From The "Duh" File

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

TPM wakes up to its and other Obama supporters' errors:

That Hillary is now pushing this line [that Obama surrogates have called for her to drop out] suggests that her advisers believe Obama surrogates erred in giving her an opening to galvanize her supporters and play the feisty underdog -- something the Obama campaign may recognize, too, judging by its efforts to rapidly dial back the calls for her to leave the race.

Um, duh. And Josh Marshall's own laughable attempts to retract his negative campaign against Clinton's continuing in the race demonstrates TPM "erred" in its campaign for its favored candidate, Barack Obama. More . . .

Even Nancy Pelosi got the message, but she keeps talking, which is invariably bad:

< April Fools: Hillary Challenges Obama to Bowl-Off | Reading Comprehension >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    It's so sad what has happened to Talking Points Memo. Used to love going there for Congressional news. Now the hatred is unbearable...

    What's unfortunate... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    ...is that even the acknowledgment of having 'erred' is based purely on political gameplay.  Given Clinton 'an opening' to criticize is apparently the flaw in the strategy and not the mere fact that it effectively thwarts the system in place for the nomination.

    Even the WSJ had a column this morning pointing out the flip-flop of Dems on this campaign.  They penalized MI and FL for wanting to vote early in the process to impact the nomination and now attempt to penalize the 10 'rule-abiding' states who are last in the process by attempting to pull the plug on the rest of the primaries.


    Bad as TPM has become (none / 0) (#79)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    it has not yet descended into the savage and degenerate abyss That is Dailykos. Kos has become an evil clown--he should have a big red nose and a fright wig.

    I don't know why anyone thought (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    that was a good road to travel. I'm mean, I understand we've been classified as low info voters, but lets get real here  ;)

    Bow out gracefully didn't (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    resound well with us, did it?

    Uniting (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    I still cannot take the leap.  If he could not unite the Democratic party and the party is so split, for god's sake, how will he do the other miracle?  Uniting the nation.  

    Maybe if he actually had run the campaign (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    the way he said he was going to, more people would have been happy to vote for him.

    Branding the Clintons as racists was pretty unforgivable, IMHO, and it's what really divided the electorate.


    I know that is what put me over the edge (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    Nearly unforgiveable.  I'll vote for him over McCain, but I could understand if the Clintons do not campaign much for him.

    Oh ye of little faith. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    to know him is to love him (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    JC Superstar (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST

    I don't know how to love him.
    What to do, how to move him.
    I've been changed, yes really changed.
    In these past few days, when I've seen myself,
    I seem like someone else.
    I don't know how to take this.
    I don't see why he moves me.
    He's a man. He's just a man.
    And I've had so many men before,
    In very many ways,
    He's just one more.
    Should I bring him down?
    Should I scream and shout?
    Should I speak of love,
    Let my feelings out?
    I never thought I'd come to this.
    What's it all about?
    Don't you think it's rather funny,
    I should be in this position.
    I'm the one who's always been
    So calm, so cool, no lover's fool,
    Running every show.
    He scares me so.
    I never thought I'd come to this.
    What's it all about?
    Yet, if he said he loved me,
    I'd be lost. I'd be frightened.
    I couldn't cope, just couldn't cope.
    I'd turn my head. I'd back away.
    I wouldn't want to know.
    He scares me so.
    I want him so.
    I love him so.

    A Strange Thing Mystifying (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    Sunday I found myself humming some songs from JC Superstar for no apparent reason, then when I started singing the words too, I realized why.  Not to stretch the point too far, but go back and play the whole record if you have it.  Very amusing in light of what is going on today.

    I'll just say I agree. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:19:07 PM EST
    And leave it at that.

    It's actually held up very well over time.  Sometimes I revisit songs or movies and wonder what I ever saw in them.  JCSuperstar - still good and still sharp.


    Really captured the media environment (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
    of star making/breaking we are in, even though it was written in 1970 or so.  It has just intensified since then.

    I didn't 'get' much of that when I loved it as a jr. high-school kid. Just thought it was an interesting way to look at the story of Jesus - I had a progressive nun music teacher that played it to us at Catholic school. Still have my brown double album.


    To Obama (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    I only ask things I'd ask any Superstar
    What is it that you have got that's put you where you are
    I am waiting, yes I'm a captive fan
    I'm dying to be shown that you are not just any man

    - lyrics by Tim Rice


    Heh, join the club (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    I was thinking more Davis Mac (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
    when you're perfect in every way.
    I can't wait to look in the mirror
    cause I get better loking each day.
    To know me is to love me
    I must be a hell of a man.
    Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
    but I'm doing the best that I can.

    I guess I just (none / 0) (#40)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:41:56 PM EST
    don't know him then.  

    Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    They really know how to piss people off, lol!~ Maybe he's trying to up the percentage of Clinton voters that won't vote for him?

    Low Information (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    I get a really big kick out of that one. Given what Obama's backers know of his record and what most of us know of his record I'd say the low information tag's been misplaced.  

    I've read so many of those comments by Obama supporters, often accompanied by some line of worship for their Elmer Gantry candidate, that I don't know whether to laugh or throw up my hands in disgust.


    I get a kick out of the fact (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    he can't seem to relate to the Dem base. And doesn't seem to be able to figure it out. Methinks he should have figured it out BEFORE he ran for president.

    Smart Guy. Great Judgment.


    That's as close to an admission..... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    ...as we're going to get.

    exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    they were not wrong to do it just tactically ill advised.

    Well, JMM must realize... (none / 0) (#10)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    that he is being seen as a hypocrite by at least half the Democratic voters who frequent the blogosphere.

    The hand sort of extended in friendship seems a tad insincere at this point.


    x (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:25:53 PM EST
    I kind of doubt there are any Clinton supporters left reading TPM to accept it. I'm a little more cynical. I think he's feeling the pinch in readership and thinks he needs to pull back a little bit. Personally, I've written him off. There are too many good blogs these days to waste my time. And quite frankly, if you can't trust someone to tell you the truth, why would you keep reading him?

    No they were wrong also (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    and they look like rabid inane sillyballers in their irrationale rants against another Democrat, that's presuming they are Dems correct.  Hillary should absolutely not leave the race if you discount the jury rigging of the DNC silly Rules and the awful lopsided delegate awards you have a race tied and a growing anti Obama mood, anti Party legitimacy mood in the Country and in the Base that has sprouted wings and will show up in the upcoming races where VOTERS get to decided until the silly rules apply and the delegate math suppresses their vote as they did in Tx.

    We've seen this over and over - (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    Obama's tendency to go for the short-term benefit and ignore the long-term consequence; I have to say that it isn't something that cheers me as I contemplate the possibility of an Obama presidency.

    The problem is that in "dialing it back," they have resorted to "welcoming" Hillary to stay in, as if it's their party and she's an uninvited guest they've deemed okay enough to hang out for a while.

    Apparently, Josh and others who have been calling loud and long for Hillary to get out of the race are also afflicted with that same tendency to think only in the short-term.  

    Get Out or I Lose (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    So Hillary should get out.....so that Obama doesn't have to lose Pennsylvania?  That's not an attractive stance for a "front-runner."

    Not exactly duh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    Now that it's over, I'm not sure the week-long conversation about whether Hillary should stay in the race hurt Obama.  It supported the narrative that he had successfully overcome the Wright controversy and more generally that he was still the front-runner after lsoing Ohio and Texas.  It's almost a month after her impressive victories in Ohio and Texas now, and Hillary has yet to build any serious momentum.

    I am not talking about the merits here -- I am on the record as saying that the calls for Hillary to drop out were ridiculous.  I'm just not sure that they were bad for Obama.

    Aren't Obama supporters claiming (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    he won TX?

    I'm sure some are (none / 0) (#20)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    But nobody's buying it.

    What people are buying -- because it's true -- is that March 4 didn't really cut into Obama's pledged delegate lead.


    Lucky for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    that Texas had a primary and a caucus, or it would have...

    Define momentum. (none / 0) (#30)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    I've never really liked this momentum discussion because it seems everyone has a different concept of momentum.

    There was never a doubt that Obama was going to win Mississippi and Wyoming, before or after Hillary's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. To say momentum should have propelled her to victories overlooks the obvious significant advantages Obama had in both states: the caucus system in Wyoming and a sizable black electorate in Mississippi. But perhaps this is momentum? Or, maybe momentum is expressed in the double digit leads Hillary has in the polls in Pennsylvania and Kentucky? Or, yet another criteria: raising $3 million in 3 days? I think it is hard to pinpoint momentum for either candidate: it's been a long time since any hyped contests.

    As for whether this call to drop out hurts Obama: I think it could potentially, if it's coupled with the situations in Michigan and Florida. Both items could be used to create a narrative of "Obama doesn't want votes counted." If played correctly, it could damage him. But I think that possibility will only arise once the Michigan/Florida debacle comes to a head.


    Most Infuriating has been the "5% meme" (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    That has been repeated over and over by the media and the Obama blogs. The time that they blather on about 5%, they could just as easily simply say "to win she will likely need to receive the support 60% of the currently undedecided 313 super delegates."  No one has bothered to even analyze that 5% chance-- it is totally arbitrary and unsubstantiated.

    Vegas has the odds of Clinton winning the nomintation at around 25% and Rasmussen Markets has got Hillary at a 15% chance of winning. Both of these numbers, of course have little value, but at least they represent an average of a group peoples' educated guesses and not completly out of the air, like the 5% number that originated in a stupid David Brooks column.

    Who Sets Those Numbers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    On the night of the Michigan primary a local news reporter 'on the scene' said: 'people are saying that it will be a major loss for Hillary Clinton if she doesn't get 60% of the vote'

    So who were those people and where did they get that number?

    I suspect that "they" picked the number out of their a**es.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    ...Obama wins TX and Clinton 'loses' if she doesn't bounce him by more than 20 points...

    The punditocracy has lost its collective head.


    As I used to teach journalism, I can say (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    with solid evidence that these are not math whizzes.

    Most couldn't sort a simple, basic budget item for a story, much less something like these calculations.  Trust me, don't trust even the most basic arithmetic -- addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division -- in media coverage, much less higher-level calculations.

    There are only a couple of cable types doing decent "precision journalism," as it's called.  Just ask the rest to even attempt to explain "margin of error."  The answers you will get will be howlers.


    Ain't that the truth (none / 0) (#70)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    I had a class assignment once where we had to choose a bunch of newspaper articles with statistics in them and analyze them for accuracy.  I can't remember the exact result, but it was a definite minority of them that were entirely correct.  A scary chunk interpreted their own numbers backwards.

    The errors weren't hard to find, either, and I was only in junior high school at the time.


    You are right (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:25:19 PM EST
    It was just some nameless "top clinton advisor" talking to a reporter, guestimating her chances. These people just need to shut up, or at least go on the record.

    You might be a sucky reporter... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:37:56 PM EST
    ...if you write a story with a question headline (Is Hillary Crazy?) you, might be a sucky reporter.

    ...if you quote an unamed Democratic official or unnamed "senior Clinton advisor," you might be a sucky reporter.


    We could shorten those Vegas odds ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    ... if all the Clinton supporters started placing bets on Hillary to win.

    If she would just stop winning (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    then the nomination would be his!

    LOL (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    The thing I wonder is if it's too late for them (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    now.  All those young voters who may not be familiar w/how politics works might still be trying to repeat the "get out now" meme.  Sorta like that little girl in the Jimmy Dean breakfast commercials who keeps asking "why?"

    The Obama supporters get emails (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    with updated talking points.  

    Pelosi just flipped from what she said (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:20:10 PM EST
    I think the donors got to her. She cant be seen as causing any impedements to Hillary Clinton or she will be in big trouble.

    Anyway, good for her. She cleaned up - kinda. Now she should vanish into the shadows.

    Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jeffhas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST
    Hello!... New Here... like the balance.

    "Even Nancy Pelosi got the message, but she keeps talking, which is invariably bad"

    I found this comment so indicative of how I feel about Pelosi.  Thrilled with her ascendancy to Speaker, followed by immense disappointment with her performance... and now, just plain angry that she cannot find a way to stay neutral.

    I hope her man gets elected, 'cause if HRC becomes president, I have to think she'll push for a new House Leader.

    ... and if HRC doesn't win the nom, she'll probably get the Senate Majority Leader position from Reid as a consolation crumb, and that will set up some juicy contests with Pelosi down the road.

    Either way, I think Pelosi has doomed her legacy.

    I think Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jen on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    doomed her legacy when she declared Impeachment off the table before she even became Madame Speaker.

    Talk about caving.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    I understand that impeachment might have looked politically motivated, but if you have the bloody EVIDENCE then the public will be screaming to throw the bums out.

    Conyers had been working for at least a year - I think he must have had something.


    My memory may be rusty (none / 0) (#63)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    I was a teenager during Watergate, but it seems to me that the difference between then and now is that there was bi-partisan support for impeachment.  Not to mention the fact that some of the media was actually interested in investigative reporting and speaking truth to power.  

    Nowadays, not so much.


    They got the majority in the HOUSE! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    Not the 51/49 they had in the Senate.  It should have been perfectly doable - if they had wanted to actually put some effort into it.

    Instead they acted like they were living in fear of some hypothetical media backlash that would have branded them shrill, vindictive partisans.  (plus unpatriotic, etc....)

    I listened to Front Line's: Bush's War.  There still is journalism out there, somewhere.  


    We don't disagree (none / 0) (#66)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    They could have done it if they'd wanted to.  Pelosi has been a huge disappointment.  As soon as she was appointed Speaker and had that lunch with Bush, impeachment was off the table.  Personally, I thought the writing was on the wall when Steny Hoyer elected Majority Leader over Murtha.

    All of this makes me think that the fix is in, and that most Dems have no real interest in challenging the Republicans.

    I have to disagree with you re: the news coverage.  Sure, PBS and a few others are doing their jobs, but they're the exception to the rule.  


    Impeachment would have been (none / 0) (#67)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    a ratings hit!

    Sure it would have been covered in the usual sloppy, biased, hacktacular style we've become so accustomed to - but it would be better than listening to Rummy cough up more excuses and Bush's "Stand up, stand down." empty rhetoric.

    Either we have the most spineless pols on the face of the Earth or Rove really does have some good stuff on them.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    You're right in theory, but to me it just proves that the fix is in.  

    I do think there's an issue b/c there is no bi-partisan support for impeachment or, indeed, any criticism of the bush administration.

    As for the media, it's a lot different now than it was then.  The only brief moment of honesty I've seen from them was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I was hoping it was the dawning of a new era, but alas, I was disappointed.  

    I believe that the media has sold its soul to the corporations that own it, and they have little interest in rocking the boat.


    What was her legacy prior to this (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    campaign?  I think it was already doomed.

    Pelosi (none / 0) (#35)
    by jeffhas on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    OK... point taken...

    Unplugging (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Pulled the plug on TPM well over a month and wish I could pull the plug on Pelosi--liberals worked hard for a new majority which she has squandered time and again.  

    Too late to un-ring the bell (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    It is hard to "dial-back" on calls for someone to leave the race, fer gawdssake.  What do you say - 'never mind'?

    So transparently obviously only a tactical decision to take it back once they have seen that it backfired.  They already showed their true colors. Laughable.

    Actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    the real damage may have been Hillary's response, which is to say she is going to take it to convention.  I think that scared a lot of super d's.    She may be playing this up, the problem is Obama, is on record saying she can stay in as long as she wants.  So she is risky being accused of more untruths.

    To which... (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    ...many more enlightened pundits have raised the question of what, exactly, a convention is for if not to select a nominee?

    My head still spins at the Dem logic of not wanting to load too many primaries early in the campaign and then fretting that the entire process is taking too long to resolve itself.

    No wonder we lose so many elections.


    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    We were supposed to follow the script and wrap it up on Superlative Tuesday - and let the remaining states obediently rubber stamp the nominee.

    Even John McCain failed to follow the script and didn't drop out when his campaign was almost out of cash.  (Woulda been a hoot to see the GOP stuck with one of the others!)

    So now we see the true primary process - suck up to the first few states, game the SuperTuesday states and tell the rest of the states that their votes were never meant to be the deciding votes - let alone significant.

    Has there ever been a better example that our primary process is fragile, riddled with inconsistencies and inherently unfair?


    Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Neither candidate  can win enough to cinch the nom. The decision will be made by the SuperDs

    The Obama followers made fools of themselves to demand she drop out because of the math


    'New math' (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    They grew up on it.

    Or didn't.


    Wasn't it take it to the convention (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    if Mich and Florida weren't resolved?

    That was my understanding. It prevents Obama from counting those states after she drops out, which is his plan.


    I could be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    but I thought she meant take it to the convention if neither of them had the votes to lock it up...that is, if enough superdelegates hold out until August and don't cave in to either candidate, so neither one has the requisite number...even IF MI and Fla are resolved, for that wouldn't end it.

    Only the superdelegate votes will end it.

    The question then will be, will superdelegates in a verrrry close race who would prefer to vote for Hillary, dare to do so?  Will they?  With AA blackmail in the background threatening to walk and declare the nomination stolen, spliting the party 'for absolute sure' if he doesn't get it?

    Will they?  I doubt it.  Let's face it...the raging grannies are not really a plausible threat.  Female, and therefor emotional, yeah...but riot in the streets?  Hah.  We have no street cred.

    Girls/women need more basic training.  As for the supers, I'm considering calling their moms.


    We could roller derby instead ;) (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    Haven't polls shown that many AA's will still vote Dem? Where did this new party thing start anyway? I've heard it a couple times, but it sounds like a threat pulled out of thin air?

    I help ya on the phones :)


    OKI...I still have my skate key (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    from 4th grade (a la 1944---good grief).  On the other hand, my balance is sometimes a little wobbly these days (my knees, not my head).

    New Party?  I haven't heard that.  The threats seem to be stay at home/don't vote...vote McCain...punish and/or vote against anybody who voted 'against' Obama, etc.  There have been strongarm tacktics used on AA supers, threats of primarying them next election, etc.  (See Jesse Jr. for details).  Reports of bullying...yes, physical bullying at caucuses.

    None of these charges are against Hillary supporters...quite the opposite.


    True (none / 0) (#36)
    by kberly7568 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    It is definitely not good for Obama supporters to pressure Hillary to drop out of the race. It only makes her seem like the underdog, and now all the political pundits are talking about her chances of winning as well, which gives her even more media coverage.  Check it out firsthand.


    But now Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    is shooting itself in the foot again.  See TPM interview of Ickes, who repeatedly mention Wright issue in same sentence with Super-Ds.  

    I don't mind that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    Wright does make Obama less electable, IMHO.  It is fair to make that case to the SDs. I'll read the interview in case there is more to it than that - if Ickes does it in an unfair way.

    HA, Sen. Pelosi (none / 0) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    Back pedalling is so unattractive.  But democracy speaks.

    Ooops. Cgrswm. Pelosi, no promotion for you. (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    Exact-Armando! (none / 0) (#69)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST

    Josh Marshall and the TPM group have spent much of the last week trying to nudge Hillary out and all they have to say now is "Who me?"

    The Democrats will likely recover from this hard-fought primary (I hope) but I doubt Marshall will ever recover his "honest observer" reputation.   I won't forget his disgraceful performance.

    Kudos to Big Tent for calling him out.

    Do we really need to praise Armando (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    anymore than he already does?

    (haha, bet you missed me!)


    We did. Didn't you hear us calling? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    Was that the phone ringing (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    at 3am?

    I just rolled over and went back to sleep.


    Obviously unfit to serve. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    Credit Where Due (none / 0) (#75)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:40:16 PM EST

    Tough to take on the Kos/TPM/Atrios axis.  A lot of lefty bloggers are reticent to do it - see Kevin Drum.  

    Although I gotta give Atrios credit for largely staying out of the Obama/Clinton dust-up.   Duncan is ever the iconoclast!  

    Props to Jeralyn too, of course.   If there's been one golden lining for me in this primary season, it's been finding TalkLeft.


    Missed you much. Needed your take (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    on the pro-lifer Casey's endorsement, in addition to the earlier "present" and "oops" votes, etc., in Illinois -- as to what this may mean about Obama.  I.e., the SCOTUS argument, can we count on him?

    All for another thread anon so as not to go o/t here, I suppose.  But so glad you're back for when we have such occasions for more Kathyisms. :-)


    Thanks! (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:34:44 AM EST
    And I think Choice is the first thing Obama would throw away in order to get a compromise from the republicans.  This is why we need Clinton to get the nomination and win the White House.  I will back her with every ounce of my spirit.  She must win.