. I am obviously supporting Sen. Clinton because I want her to win the nomination and the Presidency. As long as you believe the race should continue, am I allowed to make the case why Sen. Obama is not what he claims to be or challenge his positions or claims? Am I also allowed to make the case for why Sen. Clinton would be better, while giving you and others the ample opportunity to argue your case? Or would this fall under the category of "mudslinging"?
3. Am I allowed to make the case for what should and shouldn't be done by the DNC and other parties - and this may involve criticisms of Sen. Obama that you may not like - to resolve the nomination since neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton will have the pledged delegates needed to win the nomination outright without the superdelegates weighing in? Or would that also fall into the category of "mudslinging"?
4. Finally, will there be a concerted effort in the many blogs that support Sen. Obama - which have orders of magnitude greater traffic than TLC - and in the numerous corporate media outlets that are supporting Sen. Obama overtly or covertly - to stop the attacks against Sen. Clinton on behalf of Sen. Obama? Or will the request only apply to bloggers who happen to support Hillary Clinton and happen to be blogging at TLC part time?
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2008 11:48 PMAnd the re-enfranchisement of FL and MI would be even better.
I'm all for a re-vote, but that is on the states themselves as they were the ones who broke the rules in the first place. Now I understand that rules don't mean anything to someone who want's to win at any cost. But those kind of people are Republicans even if they mistakenly call themselves Democrats, thus the term DINO. No let me get all sexist and shit and just say right out that a lot of these people are really closet racist.
They just can't see thmeselves as crude and vulger about it as those Republicans, so they feel their enlightened state of being not crude racist entitles them to the party of-not-Republicans. And then they get in the way of any progressive movement DLC style.
DINOs.
Sexism is now defined as not being for Hillary. Since it is being defined this way, the word now means nothing.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 11:56 PMFinally, will there be a concerted effort in the many blogs that support Sen. Obama - which have orders of magnitude greater traffic than TLC - and in the numerous corporate media outlets that are supporting Sen. Obama overtly or covertly - to stop the attacks against Sen. Clinton on behalf of Sen. Obama? Or will the request only apply to bloggers who happen to support Hillary Clinton and happen to be blogging at TLC part time?
We are not talking about other blogs, only this one.
Tell me why Hillary is the better choice. I don't want to hear your FOX news approved attacks on fellow Democrats.
There will be life post nominee, and the question is what will the smoking wreckage look like? Will people like six, or Brian Bell or myself want to come here anymore? Will this blog have any influence once it gets the reputation of being the home of a bunch of bitter Hillary burnouts?
Larry and Taylor have that covered already. I'm willing to bet Steve doesn't want to go that route.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 12:07 AMI don't see the delegate math adding up either. If Clinton wins the popular vote, does that math count?
Also, are these new rules: one is not allowed to campaign against the leader? If so, when is it acceptable? When Clinton was ahead?
Posted by Teresa at April 13, 2008 12:37 AMOn the Tweety show today, Bosnia was somehow important enough to be dredged up yet again with no mention in the entire show on Obama's current faux-pas.
We learned that Obama would take all the swinger votes from McCain, but in a matchup with Hillary, McCain would get them.
And they showed the cover of Time with that cute picture of Obama and his white mom and stated it should soften up the white women in Pa.
My take is that the corporations led by war toys GE has something BIG on Obama and wants McCain to win to keep them in business.
Watch for MSNBS to do a 180 on Obama should he get the nod.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2008 12:42 AMwith no mention in the entire show on Obama's current faux-pas.
You say faux-pas, I say yet another opportunity to turn the tables.
Its all in the perception. Sort of like which is worse? Telling a lie? Or telling the truth?
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 12:56 AMIn regards to Eriposte, SnarkShark gets down to the real heart of the matter:
Will this blog have any influence once it gets the reputation of being the home of a bunch of bitter Hillary burnouts?
I'd take it a step further, will it have many readers? How will it? And who will they be? Not every reader will hang on through viewpoints they dislike reading so much, particularly a viewpoint so often railing on the presumptive nominee on our side of the aisle.
The Obama candidacy in the general election is a near certainty at this point, like it or not. Continuing the brand of "journalism" you are practicing, Eriposte, won't really help you win more readers at this point, it probably won't help you to hang onto current readers, nor will it help defeat the kind of policies the Bush administration has practiced for the last eight years. The only way to defeat that at this point is to fully support the future Democratic nominee, Obama, not tear him down. So what will help your readers and what will they come here for? Your readers are supposedly coming here for a left viewpoint. Ripping on the left's future candidate isn't going to create readership among the left.
What I'm trying to say, Eriposte, is LOOK at your questions. Who the hell do you think you are? Do you think you are Obama's personal judge, jury and editorial executioner? How are your questions compatible with advocacy journalism or opinion blogging for the left? They're not. They are, however, compatible with trying to destroy the left's chances in the general election. Is that what you're trying to do, and if so who is the readership for that?
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 01:00 AMAnd nobody said Tweety was fair toward Clinton. He never has been, and never will be. But thats been going on way longer than Obama has been on the scene.
So I hear ya. If you are saying Tweety is messed up, OK...you've sold me.
If you are saying that is somehow Obamas fault then you are batshit insane.
So what' your point?
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 01:01 AMsorry, I should have referred to it as a stupid vote losing fuck-up.
don't you ever sleep?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2008 01:04 AMdon't you ever sleep?
"To sleep, perchance to dream?"
Nope
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 01:12 AMMy point was in the last 2 sentences, which you were too tired to read.
I never said Obama was behind Timmeh, Tweety, and even Keith getting the "Kill Hill" memo from MSNBS, although I am chiroptera caca crazy.
GE and the other corporations want McCain in the oval, and they just might have something really nasty on Obama waiting in the wingnuts.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2008 01:31 AMGE and the other corporations want McCain in the oval, and they just might have something really nasty on Obama waiting in the wingnuts.
I disagree. I think its just a case of they love their Clinton hatred. Its like a big warm fuzzy blanket to them, its comfortable to them.
As for big nasty surprises?, Well they would manufacture one of those regardless of the canidate.
If there was anything on Obama, I have every confidence that the slimy reptile called Penn would have dug it up by now.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 02:29 AMI never said Obama was behind Timmeh, Tweety, and even Keith getting the "Kill Hill" memo from MSNBS, although I am chiroptera caca crazy.
Kieth actually gets his marching orders from Subkomadante Markos, as do the rest of us great Orange Satan Worshipers.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 02:51 AMobamamites indignation at any opposition to their hollow candidate is matched by the arrogance of barry and his wife..and their view of all the white trash in america..they have made this a racist campaign..he will not and cannot win..and the people blindly following him are the ones that need to reevaluate their support....the fact is that neither has what it takes to win the nomination..the rest of the primaries and how the people vote will determine how the super delegates vote..at this point any reaonable person..which many here are not..would have to consider that the super delegates are wonderng about barry's electability..the man will not win ohio..pennsylvania..and florida at this point ..in a general election..he and his naive supporters are trying their best to take the democratic party to defeat once again..perhaps their hearts are in the right places..but their power of reason certainly isn't..obama has made this case about race..and he will lose
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 02:56 AMbamamites indignation at any opposition to their hollow candidate is matched by the arrogance of barry and his wife..and their view of all the white trash in america..
Says the racist.
That white trash comment hit a little close to home dude?
Feel that sting....thats the truth smacking you in the face.
You sound like you are running for the office of Grand Wizard down there in Bumfuck Alabama.
There are some people who just cannot abide a Black president. I live smack dab in the midddle of a bunch of em here in Texas. This is how they talk.
the man will not win ohio..pennsylvania..and florida at this point ..
Mark Penn?....Is that you?
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 03:06 AMobama's comments are what at issue..not mine..and we shall see how the voters respond..you know the ones that cling to religion..and guns..you know the ones struggling..the white trash..because the clinton years forgot them..fuck you...and his campaign..the rest of this primary season will be determined by the voters..starting yesterday in nevada..and soon in pennsylvania..with all it's bitter people..he will not win ohio..pennsylvania..and florida...i would gladly vote for any person ..regardless of race..if he had any salt...let's see what the voters do..i think you know how it's goona go
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 03:19 AMi think you know how it's goona go
Yes I do.....Obama will be the nominee.
End of story. Deal with it.
And you are better than that fuck you you threw out.
And you are better than calling Sen.Obama-Barry.
You sound like a 5 year old on the playground. It doesn't advance your argument, and it doesn't reflect well on your candidate.
It does however feed into the meme that Hillary supporters are like spoiled children.
If you say you aren't racist I will take you at your word, but you sure do throw it out there a lot. Seems like projection to me.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 03:29 AMno it's not the end of the story..we still have a ways to go..and when the super delegates play by the rules..i hope the obamamites aren't screaming and crying to loud..and no i am not a racist..but i regret profoundly that they chose to run a racist campaign..and they have..they needed the black vote to get them this far..i understand that...but now they have to reap what they've sown..as you always do..and he has to show he can win the ge..yesterday the nevada caucus started the beginning of the end..for barry...and i disagree strongly and would suggest that it is his supporters who sound very much like naive children
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 03:40 AMeriPostal, PPPeter, Dennis, et al.:
Race Poll Results Spread from RCP today:
North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 47 [McCain tie with OBAMA]
North Carolina: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 40 [McCain +11 over CLINTON]
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Clinton 42 Obama +7
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Zogby Clinton 47, Obama 43 Clinton +4 [what happened to 21 point lead Hill?]
Thank you Steve Soto and CA Pol Junkie!!!!!
Posted by tfitznc at April 13, 2008 04:21 AMgallup..rasmussen..zogby..please..i'm not even gonna argue the point...we had a caucus yesterday in nevada..why don't you look at those numbers..and we will have a primary in pennsylvania soon..let's talk after the vote....and to those averse to any sense of reality..if this were over..it would be over....as much as you would like it to be ..your saying so..doesn't make it so..people are still voting..digesting barry a bit more..we shall see what we shall see...so all you obamamites keep those eyes closed and your hands clasped together in prayer..and hope that the clock runs out..but..i don't think so
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 04:35 AMOh my turn...do I get a turn to use this much used type of commentary here.
Oh bother, here we go with "Teh Math" again. I just wish we could get Steve Soto back to reclaim this site from teh Obamabot shills. This site isn't worth reading anymore.
Oh and did I mention his preacher, supposedly a loving, forgiving, and toleranct type of person, said GD America and also attacked Senator Clinton for living the life she has (not one most AA's live). And Obama lied when he said he never heard that type of stuff at church because if he had he said he'd leave, yet then later he retracted and said he had heard it but didn't leave...liar. And did you hear his latest elitist talk, well "The Precious" also happened to insult large swaths of America basically calling them racists for clinging to Gods, guns, and anti- immigration or free trade instead of voting for him.
Just kidding Capj and other avid Obama supporters.
Did I hit all the same type of arguments and tactics that many Obama commenters here use against eRiposte and anyone else who isn't caught up in the Obama hype but is then considered disloyal to the Democratic party because of it? I was hoping to make a point (off topic-yet another tactic often used by Obama fans). And I haven't even read the post or clicked on any links (still another tactic).
Glad to see you here capj, now off to read the post.
Oh jeebus,just scanning the comments and I see Brian Bell of the bold fame graced the site with his presence again....here we go again with the name calling and immature screeds full of "F the Clintons" against eRi and anyone else who's not on the bandwagon to Obama.
Posted by emal at April 13, 2008 04:45 AM"Senator Clinton is giving a voice to her supporters and, like Obama, is breaking new ground in American politics."
Yes, the Obama b.s. that he alone is responsible for bringing in new voters is obviously bogus when the two candidates are splitting the swollen voter turnouts 50-50.
Posted by bob h at April 13, 2008 05:23 AMUm Capj, FYI, I can't seem to get any of the leftcoaster links to work? I keep getting a 404 page not found error. I can only get the first two links to work.
Posted by emal at April 13, 2008 05:27 AMPer Dennis,
"gallup..rasmussen..zogby..please..i'm not even gonna argue the point...we had a caucus yesterday in nevada..why don't you look at those numbers[?]..."
+ + +
(1) Is there a polling organization that you DO like? Or just when they reflect better numbers for Mrs. Clinton?
(2) Thanks for raising the Clark County Nevada caucus re-vote yesterday. Your point?
From the Associated Press
April 13, 2008
LAS VEGAS -- "Barack Obama picked up new support Saturday in Clark County Democrats' second attempt to divvy up delegates between the party's feuding presidential hopefuls...that's a gain of 2 percentage points for Obama over the results from January precinct caucuses.
Nevada will send 25 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver. If both candidates retain their January support, Obama will receive 13 of those delegates, Clinton 12.
Obama picked up some new support at other county conventions held statewide in February".
Posted by tfitznc at April 13, 2008 05:44 AM"It'd be one thing if Hillary were running a feel-good campaign, it's quite another when her tactics consist of trying her damndest to make Obama, our future nominee, look awful."
______________
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You know, I really do try to refrain from insulting Obama supporters, mentioning KoolAid, cults, etc. but when the shoe fits so very often, it is really very difficult to have restraint.
Dear lord, it is downright Orwellian. HILLARY's tactics are to make OBAMA look awful???? Everything is topsy turvy, upside down, hate is love, war is peace. You have GOT to be kidding here. This entire campaign has been about NOTHING as much as it has been to make Hillary look contemptible, to equate her with the anti-Christ, and to make Obama look like the Messiah. What incredible hypocrisy.
This race is a competition that is virtually tied, with the democratic voters nearly equally split in their preference. Clinton is entitled to compete, period, just like Obama is. Believe it or not, she has supporters that are equally as passionate about her as Obama's are about him. Deal with it, for crying out loud. She is not under any obligation to quit and hand him a coronation.
And all of your pathetic whining about the fact that some of the posts on this blog support Hillary? My god, can you not even tolerate an opposing viewpoint? Something smells fascistic, here.
I've tried very hard to overcome my horror at Obama's supporters' words and actions. I've recently given up. You people are truly ridiculous. At this point, I think it would be great if y'all just left this blog and stayed at the Big Orange echo chamber where you belong - if you can't listen to anything that you don't agree with, that's the place for you.
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 06:28 AMall i know is when she wins..she really loses and when he loses..he really wins...it's a pattern all to familiar from you people..let's see what happens in pennsylvania..and in the meantime get a deeper shade of rose colored glasses..because you're gonna need them..barry is gonna lose this nomination....by the virture of his own tongue..and because in truth he is more of a republican then he is a democrat..he is a devisive force..lets chat after the pa primary..okey dokey
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 06:35 AMOK Dennis...
YOU directed the readership this morning to the Nevada caucus revote numbers in support of your argument that Clinton will persevere and get the nomination. this morning.
I responded with the actual DATA which showed a 2% vote improvement in vote percentage for Obama. The bottom line, as stated by AP TODAY, is that he still will win the NV caucus, albeit by one delegate.
Who is wearing "rose-colored glasses"?
Posted by tfitznc at April 13, 2008 07:48 AMThere were a couple of posts at Trailhead over at Slate that are even more dire for Clinton than CA Pol Junkie's. After the primaries and the add-ons Clinton will need over 90% of the 230 or so remaining superdelegates.
Although some people here don't like math, and, hey, I play the lotto too when I want to dream of a new car, unless Obama is snorting cocaine off a twelve year-old's behind or is shot dead he will win the nomination. The furtherance of Clinton's current campaign of attacking Obama is not going to help her win anything. It will further alienate her from the majority of the party if perchance something catastrophic does occur.
So even though true believers here who don't believe in math don't see it, Hillary and her handlers and backers all know she isn't going to win. Qui bono?
Sorry if I harshed your mellow, folks.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 13, 2008 07:56 AMYeah, god knows we need months of Hillary calling Obama an elitist who isn't prepared to be Commander in chief will be GREAT for the Democratic party. A few more months of Taylor Marsh and Eriposte declaring that Hillary's followers should vote McCain in the general will be great for the party.
Posted by soullite at April 13, 2008 08:01 AMAnd lets be real here: IF you vote for the campaign to continue, you vote for THIS campaign to continue. You do not vote for a magical campaign where it's all sweetness and light to continue. You sound like the war supporters who kept saying they didn't support this war, but a theoretical war that was never going to happen anywhere accept for their own heads.
Posted by soullite at April 13, 2008 08:02 AM
you obama people are more then a little goofy..you really are..your guy just committed a major gaffe..major..."people turn to their religion"..do any of you clowns understand the implication of what he said in the general election...i keep saying it over and over..this is about winning ohio and pennsylvania in the ge....he has already disenfranchised florida..he has run his campaign using republican talking points..he's gonna lose cause he can't win the ge..and not because of what i said..but because of what he said..you are as goofy as the day is long..it ain't rocket science..lets see about pennsylvania..keep them hands clasped together..keep praying..and forget about the elephant in the room
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 08:12 AM"unless Obama is snorting cocaine off a twelve year-old's behind or is shot dead"
i find that a very odd comment that has absolutely no place here or anywhere else for that matter..
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 08:18 AMemal, thanks for the heads up. The links should work now.
Should I assume that your reference to mudslinging was a reference to my work here?
My reference was to Clinton and her campaign, as that is what I linked to, but we can have this conversation anyway.
If it is, I'd like to ask the following.
1. As long as you believe the race should continue, there will be attacks against Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama and his supporters. Since I support Sen. Clinton, do you believe I should have the right as a blogger to respond to those attacks and correct the record if I believe Sen. Obama or his supporters are making false, wrong or stupid statements? Or would this fall under the category of "mudslinging"?
Senator Obama is basically not talking about Clinton at all these days. His campaign responds to attacks, of course, but they are focused on McCain. If you will reread your last post, eriposte, it is clear that you are the one doing the attacking, not Obama. You have the first amendment right to do so if that's what floats your boat. I think the Clinton campaign proper ought to start leading by example like the Obama campaign has.
2. I am obviously supporting Sen. Clinton because I want her to win the nomination and the Presidency. As long as you believe the race should continue, am I allowed to make the case why Sen. Obama is not what he claims to be or challenge his positions or claims? Am I also allowed to make the case for why Sen. Clinton would be better, while giving you and others the ample opportunity to argue your case? Or would this fall under the category of "mudslinging"?
Attacking Obama by you or by Senator Clinton will make absolutely no difference whatsoever in the outcome of the race. Again, you are "allowed", but it is strictly a destructive act to try to tear down the person who will be the Democratic nominee. Are you capable of arguing why Clinton should be president without attacking Obama? Give it a try.
3. Am I allowed to make the case for what should and shouldn't be done by the DNC and other parties - and this may involve criticisms of Sen. Obama that you may not like - to resolve the nomination since neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton will have the pledged delegates needed to win the nomination outright without the superdelegates weighing in? Or would that also fall into the category of "mudslinging"?
Again, it will make no difference whatsoever. As far as the DNC is concerned, the nomination is resolved. By the end of the voting, Clinton would most likely need over 80% of the remaining super delegates to get the nomination. There is no chance in hell that they are going to throw their weight en masse toward Clinton, giving young voters and African-Americans a reason to never participate in the Democratic Party again.
4. Finally, will there be a concerted effort in the many blogs that support Sen. Obama - which have orders of magnitude greater traffic than TLC - and in the numerous corporate media outlets that are supporting Sen. Obama overtly or covertly - to stop the attacks against Sen. Clinton on behalf of Sen. Obama? Or will the request only apply to bloggers who happen to support Hillary Clinton and happen to be blogging at TLC part time?
I have already seen the start of a change in tone at DailyKos, although there are still alot of people as virulently anti-Clinton as you are anti-Obama. There will definitely be attacks on Clinton if she and her campaign are still attacking Obama. I want them to change first so that the bloggers will follow. Although I do have strong feelings about the Clinton campaign and their attacks continue unabated, I try to let it go.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 08:32 AMEmal, I like to bold the names of people I am addressing or talking about, to draw attention to the "who" part. There's nothing wrong with me doing that, not at all.
Dennis, I don't expect that you would understand the results of the primaries and caucuses so far, because the Clintons have done their damnedest to confuse the results. If the Clintons were not out to confuse the results, this primary season would look like an even more clearcut victory for Obama than it does. It's only because of Clintons' friends in the media that she's hanging on like she has been. A lot of HRC's so-called "wins," like Texas and Nevada, weren't wins at all, and never were. What's happened in a lot of these places is the Clintons have spun losses as wins before results were even in. This is the same with Nevada. Here's the thing about Nevada. Of 25 delegates, Obama should walk away with 13, and Clinton with 12, and that's after the Clark County do-over yesterday or the day before, the one in which Obama improved from the original race.
Face it, Dennis, face reality. Your candidate has lost. PA won't save her. Tfitznc is right on the money. You come up with some impressive sounding win or fact for Hillary's candidacy, but upon closer examination, the real facts show she's a big old loser.
My only hope is that after this latest round of losses for Clinton, with a single-digit win in PA that nets her at most about a dozen more delegates than Obama, she realizes the futility and packs it in, for the good of the party.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 08:37 AMbrian bell..keep clinging on to the inevitable..it is the obama camp that has obfuscated the entire process..and did everything they could to not count votes in michigan and florida..and would you like to put your money where your big mouth is on pennsylvania..i will give you 3-1 odds that she wins by double digits..and forget about the delegates..it is now about the supers and barry's electability..
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 08:46 AMAnd lets be real here: IF you vote for the campaign to continue, you vote for THIS campaign to continue. You do not vote for a magical campaign where it's all sweetness and light to continue. You sound like the war supporters who kept saying they didn't support this war, but a theoretical war that was never going to happen anywhere accept for their own heads. - soullite
This is a fair point, but Clinton's campaign is likely to continue as long as she has money no matter who tells her to get out. I believe that if her campaign continues with a negative message at this late date, her support and donations will fade.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 08:51 AMbrian bell..make it 5-1 odds
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 08:52 AMdennis, unless Clinton wins by over 20%, she will be farther from the nomination than she is today. That is with a state which is friendly to her!
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 08:54 AMca pol junkie..first of all that is not a true statement..that's your opinion..and she very well may win by 20%..she very well may..i don't really know what you mean that it is friendly to her..it is very much a cross section of america..if that's your meaning..and it is a state that is needed to win the general..along with ohio and florida..
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 09:00 AMWow, unbelievable soullite...Apparently it's the Clinton rulz again. See it's her fault that she's attacking Senator Obama for making his own comments that many people in America found insulting, derogatory and yes even elitist. But in your mind you see it's okay that he makes those kind of comments, it's just not okay to attack him for making them...jeebus I've heard everything here, but making excuses like this an blaming someone else for using the SEnator's own words against him is just plain insulting to people....it's called politics...learn to deal with it. Plus, if you and Senator Obama can't handle it now, just wait it will only get worse in the general election should he win the nomination.
Capj,
First off thanks for the link fix...to me it says alot that I was the first one after several several comments to actually notice or remark on it. Also, I know eRiposte is more than capable and much better at responding to you directly... however and FYI until that happens, if you're looking for reasons why eRi supports Clintons, see that link at the top of the righthand side that sez "eri's election 2008 primary campaign coverage". There's a post from way way long ago as to the reasons for supporting her over Senator Obama and there's others in there too you may enjoy. Just thought I'd mention it.
Dennis, Clinton will win by double digits in PA? You'll give me 5-1 odds? ROTFLMAO! Okay, I used to think you Clinton supporters didn't understand math, now I think you all might just be delusional.
Sure, I'll take your money, Dennis, but only a little. I'll put up a single dollar, $1 U.S. dollar on the matter, and you can even make it one-to-one odds, if you want. I don't really want your $5 that much, but I don't want to be accused of being too cowardly to bet you on the matter. So, sure, I'll take the bet for a single $1, just to be sporting about the whole thing.
But, this is a really silly bet, Dennis. She's not going to win by double digits.
Also, it really can't be about the super delegates anymore, either, Dennis. They are not going to go against the results of the primaries and caucuses thus far, not unless the Democratic party wants to lose all the new voters Obama has pulled in, as well as the African-American and youth vote. That's just not going to happen. And, if it's down to "electability," well your candidate has now lost the primary election season. If she isn't electable enough to take the primaries, she's not electable in the general election. Electability is a silly argument to make when your candidate is losing the elections.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 09:13 AMbrian bell..bravely spoken
but we're on
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 09:17 AM"If there was anything on Obama, I have every confidence that the slimy reptile called Penn would have dug it up by now." ...SS
You have more faith in him than I do. If he was so smart he would have dug up the Wright tapes before Iowa when they might have done Hillary some good. He ran a lousy campaign with no post Super Tuesday strategy.
If the wingwalnuts have some Obama campaign killer, you won't see it until Hillary is out of the picture and Halloween is upon us.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2008 09:20 AMOkay, then, Dennis, we're on. It gives me motivation to pay even more attention to PA, now.
By the way, to all, there's a great article by the esteemed Carl Bernstein about what an HRC presidency would look like over at the "blogs" on CNN, at:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/.
I thought that is an interesting and astute view from Carl that I would like to share, although I know it's a bit off topic from stopping the mudslinging, which I think we've made some progress on. See the friendly bet Dennis and I have made as an example of that stopping of mudslinging.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 09:25 AMThere's going to be a lot of denial here on Jan 20th 2008, when John McCain puts his hand on the bible and lies his ass off.
I don't think that you folks realize that Hillary has the foundation to weather a strong and effective GE campaign against John McCain. She's been vetted beyond imagination, she's been hammered by just about every major establishment, be it media or the 'left wing' bloggers or the D.C. Dems and SHE'S STILL IN CLOSE COMPETITION with Obama. Does that frighten you? Does that make you wonder what will happen to Obama when the Media changes parity and bites his ass?
To deny that they will choose a War Hero over a Coastal elite is putting your head in the sand, and you know it.
Teh Math probably has some truth, in that Hillary is probably going to lose the nomination. But the fact is that Obama is doing all the damage to himself, and Hillary is doing NOTHING that McCain won't be doing as soon as the gloves come off in August. And at that point the media will not protect Obama any more. HE WILL BE ON HIS OWN. How hard is that to understand?
If Obama can't defend himself against Hillary NOW, with the media in his pocket (and if you deny that, you might as well stop reading because it doesn't matter if the sky is blue or not in your world), if Obama can't defend himself with all this support, then McCain will FLOOR him with the first few punches.
We know Hillary is a fighter, and that she can come back from a potentially devastating string of losses. Can Obama?
That should be the basis of every argument held about Obama vs Hillary; Dems aren't fighting to win the goddamn NOMINATION, people. We want the GE, but it appears that many of you will be happy with just the nomination. If that isn't the definition of a Hollywood liberal (Just happy to be nominated), I don't know what is.
Ugh. It's sad to see people come to this. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND. If you believe, no, if you KNOW that Obama is going to be the Candidate, then you need to stop thinking about Hillary and start thinking about McCain. And you need to stop defending Obama's mistakes and figure out a way to get him to STOP MAKING MISTAKES in the first place.
Sorry for all the CAPS LOCK speak, I just don't have the patience to use the bold tags. :-P
Gandalf rules!
Posted by blogtopus at April 13, 2008 09:29 AMthe reason for clinton to continue on to the democratic convention is quite simple:
barack obama is not a candidate who can win the presidency for the democratic party this year.
he lacks the political experience and the rhetorical and emotional discipline that that experience brings.
Posted by orionATL at April 13, 2008 09:48 AMYes, we can have this type of campaign end right now...just have Senator Obama stop making insulting and condescending commentary about middle class blue collar democrats in small towns (because that's specifically the type of people he was referring to) in order to pander to high rolling donors and political wheeler dealers in San Francisco in order to get a laugh out of them. So much for the unity schtick.
Posted by emal at April 13, 2008 10:00 AMCA Pol Junkie,
You said:
My reference was to Clinton and her campaign, as that is what I linked to, but we can have this conversation anyway.
The link originally pointed back to The Left Coaster which is what prompted my question. Thanks for the clarification.
Senator Obama is basically not talking about Clinton at all these days. His campaign responds to attacks, of course, but they are focused on McCain. If you will reread your last post, eriposte, it is clear that you are the one doing the attacking, not Obama. You have the first amendment right to do so if that's what floats your boat. I think the Clinton campaign proper ought to start leading by example like the Obama campaign has.This is very misleading, even if it were to be really true. His comments in San Francisco touched on not just issues that the Clintons have been accused by his supporters of fomenting (racism) but also revisionist history to make the Clinton era seem barely different from the Bush era and Democrats barely different from Republicans when it comes to helping the small town voters, which as a Democrat and Clinton supporter I find particularly offensive. Of course, anyone who actually read my post would not find this surprising. So, I find it pretty interesting that you like the same kind of revisionist history than your candidate loves and label those who call him out on these issues the way as attackers. This response tells me pretty much all I need to know about your view of campaigning. Everyone should be nice to Sen. Obama and his words and deeds cannot be criticized. Sounds familiar. (Not to mention, just because you may not have seen an attack occur "these days" doesn't mean he hasn't been attacking her for a long time now. I do find that particularly amusing.)
Attacking Obama by you or by Senator Clinton will make absolutely no difference whatsoever in the outcome of the race. Again, you are "allowed", but it is strictly a destructive act to try to tear down the person who will be the Democratic nominee. Are you capable of arguing why Clinton should be president without attacking Obama? Give it a try.There are a number of diverse views in the Democratic party about the race and there is still a possibility that Sen. Clinton could become the nominee. A few people have written about scenarios in which that may happen. You can shut your eyes and ears and pretend that it is all just nonsense, if you like, but Sen. Obama is not yet the nominee and there is a chance he may not be the nominee if he loses the popular vote.
Also, would you be advocating that Obama run the general election purely by making a case for himself without talking about McCain and why McCain is not the best candidate? If Obama could make a case for why he would be better without mentioning Clinton, why did he bother attacking her using a kitchen sink strategy for all these months? Give me a break. This is silly beyond belief. Campaigning is half about talking about your positions and half about contrasting and challenging the claims of your opponent. Maybe you live in another planet but I live in a planet where that has always been and always will be part of every election.
Again, it will make no difference whatsoever. As far as the DNC is concerned, the nomination is resolved. By the end of the voting, Clinton would most likely need over 80% of the remaining super delegates to get the nomination. There is no chance in hell that they are going to throw their weight en masse toward Clinton, giving young voters and African-Americans a reason to never participate in the Democratic Party again.Of course, I understand that Clinton's base will just be thrilled to support Obama if she is denied the nomination even if she wins the majority vote. Posted by eriposte at April 13, 2008 10:10 AM
Eriposte, about this:
"...and there is still a possibility that Sen. Clinton could become the nominee...."
Um, no, there isn't. This is over. Will the party and, let's face it, Bill allow Hillary to wreck the Democratic candidate's chances in the fall? That candidate being Obama. Also, what about you, Eriposte? Who are you writing for at this point, what audience? Are you trying to hurt the left, the liberals' candidate, the more liberal party, the Dems, or what? The more insanity you spew the more I wonder what audience you are actually writing for.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 13, 2008 10:24 AM>The Obama candidacy in the general election is a near certainty at this point, like it or not.
Only if the Supers are blind and dumb. Obana is a general election disaster waiting to happen and personally I don't look forward to President McCain. Fortunately the proof that Hillary still has a realistic shot lies in the insistence of Obama supporters that she doesn't. If that were really the case they would simply ignore her.
Posted by tdraicer at April 13, 2008 10:32 AMHis comments in San Francisco touched on not just issues that the Clintons have been accused by his supporters of fomenting (racism) but also revisionist history to make the Clinton era seem barely different from the Bush era and Democrats barely different from Republicans when it comes to helping the small town voters, which as a Democrat and Clinton supporter I find particularly offensive.
eRiposte, Tell me specifically about the improvements the Clintons made for small town PA?
Posted by Seven of Six at April 13, 2008 10:53 AMwhat drugs are you obama taking? do you have any common sense at all..it's like listening to a bunch of children who aren't paying attention..you're candidate shot himself in the foot this week and it's not the first or the last time..you all seem to think that by ignoring things that happen..that they don't exist..super delegates are re evaluting barry as we speak here..he is a losing proposition.and you all seem to think that if you say it's over enough times..it will be..i urge you all grow up
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 03:08 PMthis isn't over by along shot..and that is a fact..is that understood?..it is a fact..saying otherwise makes me think that you are quite stupid..the time will come when it really is over..but that hasn't happened yet..and the reason hillary will not give up til the last breath..is that she knows barry will not win in the general election..which he will not..i'll tell ya..i have been listening to that guy for some time now and i haven't a clue as to what he stands for..he says he has a universal heath care plan..it isn't..that is a fact..he says he is a uniter but all i have seen and heard is devisiveness..he is an awful lot like the guy in the white house right now..with less experience..wake the fuck up
Posted by dennis at April 13, 2008 03:22 PMThe same pack of anti-Clinton supporters have attacked the site, again. Do you alert each other or something? It's really hard to believe that you are actually Obama supporters instead of Hillary haters. If the inevitable is upon us, go to a site where McCain is being extolled and start trashing the guy. But like the real Obama is being slowly revealed - but not fast enough to derail his nomination - the real objectives of the "pro-Obama" posters on this site are as well. Democrats should pay for daring to elect a DLC candidate like Bill Clinton in the firstplace. Despite any differences in policy positions with Bill Clinton, Hillary is just one of Bill's ribs. Although Obama supporters, who say some incredibly stupid things - and Rev. Wright is back on the campaign trail - never speak for Obama unless he says they speak for him. Yet anyone who says anything about Clinton has gotten their orders to say exactly what Hillary has told them to say. How many times do you people get to post? Let some fucking air in the room.
Posted by jeter at April 13, 2008 03:51 PMCApj
[ Even though only a political cataclysm would keep Barack Obama from becoming our nominee, there are still good reasons for Senator Clinton to finish the race. ]
"political cataclysm" - that's a nice little insurance policy you've taken out for yourself and your predictions.
cf. only a political cataclysm could keep the republican party from continuing to control the u.s. senate after Nov, in 2006.
on another matter,
would you add a little clarification regarding the following:
[ Clinton would need 61% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates from here on out (which ain’t gonna happen) to win the nomination. ]
1) "win the nomination" ?
- would you spell this out in a little more detail, please? does that phrase set the standard as winning a majority of elected delegates and of a majority of super delegates?
or does it just set the standard as winning a majority of elected delegates
with the additional assumption that the superdelegates would follow the lead of the elected delegates?
- whatever the criteria, could you make this same statement about obama?
2) [ Clinton would need 61% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates from here on out (which ain’t gonna happen) to win the nomination. ]
would you do precisely this same calculation for ABM and post it here, please.
what i am somewhat distrustful of in your argument, at least at this point of my understanding, is whether your assertion that clinton can't "win the nomination"
applies only to clinton,
or applies equally to obama and clinton?
in particular, i am trying to determine to my satisfaction whether you are describing reality
or simply making a numerical argument disguised as your opinion that clinton should quit the race.
if under your criteria of "win the nomination"
neither candidate can win outright
then we may not have to wait for a cataclysm to finish off one or the other of the candidates, just the normal interplay of nominating politics, including convention floor votes.
correction:
ABM = obama
Posted by orionATL at April 13, 2008 04:13 PMNice to see you get as many hits as eRiposte, CAPolJunkie... that's just your first foray in a couple of years!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 13, 2008 04:51 PMThanks for the great laugh this morning!
Yes, a Presidentail election is a marathon, yes, but CaPolJ...honey...sweetie...dear...Obama hasn't even come close to finishing. He and Hillary are hardly at the first five mile marker.
Does this mean that I think Hillary will win? Hardly.
Do I think that he will beat Hillary, only to lose the GE? Positive.
I used to run cross country and long distance track. It takes stamina, it takes talent, it takes grit, and it takes an incredible amount of self discipline. The first three both Hillary and Obama have; the fourth one only Hillary has. Obama might develop it sometime in the future, but as his Pennsylvania remarks illustrate, he certainly doesn't have it now. And thar's part of what's going to defeat him in the GE.
Posted by Blue Jean at April 13, 2008 04:58 PMOf course, I understand that Clinton's base will just be thrilled to support Obama if she is denied the nomination even if she wins the majority vote. - eriposte
Of course, but Clinton will not win the majority vote so it's a moot point.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 05:01 PMOne of the most interesting things about this campaign has been watching the naivete of people blogging online. It's interesting when I watch 'intelligent' people not recognize when they're being thoroughly manipulated. Maybe its because they're so used to the manipulation, maybe because they're arrogant enough to believe that they can't be manipulated, but manipulation is FAR and WIDE.
I have spent enough time around politicians to know when people are being manipulated. I know spin because I've watched it being created in multiple campaigns (I've got 2 elected officials in my family and family friends who are also elected officials). What people seem to NOT REALIZE is that we are talking about POLITICIANS.
I'm stunned at those who somehow think Obama is anything other than the Chicago politician he has shown himself to be since he first ran for office in Illinois. He's not an "outsider" whose going to "change things," he's as much a part of the system that created him as EVERY OTHER politician.
The idea that people think that they "know" what's in a politician's heart and mind is ludicrous. I've seen amazing politicans who are generally good people do some sleazy things and I've seen sleazy politicians do honorable things. It's not EITHER, OR, when it comes to politicans, it has been and will ALWAYS be a continuum. It doesn't serve ANYONE when a politician is put on a pedastal, because you can't possibly see all that you need to see when you're looking up someone's nose.
I learned to dislike Barack Obama for a multitude of reasons, partly his policies, partly the way he has run his campaign. No one made me dislike Obama, other than Obama. I spent weeks going through his speeches, his voting record etc at the Project Vote Smart website and there were too many red flags for me, but I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, he continued to open his mouth.
I don't like it when someone tells me they're running one type of campaign when they're running the EXACT opposite. Obama has brought Chicago-style politics to the national stage. Does that bother me? No, but the fact that he PRETENDS he's not, does bother me.
There are lots of 'cheap shots' that politicians take and it usually doesn't bug me bc THIS IS POLITICS. However, the race baiting that went on after New Hampshire is something that I have difficulty swallowing. When I start predicting exactly HOW you can manipulate race in EVERY situation, and then YOU DO IT, then I get seriously annoyed. I'm more annoyed because as a Black person, I want people to understand REAL RACISM not the kind that is manufactured in the media. In the end, it doesn't help me, and makes me profoundly disappointed in ANYONE who uses it to their advantage.
I am also disturbed by how Democrats are being led by the nose on the blogosphere by people who (a)either voted for Bush, or (b) spent most of their time in the 1990s bashing the Clintons. It makes Democrats seem like gullible fools because these people couldn't care less about the Democratic Party.
Posted by kacey at April 13, 2008 05:03 PMorionATL,
"political cataclysm" - that's a nice little insurance policy you've taken out for yourself and your predictions.
I find it highly unlikely that Obama would fail the live boy / dead girl test, but such an event would result in losing the nomination. Clinton supporters point to petty news stories like Wright, but Obama soon bounced back in the polls just like Clinton did after the Tuzla thing.
would you add a little clarification regarding the following:
[ Clinton would need 61% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates from here on out (which ain’t gonna happen) to win the nomination. ]
1) "win the nomination" ?
- would you spell this out in a little more detail, please? does that phrase set the standard as winning a majority of elected delegates and of a majority of super delegates?
There are 816 outstanding delegates up for grabs - undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates in the states that haven't voted yet. Clinton needs 493 of those to get to 2025, which is 60.4%.
or does it just set the standard as winning a majority of elected delegates
Even the Clinton campaign says that won't happen. She'd need 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to pass Obama.
with the additional assumption that the superdelegates would follow the lead of the elected delegates?
I assume they will, because they're not going to kick young voters and African-Americans in the teeth to nominate the candidate with less money, less organization, poor campaign strategy, and higher unfavorable ratings. Ignoring that assumption, however, she would need a super majority of the undeclared super delegates to get the nomination.
- whatever the criteria, could you make this same statement about obama?
2) [ Clinton would need 61% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates from here on out (which ain’t gonna happen) to win the nomination. ]
would you do precisely this same calculation for ABM and post it here, please.
Obama would need 42% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates. The two numbers add up to over 100% because of Edwards' delegates.
what i am somewhat distrustful of in your argument, at least at this point of my understanding, is whether your assertion that clinton can't "win the nomination" applies only to clinton, or applies equally to obama and clinton?
One of them has to win! Obama is very likely to need some more undeclared super delegates to win the nomination. Based on current polling data, he'll need about 27% of them to have 2,025 without Edwards delegates.
in particular, i am trying to determine to my satisfaction whether you are describing reality or simply making a numerical argument disguised as your opinion that clinton should quit the race.
I don't think Clinton should quit the race if she doesn't want to. Reality really is horrible for Clinton. About 80% of the vote is in, and she's down 5%. She would need an overwhelming lead among the rest of the delegates to win, but she doesn't have a big cache of support outstanding to draw from.
if under your criteria of "win the nomination" neither candidate can win outright then we may not have to wait for a cataclysm to finish off one or the other of the candidates, just the normal interplay of nominating politics, including convention floor votes.
The DNC isn't going to let it go to the convention, since they want a nominee to be gearing up for the general election and going after John McCain. The outstanding undeclared super delegates will announce who they are supporting by June.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 05:31 PMKacey,
Every one of your comments I've ever read has been right on and brilliant. You should start your own blog.
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 05:35 PMI am also disturbed by how Democrats are being led by the nose on the blogosphere by people who (a)either voted for Bush, or (b) spent most of their time in the 1990s bashing the Clintons. It makes Democrats seem like gullible fools because these people couldn't care less about the Democratic Party.
kacey, you're entitled to your opinion about Obama, but this is patently ridiculous. Obama is closing in on Clinton in support from super delegates - were they voting for Bush or bashing Bill Clinton? I don't like Bill Clinton personally, but I don't care if I like a president, just if they do a good job. Bill Clinton was a good president, and I've very glad he was president.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 05:38 PMTo those of you raising unsupported electability arguments like "Do I think that he will beat Hillary, only to lose the GE? Positive." (Blue Jean), your argument fails before it even gets off the ground.
If you think your candidate is electable, they ought to be able to beat the candidate who you think isn't electable. It's a really basic standard. If you think Obama is such a loser, where does that put Clinton, who is losing to him?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 05:41 PM"To those of you raising unsupported electability arguments like "Do I think that he will beat Hillary, only to lose the GE? Positive." (Blue Jean), your argument fails before it even gets off the ground.
If you think your candidate is electable, they ought to be able to beat the candidate who you think isn't electable. It's a really basic standard. If you think Obama is such a loser, where does that put Clinton, who is losing to him?"
__________
Um, for someone who claims to be a 'pol junkie', this is a pretty silly political statement. Whether a candidate is electable in the GE against McCain is quite a separate question from whether a candidate can beat another democratic candidate. And, just for the record, neither democratic candidate is decidedly beating the other right now.
GE elections also are run differently than primaries, as a 'pol junkie' must know - like, in caucuses vs. primaries, and many other ways. You may be a junkie for politics, but that sure was a silly comment.
Posted by at April 13, 2008 05:46 PM(anonymous), for someone who claims to understand politics better than me, you really ought to know how "decidedly" Obama is favored to win the nomination at this point. Personally, I think "electability" is a stupid argument and 2004 ought to be the evidence.
However, I think we can agree that having a well-organized, well-run campaign is a necessary component to winning in November. Clinton has proved to have a decidedly inferior campaign to Obama, and yet she's supposed to be more electable because someone says so? Give me a break.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 05:54 PMCApj
thanks.
you took a lot of your time to answer my numerous questions.
i'm still not so clear on what the rules/assumptions internal to "win the nomination" entail for either candidate, but that may involve a limitation of mine.
as for the central new information (for me at least):
- "Clinton would need 61% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates..."
- "Obama would need 42% of the remaining undeclared super delegates and pledged delegates".
Posted by orionATL at April 13, 2008 06:11 PMI used to run cross country and long distance track. It takes stamina, it takes talent, it takes grit, and it takes an incredible amount of self discipline.
I used to run cross country as well Blue Jean, you forgot the biggest thing it takes to win... HEART! I can assure you, "k-street" Hillary pretends... but she doesn't have it!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 13, 2008 07:33 PM>and yet she's supposed to be more electable because someone says so? Give me a break.
Gladly-let me get my hammer.
If Obama gets the nomination (and if he already has it wrapped up he and his supporters are behaving very strangely indeed) and then loses in the fall (as I suspect he will) the Obama camp will blame everyone but Obama and themselves. They will blame the Clintons most of all. But it will be his and their blind arrogance that will have done him in.
Posted by tdraicer at April 13, 2008 08:10 PMi'm still not so clear on what the rules/assumptions internal to "win the nomination" entail for either candidate, but that may involve a limitation of mine.
In November, it's a race to 270 electoral votes with each state winner-take-all. For the Democratic nomination, it's a race to 2,025 delegates (a majority of 4,048) who will formally choose the nominee in a roll call at the national convention in Denver. Most (3,253) are delegates pledged to a candidate and chosen via proportional representation by the voters in primaries and caucuses. 719 are regular super delegates - Democratic senators, governors, representatives, and various Democratic Party officials - who are not pledged to any candidate. 76 are "add-on" super delegates, which are spread out among the states and are generally given to whoever wins each state (or proportionately for states that have more than 1).
It's a Byzantine process, but both campaigns understand it very well and are not only campaigning with the voters but also trying to work the system to the best of their ability to secure every delegate.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 08:30 PMI am also disturbed by how Democrats are being led by the nose on the blogosphere by people who (a)either voted for Bush, or (b) spent most of their time in the 1990s bashing the Clintons. It makes Democrats seem like gullible fools because these people couldn't care less about the Democratic Party.
kacey, you're entitled to your opinion about Obama, but this is patently ridiculous. Obama is closing in on Clinton in support from super delegates - were they voting for Bush or bashing Bill Clinton? I don't like Bill Clinton personally, but I don't care if I like a president, just if they do a good job. Bill Clinton was a good president, and I've very glad he was president.
I understand that you're quoting me, but I'm not exactly sure why. Please explain what super delegates have to do with the blogosphere. Also, if you name the main "progressive" blogs, you'd knw that I'm completely accurate in my assessment. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but, please disagree with my ACTUAL statement, because I have no idea why you're talking about superdelegates when I'm talking about the blogosphere.
kacey, Obama's support in the real world and the virtual world is primarily from Democrats. We aren't gullible or fools or Republicans because we support Obama. I have no idea why you think DailyKos, the 800 pound gorilla of progressive blogs, is populated with Bush voters. Plenty of people there disagreed with Bill Clinton on trade, but the overwhelming majority of people at DailyKos are loyal Democrats. Being a loyal Democrat does not mean being loyal to the Clintons, however.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 13, 2008 10:13 PM"(anonymous), for someone who claims to understand politics better than me, you really ought to know how "decidedly" Obama is favored to win the nomination at this point. Personally, I think "electability" is a stupid argument and 2004 ought to be the evidence."
__________________
Um, OK, CA Pol Junkie. But that's not what you said originally that provoked my response. Your original comments on comparing electability in the primary vs. GE remain silly.
You, like some others on this blog, simply respond to criticism by changing the substance of what you're saying and pretending you didn't say what you did.
What interesting discussions. Not.
Posted by at April 14, 2008 06:28 AM(anonymous), here is the second paragraph of the post you quoted again:
However, I think we can agree that having a well-organized, well-run campaign is a necessary component to winning in November. Clinton has proved to have a decidedly inferior campaign to Obama, and yet she's supposed to be more electable because someone says so? Give me a break.
Do you not agree that it is a good thing to have a well-run campaign and that Obama's campaign is superior to Clinton's?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 14, 2008 07:24 AMYou did it again. Tried to change the subject by switching to the second paragraph, which wasn't the subject.
Now I get why Bob in Pacifica and Snarkyshark love you so much. You, like them, are incapable of having an honest debate. If you're wrong about something, you just start backpedaling and maneuvering and changing the subject. Reminds me deeply of the candidate you support for president.
Enough for me. Not interested anymore.
Posted by at April 14, 2008 12:21 PMHere's what you said, no-name:
Um, for someone who claims to be a 'pol junkie', this is a pretty silly political statement. Whether a candidate is electable in the GE against McCain is quite a separate question from whether a candidate can beat another democratic candidate. And, just for the record, neither democratic candidate is decidedly beating the other right now.
GE elections also are run differently than primaries, as a 'pol junkie' must know - like, in caucuses vs. primaries, and many other ways. You may be a junkie for politics, but that sure was a silly comment.
You brought it up, so I'll ask one more time: Do you not agree that it is a good thing to have a well-run campaign in the general election and that Obama's campaign is superior to Clinton's?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 14, 2008 12:33 PMkacey, Obama's support in the real world and the virtual world is primarily from Democrats. We aren't gullible or fools or Republicans because we support Obama. I have no idea why you think DailyKos, the 800 pound gorilla of progressive blogs, is populated with Bush voters. Plenty of people there disagreed with Bill Clinton on trade, but the overwhelming majority of people at DailyKos are loyal Democrats. Being a loyal Democrat does not mean being loyal to the Clintons, however.
OMG, the fact that you're responding means that you're reading, but you're still not reading with comprehension. I'm not talking about random bloggers, I'm talking about people who operate the sites and that fact alone skews the commentary on those sites. Many of the stories on the Clintons mirror the anti Clinton hate stories of the 90s. It has nothing to do with being pro-Obama.
I have friends who've met Hillary Clinton multiple times, liked her and whose time in the blogosphere has warped their perception of her. Now that they like Obama, they suddenly hate her. They now mass e-mail the same right wing nonsense I used to get from my more extreme Republican friends, and present it as if its fact. I find this same nonsense being spewed repeatedly on the most 'progressive' blogs. Right wing diatribe coming from Democrats? I find that repugnant. My own mother was falling for it until I corrected her with those stubborn things called FACTS. Then she complaining about the info she was reading and why it was being reported that way. It's a good and honest question.
It's one thing to support one candidate over another. That's legitimate. It's legitimate to debate over issues. However, when I see blogs explaining why its okay for HRC to be called a f-n whore with the majority of the comments in support of this view, and basic conspiracy theory stories preseted as "news" I have issues. The left wing blogosphere at this point is really no different than the right wing one that I used to laugh at and I find it rather sad. Most people I encounter aren't interested in facts, because facts get in the way of their opinions.
I don't think either candidate is perfect, but I support Clinton more for many reasons, a lot of which have to do with my experiences with her here in NY. But Obama is FAR from perfect. When the main blogs present him in messianic fashion and demonize Hillary Clinton, they don't help the Democratic Party and for me that is suspect. You don't need to be loyal to the Clintons to respect them and the fact that they succeeded despite EVERYTHING the Republicans did to try to destroy them for having the audacity to beat George Bush in 1992.
The Clintons understand what most New Democrats don't, you'll lose EVERY election if you dismiss the Bubbas and the Bunkers. But most of the New Democrats I see are doing just that. I see people with the "we don't need you attitude" throughout the blogosphere and it's arrogant, ignorant, and dangerous to the Democratic Party. Reagan Democrats weren't created because Reagan was so perfect, they were created because the Democratic Party failed them. If the blogosphere continues the way it is, there are many people who are going to learn that the hard way.
Posted by kacey at April 14, 2008 02:45 PMkacey, I think you need to show me examples of all these things you talk about. Bush voters operating sites? Which one(s)? Markos Moulitsas voted for the first Bush in 1988, but supported Bill Clinton and every other Democrat since then.
There are Obama supporters who act like jerks and Clinton supporters who act like jerks. Both share right-wing talking points when attacking the opposing candidate, much like the Clinton and McCain campaigns are saying the same things about "bitter".
Your sweeping characterization of Obama supporters (or Obama supporters in the blogosphere or just certain unnamed supporters?) as gullible / Republican / foolish. Although some people get way too emotionally involved and go off the handle (on both sides), most Obama supporters are perfectly normal people who support him for perfectly normal and factual reasons just like you have your reasons for supporting Clinton. For me there are three primary reasons:
- I have an aversion to dynastic politics and don't want to concentrate power in families
- he opposed the war, showing both good judgment and the spine to act on that judgment
- I think his more collaborative approach to politics will be more effective than Clinton's confrontational approach
You are correct that we need some Bubba votes to win elections, although there are alot of Bubbas who won't vote for either Clinton or Obama. We'll need alot of other people as well to win in November. There are Reagan Democrats in the Rust Belt who might be more likely to favor Clinton, but also of people in the Plains and Rockies who would be more likely to vote for Obama.
I reject "electability" arguments, as I think we don't know very much about who is electable (witness 2004) so we should just choose the candidate we want. My Grand Universal Theory of Presidential Politics states that the winner of the general election is the candidate who would be chosen Prom King, and I think Obama measures up well by that standard. Regardless, those of us who back Obama aren't such bad people.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 14, 2008 04:46 PMCA Pol Junkie
Take one look at Huffington Post. It is the most cited "progressive" blog. I grew up as a kid watching Arianna Huffington bash Bill Clinton daily, including pushing the many 'conspiracy theories' regarding Whitewater etc. She said some of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Even as a kid, I knew there was something wrong with her reasoning.
Andrew Sullivan is often quoted by progressives as if he's been a card carrying progressive all his life, when he's a Log Cabin Rebuplican and a Clinton hater. I watched him repeated defend GWB on the war until even he couldn't take it anymore. So the idea that there aren't people who don't like Bush, but hate the Clintons equally if not more, but are somehow 'leaders' in a progressive agenda is ridiculous.
The tone of a blog is set AT THE TOP. Huffinton has set the tone, and people who don't like the Clintons happily follow along even when facts are so convoluted that you'd need to walk the maze with string just to find your way to the finish line.
Like I said I don't mind HONEST criticism or discourse, but I ABHOR the dishonest kind. Fact get in the way often. Clinton is bashed for every mistake, or if she doesn't make one, one is fabricated for her, and every mistake Obama makes is excused or explained away. That's not honest, and in the end it doesn't help voters or the Democratic Party. The fact that there are generally 5 Clinton bloggers for every 50 Obama bloggers, then there is dishonesty in the process. Huffpost is kinder to McCain than Clinton. That's DISTURBING for a blog that is supposed to be progressive.
When people are slamming Paul Krugman in a nasty and vile way and ANYONE who writes something positive about a Democratic candidate on a hugely influential 'progressive blog' Democrats should worry. Misogynistic, classist, and homophobic comments are at the highest level I've ever seen, and they're generally directed at Clinton supporters. She and her supporters are consistently called cunts, inbreds, Bunkers, etc., and the 'f-n whore' comments are cheered. People are so wrapped up in their candidate that they've lost sight of the Democratic Party. It's not the Clintons who are destroying the Party. It's people who believe that this is ok, that are destroying it.
Have Clinton supporters been perfect? No. Have they been condescending? Ofc. Every time I read someone talking about 'drinking the kool-aid' it offends me. It's also personal since a neighbor died at Jonestown. It's not funny at all. But two wrongs don't make a right. I don't have problems with people who legitimately like Obama and can lay out their reasons logically. I have respect for Obama supporters who don't make excuses for him when he makes a mistake. The same way I respect Clinton supporters who don't make excuses for her mistakes either. But people who are vitriolic and make excuses permeate the blogosphere.
I really want to know: How is Obama going to unite the country? He's been divisve and arrogant(his tone of voice speaks volumes, more than just his words) when speaking about HRC. Regardless of the issue, he consistently mocks her (and I honestly don't believe he'd get away with it so easily if she wasn't a woman). I've seen it in nearly every stump speech I've watched him give since December when I started looking at all of the ones played on TV. I've seen that tone 3 times from HRC.
Remember when he said that he wasn't sure that his supporters would vote for her but that he was sure her supporters would vote for him? Arrogant much? Democrats don't say things like that about their opponents. There's nothing UNIFYING in that. That arrogance is part of the reason why IN REALITY more of her supporters won't back him even though they're card carrying Democrats.
I'm a Democrat and I have strong political ties in my home state. I understand more than the 'average American' about the political process because I've been involved in the campaigns of family members or family friends since I was 10 yrs old. I don't care what politicians say, and I'm more cynical than most. I have to do exhaustive research before I support anyone. But that extensive experience also means I understand media manipulation and how it works. Because of that I don't succumb to it. However, you know as well as I do, that most will. Most people aren't going to look over boring records and speeches, or read boring bills or books when they can just read a blog.
As to these comments
I have an aversion to dynastic politics and don't want to concentrate power in families
- he opposed the war, showing both good judgment and the spine to act on that judgment
- I think his more collaborative approach to politics will be more effective than Clinton's confrontational approach
That's how you feel and I respect that. In the same way that I respectfully disagree.
As to Point 1, I don't care who is in charge as long as I feel they know what they're doing, and its in my best interst and in the best interest of my country.
As to Point 2, even though I spent time watching the Senate hearings on CSPAN and opposed the war vehemently, I read Obama's various statements about how he might have voted differently had he been in the Senate at the time. He also said he'd never vote to fund the war but he did vote to fund the war 5 times, proving that what one says outside of the beltway is different once you ACTUALLY get there, so it's not a big issue for me in terms of distinguishing him from HRC.
As to Point 3, Clinton has a totally collaborative approach to politics. In fact, during her time in the Senate she's been repeatedly praised for it. It's only during this campaign that suddenly the skills she's demonstrated working well with EVERYONE don't seem to matter and I guess 'disappeared'. Even ever present Clinton basher, David Brooks acknowledged this in an op-ed he wrote in the NYT.
I know many progressives will find this 'horrible' (which is odd because Obama has been courting Republicans since the start of the race), but Clinton has unbelievable support for a Democrat among Republican farmers etc. in upstate NY, many of whom have fundraised for her (including some of the Republican politicians). Why? Because she listened to them and didn't write them off as 'unattainable' because they were Republicans.' I'm still shocked when I visit my friend in upstate NY and hear people that I know who voted for Bush both times, talking more positively about her than McCain. But then again, she actually did something that helped them, McCain hasn't.
kacey, I guess my basic thought is that the ugliness is two-sided. You cite Sullivan; I'd cite MyDD. Obama is bashed for silly mistakes just like Clinton - she had her Tuzla; he has his "bitter". Obama was even blamed for select words his pastor said over 20 years! It's all silly season politics and Clinton certainly isn't being singled out.
Arrogance is certainly in the eye of the beholder. To me, arrogance is thinking that she should be given the nomination from the super delegates if she hasn't earned it from the voters. She continues the negative campaign, saying the same things as McCain, trying to make hay from "bitter". I admit I cringed with Obama's "Annie Oakley" mocking of Clinton, although she did severely overreach trying to put herself within the gun culture.
I really want to know: How is Obama going to unite the country?
Well, Republicans will still be a******s in 2009. Obama's strategy is pretty simple, though. Although he is a fairly liberal Democrat, he avoids talking about political parties. That's part of how he draws support from independents and some Republicans, by avoiding the tribalism that goes along with being a member of a political party and attacking the system. A majority of voters agree with Democrats on their policies, but oppose those policies because they are Democratic policies.
Will it work? I don't know. We have a very good idea of the approach that would be taken by Hillary Clinton, and I see that as yet more stagnation.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 15, 2008 10:21 AMCA Pol Junkie
Where we will always seem to disagree is on the negativeness of the Clinton campaign. In the beginning she was criticized for not defending herself against Obama and Edwards, then once she did, she was attacking (watch the early debates and look at early speeches and its pretty obvious) I don't blame Obama for attacking Clinton, anymore than I blame her for attacking him. It's the method of those attacks from his campaign that I have issue with. Factually attacking her on issues (e.g., what her real experience is, her voting record) is one thing, but attacking her personal character (e.g.,repeatedly calling her calculating, lacking in character and integrity, the most secretive politician, willing to do anything to win, etc). I've experienced 2 senate campaigns with her. These were the Republican talking points, the same ones they pushed while she was First Lady. I am disturbed that a Democratic campaign would use them so freely. But even more difficult for me is when the Obama campaign engaged in race-baiting, then repeatedly said that the Clinton campaign had an 'insidious pattern' of racist remarks. Clinton consistently attacks his experience and his ability to lead. She hasn't attacked who he is as a person. The reverse is true for Obama.
Like I've said in other posts, I have too many politicians in my family. Personal attacks and race baiting are used because they are HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. That doesn't make it right, and personally as a Black person, I am disgusted whenever a politician engages in race baiting, even the ones in my own family.
That's the reason why I have concern with his ability to unite the country. Race-baiting is divisive by nature, and its like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf,' eventually people stop listening.
I also have a friend who is a NYT reporter, and I know for a fact that they are sitting on Obama stories until the GE. That alone, pisses me off, because it shows like usual, despite what people think, the media doesn't give one rat's ass about the candidate or the issues, the bottom line for them is always the story.
But even more difficult for me is when the Obama campaign engaged in race-baiting, then repeatedly said that the Clinton campaign had an 'insidious pattern' of racist remarks.
I disagree, because race brings great peril to Obama. One of Obama's biggest challenges is winning over white voters, without whom he can't win the nomination or the general election. He has to convince people that he isn't a "Black candidate", but rather a candidate for everybody. He can't do that if he brings up racism.
Of course, race is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room as it is inevitably part of the voter targeting strategies of both campaigns. I don't think either campaign intentionally crosses the line, but it's a fine line to walk to take advantage of America's racial divide as effective campaign strategy without exacerbating it.
Clinton consistently attacks his experience and his ability to lead. She hasn't attacked who he is as a person. The reverse is true for Obama.
Sorry, not buying it. When Clinton had her Tuzla problem, Obama didn't talk about it. When Obama had his "bitter" moment, Clinton put it in her stump speech and cut ads about it. Since the Wright videos got press, the Clinton campaign has been trying to use that to get superdelegate support. All three of those are bogus issues ("silly season" as Obama put it), but Clinton is the one trying to make hay from them.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 15, 2008 07:46 PMI disagree, because race brings great peril to Obama.
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 (NYT, Dec 06)
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
(Chicago Tribune, June 26, 2005)
These quotes are in line with what Ferraro said, which is why his camp calling her a racist was ridiculous. Obama is well aware that his race is a large part of why there is so much interest in him. As the relative of a politician who did what Obama is doing, believe me, when you are dealing with a liberal electorate (in Obama's case, the Democratic primary), race baiting is VERY effective. That's why it is consistently done. However, I personally find it reprehensible.
Sorry, not buying it. When Clinton had her Tuzla problem, Obama didn't talk about it
Actually, it was the Obama campaign that initiated the discussion on it. It's in an e-mail that they mass e-mailed to reporters (if you really want the e-mail, I'll look it up and provide it for you).
If Clinton wanted to be really negative, she would have initiated the Wright story. Instead the MSM sat on it for months and Fox just ran with it. She also would have repeatedly commented on his 'memory problems' as it relates to his memoir (so many that he had to give an explanation in the latest publication of the book), including the uplifting but false story about his father and President Kennedy.
Posted by kacey at April 16, 2008 03:07 PM