Dianne Feinstein: I'm Sticking By Hillary
Senator Dianne Feinstein caused a big stir yesterday by suggesting that the drawn-out Dem primary was producing "negative dividends" and indicating that she would ask Hillary what her real game plan is.
But Feinstein spoke privately with Hillary today. And Feinstein is sticking by her candidate and affirming her right to stay in the race:
Feinstein talked with Clinton via phone this morning and erased any doubts about her own commitment to the campaign and that of the candidate. "I'm sticking with her, absolutely," she told reporters. "Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."The California senator said she heard "conviction" in Clinton's voice during their conversation. "She feels she owes a deep debt of gratitude to the people that support her -- who support her intensely."...
"I agree that she should take this for as long as she feels she has a chance to win it," Feinstein added. "And she says she will do nothing that causes the party any difficulty."
That last quote is key. The conventional wisdom has been that even if Hillary sticks it out, she'll dial back some of the harsh criticism she's leveled at Obama, both for the sake of future party unity and her own legacy.
Feinstein suggests here that Hillary promised as much to her privately. We'll see what happens.
THen what the hell was that USAToday article about in which she said only she could get white voters?
May 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really need to tape some electrodes to her head and give her a jolt every time she mentions race.
May 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? She can't help herself, she'd kill herself within an hour.
May 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. What could I have been thinking? ;-))
May 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How horrid, Hillary appealed to white working class, rather than Hispanics, blacks, Jews, the religious right, Catholics, steel workers, farmers or women. Next thing you know she'll appeal to businessmen. That'll open the barn doors.
May 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS SHE GONE STUPID?
Barry won right? Tell me he did! Oh please, please, please say it's SOOOOOO!!!
(overheard from beneath Michelle's pillow)
Obama/Buddha '08
May 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing it. Even Feinstein, Hillary's long lost twin separated at birth, only goes so far as to say:
"Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."
lol. Praise doesn't get any fainter than that. Not exactly bound together at the waist.
May as well say: "her strategy is to fly off this cliff, and she's entitled to try jumping."
May 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diane Feinstein said she had to know Hillary's plan to win. Now she's heard it, though she isn't saying so, and she's absolutely sticking with Hillary. I don't know what Hill's plan is, but I'm sure there is one and it's sneaky and it's dirty politics. It's a long shot, but she won over Diane Feinstein and persuaded her that it was worth the risk to the party. Obama's right to keep his eyes wide open. And we're all saps if we think he should be a gentleman to the little lady about the FL vote. Fl and MI are still part of her plan somehow even though she has her surrogates come out and say they aren't enough to help her. It's like when Karl Rove effectively campaigns for Hillary because he "admires" her and we're not supposed to know that he wants her nominated because he thinks he has the ammo to beat her. You know, we can really trust the Karl Roves of the republican party to have the best interests of the democrats at heart. We can also trust Hillary surrogates when they imply and say that Obama should give her this "little" Fl/MI thing to show he's for the party and to be a gentleman------There's a snake in the grass folks. There's a snake in the grass.
May 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finesein is fine for now but Hillary should consider to run as an independant. This masquarade of democracy must end we have to learn that no change in Washington would happen unless there are more competing parties. Hillary switched from Republican to Democrat and now she is the one who can really change the equation and make history!
CLINTON SHOULD Run as an Independant
Yes, we can! It can make a difference!
Instead of being humiliated, laughed at and pushed to the dustbin of history, Hillary can make history.
Hillary should and must run as an independent candidate in the presidential election and in a three way race she can win.
Clintons are a formidable force and their record speaks for themselves. They have more chances than Bob Bar, Ralph Nader, Ross Parrot and Pat Buchanan combined! Obama made history by becoming the Democrats Presidential Candidate which even he wins would not bring changes to American politics. Clinton running as independent would bring revolutionary changes to the American political system and Washington.
Anybody who really wants to change Washington must change the monopoly of power by two collaborating parties that has suffocated American Democracy.
Hillary Clinton should not permit to be insulted, ignored, derided and mocked by the Media Savoy Obama Democrats and rebuff them all by making history. From Obama’s speech in South Carolina it is Obvious there is no respect for Clintons and they would challenge her in the next Senate election. If In the next senate election 90 per cent of Blacks would go for Osama’s handpicked candidate, what would be left of her legacy.
Clinton has a tested brand-name, a loyal following, name recognition, an agenda for Middle Class Americans, all she needs to declare that “ the real Change in America needs the breaking of the corrupt two party system which has brought a once prosperous respected America to its needs by conspiracy against the middle class”.
Bob Barr could be the Libertarian Candidate and Joe Lieberman can thumb his nose at Democratic Party, win as an Independent and take Democrats hostage, then why Clinton has every right to split with the party that is trashing her and the whole Clinton Era.
She should have the gut to start a new party or refurbish the Green or Libertarian and become its candidate. She might win in a three way race.
In all Western style Democracies from Israel to India, from Italy to Canada when one side notices a fundamental injustice, then it immediately start a new Party.
Hillary Clinton, whose supporters are Middle America and women, has a constituency that might follow her and vote for her as a third party Candidate!
It seems that Obama Mania has blinded the so-called Democratic Party that is a hodge-podge of varying interest group. The time has come for Hillary to take a stand and make history. Splitting the Democratic Party would actually bring Democracy and real Change to Washington. The New splinter group can unite with other splinter groups and voiceless independents from the Republican Party, Green Party, etc and become a viable Party. Who knows what Blue Dog Democrat would do, they might join her too!
Hillary Clinton has more followings and more assets than Joe Lieberman, who defied the Democrats and survived as an independent candidate.
Hillary should not tolerate the daily attack, mockery, and the force of confused young intellectuals that are voting for Obama's Hope message!"Until there is a two party system in America there would be no hope and no change is going to happen in Washington" Bob Barr declared today.
It is high time that instead of being fooled by snake oil salesmen, left or right, starting a new Party, who would defend the interest of hardworking American and would save our Democracy.
Hillary's can only make history by becoming a revolutionary and bring a Real Change to American society. Only by this revolutionary act she would make history rather than be mocked by historian.
May 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you clean up her campaign, is there a campaign left?
May 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! That, my friend, is the question.
What does Hillary have to offer other than nastiness?
May 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does she have to offer besides nastiness? Well thought out and solid plans on healthcare and foreclosure policies that are far more progressive and well thought out than Obama.
She's at like 4th and 20, but this is her last chance to show she should be president and I'm riding with her until a Democratic nominee is named.
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the Gas Holliday plan of hers?
May 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am ambivalent about the gas tax holiday as it wouldn't benefit me much, but would help out other struggling folks somewhat. It's not an irresponsible give away like McCain and is paid for by a windfall profits tax. But I do know Hillary's long term energy strategy is far more thorough than Barack's and he has no moral authority on the gas issue seeing as he voted in favor of Cheney's energy plan written by the oil and gas industry to give them billions in giveaways on subsidies and incentives. Why would he want to make his friends pay the burden of 8 billion dollars of the federal gas tax this summer?
But I do believe in true universal healthcare rather than Barack's half-assed "universal access" plan that has so many holes that would destroy the system.
I do believe in the federal government bailing out qualifying homeowners with subprime mortagages at a discounted rate from lenders and working to renegotiate the rates directly rather than forcing people into bankruptcy court to try to save their homes. I believe in a 90 day freeze in foreclosures to help people catch up on their payments and a temporary freeze on ARM rates. All things barack is against by the way.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, golly, where to start.
Obama's energy plan is just as good as hillaries, if not better.
Hillary's gas tax holiday was a pure pander. If you think Dubya would pass into law a windfall profits tax on oil companies you are on crack. And there would be virtually no benefit to anyone other than the oil companies in any case.
Hillary's health care plan is not a truly universal plan. The only truly universal health care plan is a single payer plan, and none of our serious candidates even proposed that, and rightly so because it would NEVER get through congress. To propose such a huge plan would be pandering.
I respect your right to support Hillary. She is not as bad as McCain, I'll give her that. But she is not ellectible. Nothing would energize the GOP like having the name Clinton on the ticket.
Have a good night:)
May 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate offers anything close to a "true universal healthcare" plan, because neither plan purports to set up a government-sponsored, single-payer system. Hillary's plan seems analogous to auto insurance mandates. With that said, nothing is more frightening than McCain's proposed healthcare plan. Under his plan, if you have any sort of pre-existing condition, forget health insurance...even John McCain himself would be ineligible for coverage under his own plan! (Lucky for him, he is covered by the government.)
May 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're wrong. She's not at 4th and 20. Her quarterback has been sacked and he's on the bottom of a huge pile-up. Even a 100-yard Hail Mary pass is not going to help her. I am absolutely astounded at the poor math skills of Clinton supporters. It is simply not mathematically possible for her to overtake him, and staying in at this point is ludicrous and utterly self-serving (especially with her wonderfully inclusive comments this morning about "hard working white people"). I am really disgusted with the sense of entitlement that the Clintons have (Bill exhorting people this morning to not let this be taken away from her? WTF is up with that? It wasn't hers to begin with!!!)
Yes, she has solid plans, but in my opinion they are no more progressive and well thought-out than Obama's, and her gas tax holiday pander (and her calls to obliterate Iran) are just as bone-headed as they come.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indisputable that Hillary's economic policies are more progresive than Barack's. Name one that is not?
Second - she's at 4th and 20 and clock is ticking down. It is not mathematically impossible for her to win unless Baracks is at 2,025 already. Please note I am using the intial # of delegates to clinch (2025) not the new one that the clinton campaign is trying to use now taht includes FL & MI because I am being intellectually honest. You should try it sometime rather than falsesly claiming it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win.
May 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is mathematically possible for Clinton to win if the superdelegates disgregard the electorate. It is mathematically possible for Clinton to win if enough superdelegates commit to Barack, and then change their minds at the convention. What is your point? It is also mathematically possible for us to win in Iraq if we just hang in there long enough.
May 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assert this, over and over.
When it is pointed out to you exactly *how* Hillary's health care, foreclosure, and energy plans are nothing but corporate giveaways to her corporate donors (something, mind you, that basically every serious economist on the left other than Krugman realizes), you just continue to assert otherwise. When asked to support your assertions, you say "see all my previous posts", which are... surprise surprise, nothing but bare assertions.
Please, support what you are saying with some facts. Any facts. Just once. I'll even take made-up facts, but please just make some argument that isn't entirely naked, unjustified assertion. Please. I can't take the silliness anymore! Y'all are killing me here.
May 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't want me to do that. I have spent endless hours debating with folks over Hillary's more progressive policies and no one has EVER been able to illustrate that Hillary's are less progressive than Barack's. More difficult to get passed, perhaps. But certainly not less progressive. Try the following links :
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_pokes_fun_at_hillarys_sh.php
May 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I read all of that. Here's a sample:
"Hillary is the only candidate that has been actively pushing for direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosures that would have if implemented been a stabilizing factor on the housing market. They didn't listen so instead we are bailing out Bear Stearns investors rather than the people being thrown out of their homes and the housing market is still a mess."
Again: This is [i]not an argument[/i]. You are asserting that her "direct assistance" would have been a stabilizing force. Not only do you not support your assertion, or support the further assertion that this "stabilization" would have prevented "needing" to bail out Bear Stearns, but you also haven't addressed any of the consequences that usually make things that sound like a good idea at the time into disasters.
This is just one representative example. Again, I'll ask: Where is your [i]evidence[/i] that, in this case, her plan would have stabilized the housing market and not had horrible consequences? Can you find anyone making an actual argument with actual facts on this? I can't. In fact, even Krugman--the only economist on the left who actually thinks her Social Security "plan" isn't an outrage--thinks her foreclosure plan won't accomplish a damn thing.
Not to mention that the cornerstone of her "plan" is a commission headed by Greenspan... the very bubble-spinner that destroyed the market to line the pocket of his Wall Street friends in the first place! Are you [i]kidding[/i] me?
May 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/housing.html
Wil this do it - a fair and balanced assessment of all three candidate's plan. Regardless of whether you agree or disgree Hillary's economic policies are more progressive.
May 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that won't do it. That's just a list of the main points of their plans, not an evaluation or analysis.
Her main points are a foreclosure moratorium and a 5-year rate freeze, which utterly ensures that:
1. People keep paying longer than is in their best interest on loans that they will eventually default on anyway. Hello, finance industry giveaway;
2. Terms will for the rest of time be horrible for anyone with less than perfect credit, as lenders hedge against the precedent of the government rewriting contracts at will.
Her other big idea? Having the FHA guarantee more loans on their current terms. What does this mean? The loans of not just people who were had by shady lenders, but of *thousands of multimillionaire speculators*, will be paid by the government. Another handout to Wall Street, that again likely only delays the inevitable. By contrast, Obama proposes the FHA converting subprime loans to 30-year-fixed loans. What's the difference?
1. Rich speculators, who may have used shady leverage but didn't take out "subprime" loans (because they had good credit and/or collateral), aren't rewarded;
2. There is a one-time negotiation with the mortgage industry on the conversion. This is still, sadly, a bit of a handout to them, but it's a one-time hit rather than a continuing revenue stream for the Wall Street thieves. And since it actually *changes the terms of the loans* to something reasonable it has a chance of accomplishing the goal of keeping regular people in their houses (rather than just having the government pay their inflated, unaffordable mortgages for a few years until they finally default).
Is this making any sense?
May 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No because:
1. The reason SOME people are defaulting is because their ARM rate skyrocketing can almost double their monthly payments. Freeze arm rates temporarilly, for those homeowners that can afford to renegotiate their homes the federal govt can buy out the loan at a reduced cost and renegotiate the terms directly with interest rates far more reasonable so homeowners don't get foreclosed. It is better than the bailout of bear stearns because A. the banks still lose money because they are selling the loans at a loss to the govt. B. People get to stay int heir homes rather than continuing to create all these vacant foreclosed homes particularly in areas like MI, MD, GA all over the country but the inner city and minority areas were the hardest hit because that's where predatory subprime lenders preyed. Hillary's plan gives far more help to these folks than Barack. He would just allow them to keep getting the boot or allow them the opportunity of bankruptcy to force the bank to renegotiate rates (which by the way is also part of Hillary's plan). The banks because they got rid of the troubled loan to the govt rather than being saddled with another foreclosed upon house benefit somewhat, but not like the homeowners who get a chance to save their investment.
2. Hillary's plan is not intended to help the mortgage companies - it is to help communities that are suffereing from massive foreclosures neighborhoods with multiple vacant homes on each block. That doesn't help the economy or the housing market or interest rates.
3. Hillary's plan EXCLUDES speculators and only applies to homeowners versus flippers, but the lies.
4. Obama's plan gives "incentives" to lenders to renegotiate rates with homeowners, versus Hillary cutting the lenders out of the process at a loss. Both provide financial compensation - Hillary does it directly and ensures that the homeowners get a fair deal.
5. SOME people were given mortgages they could never have afforded by predatory lenders. In Hillary's plan they would not be eligible for renegotiation & there is not a lot of options for them. They will likely lose their homes.
Secondly you criticized Hillary for recommending that Pres bush convene an emergency panel on mortgages before the election with Greenspan. To be factual, you should mention she recommended "a non-partisan group of eminent leaders like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Bob Rubin – each of whom supports one of the remaining candidates in the Presidential race." She doesn't want to wait until January next year to tackle this problem. she wants to do it now. her call for this panel came before the bear stearns buy out. why are we using tax $$$ to help the housing industry if is not also helping homeowners directly. It makes no sense at all.
and in terms of interest rates for loans being harder to get - guess what we are already there. we are trying to stabilize the market and that's not going to happen if more and more people are defaulting and beign foreclosed upon. hillary's plan is repsonsible and undoutedly MORE PROGRESSIVE than Obama. Whether you agree with it or not, it is more direct intervention from the gov't for the good of everyone.
May 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is an old Washington whore bought and paid for by lobbyists from whom she has collected more money than any other candidate in the race, including McCain.
If you believe that she is going to take on any of them, I have a bridge to sell you. If you think that she is going to take on any of them and has the political skills to get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to pass anything, I have two bridges to sell you.
May 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better metaphor: The score is 35-17 with ten seconds to go and the only way the losing team will eke out a win is if the other team is immediately arrested for child pornography and escorted from the field, thereby forfeiting the game.
May 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!!!!! Thank you - that scenario was WAY better than mine!! ;)
May 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think many of Hillary's supporters are aware of the math. A friend of mine is a Hillary supporter and she thought that Hillary was behind but could catch up if she wins the next few primaries.
Now my friend is a very intelligent person but she hasn't been following the delegate count (with Slate's delegate counter for example). Like a lot of other Clinton supporters, she tunes in to Hillary's stump speeches. So she really only gets Hillary's point of view of where things stand.
And all she hears from the media is that people want her to drop out because Obama's way ahead.
She said "what, just because she's a woman and she's behind, they don't think she can win? That's not fair."
If I were a candidate, I'd feel an obligation to level with my supporters about the objective reality of the math before I asked them to donate more money.
May 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people aren't just fair weather fans, they stick behind a person or cause they believe in, even if they aren't winning. Hillary speaks to people that view the need for government to play an active role in their lives and in the economy. They don't care about sending someone to WA that will sit down with republicans and corporate interests hoping to "negotiate."
You short sighted people keep focusing your ire on Hillary, which seems hard to understand.
It is a sad time, we have a chance for Democratic gains and a Democratic president--and the likely nominee is someone that does not even propose universal health care coverage in his policy.
May 17, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's still got some of those "I'm Not Bitter" stickers left.
May 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even that's got an edge to it. She'll need to amend them to read, "I'm Not Bitter But I Can See Why Others Might Be."
May 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this. And she's entitled to her opportunity to try."
With all due respect Hillary had her opportunity and she blew it.
I really don't care if she stays in though, as long as she doesn't spend all her time trying to destroy Obama so she can run again in 2012.
May 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this."
Now..... where have we heard that before??? Oh, right... bush's Iraq strategy!
Hmmmm
May 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you Thera,
I've posted this before but it bears repeating for our honored Hillary supporter:
Hillary is a master at projecting a persona that does not fit the facts. The election showed her strong point was the economy. The economy! The loyal incompetent campaign manager for her uncontested senate seat blew through 30 mil, enraging her donors. So she decides to make this person her campaign manager for her presidential run? Hmmm who else appoints incompetent cronies to high ranking positions.
Not that Hillary cared. What she cared about was loyalty and Patti Solis Doyle had that in abundance. Hillary took her at her word that things were going great, until someone finally alerted her to the fact that they were broke after IA, hence the 5 mil loan.
(update: didn't get much better personal loans now over 11 mil)
Kind of makes you wonder what kind of president she'll make. Who will she have advising her?
Here is the stark comparison of GWB prep of the Iraq war and Hillary's campaign:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men' and appoint loyal cronies to high ranking positions.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
Admire her all you want, but I think you have a very low bar set for those you hold in esteem.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ref=opinion
May 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted a link to an April 2007 Time article describing all the issues the Clinton campaign was edealing with, how to handle the tough threat from Obama, his advantage as the fresh candidate, slurs from the press, likeability issues, etc.
Hillary never assumed it was won. They certainly made some blunders, but she had her work cut out for her on Day 1. And like a Clinton, she seems most effective when she's backed into a corner.
May 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's over Hillary. Go away.
May 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise there. As soon as I heard Feinstein's comments yesterday, I saw the next day retraction looming. Hillary will not go quietly. Why would she? This is her life's ambition and as long as she's got a 1 percent chance, she's going for it. At some point after May 20, it'll start to look really, really pathetic.
May 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok so, translating... Feinstein told her "If you're going to hang in there till the last dog dies, you better stop destroying our nominee, capische?" and Hills said "Yes ma'am" with her fingers crossed behind her back.
May 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they talked.
Hee hee....
May 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
(The following is a Public Service Announcement brought to you by the TrollCritic 3000 Foundation and faithful viewers like you. Thank You for Your Support.)
Hi. I'm TrollCritic 3000 - and this little guy is Fogu2. Every day, thousands of Caustic Simpleton Trolls like this one are left wandering The Intertubes, pitiful and homeless, desperately searching for the love of an audience just like you to feed their crushing Attention Deficit Addiction. Trapped in an ever tightening Shame Spiral that chokes the very life from their Tender Trollus Souls, they lead a dark, shadowy existence in search of the next Inflmatory Rhetoric fix they so desperately need to find the next high.
But it doesn't have to be like this. For less than pennies a day, you can make a difference in the life of Fogu2 and other trolls just like him. The Attention Deprivation Foundation was established to help trolls all over The Intertubes treat their addictions with cutting edge Deafening Silence Therapies that help little guys like this one find the Golden Clue that will help them in their quest for a hospitable bridge to rebuild their lives under.
Won't you help? The next time you find Fogu2 or another playful troll frolicking on the TPM stage, take a moment and offer him the Cold Shoulder he so desperately needs to shake the grip of his Cognitive Affliction. You'll be glad you did, and you'll be making a real difference in the life of a Cherubic Inbred like this little guy here. And that's something we can all feel good about.
May 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, stick to where your talent is.
Back to the rating shtick for you.
Buckawwwk!
May 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, sir.
May 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that.
May 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant!
May 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question. Will the foundation pay to have trolls neutered and spayed? I have some personal trolls I collected here at TPM. I can't feed them anymore, but I don't want to turn them out into the blogosphere until they've been fixed.
May 9, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is they feed and then spay the females, but let them go without fixing the males.
May 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the FL/Mi will bring Clinton 111 delegates closer to Obama in the official count.
Hee hee...
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the FL/MI seating will bring Clinton 111 delegates closer to Obama in the official count.
Hee hee...
May 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And unless the Party intends to hand her the nomination on an openly racist pretext (her newly-assumed identity as The Candidate of White America), then 111 delegates down is still a loss by any measure.
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No she will only be about 50 down.
And I predict this will be the count going into May 20.
Hee hee.
May 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure that, genius?
May 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Dianne, at least rearrange the deck chairs before you go under.
May 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, it's going to be a bumpy end to Spring! Yesterday, HRC's trusty surrogate - Stephanie Tubbs Jones, when pressed, refused to state that Obama was strong enough to be President.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/05/20080507_a_main.asp
May 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama surrogate Al Sharpton told Hillary it was all over.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_re_us/sharpton_s_money_9;_ylt=AmgFTFJl.Slkx3dohbi8ul0E1vAI
It appears the Reverend Sharpton has been a little crooked with his taxes.
Now what I'm trying to figure out is how a man who has been evading US, NY and NYC taxes to the tune of $1.5 million in personal taxes can get on the stage with real candidates for President and get a pass from the press.
And then he has the unmitigated gall to tell one of the candidates that they should end their campaign.
May 9, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack's got hope.
Hillary's got hwwp.
hard-working white people.
May 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out with this. How would you describe the working class people who are voting for Hillary over Obama?
Would it have been better if she said the problem with Senator Obama is not many working class Americans will vote for him in the Fall?
Personally, I think that's the way she should have put it. Would that have been better?
I think so. Let's try it here.
The problem with Senator Obama is not many working class Americans will vote for him in the Fall.
Or how about this?
Most working class Americans won't vote for Senator Obama in the Fall.
Or even.
The vast majority of working class Americans won't vote for Senator Obama in the Fall.
Better?
May 9, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just so baffling, how otherwise intelligent and admirable Democrats will not only tolerate but actively support destroying the party's chances of winning in November in service to Hillary's ego.
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win the general election and if he is nominated and loses please don't try to pin the blame on Hillary. Hillary has every right to speak to the super delegates and let them know they are electing a candidate that is going to have serious issues in the general election. polls show it. swing states show it. the republicans haven't even had a crack at him and he's at 40% negatives. He hasn't been able to sway Hispanic voters in large number, many of whom feel McCain is an independent conservative who will be for a responsible illegal immigration policy - not rounding up folks and deporting them like Tancredo.
Obama can win the democratic primary, but can he win the presidency? Pre- Rev Wright I knew Obama might technically be more "electable" than Hillary because her negatives were hi. I am a die hard democrat, but either of them would win handily because of anti-bush sentiment. I can honestly say I think Obama as nominee = President McCain. If you doubt the ability of the american people to make tragic election mistakes, look no further than GWB with his sub 50% approval ratings in 2004 getting reelected.
Hillary has every right to use her last dollar if she must to prevent another deomcratic presidential kamikaze nominee.
May 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary said he could win the general against McCain. She said it. Yes yes yes! In Pennsylvania.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Hillary but I don't take everything she says at face value. I put my own independent thought into it. I do not believe he can win.
May 8, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win because his negatives are at 40%? Hillary's are at 50%. The GOP hasn't had to go at him her campaign was doing a good job all on their own. The idea that alot of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama just doesn't make sense, forget the state the country is in do you really think all of those women will vote Mcain and watch him have a go at a woman's right to choose or send our children to iraq for the next hundred years or offer NOTHING when it comes to healthcare. We are all democrats supporting the candidate we think is best for the job, and if we remain true to that Obama should have no problem winning in the fall.
May 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking about the same country that elected President Bush in 2004? When his approval ratings were sub-50%? Based on a campaign that painted John Kerry as a liberal, anti-American fake war hero, anti-military, etc etc etc. Yes, I believe this country is dumb enough to elect John McCain over Barack Obama based on his own self-inflicted wounds over Rev Wright.
May 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me how her 50% negatives isn't than his 40%? Is this some Hillary math you're using to confuse me?
May 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's been in the public much longer than Obama. 16 years. Obama's had fawning media coverage with the exception of the Wright fiasco which is his own doing. His unfavorables are climbing and the republicans have not begun to fight. If you think Hillary is dirty - please remebr they turned John Kerry war hero into a liar who stole purple heart citations based on all lies. Obama's given them cold hard facts with reverend wright. i don't see that turning out well.
May 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say, I am amazed at your logic. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think that the Republicans won't go after Clinton with everything they've got; that they won't drudge up every piece of shit allegation and rumor; that shit she's pulled during this campaign against Obama won't come back to haunt her? That they won't use the specter of Bill back in the White House to rally their troops? I am firmly of the belief that they are salivating over the prospect of Clinton running against McCain so that they can destroy her the way they tried to destroy her husband. Rev. Wright is NOTHING compared to the shit they will try to smear her with. Come on, really - I have never been for a Hillary Clinton candidacy because I know what they will do to her. It will be the nastiest, dirtiest, most low-down campaign ever and she will NOT be able to fight back effectively. Obama has already shown that he can have shit thrown at him and come back swinging - actually, come back stronger than before.
May 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans can't throw anything at Hillary that she hasn't addressed before. NADA. Besides the Obama campaign has already tried that with the stupid ass argument WHAT'S SHE HIDING IN HER TAX RETURNS! Turns out they got nada, just like the republicans. The Republicans can try to INVENT an issue to throw mud at Hillary, true. Somehow I think that will be far less effective than one handed to them on a silver platter Barack Obama as a member of an out of the mainstream black nationalist liberationist church that he chose willingly with the reverend wright as a spritual leader that he would go to to stay in touch with the black community, etc etc etc. How could a man who believes in racial unity go to a church like that? Who is he really? etc etc etc. Yeah, Hillary is far less electable than Obama.
May 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will frame her as a radical feminist baby killer and all those older working class white Catholics who voted against Obama are just as likely to vote against Hillary once the right-wing slime machine gets in high gear.
May 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will paint him as a daishiki wearing black nationalist who goes to an out of the mainstream curch who only distanced himself not because he disagreed with them (since he initially defended Reverend Wright) but because he wants to get elected. He preaches unity, but in secret he is a bigot. He hates America. He says he is part of a 50 state strategy, but in a meeting in san fran when no one's listening he puts down rural white working class voters. he's a sham all image and marketing and you can't believe what he says.
Brought to you by the Swift Boat Reverends Against Obama
May 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there really any straws left to grasp? You herald yourself as an independent thinker, yet every statement you make is a Clinton campaign talking point, regurgitated in tortured blog-comment syntax and masquerading as bold and brave truth-telling. Spare us.
And, for the record, I ain't buying your bogeyman: the Big, Scary, Republicans and How They'll Eat Up Obama. All of that can be met, tit for tat, thank you very much. That Scary Republican phobia you carry with you from one election to the other is your problem, not Obama's. Get counseling. Obama's been handling his bogus "controversies" quite effectively, even telescoping them into his NC victory speech. And he's done it without pandering, triangulating, equivocating, or crying.
Face it, Obama has forged a new path for politics: he's built an astonishing fundraising apparatus, stimulated grassroots organizing unlike anything seen before, and inspired millions around the country and the world. And he's done it while waging a nasty campaign against the MOST powerful Democratic couple in decades.
So, please, lecture us all some more about what Obama can't win.
May 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If fundraising is the only metric of success, then Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee. Howard Dean who was the most liberal candidate in 2004 again was raising $$$ hand over fist. So those on the fringes of the party get voters the most excited and give in greater number. How does fundraising = electability again? I thought Barack's view was the money should be left out of the campaign. Campaign finance reform. Public financing of the general election. For it before he was against it. Another example of words not translated into action.
May 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is 100% insane. Nobody has said a *word* about Bill's scummy dealings with murderous dictators for the past eight years; deals which funded her campaign.
Nobody has said a word about any of her own dealings, for that matter.
The Republicans have dump trucks full of *new* dirt, both fanciful and actual corruption, on the Clintons from post-Pres-Bill. Anyone who doesn't believe this is dangerously delusional, or just not paying attention.
FFS, he's going on trial for defrauding a business partner as we speak. Seriously. Whatever your opinion of the case, it illustrates that there is plenty of new crap to fling a the Clintons... and the GOP is sitting back, laughing, hoping against hope she still gets the nomination so they can make it a long, hot, ugly summer just like 2004.
Her negatives are already 25% higher than Obama's, and anyone who doesn't believe she would get *hammered* in the general election campaign is either a troll or a blind fool.
May 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong:
Since Bill left office he:
Tried to sell our ports to Dubai at the same time that Hillary was "working" against it in the senate.
Bill trying negotitate trade deals with Columbia while Hillary is "working" against it.
Lets not forget NAFTA which Hillary was against from the beginning (too bad video doesnt back up that assertion)
Hillary has shown herself to be a liar and panderer. Worse yet, as she tries to paint herself as a little guy, she has been selling out to lobbyists.
There is soooo much the republicans can throw at her that is recent. Whatever they throw at Obama can be shown to be patently untrue. This isn't the John Kerry swiftboat generation. The people are just not falling for it anymore. They want someone who is decent and honest.
May 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack loses in November I will pin the blame on Hillary. As a Democrat of some standing, she has strong credibility with a large number of people. When she attacks him with Republican talking points, the criticisms stick with her supporters in a way they wouldn't if they were just coming from Fox. You expect people like McCain to say Obama is elitist or not fit to be Commander-in-Chief, etc., but you don't expect a fellow Democrat to do so. And you don't expect a former President to pile on as well.
Clinton (and her supporters in the public eye) has seriously stained Obama when she could have come to his defense as a fellow Dem. If you think that's not going to have a lingering effect, you're just not being honest with yourself or us.
May 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, he attacked her with Republican talking points on healthcare and foreclosures, calling her unelectable and divisive and dishoenst from the start of the campaign. Talk about positive campaigning. His campaign sent out memos on Bosnia sniper story. His campaign argued for weeks for Hillary to put her tax returns public so they could dig through them only to find nothing. hardly positive campaigning to me. But am I complaining? No because that's what you do in a campaign. You talk about why you are the better candidate and your opponent is not. DUH. Any criticism directed at Obama is unfair or racist or old politics, but any criticism of Hillary is fair game? Grow up.
Second, Hillary didn't come out with Reverend Wright. That was totally self-inflicted by Obama. Could Hillary have ignored it? maybe, but the meida wasn't going to. and neither will the republicans if he is the nominee. it is a problem no matter how you want to put your head down in the sand and he is the only one responsible for it.
If Obama thinks Hillary was tought, he needs to take a look at the swift boat ads. Hillary never did ANYTHING approaching real negative campaigning in this primary. If he thinks that's negative then he is not ready for prime time.
May 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure?
Lets hear it from Hillary herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
May 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh but Hillary doesnt have any problem with negative mailers. The first one sent of the campaign was from Hillary.
This pro choice mailer in combination with her war mongering won NH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
This was right after her devastating loss in IA. She set the tone for the campaign and did not stop. Obama had to debunk each and every lie that came out of her mouth from that time on.
How about Canada NAFTA debacle that she tried to pin on Obama when she was the one doing the wink wink. Don't believe me? Again lets go to the tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4
May 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
all based on issues issues issues. you really think negative campaigning is talking about nafta. the republicans have it to an art form. mccains secret balck baby. john keery as fake purple heart. howard ford playboy bunny commercial. give me a break. hillary's been playing patty cake. and obama's told plenty of lies and false attacks in his mailers like this one
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/in_fundraising_letter_obama_at.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/obama-going-negative-mail_n_97225.html
it's called campaignng and it's gone both ways. if thats what you call negative again obama is not ready for the gop
May 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's mathematically possible that he can win the general election.
May 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, dijamo, is an unfounded opinion. Allow me to explain:
1. Just because Hillary has the "blue collar white vote" in PA and OH does not mean she has it permanently locked in her hope chest. Obama has won (handily) the "blue collar white vote" in states such as Virginia, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. These voters are leery of Obama's inexperience (#1 cited criticism in polls across the spectrum). This criticism can be handled... in other words, the vast majority of these voters can be persuaded to vote for Obama. These are not the so-called Hillary die-hards. Those, by and large, are the elderly. Still, many can still be persuaded to vote for the eventual nominee.
2. Obama's war chest is so large that Hillary is attempting to tap its resources in order to recoup her debts. This fundraising and organizational supremacy is the virtual foundation of a general election victory. If McCain can not financially compete, he will have to rely on free media (aka, the goodwill of Fox News), which can only sway so many voters (Fox's viewing market share is a small percentage). Unless McCain can actively campaign in all of the states in play, then he will not be competitive. Free media can not corner a voting populace increasingly disenchanted with the media (see ABC). This leads me to:
3. Barack Obama puts more states into play. Hillary Clinton's 16 state strategy did not secure her the nomination. Nor will her 16 state strategy avail her in the general. Barack Obama's campaign ties directly into the DNC's fifty state strategy. This means coattails... it also means high voter turnout. If a voter is interested in their district, county, and state official elections, then that only magnifies total general election turnout and support. The turnout has set records in every Democratic nomination contest. This means just about every state in the union can turn purple or blue, and leaves the underfunded RNC forced to spend its war chest propping up McCain vice helping to elect members of Congress.
I know you believe in Hillary's progressive agenda. I also know that you have put your feet to the pavement in order to help her candidacy. However, look at the big picture. Her campaign is tens of millions of dollars in debt. Her fundraising apparatus is tapped. Her message has become soured. She is promoting a regressive cold-war era foreign policy. Her campaign staff are stuck in a 1996 time warp.
No matter how much you believe in someone, there comes a time when you have to put the best interests of your country ahead of your ideation of a single human being. If Hillary were to become the nominee, my life would be no different. Both she and McCain would continue to put my life in danger. But I sould still vote for her because at least my daughter has a better chance in a generation under her leadership than McCain's third Bush term.
So, I throw this out to you: I am stating quite plainly that Obama can win the general and prevent Bush's third term. I am also stating that with a Democratic Congress and a potential SCOTUS appointment or two, Obama's agenda becomes a more progressive agenda because of or in spite of who he is as a person. Remember, we are voting for a leader of this nation and its people, but we are also voting for a party platform and a total agenda. We can unify behind a nominee and dictate their policy. The system of checks and balances can work to our favor for at least the next four years. So Why dismiss the party nominee out of spite?
We have had our disagreements, and I appreciate your feistiness. However, nationally we are at a crossroads. If you continue to attack Obama's candidacy and undermine his electability, then you are helping to put the future of this country in jeopardy. You are jeopardizing your neighbor, you are jeopardizing your neighbor's neighbor... you are ceding the progressive cause to the neoconservatives out of spite and malice.
Set down the animosity and discuss the future. Hillary has enough delegates to have the second strongest voice in creating the Democratic party platform. In the Senate she can help write the health care legislation that she avidly desires. She has enormous clout backed a tremendous will. She has not lost. Yet. But if she continues to slice and dice the electorate and divide the Democratic Party against itself, then she is creating a new evangelical wing of the Democratic Party that will corrupt leftist politics for the next 100 years. This wing will simply vote for whoever panders to their inflated self-image as the "true America," that Reagan helped paint. Why appeal to cultural narcissism just to keep your campaign alive? There's simply no good rationale for it. Why, if she's so progressive, is she campaigning for the most reactionary element in the party?
I've said enough. This election is the most important in this nation's history, hands down. I can't help but believe that future generations of mankind are at stake in this decision. I reccomend you stand behind the party's standard-bearer in this election and for your Congressional representative.
May 9, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is the nominee, I will spend my time attacking McCain and saying why Obama's policies are better than McCain. I'll be defending Obama against attacks that I perceive as unfair - such as his muslim name, terrorist, not an american patriot for wearing a flagpin, true race baiting (not the b.s. that the Obama campaign has accused Hillary of). I'll be encouraging other Clinton supporters in swing & red states to support Senator Obama for President.
What I will not do is change my core beliefs and say defend Obama if I agree with that particular criticism (such as with Reverend Wright). I am sure Obama supporters if Hillary won would not change their tune and say all of a sudeen she is trustworthy and the Bosnia story is bull, she is not a republican etc etc etc. Will that make me a less forceful advocate for Obama? Of course. But Obama has faithful hardcore believers like you all over the internets and on the streets that are as passionate about him as I am about Hillary's campaign. I am sure you guys will pick up the slack. I will do my best while not violating my own principles to promote his candidacy. I still don't think his general election campaign will be successful and that's why I'll be forcefully advocating for Hillary unless and until he becomes the official nominee.
May 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein is a worthless wimp.
May 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about her latest slur, white people like me.
May 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, because race-baiting never did a political party any harm.
Bill & Hillary Clinton = George & Lurlene Wallace circa 1962
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's not race baiting to say african american voters will defect in droves if Obama is not the nominee? let's be fair here. Clinton performs strongly among rural, white, working class voters and hispanics. Obama performs well among liberal elite higher class and african americans and youger voters. Why is he allowed to make the argument that if he is not the nominee, his voters may not vote for Hillary and her campaign if it makes a counterargument, they are race baiting.
May 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the difference here is that HILLARY is the one saying it. I've not heard Obama say anything close to the tripe she's blurted out.
May 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OKAY - so it's all good to have surrogates say it for you and your campaign. As long as you don't get caught saying it yourself, you are absolved from all ties to it. Puh-leeze.
May 8, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Johnson, Ed Rendell...the list goes on
May 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the difference here is that HILLARY is the one saying it. I've not heard Obama say anything close to the tripe she's blurted out."
Here was Obama: "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/629273.aspx
Also, if you had an unabashedly white group crusading around gathering other white people's signatures that said that they would not vote for Obama if he were the nominee, I think you would call that racist. Yet that is exactly what some of Obama's black supporters are doing.
You need to stop acting like Obama has been innocent throughout this whole campaign. As far as I'm concerned, Obama and his supporters have played much dirtier throughout this campaign.
May 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read Obama's statement "It is not clear she could get the votes I've got"
Well you could take the worst meaning of that, which it seems you are hell bent on doing. The fact of the matter is that it is true! But not the way you are thinking.
DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS who are sick and tired of their lying, decietful party are flocking to Obama. It is a pretty safe bet that those voters would NOT vote for Hillary.
May 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not race baiting to suggest that many African-Americans might well stay home if Hillary is not the nominee, despite Obama winning the most pledged delegates. Denying Obama the victory, after he earned it, would widely be regarded as a theft by his most ardent supporters, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is using an explicitly race-based argument to argue for such a move would lead to the impression that the public will is being subverted for racist reasons.
May 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. The race-based argument is a canard in this case.
2. Blacks supported Clinton before Obama, they'll support her after. Obama cannot say that about hispanics, asians or lower income whites. He has never had their support.
May 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You earn the nomination by reaching the magic number of 2,025 (pledged or unpledged). There is nothing in the rules that makes pledged delegates different than super delegates. The Obama campaign has done a fine PR campaign to bamboozle the media and black voters and the public in general that if he doesn't get the nomination and he's leading then it's stolen. But those are the rules. Superdelegates were created for the reason of preventing a kamikaze nominee that has no chance to win the general. If Obama's numbers do not improve and Hillary can make an argument that she is more elctable in the general election, the super delegates would be fools to in effect elect President McCain by nominating Obama.
May 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have not read your talking points, that is not the current magic number according to Clinton.
May 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the kamikaze coming here to try to drop a bomb made up of the last remaining damp ammunition wholly concocted in the dark basement of your mind. Only in Hillaryland do folks keep lying to themselves about some faux construct of GE electability, all based upon their own willful desire to negate Obama as a way to magically redeem Hillary's lost cause..... engage in desperate conjecttures and denial in the face of reality....well, that's your shtick.
May 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm hoping Hill is able to win because I want a dem in the white hosue. if she loses I'll be buying my don't blame me I voted for Hillary bumper sticker. But the super delegates will be encouraged to check the polls, read the tea leaves and think long and hard about 2004. if obama continues to perform worse against mccain in polls than Hillary, she will have a strong argument that he is too weakened to run a general election campaign where not everyone is so willing to say all is forgiven and reverend wright is just old news. in IN 46% of demoracts said Rev Wright's comments were important to them. 46% of DEMOCRATS. Can you imagine if the Republicans were included? It is an issue that will not die in this election.
May 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, You're quite right, you earn the nomination by getting to 2,025 delegates. You are wrong when you say there is nothing in the rules that makes pledged delegates different than unpledged (or super-) delegates. They are different entities (that's why we can talk about them meaningfully). But you're right if you mean that the superdelegates' votes count the same as any other delegate.
Like the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign has done a fine job of energizing its core constituencies. Either candidate's supporters would be disappointed to lose. And they can't both win.
Now, if at the end of 55 nominating contests, the pledged delegate count were essentially tied, I could maybe see a reason for the superdelegates to exercise independent judgment. Or if the pledged-delegate leader held views that were truly anathema to Democratic Party principles (a George Wallace, say), I could see why the supers should try to block his or her nomination.
Neither of those situations apply here. We have a close-fought race, but Obama's pledged delegate lead is currently 1590.5 - 1426.5, or 52.4% - 47.0%. In the world of politics, that's a close race, but it's not so close that you'd expect to see a recount. And Obama's policy positions are remarkably similar to Clinton's. (I know, Clinton supporters get all suspicious that Obama's policy people simply copied Clinton's positions, but there were few policy differences even when Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Biden were in the race.)
In the absence of a virtual pledged-delegate dead heat, and in a case like this year, where the candidates still standing generally agree on policy, what should the superdelegates do? I submit to you that they should do what they normally do -- get behind the leader -- providing the same sort of artificial decisiveness that (most years) the electoral college does.
This is the "Pelosi position" -- that in almost all cases, the superdelegates should ratify the clear choice of the primary and caucus electorate. Other prominent superdelegates, such as Jimmy Carter, have taken this same position. I expect that there are scores of other supers who agree with Pelosi and Carter, even if they have not declared as such publicly. And historically, this is what the superdelegates have always done.
Obviously, not all superdelegates agree. Clinton had over 100 supers lined up supporting her BEFORE THE FIRST VOTE WAS CAST (versus 18 for Obama). It is remarkable, given the rigid proportional allocation rules worked up by Harold Ickes, that Obama was able to overcome this major delegate deficit that existed from Day 1 of the campaign. It is also remarkable that since Super Tuesday, Obama has steadily clawed his way to near-parity among the superdelegates themselves. (He still trails Clinton here, but only by about 10 superdelegate votes. And he will lead here, too, by May 20.
Yes, theoretically the superdelegates could swing any nomination where the leading candidate had less than 62.5% of all the pledged delegates. And we're all aware now how hard it is to get 62.5% of the delegates in a single contested primary. (You generally need MORE than 62.5% of the raw vote, again with the delegate allocation following Ickes' rules.) If all the primaries are contested, getting 62.5% of the pledged delegate total is next to impossible.
Were the Convention ever NOT to ratify the pledged-delegate leader would guarantee a huge outcry, and a divisive convention fight. Historically, it has never happened. If it were to happen this year -- denying the first serious Black candidate the nomination -- it would split the party for at least a generation. That's not a threat. That's an observation.
Luckily for the party, it won't happen this year, either. The "Pelosi position" supers will see to that, sometime on or about May 20.
May 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not race based - it's race and economics based. White elite liberals are voting for Obama. He has trouble earnig the voted of working class whites who remember President Clinton fondly. Why do you limit it to race when it is much more than that? That's right - so you can call her racist rather than trying to understand the core of what she is saying. PS Obama is well aware of the need to reach out to these voters and his campaign has talked about it at length. Are they racist to for recognizing this is senator clinton's base and they have to find a way to woo these voters?
May 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's race + class based. Class is more important in the south and northeast and it hurts downscale voters more there. The midwest and west are more egalitarian and less likely to see a black person's success as a net loss for themselves.
May 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you ascribe the fact that Obama does not perform as well as Hillary with these folks to be race based? Why not that they remember the 1990s as a time of economic growth for themselves and their families and they think Hillary is best equipped to lead us back in that direction. Your assumption that these are just hillbillies not voting for Obama because he's black is just bigoted stereotyping - exactly what you accuse Hillary of.
May 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it's the Clintons who've really done the stereotyping. I grew up on a farm. I don't believe rural and small town people are stupid but I do believe they can be manipulated. You can play on their hopes or you can play on their fears and resentments. If you perceive yourself as just hanging on to your status or unable to climb above your class you are particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by the idea that others are trying to climb over you unfairly. That's why immigrants and ethnic minorities are almost always used as targets for the below the belt campaigns. But at least for awhile we could kid ourselves that Democrats no longer do that.
May 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are soooooooooo simple minded. Hillary is not attacking Barack with race with these voters. She's attacking him with Nafta-gate. She's calling for a gas tax holiday. She's attacking him with his bitter comments. she's hitting him on the bread and butter issues. Maybe he should take note an speak to thse concerns rather than just brushing off these voters as racist.
May 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo,
Hillary has obviously done better overall among working class voters than Obama. I wrote in my other reply that I resent the way your posts describe Obama's white support as just being all elite liberals - that just doesn't line up with the facts. There's a great many whites without college education or with lower incomes who also voted for Obama. But of course there is no doubt that Hillary has done better.
I agree there are many reasons for this. For example, it's easy to imagine why working class voters might prefer the candidate they see as the tougher fighter. Or why they are less likely to vote for the adventure of the new, and would rather stick to the safe option of someone they've already known for years. Such considerations are more acute if you're in a dire economic position.
But of course race plays a major role. The exit polls have repeatedly shown a sizable enough group of Dem primary voters who say that the race of the candidates was an important factor in their decision, and they break overwhelmingly to Hillary.
But it's the regional differences that strike me. Hillary hardly outdoes Obama among working class votes evenly across the nation. Even though I cant think of any reason why white working class voters in Oklahoma should remember the Clinton days with more fondness than those in Wisconsin, Hillary's scores there were extremely different. She got 67% of those without college degree and 69% of those in
Look at Hillary's share of the white vote by state. Obama outdid Hillary among whites by over 5 points in Vermont, Illinois, Utah, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa. Pretty mixed bag. But what were the states where Hillary positively walopped Obama among whites, with a margin of over 40 points? Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee.
On average, Obama has won 38% of the white vote per primary (if you'd be able to count caucuses it would be significantly more, but there's no exit poll data for most of those). Still, that's almost 2 out of 5. But there's eight states where it dropped as low as 16-30%. And every single one of those eight states is in the South: AR, FL, SC, AL, MS, TN, OK, LA.
I dunno. When I see such numbers, I think race. That's pretty much the only thing I can think of why whites in the South would reject him so massively compared to whites in the West, Upper Midwest and New England. What do you think?
May 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of those states were pre-Reverend Wright? Thanks for your contribution.
May 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only states since Wright have been PA, IN and NC of course. Thing is - and I really hadn't dared hope for that - he hasn't done any worse in them among whites than he did in the pre-Wright states.
Obama got 40% of whites in Indiana and 37% of whites in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. On average, in all of the states that there have been exit polls for so far, he has received 38% of the white vote.
Ohio was before Wright: Obama got just 34% of the whites there. So he's actually improved his score in comparison in the two neighbouring states that have voted since.
That comparison is imperfect, of course, but the differences seem small enough. E.g., 21% of the total population of Ohio has a college degree while 22% of Pennsylvanians does, according to the 2000 census data; and 40% of the overall households in Ohio has an income over %50,000, while 39% of those in PA does. So when you're talking class, these states seem fairly comparable. Yet despite a month and a half of uproar over Wright and "bittergate", Obama actually did slightly better among whites in PA than in OH, and slightly better still in IN.
Someone in The Nation crunched the numbers for the comparison between these three Midwestern states. As it turns out, it's not just among whites that Obama actually improved his score even as the Wright thing played out. He got more of the
In the Midwest, the Wright uproar apparently has not made Obama's appeal among working class voters collapse - far from it. The fact that even in the face of that and "bittergate", he actually made inroads into Hillary's lower-education, lower-income base tells me he'll be a resilient enough Democratic candidate.
May 8, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argh - something got messed up with the penultimate paragraph there. It should have read:
Someone in The Nation crunched the numbers for the comparison between these three Midwestern states. As it turns out, it's not just among whites that Obama actually improved his score even as the Wright thing played out. He got more of the voters without college degree in Pennsylvania than he'd gotten in Ohio; and more again in Indiana than he'd gotten in Pennsylvania. He got more of the voters from
May 8, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
... households earning less than $50,000 in Pennsylvania than he'd gotten in Ohio; and more again in Indiana than he'd gotten in Pennsylvania.
*phew*
(remind me never to use action brackets again on a forum where HTML is accepted...)
May 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
you should factor in the NAFTA gate as reason why obama did poorly in OH - I don't think they took kindly to his double talk and trying to hide the truth and they punished him for it. but prior to ohio and PA, how was he doing with the white vote? Much much better with the exception of arkansas which you would expect to be pro hillary. she did better there among blacks as well.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/exit-polls/race-ethnicity.html
could reverend wright have anything to do with his failure to get traction? possibility. but that doesn't mesh with your argument, so you throw it away. He is weaker not stronger with this category of voters. while traditionally in primary elections the voters coalesce around the presumed nominee, obama has been able to rally these voters to his side and Hillary continues to live on. unheard of in a primary. it is the sign of a weak general election candidate and I honestly believe he will lse in Novemeber if he's the nominee. I'll be sure to save this post as a favorite so I can say see I told you so.
May 8, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA-gate was total malarky. A Clinton adviser had also talked to the Canadians to reassure them about the rhetoric. Obama's only failure was only not pointing that out strongly enough.
May 9, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
bullshit. the candidan gov't never said the story was not true. they just said they apologized if they gave the public impression Obama made different represnetations privately than publicly. If a Clinton adviser did speak with canada, then why can't they name the person? Because no one did and hillary said she would fire anyone if they were found to have done so. just an obama campaign lie trying to deflect from his own embarrassment. goolsby is still part of the obama campaign right?
May 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
but prior to ohio and PA, how was he doing with the white vote? Much much better with the exception of arkansas
This is just plain not true, Dijamo, and your own link proves it. He got 37% of the white vote in Pennsylvania and 40% in Indiana. As I said before, his average share of the white vote in the primaries - based on the very data you link in - so far has been 38%.
So no, he did not do "much much better" among whites before the Wright affair - he did exactly the same.
E.g., if you rank Obama's share of the white vote in the exit polls by primary, Indiana ranks 19th out of 38: right in the middle. And remember, this is a heavily blue-collar state, where 65% of voters lacked a college degree when the average is 53%: this was Hillary country pur sang. It's actually more blue-collar than either Pennsylvania or Ohio - and yet Obama increased his share of the white vote compared to those nearby states.
May 9, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know Obama WON the white vote in WI right? Soldly midwest state I think. 54% of the white vote went for him. It is the only fair midwest state to consider given he is from IL so the 57% white vote shouldn't really count.
The reason why the national average is so low is that some of the more southern states do have low %. Let's remove South Carolina, alabama, arkansas, oklahoma and tennessee as these were all on SUPER TUESDAY when it was not a 2 person race DUH. Of course he got a lower % of the white vote as did Hillary. Then let's remove AR as of course Hillary did impressively there given her long ties there. The only states he did worse that in IN with white voters is LA (30%). That means in the other primaries he did significantly BETTER.
His performance is getting weaker not stronger. Your argument is bullshit. Try looking at statistics and interpreting them rather than thinking all numbers are the same.
May 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is MA still in the northeast? Because Barack and McCain are tied in Massachusetts even though he's backed by the governor, both senators, the kennedys etc. Hillary's ahead of mccain double digits. Must because those no good MA folks are racists. Who just elected a black governor.
May 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. Obama's been polling remarkably weakly against McCain in Massachusetts. I have no idea why really. He also did only about average among white voters there in the primary (40%).
But you're raising an interesting metric here: how does Obama do in the match up polls against McCain, compared to Hillary? I mean, if you accept his performance in them as a valid indicator for Massachusetts, then obviously it's valid for other states too, right? ;-)
Since I'm a nut, I actually have a spreadsheet with all the state-level match-up polls from last October through to the end of April. Looking just at the polls from February through April, Hillary on average does 10% better than Obama in Massachusetts. She also has an imposing average advantage of 10% or more in Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. But Obama's got an advantage of an average 10% or more in Connecticut, Iowa, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota and Alaska.
If anything about this counts, it's how they do in swing states. Let's take all the states where either Bush or Kerry won by 8 points max. In the match-up polls, Obama outdoes Hillary by anything between 5-17 points in Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Virgina. Hillary outdoes Obama in the same way in Ohio and Missouri. In the other states they match up roughly comparably.
But what about Wright! Half this period was before Wright. OK, but the balance is still slanted to Obama if you only look at the polls from April, at the height of Wright- and bittergate. Obama still outdoes Clinton by an average of 5 points or more in WA, OR, MI, MN, WI, IA, NV, CO and VA (89 electoral college seats), and he also does slightly better in NJ and NM (another 20 seats). Hillary on the other hand now outdoes Obama by 5 points or more in PA, OH, FL, and MO (79 electoral college seats); that's it.
Of course - polls are just polls, and match-up polls are very tentative so far out from the elections. But if they're relevant for one state, they're relevant for all... ;)
May 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not fair! You're talking logic and facts like they should be applied consistently.
That doesn't happen in Hillaryland. In Hillaryland, the only states that count are the states she won. The only polls that count are the ones that are in her favor. And the only people who count are the ones who voted for her.
Just accept that, and you'll see how your argument is completely decimated.
May 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking like only elite liberals ever vote for Obama. But many working class Democrats already vote for Obama.
He won 46% of the voters with no college degree in Indiana, and considering blacks made up less than 1 in 5 Dem voters there that's not just a question of African American support. (He won 56% of them in North Carolina).
Or look at income. In Indiana, voters from households with an income of less than $50,000 broke clean down the middle - 50% each to Hillary and Barack. And again, that's in a state where less than 1 in 5 voters was black.
This caricature of Obama's white voters being all elite latte liberals is unfair, and rather reckless when it comes to neatly punting propaganda points to the Republicans for November.
May 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Indiana, the median household income for white households is $45,943 but just $28,760 for black households—a gap of nearly $17,200. Hispanic households fall in the middle at $35,449. Asian households exceed all others at $49,681. However, since there are fewer Asian households to sample, the margin of error for that racial group is quite large.
http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2006/fall/article2.html
So what does that mean? Blacks in Indiana earn less than whites. Therefore they would be more highly represented in lower income brackets. So even though you are looking at all incomes below 50K, blacks are more highly represented in that group skewing the numbers. If they were able to break it down by race and income, it would tell a different story and barack certainly did not get 46% of the white voters under 50K. In fact he only won 35% of the overall white democratic vote in exit polls. Problematic. Especially since outside of the democratic primary and into the general election the black vote will have less impact as a solid 92% bloc for barack since the republican party is for the most part white as ever (with Hispanics who have not been driven out by their anti-immigration stance)
May 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
barack certainly did not get 46% of the white voters under 50K.
Of course he didnt. And yes, the disparity in income between whites and blacks obviously would make black voters overrepresented among the lower-income voters. But the fact remains that blacks only made up a fifth of the voters in Indiana. So if Obama won half of the lower-income votes and almost half of the voters without college degree, that's simply not just a black thing.
I mean, those without college degree made up 65% of the electorate in Indiana. Obama won almost half of them - i.e., a third of the whole electorate was lower-education voters for Obama. Considering black voters made up less than a fifth of the electorate and they hardly all lack a college degree, that means that blacks cant have made up more than about half of those. The other half were white working class voters for Obama. There's plenty of them.
There's no question that Hillary does better among white working class voters than him. My point's just that there's still way too many that do support Obama to justify all this talk about how it's just white elite liberals who vote for Obama. You hear it a lot, and it really starts to grate.
But there's a more fundamental problem with your argument. You keep saying that Obama's failure to win white working class votes against Hillary is "problematic" in terms of his electability in the general elections. But there's just no statistical basis whatsoever to use the primary voting patterns as predictor for how people will vote in the general elections.
Brian Schaffner of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies dug up the historical data when it comes to the vote by state. He looked at the last three contested Democratic nomination campaigns (2004, 2000, 1992). And this may sound counterintuitive, but what he found was that "in fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states)." There is just no correlation whatsoever between the nominee having lost somewhere against a competitive primary rival and him winning or losing the state against the Republican in the GE.
And why should there be? We agree that it's easy to see what working class voters would like especially in Hillary - a fighter, a known factor, etc. But that also means that people voting for her in the primaries arent necessarily voting against Obama. They just like her better. Even if they like her a lot better than him, how does it follow that if she loses, these voters will jump straight past the Democratic nominee and across to McCain?
I hold little hope for the white vote in the South, as the reluctance to vote for Obama there is so disproportional to the national average that one can't help think it's his race that turns them off. But say that many white working class voters in Indiana, Pennsylvania etc voted for Hillary because they liked her populist, combative campaign and devotion to working class concerns. Then whyever would one expect them to vote for the Republican candidate over Obama, who will then be the clearly more populist, combative candidate with working class concerns at heart?
May 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, forgot: here's the link to Schaffner's article.
May 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are not just clinging on to the nomination, they are also clinging onto the throne of the Democratic party. Only a revolt by the party will cause the Clintons to stop and frankly it looks like that is what has to happen and just may happen.
May 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Feinstein was holding out for more overt racism, got what she wanted, and agreed to stick around as long as she gets a steady diet of divisiveness. Pathetic. This is not leadership.
May 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But how can Clinton AFFORD to continue?
Please don't say Obama might bail her out in order to get her to quit. I will be torqued if even $1 that I gave to Obama goes toward funding her poor spending choices and attacks against him.
May 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So money should decide the nominee?
Isn't that...politics as usual?
May 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is she in the hole or not? (She is.) How will she pay for advertising, etc.? If she has not controlled her spending and made wise choices with her campaign funds, why should we expect her to manage the federal budget?
May 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, he couldn't do that legally even if he wanted to - which he absolutely won't. Goes against everything he stands for.
May 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
BAGHDAD DIANNE!!!
May 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with that goofy, close-up photo of Feinstein they always use on the front page?
I must say, I get the feeling the folks who post this stuff surely get a kick out of the "funny faces" of politicians.
(Forgive my shallowness; I know this comment doesn't add to the discussion...just saying.)
May 8, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tried and true media tradition. They have these stock photos to post with happy, sad, and so forth news for the candidates. Sometimes it's just a generic one like the big-head Feinstein one.
Feinstein is one of my senators, and a war profiteer, so I have no prob with pics that lampoon her.
May 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diane Fienstein is a stuffed animal. Worthless.
May 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is all a smokescreen.
Hillary can't just "give up" (and disappoint her misled followers after campaigning as a "fighter"), so they are pretending to soldier on, quietly wrapping things up behind the scenes.
She's "fighting on" in name only until the nomination is actually 100% Obama's.
May 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need a little more revenue so we can remodel our ski homes in Aspen and our villas in Italy. We desperately need Senator Clinton to continue her campaign. Otherwise there won't be any Democrats to carry the flag on the Gas Tax holiday?!
Signed- The Presidents of Exxon, Chevron, Shell and Mobil.
May 8, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Dianne, how's that working out? Seems like we heard some shit this morning that should get your antennae going. I cannot stand Dianne Feinstein, truly. Never could.
May 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not 4th and 20; she's already lost 4 games of a 7 game series (h/t Matt Stoller, I think).
May 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise here whatsoever. I was actually more shocked to hear Feinstein being critical of her fellow Lieberdem, Hillary.
Feinstein is a whore. Every Dem I know in CA absolutely hate her, but the old crook knows which cranks to yank when election time comes around.
May 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
only a fool would trust hillary.
May 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or in Feinstein's case, a crooked old slug.
May 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I hope Barack is cagey. There seemed to be a kumbaya thing going on--don't pick on her, let's give her the chance to bow out gracefully, she's a great candidate, whatever--but it still feels like she's just waiting for her moment to slip the shiv in.
She's starting to remind me of one of those old Japanese soldiers they'd find in a cave 40 years after the end of the war. Still thinking it's raging on, refusing to surrender.
May 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You calling half the democratic party fools?
Way to unify!
May 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's campaign is over. She is perhaps the last to know. (Seattle Times, May 8, 2008)
Well she and ("my") Senator Di Fi.
May 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's end: time to yield and unify is a great article. You should've linked it - took me a minute to find. :)
May 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it all depends on how you define what "causing difficulty for the party" is.
In HillaryLand, she's helping the Party, you see. By saving it from Obama.
May 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Feinstein sees nothing wrong with Clinton's latest statements. Hmmmm.
I agree with one thing Feinstein said about Clinton: She owes a debt.
May 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe any of these people actually believe that HRC can remain in and be positive from here on out.
Assuming she is working under the deluded notion that she can win the nomination, it would make no sense for her to stay in, quietly holding rallies. If she were to do that, the only coverage she would get would be, "When is she getting out?" As long as she's in, she'll continue the race baiting, the "doubting" of Obama's capacity to win or govern, all of it because it's the only way she can make news.
Obama's the nominee and the only thing that matters about Hillary now is how she affects him.
May 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this."
The strategy of my beloved Seattle Mariners each season is to get to the World Series and win it. The reality is that there is a gap between their dreams/goals and their abilities.
"The California senator said she heard "conviction" in Clinton's voice during their conversation."
So if I hear conviction in the voice of a downtown bag lady who says she's Queen Elizabeth, I should believe her, too?
May 8, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but it's still mathematically possible for the Mariners to do it.
May 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's gonna hang out as long as the money to pay herself back keeps dribbling into her website. And I'm sure the income spikes when she says the racist stuff.
May 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton saying racist stuff? Please provide quotes and links. Thanks!
May 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's in it to retire it - her debt that is.
May 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to start keeping a tally as the FL/MI delgates are going to be seated.
Current delegate count:
Obama : 1913
Clinton : 1863
A difference of 50. Completely doable for Clinton.
Buckawwwwk!
May 8, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction.
Current count
Obama 1917
Clinton : 1874
A difference of 43.
EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!
May 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still a loss, Einstein. And the argument her campaign is floating, that she's the hope of the White race, is (all miserably immoral dimensions aside) too toxic for the Party to get on board with, at least openly.
May 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry still getting the whole link thing. What's truly sad is that my Senator doesn't get it but George Will does.
"Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.
Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up."
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/looking_for_a_metric.html)
May 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're also still getting the hang of the Progressive blogosphere. George Will is not exactly a trusted source here. But then again, neither is Peggy Noonan. At least she wasn't until today when TPM endorsed her thinking on the front page.
Let me remind you. Teddy Kennedy is counting on you to be a generation ready to change the world.
Please don't tilt it in the direction of George Will.
May 9, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been over for a long time. The fiction that she had a chance has been perpetuated by the media so they had an easy story. But the narrative has definitely changed. Media stories are all focusing on how unlikely her chances are. It's getting very hard to find anyone who actually believes she can win. When that happens, rallies begin to resemble wakes. Here's betting that her showing in WV and KY are less than expected as many of her supporters find other things to do besides come out to vote in a hopeless cause. If she actually changes her tone it will be a tacit admission that she is done. I'll believe it when I see it.
May 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always said that I would not vote for Hillary because of her foreign policy - Iraq vote, Kyl-Lieberman, and lately "obliterate" Iran.
But what her campaign has done with the race issue is probably even worse for this country. What she has done is to affirm those who would not vote for Obama because of his race. Let's face it, we have plenty of residual racism in this country or he wouldn't be the only African American in the Senate. The last thing people need are excuses not to vote for him because of his race. The Clinton's campaign of innuendo and code is as damaging as anything the Trent Lotts or Imuses have ever said because she affirms the "good whites" in their bigotry.
Well, at least I was right about her all along!
May 8, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: not "good whites," but "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" because, well, we all know about those shiftless darker people.
I think perhaps Hillary should have thrown in the words Christian and patriotic to really give her point some extra oomph.
May 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Good whites" have a lot in common with "good Germans" - easily lead by fear into war and into scapegoating minorities.
May 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feindumb doesn't have a clue what is happening in the roots if the Democratic party because she is incapable of understanding how us plebeians live. The other day, out of curiosity, I walked by her gigungous mansion backed up against the Presidio in Pacific Heights, SF, and thought to myself, "Wow, is she out of touch!" Her mansion, set in SF's multi-millionaire neighborhood, is truly revealing as to the lifestyle she leads. It's also a little depressing.
May 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
war profiteering pays quite well
May 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will have nothing new with which to attack Hillary? Are you serious?
Liar liar sniper fire.
Bill collecting $800,000 to promote the trade agreement that Hillary opposes.
Bill's deals with Kazakhstan.
That stupid Hollywood fraud trial thing that's coming up.
All new mud. All will be used. And that's just off the top of my head without trying hard. I'm sure the Republicans have much more to work with. You just know Karl Rove's been adding on to his Clinton files the last eight years.
Don't kid yourself. Hillary Clinton has not been vetted.
May 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. That was supposed to be in reply to dijamo way up thread.
May 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean to promote the trade agreement that Hillary OPPOSED. So what - he is allowed to make a living and there is no conflict of interest unless she is president. he can remove himself from making $$$ at that point just as she stopped practicing law to be first lady.
Let's not even talk about Obama's attempted earmark to grant 1 million to his wife's employer Univ of Chicago Hospitals shortly after his wife got a 200K 160% raise. Soemthing tells me McCain anti-earmark pro-reform is going to stick it to obama on that one while Hillary has not raised the issue publicly. Why? Because she's run a campaign on the issues rather than personal attacks liek the obama campaign.
These scandals you mention with Hillary are going to be so juicy for the media to dig into. Bill in Kazhakstan. Much more interesting than reverend wright. That'll get lots of play on the networks. Not to mention the tons of good work done by the clinton foundation worldwide since he left office. How dare he travel the world helping out on issue like aids and poverty etc etc etc and even worse how dare he encourage other rich folks to do the same. SCANDAL! Those conniving clintons!!
May 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is the nominee, yes, Bill in Kazakhstan will get tons of airplay. Along with everything else. Every deal Bill has made. I'm not saying it's all fair or even relevant, but that isn't going to stop it.
If you're going to make the argument that Obama is unelectable because of things his former pastor said or because he directed money to a major medical facility, then you have to acknowledge the reality that Clinton will take a lot of hits for things her husband has done.
If electability is your argument, you have to deal with the reality that she's got high, high negatives and a majority of the population considers her untrustworthy.
Yes, I know she has good policies, and I know Bill's foundation has done good things. And none of that is going to get as much play on Fox Noise as the Clinton scandals and pseudo-scandals that Karl Rove will be rolling out daily from August to November if Clinton is the nominee.
May 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are manufacturing scandals. Bill making money pos presidency is not a scandal. They don't even have to make things up about Obama. They've got video "evidence". And the Obama campaign dug through hill's tax returns looking for anything the could find and came up with zilch [except that the clinton's are rich - thanks! did not know that! that is such an important factor in voting.]. Thanks for doing the vetting in advance. Much appreciated to know no financial scandals coming up :)
May 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you just being purposely obstinate? I'm not manufacturing scandals. Fox News will be manufacturing scandals. And they'll find plenty to work with.
Wright has been done to death. Obama's been hit with that thing up, down and sideways, and he's still standing strong. They can play those videos from now 'til doomsday, but they're not going to get any new hits out of it. Damage done. Damage minimal. What else you got?
May 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
46% I repeat 46% of democrats in IN thought reverend wright was inportant. That is democrats. Can you imagine the republicans. Are you really so gullible that you think the issue is over and all voters are "over it"? *sigh* I fear for the future of my party.
May 8, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I fear for the future of my party."
Well, you survived the fall of Berlin...
May 8, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think 100% of you thinks that YOU are important. Just a matter of defining what important means.
I think Reverend Wright is important. I also think it has nothing to do with Barack Obama. I think the media is playing field negro/house negro games in an attempt to play black against black and white against black. The media is trying to recreate the internceine warfare of the late 1960s in whiche the New Left and the Black Power factions alienated the southern Dems and established Nixon's "Southern Strategy." The problem is, the younger the voter, the less it works. Further, it isn't playing at all in the black community which is voting in overwhelming numbers for Obama.
I know your PoliSci education is telling you that it's 1968 all over again... but there's no Abbie Hoffman, no Bobby Seale, no Huey Newton, no Amiri Baraka... only ex-Marine Reverend Wright and Democratic nominee Barack Obama... there is no greater civil rights narrative that will tap into the majority of the nation's fears... without that "arch narrative," the story will eventually die. Republicans have to link Obama to terrorism through Wright, and that simply won't work...
May 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was no black baby of John McCain either. There was no fake purple heart of John Kerry but there they were at the Republican convention wearing band-aids with purple hearts on them. Those were made up lies. Reverend Wright is a reality and that you can't deny. All you can say is people will see through the BS even though 1. it is based on fact not lies and 2. it is a genuine issue as Brack himself has said. You are simple and naive if you think this will have no impact on the election.
May 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You left out 3. Time and time again Republicans have shown that people don't see through the bullshit (or if they do it's way too late).
Keep on kicking butt. His fans think Hillary's been tough on him, and have just written off a 41% loss as meaningless. With a bit more arrogance we could see an even more devastating sequel to McGovern.
May 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe, forget it. And Clinton supporters say that Obama supporters have drunk the KoolAid? I've seen every single Clinton/Republican talking point in this thread, and if Djamo and other Clinton supporters seriously believes that the Republicans, the 527's, and the media will treat her beloved candidate with kid gloves I, to quote Djamo, "fear for the future of my party".
May 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making money isn't necessarily a scandal, but if it involves setting up billion-dollar uranium deals with shady governments or getting huge contributions for Clinton's library from various foreign countries, it becomes only right to question whether favored status has been curried and whether some further obligations are entailed or expected from a Hillary Clinton presidency. Of course, releasing the donor list would be a start, but the Clintons have yet to do that.
The greater question, though, is what is the point of your long posts about policy differences? As others have already done, I could reel off the substantial number of informed critiques of Clinton's policies, but what's the point of that now? This discussion would have been justified a couple of months ago, but now the nomination process has run its course, and we have a nominee. Now that the party electorate has decided, it's in the hands of the superdelegates, and the trend is unmistakable -- despite all the media brouhahas of the last weeks -- they're moving in a huge way to back Obama's candidacy. (Since Super TuesdayClinton's SD lead has dropped from close to 100 to just a handful.)
I suggest you take a good hard look at this page. Barring some revelation far greater even than the Wright controversy, there is no way for Clinton to overcome Obama's lead in delegates.
Isn't it about time you started to get used to that idea?
May 9, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a NYer so I'll be writing in for Hillary. NY is a reliably democratic state so my non-vote for Obama would have no impact. But I would (and have) urged Clinton supporters in swing states and red states to think about the impact of John McCain in office - 4 more years increasing our troops in Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts leaving the US further in hock to China, health insurance plan that leaves out even more than the 15 million under Barack's plan. possible further tilting the Supreme Court to the right. Get a post it and write on it "NOT MCCAIN" and put it over Obama's name before you pull the lever if you must. No doubt it is an important election. I don't think he'll win anyway, but at least you can blame obama supporters and the democratic party rather than yourselves.
Barack has plenty of passionate and committed supporters to work on his behalf. He's been able to collect millions in contributions and I'm sure he'll do the same in the general election. Why does he need my support? I am not going to invest my time and energy and $$$ supporting a candidate I don't belive in for many reasons - not just reverend wright. I am not going to argue reverend wright shouldn't matter because I think it does. I am not going to argue that I think Obama is genuine and can translate words into action because I don't think he is or he will. So believe me I am not the advocate you want for Obama.
I have no doubt if he is the nominee Obama supporters will put up a valiant, but failing effort and he'll lose by a larger margin than did John Kerry. And you'll all end up trying to push the blame off on hillary rather than acknowledging the party made a mistake in nominating a candidate that is unelectable. From the beginning of this campaign I thought either Hillary or Obama would win handily, but Obama could be a better unifer. I don't believe that is possible anymore given reverend wright and the fact that his campaign rhetoric has not matched their actions.
May 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, see you in November then -- prepare to be surprised! :o)
May 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for earmarks, where are Hillary's? Oh yeah, she's too busy to release them.
Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
May 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
funny thing about earmarks. many of those are to ensure NY gets it's fairshare of homeland security dollars. NYS pays far more out in taxes than we receive back. I for one working literally blocks from ground zero appreciate the extra federal dollars for homeland security, emergency response, communication systems upgrades etc etc etc that Hillary and schumer have directed to NY.
that said are there other earmarks for the woodstock museum that are not essential. absoltuely! but many senators and congressman try to pass earmarks to commemorate events in their states and get fudning for museums etc. I don't think many congressmen have requested an earmark towards their wife's employer where she is on the senior mgmt team. seems inappropriate. they do teach ethics at harvard law right?
May 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right! He and Daddy Bush have gotten quite chummy over the years doing their "charity" work. Daddy Bush even introduced Bill to some of his Saudi "friends". It pays to know people big time.
Oh speaking of their charity work check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?ref=politics
George Bush Sr. will help president Hillary
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/bill-clinton-george-hw-bush-will-help-president-hillary/
But the worst is your take on Bill's "philanthropy" what a stinking joke:
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/62812
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7138526/
May 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the horror of clinton working with former president bush to raise money for the victims of the tsunami and of hurricane katrina! How dare he!
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/annual-report-2006-movie.htm
There should be a special cirle in democratic hell for all these clinton haters who trash the clintons and all of their good works. it is not necessary to hate the clintons to be for Obama.
May 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is interesting to point out that they are not as "democratic" as they seem. There has been a big change in their personas since they left the White House. It seems their change has been "if you can't beat em, join em".
May 8, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why in God's name would an Old Washington whore like Feinstein do anything for Obama? Daine's livin' large on the cesspool DC has become... no snse derailing her own gravytrain
Anyone who's watched Feinstein in the past should have seen this coming... she throws a few tidbits out there to get people thinking that maybe for once she's grown a spine. But when the moment comes to stand up, she goes straight over backwards.
Old Lady Roundheels strikes again.
May 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, someone has to be ready when someone puts a bullet through that nice young man's head. . .
just sayin'
May 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just can't believe that people don't immediately recognize her as the smartest girl in the class. For her to give up would be a tacit admission that she's not loved and respected. The nomination will have to be pried from her dead, cold fingers.
May 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you people sound like criminals. Secret service should be looking up your IDs.
I'm really not surprised tho. The Obama crowd is largely a bunch of leftwing radical types... like Farrakhan, Malcome X, William Ayers, Khadafi, etc.
I guess we really shouldn't be surprised.
You should all get a life and quit living through this false god you've created called "barry hussein obama".
May 8, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sooo...
Did this conversation - in which Hillary pledged to tone things down a bit - take place before or after this?
Or was it a "starting.................................NOW!"
May 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's plan is to collect as many donations as possible and then drop out. She wants her money back and could care less what happens to the party in the meantime.
May 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I canvassed for Obama in Eastern OH and Western PA - home territory for me -- and they are bigots, with a capital B. They didn't hide it, because they figured I was a bigot too, being white, and all.
It's ingrained and it makes me sick and really glad that I got out. They don't expect anything good to happen, because nothing has for a long time. One of the few things that makes them feel good about themselves is having people to look down on -i.e., black people. Of course that's not what they call them.
May 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha. another one of those "they cling to their guns and religion" types.
You're so full of s**t Sara.
May 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
they call them
WOMEN! all the oppressed women in the world don't wear Prairie Dresses, Pasties or Burkas. They are all around you!
May 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Dianne Feinstein. And good for Hillary.
May 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F,
How right you are! GOOD for Dianne!
She's a real woman!
May 8, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a real woman!
So were Imelda Marcos, Marge Schott, and Eva Braun for that matter, but hey... you go, girls!
May 8, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's bad manner to point, hombre.
May 9, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her strategy is to win this."
Jesus Christ. That's not a strategy, it's a goal.
My strategy is to have a three-way with Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson, and I'm absolutely entitled to try.
May 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary is self destructive. she is in this situation because of her deciscion to insult anti war activists and then african americans. core constituencies for the 2008 party nominee. there is no logic to her decision. insult african americans so as to insure they vote against you by more than 9 to 1 margins. the goal is to lessen that margin not make it bigger. her problem as a politician is that she can't process the problem free of emotion. her anger caused her to strike out and thus make the problem even worse.
May 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't have problem if Hillary was just being self-destructive, but she wants to destroy Obama so that he loses in 08, so that she can run in 2012. This bratty, selfish narcissism and petulant whining is pathetic, and shameful. She is the spoiled child who had her toy taken away from her, and sits in her spoiled diaper, screaming away at everyone...
May 9, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
hillary is full of shit when it comes to her policy papers. all of it. who really believes she would do any of the things she claims. who really knows what her true ideals are. she is fighting like crazy now...for her ambitions for power. not for any policy or ideal. look how she embraces rovian campaign tactic. what does that tell us about where her heart is vis a vis the progressive agenda?
May 8, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
dianne fienstein joins jim clyburn and ted kennedy in trying to talk sense to billary behind the scenes. billary is a vain, wounded, and crazed animal. no one can reach billary. good luck dianne.
May 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, if Hillary wins (and I hope she doesn't) I will vote for her because I think she's a better alternative than McCain. Will you vote for and work for Obama if he is the ultimate winner of the nomination? Will you do your part to ensure that he prevails over McCain? Or will you retire to the sideline and hope he loses so you can say "I told you so!"? In November we all have to forget our differences and do what's good for this country of ours. We all know that we should not let America make the mistake of electing another Republican, especially one who promises to continue the occupation of Iraq for the next 1,000 years (as if he could.)
I think Hillary and her supporters should follow McCain's example. Eight years ago he had the option of being on the democratic ticket as the VP. He decided to stick with the republicans and work for GWB, even though he hated GWB's guts because of the sneaky way (and I'm being kind here) the GWB folks had undermined his quest for the Republican nomination. We have to rally around the eventual winner and ensure their win in November. If Clinton and her supporters get on board, then Obama will be our next president. The alternative of a McCain win in November is not in the best interest of the country. With your support, false issues like Wright will not trick the USA into electing McCain.
May 8, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOo that would be hard for anyone that really dislikes her to pull that lever but I guess if you vote against your interests... you have no convictions. Oh, poor Dems such a dilemma. Luckily, for me I am an Independent cause I hate her and I am not going to vote for her under any circumstances.
May 9, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
An endorsement of HRC from Dianne "The Traitor" Feinstein? That is certainly the kiss of death! Whatever lingering support I might have felt for Clinton at this point (and it's growing more flimsy by the day as she grows more desperate and vicious) is now, completely, totally down the drain! What a Feinstein endorsement means is that Hillary has agreed to sell her soul (i.e., "work with") the neo-con bastards who are destroying us. Elect Hillary? 4-8 more years of the same? Personally, I can't tell her from a Republican. Same with Feinstein, only more so.
May 9, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, didn't she just lie today?
May 9, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's a real woman!
So were Imelda Marcos, Marge Schott, and Eva Braun for that matter, but hey... you go, girls!
oh, and what, Hitler, Gingas Kahn and Saddamn Huissain were real men, too, but hey. . you go, boys!
what idiocy. .
May 9, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
ludemilla, are you an american? what kind of name is ludemilla? it sounds like a commie name.
May 9, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
loodmila, AKA ludmilla (or similar), is just another racist, cut-and-paste troll.
May 9, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, make that "ludmila":
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/ludmila
May 9, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein's position is totally expected at least on one level -- Israel. Clinton is viewed as more pro-Israel and expected to continue the AIPAC-line something Feinstein has a long history of supporting.
But, there is a larger issue for those of use who do not conflate the interests of Israel with those of America. Senior Democratic leaders like Feinstein are giving the Clinton's a pass while they destroy Obama and continue to mount discord in the Democratic public. Comments like yesterday's reference to hard working whites happen all too often to simply be passed off as unintentional. And there are others like how only McCain and she are prepared to be Commander-and-Chief. Or, the "as far as I know" comment about his Christian allegiance.
They should be outraged and denounce those statements either publicly and change their support to Obama immediately.
As a Progressive, I prefer LIBERAL, I would urge others to remember those who sit on the sidelines and allow the Clinton's to damage Obama's chances to win the WH and support any challenges to their seats in the next election.
They are not helping the Democratic Party and they are certainly not helping this country!
May 9, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Sow the seeds of discord. Do what you can to hold on to those Republican seats in Congress. Thanks for your concern, but we'll take care of the Democratic Party and its Progressive agenda.
May 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diva, I just think that Hillary is a better alternative than McCain, but I hope I don't have to make such a decision because I hope her name is not on the ballot. And unless something drastic happens,it appears it won't be.
May 9, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary Clinton is a more electable than Senator Obama, then why have influential people like Rush Limbaugh been encouraging Republicans to register as Democrats or otherwise "crossover" in open-primary states to vote for Ms. Clinton? Would it not seem logical to suggest the Republican attack-dogs, in whatever form they might take in the general election, are of the opinion they could be more effective against the senator from New York? And regarding the latter,does she comprehend the difference between having had twenty years of experience in public office and having had the same experience in public office for twenty years? And is not change the end-game here?
May 9, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Clintons and spent a fair amount of effort defending them in the 1990s. And truthfully, their policies don't differ much from Obama's.
But Hill has had her day. She had 8 years of experience with a chance to save health care, civil rights, the environment and all the rest. It's time to let the next generation take center stage.
May 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because she's not the smartest. She did flunk the DC bar exam. Luckily she was able to pass the Arkansas test.
May 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein suggests here that Hillary promised as much to her privately (not to destroy the party). We'll see what happens.
-- Don't count on it!
May 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people should consider the proposition that the probability of a person like dijamo being right is directly proportional to the number of people trying to prove she's wrong.
She seems to be holding her own against dozens of you.
I got a fund raising letter from the Obama campaign today with a little note from Ted Kennedy inside. Here's what Teddy had to say.
"In the 1960's, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30, we had a new President who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it."
Somone upstream noticed, in objecting to something dijamo said, that the only people who really won't vote for Obama are the "elderly."
Those of us "elderly" who were sitting at those lunch counters in 1960, who were drafted in 1963 and back home fighting in the streets in 1968 are looking for some sign that you are ready to govern this country.
Teddy goes on to say: "But we know dreams alone do not change a nation. Action does."
And the action he's looking for is a campaign contribution of $50 to $250.
Some of us "elderly" would like to see you do more than send Obama money and work in his campaign before we trust you with our futures. And we'd like to see him do more than run for office. We've been around long enough to know that after you get elected, you have to be able to govern.
May 9, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a second, was Teddy channeling Hillary? Was he dissing MLK? Well, probably not - giving a campaign donation is obviously more important than sponsoring legislation and shepherding it through Congress.
May 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary certainly should continue with the next three primary/caucus elections, see what occurs with the DNC rules' decision about Michigan and Florida, and make her case again. No one should want to deny her "right" to proceed in this manner.
The thing that is most awe-inspiring are the Clinton lies abounding about her chances. Bill, in particular, fantasizing about Hillary "winning" and the subsequent "cover-up." Makes for some bizarre theater, but no one should impede their right to continue to express their perpectives--ever-changing, deceptive, surreal assessments.
This is the United States, afterall, and we have guaranteed rights of freedom of association and speech....
She's teetering on screaming "fire" in the crowded theater, but until she ventures into prohibited speech, commits a crime, or gets run over by her own (or someone else's) bus, Hillary should continue on her quest.
I see a windmill in her immediate future. Bill sees an oval office. Obama sees a thorn in his side.
Patience. It will be what it is supposed to be and will turn out like it's supposed to turn out. She's going down....and, McCain is going down. It's simply a matter of time.
May 28, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's naive. She's not just hanging around. She's continually swiping and sniping at Obama, and scheming to wreak havoc in Denver and steal the nomination anyway she can.
It's over. She needs to leave. Never trust a Clinton and never turn your back on them for a second!
May 30, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Revealed for all, Hillary's strategy:
1. Promise to play nice and you won't make any trouble.
2. Surrogates give hints that only a few more weeks left
3.Make an occassional concilliatory remark
Meanwhile scheme to steal the nomination, create appearance of illegitimacy and resentment among supporters.
4.Stall for time
5. Then, make attacks, smears, gaffes, racist remarks intended to divide further.
6. Act all innocent, "taken out of context", "no, I don't really hope Obama gets killed" etc. etc.
7. Repeat 1 until you have stalled all the way til August so you can wreak havoc in Denver.
Those "just a couple more weeks" will drag out for months if the party leaders fall for this.
Eugene Robinson:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203018.html
May 30, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of all the vitriol. It doesn't serve anything. I just wish Senator Clinton would go back to being a Senator. All pundits and journalists should simply decline to talk or write about her. Those who can prevent her from creating a ruckus at the convention in August should do so but every one else should ignore her. It's too late. She's already done so much damage to the Democratic party and to progress for women in politics.If Feinstein wants to talk to the media, ask her about cluster bombs. It's less painful.
June 4, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
DIANE FINESTINE IS A SCIENTOLOGIST PLANT AND WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT SHE DOES
July 13, 2008 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink