« Obama And Hillary Camps Battling In Today's Texas District Conventions | Home | Obama Camp Declares Victory In Texas Conventions And Overall State Contest »
Obama: Hillary "Can Run As Long As She Wants"
Barack Obama told reporters today in Pennsylvania that he was not involved in yesterday's call by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a big supporter of his, that Hillary Clinton drop out of the race. "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president."
Obama might be trying to dial back on the Hillary-should-drop notion that's been going around — such as in his own line yesterday that the Dem race is like a good movie that's gone on too long — perhaps because it could end up alienating voters in the remaining states.
Advertisement















You didn't even bother to read the entire quote, Eric?
Sad. You should stop reading Halperin for a while.
March 29, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Erik - you just misquoted Obama, again.'
That's not what he said. Quote the whole thing - he said "some people think it's like a movie that's gone on too long."
March 29, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO, the condescending prick has given his permission! Like anyone was asking....
:-)
March 29, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo -
You are a daily reminder why I support Obama.
March 29, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
and you are daily reminder of why i support hillary.
March 30, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
and you are a daily reminder why i support Obama
March 30, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
likewise, but hillary-wise! ;)
March 31, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You edited his response, then called him a prick. This, my friend, is why you Hillary folks have lost 14 of the last 16 states: you are not smart AND you are too emotionally invested in a fatally failed candidate. Now I need to run . . there is sniper fire coming in to my windows and me I and the wife need to commando crawl across the floor to go to bed.
March 29, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah he is a condescending prick and the Obamanoids garf it up like manna from heaven. They say you misquoted him because he put it in third person but only an IDIOT (e.g. Omananoid) would think he was not agreeing with that sentiment. If he was not agreeing with it, why did he even say it? Give me a break you Obamafreaks are frightening. If this is what the Democratic Party is going to become I want no part of it.
March 29, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is a condescending prick."
You, sir, sound like an excellent Democrat! Can we have a cookout at your place and talk public policy? I'm sure we would agree on more than we disagree.
Seriously, bro, Obama's not the enemy. He's a good guy.
March 30, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay "prick" would be a complement compared to the things said about Hilary on this board. A little perpective and fairness would be appropriate here. I know your automatic reaction is how dare anyone criticize Saint Obama, but unless you are willing to criticize Obama supporters when they throw aroung insults then you have no moral high ground - you are just a hypocrite and part of the problem.!
March 30, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not even a small (d) democrat -- he has his campaign organization -- for example MI State Sen Buzz Thomas work to block recognizing the preferrences of the Michigan voters -- whether through recognizing the existing results or through a revote but he wants to cancell out the Michigan voters by splitting their votes straight down the middle.
Anglachel puts it more clearly than I can:
Something that pundits and bloggers who are tepidly supporting Obama claim (probabaly to cover up their increasing embarrassment at having made the wrong choice) is that there really isn't that much difference between the candidates, so why is everyone getting exercized about the choice of one over the other? We'll get the same results no matter which one is elected. A stronger version of this, addressing campaign tactics, is that if their positions were reversed, Hillary would be acting the same way Obama is doing, right down to obstructing voting in Michigan and Florida.
Neither of these claims are true.
At the beginning of the campaign, if you didn't ask too many questions, you could say that the top three Dem contenders had roughly equivalent policy stances. Paul Krugman said this, for example. Since then, because he has looked closely, he has retracted this statement and said that HRC and Edwards have strongly progressive platforms, while Obama has a decidedly weaker one. Thus, while it may be true that, on paper, all Dems have better prospective policies than any Republican (Why should this be something to praise? That's a hell of a low bar.) , it matters whose policy actually advances Democratic positions. This is what Krugman was saying before the campaign began, in The Conscience of a Liberal, where he pushed for the Dem nominee to take advantage of the falling fortunes of the Movement Conservatives to get universal health care passed. It is what he said in his Friday opinion column on the candidates' positions on the economy and managing the coming fiscal crisis. Thus, even in formal policy statements, there are significant differences between Hillary and Obama, and not to Obama's advantage. At best, his policies are wishy-washy, milquetoast, poorly done copies of Clinton and Edwards much more progressive papers.
Moving beyond formal policy papers to actual performance, both in his actual legislative performance and even more in his speechees, Obama shows he is not in the same league as Hillary. What on the surface appeared to be a decent legislative record in Illinois is now being shown to be a sham. He is lauded for a single speech given at a local rally before a strongly anti-war audience, and himself claims that this one public statement is a stronger indicator of his political judgment than anything else either he or Hilalry have ever said or done. That he has distanced himself from these words, that he is on public record saying he could very well have voted for AUMF, that his recorded votes on Iraq are identical to hers, that he has a history of ducking controversial votes, seeing which way public opinion is trending, then claiming that he would have voted this way or that, all of this undermines any claim to judgment and even more so to having political courage.
Then there are his many, many statements praising Republicans, trashing Democrats (especially the Clintons), and comparing himself to Reagan. He has said he will consider Republicans in his cabinet and has made recent statements about how marvelously bipartisan he will be in foreign policy. Great, he puts himself on the side of the guys behind Iran-Contra, death squads, circumventing rule of law and expanding the imperial presidency. That's so reassuring.
As for the canard that Hillary would be running the same campaign were she in Obama's place, uh, no. She was in Obama's place, the front runner, earlier on and she did not try to prevent primaries from happening. She did not create training camps to to teach outsiders how to interfere with caucuses and intimidate voters. She did not go around speaking of her opponent as a monster. She did not tell him to drop out because she had it all sewn up. She did not say he was only driven by a lust for power, even as we who watch are increasingly seeing how accurate a description of Obama that is. Not at all. She praised him and all of her opponents. She urges all Democrats to this day to stay with the party, regardless of nominee. She speaks respectfully of Obama as a person even as she criticizes his policies and statements. She pledges to support him as nominee should she not be the voters choice. In short, she is running a strong, pro-Democrat and pro-Hillary campaign.
While she did not strongly support revoting Michigan and Florida at the start, it was not merely that she was ahead in those states. It was because those states had already held objectively valid elections. Michigan's incomplete candidate slate was due to the acts of the candidates who removed themselves, not because they were blocked. The prohibition on campaigning in those states applied equally to all candidates, and Obama broke that rule in Florida with cable ad buys. At no time did she ever say these states should be included because I'm ahead and not including them would change the outcome of the race. At this time, Hillary is strongly demanding either to revote the states or else seat them. She is not blocking the count of their votes.
Obama is campaigning on disenfranchising voters, leaning on an equivocal rule to cover his ass. This is a substantive difference between these candidates - one wants to win election by counting the votes, even if it means doing over the voting, and the other wants to win by disenfranchising voters who might not vote for him. These are not differences of degrees, or matters of opinion. Hillary will take her chances with the voters and abide by their decisons. Obama demands that we not count votes unless they are votes for him. He is arguing that we should not allow these Democrats to participate in anything to do with the party unless it is certain they will not endanger his front-runner status. That they have a right to vote and he has no right to win eludes him.
And then there is all that experience stuff where she's been an actor on the national scene for two decades, knows her stuff inside and out and is putting together teams and programs to address the biggest challenges to the nation, while Obama hasn't even convened his own sub-committee, is taking the cast-offs from previous Democratic administrations, and having losers from previous campaigns bitch about how Hillary is such a meeeaaaannniiieee to him. And then there is that 20 year association with someone who preaches hated of this country.
Words and deeds matter.
Anglachel
Anglachel's Journal
March 30, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frightening. Fear. Well, at least you're no longer in denial. I guess you can call that progress.
March 30, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Andrew Strat:
Whip us, beat us, call us trash yet we just keep winning. ;)
March 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah . . . scoreboard!
March 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Hillary is the stuff that leadership is made of: a lying, condescending, strong-arming, coattail-riding, embellishing, media-hound with less to say and even less to back it up than Walter Mitty?
If THIS is where the Democratic party continues to push its loyalty, then we're all set for more of the same and in four years we'll be only marginally better than we are now after eight years of an abomination of a failed administration.
Marginally better isn't good enough, but that's where we're headed with HRC.
March 30, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured the attempts to push this in the worst possible light wouldn't take long (and it looks like headline writers are fishing for some clicks by encouraging this). As if Obama had announced a press conference to give Clinton his permission to keep running. But if we feel the need to laser in on the word "can." Okay, then: "May" = is allowed to, "can" = is able to. And then there's context, too:
"My attitude is Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants. Her name's on the ballot, and she is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best president. She should be able to compete, and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able."
March 30, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight.
(A) If Obama lends his voice to the growing chorus of prominent Democratic voices calling for Hillary to stop kneecapping her party's chanches in November then he's smug and undemocratic.
(B) If Obama concedes that Hillary has every right to continue campaigning, praises her tenacity and intelligence, and claims that she wouldn't be running if she didn't believe she was the best person for the job, then he's a condescending prick?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous (and self-entitled) you sound? What. would. you. have. him. do? Sheesh.
March 30, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
JoeLisboa -- If this really was a reply to my post, please check what I wrote again. I was responding to Lalo's post and taking issue with his/her attempt to portray Obama's remarks as condescending or inappropriate, because I don't think they were. I quoted Obama's remarks in full because I think they discredit Lalo's interpretation. Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant. Regardless, I agree with you completely.
March 30, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no! If you'll check the indentation of my post, you'll see that I'm responding to the poster who suggested that Obama was a "condescending prick." Sorry for the confusion.
March 30, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is fresh and cheerful and open and honest. She has vigor and enthusiasm.
Obama seems to only have "entitlement". Because he is black and articulate he thinks he is entitled to the Presidency. He is a condescending prick. The way he acts, the snobbish airs he puts on. The "I'm the new Messiah" kind of spiel he puts out might convince you idiots to follow the man, but in reality he is an empty suit all puffed up by white racial guilt.
He will not be the President of the United States. And if he makes it to the presidency, he will be another Bush.
March 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take your racist bullshit where it belongs, grandpa: 1861.
March 30, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, now I just realized you weren't replying to my post. Sorry, in that case, for my unneeded attempt to clarify. It's getting late and the indents are starting to blur.
March 30, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely spot-on.
Would Hillary have done this? Well, if the way the HRC supporters are reading it, then, yes, she already has in her "He can be my VP" claptrap. That loving, pat-on-the-head garbage of superiority.
But I don't believe Obama meant it like that, because he has - on numerous occasions - congratulated HRC on her victories. She never has. She just starts talking about the next contest. And HE disenfranchises voters? Please. I honestly think he meant it as a true statement.
So if the HRC lovers think she WOULDN'T have done this, then the answer is - again - yes, if it was meant as a genuine comment about the fairness of competition.
But we all know she would never do anything to hurt voters or the party. Errr, I mean her own campaign and "right" to the throne!
March 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary won the condescension award when she said Obama would make a good vice president.
March 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do have a question for Senator Clinton supporters. She has said that Michigan and Florida must be seated, that voters in those states MUST have their votes count.
That's certainly magnanimous and noble of her, in spite of the fact that I heard her say, when questioned by a called on a radio station, prior to those elections, why she hadn't removed her name from the ballot, as the other candidates had, "It doesn't matter, the primaries in Michigan and Florida are not going to count, that's been agreed to by the DNC, and all of the candidates, so it doesn't matter if my name is still on the ballot or not"...
So Senator Clinton argues that we cannot simply ignore the votes of the citizens of those two states, that their voices MUST be heard!
She then argues that, once we've "heard" the voices of the good citizens of Michigan and Florida, that there would be nothing wrong if the Super Delegates come in, at the 11th hour, and over-ride the votes of ALL Democrats, if the Super Delegates basically made the past 18 months of debates, primaries, caucuses... made them all just go away.... poof! And suddenly, HRC is the Democratic nominee for President.
So if I understand her and her supporters arguments correctly, while it would be undemocratic and WRONG to ignore the voters of Michigan and Florida, it would NOT be wrong to then ignore ALL the voters throughout the country.
Do I have this correct?
March 31, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Clinton spin Eric.
That line was something that the ABC reporter took out of context and people like you repeated without checking on it.
This is the first time Obama's given his opinion on this topic. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
March 29, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or because she will never stfu and will keep going on and on about it and still not drop out even though she has a zero chance of beating Obama. Iam sick of it.
March 29, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest numbers from the Texas conventions:
Obama: 59.60%
Clinton 40.40%
March 29, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well, in a front page WaPo article tomorrow, Clinton says she'll likely take this to the convention.
This is part of her "negotiation strategy" about seating FL & MI. Like her NAFTA re-negotiation strategy. Threaten to pull out (or threaten to go to the convention) and they'll fold.
March 29, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pathetic. Why the hell is this site supposed to be any different than MSM? Get your shit together Kleefield. You misquoted Obama and now you reference your misquote? You can't possible have missed your misquote.
March 29, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a misquote. It is misspeak!
Pathetic Eric. Another Ben Smith.
March 29, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas latest
BHO - 57% HRC - 43% Total delegate reporting - 64%
http://www.burntorangereport.com/
March 29, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric- Never complianed before.
But please go back to JNR 101. This could never qualify for reporting in the real world.
You've one sentence, exactly 12 words- to make it a front page headline.
Didn't he say anything at all, not a word before or after the quote you provide?
Try harder please.
March 29, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd settle for Blogging101
;-)
March 30, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd settle for Blogging101!
;-)
March 30, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for adding a few more lines in his quoute.
March 30, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, you misquote Obama regarding the election-is-a-long-movie analogy. C'mon. Use the correct quote, as shown on Countdown last night. And, what exactly is your point for this post? If you used the correct quote, then the Obama-is-dialing-back analysis would be redundant.
March 29, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," Obama said.
Nice. Arrogant condescending. As if she needs his permission or opinion. And he can forget about distancing himself from the surrogates who made the suggestion. They effing endorsed him.
This falls right into the "Hillary you're likable enough" category.
Arrogance and entitlement.
March 29, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was answering a freaking direct question.
And he didn't say: "If it were me, and I was so far behind with no chance to catch up, I would have given up".
That would have been tit-for-tat. and true, he would have been asked to quit if he'd been in the same position.
But he chose to stay above the fray and acknowledge her right to do what she thinks is appropriate.
That's called class.
March 30, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You Hillbots are delusional and filled with hate. No matter what Obama says or does you guys can't stand it. I was looking at Hillaryis44.org during one of the debates and people on there were talking about how they wanted to claw their eyes out just from watching him, how they wanted to smack him, etc. (One commenter wrote "Tim Russet is so ugly" which I actually found kind of funny).
The reason that sounds condescending is because you guys are primed to interpret everything he says in the worst possible light. Also, you're crazy.
And of course he's entitled. He's won the primary. It's just that Hillary is as delusional as her supporters.
March 30, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, so I'm going to repost JoeLisboa's response to this from higher up the page:
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Shoot from the hip, find fault in any and everything said, and hope it makes you feel better about your candidate.
You Clinton supporters are really getting to the point where you sound far, far worse than anything you could accuse the Obama supporters of being.
March 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, that was the kind of word twisting that would make the MSM proud. Take it out of context to make it sound like he was saying the exact opposite of what he really said. Come on, Eric, TPM is so much better than that!
March 29, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so funny watching Eric & Greg act like they're unbiased.
A carefully chosen adjective here or adverb there, half a quote, etc. and it all changes the tone of the storyline.
Funny, when they're reporting on Obama's HUGE lead, recovering COMPLETELY (and then some) from the Wright controversy, their posts sound sterile as can be.
Hmmmm.
March 30, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Im with Lalo. I guess I missed the part about Hillary needing Obama's permission to stay in the race.
I do agree, however, that she's pretty much done for. Bill Iscariat's--er, Richardson's--endorsement of Obama was the turning point, IMHO.
so congratulations, Democrats, you've done it again. you've selected a nominee who can't possibly win the general election.
March 30, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I was in 1st Grade (wow that was a long time ago..) and I would ask if I could go to the bathroom, the teacher would look at me and say "I dunno, can you?" and turn around and continue teaching.
I had to ask "MAY I go to the bathroom."
Now, Obama is a lawyer. Do you think the distinction between "can" and "may" is lost upon him? Which word did he use?
Permission is not what he is giving, nor is it blessing or any of those things. He's saying, I'm not going to call for you to exit the race. That's all. Stop trying to find fault where there is none.
March 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you cut out the bullshit, here's what Obama is saying:
Hey Hillary, lately you've been the best asset to my campaign I could've ever imagined. I go on vacation for three days, you fly completely off the rails, my poll numbers go up, I feel refreshed, my coffers are spilling over, I'm having a great time in PA - let's keep this gravy train going! And thanks a million!!!
March 30, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
March 30, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
cheers billysumday! You nailed it.
And gretz: I respectably disagree. Obama will fair better in the General than Clinton would...
and at this point, I'm not sure Hillary could even win the General.
March 30, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now she is talking about taking it all the way to the convention:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?hpid=topnews
"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.
"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."
Asked if there was a scenario in which she would drop out before the last primaries on June 3, Clinton said no. "I am committed to competing everywhere that there is an election," she said.
March 30, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
billysunday - LOL!
That was ever so well said.
March 30, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was answering a freaking direct question.
And he didn't say: "If it were me, and I was so far behind with no chance to catch up, I would have given up".
That would have been tit-for-tat. and true, he would have been asked to quit if he'd been in the same position.
But he chose to stay above the fray and acknowledge her right to do what she thinks is appropriate.
That's called class.
March 30, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frightening. Fear. Well, at least you're no longer in denial. I guess you can call that progress.
March 30, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy effing cow. I cannot believe the amount of whining here. Seriously. Hillary is a great candidate, people, she doesn't need a pity party. She's a grown woman running for president, she can handle it. Me thinky that you all doth protest way too much. Arrogant? Condescending? Entitlement?
Please, please, please, I beg of you - stop pulling the victim card out every single day for every single story. It's starting to reach the point of diminishing returns. My suggestion - save it for when you need it, because it getting. Really. Old.
March 30, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How little does anyone know about Obama?
Got emailed this today-
There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play. A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.
March 30, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! I'm sure Obama bundled his money with a member of the Weather Underground and "funneled" it to a far-left professor in New York!
IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE!
March 30, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that all you got ? Well, Good luck with that, you pathetic little losers.
March 30, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
geez, dembilic, is it not enough embarrassment to support Clinton?
Do you have to post fringe lunatic rantings as well?
March 30, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you pay attention, right behind you will find the following emails:
1)100% guarentee magic pill for your penis enlargement
2) Nigerian widow looking for your help for money transfer.
3)A 19 yr. old girl in your local area hot and ready for you.
Keep believing every email you read- Soon you'll have great sex with a 19 yr old in your luxury Penthouse bedroom while McCain takes the oath of office.
Good luck and keep us posted.
You've been bringing this kind of SCUM from rightwing shitholes for sometime now.
Save yourself and wait for the breaking news.
March 30, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
dembilic
Libel. Again. How many times did you post this today, weaselman
March 30, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I supposed to post the email I got saying that Hillary & Maggie Williams are lovers and that before she killed Vince Foster, she and her were lovers?
Take it on the arches, creep.
March 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters are the last one to talk about condescension when their candidate tells the American public that she prefers McCain as Commander in Chief over her fellow Democrat Obama. Now that is really condescension.
March 30, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Karl Rove now the mentor for the Clinton camp?
I am so damn sick of these smear campaigns.
And so is most of the rest of this country - I have news for y'all.
March 30, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah he is a condescending prick and the Obamanoids garf it up like manna from heaven.
Kleefeld thank you for the unintended consequences- Stepped on the graves and wokeup the ghosts of Hillary at the stroke of midnight.
Good Luck!!! Cheers!!!LOL!!!
March 30, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dembillic, your malice based credulity is astounding. Here you are trotting out that old canard of Obama is a Manchurian terrorist loving candidate. Puhleeez. If you are going to trot out fabrications at least be entertaining.
March 30, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I laugh every time I read one of Sen. Clinton's defender attacking Obama for being arrogant and having a sense of entitlement.
lol.
As if Hillary Clinton is singularly innocent of any sense of arrogance and entitlement.
March 30, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
suntzu--it is "condescending" for Clinton to prefer McCain to Obama? maybe she really does. maybe--like many of us out here--she doesn't think he's ready.
SCMadden: you may very well be right that Obama's better against McCain than Clinton. so I guess I should amend my post to read "Congratulations Democrats, for picking two utterly long-shot candidates who were both more interested in their own careers and 'being the first [Af-Amer/woman]' than the good of country and will lead us once again to defeat."
I'm pretty disgusted with my party overall. personally, I'm waiting for Mike Gravel to announce his Libertarian run for the presidency. he may not be as charismatic as the Chosen One, or as intelligent as Mrs. Policy Wonk, but hey, at least we'll get marijuana decriminalized! ;-)
March 30, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, gretz, Obama has come out on a couple occasions in support of decriminalization of possession of marijuana.
March 30, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, evainne, you miss the point. of course Hillary is arrogant. but so is Obama. that's what you kool-aid drinkers don't get: he is NOT the second coming, he's just a politician like all the rest of'em. his supporters are so blinded by his "eloquence" and his "post-racial" candidacy and his famously vague talk of "hope" that they've convinced themselves that he's different.
guess what: he isn't.
March 30, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I support Obama and fully realize his weaknesses and his vulnerabilities. To suggest that we are all kool-aid drinkers is really unfair and inaccurate. I understand that he's a politician. And, I mean, obviously a person running for president is arrogant. Jesus H on a stick. I want an arrogant president!
I agree with you that Obama may not have been the Dems strongest candidate this year. But he's better than HRC, and they're the only two in the running, so my money, time, and effort is behind him all the way. Also, I think in time many Clinton supporters will realize that Obama is actually a very strong candidate. Cynically one could say that he has branded himself well. Who cares? He's got a strong shot at the White House in '08, which means at least 4 years of a strong Democratic majority.
Democrats in '08!
March 30, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
His personal charisma and his excellent rhetoric are a part of why he is winning (and will win in November). But it isn't the main reason.
Obama's campaign has put together the best 50-state ground game I've ever seen. That's why he is winning state after state and that's why he will beat McCain. No amount of advertising or endorsements can beat that.
March 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before we have a discussion about "different" perhaps you should define what that word means to you.
March 30, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad opener.
Bad closer.
March 30, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Latest numbers from the Texas conventions:
Obama: 59.60%
Clinton 40.40%
Amazing isn't it? The conventions overturned "{{{THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE}}}" as expressed by 3 million people voting in the Texas primary.
Ain't caucuses wunnerful for minimizing those pesky voters?
March 30, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
“The endorsement of the New Black Panther Party was posted on Barack Obama’s website. Why was this tolerated unless Barack Obama wanted their endorsement? If he does not want their endorsement, how much control over his staff is he going to have once he’s elected President?” asks Mike Baker. {Valid questions, IMHO.}
The New Black Panther Party is openly anti-White, anti-Jewish, and anti-America. After Obama’s Tuesday damage-control speech, his campaign pulled the Black Panthers’ endorsement story off their website."
http://www.redpills.org/?p=990
Can anyone verify or have a screens shot/cache of Obama's site that show the NBPP listed?
Get ready for the next Obama scandal. NBPP endorsement, the Weather Underground Ayers/Dohrn and Palestinian operatives throwing fundraisers for him.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but in light of the Wright debacle if this stuff turns out to be even partially true, Obama will be a lame gelding by convention time. Time is now to put him out to pasture.
Bye bye Obama......
March 30, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, thank you for referencing a Fox News story that has already been debunked for the crap journalism that it was. Anyone can post a page on Obama's site. He has a myspace style section that is used to build connections between supporters, which was what this was. It has long since been deleted by the campaign.
Next time try to find something that actually has a basis in reality. It only makes him look better when the only things you can attack him on are invented stories.
March 30, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't for another of his"whitey just don't get it" speeches to explain this one.
March 30, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have crossed the line with that comment. It is offensive.
March 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hold TPM is high regards. It's my first go-to place for all things politics. I recently registered a username so that I could comment and participate in what I assumed would be intelligent debate.
Well, the bickering in these comment threads can be just as puerile as some of the most remedial websites out there. (I'm looking at you, YouTube.) Personally, I think said behavior tarnishes TPM. If this downward spiral continues, the fine line between TPM and something like (shudder) Daily Kos will become nearly impossible to decipher. Where will it go from there? Fox News maturity, mayhaps?
Are we all adults here or what?
And yes, I do realize the irony in posting a comment to complain about comments. I enjoy irony in all its delicious forms.
March 30, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been getting worse lately, my advice is roll up your sleeves and hurl some snark. Oh, wait you just did! ; )
March 30, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to most blogs, TPM is a haven of sanity. Both sides, Obama and Clinton supporters here are at least able to carry on a conversation. The vitriol, such as it is, is no where near the level of HuffPo or some other sites, and even the NY Times Caucus. So yes, it is not always a tea party here, but what is going on is merely a reflection of the level of discord between the two campaigns, and it is pointless to try to find fault at this stage of the game. It is just out there, and to avoid it, the only solution is to pick up a good long novel and tune out, and come back after the convention.
I think what Obama said also reflects a degree of resignation on his part, and shows a certain maturity. Clinton supporters whine about his choice of words, but imagine what they would be saying if he actually asked Hillary to drop out.
I can understand their frustration, but what they cannot do is put the onus back on their candidate for running a poor campaign. They need a villain, and of course, Obama is the best available scapegoat for Hillary's less than stellar game.
March 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy: if "in time" Clintonistas "will realize that Obama is actually a very strong candidate," the nastiness is going to have to stop. SOON. on all sides. I think by November we'll all kiss and make up. (Democrats are all about singing Kumbayah and holding hands--they don't WANT to be aggressive, which is interestingly enough one more reason they haven't been good at winning the White House recently.)
but this has turned into a very personal race and Clinton supporters feel attacked and condescended to.
do you want Hillary to bow out? then Obama has to "take care" of her in some way. for instance, she would make a great secretary of Defense in an Obama adminstration (let's face it she'd be the most conservative person in it.) so she can save face. I hope we're not at the point in this thing that not only do we want to defeat the "opponent," we want to see him or her destroyed and HUMILIATED.
March 30, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Yes. We will "take care of her". And yes, We want her destroyed and humiliated.
March 30, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama should allow his surrogates to come right out and tell Clinton, to stop the nonsense.
Hillary is acting like a teenager, testing the limits of the adults and thumbing her nose at them. If the Democratic party gets tough with her, it will signal the remaining voters that Hillary is persona no grata.
Sure, there's a risk involved, but it's time for some leadership. Hillary is Gaslighting Obama, the voters and the party and she needs to be sent to her room.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
March 30, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the NBPP screenshot:
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6250/nbppex7.jpg
March 30, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time to start copying a new talking point, troll:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/174127/728/841/480210.
Do you have any idea how desperate and pathetic these faux attacks sound? "Obama was a lecturer, not a professor!" Really? If that's the best you've got, it's time to reconsider your allegiances.
March 30, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
troll.
March 30, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Had enough?
"Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned about $200,000 on the board of a Long Island subprime lender that charged prepayment penalties -- a practice that Clinton, a critic of the subprime industry, now seeks to eliminate."
March 30, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's comments may have come too late. Hillary has raised a lot of cash as a backlash to all the calls for her to quit.
March 30, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of bickering, can anyone enlighten me?
Why is Sen. Clinton remaining in the race if everyone says she has no chance? Surely she can see that too. So, either "everyone" is wrong or she's persevering with a purpose. What is that purpose? Is she pulling in more cash for the general election? Is she trying to kneecap Obama so she can run in '12? (That assumes a country remains by then.) Is she fulfilling a promise to big time donors? Is she taking one for the team?
Second, the nomination race ends the minute Gore, Edwards, Dean and, say, Webb get together and announce their support for Obama. If they wanted it to end, they (party elders) could make it happen. Today.
Third, all the fuss about Obama (the eventual nominee) being hurt by her continuation in the race isn't worthwhile. Better a Democrat smear a Democrat than to open it to the Republican slime machine. Sure, they're ratcheting it up, but as long as Clinton is the one throwing mud, the Democrats control the agenda. And they get all the free publicity of Obama being above it all so that, for instance, the Wright "controversy" is old news and not a Republican inspired momentum stopper.
Anyway, stop bickering and watch what is happening. Maybe someone can enlighten me because calling Obama a "condescending prick" is ignorant and worthless.
Remember the last seven years.
March 30, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Hubris, that's the only thing I can figure.
2. Not if she refuses to concede
3. She could drive Dem voters to McCain by polarizing the party, and Obama's negatives and McCain's approval are both going up as a result of her scorched earth tactics.
March 30, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh juicy, I thought that was gonna be something unsourced too.
March 30, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Minions, You see we have a small problem... Your Majesty really screwed up the Primaries and has lost. To keep things going, Your Majesty has had to use some of her own money. It is obvious now that this thing is over but Your Majesty would like to recoup the millions that has been given to the campaign. Please, won't you give me all your money? I can use your money to completely destroy Obama and support McCain so that a Republican can be elected President and I can destroy the Democratic party not only in 2008 but also in 2012!
Thanking you,
Your Majesty, Queen Hillary
March 30, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
good for you hillary - stay in that race. don't be dictated to by the empty suit.
March 30, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank god when obama loses, that will be the last we'll see of him. after all, michelle obama has said "this is the only time we are doing this!" nice - offer hope and change with an asterisk. act now or never? baa.
March 30, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has all been par for the course - exactly what should be expected from a Clinton and Clintonistas.
There is a generational and stylistic shift in national politics taking place, and Obama is the only national politician positioned to lead it. This clearly upsets and embitters some of the Clinton supporters who feel, well, entitled to our unquestioning support.
Sorry guys. It is not patronizing to suggest someone gracefully exit stage left when there is no legal and practical way for your candidate to prevail. You are entitled to stick it out, but do so with some class and passion, not whining and resentment.
March 30, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is asking, begging, demanding to be flamed by the entire Democratic Party establishment. By making this about taking on the DNC and the disciplining of MI and FL for breaking the rules, she is demanding to be confronted. She also comes across as an unscrupulous liar. She agreed not to campaign in FL and MI and then she went back on her word and now she is using her going back on her word as the reason she is allowed to win the contest?
So I don't get it. It's like she is running to be a new star in the Republican Party. I really think she is gonna pull a Lieberman if she doesn't get her way.
The only thing I can think is one of her demented Democrat hating advisors has conconcted a scenario where Hillary gets attacked by the Dem party establishment to close shop and then takes her case to the media and with her new friends at FOX and Scaife attempts to 'shame' the party into anointing her.
Yeah yeah it's speculative on my part but it's consistent with Marc Penn type logic and Rovian tactics. We'll see how it plays out.
March 30, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, she can run as long as she wants, but its a waste of time and money and the clintons are ripping the party apart with their nonsense. If they just ran cleanly and honestly, which is impossible for the clintons, then it would be fine for her to keep going. Nonetheless, she barely beats Gore in a three way race and he isn't even actively running. What does that tell you?
Check out these numbers:
The national telephone survey of 423 Likely Democratic Primary Voters shows Obama attracting 42% support while Clinton earns 26% and Gore is the top choice for 23%.
The survey also found that 41% believe that Obama would be the strongest general election candidate against John McCain. Twenty-six percent (26%) say that Gore would be the strongest candidate while 23% named Clinton.
From the opposite perspective, 36% said Clinton would be the weakest general election candidate. Twenty-nine percent (29%) named Gore as the weakest and just 19% said that description applies to Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080328/pl_rasmussen/gorenotanswer20080328;_ylt=AoXUlhgXWD4Z.XPrF8b6kL2s0NUE
Ouch. Time to hang it up clintons. Take a long vacation until after november at least. Please.
March 30, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is being very clever here. When you have a whining teenager that is testing the limits, the best thing a parent can do is just let them - but dismissively - as Obama has done with Clinton.
It saves the bickering, you don't give the teenager undue attention, and the teenager eventually realises that you were right all along.
March 30, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the DLC can't own the party, they might as well destroy it. That's why she's going all the way. I wouldn't at all be surprised if she pulls a Lieberman in the end.
What's going on here is far bigger than the battle between two candidates. It's about what the Democratic Party is going to be: a 50 state bottom up organization or a DLC outfit dominated by big donors and focused on 10-15 states. The latter exists to guarantee a royalist political system. If Clinton loses, Dean gets to finish the job of reconfiguring the party, and then the DLC is out permanently.
That's why Clinton is going all out in the face of certain defeat. If this was just about her ambitions, the money flow would have dried out long ago.
March 30, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: Hillary "Can Run As Long As She Wants" - Thank you for your consideration Mr. Obama. The only reason Democratic race is open is that you don't have required delegates. However bonehead blogers (including Josh) and media spins it, it is a fact. Wehn no one has required delegates, as per process ("without moving goal posts or rules as per your earlier quotes) the only way it can be resolved is at convention. It is not about Clintons but about process as far as voters like me are concerned.
March 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read the posts for this and other so-called progrssive blogs, it makes me wonder what planet I'm from. So many self-proclaimed, self-rightious political experts stating without any trace of self-doubt their "opinions" as indisputable truth. Think, for a moment if you will, what all the noise in the blogosphere has really contributed to this race, and to the progressive movement; particulary with respect to calls for one of the candidates to drop out. As of a recent poll, significant numbers of supporters for both candidates stated they would vote Republican if their candidate wasn't the Party's nominee. I may be wrong, but having regularly scanned TPM, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos, I believe this is the result of irresponsible postings in said blogs. Maybe it is just the nature of the beast, with so little difference between the candidates on the issues, that supporters must find some way to fill the void. Just remember, its the Republican Party that is the "enemy", not the Democratic candidates.
For the record, I am an unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton. However, one of my proudest moments as an American, and as a Democrat, was watching Senators Clinton and Obama on stage together at the Los angeles debate.
March 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama forgot to add, "As far as I know" to the end of his statement.
Seriously, You Clintonistas are calling Obama arrogant?
Does anyone remember her openly speculating that Obama could be HER VP, all while being behind in every count?
March 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching HRC's online fund raising tally is like watching paint dry.
March 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't for another of his"whitey just don't get it" speeches to explain this on
I hope you know that comments like that is what turned me completely against the Clintons.
I personally am really sick of the racist crap the Clinton people keep putting in comments. I never thought I'd see liberals say those kinds of things.
I suppose they are just trolls, but I've had it with this shit. Knock it off..
March 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two years ago, the students of a predominantly Jewish local high school played soccer against a Catholic private school. The Jewish kids were beating the Catholic kids something like 4-1. And what did the private school Catholic kids start to do? They fouled and they called the Jewish kids "kikes". The story made the front page of the local newspaper.
Was I surprised? No. That is what happens when entitled people get beat fair and square: they pout like children.
Remember this story when you hear the Hillary supporters calling Obama arrogant, or refering to his supporters in a negative manner. Remember that NO ONE insults the Edwards supporters, because they do not count any more. When they insult you fellow Obama supporters, just smile and say "Scoreboard."
March 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the WaPo article: Asked whether Obama could win in November, Clinton deflected the question. "I'm saying I have a better chance," she said. "You cannot as a Democrat win the White House without a very big women's vote. What I believe is that women will turn out for me."
Well, at least she is honest about playing the gender card.
Now if only Obama is allowed to say, "What I believe is that African-Americans will turn out for me," without being called racist.
March 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What she fails to say is, since they are both men, why they would come out for McCain over Obama.
Or is she trying to say we'll stay home because there's no woman on the ticket? Gee, nobody told me about that rule. I've mistakenly been voting for 30 years...I voted for her husband twice, silly me.
March 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figure a tremendous amount of debt, both for the campaign and in promises. She needs to (somewhat paradoxically) keep running in order to raise enough money to pay off outstanding debts accrued. It's paradoxical, of course, because she's thereby accruing more debts, but it seems like some of the smaller vendors she has no intention of ever paying.
It also seems she and Bill have given tremendous amounts of promises to people in give-backs, Lincoln bedroom stays, and favorable contracts, for their falling in line and helping them out. They needed to get the White House to start paying out, but now that it looks increasingly unlikely, they need to at least show they did absolutely everything in their power to do so. Part of it is denial, part of it is pragmatism.
March 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, suntzu, I think what's she's saying is that in the general she expects lots of Republican women to break for her at the polls in a grand showing of female unity. Whereas even if all of the black Republicans vote for Obama it will be statistically insignificant.
"That's what convention committees are *for*, deciding the President of the United States. Duh."
Clinton/Madonna '08! Vote for which Spice Girl will get which Cabinet seat on the next episode of American Celebrity Deathspiral. Only on Fox.
March 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. I think we (supporters of Hillary and Barack) must stop this nastiness, and try to be civil and respectful of each other, regardless of how deeply we may disagree.
I thing we agree that America is on the wrong track, and John McCain is not the guy to get us back in the right direction. We are Americans first, aren't we? Don't we all want what is best for this country first and foremost? Let's try and remember that before we continue to tear each other down. I am so sick of the attacks from both sides. This is sandbox stuff. We do ourselves a great disservice with this kind of discourse, making it more and more likely we will end up with a Pres. McCain, and what I believe would be four more years of the Iraq War, economic doldrums, and no progress on the great issues of our time.
Sad.
March 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
These statements by Obama are proof that his supporters are not too bright when it comes to politics. Until today, they have said Hillary would somehow hurt the party by staying on the race. Their leader doesn't even agree with them. Wow.
March 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one on this blog expects Hillary to say she is dropping out. Even though we all know that she will after May 6 if she loses both IN and NC primaries.
She has to say she will be in it for the long haul for the sake of her troops and moral.
With super delegates coming out now hinting for her to drop out, she knows that if things go against her in IN and NC that she has no more reason to continue. So from BO stand point, I agree with him, HRC can stay in this for as long as she wants, that is up until May 6.
March 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why shouldn't Obama encourage Mrs. Clinton to stay in the race?
The longer she's in it, the worse she does
Gallup Track
Obama 52%
Clinton 42%
If she stays until the convention, her approval may be lower than Bush's
March 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It tickles me no end to see the Obama supporters throw a tantrum when Hillary won't quit. Talk about "being entitled". Ha! If you don't follow thru on the primaries remaining you rob those folks as well as the folks in MI and FL. I'm sure that's exactly what Obama wants but the fact is that they likely will pull this race much closer than his supporters can stand. Much was said about Hillary's supposed "I'm entitled" attitude early on but Obama's has been there all along and becoming much more apparent than Hillary's ever was. Much is still to be decided. Much is still to be discussed. Hillary's made it clear-It ain't over yet!
March 30, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh it is over.
After a year of campaigning behind the most awesome machine the party has ever seen, Obama's lead keeps growing and her approval keeps tanking
The longer she drags this out the more complete her defeat will be.
The Clintons will be a factor in Democratic Party politics no more
As long as it takes to kill the last dog
March 30, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a standard Obama scam technique: use a quote to make a point so you can later deny it was your position.
March 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Rambo Clinton will fight it all the way. There is is no quit in the Sniper defying Heroine of Tuzla. Long after President Obama has been sworn in to office, Hillary Rambo Clinton will still be fighting to have only her delegates seated at the 2008 convention.
Hillary Rambo Clinton did not endure five long years of Water Boarding torture from Bosnian Snipers at the Tuzla Hilton in order to stop fighting now. Sinbad and Sheryl Crow may falter but never Hillary Rambo Clinton, the Heroine of Tuzla.
March 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also a very possible scenario here - come the end of the primaries, Obama might be at a point were the remaining superdelegates can push him over the top no matter whether Michigan and Florida count.
If Obama is in the 1900 pledged delegate lead, it would take a litte over 300 of the remaining pledged delegates to give him the victory no matter which states are considered. It would basically take almost 100% agreement by the remaining superdelegates but it is a possibility.
Either way, I get the feeling that once the primaries are done Obama is going to turn his full attention on McCain. He'll keep working the superdelegates behind closed doors, but his campaining and public persona will be all about McCain. Most of thew democratic establishment will probably join him as well. I imagine a fair number of her supporters will leave her too.
Clinton can feel free to keep pushing and pushing, but she and her supporters are fooling themselves if they believe that there is any chance that the Superdelegates or the credentials committee will overturn the rule of the people. Especially since the credentials committee is run by the delegates and Obama will have more delegates at that point than she will.
So, she can stay in as long as she wants. That doesn't oblige Obama or anyone else to give her any relevance.
March 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama's new strategy is not about being democratic. again you obama folks are being naive to this man. obama is changing his song because he now fears that the high number of hilliary voters who resent him from pushing her out of the race will not vote for him. the only reason he is changing his tune is because he politically has no choice! he wants our votes and knows we dislike him very much as well as we are much more moderate and conservative and could easily support mccain. to try to make it appear he is so wonderful and above it all is ludicrous. don’t be so gullible to this man as is frightening.
what i find interesting is that i believe there is a BIG change in the wind that you you folks are not seeing. people are now deeply considering the likelihood that there will be a hilliary/obama or obama/hilliary ticket. anything else will lose against mccain. and what i am hearing the stronger ticket has become hilliary/obama. folks are starting to realize obama nor hilliary will be able to close the deal alone against mccain. as excited as the obama people are he is still running neck and neck with hilliary aginst mccain. The hire ups because obama may be winning against hilliary but he is pretty much tied in the general with hilliary against mccain. I guess when folks keep saying hilliary ios so weak they are also starting to thing well what does that say against obama because they are polling neck and neck in the general. they are right. Folks are concerned big time and they also feel the republicans have a lot more on obama that they are holding back with until the general election and that obama will not recover from the news. as i said earlier people are going to look at the unstoppable dream ticket because they want to win.
in my opionion john mccain's patritotism will destroy obama come general election and the ads coming out now showing mccains strategy is really worrying folks about obama's patriotism vulnerability. Remember most folks polled stated they had never heard of wright which means this has a huge ability yet to still hurt him as we move forward and the republicans will be using this as an election rallying call against obama.
i think that is why dean is saying it may be over in june. if hilliary does well going forward and obama stays at the same level in the polls for the general election talk is now starting that they will have no choice but to create the dream team ticket. this is how they expect to bring the party back together and i believe it is the only way we will win against mccain. I have to agree it is the only real way to win in my opinion.
before every one trashes my email i suggest you take you passion and emotion out of it and look at it logically. do we really want to win or not? and realize obama nor hilliary can afford to lose any of the voters they have on any level. resentment voting on either side of hilliary or obama means we lose.and i for one know many who are at ease with voting for mccain come election. i am sure there are many who know obama folks also willing to vote mccain.
March 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The hire ups"
Thanks for playing. Literacy: 0. Credibility: 0. Let it go. Obama's the nominee representing the Democratic party and those of us who give a shit about the future of our nation are already moving on to deal with how best to beat McCain in the general election. You're welcome to join us.
March 30, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The hire ups"
Thanks for playing. Literacy: 0. Credibility: 0. Let it go. Obama's the nominee representing the Democratic party and those of us who give a shit about the future of our nation are already moving on to deal with how best to beat McCain in the general election. You're welcome to join us.
March 30, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did it ever occur to you that those selfsame "questions" about Obama's "patriotism" you think will trouble him in the general election were largely sown by YOUR candidate and her campaign and surrogates? I've had it with that sort of duplicity. You had a choice: defend and promote your candidate's alleged strengths or disseminate a skewed impression of her opponent's perceived weaknesses ala Karl Rove. Guess which path your candidate chose? The latter. As far as I know.
Whenever you're done dodging Bosnian sniper fire whilst ratifying NAFTA in Northern Ireland I'd encourage you to rally behind the Democratic Party's nominee for president. He's a genuinely good guy. And a helluva lot better of a choice than American John American McAmericanMcCain.
March 31, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Hillbot has yet explained why the LOSER in the nominating process thinks she gets to sit at the top of the ticket. Only in Hillary-world does a candidate run a crappy campaign, waste money, leave a trail of unpaid creditors chasing her and get rewarded with the nomination, over a superior candidate! Talk about denial . . .
March 31, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point she can run, but she cannot hide (her metaphorically ugly political face from the masses, that is).
March 30, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
your comment is devoid of any significant meaning. Seems like you need to consult with a cognitive therapist. How is that for personal insult. LOL
March 30, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Articulate black"? Really? Really?! What are you, 180 years old? Strom Thurmond called, he wants his white privilege back.
March 31, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Obama is angling for a cabinet position in the Hillary administration.
March 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillar's cabinet?
You have to win the presidency to have a cabinet. And for that to happen you have to first win the nomination. And for that to happen it helps if you've held the lead in at least one meaningful metric ever.
March 30, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary can angle her cabinets any way she wants to - just not in the White House.
March 31, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's clear, the Obama campaign was the most clever and elaborate attempt at winning the Secretary of Transportation post ever devised.
Won over by the fact that Honolulu's airport was named for Norm Mineta, the Clinton and Bush Transportation Secretary, Obama doubtless concocted two years of Obamania to get his scheming hands on this low-level Cabinet post.
Thank God Hillary is winning, so he can finally realize this dream. I'm only glad some of my fellow posters see through his callow ploys.
March 30, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please just look at the negatives. Hillary is the one the Republicans want to run against It's been been proven time and time again, and Rush Limbaugh 's campaign for cross-over votes proves it. Hillary has not been electable from the beginning. Please, if you care for this country and the world, recognize that there are some discouraged Republicans ready to vote for Obama. None of them would ever vote for Hillary.
March 30, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have given Hillary ample time to convince me she's the best candidate for the job - but I don't see it. I see a professional triangulator, a fantastic policy "wonk", a horrible resource manager, highly intelligent and diligent marketeer, but frankly she really just isn't a very good politician nor a good tactician, and strategically she's a disaster (not to mention all the historical baqggage) - why would anyone want a president like that?
March 30, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillarious!
March 30, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now the media will busy themselves with asking Obama to respond to the comments/beliefs of ANY SUPPORTER, not just campaign staff. Quick, someone get the database of donors to Obama's campaign (> million), call each one of them up and see if they have any beliefs that we can force Obama to respond to. Amazing.
March 31, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the insults, everyone gets a TIME OUT! NOW!
Look, I support Obama. I think Hillary would be an inferior President than him. You might think the opposite. That said, BOTH would be lightyears ahead of another Republican administration, even Saint McCain. Get perspective. Get a grip. We're all democrats... except for the trolls, and just let them stew in their own anti-social behavior and misogeny.
Yes we (Democrats) can!
March 31, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think one of the most appealing things about Obama is that he seems quite thoughtful on the issues, and that he tries to give a logical insightful answer. I can understand how many people find this to be refreshing and like a new kind of political dialogue. In fact when Obama does this he appears to be much more intelligent than other candidates, like McCain, Hillary and Edwards.
However most problems in real life cannot be worked out this way, they require experience. For example you could sit down with two people, one certified in Windows XP and another person pointing out how Windows should work logically. The fact is Windows, most software and most organizations in real life are built up as a result of trial and error, and counter intuitive in the way they work. All logic gets you is not knowing how to work software.
There was a great story about this called "In the land of the blind". A man got shipwrecked IIRC and wandered into a country where everyone was blind from birth. He then thought like the saying, "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" but it ended up more like the saying "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is stoned to death".
In the story the man found that the blind people could do things better than him, because while they could not see they were so familiar with their town that he could not do as well as them.
So while Obama appears to be very intelligent and talented I doubt these traits would be useful in real politics. Experience seems to be what counts in getting things done, less talented people have been running things for a long time and are unlikely to change because Obama has better ideas.
Obama seems to be getting a pass on his inexperience because of his talent, and ability to frame issues in a thoughtful way. Clinton appeared similar to this, but Bill was also a wonk and read about most issues, and really drew from this enormous knowledge as well. I see no evidence Obama is any more curious about getting this experience than Dubya was.
Obama supporters don't seem to be able to see this lack of substance in what he says, and what he has done. He may be like Bill Clinton in that he empathises with people (I feel your pain). However understanding how people feel doesn't mean you can run a government.
March 31, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink