« Hillary Wins Indiana, Networks Say | Home | Stephanopoulos: Obama Camp Will Be Bringing Out More Super-Dels »
Hillary Holding A Public Event Today, After All
The Clinton campaign may be hurrying to quash any talk from last night that they're about to shut down.
After the media reported last night that Hillary wouldn't be having any public events today -- often a sign that a losing campaign is about to quit -- the campaign sent out a new schedule this morning with a "Solutions for the American Economy" event in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Advertisement
Just going through the motions.
May 7, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps.
I see it as keeping her options open. Without a public event on her schedule, she risked feeding the media frenzy over the possibility of a concession or suspension. If that accelerates too fast, it could foreclose the possibility of continuing on, even if that's what she ultimately decides to do.
On the other hand, announcing a West Virginia event forces the networks to cover her this morning as a still-viable candidate. If she decides to drop out, she can always cancel it. Even if she decides to drop out this afternoon or this evening, there's relatively little cost to one last rally.
She's kept a frenetic schedule for the past several weeks. Were she bound and determined to keep on at full speed, she would've announced her usual action-packed schedule. If she had already decided to withdraw, there wouldn't have been any events. Announcing a single rally is just a place-keeper; intended to keep the campaign alive long enough for her to make up her mind.
May 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very intriguing and quite plausible explanation for the singular Clinton event today.
May 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the top FDL people is a big Hillary supporter and lives in WVa. I can't help but think there's a connection... something Hillary owes her.
There needs to be a denouement to this snake oil show hillary's been peddling. And this may be it!
God help us, I hope so!
May 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she's dropping out before May 19th. She'll take her wins in West Virginia (which I was told by Howie Wolfson is a key swing state) and Kentucky and go out a "winner".
So maybe she's not going through the motions; she's saving face.
May 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me a cynic, but I think this is a ploy to keep the cash spigot dribbling in to retire some of the campaign's debt load. I suspect there's a plan in place to let her break it easy to her supporters and shift stance toward supporting the party which of course ultimately means transferring support to Obama. The super-delegate shift will be gradual, to permit the reality of the situation to sink in and peel off the moderate elements early. It will be easier to convince the Clinton bedrock and extremist lobby to flip if they start to feel a little isolation, without feeling flat-out betrayed. I think the tone of the victory speech last night was the first of many incremental course corrections and dimmed emphasis on the 'fighter ethic' that are designed to stitch up the rift. She can safely concede after modest wins in WV / KY with dim prospects in OR as the "impetus". I predict a return to classy campaigning -- at least through August -- but I've been wrong before.
May 7, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did the MSNBC pundits hear a different Hillary concession speech from the one I heard?? They all referred to it as "charming" and conciliatory, yet again, she failed to either congratulate Obama on his victory or even thank the 40+% of voters in NC who supported her, began the speech by taunting Obama, and then continued by saying she's going all the way, that it's about time voters in WV, Kentucky, etc. had their voices counted, and demanding to count the votes in FL & MI. How is any of that charming or conciliatory??
May 7, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she did congratulate him on NC, but yes, I think they did hear a different speech than I, b/c their analysis was that she was being conciliatory and like she was ready to throw in the towel. I heard none of that.
May 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her speech was was both forward looking and conciliatory.
May 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you.
I didn't find her speech concilliatory (sp?) in the least. I'm hoping that the pundits are right and she's just trying to find a way to exit gracefully, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if she's chasing Obama down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day next January.
May 7, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow tried telling the guys that she wasn't conceding.
Remember the same discussion at the end of that debate where she said "no matter what happens we'll be fine...." And then the next day she was waving around the NAFTA flyer saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama"
May 7, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was fascinating to watch all the pundits craft their narrative; I think it's the first time I've ever actually seen it as it evolved. Rachel Maddow trying to even get heard, let alone promote a contrary interpretation, was like holding back the tide.
Now I realize how PA came to be seen as such a monster win for her, even though coming in under double digits could easily have been seen as a win for him considering how far back he was originally and all she had going for her in my state; she labeled it that way and the MSM embellished the narrative.
May 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't compare the speech she gave to the speech you would have given. Compare it to her previous speeches. She called her family on the stage for a round of applause. Her pitch for cash was half-hearted and front-loaded. She congratulated Obama for the first time ever. And she talked about fence mending and party unity.
It wasn't the speech I wanted to hear, but it was the best we were going to get from her at this point. Even her "Indiana was the tie-breaker" line gives her the chance to say I'm going out having won.
Remember, it's not just her that needs time to concede defeat, but her supporters too. Think how hard it'd be for you to support Hillary today if Gotalife's fevered dreams of a 20 point NC and 30 point IN victory for HRC came true. The speech she gave introduced the idea that she won't be the nominee. That's huge.
May 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well it was definitely better than any speech I could have given!! But I did miss the congrats; it must have been the few minutes when my husband wrestled the remote out of my hand and switched on "Baseball Tonight"; what the link to the transcript of her speech? It would have to be the first time she has congratulated him on a victory.
May 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the first sentence of the third paragraph. I missed it last night as well.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7560
May 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Larry! Actually her speech reads a lot better than it sounded when she delivered it; probably because I have such an aversion reaction to her now. But I see that she does thank the people of NC and I guess "commend" is the same as congratulate.
Meanwhile, I hope her "friends in labor" have delivered their babies by now! ;)
May 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews has called the races so far. Some folks go quietly, some kicking and screaming.
May 7, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm...if true this could get interesting!
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/breaking-wesley-clark-reportedly-called.html
May 7, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wes for Veep!
May 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!
~
May 7, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the music died tonight" - Pat Buchanan.
May 7, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you have to euthanize the horse...
May 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Good line.
May 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question now is, can Hillary walk away the right way? I am going to look at the tone of her campaign in WV and KY. If she goes on the attack then the Clintons are as selfish as everyone thinks they are and i look for the SD and the party elders to do BO bidding by publicly asking her to end it.
May 7, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree. If she keeps up the negative shit and keeps trying to tear Obama down the party elders, and Dean, and the supers, MUST step in and end this for the good of the party. She cannot be allowed to continue this charade. There is no way she can win - that was universally stated last night by the media. And I think the media is finally on board as well, so if she does try to continue in this vein (or, frankly, continue at all), the media will not be kind.
May 7, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, in my view, to what degree has she so debased herself by her demeaning, pandering, and ridiculous statement, that her political capital is in shambles? I'm not sure she can really pick things up... even in view of her political future. Think of another senate campaign... and all that is out there on the web, free for the taking, that will come back to haunt her? The opposition will have a field day in any future contest she tries to run! She has dealt herself mortal wounds. So has bill. These folks are in big trouble, say I!
May 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"demeaning, pandering, and ridiculous statements" (plural!)
May 7, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President -
Obama/Sebelius '08 and Obama has gained the support of the White Women voting block.
It's going to be a mini fight for who gets Obama's VP.
Kathleen Sebelius vs Wesley Clark
[sighs]
at least its not going to be Hillary Clinton : )
May 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have long wondered if she would be the VP. Recall, she did the State of the Union response for the Dems! (she was a freshman in college... when we were seniors! I'm still her senior! Ok by me!)
May 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pulling for Sen Webb. He is much better than Wes Clark. He is an economic populist.
May 7, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Bataan Death March for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
May 7, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He could be VP.
May 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superman? Can't see him as second banana even standing in the background of Obama on that guy's avatar. Wait till 2016. (even then he is probably an illegal alien and that'll hurt in the general.)
May 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were to chose Hillary for VP, I would vote for Nader or Cynthia McKinney. Too great a chance that Hillary could become President if she were Obama's Veep. No way.
May 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fine with Hillary as Veep as long as Chelsea is Obama's food taster and Bubba gets a shock collar around his neck with any invisible fence keeping him away from the White House.
May 7, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
DId anyone saw what Tim Russert and Howard Fineman said last night about BO campaign putting together the apparatus to begin the vetting process for viable VP's? Who would you guys like to see on the ticket with BO?
BO needs someone a bit older to balance out his youth, someone with some serious foreign policy experience who will bring instant creditability. Joe Biden is the guy.
May 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is great, but he doesn't gbring any electoral votes.
I'd go with Webb to brings Virginia.
The other glaring need they'll have to access is the female vote. Sebelius it the best bet there as she (maybe) brings Kansas, and can help in Ohio.
Ed Rendell is the longshot in my mind.
May 7, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Webb or Richardson. I'd be okay with Clark. I voted for him in 2004 but have since soured a bit on him.
May 7, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like all of those three. Plus I think Sebelius, Strickland, Rendell, Russ Feingold and Brian Schweitzer would be fine. But if I had to pick one, while my previous choice would have been Clark for his national security bona fides, now it's Webb. Because he brings the whole package:
1) He's the one VP candidate best suited to appeal to the white blue collar voters Hillary has been getting -- he's got the economic populism and the authenticity to bring these voters to Obama where they belong.
2) National security/military experience.
3) His GI bill for vets and McCain's failure to support it presents a perfect contrast.
4) He probably brings Virginia with him.
May 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see him pick Webb, but Bill Richardson would definitely be a smart choice for courting the Hispanic vote. I just don't know if Richardson has the necessary gravitas...
May 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude ... go look at his wikipedia entry. He's done way more with his life than you think he has. He's got the gravitas.
I think Webb is great choice. If it's anyone other than Hillary though, we won't know until the convention. He has to bring her supporters into the fold.
May 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he does have the weight...
May 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullwinkle! That's a, ummm... weightist remark.
May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty as charged.
May 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sebelius. Hands down.
What Obama needs most in a Veep is someone who can help bring back the most hardcore Clinton supporters.
May 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Webb could do that as well. It is not all about genitals.
May 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure which talking head it was last night (possibly David Byrne, but I doubt it), but someone made a point that makes sense to me.
She'll stick to it for now, suffer through a dismal fund raising week, win West Virginia and Kentucky, then bow out "a winner."
May 7, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the right choice for everyone. It will save Barack from suffering horrible uncontested defeats in WV and Kentucky.
May 7, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Barack losing WV and KY to no one would be a tad embarrassing.
May 7, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was Tina Weymouth, and she said Clinton would stay in for a while because of the genius of love, whatever that means.
May 7, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Jerry Harrison say?
May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letting her save face is a small price to pay for getting her out and moving on to defeating McSame and electing Obama. I'd be all for this if that's really what she'll do.
May 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Triumvirates!
We'd get 2 veeps if Hillary was on the ticket.
No.
Obama needs someone he can work with - not someone who is going to try to run all over him.
The Clintons can go home. Obama can put his own administration together.
May 7, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! To all of it!
May 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media narrative, which has propped Hillary's campaign since it became clear she has no reasonable path to the nomination, has now changed. With Tim Russert's pronouncement that Obama is the nominee, the tide has turned. Hillary's monies will dry up, the coverage of the "horse race" will cease, and the focus in the news will be Obama's pivot to general election mode.
Hillary fought a good battle. I'll even concede that she became a damn good candidate in the last two weeks, but she fatally misunderstood the mood of the country for change and Obama owns that message.
The only contrarian I witnessed last night was Rachel Maddow, who has an interesting theory about Hillary's "post-rational" bid for the white house, and that she will continue her scorched earth campaign. I think this is quite cynical, and even Keith Olbermann, who certainly isn't in the tank for Hillary, found her theory unconvincing if not laughable.
It's over. As Obama has said, he began this race when babies were being born, and this race continues as those same babies are now walking and talking. It's time to look forward and focus our firepower on John McSame. It's time for creepy Ice Cream-head guy, getalife, and the uber-partisan Matthew Weaver to get on board the Obama express, because that train's leaving the station. Of course, I secretly suspect these folks are likely republican trolls who never supported Hillary from the outset, but hey, even I have to get past the "politics of the past". ;-)
May 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith and Rachel were funny last night - he rather vociferously disagreed with her and just kept saying "Money ... money ... money - there won't be any tomorrow". He's right, of course. Rachel's theory is interesting but, I agree, it's a little too cynical for me and I hope like hell she's wrong!
May 7, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question about the MSM finally coming to their senses is: why now? After all this time? According to Josh's explanation on TPMTV it's all about the expectations game!
May 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a die hard Hillary supporter and hope she pulls out a victory, but admittedly the options are getting smaller than ever every day. I'm investing in my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary" bumper sticker now. But yes it looks like my party will be stupid enough to nominate Obama and hand the election over to McCane. And when that happens I don't want to hear any complaints about how Hillary damaged Obama - his most severe wounds to his electability have been self-inflicted. It's not even just that I dislike Obama. I honestly do not believe he can win the general election.
And as NYer whose vote would not matter since we are blue state, I'll be writing in for Hillary at the ballot box should Obama be the nominee.
May 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then if you really care so much, jump on board and help. Complaining from the sidelines is only going to help turn your prophecy into a self-fulfilling one.
May 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Duh.
May 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
How in God's name do you think she's going to "pull out a victory" at this point? Surely you can see that he has momentum and an unsurmountable lead. The media seems to have caught up with the rest of us and have now come to grips with the fact that her campaign is over - time to pull the plug, as Tim Russert so inelegantly put it.
I disagree with you, of course, on his electibility. I truly think he's going to steamroll over McCain. Consider the visual of the first debate between Obama and McCain - young, vibrant, intelligent, well-spoken and articulate (change) vs. old, inarticulate, halting speech (more of the same). I say let the RNC and the swiftboaters do their worst - it hasn't slowed Obama down and it's not going to derail him in the generals. I think Americans are tired of that nonsense and they're actually looking at the candidates instead of relying on sound bytes and 30-minute ad spots.
May 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Carol. The big unknown for me is whether the Bush crime family decides to pull an October Surprise, such as an attack on Iran, that might scramble the current calculus and give a "rally round the flag" edge to the Republicans and McInsane.
May 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope does not equal belief or even thinking it will happen. I know the odds are slim to none for Senator Clinton, but I HOPE she can pull it out for the good of the democratic party. That means the odds are very slim, but in my opinion there is still reason for hope.
If even me a strong liberal Democrat, reformed 2004 Deaniac who voted for Kerry in the general election is not persuaded to actively vote for Obama, it spells SERIOUS trouble for the party in the general election. I never defended Hillary on the sniper fire because I firmly believed she was wrong. I am a person who does not stand for attacks against people's patriotism based on whether or not they wear a flag pin or because you have a muslim name (something both Barack and I have in common), but Reverend Wright to me is a genuine issue. Why should I defend Obama from criticism on the Wright issue when I largely agree with it? You can put your head in the sand, but it not a manufactured one like the swiftboating of Kerry and Senator Clinton bears no responsibility for it.
I firmly BELIEVE that Obama is a fatally flawed candidate that has no shot in hell of winning in the general election; therefore there is not even a glimmer of hope for me to hold on to. Obama as the dem candidate = McCane as president.
May 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then perhaps you should read this article by Newt Gingrich - even HE doesn't believe that the Wright "controversy" is a winner for the Republicans this fall. I'm not saying they're not going to try, but they will not succeed. Clinton tried her best, and had a boatload of help from the Right Wing and the MSM, and did it matter? He blew her out in North Carolina last night and very nearly won Indiana (of course, she had help from her BFF Rush Limbaugh). I honestly do not see where he is a "fatally flawed" candidate. I think your logic and belief system is fatally flawed if you do not see that he is a much better candidate to face McCain in the fall than she is. She is truly the "fatally flawed" candidate with all of her and Bill's baggage. I've always thought so and I haven't wavered from that belief.
Here's the article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26376
May 7, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
When 50% of the democratic voters in a state are black and barack gets 92% of that black vote, then it stands to reason that he will overperform in that state. It's not racism - it is called math. In the general election there won't be gimme states like that. Barack appeals to the move-on.org wing of the party which is passionate and gets people out to vote in the primary but turns off middle of the road independents & republicans. How much did that help John Kerry in 2004? And while pre-Wright he may have been drawing more independents and Obamacans, the polls now shouw Hillary is doing better with Independents. His integrity and character have been challenged and there are voters out there who don't believe the persona of Barack as a uniter, reformer, challenge the status quo in Washington.
A democratic primary is not the general election. Barack will have serious problems in the general election. You can put your head int he sand, but please don't put the blame on Hillary if he's the nominee and he eventually loses to McCane. The fault is with the democratic party if they are foolish enough to pretend this won't matter and nominate Obama turning what should have been a gimmie election into a kamikazi mission.
May 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really that bitter? Is he really that poor a choice for America? He wasn't the first lady for eight years, but he does have valuable life experience and a respectable vision for the country.
May 7, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo,
I really think that is disingenuous of you. I truly hope that you rethink that position in the future and do what you can to help your party. It's bigger than you; it's bigger than Senators Clinton and Obama.
May 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it disingenuous of me? I don't believe in his candidacy. I live in a state where my non-vote for him will not have an impact. If I lived in OH, I would definitely vote for Obama because he is better than McCain. But I refuse to actively invest my time and energy and $$$ in support of a candidate I don't believe in for reasons I have elaborated on many, many times. There are plenty of passionate and committed Obama supporters to step in and do that.
May 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's disingenuous to take the attitude that your vote does not matter. And how can you be a democrat and not believe in his campaign? His policy proposals and Senator Clinton's are largely the same. You obviously believe in and care deeply about Senator Clinton's proposals.
This is the danger - that too many of Senator Clinton's supporters (or Senator Obama's if she had won) will simply opt out of the process because their candidate lost. We ALL lose if the democrats do not take the White House back in November.
May 7, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have previously stated you'd vote for Obama when he's the nominee. No more?
May 7, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually what I've always said (in various iterations) has been:
I am a fervent Hillary supporter and I hope that she pulls this out because I truly believe she would be a great president, but when it comes down to it if it's Obama vs McCain, as I've said from the beginning I'll vote for Obama... that is unless his campaign keeps trashing Hillary as deceptive, do anything to win, divisive, disenfranchise the voters of two states etc etc etc and then try to claim the moral high ground of "new politics". Every personal attack on her (because they are not attacking her policies) makes it harder for me to imaging pulling the lever for Obama.
As a NYer I can be confident that my non-vote will not impact the outcome of the election because Obama would take NY for sure, but I'd be careful about further alienating the Hillary supporters especially in swing states (and especially in Florida & Michigan) because those are the votes that will really matter.
May 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
As accurate as some of those adjectives sound to me in describing Clinton, it’s really beside the point now. It’s now Obama vs. McCain. And the Dems need to win the election this year. End of story.
May 7, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary desperately needs to win big in West Virginia. That will provide the momentum she needs to call for a complete do-over of the entire primary campaign.
May 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
As has been said by JDW, Hillary should stay in at least through WV and KY so that Obama's embarrassing losses there will not be uncontested.
We will know more about Hillary's intentions once we see what tone she strikes as she campaigns going forward.
May 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she probably gave a preview of the tone last night. It was a pretty subdued affair. But I agree--if she goes back into full attack mode, we'll know what kind of a horrid human being she is.
May 7, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting info about Operation Chaos:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/mccain-supporte.html
I can't imagine that, in her heart of hearts, Hillary is very proud about this. And the funny thing is, it's not working. Limbaugh is failing in his quest to seat Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Chris Matthews was funny last night and really lit into Limbaugh and his minions for trying to "screw around with the Democratic process that people have fought and died for". He was really fired up!
By the way, take a look at the table on the right side of the Jed Report - Clinton would need 82% of all remaining pledged and super delegates to overtake Obama's lead. Time to call it a day, I think.
May 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has disgraced herself in so many ways! I honestly see this all coming back to bite her - viciously - in any future campaign she tries to run!
May 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. As a New Yorker, I will work diligently for any Democrat that challenges her Senate seat in 2012. I am really done with her and have no respect for her at all after the way she has run this campaign.
May 7, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me she won't run again. I think this was an all-in proposition. Maybe Obama will offer her a nice ambassadorship somewhere. Like Mars.
May 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now THAT was a LOL!! Perfect place for a "fighter."
May 7, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate was really only a stepping stone to the White House for her. Now that that dream is gone, maybe she'll just pack up and move back to Arkansas. Or Chicago. Or Scranton. Or wherever she's actually from.
May 7, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
God, I had nearly forgotten the "democrat" Zell Miller! Your avatar is priceless!
I wonder if Joe Lieberman is going to pull a Zell and give the keynote speech at the Republican convention.
I really, really, really hope the dems take the senate convincingly so that cretin can be booted off of his prized chairmanship.
May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCane
Worst. GOP. Troll. Ever.
GO AWAY.
May 7, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow you are ignorant - anyone who dislikes Obama MUST be a Republican. I call him McCane not because I don't know how to spell his name, but because he is old school and needs a Cane. I am not GOP, I am a hard core Dem who believes Hillary's economic plans are far more progressive than Baracks - health care, foreclosure, economic policy. Hardly Repubican ideals if you ask me.
May 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If her economic plan is as good as her gas tax proposal, maybe Bush will vote for her. She probably has Exxon stock that she's been cashing in to loan money to her campaign.
The Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com has our former first lady at her lowest 4.2% chance of clinching the nomination:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190778/
May 7, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether he has the nomination sewn up or not, these debates still have merit in the larger sense, so I'm going to ask... what *exactly* about her health care and foreclosure plans do you like. I'm being honest and trying to have a real discussion here when I say that, as I read them, they just look like corporate handouts that won't benefit any real people. For example, the foreclosure stuff... interfering in that process just ensures, doesn't it, that interest rates for mortgages will be astronomical from now on because the lenders have to hedge against the precedent of the government rewriting their loans by fiat. So the same lenders that caused the problem make out like bandits, and the best it does for real human beings is that they get to keep their house for six more months (ie, six more months of money down the rathole) before being foreclosed on.
If you don't think this will happen, could you say something about why?
May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not going to respond in depth because 1. I've been there & done that. If you have interest in seeing why I believe Hillary's policies are better click on my user name and read some of the exchanges on my favorite articles. I am a progressive liberal who believes in universal healthcare as both a right and repsonsibility. I believe Hillary has a superior plan on foreclosures etc.
2. While I will not actively support Obama or his policies, neither will I continue to trash Obama's policies if he is the nominee because as flawed as they are his policies are better than McCain's period.
May 7, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow you are ignorant - anyone who dislikes Obama MUST be a Republican. I call him McCane not because I don't know how to spell his name, but because he is old school and needs a Cane. I am not GOP, I am a hard core Dem who believes Hillary's economic plans are far more progressive than Baracks - health care, foreclosure, economic policy. Hardly Repubican ideals if you ask me.
May 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it's not Obama vs. Clinton. It's now Obama vs. McCain and between those two whose economic policies are more progressive?
May 7, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just make sure that you spell Clinton correctly when you write her name in.
Your "needs a Cane" comment is like an "incoming sniper fire" story cover. Birds of a feather flock together I guess.
May 7, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless I can link to another post with me using "McCane" explicitly explaining that it is an intentional misspelling. I would think most people would get it, but occassionally there's the true imbeciles who need it SPELLED out for them:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/inside_the_thinking_of_an_unco.php#comment-2753232
Hillary's lead over McCain in MA general election polls is double digits. Obama and McCane (mispelling intentional) are neck in neck. Are you just speculating or are do you have facts to back up your inane assertions? Actual poll listed below.
Survey USA MA 4/11-13
Clinton 56 McCane 41
Obama 48 McCane 46
Yeah looks like those Mass voters are running from Hillary even with all the institutional support Obama had both senators, the governor, the Kennedy clan and still neck and neck with McCane in the general.
Posted by dijamo
April 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't be Webb, they absolutely need that Senate seat.
May 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a problem. If Webb's nominated and wins, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement. You're probably thinking of Mark Warner who is running for Senate this year and should gain a pickup for Dems.
May 7, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a fair point. But I think Kaine could probably run in 2010 (his term as gov ends in 2009) and win. Webb's lack of experience is a drawback, but then if you count his time as Navy Sec'y under Reagan, maybe not so much. And it dovetails with Obama's position as the anti-status quo, anti-establishment candidate.
May 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
(That was a reply to "dijamo," whoever s/he really is.)
May 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still admire Ted Kennedy even after his fierce 1980 campaign for the Democratic nomination scorched Jimmy Carter, helping lead to Reagan's presidency (though political sabotage by financial/oil interests and Bush I's rogue intelligence network paved Reagan's way).
But Kennedy was and is a true Democratic statesman, whereas the Clintons on the national scene have always been opportunistic Republican-lite operatives taking advantage of the nation's rightward shift after Reagan and overall after losing Vietnam freaked out the fearful white base of the electorate.
I can't see myself ever again admiring either one of the two-headed Clinton monster, especially now after they leaned so heavily into White-Male Privilege territory with their subliminally racist campaign against Obama.
Hillary, female though she is, abandoned the rainbow coalition that feminists have been a part of since the 1960s and no longer has any real standing with any group other than the white males, despite the cadre of older white women who support her (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Obama in 08! President Obama in 09!
May 7, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters need not feel so bad. There will still be a chance to vote for Clinton in November:
May 7, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking advantage of an opening is not the same thing as CREATING an opening. Reevrend Wright is not equivalent to the swift boating of kerry because John Kerry truly was a war veteran who was being slandered by lies. Obama was associated with a divisive minister for 20 years. If Hillary didn't raise the issue, it would surely be raised by the republican sin the general at a time when Obama would have less opportunity to respond.
Had he distanced himself from Rev Wright intially rather than trying to deflect criticism, he would be in a better position in the general election now. But he didn't. That's his fault, not Hillary's. Self inflicted wounds. Dont't blame Hillary for his pastor.
May 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about Wright? Republicans, mainly. Besides, if push comes to shove against McCain the Dems can trot out Hagee, Pat "assassinate a foreign leader" Robertson and all of the other shiite-Christian spiritual wingnuts. Wright seems positively reasonable next to the Republican pastor line up.
And unlike Hillary, I believe McCain won't even go there. He's got the "agents of intolerance" comment to defend.
May 7, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, when even Pat Buchanan admits that the Wright issue wasn't a winner it's time to let that one go. It's not going to work in the general, especially given McCain's own dubious relationships with fanatical fundamentalists. By the end of the summer the Wright issue will a complete non-starter for the Republicans (although I'm sure they'll try their hardest).
And while we're here, you don't think the Republicans are not going to drag out every piece of Clinton's dirty laundry? Come on, you really are kidding yourself if you think they would give her a free ride here. Between her stuff and Bill's, they would have enough to air attack ads from now until kingdom come. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh was so intent on having Operation Chaos be a success?
May 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't mean to blockquote the whole thing.
May 7, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark would be good....and how about Senator Jim Webb....strong defense credentials.....plainspoken...Va is a good state to carry......Webb in 2016!!!!!
May 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Obama-Feingold. Swoon!
May 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Swoon is right - God, what a ticket that would be, huh??? ;)
May 7, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that would be a great ticket, althought I don't think Obama needs to make this move to get WI. However, in considering VP picks, one should also consider that possible implications on the Senate. We don't want to take all the progressive "spines" out at once...or do we? And who would some of the replacements be? Another possible issue. Moreover, even if the Democrats make significant pick ups in the fall, we still need experienced folks around who know how the procedural games are played. Some thoughts to consider before raiding the Senate cookie jar for a VP and cabinet folks.
May 7, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Feingold doesn't really bring anything with him in the way Webb or Richardson do. But, man. An unreal ticket.
Feingold as Leader?
May 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather see Feingold as AG. Much as I love him, I think he'd be wasted as veep.
May 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for VP pick, I think either Mark Warner or Jim Webb would be a great choice. Jim Webb because he would brings tons of experience, and is a pit pull on the stump. Mark Warner has executive experience, he attracts core "Reagan democrats" and he has done very well with female voters.
But hey, I can even stomach (awaits slings and arrows) a possible Hillary choice. Andrew Sullivan, who loathes the Clinton's, has made an interesting argument for this possibility that shouldn't be dismissed.
In the end, I'm confident Obama will make the right choice for his campaign and the democratic party. I'm so excited!
May 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was pushing that Sullivan unity ticket article but am now completely off it. How can Hillary ever campaign for Obama after all the shit she's said. It's just not possible. To appease the Hillary crowd, Obama would pick a big Hillary supporter as VP, but the Clinton era is over.
May 7, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton doesn't "need" to "catch up" to Obama. She simply needs to PREVENT HIM from getting the number of delegates that the Democratic Party set up in their rules. If you don't like the rules, find another party.
If you do accept the rules, that means accepting the process through time. And the process over time has already dramatically changed the degree of racial alignment of white voters from the results in Wisconsin.
Logically, the person with more pledged delegates and more popular votes would get the nomination.
But everyone has seen how the polls gyrated with Reverend Wright recently. Had that happened earlier, Hillary Clinton would be in the lead.
And then, there is the public airing of "words, just words" pronounced by Obama for San Francisco donors or to a black church congregation. Get someone as skillful at mass manipulation as Rove or Axelrod to dose that skillfully out to the media, and the
whole thing changes again.
The super delegates are free as the wind. They can drop Obama as quickly as they endorsed him.
May 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will get 2025. Just wait...
May 7, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
denial ain't just a river in egypt.....
May 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vaughn, you may have had a point if Hillary lost NC by low single digits, and had a double digit win in IN. Demographically, IN is not too different from Ohio and PA, yet Clinton lost support in IN from those core supporters she had won so handily in PA and OH. Even after the reemergence of Wright a week and a half before the primaries, and even after Hillary transforming into one of the best campaigners I've seen in my life, she still managed to under perform. She is losing for the very same reasons you cite, ironically, as why there's still a chance for her with superdelegates: electability. Hillary is widely seen as untrustworthy and dishonest. As someone who will do and say anything to win. Hell, even many of her supporters concede these points. Her negatives are sky high, and Obama's are still relatively low, again, even after the slime machine directed at him by his past associations.
I will say I admire your hope. Or better yet, faith. As in "evidence of things unseen". Hillary's campaign is purely faith-based at this point. It certainly isn't rational, as Maddow would say, it's "post-rational". Hillary ran the wrong campaign at the wrong time, but even now that she's running the right campaign, it's too late. It's over.
May 7, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Hillary loaned her campaign another $6.4 mil last month (and Wolfson doesn't discount more loans), it doesn't sound like she is going away just yet. But how does she plan on paying off all her debt? The red ink must be overflowing by now. Who in their right mind would continue ponying up more donations to her? Her supporters might be dedicated, but that would be insanity. It is all unraveling for her.
May 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hearing that plans are in the works for Obama to help pay off her debt in turn for bowing out gracefully. We'll see.
May 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone seen Weaver or gotalife this morning? I'm worried...
May 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not expect to see them because one acnnot troll people who are not scared.
May 7, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There probably on Red State, where they make their home.
May 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear wifi internet connections are sketchy under bridges, where trolls hide during the day. I suspect they will reemerge when the sun sets.
May 7, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to go check out his resumé. This guy has some serious experience. I think the thing that most people aren't aware of is how much foreign relations experience he has.
He would make an awesome VP. His manner of honoring everybody's dignity and displays of wise, independent thought are very compatible with Obama. I think they'd make a great team.
May 7, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good discussions today, everybody! My ten cents on the matter.....
May 20 seems like a good time to drop out, everyone ends on a high note. The same could be said for last night but I don't see it happening.
Anyways, while I'm not against a unity ticket, I don't see it being the best choice. I say this as someone who voted for Hillary, but is now an Obama fan. Someone from the Hillary camp or someone that fits her demographic (women, working class) works.
Personally, I'm rooting for Richardson or Feingold. I don't know much about Webb. I like Clark. Sebelius is also a bit of an unknown, though I liked her speech after the state of the union. Rendell was an interesting name thrown out there.
Personally, my fav is Richardson, with Feingold so close (being a WI native, though I do think we have to leave him in the senate to keep up the fight there). I think if two minority candidates won, and I think they have a good chance at that, that would revolutionize our country in so many positive ways in regards to race, etc. If you want to talk about unity, you might as well go for broke and have Richardson for VP.
I'm sure whoever Obama chooses will be a well thought out choice. My opinions- not so much, but I thought I'd throw them out there anyways.
May 7, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Which Hillary endorser (besides Hillary herself) would you consider for Obama's VP?
Please not Evan Bayh (just can't stand him for some reason). Anyways, please continue...
May 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clark would have to be my #1 pick out of all Hillary's biggest supporters.
May 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big Clinton endorsers:
Wesley Clark
John Murtha
Gov. Vilsack
Gov. Corzine
Gov. Strickland
Gov. Rendell
Gov. Easley
Bob Kerrey
Dick Gephardt
Um, any big ones I'm missing, so far as being viable for Obama's VP?
Clark looks the best to me.
May 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is right on plan.
Can't win in 2008 so she is making sure that Obama is unelectable so she can come back in 2012 with "I told you I was a better candidate"
May 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance.
I believe Bill's legacy is more important than being forever seen as a pariah in the party.
They will not *publicly* do any such thing (what they think in their heart of hearts is a different matter).
I do think (shudder) that Pat Buchanan was right last night. The key to November is Obama actively involving the Clintons in his campaign, especially Bill. Obama wins the nomination and Bill is seen to heal the damage done to his legacy during the primaries having been a LARGE part of healing the party.
May 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as VP picks, I'm most cold on Richardson and Rendell. Richardson doesn't come off well on the stump or in interviews. He may have experience, but he has the charisma of a pickle.
We've also seen that Rendell has a hard time staying on message and keeping his mouth shut. And has anyone seen that lovely video on Youtube where Rendell is praising Farrakhan? Rendell is not the man to put on the ticket with Obama! Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
May 7, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even you could beat John McCain.
May 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even you could beat John McCain.
May 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I think a lot of people don't fully understand how weak a candidate McCain is. I think either Obama or Clinton would crush him in the fall. I'm just glad it'll be Obama who gets to do it.
May 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree HyperRevue. You could put a donkey in a three-piece suit and run it against McCain and win. That's why Hillary is contesting this as hard as she is. This isn't so much about her so-called belief that she is the better candidate against McCain as the intuition that whomever the democrat is will win in November. And let's face it, she wants to be that democrat.
May 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ferraro for VP! just kidding.....
May 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay if you want to go with this asinine argument that he was a member of this church for 20 years please do your research. As a state then US senator he COULD not attend this church very much but only when he was home in Chicago.
So if the members of any religion is the same as their spritual leader does that make Hillary a child molester? Does it mean ALL Catholic men are pedophiles? No it doesn't, each person is responsible for their own actions, there are numerous priests that hurt boys for DECADES with the knowledge of the Vatican but it does not mean all Catholic men are child molesters. Hillary's pastor is currently in jail, as of January 2008, for molesting a 7 yr old child in his home so using YOUR analogy Hillary is a "child molester".
But actually Hillary is not responsible for his actions just as Catholic men are not responsible for the priests Obama is not respoonsible for Wright actions nor his words.
Please kidnap a clue!!!!!
May 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kidnap your own clue. Hillary's pastor is not a child molester. Next you'll be telling me Barack is muslim! Let's stick to facts rather than lies and slander shall we?
May 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink