HAHAHAHA! HILARIOUS!!!

This coming from the mouth of a Blackwater enabler and union buster?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Boy are they desperate.

The queen wasn't anointed at New Hampshire, then not again on Super Tuesday. It must be killing them that this "upstart" has her on the ropes.

The ONLY reason the delegate count is slightly ahead for her is because SHE is the insiders candidate.

Too funny.

Do you think people who get all these press releases just laugh at the never of their claims?

Obama is the establishment candidate.

In other news:

Sun revolves around Earth

Cubs win World Series

Disneyworld opens second amusement park in Iraq

Dixie Chicks open McCain/Limbaugh rally in Central Park

Mark Penn named "Sexiest Man Alive" by People Magazine.

Paul_P, dude, you have some issues, notwithstanding you can't spell. Hillaryis44.org is your site. You will like it there.

Paul_P,

I tend to blame the Elders of Zion and One World Government for Hillary's impending defeat more than I blame The Elite Liberal Media, but they are all sleeping in the same pink bed, no?

"The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, `You know, it's really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change,'"

Penn logic, broken down:

-- Hillary is the establishment candidate to whom endorsements should naturally gravitate;

-- In spite of that, comparatively few politicians seem to want to endorse her and a large number have endorsed Obama; therefore,

-- Her lack of endorsements is a good thing, which proves that:

-- Hillary is not the establishment candidate.

Got it?

How does this guy have a job?

They're both establishment candidates.

They share the same establishment approved beliefs.

And Greg, the fact that Hillary won over the local Mass. machine is a much bigger deal than you're making it out to be. You constantly point out that Obama closed the gap there, which is true, but he closed the gap because the Mass. political establishment boosted his candidacy.

I think the point is, that this framing (endorsements = establishment) shows expectations from the Clinton side that Obama's going to be winning more big endorsements soon.

Is this satire or absurdity?

This argument has been out there a while. BTD over at Talkleft posted about it here:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/29/960/37411

There can be no question, in my mind, that Obama is favored by the elites in the democratic party. It does seem counterintuitive that this would be so, but it does seem to be the case.

Obama has become the establishment candidate because of the overwhelming bias of the media. Anyone who thinks that Barack has been treated as roughly as Hillary has been is definitely on mushrooms.

Hillary's win despite the daily barrage of negative biased attacks from the media is significant indeed. Barack's numbers would plummet if he had to endure the same amount of negative media coverage. When you think about it though, it's rather obvious - most of the media commentators are wealthy white males...Barack's typical supporters...of course they don't want Hillary to win!

I

Go Hillary!!! =)

I realize you guys think you're clerverly pulling a play out of the Republican playbook and "working the refs" (as Alterman calls it) with this "boo hoo hoo the press is so biased against poor Hillary" crap, but you're just making her sound more like Nixon in a pantsuit.

Hmmm. Nixon.
Introverted? Check.
Paranoid? Check.
Excessively secretive? Check.
Self-pitying? Check.
Policy wonk? Check.
Say anything, do anything to win outlook on politics? Check.
Excessively secretive? Check.
Tiny group of invisable adoring clique of hangers-on who've been with her for years and years? Check.

Yep, those are all traits we need in a president again. If history tells us anything, its that giving a person like that a lot of power always makes them a better human being.

that's just ridiculous. how does this clown still have a job?

Wow this Paul_P guy sure is angry. Sheesh, he's all over these boards just spewing anger.

Calm down, dude. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Belated praise to Josh Marshall for his insightful analysis last Thursday night on the MSNBC blogger panel discussing the Clinton-Obama debate.

On the subject of the "establishment" candidate, that was made last week immediately after the Ted Kennedy endorsement. It's patently silly as the establishment candidate can be discerned at this time by checking who had the most super-delegates before last night.

My own take before last night's results was that if Obama could be within 10% of Clinton on the delegate split (i.e. a 55-45% division), then he would have had an acceptable night. I believe that he got better than 45%. More importantly, the next several weeks of primaries and caucuses are actually critical. If these are an unbroken string of Obama victories until March 4, Clinton will be in trouble.

Lastly, I really like Hillary Clinton but voted for Obama. As the nominee he may, as Clinton suggests, sink under savage Republican attacks in the fall. However, I want to vote my hopes rather than my fears.

Kudos to you, BronxInTN. Not just because we agree on the candidate, but because of why you made your decision. Hope over fear. I'd say the same if you voted for Clinton for the same reasons (though I'm not sure it's physically possible...kidding, people - relax).

Senator Obama is the candidate of the Chicago Political Machine, which has close ties with the Boston Politcal machine. Chicago called in its markers and got the Kennedy endorsement. Corporate media, particularly NBC, is pushing Senator Obama so hard that Matthews, Russett, etc will be in the hospital before long for hernea operations. Senator Obama has raised well over $100 million, and has strong "established" support.
Clinton started with strong name recognition and a lead in the polls because of that, but has established herself with voters with her performance in the debates, which had her taking off...until everyone (by everyone I mean the other Democratic candidates, corporate media, and the "establishment") came down on her.
Yet she endures because of her talent, courage, smarts and passion.
Some of us see it that way. The rest will see it their way.

RE: anti-Hillary media bias. Live by the brand name, die by the brand name. Did they think it would be all upside, given their history?

cube3u:

"It's a matter of what you want to focus on. I want a better economy, even if it means higher taxes for me and my fellow economic "winners", because that's the sort of America that I want--one that is for equality and justice and opportunity, as Obama says."

I think this is where those of us who are not Obama supporters disagree with you. We all want a better economy, equality (I hope), justice, and opportunity. Those things are uncontroversial. And if you think Obama is the first to advocate for those things, then I think you're either a neophyte, or you haven't been paying attention.

The question is how you get to these goals. Not everyone agrees with you about higher taxes. In fact, I know at least a half dozen Republicans who are supporting Obama who believe he won't raise taxes.

What about universal health care? What about a comprehensive solution to the subprime mortgage crisis? What about reinvesting in our infrastructure?

These are things that most folks agree need to be "fixed", but how you fix those things is a matter of huge debate. And Obama hasn't really been very comprehensive (or straightforward, imo) about how he will solve those problems. But to the extent he has, it's been clear it's been with an eye towards consensus and bipartisanship (i.e., his solutions are more watered down, so as to be more likely to appeal to Republicans).

If, like me, you think Republican ideology is at its core fundamentally wrong, then you don't want to see a champion of solutions that are the result of consensus.

I'd rather see a return to the Clinton years, where the Republicans can argue all day about how his tax increases will harm the economy and cause a recession, only to see them shut up (and the rest of the country come on board) after they're followed by the biggest economic boom in the last 30 years. That's the type of unity I want to see, and frankly, after 8 years of this disaster of a President, I don't know why we want to start compromising already. Americans are ready for a real change, and Obama, while talking change, is proposing watered down crap.

However, I want to vote my hopes rather than my fears.

Posted by BronxInTN
February 6, 2008 12:56 PM

Great line.

Hey Obama whiners if u think you have somehow won with deficit of about 100 delgates, that is what happens to ur brain when you inhale crack.
You guys are so shallow, all you can do is whine and foul mouth the Clintons. Shows where u come from.
Obama can't overcome delgates deficit from the remaining staes. So now he has started BLACKMAILING superdelgates! Typical THUG from Chicago.
BLACKS voting for a BLACK Obama are not racists and Bill and others not voting for him are racists!
Thanks to Latinos and Asians in CA, Hillary and Bill are going to win.

Apart from who gets the nomination, this stab at a new line, just considered as an example of Mark Penn's latest work, is hilarious [not/pun]. ROTFLMAO, as it were. Inherent contradictions (is too idealistic/is too establishment) seem not to register over at my Senator's campaign Hq, strategy gives way to throwing things at the wall to see what sticks...

Suuurre, yeah, put Mark on the TV machine more. America needs to see him. Rub some more fleshtone on Howard and put him out there too, of course--and if you have to, roll Mandy out in front of the cameras. Are they hiding Mandy from the press or the press from Mandy? Hell, put 'em all three on together. Ask 'em about that Secret Muslim Man rumor. Ask Mark about So. Carolina. Ask 'em about...Bill.

Yeah, baby!

Are we having fun yet?

_____
Mitt/Huck '08! Because We Deserve to Be Entertained until November

More to the point simeonwolf: HRC's supers came last year for the most part, not in the last few months.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Hillary is an Outsider

Thanks, Mr. Penn. I'm guessing you don't have much else in your playbook besides a "comeback kid" storyline?

The fact is that while Obama continues to expand in terms of fundraising and endorsements, it looks like HRC has plateaued and that has to be scaring the Clinton campaign.

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

Oh of course, Obama has never gone on the negative, lol. Just watch his speech from last night. It was simply his stump speech that included a cheapshot accusing Hillary of adopting the Bush-Cheney philosophy of refusing to negotiate with bad people. This cheapshot has even been substantiated by Obama's own media. Just go back to that debate and hear Obama make a mistake, by saying he would negotiate, person to person, with the five worst leaders in the world, with no preconditions.

By comparison, Hillary's speech last nite was positive.

To suggest that Hillary is anything but the Establishment candidate is one of the most disingenuous things I've heard yet from this campaign. What a load of hogcrap.

A good friend of mine who "works in the business" says they still think she's going to be the inevitable nominee. They say regardless of what you hear (many of the superdelegates won't say publicly), Hillary's campaign is confident that they have a majority of the superdelegates, enough that Obama can't overcome the superdelegate math. Her campaign has been working at this for a long time, contributing $ to superdelegates' campaigns; swapping promises of support for endorsements ... (who's going to be appointed to fill Hillary's vacant NY Senate seat after she wins??)

Personally, I'm not entirely convinced of all this inevitability. If Obama continues to run an insurgent campaign that attracts new Democratic voters; if he keeps expanding support among women and Latinos; and if his non-Democratic support hardens into likely voters -- all while the question of Hillary's electability continues to increase -- then I think some of those superdelegates will re-think their positions.

But to say that Obama is the establishment candidate is absurd. Make no mistake: the majority of county and local committees, i.e., The Establishment, are supporting Hillary. Obama's organization has been built primarily from the bottom-up. There's nothing Establishment about that.

The Media loves the horse race, and Obama's the dark horse.

Here is something to consider; back in 1992 when BC ran there was an intellectual argument being made for change, fundamental. It came out of what was then a progressive DLC, BC was the head man. The Dems in congress at that time were still exceptionally liberal.

The mainstay and the reason they were voted out were because they did not support the DLC progressiveness; that vacuum allowed for the GOP Revolution. BC was considered an outsider for this very point; he did not fully have support of the party in 92. He did not achieve a plurality, which the Dem congress used to be afraid of supporting him.

Now its 2008, BO is being roundly supported by the establishment, MSM, and Howard Dean. We have Kennedy, Kerry and Dean supporting BO wholeheartedly and are fueling the chit chat that follows 'what will Bill do' in the Whitehouse debate. Dean is responsible for the whisper campaign against HRC.

In veritably, HRC is an outsider to the party because the DNC is supporting BO. HRC is running to center; prescribing the good ideas that were from the DLC; progressive and reality based agenda.

What the Dems don't realize that supporting this kind of legislative candidate like BO they will suffer the fate of bringing back to life the failed policies of a Jimmy Carter type presidency (no offense to JC, I liked him).

If Kennedy, Kerry and Dean are not the party establishment then what is? I don't see many people claiming to be a New Democrat the way it was in 92; I hear the has been philosophy of social engineering and bloated entitlements of the past.

Remember that Teddy betrayed his president by running against him undermining him, allowing Reagan to get in. Remember that Howard Dean's campaign failed and remember John Kerry lost and is still being quoted for 'being for it before he was against it'.

I suggest Hillary Clinton and Bob Graham from FL for a dream ticket.

I suggest BO supporters to look to the center for actual ‘elect ability’ and don’t be so thin skinned.

Feel free to provide one issue that Hillary took a leadership position on publicly and advocated for publicly to the nation. She's had since 2000. It didn't have to await a presidential nomination race.

You want to accuse Obama of giving away the store when everything in his legislative record shows otherwise. But you leave out the Clinton incrementalism and downright sell-out like NAFTA proved to be.

It's time to move past the Clintons and on into our future. We have problems to solve and we'll need independents and Republicans to buy into our solutions. I want the country to move forward and not just the 30% that call themselves Democrats. That's the politics of the 1990s.

But, hey, you can live backward if you want. I don't.

Minja said: "Which candidate refuses to give a timetable for leaving Iraq? That would be Obama."

Really? The below is from barakobama.com:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

While this is from HillaryClinton.com:

"Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

Hill's the one without a timetable.

Minja said, "Which candidate spent virtually all of his speech last night talking about how he would reach out to Republicans"

Did you see a different speech than I did?

"I want to vote my hopes rather than my fears." --BronxInTN

I sort of feel the same way. I'm tired of people trying to manipulate me through my fears (like the Bush/Chenney Administration) so I don't take very kindly when the Clinton campaign tries the same tactic. I'm sure that is why I prefer Obama --I like his vision for the United States better than Clinton's.

Yes, he will have that depth of influence. I don't think you grasp the essential of politics--winning matters because votes matter and because at the bottom politicians depend on votes.

Obama has an emphasis on local involvement; Dean pushes a 50-state strategy. Together, this is a winning combination. Politicians go where the votes are.

Dear Ms. & Fellow Dems;
I think all of us understand that it is critically important to put a Dem in the White House this time. I am passionate about my support for Obama because it is exhilarating to finally have a candidate who is truly inspired. But, I feel we must not allow acrimony between the Hillary camp and the Obama camp to the extent that it may hurt either one’s candidacy in November.

Hillary has done some wonderful work in her time in public life. I remember thinking in 1992-93 that I would have whole heartedly supported her had she been the Presidential Candidate next time. But between then and now she has gone from a more principled idealist to a calculating triangulator. I realize that one needs to work with the opposition to get things done, but can anyone sincerely say they could have imagined that person who took on the entire US Congress on behalf of healthcare would one day criticize someone for being too idealistic and hopeful?!

Assessing the effect of years of experience on 20th & 21st century politicians, I will trade experience for idealism any time. It is always the dreamers who make impossible things happen.

Additionally, I am very concerned that Hillary supported the Iraq debacle when there was such overwhelming evidence that even if Sadam had weapons he was no threat to the US.
And recently she signed on to the Lieberman’s bill declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. First, many international experts agree that that was against international law, but also-“fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The Iraq resolution gave permission to go after terrorists. I am certain that if Bush attacks Iran he will use these 2 resolutions as justification. How could someone make the same mistake a second time?

Check the state of science and engineering when JFK challenged the country to put a man on the moon within the decade. We had not yet even orbited a satellite at that point in history. This is also a good time to point out that in the pantheon of liberal heroes, JFK was 4 years younger than Obama is now.

I disagree with many of Hillary’s positions and actions, but I will not demonize her, because she will need 100% of my and all of our support to defeat the Republican candidate whoever he is. Let’s remember, those of us who are Dems are all on the same side here. We must not allow a Republican to take the White House next time!

Dear Ms. & Fellow Dems;
I think all of us understand that it is critically important to put a Dem in the White House this time. I am passionate about my support for Obama because it is exhilarating to finally have a candidate who is truly inspired. But, I feel we must not allow acrimony between the Hillary camp and the Obama camp to the extent that it may hurt either one’s candidacy in November.

Hillary has done some wonderful work in her time in public life. I remember thinking in 1992-93 that I would have whole heartedly supported her had she been the Presidential Candidate next time. But between then and now she has gone from a more principled idealist to a calculating triangulator. I realize that one needs to work with the opposition to get things done, but can anyone sincerely say they could have imagined that person who took on the entire US Congress on behalf of healthcare would one day criticize someone for being too idealistic and hopeful?!

Assessing the effect of years of experience on 20th & 21st century politicians, I will trade experience for idealism any time. It is always the dreamers who make impossible things happen.

Additionally, I am very concerned that Hillary supported the Iraq debacle when there was such overwhelming evidence that even if Sadam had weapons he was no threat to the US.
And recently she signed on to the Lieberman’s bill declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. First, many international experts agree that that was against international law, but also-“fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The Iraq resolution gave permission to go after terrorists. I am certain that if Bush attacks Iran he will use these 2 resolutions as justification. How could someone make the same mistake a second time?

Check the state of science and engineering when JFK challenged the country to put a man on the moon within the decade. We had not yet even orbited a satellite at that point in history. This is also a good time to point out that in the pantheon of liberal heroes, JFK was 4 years younger than Obama is now.

I disagree with many of Hillary’s positions and actions, but I will not demonize her, because she will need 100% of my and all of our support to defeat the Republican candidate whoever he is. Let’s remember, those of us who are Dems are all on the same side here. We must not allow a Republican to take the White House next time!