New Hillary Ad: "Some People Say Primary In South Dakota Doesn't Matter"
Hillary's up with two new ads in South Dakota -- positive spots, suggesting she continues to be more or less committed to an ad strategy that will end this on a gentle note.
There's this spot on the economy...
The Clinton camp also released a radio ad today that says that "some people say the presidential primary in South Dakota doesn't much matter."
But the spot doesn't mention Obama or target any pundits that have declared the race over, as other recent ads have.
No audio of the radio spot is yet available; the full script of it is after the jump.
'MATTERS":60 RADIO
Announcer: In Washington, some people say the presidential primary in South Dakota doesn't much matter. That your voice doesn't really count.
But you know what?
Tuesday, we can show 'em.
We can pick a President.
After all, just because South Dakota comes last in the primaries doesn't mean we shouldn't be heard loud and clear.
And we can pick the candidate who'll stand up for us.
Hillary Clinton.
She's tackling the national debt that George Bush is leaving us - nine trillion dollars - because she knows we've got to stop borrowing money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis. Hillary knows we've got to stop spending money we don't have so we can protect social security and get back to fiscal responsibility.
Hillary Clinton will turn this economy around. We've done it before. We can do it again.
Tuesday. Get out and vote. Let South Dakota be heard.
Stand up for Hillary Clinton. She'll always stand up for us.
Hillary Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton, candidate for President, and I approved this message.
"Some people say" - how very Faux of them.
May 27, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classic Bush/Republican argumentation- the invisible straw man.
May 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Karl Rove's "Talking Points 101": Always create a straw man, then beat the shit out him.
So weak.
May 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man this is getting sad
May 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Some People Say Primary In South Dakota Doesn't Matter" - I'm pretty sure the Clinton campaign will say this after she loses it.
May 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama must not cave to the Clintons' demands. The Democratic Party's Presidential nominee does not negotiate with terrorists.
May 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so fucking sick of Bill and Hillary's straw man bullshit.
NO ONE has said South Dakota doesn't matter.
May 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every Obamite on this blog has said it. Becuase every one of you has said it is over and Obama has already won.
Every Obama supporter has said S.D. doesn't matter.
May 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we're insulting South Dakotans by acknowledging the reality of the math?
May 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
why don't we all work on a rotating primary system or something then instead of whining about how s. dakota drew the short straw, then? I'm all for it.
I still don't think hillary would have won it, there's too much evidence to the contrary (too many mercenary campaign staffers instead of devoted folks, Mark Penn being allowed to open his mouth, etc etc).
May 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some think that South Dakota doesn't matter. In fact, some think that we should surrender to the terrorists, and allow them to regroup and strengthen so they can destroy South Dakota with a nucular device supplied by the same tyrants they wish to negotiate with...
I disagree with these people.
May 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
I nominate Lamont, King of the Wits.
May 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi all. Just a note:
Gallup: Clinton leads McCain and Obama
May 26, 2008 · No Comments
Clinton leads McCain 49-45.
McCain leads Obama 47-45.
Rasmussen:
Clinton leads McCain by 3
McCain leads Obama by 2
Newsweek:
Clinton leads McCain 48-44
McCain and Obama tie 44-44
Categories: politics
Happy dreaming.
May 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry-pick much?
May 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caveat before you relish those poll numbers-
While the right (and Hillary) has been ripping Obama apart for three months, Hillary so far as the comfort of shielding herself behind the frontrunner. None of them have taken time to resurface Hillary's dubious dealing and associations from the past because no one thinks she's the democratic nominee.
May 27, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could post a bunch of favorable Obama polls to counter your chery picked ones....but instead I will simply say:
SCOREBOARD!
May 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
By looking at the poll numbers you present (and I'll assume that they are all accurate), what I see is that all three candidates are polling within a few points of each other, and most likely within the margin of error.
So, considering that we are still a few months out from the general election, this can reasonably be described as a three-way tie.
How do these numbers support the argument that Clinton is in such a significantly better position against McCain that it justifies ignoring the DNC rules and selecting her as the nominee?
Also, how can anyone read these polls and conclude that "Obama can't beat McCain". If he can withstand the problems he's had over the last couple of months and still be in a statistical tie against an opponent that has been largely out of the spotlight, then it would seem that he has a decent shot at winning.
Similarly, how does this demonstrate that Clinton is a sure thing? She's four points ahead of McCain in May? Woo-hoo! Crack open the champagne!
The truth is that nobody knows how this will play out over the next few months. Wasn't McCain in the crapper a few months ago, and wasn't Clinton the dead-on favorite? Remember - back before the voters turned her into the underdog?
May 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of the last seven thread topics, none of them have been about Senator Obama, but three of them have been about Senator Clinton, including the most recent two in a row.
Can any of you recommend some sites that are interested in helping Senator Obama win the general election?. Thanks in advance.
May 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liam
Try The Field by Al Giordano. No trolls or trollish reporters there.
May 27, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Amk.
I will check it out. I hope that we can find some more sites that are committed to helping Senator Obama win in November. I have become convinced that TPM is not one of those sites.
May 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam
I agree. My expectation of Ben Smith and TPM being progressive blogs have been belied, both by the blog reporters and by the trolls & shills and their feeders.
I also visit Poblano @fivethirtyeight for a non-BS, authentic poll data and analsysis. Ambinder is also good in patches.
May 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks from me too, amk. Bookmarked both sites.
May 27, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody said that Michigan and Florida votes wouldn't count.
umm... that would be Hillary
May 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people said that none of the primaries after Feb 5 would matter because Hillary would have it all wrapped up by then.
That would be...
...Hillary Clinton.
May 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton continues to appeal to the worst in all of us. Her message encourages her supporters to be in the attack mode and Obama supporters to attack back.
She and Bill have lost respect in the quarters you wouldn't believe or expect.
On one level there is the pleasure of witnessing their fall from grace, on another level I feel sorry.
It's Karma, I tell you. Karma at play
May 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no pleasure for me in realizing that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been right all along.
May 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, there is the pleasure of them free falling from the pedestal of entitlement and inevitabilty. Nothing pissed me of more than the idea my vote is taken for granted.
May 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, true. I guess there is some enjoyment in witnessing their fall. :)
May 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I feel far less sorry for Bill. He deserves his downfall.
May 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we get a thread about Bill's "cover-up" ravings from the weekend. Good lord. To think, if it weren't for Mark Penn and Bill, Hillary might have had a shot at this thing.
May 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that would be in order.
I'd sure like to talk to Bill face to face. I'd like for him to finally know that he caused us to be in the mess we're in now so he has a hell of a lot of nerve whining about mistreatment.
He started every bit of this by failing to keep his pants zipped up. That gave Newt Gingrich all he needed to impeach Bill, which was stupid, but there you go - they did and thus did all our problems begin.
May 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I wish people would point this out more often.
May 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that motion!
I've been waiting all day to point out that there is now officially a VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!
Bwwwwaaaahahahahahahahaha!
May 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really am sick and tired of her LIES.
Just like the one she told about Bill's wrapping up his 92 campaign in June - when proof tells us it was April.
May 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just read this on Huff Post:
To prepare for that eventuality, the Obama campaign has, for the first time, really, begun to bank delegates. Sources close to the campaign estimate that as many as three dozen Democratic superdelegates have privately pledged to announce their support for Obama on June 4 or 5. The campaign is determined that Obama not end the first week in June without securing the support of delegates numbering 2026 -- or 2210, as the case may be.
May 27, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome.
May 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only the clintons make that claim. Kind of strange when you think about it.
May 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary knows we've got to stop spending money we don't have "...
And yet every day her campaign debt gets larger and larger.
May 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha, hilarious.
May 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yoi're right. Only if voters are informed enough to note the irony and pandering.
May 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thought was, if she's concerned about spending money we don't have, the corporate tax giveaways aren't as big a problem as that ongoing clusterfuck over in Iraq...which she voted for. That's where a good bit of that money we're borrowing from China is going.
May 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!! I can't wait until she loses SD big, and then says "South Dakota doesn't matter because...." just like every other state she has lost and then shit all over.
She is such a transparent, pandering scumbag.
May 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ad.
Keep fighting all the way to the convention floor.
May 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get thee behind me, Rush.
May 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
glug, glug, drink that kool-aid down.....
would you like a cookie?
May 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm new here at TPM, but I get the feeling you are the village idiot. Zero substance, nothing intelligent to say...ever. I theorize that you are a shill who is paid with Monopoly money & bus tokens (judging by the quality of your posts).
If I am mistaken, I apologize.
May 27, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the real Gotalife - I encourage my troll to get with reality.
Unfortunately this weekend's comments made it clearer than ever, we're on dangerous ground, and it's time to unify as a party.
I can't help but feel like my troll has drunk the McSame kool aid.
May 27, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will be no unity troll.
As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised to see the supers give it to Clinton on the floor because they know Obama will lose the general.
May 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be prepared to be very surprised then.
May 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing will surprise me in this circus they call an election.
It has been one silly cycle.
May 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
nomination, not election yet.
May 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get smart gotalife troll - being the troll of a troll does not make you normal.
You are total McSame Kool aid crap, and determined to ruin the democratic party.
So sad. Too much free time on your hands?
May 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will be no unity troll.
A challenge has been made. There are lots of trolls out there, dreaming of one day being a mega-troll like Gottalie. Looking for the opportunity to carve out a niche for your own trollishness.
Won't one of you step up, and take on the mantle of "Unity Troll"?
Gottalie says it can't happen. He says you can't do it. He says there will be no "unity troll." Prove him wrong. Be the unity troll.
May 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some would say your continued campaign doesn't matter, Senator Clinton.
Worse, it's irrelevant.
May 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
im not sure sen clinton is the best voice to preach fiscal responsibility at this point..
May 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems are spending like the rubber stamp gop.
Ever watch C-Span?
May 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot meet kettle.
May 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the real Gotalife - I can assure you - the only one who has been drinking the sugary cool aid by the gallon is yours truly.
Let's try to steer away from troll sabotage and try to unite as democrats.
My troll might not be aware of it, but Obama cited Lincoln's cabinet picks as a role model - meaning he would gladly include rivals in his administration. Compare that with some of the more unfortunate comments made by Clinton, and tell me who's acting more presidental.
And oh yes - BS troll cool aid crap.
Feel free to ignore my gotalife troll - I am the one and only.
May 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same bunch of morons who cliamed 12 primaries between the super tuesday and TX/OH don't matter. While Hilary cannot tell you who says SD "doesn't matter," Wolfson, Terry and Penn and Bill are on the record saying those primaries don't matter.
Karma at play, again.
By the way Tootsie was one of my all time favorite films and very sad by the death of Pollack.
May 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, totally agree about Tootsie and Pollack.
So many great lines he had in that movie:
"You were a tomato!!"
"I begged you to get some help!"
May 27, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some think that South Dakota doesn't matter. In fact, some think that we should not allow South Dakota to have a birthday party this year, or to get fun presents, like the Dora The Explorer bicycle that South Dakota saw at Toys R Us and said that it wanted...
I respectfully disagree.
May 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say "G'night," Hillary.
It's you that doesn't matter.
May 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every Obamite on this blog has said that S.D. doesn't matter. Because every one of them has said it is already over and Obama has already won.
Every Obama supporter has said S.D. doesn't matter.
Clinton knows better.
May 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry you've to send a message of hatred and rift via your avatar. When your primary intent is hatred and hurt- period. And then there are your comments which include blow jobs and ass holes. I've met some rational and decent Hillary supporters on this site- but you're no one.
Every one knows delegates are proportionally awarded and even if Hillary wins SD (though unlikely) delegate distribtion will do little to change the math. Which is very different from saying it doesn't matter.
But you've no interest in a raional discussion, but I did it anyway.
May 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for agreeing with my point.
May 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," - Hillary Clinton, Novemebr 26, 2007
May 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apolitical and a hack until the end, that's Registered Self-Abuser....er, User.....
May 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, if there ever was an inaccurate overgeneralization in this campaign, that was it. I think what most Obama supporters have said is that pledged delegates should be paid attention to, and that we should count the delegates according to the rules.
May 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some think that South Dakota doesn't matter. They think that Marsha is more popular. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha! They go on and on about Marsha's beautiful blonde hair, or about how Marsha always does the best cheers, or has the most boys ask her to prom. Well, it's not fair! Why does Marsha always have to be class president every single year? Has anyone ever thought that South Dakota would like to run for class president this year?
I have.
I am Hillary Clinton, and I approve of this message.
May 27, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some people say that it's time for you to get the hell out of the primary and quit fucking everything up, Hillary,
And I believe more people are saying that that anything at all about the Dakotas.
May 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton knows better.
Posted by Registered User
So, then why is she, (and this is the actual reality here on Planet Earth), LOSING? Actually, judging by her campaign and how she managed it, What the hell did she know?
May 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, all the BS here from the trolls about lack of democracy is just that, BS. We are no longer ruled by the King of England and one's name no longer decrees that you are the ruler of the country. The people *have* spoken, after all.
You'd think the trolls would appreciate that -- but their repetition of this "we was robbed" crap just shows they are *GOP* trolls, just out to piss off Clinton supporters enough that they'll vote for McCain.
I say we ignore them.
May 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton leads in the popular vote.
Yet Obama leads in the current delegate count.
There appears to be a disconnect between the will of the people and the tortured nomination "process".
The disconnect is due to Dean and his ilk. They have completely fucked this up. They need to resign immediately.
May 27, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you'd like to count FL and MI for Hillary and not count caucses. I'll ask you one fair question and give me one fair answer before you claim the popular vote for Hillary.
About 250,000 voters (45%) choose not to vote for the only person on the ballot. It was clealy "no Hillary" vote. How do you calculate them? do they not matter? Should you substract them from Hillary's 320,000 votes Hillary got on the ballot?
Don't give me- "it's Obama's fault" easy dismissive answer. Because, I'm not arguing "it's the rules." Because if you calculate every vote from every caucus and every primary barring MI, Hillary still trails Obama by 160,000 votes. If you add MI, it's leads by 1,60,000 votes because Obama gets zero votes from MI.
Try to argue on merits. Please.
May 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How do you calculate them? "
The same way you do in locations that allow none of the above. They go to no one.
Obama and Edwards chose not to put their names on the ballot.
I'm sure he'd like to turn back the clock on that one. Tough luck. Bad judgement.
May 27, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad judgement like following the rules instead of breaking them like Clinton did?
So you equate cheating with good judgement? You think violating rules, laws, etc. is a good quality we should have in the POTUS?
May 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary would like to turn back the clock on her disaster of a campaign, no?
May 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was clealy "no Hillary" vote."
And I'll add, in places that allow "none of the above", with 55% Clinton would be declared the winner.
May 27, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton only leads in the popular vote if you calculate by her standards, which few others share. If we want to talk about a disconnect, try cutting out the only measure of public sentiment that's valid in multiple states in order to arrive at your popular vote victory.
Obama leads in the Delegates because he blew Clinton out in multiple caucus states, and kept Hillary's primary victories low.
But if there is a disconnect by your logic, neither Obama nor Hillary are to blame. These were the rules of the game going in, and Hillary didn't start complaining about them until after she started losing, as Obama played by the rules to win.
May 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
*ignores GOP troll*
Here's another plug for the excellent New Yorker article debunking all the "Hill leads the popular vote* bullshit being promulgated by McCain supporters:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/06/02/080602taco_talk_hertzberg
May 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check:
Hillary Clinton is the one who said that she would have it wrapped up after Super Tuesday; Feb. 5th. 2008.
She said so in an interview with Katie Couric on Nov. 26th. 2007. That means that she was saying that none of the states, after Super Tuesday mattered.
Here is the link: and an extract of what she said to Ms. Couric.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/eveningnews/main3540666.shtml
She’s the woman on everyone’s mind right now. But polls in Iowa are showing the race could shape up to be very close. Couric asked Clinton if she’s lowering her expectations as the primary approaches.
“I never raised them, you know when I got into race at the beginning of the year. I wasn't even in double-digits. I was so far behind in Iowa, it was embarrassing,” Clinton said.
Her campaign instead is “encouraged” she said, because “we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race.”
"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," she said.
May 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a stupid waste of time to bring facts into it. Hillbots don't care about facts.
Thanks, though. I'm copying that comment for future pasting.
May 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
May 27, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How do you calculate them? "
The same way you do in locations that allow none of the above. They go to no one.
Obama and Edwards chose not to put their names on the ballot.
I'm sure he'd like to turn back the clock on that one. Tough luck. Bad judgement.
May 27, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
problem is you cannot processs anything more complex than binary yes or no. Hillary signed and agreed and clearly maintained for a long time until loosing- "MI" doesn't matter.
"Rules are rules, you said you'll abide...Tough luck..."
Reality is much sober and rational. They'll seat FL the way it's spread. Making a deal for Edwards delegates to be seated for Obama because of the endorsement. MI will be 55-45 for Hillary because that's a reasonable assumption favoring Hillary.
But you don't deal the facts well, smear well you relish.
May 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rules did not prevent Obama from having his name on the ballot. That is a fact.
And it would be improper to award Edwards delegates to Obama at this point. At the convention they can vote however they want. Right now they filled out a pledge to vote for Edwards. That's where they stay.
Besides, we were talking about the popular vote and you morphed it into a delegate discussion.
Again, Clinton leads in the popular vote when all states are included. That is a fact.
May 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think "fact" means what you think it means.
May 27, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said they should declare Hillary the winner and that's my point exactly, not by 55% but 10% margin. The reason why I brought the delegate discussion back is because popular vote measurement is too many caveats that can favor on or the other candidate.
I don't think Hillary should be penalized for being on the ballot and Obama should be penalized for not having his name on the ballot. Hence 55-45 spread a very reasonable result in Hillary's favor.
I'm at least glad we had a decent argument and we agree to disagree. Now if you change your avatar which clearly discredits your arguments as a "troll." I'm sure you are only a outside supporter as I'm and we don't have to appeal offesively all the time.
May 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said many times before that dlegate wise they should award the bulk of the "uncommitted"s to Obama. And my understanding is that have already chosen delegates for those votes and that they are at least 95% Obama supporters.
I've also said before that I've tried to change my avatar and get an error message every time.
May 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except of course if you include Washington, Iowa, Idaho, Colorado...
May 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
With all states included Hillary is ahead. It is the last permutation.
May 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama receiving zero votes in MI.
Somewhere in hell Stalin is blushing.
May 27, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards' Delegates in SC, NH, and IA have been released and many have already repledged to Obama. Why would the ones from Florida (or Michigan even if you assume he got some of the uncommited vote) be obligated in a different way?
May 27, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a link to that information?
May 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, his signed pledge did.
Whereas Hillary's signed pledge didn't stop Hillary from doing just what she wanted to do.
May 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, Registered User - it's like this -
Hillary and Obama both signed pledges that they wouldn't put their names on the ballots or campaign in those states.
Then Hillary broke her word.
And Obama didn't.
May 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Sweetie. Nothing in the language said to not appear on the ballot. Remember, these are mostly lawyers. That specific language would have been simple and clear. It was not there.
Your Harvard grad should have been able to figure that one out. But he used bad judgment.
May 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They pledged not to "campaign or participate in" the primary.
Keeping your name on the ballot constitutes "participating" in the primary, if you ask me.
What does "participate" mean to you?
May 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point. Lawyers using ambiguous language. All they had to do was specifically state that they agree to not appear on the ballot.
But they didn't, did they?
May 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the language is quite clear. Campaigning means campaigning. Participate means participate. And keeping your name on the ballot is participating.
What's your definition?
May 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you would be wrong.
It is ambiguous.
Why don't you ask Dean and his ilk why that is.
Face it, if it was their intent to keep them off the ballot simple language in the agreement could have done that. If you think that was their intent, they fucked up and should be removed.
I think they botched the entire process and in fact the FL and MI should not be penalized, it is Dean and his ilk that should be.
May 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think it's ambiguous, please offer a secondary interpretation of "participate" in the context of that pledge.
I've asked three times now. It should be easy to do if it's so ambiguous.
May 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello?
May 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many people signed up to this blog that do not post. Their names (usernames) are active and on the list.
Are they participating in this blog?
May 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A blog is not a primary contest. I said "context of that pledge."
Here is the pledge: I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008
Now, please offer a secondary interpretation of "participate" in the context of that pledge.
May 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
gave you a second definition with a reasonable analogy and now you're busy spinning and parsing.
You have made my point for me. The meaning is totally ambigouous when there was very specific lawyerly language that could have said don't appear on the ballot.
Dean and Obama fucked up, not the states or Clinton.
May 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did not give me a second interpretation in the context of a primary contest. A blog is not primary contest. The analogy is bullshit.
But the truth is now crystal clear: you can't offer another interpretation of "participate" in that pledge. The pledge is not ambiguous. Clinton broke the pledge and you’re full of shit. But that last point was already obvious.
May 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pity you can't admit when you're wrong.
Obamic elitism from flyover country on full display.
May 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, pathetic.
A simple question and you're lost. Just like Hillary.
May 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes or no?
Unambiguously, yes or no?
Hello?
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll answer your question just as soon as I get an answer out of you.
One more time: please offer a secondary interpretation of "participate" in the context of that pledge.
May 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did and you won't say yes or no.
Why not?
It's simple, yes or no? Are those users participating in this blog?
May 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You did not.
Let me try and rephrase for you:
In terms of an election, what does "participation" mean to you?
May 27, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello?
May 27, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response is above. A little impatient?
May 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer my question. I've asked you several times now.
May 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said I would just as soon as I get one from you. I asked first.
May 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I require is a yes or no. Pretty simple. No definitions, no spin, no parsing, no semantics.
Just yes or no.
May 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll happily give you that, as soon as you answer my question. Fair is fair.
May 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did. You just can't accept that you're wrong and have been shown to be a fool.
It's OK.
May 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saying you did doesn't make it true. Just like saying Hillary will win doesn't make it true. Both are false.
May 27, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool.
We're
down
to
one
word
lines.
How
perfect.
Yes
or
no?
May 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not there yet.
May 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Success!
May 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Success!
May 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha!
May 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And while you're all up in arms about disenfranchisement. What about those people who took the DNC at their word and stayed home? Do you not care about their voices?
As a Florida voter succinctly wrote to Andrew Sullivan
May 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'll stipulate that one person stayed home.
Let's give that vote to Obama.
Happy?
May 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a start. Do you believe she is the only one who stayed home?
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read reports that people were asked to vote uncommitted even if they supported someone on eh ballot as a protest. That means some of those uncommitteds are likely Clinton votes.
'Kay?
May 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Some uncommitteds are for Clinton. Some of Clinton votes are for Edwards or Obama. And some people just stayed home altogether.
And you think these can be counted fairly?
May 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say some people stayed home except for that one.
How was the turnout? Is there any hard, statistical evidence that people stayed home?
Were there other issues and elections on the ballot? If there were then no one stayed home. That is just a canard perpetrated by frustrated Obamites who now see that Clinton not only has a case but is essentially going to pull even to the arrogant Magic Obama by the convention.
May 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you believe that that woman above is the only one who stayed home? I guess you're entitled to your opinion, as lacking in intelligence and logic as it is.
May 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And since you asked about turnout - it was low.
From Andrew Sullivan:
I compared the number of persons who cast ballots this year in each of the other top ten States to the number of persons who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. In every single State where both candidates campaigned -- meaning every State but New York, which Obama ceded to Hillary and Illinois, which Hillary ceded to Obama -- the turnout was at least 75% of the Kerry vote. (CA: 75%; TX: 103%; PA: 79%; OH: 85%; NC: 107%; GA: 79%; as for IL and NY, IL: 70%; NY: 44%).
In contrast, in Michigan, the percentage was a paltry 24% and in Florida the percentage was 44%.
May 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"which Obama ceded to Hillary and Illinois, which Hillary ceded to Obama"
Well there is your explanation. As has been said by others, Obama intentionally did not have his name on the ballot because he knew he would lose big time and this was his way of denying that. This was essentially ceding MI to Clinton in the hopes that she couldn't actually claim victory. Turns out he wasn't so clever. Bad judgment on his part.
Thanks for clearing that up.
May 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was talking about New York, not Michigan. Those are different states.
May 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the kind of sourcing they accept at your dog-trainer to confirm the veracity of a story?
If so, that is just sad.
May 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can refute it with provable facts, be my guest.
May 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest I don't believe she actually stayed home, I think she is just throwing up a straw man. But I agreed just to show how ridiculous that kind of anecdotal evidence is.
May 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what the rules prevented or didn't prevent, but the DNC did get promises from all involved concerning those primaries.
As for the impropriety of delegates going to Obama, I'm under the impression that when a candidate releases those delegates, they can go to whoever they please. Edwards, in line with his endorsement of Obama, has released his delegates.
As for popular vote? I believe I have already told you that your measure of it leaves out many of the voters out there. If you exclude caucus states, and you do, then your popular vote count is meaningless, because it only represents select states, not the overall masses of people who voted for Obama over Clinton.
What you have is not a fact, but a claim, and a specious one at that. You have to twist the facts in any number of arbitrary and peculiar ways to make your case.
And that kind of case, supported with that kind of logic is no case at all.
May 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check:
Hillary Clinton is the one who said that she would have it wrapped up after Super Tuesday; Feb. 5th. 2008.
She said so in an interview with Katie Couric on Nov. 26th. 2007. That means that she was saying that none of the states, after Super Tuesday mattered.
Here is the link: and an extract of what she said to Ms. Couric.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/eveningnews/main3540666.shtml
She’s the woman on everyone’s mind right now. But polls in Iowa are showing the race could shape up to be very close. Couric asked Clinton if she’s lowering her expectations as the primary approaches.
“I never raised them, you know when I got into race at the beginning of the year. I wasn't even in double-digits. I was so far behind in Iowa, it was embarrassing,” Clinton said.
Her campaign instead is “encouraged” she said, because “we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race.”
"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," she said.
May 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
if we can"t forgive HRC again, how can we forgive Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table?
May 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell me how those two things are related at all?
You can't impeach a president if you don't have the votes. We haven't had the votes. We have Lieberman in the senate.
May 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look in the mirror lately, Hillary?
She is the only candidate who has said that certain states don't matter.
And after the South Dakota primary, she'll be arguing it doesn't matter either. Only West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico does.
May 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
DO not does. D'oh!
May 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will care about it until she finds out she lost there.
May 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Some People Say Primary In South Dakota Doesn't Matter"
This headline brought to you by:
"Some of the people who say SD doesn't matter"
I'm a democrat, I voted for Obama but I didn't drink the koolaide. Let's just let the people vote and I'm confident Hillary will go away after June 3rd. I also don't happen to be a Hillary hater. The venom and the inflamed rhetoric among my fellow democrats is almost as disturbing to me as anything Mr. Bush says or does. It does not give me hope, it diminishes any hope I have in the political process.
PLEASE give the hate a rest and have some patience and some grace.
May 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, why is it that anger, resentment, wishing the loser would shut up now and quit equates to Hillary Hate?
How come being zealous supporters of the other candidate automatically means we're mistreating Hillary?
I get really tired of this - I don't care who you support.
May 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was exactly how I felt a week or two ago.
But after her Zimbabwe comments last week and then her contemptible RFK remark, no. She's not going gracefully, she's going out with a scorched earth strategy on behalf of a campaign that cannot win, and she's taking her legacy down with her.
When Rahm Emanuel said, "whether the winner wins depends on how the loser loses," he was right on the money. Too bad Hillary isn't following his advice.
May 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was undone not by an incompetent staff, but by her own arrogance, which preceded her like a whiff of napalm and is following her out the door now as a cloud of methane. And given that is she now twisting the truth to turn Florida and Michigan into a mirror of Florida 2000, she clearly hopes her gassy exit will ruin the Dem chances in Nov.
Nixon isn't dead; he's just wearing a pantsuit.
May 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the end of the day, I like my arguments simple and elegant. All things being equal, I prefer arguments with their ducks in a row on the facts and the inferences.
I much prefer leaders and politicians who get their ducks in a row as such.
Hillary does not have her ducks in a row, and has had them that way for a long time. Her delegate and popular vote math ignores large numbers of states and large numbers of people for the convenience of her conclusions.
When that is all the reason you have to remain, your campaign has jumped the shark, and it would be better for all involved for you to leave the campaign. Hillary is wearing people's patience thin, even among her own supporters, and Democrats are itching to get past this primary.
Worst of all, she's draining our energy and our morale at this point. The spectre of an interparty fight going all the way through this summer may be a relished one for Hillary the fighter, but it's terrible thing to have the party go for so long with the likely result still likely, and the conclusion forgone. We need to be unified, and she seems intent on keeping us anything but until the end.
Why should I like Hillary at this point? She's gotten more than her fair shot at this point. She's had deference given to her out the ying-yang. What more could we do for her to satisfy her notion of fairness, and still be fair to the voters who voted their will in the caucuses, to the candidates who followed the rules regarding Florida and Michigan and kept their pledges, who, regardless of their ethnicity, age, or economic class, voted for the candidate of their choice to the point that Obama got more delegates? At what point does following what she considers fair become unfair to the rest of the party? A balance must be sought.
And she's doing everything she can to upset that process, to de-legitimize it, to create her own cult of true believers who disregard the common rules of the party in favor of their candidate.
May 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said this before and even today I think I talked about it elsewhere -
when I caucused for Obama, there was no acrimony between the people who were there for Hillary Clinton and those there for Obama. I came in with a Clinton supporter and sat with her while we waited for the caucus to start. We talked about all the people who had turned out. She said: "I'm here for Hillary, but I can't avoid the fact that Obama has generated this excitement." I responded the way I felt then:
"Hey, it's a win-win - we're getting an historical Democratic administration regardless."
I felt that way until Hillary started losing and started campaigning just like a Republican. UP to and including someone attempting to sabotage our conventions by sending out false information about them. Then came Pennsylvania - and her ridiculous smears and stunts and that truly horrific excuse for a debate.
And then I got madder than hell and I've gotten angrier with every outrageous lie she's told, every slam at Obama, every single attempt to turn this whole thing into a race war - which Bill has helped along and then cried when he got caught -
I'm really sick of both of them. They are just poisonous. I spent years defending both of them - mostly Bill. Years.
And this is what I get back? After he all but ruined us in the first place by not keeping his penis in his pants? Jesus - how can I be expected not to resent all of this?
May 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "I spent years defending both of them - mostly Bill. Years."
Me too. The Monica thing turned my extended family into the Hatfields and McCoys, divisive doesn't begin to cover it.
Despite my misgivings about Hillary, I kept an open mind about her candidacy, watched the debates and was on the verge of supporting her last fall. While her support for Kyle-Lieberman was the tipping point against her, I still thought that she would make a good president and would be a fairly good representative of Dem party values, on the whole.
Once she started to lose, she really lost me. It's a little scary how someone, so close to becoming president, can seem so together on the surface and yet underneath, have all of these interior demons.
May 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it is. And it's been rather sad as well as unpleasant, watching her unleash them.
May 27, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX
I'm not asking you to care for who I support. Obviously you are angry and bitter, and I'm sick of that. Why should we pull the plug on the election just because you're tired of Hillary? I don't think so. Why can't you be patient for SEVEN days more and let this thing play out without all the acrimony?
May 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4
About 1 min 19 seconds into this video, you will see Michelle Obama talking about Obama's possible assassination.
Before that, Ted Kennedy spoke of it.
Yet they continue to try to blow up Hillary's words out-of-context, when she wasn't even making a point about assassination.
Just one more example of Obama and his people's HYPOCRISY.
Why are they so desperate that they have to continue to blow this up on shows like the Obama home network: MSNBC. I hear Olbermann went off in some crazed rant about it.
May 27, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink