« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited
Hillary took her speech last night to speak for the 18 million people who've supported, campaigned for her and care passionately about her goals. If you take a look at the segment of the speech "What does Hillary want?," it expresses to a tee why I've cared so much about her campaign. It's not about her being the first woman or him being the first African American. It's about those progressive liberal policies that I truly believe in and yes, I am saddened by the fact that with Hillary exiting the race, so goe sthe hopes for truly universal healthcare, aggressive foreclosure prevention policy, and a foreign policy based on aggressive diplomacy.
Obama folks were so angry she didn't concede last night that they couldn't even acknowledge the obvious - there is much common ground in her speech with her and Obama - much more so than McCain.
And Hillary folks were angry because Obama and his campaign would not give Hillary the space to give Hillary and her supporters one night to celebrate her campaign before moving in to the next phase of the election. I hate to use Jesse Jackson as a reference for democratic primary candidates since that would make me a racist, but I do not recall him conceding the race to Dukakis in 1988 before the convention precisely because he wanted influence on the issues of the party platform. Obama's policies can use some progressive liberal influence. We have great hopes of expanding the democratic margins in the House and Senate. Now is the not the time to be safe and timid with our economic policies. If there was ever a time to achieve truly universal healthcare a presidential goal, it is NOW.
In the spirit of unifying the party had I been Obama's campaign, I would have let the voters speak last night in SD & MT rather than pressuring super dels to put him over the top before voting had ended. I would have given Hillary one speech to her supporters to thank them for their dedication to her campaign. I would have taken the Clinton campaign at their word that they were NOT conceding Tuesday night. I would have scheduled this victory rally jointly with Senator Clinton conceding to the delegate lead to him publicly in a campaign rally like last night. THAT would have been a move towards party unity. I regret that is not the way it played out.
I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty (who me sending out memos about the Clinton's being a racist? We would never push the RFK assasination story except in memos to the press! What's in those tax returns?!?!?!) That bodes well for November in that perhaps they can slur McCain as well (he's a nutjob! what's the deal with that black baby! he's senile! his time in captivity made him psycho and not likeable enough!), but in the meantime has left many Hillary supporters angry that the candidate we believed could win and bring the best progressive policies to the table was being unfairly attacked not on substance or policies but on is she likeable enough and is she member of the Klan. The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling.
Obviously time is necessary to heal the breach and move forward to November, but I would ask the Obama supporters to go back and take a look at her actual speech rather than just continuing to attack Hillary over and over again which I can say with conviction will just continue to deepen the divides in the Democratic party. Isn't what Hillary wants what we all want?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us/politics/03text-clinton.html



Comments (246)
Don't confuse the 20 percenters with the campaign itself. Just as there actually are racist supporters of Clinton, there actually are sexist supporters of Obama. Just as there are those who smear Clinton, there are those who smear Obama. Just as there are the "I won't vote for Obama in the general" pouters, there are the "we don't need your votes anyway" gloaters. Don't conflate these people with the campaigns of the candidates they support.
Heck, it seemed that yesterday you were blaming the Obama campaign for how the media was interpreting Bill Clinton's words.
June 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Ben. But if TPM is pretty much ground zero for Obama supporters then most here would tell us to go do whatever we care to do.....Obama and themselves do not need our votes. Would you disagree with that assessment?
June 4, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would disagree with the word most. Definitely several have, and perhaps many of the rest of us have been guilty of remaining silent during those statements. I usually remain silent myself. Humorously, on at least one of the few occasions when I did speak up I was accused of being a GOP operative (presumably because the GOP would like nothing better than to see us all getting along).
Similarly, I don't think that most of the minority group of Clinton supporters at TPM have said they're not going to vote for Obama, but it feels that way sometimes to us Obama supporters—selective perception at its finest. (In fact, I think most of the Clinton supporters here have already positively said they would vote for Obama in November if he were the Democratic candidate.)
June 4, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say your right about Clinton Supporters taht are left here. By and large to be here anymore you need to be a total Political junkie and Party people. I take the point well that Barack has brought in a lot of supporters that weren't Party members and won't be party members. That is fine. But, there is an obvious rub there and I think that is where a lot of the division between the two sides here stem from.
June 4, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse my "your"
June 4, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, at this point it's a running joke!
Now when you do it, I suspect it's intentional at least half the time, just to tweak my sensitive grammatical instincts. ;)
June 4, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way. We need Hillary supporters' votes. We need your vote in particular.
There are times when particular Clinton supporters who were threatening to go Republican have been told, "Look, if you want to vote for John McSame, go do it." That happens, generally, when the Clinton advocate has gotten so repetitive that they no longer seem to be listening, or genuinely interacting -- just seeking to cause pain. But I have never felt that was the case with you or dijamo, or with the Clinton supporters I know in daily life.
June 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that concerns me is the immediate knee jerk reactions. She is going to concede now or at the convention. It actually really doesn't matter to Obama if she does ..does it? He should keep going with what he has done so far this month and work on the General. Hillary might take this to the Convention but that is party politics and is not a General Election. Platforms and positions within the party are decided at the Convention, not how Obama will work on the General.
If I am him. I shrug and go on. He even called her last night. Why?
June 4, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd argue it does, exactly because we can't take her supporters for granted. Obama needs time to win them over, and the sooner she concedes (but, yes, she needs to do it on her terms), the longer he'll have to do it.
All kinds of possibilities. Maybe he wants to discuss her interests in being VP. Maybe he wants to know what he can do to help with her finances. Maybe he wants to know what it'll take to get her completely on board ASAP. Maybe he was just seeking advice. :)
June 4, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media was not interpreting Bill Clinton's words when the AP erroneously reported that "campaign sources" confirmed Hillary was conceding last night. I still believe the source of that AP story was the Obama campaign. I still believe the Obama campaign was putting pressure on super dels to declare before voting was over last night - even ones like Jimmy Carter that said they'd have preferred to wait until all the voting is over.
June 4, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would the AP trust Obama campaign sources for such a news item? In order for your conspiracy theory to work, the AP has to pretty much be in on it.
June 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Repost from yesterday-
Breaking news: proof that Obama campaign was behind the AP story that Hillary would concede last night:
Axelrod: Pssst HRC promised to concede tonight. Spread the news.
AP Reporter: Great news! I am so excited. Obama rocks! Let me rush this to press with no journalistic standards whatsoever and then I'll do my happy dance!
Axelrod: They can't know it's from us - how can we deflect attention
AP reporter: I know! How about "Campaign Official". Just shady enough so it can be misinterpreted as from the hillary camp while not being an outright lie to save my last shred of journalistic dignity.
Axelrod - Perfect! sounds like a deal.
AP Reporter: Let me just verify over with HRC campaign
Axelrod: Why you wanna do that? Trust don't verify. Run with it.
AP Reporter: How could I ever doubt you? I apologize for having offended Obama. Your wish is my command.
June 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you believe that, then you're in serious denial.
I'm hoping you're just being funny.
June 4, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's my crazy ass conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
June 4, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? Certainly wouldn't be the first time.
June 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHA!
June 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo has kicked everyone's ass so many times I tremble whenever her black smiley face comes over the hill. And that's from kicking your ass, not mine. Hate to imagine her pissed at me.
June 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just being ridiculous. As usual.
June 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence? The AP would have to be pretty trusting to print a "Clinton concedes" story if their source was inside the Obama camp. That would be r-e-a-l-l-y trusting, so I kind of doubt it. My guess is that it was a case of miscommunication.
June 4, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The source was Terry McAuliffe, and it was on the record.
June 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong Terry Mac said she would not concede until after he had reached the critical number of delegates and they expected to concede this week. the AP story deifnitvely said Tuesday night she will concede sourced by ""campaign officials". Every other story they have sourced say Aides to Clinton or sources within the Hillary campaign or Clinton fundraisers clearly identifying at least the affiliation or camp it was coming from. First time I have ever seen sourcing that ambiguous in reference to Hillary's campaign. But whatever - you say potato, I say bullshit.
June 4, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say bullshit, I say you're blaming the Obama camp out of wishful spite when it's clear that the Clinton camp was trading mixed signals with itself all day.
June 4, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was on the road last night. Watched Hillary's speech and the first part of Obama's. When I realized the rest of the speech was going to be a stump speech, I switched to the women's NCAA softball finals. I suspected the more extreme tenants of the echo chamber would go crazy over Hillary's speech. I so hope she has the good sense to stay far away from that ticket.
June 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - I can't decide whether I'd like to see Hillary go off with Bill promoting philanthropy around the world or stay in the Senate and push for the progressive liberal policies that she believes in. I don't want her reduced to VP when she can have MUCH more impact elsewhere. Other Dick Cheney, VPs don't have much authority or impact on policy and I for one do not want another Fourth Branch of Government.
June 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather see her stay in the Senate. During an early debate, Obama said he'd seek her advice on certain issues, and I think he will.
June 4, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. He even said he looked forward to her advising him.
June 4, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is largely my own thinking. It would be a waste of talent and intelligence to let her languish in the VP's mansion. Towards what end?
June 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toward her own. 59 + 8 = 67. "Hillary for President" in 2016 as successful VP incumbent.
June 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not obvious to me that VP is a really great position from which to run for the presidency. It was no great help to Nixon, or Mondale, or Gore. It worked well for the first Bush, that seems more like the exception than the rule. If Clinton wants another shot at the presidency, it is not at all clear to me that her odds would be improved any if she were to run as Vice President Clinton instead of as Senator Clinton.
June 4, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like what you're saying. I hope Hillary stays far away from the Obama ticket as well.
June 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got Terry on video.
I guess the argument is what "magic number" you want to use.
June 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you claim to "still believe" does not make it so. Just because you can imagine something, that does not make it real.
June 4, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I still believe the source of that AP story was the Obama campaign."
Well, if you have some evidence to back up your allegations, you should put it out there. Otherwise, what you're saying amounts to little more than wild speculation and vague slander.
June 4, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post. Recommended. Though, You will be assailed any minute in the worst terms here. But thanks. Well thought out and right on the mark. As usual
June 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice avatar.
What happened to the name change? I thought it was pretty funny.
June 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the time-stamp of the comment you're responding to. :)
June 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry,
When I wrote that I thought the name change would be reflected in all of the profile's posts, like an avatar change is.
I later saw that this is not true.
June 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The general calls for unity and respect I agree with. Giving Hillary a coupla days to let her supporters cool off (and raise money) I agree with.
The stuff about not rushing to declare victory, I cannot agree with. It's important that there be a moment of victory, and it's very important (for PR reasons) that the moment should coincide with an election, not with Jim Superdelegate having a three-martini lunch. It's theater, but it's theater that helps us all as Democrats.
Barack didn't pressure Hillary. He was very gracious. As Ben says, you've gotta ignore the 20-percenters. Pay attention to the top 80 percent, and especially to Barack. Barack's giving Hillary all the respect he possibly can.
Did his campaign play hardball? Yep. You bet. Everyone in this race played hardball. This is not a competition to be choir-boy-in-chief. Democrats have to know how to fight. If they can do it without getting their hands dirty, more power to em. In a couple of months, we're going to make John McCain wish he could time-travel back to 1959.
June 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Alex, First time a Obama supporter has admitted that he was as hardball as we saw him. My question though is about your 80/20 rule. Look at the right of the page. I think the 80% are really not that kind or forgiving or wanting the help of any of the 18million.
June 4, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-selection. People who post here tend to be people who like to argue. It's not a sample that represents average supporters.
I would also happily admit that there is an unhealthy obsession with Hillary on TPMEC. I'm really interested to see what happens when she does concede. I'm afraid it might take weeks for people here to stop posting about her.
June 4, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I support her....but whats left to say after she concedes? Even now. She has no part in his campaign to play. She really has no part to play in his Administration. There are far more important things for Obama to worry about now. For me. He needs to start fleshing out his positions on Economy, Enviroment, War, etc etc. etc.
June 4, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That I hope you haven't forgotten our bet? ;)
June 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure I remember it Ben. What was it that I was supposed to name myself?
June 4, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forget, and I don't have the link readily available. We'll just go with anything positive about Obama. I trust your judgment on that. Of course, she hasn't conceded yet!
June 4, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy now?
June 4, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That works, although I'll point out that I haven't actually won the bet yet!
Still, if you want to concede the bet, the clock can start now. That'll make July 4th your independence day! ;) (Since the terms of the bet were that the name/avatar change last for a month.)
June 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is what it is.
June 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification please. Is Obamawon pronounced OBAMA ONE or Obama-Wan (Like Obi-Wan)?
I vote for Obama-Wan.
June 4, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit, Beautiful and smart too......:)
June 4, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty damned good: Obamawon, formerly Lville1975. I like it. This way we can all remember who you "were." And how classy to do it even before the bet is officialy won. Wecome, the new you.
June 4, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that the 80% are all gumdrops and daffodils. It's just that they're not claiming that Hillary is the devil. While I'm arbitrarily breaking things up into 20% chunks, we could take that 80% group and divide them into 4 groups—those who really like both candidates, but thought Obama was better (and/or more electable); those who thought Obama was clearly the superior candidate, but that Hillary wasn't bad; those who saw significant problems with Hillary being the Democratic nominee, but who are also capable of seeing the positive in her (I include myself in this group), and those who don't trust her one whit, but who also don't think she's the devil.
Clearly some of these groups are going to have more to write about (and to recommend) than others.
June 4, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As good a division as I have heard. Place me in the final 20% chunk, but it is mostly other Obama supporters who have brought me to the point that I don't think she is the devil incarnate.
June 4, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is exactly why I think we need members from the corresponding 80% of Hillary supporters to work on their 20 percenters.
June 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be pretty funny.
June 4, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed with all except the PR of accepting the nomination last night. In the interests of unity, I think it would have been more helpful to present a united front in the concession. Having it play out the way it did just
In reality, Obama hit the magic number with super dels before the voting wa sover in the finals 2 states because he encouraged the super dels to make endorse him early (rather than facing a split decision in the last two states that still left him short of the finish line).
If your PR interests make Obama supporters angry at Hillary for not conceding and Hillary supporters made at Obama supporters for not letting her have that moment in the spotlight, then objective accomplished. If it was to help unify the party, not so much. I'm a Hillary supporter and I know yesterday I was livid at the way the whole thing came to pass. I don't think angering Hillary supporters is in the best interests of party unity. Especially those that are the brink of going over to McCain.
June 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
First With all due respect, please consider:
1) DNC leadership and the SDs themselves have been on record for weeks, if not months that decisions would come quickly on or about June 3rd when the process was "over".
2) Do you honestly believe those few hours would have made a difference? Say for example, that none of the SDs had broken before the results came in from South Dakota. Do you honestly believe that any of them would have thought "Hey, they split Montana and South Dakota... that's it, I'm pledging for Senator Clinton!"
Looking at these two axioms together, what significant difference would Obama see by getting their pledges before or a few hours after the end of the primaries?
Second and more importantly, what magical "pressure" did Obama bring to bear that forced them to declare the morning of the 3rd that he was not able to use before? Did he suddenly discover naked pictures of them? Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had been "pressuring" SDs for months if not years. Please tell me - what pixie dust do you know about that can compel people to suddenly and instantly make decisions they had refused to make before?
Your conspiracy theory lacks both motive and method.
June 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary supporters made at Obama supporters for not letting her have that moment in the spotlight, then objective accomplished."
That is my issue with Hillary and whey she should NOT be the nominee. It was NOT her moment to be in the spotlight, because all it did was egg on the dead-enders. She lost! Get over it!
I find it hilarious that Obama is supposed to come crawling to her, hat in hand. And why? Because her feelings will be hurt if he doesn't? Boo-friggin-hoo! All of this "acknowledge how she is feeling" b.s. is getting pretty tiresome. Especially when it come from people who refuse the acknowledge the polarization that they encouraged. So I say to Hillary "Good bye and good luck." Go figure out how to be the best senator you can be. Because after all this crap (not to mention BC's Gina Gershon problem), Obama, if he is smart "Thanks Hillary, but I think the Vice Presidency woudl not be a suitable use of your skills."
June 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
18 million? Is anyone so deluded as to believe that Hillary speaks for every single person who voted for her in the primaries?
June 4, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone so deluded as to believe Obama speaks for every single person who voted for him in the primaries?
June 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As one of those 18 million, she speaks for me and my sister and one of my best friends who were all very sad that Hillary for sure. My mom sold out and joined the Obama bandwagon back in May. She tries to deny she voted for Hillary but I know the truth :) 3 out of 4 in my randon social network poll. So she speaks for at almost about 13 million folks. Not a number to be ignored.
June 4, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it's any of my business, but was the other "mo" who posted here your sister? (I'm guessing this based on the fact that you suggested she should change her "mo" to a "will" or something like that.)
Regardless, you're absolutely right that those who still support Clinton, whether it's 13 million, 18 million, or 23 million (who says that all of her supporters actually bothered to vote in the primary?), should not be ignored.
June 4, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got three women in my immediate houshold and I will have to do some Politiking myself to get them turned around. I have a busy summer ahead.
June 4, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how these factions seem to have formed. I know only 2 Hillary supporters IRL, one of them was the best man in my wedding, and the other is the SO of one of my wife's co-workers. Charlottesville, where I live, seems to be very strongly an Obama-city. (Of course, VA itself went very strongly towards Obama.) I know much was made about the latte-sippers, etc., but even amongst latte-sippers, it seems that the two groups are somewhat separate from each other in ways that I don't fully comprehend.
June 4, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the differences (outside of policy which I think are huge) is the way people want to see their candidate perform. I know Obama supporters find this trite but Clinton supporters really do want someone that is willing to go Toe to Toe with their opponent. We know the next President is going to have to do some heavy lifting against some tough odds to get something done. Having friends on the other side if fine....but the divide in this country is pretty huge between the Mitch McConnels of this world and the Barbara Boxers...
June 4, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm referring to the way the two groups don't seem to interact much in the real world. Maybe I'm reading too much into anecdotal evidence, but it seems that most Obama supporters here (myself included) know an awful lot more other Obama supporters than they do Clinton supporters, and that most Clinton supporters know an awful lot more Clinton supporters than they do Obama supporters. I'm not talking about people they've met during organizing, either, but family members, etc. Even the exceptions are telling—like the Obama supporter who is surrounded by Clinton supporters. I don't think I've heard from a single person who knows approximately equal numbers of both, although perhaps there's a selection bias at work in that such a thing might not seem noteworthy to the person in that situation.
June 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am surrounded by Republicans so..I didn't expect to find anyone. My brother and his wife are Obamaistas but we really don't have much of a chance to talk about Hillary v Barack.
June 4, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the funny thing—I also know a lot of Republicans, but very, very few Clinton supporters! (Two, to be exact.)
I took your previous "three women in my immediate household and I will have to do some Politiking myself to get them turned around" to mean they were Clinton supporters. It didn't occur to me that they might have been Republicans!
Anyways, good luck with that! I've been slowly trying to wear down my father, although I can't admit that I have much hope. The best I'm hoping for is that he'll be able to dispel some of the misinformation that's been going his way. (Just last night he told me that he'd heard that Obama had been sworn in using the Koran. I'm afraid he believed it, too. I told him that he needs to correct the person who told him that.)
June 4, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, all people in my family are Democrats. My father , god rest his soul, would haunt us the rest of our days if we didn't vote and play a role. My girls were all HillBots.....to the Nth degree. I would not even let them close to this blog. They would have been banned within hours.
June 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Oregon and am surrounded by Obama supporters. I know of one Clinton supporter. Of course, people have been accosted on the street for wearing a Clinton pin and yelled and screamed at.
I was discussing the election last night with someone blithely assuming I was in the Obama camp. It was actually hard to stop the flow of vitueration long enough to say, just so you know....
June 5, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got this one pegged. It's something I've been meaning to blog about for MONTHS, and its now probably too late.
The night before New Hampshire, one of the few young Clinton supporters I know said she was turned off, even offended, by any talk of bipartisanship or broad coalition.
She flat out wanted someone who would torch Republicans like they've torched us for 8 years. She wanted someone who would give the GOP "what it deserves."
As an Independent with a lot of Republican/Conservative friends and family that I talk politics with, I see things differently. I think the most damaging thing that the GOP can suffer is the loss of their mandate, and their mandate is more fragile now than I've ever seen it.
Many Conservatives I know are so politically upside down right now. They thought George Bush would protect their values. They know John McCain won't.
Using the next administration to brutally punish all things GOP sounds awesome. I'd get pleasure out of it for sure. But I know how counterproductive it could turn out to be, because it lends credence to their lies. They tell our friends and neighbors that Liberals are threatening their way of life, and people swallow any other bullshit they throw into the mix.
I think their's an approach that's more long term. I won't pretend to be smart enough to know what it is, but I can hear rumblings of it amongst my Righty friends and family.
McCain doesn't move them. Obama moves them in way's they don't understand. From my perspective, it has the potential to gut the GOP from the inside out.
June 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what I was thinking when I typed their's. There's is what I meant.
June 4, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It really is a fundamental difference. I would rather just knock the snot out of the Republicans. I think they have proved over the past 20 years that there really isn't any talking to them.
June 4, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mitch is going down.
June 4, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitchy mitchy is as slimy as they come. The problem is that he plays well out in the state and in Louisville. I wish they could beat him but I think its unlikely.
June 4, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last poll I saw he was down 49-44.
June 4, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been struck by that same observation myself several times recently. It occured to me the other day that I do not know any Clinton supporters in "real life." My aunt in Florida started off as a Clinton supporter, but ended up switching to Richardson by the time of the election and is now firmly on the Obama bandwagon. I tend to suspect that some of my aunts and uncles probably voted for Clinton, but they have no bumper-stickers or yard signs or suchlike to indicate as much and they have not said anything to me in favor of Clinton. Among the folks that I know who take an interest in politics, I have a lot of Obama supporting friends and acquaintences, a few Edwards supporters (all of whom have since switched to Obama) and a few Huckabee supporters (some of whom have taken the plunge to support McCain and some of whom have not). Admittedly, Obama took my part of Missouri by more than 2 to 1, so it stands to reason that there are more Obama supporters for me to know around here than Clinton supporters, but it is still somewhat curious that I do not know any Clinton supporters.
June 4, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come visit greg....though...you are a Michiganer and you guys don't come here unless your going to Cedar Point.
June 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeedie - MinaMo is my sister, but she should really be MinaWill now. But I'll allow her to keep the honorary Mo for TPM purposes.
June 4, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can assure you that the Obama campaign isn't going to ignore 13 million voters.
June 4, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now you are reduced to calling your own Mother a liar, but you are upset at what some strangers say about Senator Clinton. Shame on you. Go apologize to your Mother. She knows who she voted for , and you do not, so stop calling her a liar.
June 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, liam, it's a joke!
June 4, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as I said last night, the end to the democratic primary season means one thing above all others:
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MY PRODUCTIVITY AT WORK!!!
Carry on :)
June 4, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You'll be drawn into the Obama/McCain drama before you know it!
June 4, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is I hope you stick around. Your so beautiful........
June 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, Di, I realize that was shameless. :)
June 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks louisville :) I'll hang around of course but it won't be as much fun. TPMs an echo chamber already. Can you imagine the threads once it's general election time?
McCain sucks sucks sucks all day long. With the random Hillary is the devil thrown in.
June 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least you're honest about that. The people who are a joke are the ones who hang at TPM all day and claim they're giving their clients or companies any value. Urge to spit on the ground.
June 4, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
We may disagree about the source of the AP Story, but this is one thing I definitely agree with you about. Back to work for me today but I wanted to say I truly appreciate your conciliatory tone this morning and I feel confident Hillary will do the right thing once she passes the hat one more time. There will be something of a mourning process for your prefered candidacy, but in the end I'm confident we'll all come together and elect a democrat this fall.
Re: Universal Healthcare - I reckon that Obama's lack of mandate is more to get the plan past an electorate that doesn't like to be told what to do. The republicans would've hammered on Hillary's mandate and screamed socialism - never mind they are perfectly happy for the government to nationalize Bear Stearns assets when the "free" market has to be rescued.
The mandate is a serious problem they're having with the program that exists in MA. To succeed, universal health care needs to be sold as a new choice. Hence the language Obama used in the speech "anyone who wants it" rather than "everyone". In the end I don't think the difference is that much, mostly marketing. Make of this what you will, but I think Obama is a far better salesperson for the kind of progressive policies we all want enacted.
June 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your central thesis is manufactured, as there is but a dime's worth of difference between the policies of Clinton and Obama, and if anything, Obama may be the more progressive. Whatever your real problem with Obama (gender, charisma, newcomer), it's very probable policies have nothing to do with it. And if you're any