Clinton campaign picks a firewall
By Steve Benen Monday Feb 11, 2008 7:18amBy any reasonable measure, today is a pretty important day in the Democratic presidential race. Generally called the “Chesapeake Primary,” Dems (and independents) will vote today in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Obama is considered the favorite in all three.
But on the front page of the NYT today, the story isn’t about today’s three contests; it’s about two contests three weeks away.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.
Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.
They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.
“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.
Alan Patricof, one of Clinton’s national finance chairmen, added, “[W]e can’t wait to get to March 4.” The meaning of the comment is almost literal — today’s travel schedule for Clinton includes three stops, not in any of today’s contests, or in any state that votes in February, but rather, in Texas.
In other words, the firewall has already been identified, and is in the process of being fortified.
Login or Register to post comments.
Doesn't this have the potential to be a Rudy-in-Florida type situation?
That's just what I was thinking, Carakav. Putting all ones eggs in one basket can be a very iffy plan.
Yes, I'm sure they can't wait to get to March 4, and btw, please don't notice that we are loosing every caucus and primary between now and then.
Clinton doesn't have much of a choice now. If she doesn't win in Texas and Ohio super delegates will leave her in droves.
Young Voters are becoming energized and they will not play by party rules.
They are gaming the system for their own interest and the Dems had better pay attention. The Baby-Boom generation has been an absolute disaster, and Generation Next knows that if they want to secure their future they will have to do it themselves. Observe what is happening with Anonymous and their campaign against Scientology and their unique tax exempt status.
The B-B Generation thinks a bandaid on a festering wound will suffice as long as they get to watch the new episode of Lost and escape reality for an hour before bed.
Pay attention Dems! Generation Next wants Obama, and they are not turning out for Repug Retreads!
It will be American Voters who will choose the next President, not Party Hacks.
Thanks Hillary, don't worry about the welfare of your own party and the future of your country, just keep fighting whatever the cost right?!?
just because she is only down a few delegates, Obama has won twice as many states as she has and it's really only our broken election system that is keeping her afloat.
My prediction:
Barrack wins popular support but Clinton takes the nomination using the super delegates. The plan has always been for a Clinton/Obama ticket to take on a weak GOP candidate. McCain/Liberman would be my pick for ultra-lame ticket.
Our election system is a complete sham. Remember the Orwellian, "Help America Vote" Act . . . well . . . its here and its counting votes for Ms Clinton otherwise she would not be competing with Obama right now.
My two cents
She will be missed.
Well, maybe. This is not a Guiliani situation whatsoever. Unlike Rudy, Senator Clinton campaigned and competed in most if not all of the earlier primaries. Unlike Rudy, Senator Clinton is a legitimate candidate as well.
I am a fan of neither Democratic candidate frankly, being a registered Green, but I think Senator Clinton a savvy politico, one who has planned well and for years for this race, and one with proven experience. This may simply be much ado about nothing, a silly response to an increasingly vituperative campaign, seeds sowed by Obama supporters who then rail against the tactics of the Clintons...bah.
OK. SO after hearing Sen. Clinton and many of her surrogates pooh-poohing Sen. Obama's victories in a large number of Red States as meaningless because they can't be won in the general election, we now see great importance being attached to victories in two Red States. One that hasn't been in the Democratic Party radar for years.
The spin is rather dizzying.
-GSD
This whole ’superdelegate’ thing has been sticking in my craw lately, (since I found out about them) but was willing to let it slide till I saw how it played out, then I read this in the Times: “…said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor”
WTF?!? I mean these people have the this kind of voting power and they can donate heavily? Doesn't that seem wrong to anyone else?
Would it be too much to ask for in the ‘Bastion of Democracy’ to actually have some goddamn democracy?
I figured she'd try something like this next. There's not enough time now for the states today or for the next couple of weeks.
Hey guys, we really aren't a full Democracy. That was obvious since 12/12/2000. Ohio and Texas, eh? Are these states known for fair elections? hmmmm...
yesssssssssssssssssssssss
obama isn't perfect but he is better than her.
i said that to a woman the other day and she said..."you just don't want a woman in office!"
i said..."i woukld vote for amy goodman!"
Filthy Harry @ 11:
since you found out about them...since like 1975?
she's a ho ,
too funny if she gave a bj in the WH ,
Who is the only non aipac person running for office ? .
Who has the voting record to back it up ! .
Who is for Amercia first and all of our freedoms ? .
Passion , its about time we as Amercians , have some .
There will come a day , when if you smart enough to know your children they will ask what you did for our freedom , what will you be able to say ? .
It'll be nice to have Vermont relevant for once, even though we only have 21 delegates at stake on Mar. 4th. But I can't even find a recent state poll online to see who's ahead. The latest one is from Feb. 2007. WTF?
I'm still undecided because I dislike both Clinton and Obama - one is too divisive, and the other I fear has no ideological compass. I have a strong feeling that when President Obama comes to a table, EVERYTHING will be up for negotiation.
Gordy Sumner @ 13:
Yes, let's start the conspiracy theories before the voting even starts.
Oh my.... I cant believe my vote is actually going to matter. Whooo hoo!
I never thought that this thing would come down to Texas.
Herself @ 18:
theories my ass
just because the MsM ignores them doesn't mean ohi and texas are rife with vote theft.
do the research!!
Filthy Harry @ 11:
This is the reality of Clinton's establishment/experienced candidacy. She has no safe boundaries between fighting for the nomination and getting the nomination. This is why Barack is ahead, because he's beaten so many odds.
Dan Abrams had one of the superdelegates on his show last night. The kid was 21 and has never voted in an election. Chelsea Clinton invited him to breakfast yesterday and he went. He has gotten a call from Bill Clinton and I believe he had also gotten a call from John Kerry.
This kid is being courted for his superdelegate vote. Something about that is just so wrong.
Change and peace now!
HILLARY/McCAIN 2008
First of all we never have been a democracy and conspiracy has been with us from the begining (religous.political, corperate, etc.). Let's not start bashing people for learning more about our processes and battling ignorance, so me may govern for the best interests of all and make changes for the better. I myself just learned the differance between caucuses and primaries.
LOL @ Super delegate Superstition! The way this lot carries on you would think the Super Delegates would endorse Steven Colbert instead of Hillary or Barack.
Judge Scalia loves his torture:
"Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public."
From the BBC.
-GSD
Texas,home of the Alamo.
We'll see.It's actually a smart move on her part.I don't hear the fat lady singing,but she might be tuning up a little.
While I'm still weighing my choices as to whom I'll cast my vote, if there was any state where Hillary has a chance to come in third, it's here in Texas.
patricia,
You are right, it was here in Wis. He didn't hear from Obama, so does that give you a clue, how Hillary operates.
Radically Moderate @ 5:
Thanks for the laugh.
Hillary might want to start thinking of bowing out if she doesn't see herself winning a single primary in February.
"anxious donors" That says it all.
Obviously, when the media talks about donors, they are not talking about those of us who scrape $20 to $100 dollars. We don't participate in conference calls. So why are these donors anxious? Because they are not going to get a return on their investment. "Investment" is business-speak in this case for "corruption."
I'm not saying Hillary is the only candidate with the support of monied interests. Every viable candidate has to have that support in the current system. Some rely on it more heavily than others. My point is that system has led us to Bush-style democracy.
If that's the case then, considering the lack of popularity she holds among Democratic voters in Texas, I'd say she's screwed. She may pull out a win here given her support among the older gen, but it definitely won't be by a comfortable margin, and counting out the possibility of an Obama win would be a mistake. Cynics may be leery of how often the distinguished gentleman from Illinois talks about hope, but after 8 years of Bush that's not just what U.S. citizens want, it's what we need.
Of course, she's got an entire generation of political hatchet-men behind her, from a generation best known for their unmitigated lust for political power and authority, and the delegate counts are rather close even if the state count is glaring, so I wouldn't count her out completely.
On a brighter note, isn't it great that we're actually talking about delegates and the whole primary system? This junk's been taken for granted for so long, and now you have people paying enough attention to start asking if it's even the best way to do things. This race might well be the first in decades to actually be decided at the convention! Believe it or not, this is how democracy is supposed to work, and people are even vaguely interested!
Mollie @ 29:
I think Kerry was calling him on behalf of Obama.
pissed off patricia @ 34:
Or maybe he just wanted someone to talk to.
The Times is pimping itself out for the Clinton campaign.
POp
How does a 21 yearold become a super delegate?
From the good blog Praire Weather: "We are located here in not quite the very center of Texas and we can assure you that in our supermarket parking lot in the nearest town, we have seen no Hillary bumperstickers, two Obama bumperstickers, and a staggering crop of Ron Paul yard signs -- for what it's worth".
David Charles @ 36:
Be careful, Hillary could have you fired for using the term 'pimping'.
JackofAllTirades @ 39:
Stuff and nonsense! If I get fired it'll be due to my own incompetence. ;-)
Samo Umer @ 23:
Damn it get it right / left at least , its
mcGain / Billarry ( close enough ) in 08'
Carakav @ 1:
I think o-MOB-a's campaign has potential to turn into a "Rudi in New York" situation.
Obamorons, you make PT Barnum proud.
As if the media and the GOP aren't scared to death of facing Clinton in November.
o-MOB-a: The GOP wet dream come true.
David Charles @ 36:
The fact that the NY Times (who recently hired William (the bloody) Kristol), Rupert Murdoch and Ann Coulter endorse Hillary should ring alarm bells.
But since she's a woman they'll vote for her because that's all that matters in a candidate, their gender. "It'd be exciting to have a woman president". Who cares about policy, track record or leadership style, right? [/snark]
loubie @ 42:
Chelsea, is that you?
HaHa!
Ok Carakav, that's the most bizarre and reality-detached trolling I've seen outside of a message board on religion or D&D. I think you need to head over to FARK and work on your Trollfu before you make another go of it.
Obama -- hope and change?
Playing fake, media-generated race cards.
Hope and change?
Cronyism and stinky politics in Chicago.
Hope and Change?
Ted Kenneday and John Kerry in his pocket.
Hope and Change?
Flip flopping on Isreal-Palestine.
Hope and Change?
Voting "Present."
Hope and Change?
Carakav @ 1:
No -- the difference is Hillary Clinton, as well as Bill and Chelsea have all been here in Maryland actively campaigning. i think she's just trying to keep expectations in the media low so that Chris Matthews et al. don't pee themselves in glee if she comes up far behind Obama.
Grochi Harzep @ 21:
I don't think this is a 'Hillary' issue. I'm sure there are superdelegates who give money to Obama's campaign. It's just the idea that superdelegates can give money to candidates is so unseemly.
Joementum @ 35:
And he's still having trouble finding people who will listen.
Texas- We never see a Democrat except for big money fundraisers in Houston and Dallas.
We use voting machines with no paper trail. Enough said.
Kiki McClean(hillarys advisor) was on MSNBC this morning and told the Potomac Primary voters that their votes don't matter. So all you primary voters for Hillary can stay home today because you don't matter.
I guess this means she won't be voting on FISA.
I am going to call and complain.
loubie @ 46:
They know she's going to lose the Chesapeake elections. It's their way of distracting. I have a real flash for her, she's going to lose Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvannia too. Stick a fork in her. She's done.
Pooky Shoehorn @ 47:
Sure, the ol' "under promise and over deliver" strategy works in politics, too.
Bottom line? The political calculus indicates Clinton must take Texas and Ohio, else she is toast. Edwards, with his paltry two dozen delegates, also becomes increasingly less relevant with every Obama victory.
It will probably come down to the superdelgates at the DNC. More than anything, when the dust finally settles these folks want to be identified with the winner, because they end up with less post-election power if they back the wrong horse.
Ron @ 37:
I missed that part about how he became one, if they said. I have no idea how this works, but in my opinion, it's very strange and even stranger, Bill Clinton is a superdelegate. He should not be able to cast a superdelegate vote in this election if it comes down to that.
Filthy Harry @ 48:
Isn't Bill Clinton a superdelegate?
greg @ 56:
Yep, see my comment #55
greg @ 56:
Probably. Talk about a conflict of interest! He'd never vote for her!
How to become a superdelegate
isn't it kind of satisfying to see pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-cluster-bombs Hillary slipping away????????
maybe there's hope for this country yet.
loubie @ 46:
I'm going to go ahead and say it. That was oh so lame.
loubie @ 46:
Here's my hope for change---I hope you change blogs as soon as possible, freepers like you that trash others have nothing worthwhile to add here. Redstate is calling your name. So get lost and come back when you adjust your attitude.
(G)OBAMA!
According to all the polls out there (pick your favorite) voters' level of education plays a major role in how they vote.
Polls show that Obama voters are more likely to have graduate school education, including Masters and Ph.D., while Hillary voters are more likely to have high school education or Bachelor degrees.
The Super delegate system is a joke. It was installed as a "worst case scenario" so no one has taken it seriously. It's like the levees in New Orleans.
Why? Wisconsin has a 18 year old super delegate. This guy has never voted before but John Kerry and Bill Clinton are treating him like the Pope.
Read about it here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716581
Excerpt:
"Indeed, when Albright called Rae, she was well-briefed: She knew he was a Marquette student, that he was elected to the national committee at age 17. He was the youngest member of the group then, and likely still is.
Rae turned 18 just weeks after the November 2004 election. His first presidential vote will be Feb. 19.
And if the political cards play out just so, his convention vote in August might be a critical one."
Apparently Maggie Williams isn't Hillary's new campaign manager, it's actually Rudy Giuliani.
Captain Corelli @ 64:
So you're saying all of those "younger voters", some of which present at caucuses were said (by an Obama supporter) to be under 18...are Harvard educated?
AHAHAAHAHHAH
I'm sorry, but the demographics of Obama just doesn't make sense to me; the large black populations in actual primaries are not all Ph.d holding phenoms...the throngs of "young voters" motivated to caucus are not rocket scientists.
Either way, they must not be that smart to not get the nuances of politics, and see Obama's transparent posturing for what it is...Politics.
Holding his grand speech 15 days after the Iraq Vote. yes, that's leadership. Russ Feingold could teach him a few tricks.
If Obama wins the nom, goodbye Presidency...I'm telling you people...Polls are crap.
The republicans are hyping him, the media is hyping him, and I would expect the people on Blogs like C&L to be able to at least have intelligence to question WHY the republicans/media are doing thi; I understand the "throngs of young voters" and "black folk in South Carolina" to not get the gritty details, but you people on here supporting him just completely disappoint me for buying into fluff.
No matter how much you dislike Clinton, to actually want to hand over the country at this sensitive time to a complete newbie, after railing for SEVEN YEARS about republicans, and just hand it to a guy who's going to be led around like a puppy and capitulate (unite! YES WE CAN!) to those same republicans...you people are confusing the hell out of me.
Captain Corelli @ 64:
I've always thought that the problem with government was always reflective of the people. I mean we love to promote Democracy and talk about patriotism, but in relation to other developed nations, we have this most uninformed electorate and our turn out numbers are piss poor. I still can't believe when I read comments such as "I don't know what Obama stands for". Well you're already on the computer, how about cruising over to his website? How about googling where he stands on the economy and healthcare? But that's too much effort for some people. They can spend two hours a day on Crooks and Liars or the Huffington Post trash talking, but they won't spend 2 minutes actually researching each candidates views before arriving to a conclusion.
Poor government is reflective of a poor electorate.
I thought we were progressive?
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
Mister Anderson @ 68:
Alot of the people who will be voting for Obama don't have computers...Alot of the people are NOT INTERESTED in politics generally, this election is like a superbowl..I've seen this happen every time a presidential election come around; Obama's rallying of young people is identical to Bill Clinton's in 1991..I know, because I was one.
After this election, those "young people" will fade away quickly enough, and this newfound interest in politics will flame out quicker than shit.
I'll tell you what, when a person running for President isn't a politician, then I'll buy a "movement" talk...Obama is no more or less what he seems to be; a guy who's been involved in politics for what, 10, 12 years? I'm sure he's gotten where he's at by a "movement."
Or rather a speech which he removed from his website which was his "great speech" about the Iraq resolution, made 15 days after the vote was cast. Why'd he remove his speech? He's weak.
He's fodder for the republican machine...who are building him up to tear him down.
Are people really this dumb?
Is it just me, or is Obama taking Red states very important? The Blue states will go Blue with either Clinton or Obama, but to get the Red states, shouldn't we go with Obama? Isn't that the best strategy for winning the election?
Also, if I hear her say "35 years of experience" again I will scream. Since when is being married to someone mean you have experience in their job?
I saw Obama speaking to a crowd of 18,000 in Virgina Beach, VA - 18,000 by word of mouth on a Sunday night in Red Country - that's a big deal. I predict a big win today for Obama.
mudshark @ 27:
If Texas had Ann Richards, then they certainly would be open to hillary clinton.
Josh @ 70:
Josh @ 70:
Josh @ 67:
bmw 528 @ 62:
Sneer @ 53:
She's far from done. But it's ok...I love underdogs.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
Josh @ 70:
Josh, who are you to call others dumb? Just write why you are voting for whomever and wny. We don't need your b.s.
bmw 528 @ 62:
How ironic, but I guess that means you have nothing worthwhile to add here. In any case, you obviously don't care to get off your "hope and change" bandwagon for just long enough to look at your views rationally. Otherwise, you would notice that you're staking your fortunes on someone with no experience and no substance. He voted "present" on any major issue that came before him in IL. But I suppose that takes real principle, and that's why we should believe him when he says he would have hypothetically opposed the war if he had actually been in congress at the time (even if his voting record would suggest otherwise).
Pay attention to reality. What difference is there between him and Clinton? The only one I see is his ineptitude at foreign policy. Bush is going to bring us to the brink of war with Iran, and we need our next president to know how to get us out of that situation. Obama is the one who has said he would perform military action in Pakistan with or without their government's consent. Obama is far too risky a candidate for the position we will be in. I, for one, am unsure of which party I would be supporting if he became the nominee.
greg @ 52:
Josh says:
"Alot of the people who will be voting for Obama don’t have computers"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Josh, you're such a comedian.
Obama needs to get Texas,Ohio,or Penn. I think that would put an end to this. Texas has too many Latino voters that vote in block for Clinton for some reason. It is a very big state and takes a lot of money to campaign statewide. Ohio or Penn would be better bets and cheaper to campaign statewide.
Oh, I think #16 should be deleted.
Josh @ 67:
Josh @ 70:
I'm not talking about Obama, I'm saying politics general. I'm a Obama supporter, but no way in the hell do I believe that out of 300+ million Americans, Hillary, Barak or McCain represents the best and brightest among us. Barak gives great speeches, and Hillary is the wife of the most famous living politician.
You can go to the library to get access to a computer. You can access the web on your cell phone. We live in the Communication Age, this isn't Communist China, access to information isn't restricted. Just as we treat our cars better than our bodies, we are more informed about sports and entertainment than we are about politics. You don't have to go out of your way to learn about a candidate just as you don't have to go out of your way to learn who won a Grammy last night or who won the Lakers game.
Are we really this dumb? Yes we are. Obama is a product of the system we have created for ourselves. Be realistic, if we really cared about electing the smartest person who could get results, Kucinich or Wesley Clark would be running for their second term. This nation has been stuck on stupid when it comes to politics since we elected Nixon and I don't see things changing any time soon.
Louis kestenbaum A satmar Chasid is being accused. WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A teenage girl has filed a $50 million lawsuit against a New York billionaire, saying he sexually abused her when she was 14.
Louis Kestenbaum"s attorney says the allegations are false and motivated by money. Kestenbaum is also the CEO of Fortis properties and the ODA a goverment funded organisation in the williamsburg section of Brooklyn NY
The girl, now 17, claims Louis Kestenbaum invited her to his Florida mansion in 2005 to perform a massage for $300. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, claims he demanded she remove her clothes, then sexually assaulted her.
The girl, her father and stepmother are seeking more than $50 million.
Joel kestenbaum the son of Louis kestenabum had no comments.
I'm just curious about the average age of the people on this blog.
And since we all presumably consider ourselves "informed" how much research have you all done on your own? Looked at voting records, went back to media during Obama's time in the state Senate, looked at his running for the US Senate, examined the situation on his "against Iraq resolution" comments?
Looked at Hillary's record, heard a complaint, or an insinuation and then vetted it for yourselves?
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
Oops! I quoted and didn't put my comment there. Sorry. To Josh @ 67 I say: You lost me at "you people".
Interesting how all of the Obama supporters throw around insults and name calling on this site, then grasp at straws to castigate their opponents for doing the same. Interesting too how the Obama supporters insults are so biting. I guess if you have nothing else to say, just insult the other. Even better if you can frame it like a claim that they started it.
Josh @ 83:
I'm just raising this point, because Rudy's great myth of being "America's Mayor" is the most obvious inflated persona around, and well, I'm thinking as human beings we're all susceptible to wearing certain filters about people who we support:
There are certain things I do not like about Hillary Clinton, but I personally feel the country needs someone tough to run the country, ultimately.
What things do you *not* like about Obama?
If you're filter has the setting of "nothing" or no real serious qualms, I would suggest you take your rudy glasses off.
BabushkaBlue @ 84:
I'm sorry you're so sensitive.
Josh @ 67:
Apparently the idea of "Most of group x votes for Barack" doesn't mean "All of Barack's votes come from group X" is difficult for you. Let me make this simple for you. Everyone who jumps into a lake gets wet. Not everyone who is wet got that way from jumping in a lake.
If Barack can beat Hillary and her gigantic political machine, I don't see how he could lose to a 80 guy who knows nothing of the economy and wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Brendan @ 66:
Oh, that's SOOOOOO funny. Hope you didn't spend a lot of time thinking it up.
Josh
What things do you *not* like about Hillary. You first. You are always on here ranting about disliking Obama and how stong Hillary would be for the country.
so, put your money where your mouth is, you first.
bmw 528 @ 62:
Sorry, Brownshirt, but this is still a free country. Obmamorons don't get to tell me what to do, or to lay exclusive claims to blogs. Besides, it is you who should think about what hole you will creep into after the November results come in, assuming o-MOB-a from Chicago steals this thing.
Have your fun now, because March (and November) belong to Hillary.
I've already stated,
Obama calls the Clintons racist. Then he hopes to expect my vote.
I say no. I say hell no.
And here are my favorite questions for Obamorons:
Do you think the Clintons are racist?
If not, do you just play along because it gets o-MOB-a votes?
If so, what makes you different from the Rovians?
And how exactly does that jive with Change and Hope?
I'm disappointed that the media can get away with this.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
And I thought most "progressives" would be also; but I guess, as I said, we all have filters on...and so since it's not Obama being twisted, it's A-OK.
I'm just disappointed.
I know Ohio (where I currently live, blech) is not Texas, but my boss who is a diehard republican, will be voting for Obama in the primary because he wants McCain to run against him. I've heard people say they won't vote for a black guy...I've actually heard people say they think Hillary will do a good job, but she's not going to get it because she's a woman.
I dunno how it's going to play out, but I think Obama's negatives are an unknown, and regardless who we pick republicans are going to attempt to decimate.
The reason why I election system suck is because we care more about "Who Can Get Elected" instead of "Who Would Make the Best President". The media will build up any front runner candidate to get elected in November, and then tear them down once they get into office and can't get a bill with substance through Congress.
Seriously, do anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton's "experience" actually makes her better suited for the job than other women such as Feinstein, Boxer or Pelosi? All of these women have far more experience than her but they didn't marry the most famous politician in the last 15 years.
Does anyone really believe that Obama or Edwards would be a better President than Kucinich? Kuncinich has ZERO personality, but he knows what the hell he is talking about and would always put the best interests of the country before his own.
Does anyone believe that Bloomberg is the best person to be mayor of New York or just the best guy who can afford to run for the job?
This is American Idol: President edition.
All of the Hillary people need to get out of their feelings and off of their high horse and stop pretending like she will actually "right" this country. We all know that at least 40% of this nation HATES her and will find joy in making her life a living hell if she reaches the White House even if it's at their own expense. We all know that Barak is very inexperienced, so he will have to rely a lot of his advisers and spend at least his first two years navigating Washington and passing "safe" bills and hope to execute his change policy in his second term once he's bought some political capital.
But since the rest of the nation are idiots, I have no choice but to dumb myself down and choose the lessor of three evils. In this case, I choose Obama. If you want me to vote for a Al Gore then you better stop playing American Idol with the candidates and vote for him in mass when he's on the ballot.
I don't care about either party. I don't care about the Democrats and I don't care about the Republicans. I hope the Democratic Party splits into two and I hope the Republican Party splits into three. Then, and only then, will we get the politicans we need (good ones) instead of the politicians we deserve (bad ones).
This "Potomac Primary" Voter will be casting for Obama. When it rains, it pours.
(I see a 30% margin of victory in Maryland)
Nuff' said.
loubie @ 92:
Not quite how I would have put it, but that's the point I'm trying to make...We're all wearing filters, and progressives are no better than conservatives...because we're human first.
Mister Anderson @ 94:
Your quote of 40% may/may not be accurate, but have you seen Obama's negatives? His is on par, with maybe 5% being more likeable...
So please with all due respect, stop trying to sell "people hater her."
Obama's negatives are right around the same percentage....
loubie @ 91:
loubie @ 91:
Awww, look...loubie is turning into a redstater himself, by marginalizing a fellow progressive's opinion.
John Amato, from what I've seen, would expect more.
loubie @ 92:
I think the most racist thing the Clintons said was "with Obama you are rolling the dice." Like just cuz he is black, dosn't mean he is in the ally rolling dice!
There was something to the claims that Bill at least was making racist comments before and after the South Carolina primary. He was bringing up race when it was not the topic of conversation, that would be considered racism imho.
How Hillary Will Win
loubie @ 92:
Obama NEVER called the Clinton's racist. Show me one quote from him, I dare you!
It was all the blowhards on tv making the Clinton "fairytale comment" equivalent to Dean's scream a big deal.
all this public maneuvering while the back rooms are churning with DLC, DSCC, DCCC shills for hillary. rahm emmanuel and chuck shumer and many other superdelegates, especially the northeasterners, are already quietly in sHillary's camp. As long as there is Diebold and the DLC, there will be no fair accounting for delegates.
seele @ 100:
Rolling the dice is racist? Someone tell Vegas, quick!!!
Just goes to show, you can "sound clip" anything.
Was Bill talking about MLK, or civil rights when he said "fairy tale" and "give me a break?"
No, he was talking about the fact that Obama won Iowa with a campgian based on "hope," "change" and pixie dust. The media twisted that, and o-MOB-a from Chicago wasn't ethial enough to call the media out. Instead, he let it roll.
After a while, Obamorons caught wind of the distortion to. But just kept on playing to it.
Reasons I do not like Hillary:
1.Most of the time it feels like deja vu. 1992. The Clintons ran on healthcare, and after 8 full years in office. Nada.
2. The Clintons came into office with a majority in the Houses. 2 years later they lost both and we didn't get them back again until last year. Is this sounding familiar?
3.She stuck up her finger and decided which way the wind was blowing on Iraq and voted accordingly.
4.After she backed the wrong horse in Iraq, she refuses to admit she made a mistake. Deja vu George Bush
5.She cannot attack McCain on lobbyist and corporate Pac money because she takes more of it than He does.
6.She voted for her lobbyist friends on the 2001 Bankruptcy bill when she thought we the people were not looking. She missed the 2005 vote.
7.The Clintons started Nafta and she still supports it.
There are others but I am tired of typing.
I sure am gald discourse is alive and well. I thought our free and open society was in jeopardy for a second.
Josh @ 97:
civil damnit civil discourse
Fanon @ 90:
I don't like some of the same things that Obama supporters rail about, but for different reasons.
I do not like that she voted with the majority of Dems for the Iraq Resolution, and I do not like that she didn't read the actual Resolution on her own.
What's missing though when obama supporters attack her is:
1)The vote placed inspectors back into Iraq.
2)She made it a point to give a lengthy speech to warn the President about going to war; for every other President the Iraq Resolution would be used as a deterrent...a policy that does work. Google it.
3)As former first Lady, and Senator of the Armed Forces Committee, Iraq was known to have WMDs...used chemical weapons on its own people; these things were facts. The evidence provided by the Bush admin, who knows what it said; Obama himself is on record as saying if he had access to the same briefings, he may have voted the same way. He is on record as saying that he has not criticized Kennedy, or other Dems for the same vote he attacks Hillary on, because he's not sure that the case was made entirely to "NOT go to war."
4)His speech was made 15 days after the vote; why didn't he speak up before it was cast? Once again, he wimps out when it matters; If he had been as vocal as Feingold, maybe this wouldn't be a sticking point.
I don't like the Iran vote, but Obama sponsored something to the equivalent (which failed previously) adding the Iranian Revolutionary guard to the terrorist watch list...Obama didn't even bother showing up for the most recent vote, then attacks her on it.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/FRONTP...
The best quote from that article is indicative of most of Obama's time in the state senate/senate "Obama didn't vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran bill, but he says he was opposed to it"
Seriously...how convenient is that?
Obama and Hillary's records are near identical...I do not like the fact Obama attacks other progressives to insure a win.
loubie @ 92:
your obvious lies are quite racist and I'm sure you're ok with it. I'll just keep pointing that out wherever I find it. you read like one of those assjackets on ABCblog or HuffPo.
Do you
worshipwork for clinton or rove?Torbin @ 102:
As stated previously, o-MOB-a from Chicago didn't step up to the plate and denounce the media tactics. Instead, he let them roll and had his talking heads run with the issue.
Heck, just this week didn't the former gov of Virgnia (the first black gov) drede it up again?
http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=7849914
o-MOB-a of Chicago wouldnt say that. He's a saint, you know. But he sure as hell has his surrogates say it for him.
Vote for that? Ever. Hell no.
so she poo-pooh's Obamas win in the numerous red states, but now Texas is her firewall?
Obamamoron = Person who spoke out against the Invasion of Iraq before it happened.
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards are not Obamamorons.
Josh @ 96:
that's a false equivalence. think about it for a second. rejecting false ideas is not equivalent to rejecting proven facts or positively intended ideas.
Goon @ 112:
Exactly. Classic Clintonion
greg @ 52:
Goon @ 112:
Ironic isn't it? If she drops the ball on March 4th I bet her next firewall will be a caucus state.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_i_regret_t...
Obama "i regret that my campaign pushed story about clinton and race"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/campaign-memo
This is disgusting.
Again, focus on the "leaked memo" and the 4 points his campaign raised...the comments
attributable directly to the Clinton's, not their surrogates.
I read an article by a black writer/civil rights activist that says Obama is a "bargainer", and not a "field negro".
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/13845377.html
CoIntelPro @ 110:
Mister Anderson @ 117:
Texas partially IS a caucus state. Their delegate breakup is so messed up, doing both a popular vote beauty contest and a caucus... its so weird that whoever wins the pop. vote could still walk away with less delegates. Even a 20% pop. vote win could split the delegates down the middle. At best Texas is a symbolic victory for either candidate. It doesnt solve any problems or seal the deal for anyone.
CoIntelPro @ 114:
To keep it civil, you're arguing a nonpoint..It's a fact that human beings see thing individually, and through unique filters.
A supporter of one candidate would be more willing to look the other way if his/her candidate does something inappropriate, and then exaggerate similar actions by the opposing candidate.
Yes, I hate to burst your bubble..But progressives are human too.
I can see that in loubie's comments, accusing a fellow progressive with different opinions (outside the seemingly current progressive outlook) as a "redstater".
That's what neo-cons do..."you're a not a republican (democrat) if you don't agree with me."
BULL.SHIT.
And when McCain turns to Obama and says "How can you be against the war, when you turned around and voted for 200 billion dollars of funding to continue it?"
I think that's worse than "Hillary, you voted for the war, but you're continuing to fund it."
This is politics people.
Josh @ 118:
who's the one continuing to downplay election results by black population, even though Obama won Iowa, Maine, Washington, etc, hmmm?
And are you saying Hillary has never played the gender card? that her supporters have never played the gender card? I could spend all afternoon digging up stuff... did you forget about NOW New York trashing Kennedy, calling him a TRAITOR, for supporting Obama over a woman, and ONLY because she's a woman?
I'm just saying, if you're going to play this game trying to win an argument, you're going to have a tough time getting anyones sympathy.
That's probably why the Obama campaign says they can still when the pledged delegate battle even if they lose Ohio, Texas, and Penn.
This process is going to break up the Democratic Party being that Bush's name won't be on the ticket. Seriously, if Clinton loses Texas or Ohio, I really wish the party will pressure her to do what's best for the party and give it up.
It'd be insane if her firewall is broken on March 4th, then she gets the opportunity almost two months later (April 22nd) to set another one. I seriously doubt that the majority of the party will stand for it. So I hope Barak spends at least 80% of his money in Ohio and Texas because he only needs one of them to end this charade.
Josh at 109
That's it?? You dislike ONE thing about her? Then the rest of your post is more about why you don't like Obama. Then your follow up posts are all those same, lame, tired, month old links about race and your "how can the media get away with this" rants.
Real convincing. Thanks
Goon @ 120:
That’s probably why the Obama campaign says they can still when the pledged delegate battle even if they lose Ohio, Texas, and Penn.
This process is going to break up the Democratic Party being that Bush’s name won’t be on the ticket. Seriously, if Clinton loses Texas or Ohio, I really wish the party will pressure her to do what’s best for the party and give it up.
It’d be insane if her firewall is broken on March 4th, then she gets the opportunity almost two months later (April 22nd) to set another one. I seriously doubt that the majority of the party will stand for it. So I hope Barak spends at least 80% of his money in Ohio and Texas because he only needs one of them to end this charade.
Josh @ 121:
OK, to be civil, some on this blog might fot your generalization, but I can assure you I am a progressive and I do not simply dismiss others for their opinions in the manner you described. So in the future, think about the fact that "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE BULLSHIT" before you paint all progressives with the same brush. Give that a thought, if you wish............... OR NOT. Your choice.
"fit your generalization"
loubie @ 104:
Hey dude, the rolling the dice comment struck me as racist. Also Bill's bringing up Jessie Jackson for no apparent reason other then the...
..yeah, you got it. The race card.
Mister Anderson @ 117:
From the state that brought you George W Bush, comes.... Hillary Clinton's firewall? I wonder if the Great State of Texas will reward Hillary for voting for bush's invasion? It sure raised gasoline prices. One hand washes the other.
CoIntelPro @ 127:
THIS is exactly what I mean when I told Josh that he lost me at "you people," which is a phrase that signals BEWARE! BULLSHIT GENERALIZATION AHEAD every single time.
The race card is a hand politicians have played since the invention of democracy. Obama weathered the first one thrown at him by the Clinton camp, and I think he will be able to handle the next ones from the republican opponents in the coming months.
Obama 2008
I dont know if anyone else is with me, but the second i see some version of "hillbot" "hitlery" "obamoron", etc
i stop reading the post and move on.
Goon @ 133:
I'm with you.
Goon @ 133:
the best idea i have heard today.
BabushkaBlue @ 131:
understood.
loubie @ 119:
Avid Reader @ 7:
If that happens, Chicago '68 will seem like a playground.
Hey the poster who is saying "obamamoron' don't care too much for Obama because Obama is running against his favored politician. His namecalling is a result of Obama not having anything bad with him!
Nah, I don't see the doomsday scenerio the posters here predict, Obama will win the rest of the states and trounce mccain in November. The superdelegates will be evenly split and since Obama will have more delegates beginning today, he will take the nomination.
Besides Obama will take Hillary as VP, because she is too popular to not be on the ticket rest easy Hillary Clinton supporters.
GSD @ 10:
Going after every little state out there has been part of the GOP success in presidential elections (o.k. besides cheating), and wasn't that part of Howard Dean's strategy and success in 2006? A 50 state plan? Obama will pick up some of those red states in the general election, and the Democrats have sadly proved over the years that just counting on the big numbers states like California and New York won't do it. Yet this remains the strategy of Clinton and the DLC. Personally, living in a small state, which is going Obama BTW, doesn't mean I gladly accept that I don't matter as much as someone in California or New York, and I'd bet that there are millions of voters out there who feel the same way I do about the DLC/Clinton policy and are going to stand up and be counted by voting for Obama.
"His namecalling is a result of Obama not having anything bad with him!"
Welcome to the blog, seele. It is clear from your comment that you have not been paying attention.
If I didn't believe Clinton is going to win this thing anyway, I would tell you to just tune in to CNN come September for your Obamaducation.
seele @ 140:
I wouldn't count on it. I think he's gonna balance his ticket out with either experience, a woman, or someone seen as strong on military like Jim Webb, but I doubt Clinton would be a choice. For women like it or not Sebelius would be more likely.
You forgot to mention that she is the most evil person on the planet, the reason for global warming, and she sell babies on ebay while running the KKK at the same time.
MSM....MSNBC....Pro-Obama blogs======= Karl Rove
seele @ 140:
With you right up till that last line. Not gonna happen. He won't offer. She wouldn't accept.
CoIntelPro @ 137:
loubie @ 142:
Why does everything have Obama added to it, like Obamamoron, and Obamaducation?
Joementum @ 145:
Don't be surprised, being a Vice President is the easiest job imaginable.
I just love the Hillobeans Clintons' 35 years experience myth.
I am a bricklayer by trade,my wife and I have been together 11 years.
I started in masonry 20 years ago so can my wife add 20 years of masonry experience to her resume?
Just asking.
Goon @ 143:
Fidel Castro called it months ago, Obama and Hillary on the same ticket would be unstoppable. Yes... I went there.
Login or Register to post comments.