Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide

By Big Tent Democrat

Chris Bowers writes:

Basically, after fourteen months of hashing out the differences between the candidates on virtually every other metric, with four weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, with no revotes in Florida and Michigan, and with less than 20% of the voting actually remaining, it seems that all we have left is a long argument about electability. That is a problem because, let's face it, long arguments about electability are really boring because they are ultimately unprovable and go nowhere.

I would go further. Whether Obama is the inevitable nominee is also unprovable now. We must wait for the voters (be they the voters in the upcoming primaries or the delegates) to decide. All we can do is bloviate about it. Thus, while I agree with Chris that:

Obama will slowly slog toward clinching the nomination sometime between May 20th and June 21st.

I also know that the fact that Chris, myself, Politico and NBC think it is meaningless. The voters have to decide. It is ridiculous that some insist that Clinton must accept our arguments on this.

What is funny about it all is that on the issues there is not a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama. The demonizing of Hillary Clinton by much of the Left blogosphere is simply absurd. As Atrios writes:

The distance between the two candidates on most issues isn't very large, so ultimately it comes down to making a decision based on very subjective judgments about largely unknowable things. I appreciate that many people have made their personal determinations and latched on strongly to a candidate. Personally I don't really feel like the knowns push me strongly to either candidate. The unknowns push me a bit towards Obama, but the unknowns are unknown and I don't believe I have some grand insight into them that others lack.

I agree with Atrios on these points. I ahve written on my concerns about Obama and for years on my concerns about Clinton. Neither candidate is all that in my view. I believe Obama will be the better candidate electorally but that is an opinion, not a fact. An unknowable as Atrios states.

< Endorsing Richardson's Statement On Ending The Dem Contest | Detroit Mayor Charged With Perjury and Obstruction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM EST
    just voted in a poll on one of the cable news sites.  Hillary is trampling Obama, the poll runs till Mar. 31, he's coming in at 37%.  Should she drop out? Heck no.

    Which one? (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    I'd be interested to know.  The networks tend to have the supporters of one candidate or another, not both.  For instance... a poll at MSNBC would have Obama beating Clinton.

    Welfare (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    Yes, welfare reform was horrible.  The welfare system before that was really ... what's that, Barack?

    A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

    Oh.  Well.  Nevermind.  


    Comparison between last and first primaries: (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Usually, if one candidate wins early primaries in a blowout, the other candidates are encouraged to drop out. This practice effectively disenfranchises the remaining states.
    Suppose Clinton wins all or most of the remaining states by large margins. Isn't this a much stronger argument for Obama to drop out than what happened in the early primaries? If the late voters break decisively for one candidate, there is no reason the supers can't consider that factor, regardless of delegate leads.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    and that's why the Obama Camp is using every tool in their arsenal to depict Hillary as a liar, even if they have to alter the facts.

    Most candidates don't have the resources (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    to stay in the race until the end to see what the later states have to say. I'm glad Clinton is able to do it.

    Addendum (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    Most candidates don't have the resources or support to stay in.  The fact that Clinton is still garnering so many votes speaks to how deep her support is and how many questions linger about Obama.

    For Obama supporters to dismiss her voters as just relying on "name recognition" and assume they'll come around is a grave miscalculation.  Why hasn't he been able to close the deal?  Why haven't her supporters fallen away?  Questions that are never asked on MSNBC.


    Yes Indeed (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    That is also the answer to the annoying 'party elders would have asked any other candidate to withdraw by now. Why should a Clinton get special treatment?' argumente I keep hearing from the Obama camp and Obamablogs and radio.

    party elders error (none / 0) (#107)
    by delandjim on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    Well, my opinion is that it is a mistake for the party elders to ask other candidates to withdraw. Look at the candidates that produces. For one thing they are not ready for the general and the early states in the past have not been representative of the country. I actually think it would be a good idea to have more swing states in the early states. Maybe Fl or Ohio.

    That's one side (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    The other side is that to an extent, the Democratic Party consciously took one for the black players on the team in 1964, when LBJ knew that passing the Civil Rights Act would lose the south to Dems for a generation.

    Another side is that if I voted my economic interests, I would have voted R for the last 30 years, but I never have. A lot of Democratic voters can say the same thing.

    But the ironic part is that in the end, at most the black community will be "taking one for the team" only symbolically. I don't see any reason to believe that Obama is the stronger candidate on black issues than Clinton. For example, is Obama advocating rescinding welfare reform? advocating a new Great Society program? going to abolish NAFTA (his economic advisor says not to worry)?

    Part of the "taking one for the team" idea is the (fantasy) assumption that somehow Obama is the new MLK and Clinton is somehow George Wallace or Lester Maddox. In fact if there's a difference on supporting issues that affect blacks, the advantage is probably with Clinton.

    But I should know better than to introduce reality into an anti-Clinton rant.

    That's not accurate (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    The massive wealth inequity in this country didn't start under Bush he simply accellerated something that started under Clinton.

    In fact, most evidence points to inequality becoming much worse during the '80s.  Please do not blame the Clintons for what Republicans did in your haste to promote Obama.


    Because (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    you know how it is and it's not subject to any discussion. Somehow I find that unconvincing.

    I don't doubt there will be some resentment - maybe a lot - in the black community if Clinton gets the nomination. It's part of the politics of divisiveness that Obama is pursuing and the media is encouraging.

    I also think it's a consideration that will weigh heavily on the minds of superdelegates if they end up deciding the nomination.

    But in the end, I don't think it's a moral issue, as you're trying to frame it - I think the common good takes priority over the interests of a single group when that group isn't being asked to surrender something substantive or disproportionate. And I think people can disagree on what the common good is.

    I can't even estimate what percentage of the black vote that kind of decision would cost the Democratic Party, but if the party decides for Clinton that will have to be dealt with. Could be minimal, could be huge.

    As to protesting - I don't think I am. I'm not even sure I'm disagreeing, but I am pretty sure that choosing the right course of action shouldn't be subject to extortion, whether from southerners in 1964 or some black voters now.


    You actally think the massive wealth (none / 0) (#135)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    inequality in ths country "started under Clinton?" That is absurd. It started in about 1607 at Jamestown. Quit trying to blame the Clintons for every problem in the world.

    The Race is Far From Over (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Richjo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    All those who claim that Clinton's chances of winning the nomination are remote have bought into a false premise that has been set forth by the Obama campaign and adopted by the Obama lovers in media. That being the idea that a lead (whether it be in pledeged delegates or the popular vote) somehow legitimizes one's claim to the nomination and delegitimizes the choice of any other candidate. This is both in blatant contradiction to the the letter and spirit of the rules of the process, and also sets a dangerous precedent that could wind up harming the party in the future. In our electoral system one secures victory not by having a lead, but by having a majority. Any lead that falls short of a majority of votes is in all likelyhood a lead that is not morally significant, especially if the race is only between 2 people. This can be seen in the electoral college system where the election of the President is sent to the House of Representatives if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes. In such a case the House would not be required to vote for the leader in electoral votes, but rather is free to exercise their own judgment. I wonder if Speaker Pelosi would be willing to go on record as saying that if such a circumstance should arrive that she would argue that the Democrats in the majority in the House would be required to vote for the Republican candidate? (In such a case if that Republican had a lead in electoral votes but was short of the 270 needed to win.) What if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote in November, but the Democrat wins the electoral college? Will Speaker Pelosi demand that the electors defect and give the election to the Republican to avoid overturning the will of the people? These would be diastrous outcomes, and Speaker Pelosi and the Obama campaign through their false arguments concerning the delegate count opened the door for the Democrats in the future to be forced to give power to the Republicans or be branded as hypocrites who twist the rules to obtain their preferred outcome. If Obama fails to obtain 2025 in pledged delegates then he must come out and state unequivocally that he will respect the rights of the superdelegates to vote for Clinton as they are fully entitled to do. If he attempts to delegitimize their autonomy and claims that his lead makes hin the only rightful candidate he will be attempting to steal the nomination pure and simple. The threats of backlash amongst his supporter were he to fail to be able to extort the superdelegates to give him the nomination is tanatamount to the type of mob rule that our system of government is deliberately structured to prevent. There is a reason why one is required to obtain a majority, not simply more votes than anyone else; and there is also a reason why when that fails to happen that ultimate decision is left to elected representatives to make of their own accord. If Obama cannot obtain a majority of delegates then he must accept that the nomination is not rightfully his and he must respectfully and modestly appeal to the superdelegates to choose him because of his merits, not because of threats of backlash and chaos. His false arguments and his attempts to run out the clock by perpetuating the lie that the race is over, as well as his obstruction of revotes in Florida and Michigan are affronts to the process and to the voters who participate in it. It represents nothing more than a power grab based on the threat of mob rule that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our system and the principles it is based upon. If he prevails this way it will be a travesty and will have serious consequences for the party in November and beyond.

    x (none / 0) (#127)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:49 PM EST
    Great post, Richjo! I'm glad there are a few left who can see the forest for the trees, who aren't willing to throw out all common sense simply because it helps their chosen candidate.

    Is it strictly Partisanship (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    With respect to partisanship to my candidate am I really supposed to consider it unknowable as to how Clinton will govern?

    That she is part of a team.  Has been a significant player on a team that has a record of success.

    I think I'm a really big supporter, probably prone to some wistful fits of irrationalism, and Obama might have this wonderful upside, but it's conceded that THAT is unknowable, a gamble.

    As I look across the room at my 2 year old daughter I ask myself "Am I really such an evil person for wanting the safer bet"?

    What things that are described as unknowable above I think is incomplete.

    There is another issue here that is never talked about on blogs, or in coffee houses, or the student union, as such, and is probably only ever talked about amongst family members over the dinner table.

    My conceit here is one thing is knowable.

    ultimately unprovable (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    they may be unprovable but polls are polls and to not consider polls with head to head matchups would be bad.
    the state by state head to head matchups should tell us a lot about electability.

    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    State by State head to head polls between candidates concerning the General Election taken in March, April, May, June, July, and August don't mean much. This is why I see everyone's current electoral math as equally bloviating. It's all still the great unknown.

    What is known thus far is GWB is a total drag on any GOP candidate, and barring a meltdown by either Clinton or Obama (listen alphabetically to insure against partisanship retribution), the DEM's should regain control of the White House in November.


    "should tell us" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    suggested a forward look assessment of the polls.
    we better be making some real decisions  by June or July.

    Should I take this as another opportunity (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    to bloviate? Why not?

    I think nominating either candidate will cause a major part of the Democratic coalition to feel left out. That means, as you've said before, that this needs to be a ticket if we hope to win. But placement on that ticket matters a great deal, and I'm just not sure how we sort that out.

    If this goes to the Super Delegates, and that seems almost certain, I think that Hillary will get the nod for the top. That will cause pain and anguish, but so too will a decision in the other direction.

    I fear that we'll be left with the Humpty Dumpty party at the end of the day.  

    I wish I was as optimistic (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    as you about the wisdom of the supers

    It Seems That Way Now (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    But when it is us against McBush the story will change. Wounds will heal fast with the Dem who lost the nomination leading the way. Still a joint ticket would be sweet.

    Just reading some of Krugman's columns (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    on the economy right now coupled with the knowledge that "More of the Same" McCain knows nothing about the economy and is relying on advisors who are part the problem ought to bring any Democrat, moderate or progressive (old fashion lefty) to their senses.

    No One (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    Wants to be told that they need to go on a diet, the Dems know this. We'll see how it plays out in the GE.

    Considering this:

    Last year, there was no question at all about the way Wall Street's financial contributions to the new Democratic majority in Congress helped preserve, at least for now, the tax loophole that lets hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

    Now, the securities and investment industry is pouring money into both Mr. Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's coffers. And these donors surely believe that they're buying something in return



    I wonder what the Dem line is going to be and if they will push the Economy as an issue at all. Silence in the face of impending doom may incline voters to equate good times (Clinton) with Dems and bad times (Bush) with Repubs. Bringing up tax increases, more regulation and belt tightening, aka a lower standard of living, is not what people want to hear.


    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    At least I thought Kerry would be a intelligent, experienced President. I was glad he choose Edwards. I could support those two even if I was not originally for them.  I thought that I could support Hillary and Obama after Edwards but this is not the case. Apparently I had not been paying attention to the the two candidates. I get the sinking feeling about Obama. Like the one when GW was running or when I was being called a traitor for not supporting the Iraq War. People did not want to listen. They saw the glory of it all. Both were big mistakes. I truely believe BHO is a mistake now but does have a eventual future. And McCain a mistake too. I won't vote for him. I am very close to that point that my voice, no matter how many say people matter, is really about making me feel I participated and gave it my all. And in the end, it means nothing. The die was already cast. And the DNC and open Primaries did the set up and the media did the rest.

    I'm not going (none / 0) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    to vote for him.  It has nothing to do with wounds healing.  I knew 6 months ago I would not vote for him.  I spent time on congress.org and did not like his voting record.  As time has passed, I don't like his character.  I find him to be someone who takes credit for other peoples work and is weak politically.  I don't find him to hold any strong positions that he would be committed to fighting for.  I got past feeling I had to vote for someone because the have a D after their name.  I don't hold my nose to vote for any one.  People are just not as elastic as they once were.

    What kind of SCOTUS nominees (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    do you think Obama would pick? Whenever I think I won't vote for him, that is what pulls me back off the cliff.  But if Roberts is his model, I'll have to rethink.

    No Way Robert's (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Is his model. There is no evidence that he or HRC would do anything but nominate those they thought were somewhat progressive. HRC's religious beliefs are at least as conservative as BHOs. She is a member of the Fellowship aka the Family.

    The distance between the two candidates on most issues isn't very large, so ultimately it comes down to making a decision based on very subjective judgments about largely unknowable things..

    IOW, at this point, comments like waldenpond's say much about waldenpond and zilch about the candidates.


    I think that is true (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    and I know what I would get from McCain, so I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Despite my support for Clinton, it is really not a hard decision for me, if McCain and Obama are my choices.

    A Mystery To Me (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    What these people think they are doing. I could understand if   there were a dime worth of difference between HRC and BHO as BTD likes to say, why some would not vote Dem, but since they are so similar, I just do not get it. It is almost like the little girl or boy that must have a certain toy and no replacement will do.

    I do not support (none / 0) (#111)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    Obama.  Never did.  It is not difficult for me to not vote for him in the slightest.  Your paranoia won't change other peoples votes.  People differ in what they view a candidate will bring to the office or how badly they would damage it when there.  I happen to believe Obama would be a disaster... on his own merits or lack thereof.  I can support Clinton on her own merits, if she doesn't get the nomination, I'm ok with that.  I voted for the person I wanted and I'm satisfied with my vote.  If more people pick someone else, I'm fine with that.  I will look for another candidate to vote for.

    The argument of taking toys home is ridiculous.  You come across as someone who kicks sand in other people's eyes, and chases them out of the park with a baseball bat.  You need to realize some of us have outgrown the playground and prefer a good book rather than agonizing over the success or failure of your chosen candidate.  Political change comes slowly and the world will not succeed or fail based on the election (or not) of Obama.


    Paranoia? (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Not sure what you are talking about. You are entitled to hold your breath until you turn blue if HRC doesn't get the nomination.

    Considering that just about everyone who is not addicted to kool aid has pointed that there is not a dime's worth of difference between HRC and BHO, to equate your threat of boycotting the Dem candidate if it is not HRC,  to that of a small child who only wants one particular doll and nothing else will ever do, seems perfectly apt.

    Makes no sense to me that a grown person would act that way, unless of course, in this case they were GOP to begin with.


    You seem to have difficulty (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    with reading comprehension.... I will, how do you choose to put it? not be holding my breath.  I see significant differences between the two.  One I would vote for, the other not.  I am not boycotting anyone.  What part of 'I decided 6 months ago I would not vote for him' do you not get?  I have no problem voting for someone else if I believe they would be a good leader or writing in one of the two I would feel would be a good leader (both of which were democrat).

    You seem to be stuck on your little kool-aid meme that you trot out anytime someone doesn't agree with you perspective on politics.  It makes no sense to me that a person who spouts off about kool-aid and toys (another meme you trot out when someone disagrees with you) would try to insinuate someone else's beliefs are less than adult.


    The real question is whether or not (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    you see a difference between the policies and appointments of either Democratic candidate and More of the Same McCain.

    Personally I think anyone who doesn't see significant differences between ther Democratic candidate and More of the Same McCain is looking with both eyes shut. But that is just my opinion. If you like the last 8 years roll the dice and don't vote if your preferred candidate isn't the nominee.

    But don't expect the rest of us to applaud you for you purity Ralph


    I wholeheartedly agree with you (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    It seems that some only want to vote for a D, whether or not that person would be a disaster for the nation.  From my own perspective, Obama is the equivalent of Bush from the left and I will not vote for him.

    No It Is Not About Only Voting D (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    At all costs. It is that there is nothing reasonable about voting for one of these nominees and not the other.They are almost identical in terms of policy, values and leadership qualities aka 100 % Mainstream dems. Refusing to vote for one can only based on emotion, gut as GWB puts it, or some perceived superficial difference that has nothing to do with their abilities and records.

    I believe there are large differences (none / 0) (#129)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    between Clinton and Obama.
    First and foremost, Obama is not nearly as knowledgeable about policy nor as experienced as Clinton. His record is paper thin.
    Beyond that, I believe Clinton demonstrates much stronger support of core Democratic principles than Obama, who is far too willing to say that businesses should be given a chance to regulate themselves, and other Republican nonsense

    The challenge (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lahdee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    then is to mitigate the damage a super delegate intervention may cause because without unity we appear weakened to both the corporate media, who IMHO will jump all over it, and the republican noise machine. We may like to think that the American public will not endure another 4 years of republican "leadership," but we have been wrong about that before (H.W for instance).

    Not in reference to you, but I do notice (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    the comments today are considerably longer, in general, than previously, as there is nothing to do but "bloviate" until PA primary.  

    So Are We Now Saying (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    that we're endorsing (at least somewhat implicitly) Donald Rumsfeld's famous pronouncement?
    [A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
    Many people mocked him at the time for saying this, but I always felt that in its very convoluted way, it was actually fairly insightful, especially the last sentence.

    He forgot unknown knowns (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    The ones we think we know but don't.

    To me (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    That was one of the wiser things that ever came out of Rummy's mouth.

    What he should have known (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:41:54 PM EST
    and I believe he did know that this war would be a disaster, one way or another!

    Cheney, coming soon, on (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    ABC, re 4000 U.S. deaths in Iraq:

    "The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."

    Wha it boils down to is NO chance (none / 0) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    with Obama, a good chance with Clinton. Why are the media pundits and supposed party leaders having so much trouble seeing what is obvious to the average voter. This Wright issue will kill an Obama general election campaign. He could win a few liberal states, but will lose:Penn,Ohio,Mo,Fla,Wis,Minn,Mich, W.Va,Iowa,New Hamp.,ect. Do the math state by state-there is no way he ges 270 w/o a miracle.

    And I like that Hillary is going to (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    fight all the way to the wire. Obama, on the other hand, wants a free trip to the finish line. He wants his competition to quit while she still has a chance so he doesn't have to keep on campaigning, with the risks of further exposure that entails. My main question to the "Clinton should quit" people is "What is Obama afraid of?"

    Whether there is or is not much of a difference (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    between the candidates depends on whether you believe what the candidate says, and whether there is anything to be divined from looking at the positions of the candidates' advisors, and I suppose this is where I have to make a choice as to which of these candidates I can trust.

    I think we've learned a lot about their style in the last 4 months.  I see Obama as coming to the table ready to give things up - it's why I initially was an Edwards supporter, because he was willing to define a line beyond which he didn't think we should be compromising.  I have no idea where that line is with Obama, and his comments about compromise do not reassure me.  I see Clinton as being somewhere in the middle between the two, which isn't as strong as I would like, but I do feel like she is strong enough not to give away the store.

    A couple of years ago, a friend of my daughter's interned in Hillary's Senate office.  Even though this young man identified as a Republican, he would tell me that there were several things that just blew him away.  One was her unlimited thirst for information and learning and knowledge - and an equally unlimited ability to process it, remember it and synthesize it into the big picture.  The other was her unflagging energy and ability to work and work and work - leaving people half her age or more in the dust.  

    Take that for the anecdotal information it is, but I've never forgotten what my daughter's friend told me, or his true admiration for her skills.  I see Hillary as someone who will not give up when things get difficult, who will not expect someone else to come in and save her at the last minute, who sees public service as a calling, not a stepping-stone to something "better."

    I may be way off base, but I see Obama as someone who gets bored easily, who will find it less than thrilling and gratifying to be in a position where he must govern and lead - and whose petulant attitude just leaves me cold.

    I think there are huge differences between these two candidates - and they become more apparent - at least to me - every day.


    No one's saying that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    isn't smart - I would go so far as to say that sometimes he's too smart for his own good.

    Obama's having trouble creating a "new" politics because he isn't a "new" politician - there is nothing in his background or resume that suggests he was ever particularly different.  He managed to build a platform on being "new," but the more we learn about him, the more it seems the foundation of his campaign is built on toothpicks, and hollow ones, at that.

    Political ambition is a funny thing.  The longer this goes on, the more I feel like Hillary wants to win for us, and Obama wants to win for him, and I think I may not be the only one who senses that - he's running a very egocentric campaign, in my opinion.  The more she fights for what we want, the less it matters whether we like her - and what Obama doesn't realize, I don't think, is that building a candidacy on little more than personality and the promise of "new" is a fragile thing indeed, and I think what we are seeing is just how soft his support is.


    Obama has to widen his appeal (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    because he doesn't do as well among actual Democrats.  Hillary doesn't have to "go after" women - she pretty much already has them.

    Look, the media began the "inevitable" and "front-runner" talk about Hillary in 2006 - they wanted her to be in their sights in the worst way.  Yes, she had the name recognition - not all of it good - and she had money - but once the race actually started, it was clear to me that the media was going to do whatever it took to boost Obama - they are still doing that, to the point where I expect to hear that CNN and MSNBC have sent a camera crew to watch him cut his toenails, while Clinton is giving a major speech on the economy or health care or Iraq.  If the media had treated Obama the way they treated Edwards and Biden and Dodd and Kucinich, there would be millions of people saying "Barack Who??" and we would not be having this conversation.

    Even with the media's help, and the fervid and scenery-chewing blog posts at places like DK and TPM and HuffPo - he still has not managed to put her away, she has begun to eat into some of his base; without the Republicans and independents being able to vote for him in closed primaries, he still will not have proved that he is the candidate who can win for the Democrats in November.

    Time will tell - and I do not think time is on Obama's side; that's why he would like her to just give up now.  It would behoove people to take note of what a bored and restless media can do to a candidacy, and if Obama is left standing alone from now until the convention - 5 long months - it will not be pretty.


    You have the talking points down, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    that's for sure - her prominence is due to her marriage?  I'm sure you just managed to get Obama a few more female votes with that statement.

    Truth is, she does do better among women than he does.

    And when I say that she does better among actual Democrats, what I mean is that if you take out the votes of Republicans and independents, I think her numbers are better than his.  Yes, I know the whole argument about broadening the party, but it irks me a little that when the party meets in Denver in August, there may not be Republicans and independents in attendance, but the delegates won as a result of their votes will be, and thus, they are having a say in who gets to be the nominee.

    I will not even bother to address your comment about African-Americans, since I never said what you seem to want to accuse me of saying.


    great post Anne! (none / 0) (#132)
    by faithandhope97 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:01:41 AM EST
    but Obama has been encouraging (none / 0) (#99)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    Repubs to be a "Dem for a day" and vote for MEEEE! - then switch back to Repub before Nov.
    I believe 25% of Obama's Texas voters didn't even vote the remainder of the Dem ticket.
    Can superdelegates be certain these Obama "Dems" will vote for him in Nov?
    Hillary's supporters seem to be more certain.

    Misinformation (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    As far as I can tell. Not that I am following everything that Obama says, but I am sure he has not urged anyone to vote for McCain in the GE. I think you are lying about that.

    the Obama Camp has been promoting (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    "Dem for a day" for the past year --

    April 2007
    >>>That's why "Democrat for a Day" was launched this spring by ObamaFlorida2008. Using the official forms provided by all Supervisors of Elections offices, you may re-register as a Democrat for that one day -- when the primary is likely to be held -- on February 5, 2008. You must do so before the end of 2007, to make sure it is done 30 days before the primary.

    But this is not about some "hard sell" to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    I see your point, but that does not support any argument that Obama does not want their vote in the GE regardless of the party that they are registered for.

    I do think primaries should be closed. I also am in favor of all Dem candidates appealing to all voters irrespective of their party. BHO's effort helps HRC as well, imo.


    Thanks for the anecdote (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    That is the kind of information that matters to me also.  Profiles I have read about Obama, most recently in last month's Vanity Fair, suggest to me that while he is tireless and expert at the talking, listening, deal-making and cajoling side of politics, he does not have that desire for information, understanding, and policy expertise that I admire in Clinton.

    Differences in those qualities make it hard to make a case for electability in November. Given that we have troops in the field and an economic meltdown on our hands, are voters looking for inspriation or expertise?  What makes it even harder to judge is that many people see McCain as being a combination of both - inspiring life story, with at least a claim to competence in foreign policy. (All of us would dispute that of course)

    So, bloviating is all we have left.


    Look at how they do in public committee (none / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    hearings. One of them is a star. The other? Not so much.

    Actually (none / 0) (#64)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    That brings up a very good point.  The second week of April (I believe), General Petreaus will come to the Hill for his update on the situation in Iraq.  Last time he went before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees (and House counterparts).  I assume he will again this time.  Great opportunity to see all three candidates in action on one of the major issues of the day.  HRC and McCain are on Armed Services, Obama on Foreign Relations.  I think I know who will be most impressive ... ;)

    I have a little trouble keeping (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    committees straight, is the Foreign Relations Committee the one that Obama hasn't had a meeting of yet?? If so, it will be interesting to watch the hearing. Heh.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM EST
    Actually he's the chair of a Foreign Relations subcommittee.  The full committee will likely hear Petraeus' testimony.  It's chaired by Biden.  And is full of showhorse (as opposed to workhorse) senators.

    Yes, he is (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    and if we weren't in a situation where American servicepeople die every day he is studying, I might be supporting him.

    that's not what I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    I'm talking about his learning curve in the oval office if he is elected.  Clinton has already spent her time in the Senate educating herself on military affairs.  She won't have to waste a day in learning how to talk to the military brass and understanding what they are saying to her regarding withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

    Free Ride (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    It really scares me to see him trying to coast so much. Is that how he will govern? My WAY OR THE... yawn. I need a nap. You guys figure it out, ok?

    Many disagree (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    Obama supporters do not believe the Wright issue will matter.  They believe it is being dealt with now and will not come up again.  The argument could be made that people are sick of it and will ignore it if it comes up again.

    Also, some believe that Clinton supporters are more elastic and will vote for the nom no matter who it is.  All the exit polls disagree with this but, hey, what do I know.  (I know I won't be voting for him.)


    anyone who thinks tis wright issue will not (none / 0) (#133)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    be HUGE if Barack is the nominee is ignorant of modern politics. I am afraid the supers will not take it into account until it is too late-maybe it will dawn on them at the mccain inagural.

    I sort of disagree (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    I think Hillary is a dependable 51%.  Obama could be  56% or 46%.  we just do not know (see unknowables).  and will not till its over.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by magisterludi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
     the economy, in the trash as it is, and predicted widely to only get worse in the near term, may swing a lot of voters to Clinton. A large section of the electorate have far fonder memories, now, of the  Clinton years in economic terms. I can easily see blue collar reps voting their pocketbooks for once, as many are really suffering under reaganomics -gone- wild, and I'd wager they go for Clinton over Obama.

    Right on (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    I'm afraid the SDs are being backed into a corner where they have to take the gamble because of the hysteria being drummed up by the Obama camp about mass dissention at the convention if the nomination is "stolen" from him.

    Just don't call it a "roll of the dice".


    Perfectly said (none / 0) (#17)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    And maybe on this I am not a gambler, I would take the 51% any day.

    Put another way: if you were going to put up $100K of your own money (theoretical) on double or nothing which one would you pick?


    I would bet on Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    but not because of her issues, or how much I like her, or that I think Obama might not be the best for our country at the time.

    I like that she FIGHTS. She's lasted this long in one of the most passive-aggressive dem parties to exist, and has managed some damn good jujitsu along the way. She has shown us that she knows how to take her punches, and she has shown us that she can turn an uphill battle into success with NO help but from those who love her.

    I think that regardless of the polls at the time of her nomination (crossing fingers), she will find a way to turn it around. She's proven that she can. And she will.


    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    I am also starting to not agree about the "small differences" between the candidates.

    Fighting (none / 0) (#51)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    an 'uphill' battle? After starting out with a gigantic lead in every poll imaginable, a huge advantage in organization and connections and a massive edge in name recognition among Democrats? I guess words just don't mean what they used to.

    You're forgetting something (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    Six plus months of absolutely horrid media coverage with a double standard that pretty much continues to this day.  Starting at the October 30th debate, the press went to town on Clinton in a way we haven't seen since the War on Gore in 2000.  Read Bob Somerby for the day-to-day blow-by-blow.

    This will never disappear from the Obamabanks (none / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    How many times are we going to do this dance. Either Obama is ahead or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.

    As soon as this became an uphill battle for Hillary, she dug in her heels and made it a fight. Period.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    Because even if you win with 51% (or 50.1% or 50.0000001%), you still get 100% of the presidency.

    Not really (none / 0) (#134)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    ask Al Gore. or President Samuel Tilden.

    Atrios (none / 0) (#10)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    approvingly links to JMM's who-cares-about-math post in chiding the HRC campaign.

    Yah, that was very disappointing. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    If I were to give Atrios the benefit of the doubt (which I'm inclined to do for now because his blog is normally so darn cool), I would say this is because he just wants to stay in denial about the fact that Obama bears ultimate responsibility for the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and Michigan.  If Clinton were to go away we could all conveniently forget that fact and move on.  

    Delegates Smellegates (none / 0) (#13)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    I wish the MSM would stop buying into Obama's arguments that it's all about the delegates. The fact is if they both go into the convention without meeting the 2025 goal then they arrive as both equals and according to the DNC rules that Obama's lives by then it is up to the superdelegates to decide who should be the next nominee based on who can win the general election. With that said. Let's look at the facts;

    Clinton has the democratic base Women, seniors citizens and white lower income voters which is a much larger voting block then African Americans

    Clinton also wins the larger states with the majority of the electoral collage which is essential to winning the general election.

    Obama will lose a majority the independents to McCain.

    Clinton will win over a small percentage of Republican women

    It is my opinion the Democrats will have a better chance at winning the GE if Hillary is the nominee. I also do not believe a unity ticket with Hillary and Obama will be wise. Hillary should pick her own Veep. There are much more qualified African Americans she can choose as her running mate then Barack Obama.

    The Media is in the Tank for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by flashman on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    If he said it should depend on who has the most freckels, the media would take his position.  But what gets to me even more is how the media buys into his arguments about winning more states, as though all states are equal.  Uh-huh, Wyoming's 300K residents are equal to California's 20 million, or so.

    There is so much wrong with this (none / 0) (#49)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    reasoning, I do not even know where to begin.
    My biggest objection...stating that Clinton should, in essence, put a token AA on the ticket.
    Give me a break

    Token? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    Is that what Obama is being called now by his supporters?

    But maybe I misread. The fact is, though, that if you stripped down the candidates to their policies, their experience and their know-how, Obama wouldn't have much there.

    The fact that he has made it this far on that much really does make a case for whether he is a token or not. If you were to claim that Hillary was similarly a token woman candidate, you'd get laughed at six ways to Sunday.


    Hillary offered an olive branch to Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    and his supporters but his interpretation was he should "get to the back of the bus."  Strange response from a "unity" candidate to give an absolute NO to the VP position even as the Wright videos were emerging and Dem Party leaders expressed concern about the ongoing vitriol splitting the party.
    How has Obama reached out to Hillary supporters?
    chirp, chirp
    And certainly the "Clintons are racists" and "Hillary is a liar" diaries don't help.

    It is extremely presumptive for the (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    person trailing in votes to offer the second spot to the front runner.
    The arrogance is breathtaking

    perhaps breathtaking considering votes - (none / 0) (#125)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    but not the current reality of Wright which SDs most likely will include in their decisions.
    As well as the likelihood of Obama's "Dems for a day" voting Dem in Nov.

    If 26% of Obama's supporters won't (none / 0) (#18)
    by CCinNC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    vote for Clinton in the GE, and 37% of Clinton's supporters won't vote for Obama (per a "recent poll" cited by MSNBC), how can the Dems win?

    Maybe They Can't (none / 0) (#24)
    by flashman on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    This should have been a very easy election for the Dems, but now it appears to be more challenging that it should be.  Meanwhile, McCain's popularity is soaring, despiet his recent exibitions of his utter lack of knowledge on foreigh affairs.  Leave it to the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    This is beyond snatching defeat (none / 0) (#36)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    This is reaching down the throat of victory, searching through the bowels for the digested remains of defeat, and putting it up on a mantlepiece for all to see. And our shame will be HUGE.

    What would history view it as? A childish squabble of 'me-firsts', wanting not just the bird in hand (presidency) but the one in the bush (being the first whatever).

    Well, on the face it appears that both want to be First XXX, but if you look at the policies, experience and political knowhow, you know that only one of the candidates passes muster without the 'FIRST XXX' hanging over their heads.

    The other candidate is a sadly stubborn, arrogant junior senator who has been riding that FIRST XXX sign roughshod over all the previously good aspects of the Dem party, riding it to a historically important contest. And he will be found wanting in November.


    In Fact (none / 0) (#40)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    It would be a good idea to strip all the candidates of their gender, race, age, economic background, and go with their records. Put that up and see who chooses whom.

    Passes muster? (none / 0) (#71)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    "The other candidate is a sadly stubborn, arrogant junior senator who has been riding that FIRST XXX sign roughshod over all the previously good aspects of the Dem party, riding it to a historically important contest. And he will be found wanting in November."

    Oh, so it's arrogant now to run for president, if you're only a junior senator?

    As opposed to, oh say, running for senate in state you've never lived in?

    I suppose the previously good aspects of the Dem party include a craven willingness to cave to to Republicans on such issues as Iran, Iraq, cluster bombs, flag burning, personal bankruptcy and so forth?


    Luv Your Username LOL! (none / 0) (#126)
    by flashman on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    Recent (none / 0) (#30)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    exit polls showed the opposite.  56% of Obama's people would vote for Hil, 26% of her supporters would vote for him.

    So could that mean that (none / 0) (#38)
    by CCinNC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    41% of his supporters wouldn't vote for her, and 74% of her supporters wouldn't vote for him?

    Still looks like we'll lose.


    7 million raised (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    Out of poverty.

    All of them white, of course.

    There Can Be Only One! (metric, that is) (none / 0) (#25)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    "... hashing out the differences between the candidates on virtually every other metric ...."

    The only metric that matters in the end is delegate count. This is basic wikipedia knowledge:

    "Delegates are the people who will decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention."

    Obama has more delegates, and HRC cannot catch up without convincing an impossible majority of super-delegates -- the same group of people who could have endorsed her when she was "inevitable."

    Are you saying you think an impossible majority of super-delegates will now endorse her when even her own campaign acknowledges that she has about a 10% chance of winning?

    Of course, nothing in the future is "knowable" or "provable," but would you bet on the Yankees or the Texas Rangers, the Boston Celtics or the Miami Heat, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

    Cart before the horse: the rules (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    specifically allow the SD's to vote independently of the primaries. They are intended to prevent the Democrats from choosing a donkey.

    Is Obama really ahead? (none / 0) (#28)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    What metrics are you speaking about? Only if the candidate reaches 2025 delegates by June is ther A clear winner if they do not reach the convention as i said above then both candidates are tied. It is up to the party officials to make a decision on putting the best candidates forward. They will look at all the variables to make this decision. Nobody should feel disenfranchised. It has been the media that has been making the argument for Obama that he is the clear winner based on the delegate count. And it is the media efforts to make a bogus argument that the African American Community will riot in the streets if Obama is not the nominee. I say stop listening to the media and follow the rules put in place by the DNC and hope the best candidate is chosen. And you will support that candidate either way.  

    Ahead in every metric? What does that mean (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    ---is Donald Rumsfeld going to be involved in this process?!
    The caucuses are a terrible metric: look how the caucus/primary states had split results. How can you interpret the will of the voters in such a situation?
    I think the SD's should consider the pledged delegate count, the popular vote count, with some weighting for the caucus/primary division; finally, if the polls show one candidate far behind against McCain, that should be considered.

    Oh so let's take our chances with the republicans. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    That'll teach 'em.

    Voters decide? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    You mean delegates, right? Basing it on a popular vote would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to complicated. What is this one man, one vote nonsense you keep peddling?!?

    the Out of Iraq caucus endorsed Hillary (none / 0) (#50)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    Obama supporters were aghast and have implored Woosley and other caucus members to switch their delegate status to Obama.
    Since Obama won her district, it's speculated she'll announce the switch.

    Rumors on Kos (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by magster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    that Woolsey is indeed switching.

    I'll wait for press release, but numerous commenters received confirmation upon calling Woolsey's office.


    That would be an legitimate (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    argument if the supers such as Kerry and Kennedy switched their support to Clinton.  That would also mean Pelosi would need to shut-up.  I'm sure the media will come up for a reason to support the switch.

    could Pelosi just shut up (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    whatever else happens?

    No, she resents (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    Clinton for her speech on women's rights which is an issue she wanted.  A Clinton presidency would overshadow her legacy as first woman speaker.

    then what do supporters do until PA? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    Well, Obama Camp has been pushing a factless claim about Hillary in Tuzla - focusing on her one landing there while omitting her side trips to 2 dangerous outposts. Oh and Sinbad didn't accompany her to those war zones.
    But Hillary has to be a liar for Obama to win.

    I'll look for that explanation (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    Glad to see there is information out there to refute these claims that she is lying about htat trip. Do you have a link or a reference? I knew it was ridiculous that she would just make up a story like that.

    If you define "sniper fire" ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    ... to include the butterfly kisses of a cute, eight-year-old Bosnian girl, then there's no problem.

    If you define running to the cars to avoid enemy fire to include walking up to a waiting delegation of civilians to shake hands, then there's no problem.

    It depends on your definitions. The super-delegates see all of this stuff. They have seen the videos and have heard Senator Clinton's explanation. The super-delegates realize that HRC came into the election with historic unfavorable ratings. Even the appearance of impropriety will remind voters (and the super-delegates) of the worst aspects of the Clinton Presidency.



    It would appear (none / 0) (#124)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    your descriptions would be for Hillary's arrival at Tuzla only - not the side trips to 2 dangerous outposts where Sinbad did not accompany Hillary.

    research from TL "standingup" (none / 0) (#119)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    Are you saying that AA will leave the party? (none / 0) (#62)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    They'll leave because Obama was not nominated?
    African Americans comprise about 13% of the population. Half are women.

    Clinton is a woman.

    So, let's use your argument another way.
    If Obama is selected women will leave the democratic party in droves.
    Women comprise more than 50% of the population.

    Which scenario is harder on the democratic party?

    Neither, because neither scenario is even remotely realistic.

    Clinton's "path to victory"... (none / 0) (#66)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:15:36 PM EST
    ...would seem to essentially involve a near-sweep of the remaining 10 contests, or at least 7 out of 10 of them.  If she wins 6 out of 10, it's probably a close call, but 5 out of 10 would be fatal to her chances(assuming she wins Guam, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia, while Obama wins Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota), since there would be no "upsets" and she'd have lost the one major "toss up" state(Indiana) remaining.  If she wins Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon, I think that would be very bad news for Obama, because his pledged delegate lead would probably be less than 100, and he might even trail in popular vote.  

    But we're still 4 weeks out from PA, 6 weeks out from NC/GM/IN, and 7-8 weeks out from OR/WV/KY, so a lot can still happen between now and then.  Lynn Woolsey is apparently defecting from Team Clinton, and it remains to be seen if other Clinton SDs will follow suit.

    So is Obama trying to use the SD's to (none / 0) (#70)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    influence the voters? How about letting them decide on their own?

    Actually... (none / 0) (#75)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    ...in the case of Woolsey, she's voting the way her district voted, so it's kind of the other way around.

    I expect Kerry and Richardson to follow suit (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    any minute now, and endorse the winner of their respective states.

    That the defections... (none / 0) (#93)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    ...are only happening from one side to the other, should tell you something.

    Kennedy too (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Ooooh.. the Obama campaign is (none / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    OUTRAGED! Again!!!

    Obama is the ONE!!

    On a conference call with reporters just now, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe came as close as possible to alleging outright that the Clinton campaign has a "history" and a "pattern" of questioning Obama's patriotism.

    Plouffe was asked whether Obama stands by remarks by Obama surrogate General McPeak, who compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy on the basis of this quote from Bill:

        "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

    I am detecting a pattern as well....

    'this other stuff' (none / 0) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    is now be looked at as.... if you turn it upside down, if you twist it inside out, if you sniff hard enough, it could be 'this other stuff' referred to the Wright issue rather than the stupid, petty bickering that has been going on.  I can guarantee you that as soon as an Obama supporter sees that it could be manipulated to refer to Wright, they will pile on with the race accusations again  ven though that is a thought that never would have occurred to them.  Get ready, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

    Get ready for some more faux outrage.

    I'm sure no Obama supporters on this site would twist this like that and run to other sites and push it?


    What if Gore took a stance? (none / 0) (#87)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    Or Edwards?
    I think they are staying out because one word from either of them would cinch the nomination for whomever they backed.

    I dont think that is why (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:43:44 PM EST
    they are staying out

    I don't think either one (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    is respected to that degree by the party.  

    However, I think Gore supports Obama (my evidence is his silence about Florida/Michigan.  There are places where you remain above the fray and places where you don't. His silence about FLORIDA speaks volumes.)

    And I think the "party elders" already know who Gore supports.  

    Edwards?  Again, little clout with the party. If he had much of any influence, he might still be in the race.


    yes, those ads infuriated me! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    for Obama giving aid and comfort to the Enemy.

    BTD, let me clue you and your (none / 0) (#128)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    blogger buddies in on one very knowable thing:

    should obama be the democratic nominee, he will be raped and pillaged, first by the "liberal" press (their lovefest for him will end), then taken up by the republican/right-wingnut smear machine. see: al gore/2000, john kerry/2004.

    he will be the deer in the headlights, i guarantee it. in fact, i'll bet real money on it.

    you, your blogger buddies and the DNC ignore this reality at grave risk to the democrat's chances of winning in nov. were sen. obama the clear, compelling choice of every democrat likely to vote in the fall, i'd say take that risk. he isn't, not even close.

    again, do some research, read bob somerby's posts at the daily howler. sen. clinton has been about as vetted as one human being can possibly be, she's survived it all. sen. obama has seen nothing yet.

    the wright scandal? pfffffffft! nothing like a good old fashioned 527 whipping will do. rezko? ha! even if there's no there there, by the time a 527 gets done, people will want to know why sen. obama hasn't been indicted.

    let's not even consider stuff that may still be lurking in the background.


    Speaking of Chris Bowers - read this...and weep. (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    Here's my favorite quote from Chris Bowers:

    "Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

    Chris Bowers is not alone.
    There are many on the left who recognize that Obama does not stand for much of anything progressive - but are still drawn to him.
    They will work for him.
    They will give their money to him.
    It is really pathetic.
    It reminds me of the Jimmy Swaggart ministries.
    Nobody expects him to do anything, but they like the way he orates and croons.