Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary on Civil War in Party: Bring it On
Back during the 2000 recount fight, at some point around Thanksgiving, I remember Jim Baker giving a news conference. I do not remember exactly what he said, but I remember how I translated what he said in my head: "we are willing to escalate this thing all the up to a full scale Constitutional train wreck if that's what it takes. We are entitled to this presidency and no mere facts will prevent us from having it."
It felt like the bottom had dropped out of my guts and my stomach had hit the floor. There was no longer any course open that did not do damage to the body politic. It was acquiesce to their demands or accept the certainty of collateral damage to the fabric of the Republic by fighting with them. I saw, with certainty, that whoever won, there would be no reconcilation when this fight was over and that our civic agreement that at bottom, lawful government is more important than partisan interests, would be badly frayed.
I had that same sick sensation today when I read Josh's post about Hillary's WaPo interview.
No one should make any mistake about what Hillary really said today: "Give me the nomination or the Party gets it!"
If we take her at her word, today committed herself to a fight that is going to leave both sides furious and alienated and that will leave the nominee, whichever one it is, incapable of winning the general election.
Here is Hillary's numerical reality. Let the innumerate attend.
1. Hillary cannot catch up in the pledged delegate.
a. To catch up in pledged delegates, Hillary must win each and every Congressional district in every remaining state by margins somewhere upwards of 25 points. She cannot just win the states by that margin. She must win each district by that margin. Every state where she fails to do that means that she has to win the next state's districts by even larger margins.
b. She is behind in five of the ten remaining states. She cannot possibly turn those states into 63-38 wins. Among the three biggest remaining states, she is ahead in Pennsyslvania by about twelve points, behind in North Carolina by about twelve points and about even in Indiana.
2. She cannot take an unequivocal, incontestible popular vote lead between now and the convention. The absolute best she can do is generate an argument that she has the popular vote lead if you count Michigan, where she was the only name on the ballot, and Florida where she was the only candidate who actively sought votes and do not count the caucus votes.
It's worth restating. Her best case scenario for Denver is one where she is behind in pledged delegates and has a mere argument that she's ahead in the popular vote if you only count the states that she says matter.
3. Her argument that Obama's pledged delegates could vote for her is ridiculous. Those delegates will be selected by Obama's campaign and they will have one, and only one, criteria: loyalty. Obama's delegates, like Hillary's, will be the hardest of hard core supporters. Additionally, her argument that they are "free" to vote for her is just plain wrong. Under the DNC's delegate selection rules, pledged delegates are pledged to, in good conscience, reflect the will of those who elected them.
She's not stupid. She knows all of this. How, then, can she imagine that the super delegates will throw it to her?
They've made that part of their plan quite clear. They've got "to dirty him (Obama) up." They've got to pump out the septic tank and hose him down with so much sewage that he becomes unacceptable to the convention as a candidate.
So, here's the part of her plan that seems to make no sense, the part that her supporters need to take a hard look at. The part that everyone who is still behind her needs to game out to the end:
How in God's name does she imagine that she can win the general election after having done this to the frontrunner?
She's already lost the African American vote for good. Her supporters can say "he started it and we didn't do nuthin'" until the cows come home, the hard fact is is that African Americans, in overwhelming numbers, believe she and Bill deliberately played the racial politics game, starting in South Carolina, and nothing will change that. She's already lost the youth vote. None of the young people who have bestirred themselves from their customary demographic apathy to support Obama are going to turn out in November to vote for the the Grinch Who Killed Hope. She's certainly not going to get the votes of the Dittoheads who've been propping her campaign up.
And by the time she's finished with this assault, the rest of Obama's supporters will feel the same way. Attitudes are already hardening, just like they hardened in 2000. If she gets the nomination, she'll be lucky if she gets half of Obama's vote to add to her base of union guys, single white women over 40 with less than four years of college, and 2/3 of the Hispanic vote.
There is no road to the White House for Hillary in 2008 that doesn't involve magical thinking. Something like a sudden new, previously unheard of, scandal, on the level of Obama having a second family in Idaho or bodies buried in that vacant lot next to his house the Clintonistas are so obsessed with, or all of Obama's supporters just magically coming around to the white lady who knows what's best for them after she steals the nomination.
If any of you Clintonistas have a path to the White House for her that doesn't involve magical thinking, I'm open to it.
But that's rather beside the point. The question is how, after alienating half of the voters in her own party, does she think she can to win against the one Republican who is most acceptable to independents and many self-described "moderate" Democrats, a guy who beats her in every single one of the virtues that she says she brings to the table other than a tedious degree of wonkishness?
She doesn't. She can't. Hillary is the hard eyed realist, remember? She doesn't believe in magic and she's not big on hope. She has to know that her narrowing path to the nomination leads not to Pennsylvania Avenue, but, rather, over the edge and into the abyss.
So why? What possible rational explanation can there be for continuing? It is all utterly irrational.
Unless, of course, this is about 2012. Unless, that is, what she's really thinking about is 1976 and 1980. Specifically, none of this makes sense unless she, and Bill, are thinking about how Ronald Reagan took his race against Ford to the convention floor in '76, refused to even join hands with him in the traditional uplifted unity salute and then ran and won in 1980 as the candidate of "toldja I was the only one who could win." And she's probably also thinking about how Teddy's floorfight in 1980 damaged Jimmy Carter's ability to resist him.
She's thinking that, just at the Republicans blamed Ford (and Nixon), not Reagan, for the loss in '76, the Democrats will blame Obama, not Hillary for losing in 2008.
And of course, she's thinking Obama will lose because she's thking about 2000. She knows that that hardening of positions will work both ways. The longer she keeps this fight going, and the more bitter she makes it, the more her remaining supporters will demonize Obama and the less likely is it that they'll vote for him in the fall.
That's you, Clintonistas. I submit, to you that she is using you as tools to take down Obama in '08 and run against McCain, or just as likely, his Vice President, in 2012. Her plan is to make this thing so bitter, that those of you who are still capable of voting for Obama in November now will not be by the time the convention ends in August. She is taking you, quite deliberately, on a journey that ends with you having so demonized him, and beatified her in her glorious martyrdom, that you'll stay home or vote for McCain.
The only real question is whether you are onboard with that plan. If you are, then for Christ's sake at least be honest with yourselves about what you're about. Admit to yourself that preserving the chance of having a President Hillary in 2012 is more important to you than taking back the Senate, expanding our lead in the House, picking up governorships, and winning back the White House in 2008.
Because as of today, if you can't admit those things to yourself, you have two, and only two choices: stop supporting her or stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" and keep thinking those magical thoughts.
Comments (145)
I think she's posturing to force the superdels to end this thing themselves, because she wants the narrative going forward after this primary season to be that she was unjustly sidelined by the party "insiders," thus making her an "outsider." Just wrote a blog-post on this.
March 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite possible.
See: Maneuvers, Lieberman
March 30, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Rasmussen on March 9th Obama was ahead in North Carolina 47% to 40%, on March 19th the margin was 46% Obama 44% Clinton. I have not seen a more recent Rasmussen poll for North Carolina. In Pensylvania The Public Policy Poll had Clinton ahead 56% to 30% one week ago. The figures quoted in the article are flawed or false depending on how you like your mendacity. Have you ever considered how those Red States would have voted had they known about the poisonus beliefs of his "spiritual Mentor" Rev. Wright?
This thing isn't over, let the people vote!
March 31, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet! Good thing they didn't, eh?
March 31, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC-Pres (D)
Mar 31 ARGObama 51%, Clinton 38%
FYI: TPM keeps the polling updated here
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/
March 31, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
a good, thoughtful post
I agree with everything except the 2012 argument, though I can't discount that such is on Clinton's (or, the Clintons') mind. My sense is that she just can't imagine losing and is so selfishly committed to being the Democratic nominee that all else is necessary collateral damage. As I said in a comment elsewhere on TPM, the question is whether she can lose gracefully, and I don't think she can. A major character flaw, this. So the only way for the nomination to be settled before the convention is for the supers and the Democratic elders to "go ugly" and force her out. Will they have the balls for this? They'd better, because Clinton will rip theirs out if they continue "play nice." There is no other way. Sad that it's come to this.
March 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with this analysis. But two can play the game. The Obama campaign should make clear to Team Clinton that, if he is bloodied up enough, he will draw this out until the convention and then withdraw for the sake of the party. Under such circumstances, it would be Hillary who is defeated by McCain and Obama who has the clear path in 2012. As they say: Do unto others . . . but do it first.
March 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool, you want to tell him?
March 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
brilliant
March 31, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're overstating Obama's lead in the popular vote. According to RCP, if you include FL - but not MI - and count the estimates for caucus states, Obama leads by 532,000 votes nationally, 1.8 percent. With 4 million Dems registered in PA, a big turnout and a big Hillary night (both quite plausible) could cut his popular vote lead in half. If the late mo continues Hillary's way she could pull even.
Ultimately, though, your argument is really the threat that Obama supporters will take a hike in November if they feel cheated. The polling isn't bearing that out. If anything, disgruntled Hillary supporters look more likely to bolt, while African American supporters of either candidate are least likely to bolt.
Look, Obama has a lead (from RCP) of 132 delegates, with about 565 pledged delegates yet to be chosen, and 327 superdelegates uncommitted. The bottom line is that he needs 393 more delegates to hit the magic number, while Hillary needs 525. That is a big lead, but not an utterly overwhelming lead, as the Obama spin would have it.
March 30, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the late mo continues Hillary's way she could pull even.
Pulling even isn't going to convince any super-delegates to overrule the pledged delegates. But at least you're being realistic about the best-case scenario for Hillary.
The bottom line is that he needs 393 more delegates to hit the magic number, while Hillary needs 525. That is a big lead, but not an utterly overwhelming lead, as the Obama spin would have it.
That argument only makes sense if the super-delegates believe there are no negative consequences for the party if they overrule the pledged delegates. But of course they'll be very, very aware of the consequences of overruling the pledged delegates. It would take a compelling reason, such as a huge scandal for Obama, to get them to do that.
March 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are negative consequences to choosing a guy who's not going to win.
If the superdelegates believe that scenario, they'll switch in a heartbeat.
But please, tell me one more time how Rev. Wright was completely right and it only makes Obama stronger. Chuckling my way to sleep....
March 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are negative consequences to choosing a guy who's not going to win. If the superdelegates believe that scenario, they'll switch in a heartbeat.
Yes, but what scenario are you imagining that could convince the super-dels that Hillary is so much more likely to win that they should overrule the pledged delegates, in spite of what that would do to the party? Keep in mind that Hillary's favorable numbers are at a seven-year low (and only need to drop a bit more to hit the fourteen-year low), she's way behind Obama in fundraising, national polls show Obama ahead of Hillary, etc., etc., etc., etc.
But please, tell me one more time how Rev. Wright was completely right and it only makes Obama stronger. Chuckling my way to sleep....
Whatever helps you sleep at night. But it's not that Wright was right. He was wrong. But as you know, Obama's response was strong and the effects of that response are visible in the polls.
Just as the effects of Hillary's campaign tactics are visible in her nearing a fourteen-year low in her "favorable" numbers.
March 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's hilarious is that people think Hilary can win after the Operation Tuzla fiasco.
March 30, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the popular vote: I think everyone's ignoring the impact of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos: it's huge and is going to massively impact on the media's portrayal of Clinton's momentum in the forthcoming primaries, unless Obama's campaign changes its spin on this. (At the moment their spin is to downplay it. Goodness knows why; if it were working in the opposite direction Clinton's machine would be screaming blue murder about it - justifiably.)
March 30, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama is doing the right thing by downplaying the Limbaugh Effect. To complain about it would only enhance it. May whatever god you believe in have mercy on us all if the Dittoheads start really believing this is working.
That having been said, I am as concerned as you about the Limbaugh Effect, especially given how hard it is to test for. Who knows what stretegic voters tell exit pollsters, after all? Kos thinks the impact of such voters on the election will be small. I hope he's right, but I am by no means sure of it.
March 30, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when people try to show Hillary winning they go through all these hypotheticals that don't really matter? Oh, I guess it's because that's the only way to bend reality to their views. FL and MI will not be seated based on the results of their "illegal" primaries. Many caucus states do not record popular vote and those will not be "estimated" and included. And as for all those Clintonistas who threaten a vote for McCain in the general? An empty threat. Either they are all republicans and blowing smoke up our butts or they are just bitter and will come to their senses. No self respecting dem or feminist would vote for a candidate that is likely to have to institute a draft and oversee the reversal of Roe vs Wade with the appointment of another conservative supreme court justice.
March 30, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with sjw on the 2012 argument because I don't see any way that a 2012 comeback is realistic. I think she knows this is her one and only chance for the presidency, and so she's fighting to the bitter end.
Why is the idea of a 2012 comeback unrealistic? Aside from the obvious, that lots of people will blame here if Obama is defeated, she's got some extra strikes against her.
First, she'll never be the machine candidate again. This was the year that the establishment threw their early weight behind her and it didn't work.
Second, in four years there will be less Bill Clinton-era officials left in public life and in general people will see the 90's as part of the past, not an era we can revive.
Third, her use of the race card has seriously alientated a core constituency. That's a lot of baggage for any candidate to carry.
Remember also, Teddy never came back after 1980.
March 30, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Kennedy not good example,CHAPPAQUDICK, (it was bad)
March 31, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, HRC 2008 is Teddy Kennedy 1980.... I just hope she doesn't gain as much weight as he has during the intervening 28 years....
March 31, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis.
She would plan to use the same tactic in the general election, as she would have a fresh(?) supply of sewage running against McCain. McCain has way more problems than the current media coverage indicates.
March 30, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her supporters can say 'he started it and we didn't do nuthin'' until the cows come home..."
...much as historian/Clinton hatchet-man Sean Wilentz keeps doing. See for instance, his odious article in TNR, now warmed over for the opinion pages of today's Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html
He's doing to the issue of race and the campaign what Hillary's doing with the campaign itself: either you agree with him, or there is no more room for productive conversation. Poisoning the well of racial dialog.
But, hey, I guess that's what's known as being loyal to your buds--the highest of virtues, according to Skeletor.
March 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your response to Jesse Jackson Jr. campaigning in October comparing Obama to his father?
Or will you be like all Obama fans and simply ignore this, and blame Bill for bringing up the name Jesse 3 months later?
March 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I believe I've told you before that I felt Jesse Jackson Jr.'s statements were unfair and cruel, and that I had wished Obama had spoken out against them.
Second, saying that JJJ started it first by being the first to compare Obama to his father does not make the comments from Bill and JJJ appear somehow parallel; nor does it help dispell the impression many people had that Bill's comments were an attempt to explain Obama's candidacy and success in South Carolina as somehow being obviously attributable to being a "black" (or boutique/niche) candidacy.
I'm not sure why you keep bring this up, but it bothers me a bit, just as your repeated comments about Rev. Wright.
If it helps, please try to set aside the sort of factual accounting of events for a moment and view this from the perspective of the whole of the Democratic Party, and then from the perspective of African American Democratic voters. Whether you or I or the media or Sean Wilentz believe it's fair or not, there are many African Americans who feel genuinely hurt and insulted by perceived slights. And for many, these hurt responses came from within themselves, not from some external, manipulative source, as Wilentz believes. In fact, Wilentz's assertions seem to remove agency from black voters--as if they're not able to determine for themselves why they're angry or whom they're angry with. Do you see how that might only add insult to the situation? I know I do.
Anyway, I really, really hope this situation (and perhaps your dislike for Obama and his campaign) is not fostering a deeper hostility toward black voters in general. I am NOT accusing you in particular of this--I am just fearful that a needless hostility (stoked by mis-directed anger) is growing between different "identities" within the Democratic Party, and I urge you to reflect on this and examine your thoughts and feelings before dismissing it.
Though it's necessary and healthy to discuss race, I hope we can do so with respect and empathy, or else we will only be aggravating and deepening resentments. And I hope the scab-picking and deepening hostility stops soon--it's is disasterous for ALL of us in the long run.
March 30, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might be casting pearls before swine, but your effort is nonetheless admirable.
March 30, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize you'd responded before, sorry. And I'm not sure I found them cruel (unlikely his comments about Hillary welling up).
This is what Jesse Jackson Jr. provided: "Two decades ago, my father ran for president, calling on South Carolina and the nation to 'keep hope alive.' Today, Barack Obama has taken up the torch," Jackson Jr. says in the ad, which will air on 36 gospel and R&B radio stations across the state. . . . "A lot of politicians call themselves our friends. But Obama has a heart that beats for our community," he says. "Once, South Carolina voted for my father, and sent a strong message to the nation. Next year, you can send more than a message. You can launch a President."
He's even clearer in an October NPR interview "Jesse Jackson, Jr. Helps Obama Win Black Vote": "Barack Obama is not just running as a friend of the community - he's running as part of the community, he's one of us. He understands the challenges and struggles of the African-American community". Now as Jesse Sr. states, you don't divide black issues out - it's both winning and pushing black issues, and Jesse Jackson Jr. states in the interview that Obama inherited the Rainbow Coalition but then needed to strengthen up his base - the African-American community. Clear?
Second, Bill didn't dismiss them both as irrelevant - he said a victory in South Carolina doesn't mean you've won the nomination, as Jesse Jackson Sr. proved twice. And of course Jackson's campaigns were not irrelevant - Jesse Jackson Sr. did better in 1988 than he did in 1984, and that means higher black turnout along with other progressives/liberals, and greater strength in subsequent elections. As Jesse Sr. himself notes, "J.J: We are tied together. Barack is the result of all the struggles, from Selma to South Carolina. They are factors in his ascendancy, which is accurate. Again, I think it’s some more gotcha politics. I did win in ’84 and ’88, and because we ran in ’84, the Democrats regained the Senate in ’86."
I don't have anything against black voters. They vote for the candidate they feel will promote their interests, whether it's race, gender, particular issues, whether they're good looking, etc. It's their choice.
March 31, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it goes back to the MLK/LBJ scenario that Hillary herself brought up in NH.
Hillary is a polished politician. Before this campaign she had a strong lead in the AA community. Before that Bill was proclaimed "The first black president"
It suspends belief that neither Hillary nor Bill would anticipate the backlash of Hillary telling people that MLK might be a great speaker but it took a president to get it done. In fact they were counting on it.
No...there is no way that Hillary supporters can spin this. Yes JJ jr. got a little heated. But it was amazing how Obama was able to reel other supporters with justifiable outrage over that.
Think about it. Even when Bill went on to say JJ won SC twice, Jesse Jackson HIMSELF came out, and took on the Obama stance of not getting reeled in and cut Bill's race baiting by saying he didn't think it was racist.
This Hillary campaign has been trying to race bait from almost the beginning. At least from NH on, hoping to turn Obama into the racial candidate. That is what they are trying to do with the Rev Wright situation.
I am so sure the Hillary campaign is saying WTF??? After Obama's race speech again diffused yet another attempt by Hill to turn this into a race thing.
March 30, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Jesse Jackson Sr. saying much the same thing I'm saying:
"J.J. (Sr.): I wrote an article urging both of them to stay away from those edges. For example, it was unfair to attack her on that basis [Senator Clinton stated that Dr. King did not act alone. She said that he needed a politician to get civil rights legislation enacted]. The reality is that that was not an insult to Dr. King. Dr. King campaigned for Lyndon Johnson. Because if Goldwater had won, we wouldn’t have had the Voting Rights Act of ’65. You need a combination of litigation, people like Thurgood Marshall, and demonstrations, [people like] Dr. King. And legislation, [people like] Lyndon Johnson. You need that combination. That was gotcha politics. On the other hand, trying to make Barack somehow a Reaganite also was wrong."
March 31, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear God. I wish Wilentz would stop this. It's not helpful to the Clintons and it further entrenches racial hostilities within the Democratic Party. It's not good for any of us!
March 30, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to yourself. If you count the popular vote this way, but not that way, if she gets a big win in Pennsylvania, and then if the big win in Pennsylvania causes states that are currently running agains her to flip and if she Obama's people continue to feel the way they feel the way in August that they say they do now, she can win.
If I pick the right five numbers on a Lotto card, I'll be a millionaire.
March 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan.
I know, people here take this as a fact...but I'm talking in terms of leadership and historical precendent, not policy.
Hillary reminds me of the person who says "the beatings will continue until your attitude changes."
She does not win over by sweetness, sunniness, and making one feel good (like Reagan). She uses blunt instruments and smacks me over the head with them.
I don't buy the 2012 argument. Surely people in her camp recognize she will be 65 in that election. This year, she would already be the oldest, nonincumbent Dem nominee since HST (since his re-election run in 1948 was his attaining POTUS via FDR's death).
By 2012, there will be a whole new crop of possible nominees -- and the GOP will probably have some very fresh (younger) faces as well. Maybe even more female potential candidates, in both parties. At that point, HRC's only real edge left with voters in this primary season (running as a woman) goes away altogether.
In 2012, the Clinton years will be history to many voters (it will be 20 years since Bill Clinton was first lected).
In 2012, the country will be awash in an energy crisis the likes of which none of us have ever seen. Calls of "universal health care" will change for "universal heating oil". Energy issues have never been Hillary's passion and she has shown herself not to be particularly interested in science and technological issues.
There is a huge difference between the 1976 and 2008 elections: in 1976 Reagan was challenging a non-elected (even as VP) sitting President. Therefore, his loss could have been possibly anticipated, but there were reasons for going ahead (since Ford was not elected). Big money donors had reasonable expectations in this scenario and would have bought into it being a trial balloon and would fund another campaign.
In 2008, HRC is running against another Senator. She was the "inevitable" candidate and should have cakewalked to the nomination. Big money donors will not back such a pony twice, they will look to better opportunities. HRC will not be able to raise money on the scale of Obama via the Internet either: she will not be able to run an effective grassroots campaign. To run grassroots, you need young energy, and older voters, while being more reliable in the polls, are not effective at rallying other voters in a grassroots way.
I think HRC is hoping for either a backroom deal of some sort for the *2008* election or a chance to continue to raise money to offset the debts she is accruing.
I'm sure that in more than one person's mind in her camp, there is the thought that she should have run in 2004.
March 30, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think are the chances that she would run independently if she doesn't get the nomination?
March 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chances of going independent? Slim to none.
She simply isn't that brave or bold. She is not the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt.
I'm not even convinced she will run for Senate re-election should she lose the 2008 Prez nomination.
March 30, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solid analysis.
March 30, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If if if ... none of those ifs are very big ones. If she wins big in PA? - she's running a double digit lead, which Obama has not been cutting into. Any count of the popular vote is purely symbolic - but so is the claim that winning more pledged delegates entitles Obama to the nomination. Neither argument has any weight in the rules, only in the minds of superdelegates.
March 30, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can then in turn add their numbers to his column in which case he would be the winner in full accordance with the rules. He won't need many.
March 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis about Hilary blowing up the party this year to win the nomination next time around would be dead-on except for evidence that Hilary has a new plan for winning now. She seems worried she won't be able to destroy Obama's viability so she's turning to blackmail based on women boycotting the election if she isn't nominated.
She's setting this up by casting aspersions of sexism at anybody who asks her to withdraw. Big male bullies are ganging up on poor little Hilary. Hilary selflessly notes Democrats can only win with a large turnout of women. The cue is clear: if I don't get the nomination, good women, stay home. The party must hand over the nomination or kiss this election good-bye.
Meanwhile, Hilary's minions flood the Sunday talk shows with reassurances about how mild and harmless this campaign has been! We know it's mild and harmless because James Carville says so.
You have to grant Hilary a certain grudging admiration. Name another affluent white female feminist professional with a Wellesley-Yale background who could work for years for racial equality and write a book taking credit for NAFTA and later:
1) get antifeminist working class white men to vote for her in order to save the country from a NAFTA-loving black male candidate who stole a spot on the ballot through affirmative action;
2) get a generation of women's rights pioneers to use a threat of boycott to block a black male candidate whose nomination would deny Hilary a culminating triumph that is rightfully hers and theirs.
Hilary doesn't have feminist pioneers and antifeminist male factory workers dancing cheek to cheek, but she has taught them both the joy of stomping Obama!
Consistency isn't Hilary's hobgoblin. She doesn't mention Nancy Pelosi when charging that anybody wanting to wrap up the nomination soon is sexist. Pelosi gets a gender-independent big-donor boycott of all Democratic congressional candidates.
It would be nice to get back to the days when I had great respect for Hilary Clinton. I resolve to try, and then I read the day's news and she's destroyed any chance of that yet again. How low will she go, and how long?
March 30, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So:
It took Susan B. Anthony to encourage women to want to vote and it took Hillary Rodham Clinton to encourage them to throw it away?
This s very dangerous politics -- for women.
If your supposition is accurate, only HRC could get people to marginalize themselves. Personally, I don't think that women (especially the older ones as younger one's tend not to subscribe to the feminist dogma) wouldn't be stupid enough to sit it out. I can see them mounting a 3rd party candidate, or backing one.
Bottom line is the following: women voters are the majority in this country (party affiliations aside). Anytime women wanted to vote in a block and elect a women, they could.
Fortunately, many women are smarter than this. Just as they ask men to look beyond gender in making choices, so, too, they look beyond gender in making theirs.
Only Hillary Clinton could take an important national election and turn it into a playground brawl!
March 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, before 1920 they didn't have the vote. You meant after 1920, right?
March 30, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he was talking about the 2008 election that took place in the 19th century.
Prime example: Desidero has a huge chip on her shoulder about sexism and will take any opportunity to avoid the point someone is making to try and shift the discussion there.
March 30, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Desidero still believes burning her bra is a powerful symbol of liberation... Yes, HRC, Ferraro, and Steinem are still living in the bra burning past... However, they might take a hint from mother of modern feminism, Betty Friedan (author of the The Feminine Mystique), and grow up and put their bras back on... When I was a young gay man, not unlike them, I didn't wear underwear.... Fortunately, I got over than a long time ago... cheap symbollism is not a substitute for real substantive equality....
March 31, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you became gay trying on your mother's discarded bra - so much for popular misconceptions.
March 31, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, never experienced an gender confusion... I've always know I was male, never needed to try out my mother's bra...
March 31, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
and just to let you know, I have no objections to you wearing your stap on...
March 31, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, women are not a monolithic voting block... you have the older white women (the HRC supporters) and the rest... fortunately, older white women become increasingly irrelevent with each passing day...
Fortunately, Obama has brought young voters into the Party, men and women... they will be the Party's base for the next 40 years.... Obama is doing for the Party in 2008 what FDR did in 1932....
March 31, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And note that if Obama went on stage tonight and said, "There is no way a Democrat could win without black voters.", we'd have non-stop buzz on this. The Clinton's know that, hell their supporters heads would be spinning non-stop constantly talking about it, saying that this is why Obama should drop out. Funny that the Clinton's have been using female voters as blackmail and no one says a word.
March 30, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can easily visualize the chattering skull of James Carville rattling about this for days on end.
March 30, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol!
March 31, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old white women HRC supporters boycotting the Nov 2008 election would be a blessing for the country.... an keep in mind 20-25% of them will be dead in 2012 making HRC 2012 even more fanciful than HRC 2008....
March 31, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Bosnia story is informative with respect to what's going on with the Clinton campaign. Either she started to believe her story, and that's why she kept repeating it, or, her staff felt that while the story wasn't true, they could get a short term benefit out of it, and, withstand the longterm harm.
In the first case, she's delusional, and in the second case, her staff is vastly underestimating how coverage of the campaign has changed, with the advent of Youtube and blogs.
So why is she insisting on going all the way to Denver? She might be a bit delusional, and her campaign staff may not understand the reality. Or both.
As for her chances in 2012? After this campaign, and how badly it's been run, I'd say zero.
March 30, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If if if ... none of those ifs are very big ones. If she wins big in PA? - she's running a double digit lead, which Obama has not been cutting into. Any count of the popular vote is purely symbolic - but so is the claim that winning more pledged delegates entitles Obama to the nomination. Neither argument has any weight in the rules, only in the minds of superdelegates.
You completely ignore the consequences of the super-delegates overruling the pledged delegates. Your analysis (here and everywhere else you have posted recently) is predicated on the assumption that there are no such consequences. You're assuming that if the super-delegates overrule the pledged delegates the Obama supporters will just shrug and say "oh, well, you win some you lose some." You're imagining this happening even with Obama holding the lead in pledged delegates, Obama still doing well in the polls, Obama still doing better than Hillary at fund raising, Hillary's favorability ratings still down near the fourteen-year low, etc., etc. You're delusional if you think that's the way the super-delegates will look at it. They're not stupid.
March 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing for her to take to the convention if the superdelegates step up and end it. And they will, at some point. The very latest -- after the last primary. Hopefully, sooner, but that involves Obama making breathtaking strides in PA, and that's just not likely.
I wish Obama would make her an offer on MI and FL. Let her turn it down, if she is so inclined. If it's a reasonable offer giving her an advantage, then she looks ridiculous turning it down. That will be good for at least 10 superdelegates who will then -- finally -- see her unfitness to be the party's nominee. I don't see her accepting anything that doesn't favor her to a point of ridiculousness.
Obama would be the healer of the party, and she would be totally ineffective. It would say all it needs to say about her.
March 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Split the delegate count, support a mail-in re-vote. It's OK if Hillary benefits from it, because he'd still have the lead. Not only would it undercut some of her arguments, it'd also position us better for the GE.
March 30, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll do it right after PA.
March 30, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so, it would diffuse the whole situation and I don't see how it changes the nomination landscape. He still comes out ahead even with Clinton getting an advantage out of it. Admittedly, the MI primary poses a problem, but I think they can work it out.
March 31, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we don't know of any public offers that Obama has made to Hillary. I suspect more is going on privately than we are aware of.
I think Hillary is doing exactly what benefits her--leaving MI and FL up in the air. It is a seeming jab against that "darned Obama" which I don't believe has much traction with the general public. But it also allows Hillary to say that she "could win"--as we all know, if everything falls exactly right within a very narrow span (which is unlikely but it could happen--like I could win the lottery).
March 30, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vituperativeness of the Wilenz article will cause Obama to not be able to win PA in the general election. I certainly hope that Frank Rich's response is published in the Inquirer next.
Hillary is a ball buster and she plans to take Obama down with her. She does not intend for him to win the Presidency ...if she can't have it...no damn uppity Negro will either. History will not record that she lost to a black man. No WAY.
Hillary is not looking ahead to anything. She never does. Longterm planning and consequences for politicALLY expediency acts is foreign to her nature. Which is why she refuses to be held accountable for her war vote, position on NAFTA or ducking sniper fire in Bosnia.
The entire plan Hillary has right now is the Tonya Harding option...nothing else matters.
Just as Harding was found out, so too will Hillary screw her chances but then she will be content in the Senate.
More importantly, her and Bill will remain the titular heads of the Democratic party having beat back the threat to their legacy from a BLACK man.
March 30, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really, hope you are wrong here. Clinton supporters should be denying this in the comments! We all know that Obama is all about the Unity thing, so there's no doubt he'd help Clinton win if she were the nominee. Man, you know he'd give some great damned speeches for her.
So Clinton supporters, speak up! Tell us how worng vicissitudes is!
March 30, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could believe you are wrong... however, the evidence suggests you are correct...
March 31, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that in more than one person's mind in her camp, there is the thought that she should have run in 2004.
I'm not in her camp and I think that's the wackest thing I've ever heard.
What could she have done in '04, the height of Rush and Coulter and Hannity's day in the sun? For heaven's sake.
No, Howard Dean should have been the candidate - he could have won. He really could have and I regret now that I didn't support his candidacy like I should have. The progressives got shoved out of the picture again in '04. Not any more.
March 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I beg to differ a bit with you... Had HRC had the cajones to run in 2004, she would have run... and yes, if Howard Dean been the candidate, he would have won.... in both cases, they would have won because they were courageous.... instead, HRC rejected her chance and now, she is confronted with the reality that her time has long passed....
March 31, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A quibble: South Carolina is when most non-black people realized the Clinton race-baiting. Throughout December and the first week of January, many black people were already talking about the Clinton's race-baiting and we were told that we were imagining it. By Jan. 8th, black people were being blamed for the Clinton's campaining race-baiting.
March 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
fabooj,
I am endlessly amazed at how some people don't see how insulting it is to insinuate that black voters are incapable of understanding the origin of their anger. According to Sean Wilentz, black voters are only angry because they have somehow been manipulated into it by the cunning Obama campaign.
I would love to see the results of a survey of African Americans on this very subject. Until then, Wilentz's assertions are just that. It frankly astounds me that his writings on this subject are defended as rational and defensible--as if his bona fides as a distinguished scholar dress up every opinion he forms. A few weeks ago, several condescending bloggers here at TPM took umbrage that I would dare to criticize Wilentz.
Hey, I may not have an academic background or much skill at holding my own against the intellectual bullying and verbal gymnastics of some of the bloggers here at TPM, but I know when someone has lost objectivity. And I know when someone sounds crazy. Wilentz sounds crazy.
March 30, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Laura, for your thoughtful responses to Desidero and your comments on Sean Wilentz. I'm sort of predisposed to like these academicky types--particularly historians of 20th century America, which is the field I'm working in as well. That's why I am all the more disappointed and surprised by Wilentz's racial tone-deafness. His "But he started it!" articles display a lack of perspective, imagination and sensitivity that I find particularly disappointing coming from a historian.
March 30, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, I could not have said it better...
March 31, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say you do a fine job. I'm consistently impressed by your offerings.
March 30, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. You are quite right.
I admit that I was still in denial about it then, more of a "did they really mean that to sound the way it sounded" phase. If they'd been North Carolina Republicans, I wouldn't have hesitated to label it, but well, this was Bill and Hill and I was trying really hard not just to assume the worst about them because I was against them.
March 30, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, Steve. Bravo.
March 30, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm here because of Ashley" You can find this in all of BHO's speeches.
I hear the the Rove-ing team is out looking for the young white girl and the elderly black man. So far no luck. (probably tracking the "I'm not afraid" girl from the red phone contra-ad as well)
Politicians need to be carefull with these anecdotes, there is allways some one out to prove they are lying.
In the "urgency of now", Obamadupees should hang on to their dreams, with the audacity of hope,(I meant abundance of hope, sorry) Wright.
March 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a great example of a fine factless smear.
March 30, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you lost me at "I'm."
Good luck with that ulcer though.
March 30, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamadupees is better than Obamaistas.
At least I can pronounce the first one.
March 31, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the Second World War, when Japan invaded China, the leader of the Guomindang, Chiang Kai-shek, was so dogged in trying to eradicate the Communists that he completely dismissed the fact that China was being invaded and let Japan gobble up territory at an alarming (and pretty bloody) rate. All financial aide the United States sent China Chiang poured into his fight against the Communists. Mao and company were willing to call a cease-fire to defeat to common enemy, but Chiang refused, preferring to kill his own countrymen while his country's sovereignty was in jeopardy.
So eventually, Chiang's generals had enough and kidnapped him in what came to be known as the Xi'an Incident. They held him in a cave and were essentially going to kill him and stage a coup if he wouldn't agree forge a tenuous alliance with the Communists to defeat the Japanese. Eventually he acquiesced, China united, and while the war would still be bloody, Japan was unable to make the inroads it had been making in China any longer.
I'm not mentioning this for the civil war analogy, but for the way the military commanders dealt with an obdurate Chiang. Even though this is the 21st century, one mustn't discount the merits of a good old-fashioned kidnapping.
March 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Unfortunately, it's looking like the Democratic Party may be pushed into doing a figurative kidnapping near the end of April.
Very interesting post. Thanks!
March 30, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
By Jan. 8th, black people were being blamed for the Clinton's campaining race-baiting.
When was it ever otherwise? Plus ca change, so very unfortunately...
March 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an African American I can tell you this: Black people used to LOVE the Clintons. LOVE them.
March 30, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think before we can allow you to speak for all black people we need to answer a fundamental question: Are you black enough?
March 30, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone please define "race-bait', or "race-baiting ", which ever you prefer.
Also "non-black people". Does BHO qualify, or is he semi-black, or semi-white.
And while you are at it ,how about "our time has come" ? Where does that fit? When and if it really does come, how will it affect the price of oil, or the war in Iraq?
Enough of this babble, let some deep thinkers weigh in and enlighten us on what else HRC is responsible for. Go ObamaDupees, your time has come, to at least comment or opine.
March 30, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under this guise, it's a good thing General Powell didn't run for president, else you'd be asking if he were semi-Colin.
March 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
yuk yuk.
March 30, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you are the pinnacle of awesomeness.
March 31, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're actually interested, rather than just trolling, I talked about it here.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-do-white-people-think-wrig.php
March 30, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your deep thinking and enlightenment nurtures and provides the space for so many others' idiocy. Thank you for your generosity.
March 30, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the feedback. As you know, on the Internet, it's hard to hear the applause... or booing.
Actually, people are pretty good at expressing the booing....
March 31, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am still amazed that people think any president can affect the price of oil. Unless we take someone else's oil, or they increase the taxes on oil, the price you pay is a result of the market. One could get picky and talk about the value of the dollar, but still.
Anyone who runs on changing the price of oil is lying to you, unless they are telling you they will tax it more, or subsidize it.
March 31, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
else you'd be asking if he were semi-Colin.
LOL!
March 30, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the strategy is less complex but singularly Machiavellian.
A) Win the nomination by any means, even if it means poisoning and polarizing the Democratic Party.
B) Repeat that process on McCain. As many have noted so far, the MSM has largely given him a pass to date and he may turn out to be a complete pushover when the same Rovian approach is firehosed on him.
I think she is at this take-no-prisoners, last-man-standing position. One of Obama's best characteristics is his determination not to sink to this, and it is one of the reasons why I admire and support him.
The DNC is at the nexus of this. Dean, Pelosi, Gore, or whoever actually represents leadership really needs to step up and end this rabid approach. Obama has provided a path that could provide the party a return to greatness. If they sit on the sidelines, it will be back to the Slough of Despond that they had become.
March 30, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you - very good post. I wonder if it's any sort of strategy so much as simple 'reaction': I want it -- things have worked out before by my being tenacious, lying, and dealing ruthlessly -- so I'm going to keep doing that until I get it!
I guess that's the "magical" thinking you're talking about but without even conjuring up what kind of "magic" would be required. I've been struck throughout the campaign how dreadfully, woefully short-sighted some of their strategy decisions are, taking actions that only address the immediate or almost-immediate need without so much as a glimpse at the long-range, logical effect of their actions will be. (Wonderful trait in a president, that would be - has been for the last 7+ years.)
One strategy that hasn't full "come home to roost" (to use a very unfortunate phrase) is this 'dissing' of small states, red states, caucus states, etc. Maybe the politicians at convention will understand that's just talk ... but is this going to have echoes in the general election when there's already going to be motivation problems (young voters, AA voters, those who care about procedure), Hillary has such high negatives already, and John McCain is honestly pretty likeable?
The trouble with the Clintons' strategy in that regard is that it's hard to go back and say "oh, I didn't mean it - I really love you a lot." We know all about a president who simply doesn't mean what he says and simply lies if it's at all uncomfortable to tell the truth -- so most of us have perfected a "turn off" mechanism for people we simply don't trust. I'm already starting employing with HRC - just instinctively. Each utterance is interesting only because I wonder why they've chosen to say that; I have no belief that it reflects the truth except occasionally by accident. Been doing it for years with GWB and now it's my automatic response when HRC says something.
March 30, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, you've expressed my thinking exactly... thanks, Elizabeth...
March 31, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has provided a path that could provide the party a return to greatness. If they sit on the sidelines, it will be back to the Slough of Despond that they had become.
That's just how I see it, too, and it's really in the balance.
If we don't stop doing the same old shit we will never move forward. Clintons: I been there, I done that, the teeshirt is all wore out.
March 30, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, amen.
March 31, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, since I talked in lofty terms about innumeracy, a correction would seem to be in order.
So, okay, actually that's literally an impossible feat for anyone.
63-37 would be what I was going for there.
March 30, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm white, and I used to love the Clintons. I've defended them all these years.
I loved Bill Clinton - and it really makes me sad to be so disillusioned.
March 30, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons already lost what they came for and the price of their loss is the destruction of the Democratic Party. If they can't have it, then no one (except Republicans) can. The Clintons have nothing left to lose (except more money).
March 30, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This line of discussion has illuminated how John McCain will win in November. Thanks HRC!
March 30, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a brilliant assessment of the situation! I am sorely afraid that you're right and I wish the Clinton sycophants would realize they're being used for what feels wicked, second only to the wickedness of our current pResident.
March 30, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading up a little on the '93-94 healthcare debacle and the way the Clintons "demonized" those who dared to propose alternative plans (plans that might have actually stood a chance of passing).
Hillary Clinton does not strike me as a woman capable of compromise. My way or no way seems to be her style.
And that makes everything she's doing now make a lot of sense. It's twisted, destructive, and sucks hope from the soul, but it makes sense.
March 30, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Hillary supporters', like for instance Desidro, have added a great comedy follow-up in the comment section. Comedy relief is always needed and part of the phases of denial. Ed Rendell was one of the Sunday Funnies today on This Week on ABC bringing back the hill-arious suggestion that there be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Now, that's funny.
March 30, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose Obama could choose Lieberman if he wins. Or Jesse Jackson, Jr. Or Richardson. Or someone offered up McCaskill so they could team up as freshmen Senators. So many ways to lose, so many humor tickets. Perhaps Pelosi - she's almost as old as McCain. Chris Dodd or Jay Rockefeller so they could be on both sides of the AUMF. John Edwards to get a mulligan.
But yeah, an Obama/Clinton ticket would be so yuck yuck yuck. I mean, who can imagine sharing a ticket with someone who had almost as many votes? I don't ever recall rewarding the 2nd place finisher with the VP slot. And besides, we have our crossover Republicans to think about. Perhaps Colin Powell is available, or Sen. Lugar so he and Obama can discuss nukes without having to mention Hussein. Yuck yuck yuck, it's all good fun until someone puts an eye out.
March 31, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was the one who suggested Obama/McCaskill, but it had nothing to do with a freshman senator tag team. My reasons were rather self-serving; putting her in the VP's mansion would get her out of Missouri, so that democrats like myself would not have to feel so conflicted about voting for her just to keep an even worse (albeit only barely) republican out of the seat. Hopefully she would move into the VP's mansion and someone like Jean Carnahan or Bob Holden or (dare I even express this hope aloud) Charlie Dooley would win the senate seat so that we would have a real democrat in the seat.
March 31, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes as a Black person, I can say the same. We LOVED the Clintons. Me and most of my friends and family are shocked at the race baiting by the Clintons and mad because we supported them for all of these years and they stooped to such a low level. We would never support Hillary after this. Also, a lot of us were not completely aware of the depths of the the sleaze that the Clintons were involved in. This election has made many of us look into their history and realize that we were just being used as pawns, just as the Clintonistas are now.
March 30, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
checkout Hillary in New Hampshire. She is serious as to why she is staying in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3enFIPvnFg
It boils down to the fact that she helped Bill get to and through 8 years of the presidency. For all this talk about the Obama Cult, Hillary has subscribed to the idea that She is the Only One who can beat the Republicans, and She is the only one who can help this country.
And on top of it, imagine the stress she put herself through to survive being married to Bill for all this time. She has truly suffered in her quest to this top position. The inevitability of it is not just a slogan, but the very thing she tells herself at night when the rest of us humans would cry ourselves to sleep and wish we could change it all. She has justified living in a abusive relationship to get to the position she is aiming for now. To stop her would to remove all that has kept her alive and functioning.
Do not get me wrong - I do not say this from the perspective of a Hillary Hater, rather from a perspective of psychology. Good, Bad or Indifferent, I think she should fight till she drops. But to overlook why she is fighting, and overlook why she will not ever stop fighting, is to be blind to the dynamics and the subsequent course this will take. She literally cannot stop, or all will be for naught.
Nihilism is a deadly state of mind when you focus on one goal to hide from the vacuum. Most of this mortal coil who face the vacuum no sound anchor (religion, family, whatever) will end our lives rather than dwell in the silence.
March 30, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post & many of the comments are surreal.Is this woman this evil? Some of the things being said are over the top & very disturbing. This does not bode well for the democratic party. Am I the only one who feels this way?
I'm a Obama supporter to the core, & this has made me physically sick.
March 30, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not evil, she's just self-deluded. She thinks only she can win against McCain.
March 31, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
BHO is not compromising
HRC is not compromising
Most of these posts are pro BHO and are demonizing HRC.
It takes two to tango and both
BHO and HRC are damaging the democratic party.
Clintonistas
Obamanistas
These are silly comments.
Simply put, if BHO and HRC do not compromise with each other then the general election may be lost to McCain.
You can spin this another way. Ed Rendell put out a peace offering discussing a joint ticket and BHO appeared to almost reject it out of hand.
May be it is BHO's ego that will harm the democratic party.
Anyway, I think you need to look at it from both sides and then try to re-focus on the big picture.
The general elction.
And both BHO and HRC are starting to trail McCain.
That is a bad sign.
March 30, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the concept of the winner taking second place. The essence of the competition.
If Hillary can stay in against all odds, why would the front runner take second place?
March 31, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, HRC is uncompromising in her argument that that world is flat;
Yes, Obama is uncompromising in his arugment that the world is a sphere;
I'll take Obama's uncompromisingness any day... reality should always trump delusion...
March 31, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since when does the loser get to offer the second place on the ticket to the winner? Obama should have rejected that silly offer out of hand.
March 31, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
he actually did
March 31, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't remember where I saw it--Newsweek maybe--but there was a short piece speculating that Hillary could run for NY Gov in 2010. It cited "unnamed sources," of course, that said Hillary folks thought this would position her for a run in 2012, 2 more years of executive experience (does she need that? i thought she ran the country for 8 years?) It also said Hillary believes Obama will not win and McCain will only serve 4 years, and that Hillary was interested in the idea and Bill was less so...
So, according to the anonymous sources in the article I cannot find, she is thinking about 2012.
Oh, here it is:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399
March 31, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, your post qualifies as a screed. It's utter hyperventilating hysteria. I think you need a prescription for Valium or you'll never make it to April 22 with your bowel intact. Turn off the computer and go do something useful like volunteer at a homeless shelter. You obviously have too much time on your hands.
I've finally figured something out:
Barack Obama makes grown men cry.
Hillary Clinton makes grown men pee their pants.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
March 31, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be patiently waiting for Desidero to blast you for making such an obviously sexist comment.
March 31, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it reminded me of Prairie Home Companion - "Where women are strong, men are good looking, and children are all above average".
And then there's the hint of Chris Mathews "I always cross my legs when I hear her" bit - yes, probably something about Hillary scares the pee out of a good many people, and I've heard a number of people say they cried when they heard/read an Obama speech - don't have the gender breakdown.
March 31, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the fair reading, Desidero.
As the mainstream punditry is overwhelmingly male and favors Obama almost in lockstep, the "male response" to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is pretty easy to assess and even document. Maybe because men are used to being the majority voice in our culture, they haven't noticed this pro-Obama phenomenon. (And why should they care? It's no skin off their noses.) I haven't heard anyone comment on it. (Big surprise there.)
The mainstream media response is echoed (mimicked? who can know for sure) in the blogosphere, here at TPM as at other popular "progressive" blogs. I haven't heard anyone comment on this, either. (Another huge surprise. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
I can't say what the mainstream "female response" is to either candidate because women are the minority voice in our culture despite being half the population. Even with an equally qualified and extremely competitive female candidate in our midst, the female "voice" (opinion) is absent (drowned out?) in the media. I'm noticing that people like Peggy Noonan (who parrots the male point of view exactly but uses female-coded language) or Donna Brazile (who parrots Obama catchphrases like "Wall Street to Main Street") get prominent and repeated exposure in the media as well. So again, I can't say what the female point of view is about either candidate, so I must limit my observations to men.
I can guess, however, that if Hillary is forced out of the race prematurely or unfairly, McCain will be president.
I shouldn't have to explain any of this to otherwise observant people like DF, but sadly, I do have to. I don't blame DF, it's just the way it is from where I sit.
I'll take the Keillor parallel as a compliment, btw. Thanks.
March 31, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all your smarts in other areas, you're consistently clueless about what sexism actually is, DF.
March 31, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a man, and HRC give me a throbbing sensation in my pants.
March 31, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear Hillary is shafting her vendors when it comes time to get paid. So much for her love of the working guy.
Guess someone has to tell them that is is Her Turn to run for president, but it is not their turn to get paid for their hard work.
March 31, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes it a screed? It looks like a pretty sober analysis to me.
March 31, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, by "screed" I mean "rant." I'm referring to the over-the-top-language, the unsubstantiated claims, the repeated feats of mind-reading, the repellent accusations of racism, the preposterous imagery, and the stereotypically lunatic ravings to articulate a paranoid and apocalyptic scenario that will never actually happen. They include:
Just my take on it.
March 31, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you mean by "rant."
March 31, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's one vote for the "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA Can't Hear You!" option.
March 31, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know nothing about me or my views, NCSteve. If you weren't a sky-is-falling hysteric in your presentation, I might be able to listen to your argument. However, now that you've demonstrated you're not able to listen in return, we seem to be at a stalemate. Voila!
March 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping this thread is still alive readytoblowagasket because I take your point that many of us are so frustrated about Hilary that we indulge in rhetorical excesses.
We're frustrated because we really think--to our astonishment--that she's consciously, systematically dividing the party in a way that is likely to cost Democrats the historic opportunity to win this election. The problem isn't dividing the party between her and Obama, but by race, gender, socioeconomic level, etc. We're frustrated by what strikes us as her apparently cheerful readiness to destroy Obama in order to force the party to turn to her. I apologize for excessive rhetoric based on the importance of what seems to be slipping away.
You could help us all out by explaining exactly where we err in interpreting Hilary's campaign behavior as we do. (Some of us were great Hilary enthusiasts before this campaign, by the way, in many cases undecided between Obama, Edwards and Hilary.)
Has Hilary, since falling behind, not tried to destroy Obama? Was there no change between her saying the Michigan primary should not count in accordance with the DNC's decisions, and then, after falling behind, saying it should? Are we imagining that she saw undemocratic failings of caucuses--which many of us don't like--only after she started losing caucuses big?
To take what I think are the two most recent cases, please explain how we can see the following Hilary moves with equanimity:
1. Challenging Obama delegates en masse at this weekends Democratic conventions in Texas counties/districts that went heavily for Obama in the primary. Why does this look to us like a Republican vote suppression operation? Where are we going wrong? Though no one has proved Hilary responsible for false messages telling delegates their conventions were moved or canceled, it's hard to imagine why anyone else would do such a thing since it's well known that Obama was going to pick up delegates based on previous returns. For factual detail, please see the Burnt Orange Report and the reaction of legitimate Obama delegates who were challenged by Clinton representatives, forced to stay many hours to record their votes (if they had the endurance). The result for them was newly developed hatred for Hilary that "burns like a thousand suns," in the words of one. Granted that delegate resorted to excessive rhetoric, but there appears to be some basis in the in-your-face tactics of the Clinton campaign, doesn't there?
2. Hilary's statements in the Post and other statements by Hilary surrogates saying women will turn out only for her and the Democrats can't win without women. While the former statement is probably true and the latter is certainly so, it might have been a bit less threatening if Hilary suggested that if, after continuing to fight fair and square, she loses the nomination, she will encourage all her supporters to vote for Obama and she will work tirelessly to ensure a large turnout. As it is, she seems to be ginning up a female boycott of Obama--particularly since she and her campaign are calling party leaders worried about deepening divisions "bully boys" and "patronizing." That sort of thing strikes some of us as an extreme tactic designed to turn male and female Democrats against one another, and especially to turn Hilary supporters irrevocably against Obama. It strikes many of us that an inevitable and disturbing side effect will be turning blacks against Hilary. What if Obama had said blacks will turn out only for him in the fall--wouldn't that strike Hilary's supporters as a threat to torpedo her nomination by telling delegates and party leaders that if they don't hand him the nomination, he'll quietly encourage black voters to stay home? Where are we going wrong in thinking Hilary is deliberately exploiting gender and racial divisions in a way likely to prove fatal to Democratic hopes?
In summary, what is the correct, unbiased, rhetorically temperate interpretation of Hilary's tactics in challenging delegates to Texas conventions in Obama-favoring districts en masse, and the correct, unbiased, rhetorically temperate interpretation of Hilary's claims that women will turn out for her and her alone in the fall?
Show us the right way to interpret Hilary so that we will realize the error of our ways and get comfortable with the underlying nobility of Hilary's approach to this campaign. We would like to escape from the misguided exasperation that has us constantly blowing rhetorical gaskets in a way that is unfair to Hilary.
March 31, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for getting the point about rhetorical excesses, lifelongdem. Much as I would like to tackle your thought-provoking questions, I see it as a herculean task, at which I'm certainly doomed to fail, at least in this comment thread. Maybe I'll write my own diary entry about it, and everyone can pitch in.
In the meantime, however, you are asking the essential logical question: Does it make sense that Hillary Clinton would destroy the Democratic party and/or herself?
The answer is no, it honestly doesn't make sense.
When something doesn't make sense, what do you do? You start considering and hunting for alternative answers. Answers that do make sense.
Where to begin? First, locate the source of the theory that HRC is destroying the party.
Guess what you'll find? The MSM has been beating this dead horse for years, effortlessly transferring a criticism of Bill Clinton directly to Hillary Clinton without breaking a sweat. This 2005 Chuck Todd article in The Atlantic is a bridge from the past to the present. How accurate was Todd in general? I'd say about half accurate; about as good as you or me.
Check out the archives listed on the right-hand side for some familiar names: Fallows, Brooks, etc. The names are all the same. Read those articles. How accurate were they?
Most journalists are just recycling the same shit from years ago in a different package for 2008. If history proves they are only half right, shouldn't we take their current hypotheses with an equal helping of skepticism? People can calm themselves down by being skeptical, for starters.
March 31, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it make sense that Hillary Clinton would destroy the Democratic party and/or herself?
No it does not make sense... that is why we call it psychosis.
March 31, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking the truth is not over-the-top-language... it is the truth... if you cannot handle the truth, see a therapist.
March 31, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the concept of the winner taking second place. The essence of the competition.
yes I'm deeply amused myself. Why in the world should the winner suddenly decide to take second place? He's winning and her people keep saying it's time for him to drop out. {chuckle} and *sigh*
March 31, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
what can you expect from the delusional
March 31, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will we talk about if HRC is gone? It will be months upon months of boredom before the general election with no HIllary. C'mon and catch that HRC Stockholm Syndrome!! You go girl!!!
March 31, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What will we talk about if HRC is gone? It will be months upon months of boredom before the general election with no HIllary. C'mon and catch that HRC Stockholm Syndrome!! You go girl!!!
March 31, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has everyone (especially the Obama supporters) seen the latest This Modern World? If not, I strongly recommend that you check it out. Good for a moment's grin.
March 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
merlot said upthread:
Yet another truly low-IQ comment, courtesy of an Obama supporter.
If you think McCain is a blessing.
Dead in 4 years, eh? If there's an age-specific epidemic that afflicts 65-yr-olds between now and 2012, then maybe.
March 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you cannot handle facts, shut up.
March 31, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so true about Hillary making Youtube really fun to watch. :) I'd thought it'd be McCain, how wrong I was. Let her run as long as she wants, at this point, she's just self-detonating with every new dramatic revelation, looking more and more unhinged. I'm sure Limbaugh and listeners are having a good chuckle right now. It's like watching the fall of a corrupt, mishappened dynasty.
To think that I used to feel sympathy when she was attacked by Barbara Bush etc.
March 31, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
merlot said upthread:
Excuse me?
You just dated yourself, you old fart. Half of Obama's supporters don't know WTF you're talking about.
Gloria Steinem should take hints from Betty Friedan. Good one! Not to mention they were contemporaries.
TOO MUCH INFORMATION ALERT.
I think I've asked you this before, merlot, but you never answered: How's that Donnie McClurkin thing working out for you?
March 31, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket: Having demonstrated that you have already blown your gasket, I'm not sure anything I say will have any impact on your blown gasket. However, you need to at least get your facts right. Friedan and Steinem were not and are not contemporaries. Friedan found Steinem's inability to move forward repulsive. As for being an "old fart," at least I recognize the fact. Sadly, you don't.
March 31, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the current situation I find journalists reponsible for the view that Hilary's campaign is endangering the Democratic Party.
Based on this campaign, I think Hilary is, in fact, greatly damaging Democratic prospects in this election. I think she's doing it through tactics I thought no Democrat would use against another Democrat. I think she's doing it in a year when it's imperative that the Republicans get kicked out of the White House. We had about a 2% chance of a Republican winning when Hilary went negative. Now it's 50-50 at best, with blacks staying home if it's Hilary and women staying home if it's Obama.
Journalists are not to blame for this. The excessive rhetoric here and elsewhere in messages about Hilary is, in fact, because a lot of us are extremely upset at her willingness to divide the Democratic Party when the stakes for this country are so high. She's done such a great job that no matter who gets the nomination, there really will be Democrats who stay home or defect. That's not just because they'll be disappointed their candidate didn't win. It will be because they don't want an anti-black or anti-female lowlife in the White House and think McCain can't be worse than the Democratic nominee. That's the mess Hilary's campaign has made, no matter how often James Carville and Bill Clinton and Hilary say tut-tut, we'll all come together in the end. I'd have to close my eyes and bite my tongue to vote for Hilary. I think she has shown she would be awful for this country. I don't want the Democratic Party in her hands. This is totally different from how I felt about her before she unleashed such a nasty, adroit, divisive campaign.
Chuck Todd is not to blame. I didn't even know what he thought on the subject. I'd only heard him say no one should ever count her out.
My plea was a sincere one for someone to explain, why, factually, I'm wrong to be upset by the campaign Hilary has conducted.
Where am I failing to see what a swell thing it is for the Democratic Party and the country? Why am I misinterpreting what appear to me to be racial and gender manipulations leaving lasting racial and gender divisions that weren't in the Democratic Party before. Why am I wrong to see what Hilary is doing in Texas as vote suppression, where am I wrong in seeing efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the whole Democratic electoral process?
This doesn't look to me like politics as usual in the Democratic Party. What other Democrat has done in a recent presidential campaign the things Hilary is doing now? Did Kennedy? Johnson? Carter? Clinton I? Gore? Kerry? If they did, I missed it. Ted Kennedy was divisive and destructive in hanging on too long trying to beat Carter, but I don't recall him or any other Democrat going for racial and gender divisions and vote suppression since the days of the Dixiecrats.
March 31, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Permit me to condense you post to a single sentence: HRC is self-destructive.
March 31, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a cancer in the Democratic Party: After reading and considering the rants of readytoblowagasket, it is clear there is a cancer in the Democratic Party and readytoblowagasket
is clinical proof thereof. The cancer thrives on delusion, mythology and passive-agressiveness.
HRC and her psychotic supporters such as readytoblowagasket suffer from the same psycopathy as GWB... they cannot deal with real-world facts. They will lie, cheat, and steal and then claim to be victims.
March 31, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, readytoblowagasket has not responded when presented with truth... she just cannot deal with the reality that HRC is nothing more than a sore loser...and that is a good thing for the country... readytoblowagasket represents everything that is wrong with American politics...
March 31, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
merlot,
You haven't answered my question.
How's that Donnie McClurkin thing working out for you?
March 31, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I am in a monogamous relationship, I don't do "things." I'm not quite sure who this Donie McClurkin is... in short, I'm not interested. Thanks.
April 1, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
lifelongdem,
Hope you're still checking this thread.
You ask an excellent but emotionally complex question. Please bear with me as I take a stab at offering an adequate answer.
You are not "wrong" to be upset. Besides voting, that's your valid role in this process: to react, to be emotionally involved. The worse scenario for Dems would be for voters to be complacent or apathetic.
Putting aside the Clintons for a moment, where you are "wrong" is to lose all faith in your party.
One reason to have faith in the Democratic Party is because of the recent fact (no small one, I might add) that the Dems took the majority in both House and Senate in the midterm elections. Taking both was a major coup, much more successful than was predicted, remember? Although Dems have been demoralized by the elections of 2000 and 2004 as well as by 8 years of the worst president in history, the 2006 midterms should give us some confidence that the Democrats are making a return. (Flashback to how exciting it was when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker.)
This is why you need to look at the party as its own entity. If we Democrats are strong enough to withstand the shock and awe of 9/11 and 8 years of George W. Bush, I am positive the party is strong enough to withstand this primary campaign.
I think the fierceness of supporters' loyalty to both Clinton and Obama is a testament to the strength of the Democrats overall for the GE this year. So the question is, how will these two fiercely loyal groups come together in the end? I don't know, of course, but there are some plausible scenarios, despite the current acrimony. If there were no options, no possible hope for reconciliation, then I would worry. But we're not at that point yet.
I don't agree that Dems are normally civil to each other during competitive campaigns (think back to how Dean was treated, for a recent example).
But I do agree that the Clinton campaign is testing Obama using nearly the same script that Bill was subjected to by Republicans in 1992. I think this is by design (to test the public's reaction before the Republicans test it for us) and even sanctioned by the party. If it weren't okay, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter would step in. I can't claim this as a fact, but I do think it's logical to watch Gore and Carter. So far they seem generally calm, right?
I also think Clinton is being vigorously tested by the Obama campaign and the media. Clinton has to withstand her test as much as Obama has to withstand his. They are bound to stumble, but if they crumble, they won't have been strong enough to withstand the Republican onslaught, which is guaranteed to be uglier, more creative, and merciless.
Much as we want to see a Dem in the WH, probably no one wants to win more than the Democratic leadership. Powerful as the Clintons are as a team, they are also a part of that club. They know the game. They are not going to destroy Obama or the party. It's true that they can. But they won't. If they were going to, they would have done it by now. Maybe because I'm a Clinton supporter, I have more trust about this than you do.
As for the voters' passions, again, it's our job to be passionate. Obama and Clinton are responsible for leading us out of this mess. Let's give them a little more time to become leaders.
The reason I brought up the media in my last comment is because of its lopsided influence on us. I'm not blaming Chuck Todd specifically, but I do think it's imperative for us to vigilantly gauge the media's effect on our discourse. I think most political fare is badly written, badly edited, and fact-challenged opinion pieces masquerading as journalism. It's also manipulative. Journalists are definitely to blame for that. But we need to be cognizant of when our chains are being jerked.
I spent some time in Canada last year and I was amazed at how blinkered, superficial, and self-referential U.S. political coverage is compared to coverage of politics in Canada. It was the first time I saw American TV outside of the U.S. and I was horrified and embarrassed.
You are not misinterpreting the racial and gender "manipulations" (which is the perfect word, btw). You are seeing those manipulations very clearly.
However, the divisions have always been there. It's why getting Dems to unite behind one nominee is like herding cats. If you throw Ralph Nader into the mix, you can count on Dems to stray. Republicans never stray. Looks like it's time to deal with the divisions within the Democratic party. It's bound to be painful because we've ignored them for far too long. Yes, it's risky.
I can't speak to the vote suppression you are referring to, because I don't know enough about it. I do know there are accusations from both camps of vote irregularities in many states.
I'm afraid I can't give you a historical precedent that will ease your mind, lifelongdem, if that's what you mean by "factual." I think Karl Rove changed both the gameboard and the rules forever, and that's the political reality we live in now. So again, I look to the 2006 midterms to prove the Dems are figuring out how to win.
April 1, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
At last, your better angels are speaking. I've come down hard on you and you on me. However, in this post, you have finally engaged in an objective discussion. More importantly, you have raised the issue of divisions within the Democratic Party and the need to take the risk of addressing them headon. So, kudos to you.
April 1, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
See? If we at TPM can see each other's point of view after beheading each other, the party can ultimately unite too! lol!
merlot, you have to give me (and some others) more time to respond. I know the pace here is rapid-fire, but I for one am not a speed-writer, and there are periods during the day when I am away from the computer for hours.
April 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment