And what happened to the question mark at the end of the first sentence? :)

Posted at April 7, 2008 12:21 PM in response to Witness for The Prosecution

worker bee and bevd

I'm taking a deep breath. The reason many Obama supporters are having this "problem" is because Hillary Clinton is running a Karl Rove type campaign. You don't agree. Well, we think you're wrong. Her tactics have just been shameless (and shameful). If she is the nominee (and I can't see how she will be) then how can I bring myself to bring myself to vote for someone I have absolutely no respect for. Her actions in the last two months or so have been an embarrassment to our party, an embarrassment to women and an embarrassment to our country.

She will do anything, no matter how underhanded and duplicitous, to win. She doesn't care about the future of the party, only about her own future. It's disgraceful and I for one want nothing to do with her. "Monster" is too polite a word for her. You should be ashamed to support such a nasty, nasty candidate.

Nice people come last they say. Well, I think that old saw is about to be proved wrong.

"These are the same people that cut in front of you in line, insist on special treatment on airplanes, are nightmares to drive near, and would go on the dole before they'd do honest work like flipping burgers or stocking shelves." No, that's the behavior of Clinton and her campaign. We're the hopeful, thoughtful, unselfish people who are concerned about others, not people who think that "whatever it takes to win" has any place in politics. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Disgraceful, just disgraceful...

Posted at March 8, 2008 9:11 AM in response to I am an Obama supporter who will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November

She sure spends a lot of time calling for people to be fired...

It's time to fight back against this monster, although in a nice, civilized, way! :) Let her use the guns; the good guys will win out in the end...

BO is a little like Jimmy Stewart from Destry Rides Again.

(From Wikipedia...) Destry believes in law and order, but not in guns. This is the paradox of the film. A casual observer might think he was a pacifist. But he does believe in using force, just not in violent shoot-outs..

Destry is actually the most forceful man in town. When the sheriff talks of quitting, because Destry refuses to challenge the bad guys with guns a-blazing, Destry grabs his shoulder and turns him around. "You're not going back to being the town drunk!" One man calls him "No Gun Destry", but he asks if he can heft the other's guns. He then shoots the knobs off a sign and angrily tells the much subdued gun owner, "The next time, I'll put you in jail..... No pacifist, Destry punches out Jack when he insultingly accuses him of accepting bribes from Kent."

Here endeth today's parable...

Posted at March 7, 2008 11:47 AM in response to Hillary Campaign Calls On Obama To Fire Adviser Who Called Hillary A "Monster"

And tomorrow the nation will still think that Clinton "won" Texas...

We're obsessed with the delegate count - it's all that matters in the end - and yet Clinton "wins" Texas when she gets less delegates than BO. Strange times indeed...

Posted at March 5, 2008 7:27 PM in response to About Those Texas Caucus "Results" ...

Texas is a combined primary/caucus.

The complete results aren't in - all we have so far are the results from the first part. How can we say that Clinton has "won" Texas if all of the results aren't through yet? Or are the delegates won in the caucus part not worth as much...?

I guess everyone loves the quick and easy story rather than waiting for things to pan out.

A couple of weeks ago, Todd and Russert said that to all intents and purposes, Hillary is toast unless she wins the delegate count in TX and OH (and PA) big time. (ie 20% or so.) We get caught up in the day to day swings that we forget that when the dust settles Clinton is still no closer to becoming the nominee than she was after the Potomac primaries.

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:38 AM in response to MSNBC: Last Night's Delegate Breakdown Shows Hillary's Gains Were Modest

another reader

I thought my rapier-like analysis was going to bring you to your knees...

Not sure I've proven your point. The question of electability I'm sure comes second to the main positive arguments that both "sides" hold. I brought it up in response to your argument that Bill takes away as much as he brings to Hillary. I still think a lot of people give her credit for what the "Clinton's" did back in the 90s. This is the first time that this scenario has ever happened and I don't think some people have thought it through.

I think Noah's right. It's a wash as far as experience goes. He's been an elected politician longer than she has; she's older and been around a little longer.

Now, as an Arlington, Virginia, effete middle aged guy who's 20 pounds overweight, it's time for my mid-afternoon skinny latte... (And yes, I've already voted..)

By the way, did anyone see Chuck Todd a little earlier? He's "nervous" that the polls in VA might be over-polling Obama because of the Bradley/Wilder effect. Wilder was governor 18 years ago! This is a different state now, with different demographics and a different candidate. I really hope his 'fears" are unfounded.

Posted at February 12, 2008 3:02 PM in response to Source: Hillary Adviser Harold Ickes Tells Surrogates To Refer To Super-Delegates As "Automatic Delegates"

another reader.

Hmm. It may well be the case in the general election that "some people vote against her because of what her husband did". That's why many Obama supporters think he's the best man to beat McCain. A lot of non-Democratic voters do not like Hillary or her husband.

In the Democratic primaries though the voters tend to be people who liked Bill Clinton. I don't think too many potential Hillary votes were lost because of Bill (although to be fair - must I...? - there probably are some who didn't like his behavior).

People are buying the whole 35 years experience nonsense which is kind of annoying. Tim Noah wrote about it in Slate - " Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards.—all lack lengthy records in government.

..Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud."

Now, judgement... That's a different story!

Posted at February 12, 2008 2:28 PM in response to Source: Hillary Adviser Harold Ickes Tells Surrogates To Refer To Super-Delegates As "Automatic Delegates"

frankly0 writes,

"Why do you think that Obama always wins big in caucuses and fails to do so in actual elections, unless he has a far disproportionate number of his core African-American support in the given state?"

I'm counting to ten to get my blood pressure back down...

So far Clinton and Obama have done well in their "home" states and the states contiguous to them. Obama wins Illinois, Iowa and Missouri. Clinton has won her new home state of NY as well as NJ, and MA. She won her old home state of Arkansas as well the contiguous states of Tennessee and Oklahoma.

Clinton did well in the SW. It seems like she got a large number of latinos, mainly because they liked what her husband did in the 90s. (Not what she did, but what her husband did...)

The home advantage effect might continue, as Texas and PA are next to her "home states". Who knows. And who knows what's going to happen in Ohio.

Obama, however, does well whenever he gets a chance to sell himself to the voters. That's what the Clinton camp are afraid of - he's got more time to do so now. By the time we get to the bigger states the Obama bandwagon might be too much for them to stop.

Trying to paint Democratic caucus goers as an effete bunch of upper middle class latte-sippers, who drive to the polling place in their Volvos, having left the maid to clean up after their rather tasty lunch, is just beyond a joke. (The maid would have come to the caucus too, but she has to stay behind and clean up...) This is not a good ploy by Clinton followers...

You can be sure that this would not be the view if Clinton had carried a few more caucus states.

(And I'm not going to even touch the "African American" thing...!)

I've got to stop reading these comments - they're making my head spin.

Posted at February 12, 2008 2:00 PM in response to Source: Hillary Adviser Harold Ickes Tells Surrogates To Refer To Super-Delegates As "Automatic Delegates"

This from Wikipedia's entry on "Orwellianism".

"The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority."

Having said that, Dave Thornton is right. If one candidate gets a good lead in pledged delegates the superdelegates will fall in line behind them.

Posted at February 12, 2008 12:49 PM in response to Source: Hillary Adviser Harold Ickes Tells Surrogates To Refer To Super-Delegates As "Automatic Delegates"

Those who criticize Obama as being all rhetoric and no substance are using the Rovian technique of attacking your opponent where he's strongest. Which is fair enough if you believe in Bush-style 51% hardball politics, but doesn't actually have anything to do with the truth...

"So, he's really eloquent and inspiring when he gives his speeches. Let's go after that and make it sound like he has no policies..!"

Of course he has policy proposals. But Clinton's modus operandi is, like the best student in class, to learn every single detail about every single issue. She doesn't do inspirational rhetoric - she does wonkishness.

I want a President who knows the issues. Bush didn't really care and had/has no intellectual curiosity. But there's a middle ground between knowing nothing and knowing every last minute detail about every issue. A President's role is not to be the wonk. Others can dot every i and cross every t.

Obama's a very smart guy. Being president of the Harvard Law Review is evidence of that. But people don't go to hear candidates at rallies give point by point run downs of their policy proposals. They go to be inspired. I'm 48 - I don't like the implication that if I'm inspired by Obama then I'm nothing better than a 15 year old cheerleader.

Ok, I'm off to vote in Arlington, VA. In this, "the most educated county" in the US, there will be thousands of smart people who will vote overwhelmingly for Obama - not because we've drunk the kool aid, but because we think he's the best candidate we have. The best combination of smarts and inspiration. If he doesn't win this county by 25-30% I'll be very surprised...

I'm fired up. And, heck, I'm ready to go...!

Posted at February 12, 2008 6:25 AM in response to Hillary: Obama Is So Friendly, He Won't Fight