OH, STOP IT!
This is an election for President of the United States. Nobody called anyone "whitey." Jeremiah Wright didn't even do that. And Jeremiah Wright is not running for President, so you don't have to vote for him.
What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
WHY, with our diminishing reputation in the global community, would you NOT want Senator Obama to be President? There seems to be some kind of anti-intellectual vibe out there which is scary. And Hillary is these people's choice? She's a pretty smart lady, folks. Smart enough to play as dirty as Karl Rove without Rove's help. I once respected her and would have voted for her. Not now...and not ever again. She has shown her true colors and those who can still support her are just as "starry eyed" as they call Obama supporters.
But Obama supporters are growing in number - not diminishing. Thank you, Hillary, for showing us the lengths and depths to which you'll go. You are not asking the American people what you can do for them - you are telling them what they had better do for you! And they had better listen to you or ELSE! What is the else? If you throw the electon to McCain, then you can win in 2012?
Ah yes, Clintonian logic. I would bet in his heart of hearts, Bill is an Obama supporter. Remember 1992?
Hillary's "Audacity of Hopelessness"
David Brooks says it best in today's New York Times: Hillary's "Audacity of Hopelessness."
Does anyone even remember how exciting and fun American politics seemed just a short time ago? The Republicans were in a nose dive facing a field of weak candidates none of them liked, while the Democrats had three strong candidates, any one of which many Democrats would have been happy with. An embarrassment of riches. A lot of us were having a hard time making up our minds. Could we somehow get all three on the ticket? Or could we maybe skip the whole choosing bit and get on the good stuff of beating whatever joker the Republicans managed to limp into the election with. Hard to even remember, isn't it? Current polls show about a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters saying they will refuse to vote for the other in a general election. Meanwhile, all the sniping has dropped Obama from a double-digit lead over McCain among independents into a tailspin.
Brooks calculates Clinton's chances of winning the nomination at 5%. Asking whether it is worth it to continue the dogfight the Democratic primary has become for a mere 5% chance of victory, he calls on Clinton to withdraw. I have no idea how he arrived at this number of 5%, but however he got there it is silly, because it is easy to explain the situation Clinton is currently in without resorting to conjecture. The situation is quite simple. With Florida and Michigan re-votes off the table, she cannot possibly beat Obama in delegates or in popular votes. Her only hope is for a mass defection of superdelegates from Obama. But with the delegate and vote contests essentially over, the trend in super delegates is toward Obama. The only thing that could save her at this point is a major political catastrophe for Obama. Short of that, Clinton is done.
If she stays in the race in this point, one must conclude that the inner circles of the Clinton campaign have to be in hyper drive trying to cook up just such a scandal, for they surely know the electoral math better than I do.
Can she do this? Can she drum up a scandal so big that superdelegates will desert Obama in numbers sufficient to give her the nomination? Her best bet by far would in fact be not to drum up a new scandal but to continually light the fire under the existing one. And indeed, today there she was in Greensburg, PA, announcing that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." She went on to compare Wright's sermons with Don Imus's characterization of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's." Both, she said, constituted "hate speech."
Clinton hereby serves notice that she will be throwing kerosene on the fire burning in the Democratic house, in hopes that the wing in which her rivals reside will suffer more damage than hers. This is audacious, "the audacity of hopelessness," of a candidate who simply does not know how to lose.
Losing is never fun. It hurts even more when the loser has the sense of entitlement that Clinton clearly has. She still believes it is "her turn." She put up with Monica Lewinsky and all of Bill's other affairs, she moved to New York, she worked in the Senate, she cut all the necessary deals, she did everything her handlers insisted she do. If she were in, say, China, where leadership is chosen bureaucratically, it would indeed be her turn.
But the US is a democracy, and no matter how carefully you dot the i's and cross the t's, ultimately you have to win the most votes, and by this basic democratic standard Clinton has lost. She is not accustomed to losing. The Clinton's won in Arkansas. They won the White House twice. She won her senate seat twice. But now she has lost, and her only hope is to create a scandal so all-encompassing that the vote she lost doesn't matter.
The whole idea of the superdelegates was to have a block of votes looking out for the interests of the party. It is time for them to step in and put an end to this.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is.
It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.
Democracy is when you let everyone vote. This year, everyone wants to vote. Don't stop the vote. Obama - what are you afraid of? Votes.
That's the difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary represents people who know what it is like to work and Obama represents intellectual snobs.
Hillary is red, white, and blue. Obama can be painted as green (for inexperience), and yellow (for being whimpy and whining), and black
for making us deal with race when we want jobs.
And of what "face" does HIllary apply the red, white and blue make-up?
No, Hillary has a yellow strip down her back, she knows she can't win and still destroys the party. You are the ones bringing up the race, just as you just stated. Whose fooling who here ? It's a disgrace for Americans to do what they are doing to a HALF white and HALF black person. People like you vsign, make me want to puke. I am white, by the way. Must be one of those paid Hillary people.
I think she can win. There are millions of democratic voters who want to vote for her in these last primaries. Just hold your horses and let Americans vote.
And why would I care what his DNA is? Why bring it up? I don't really care to know. Not really my business and I'm embarrassed for him and you that you keep having to talk about his DNA.
I just think Hillary is the best person for the job. I care about my job of voting and I studied it. Hillary represents the best chance I have to get health care I can afford and jobs for the economy and a better image in the world.
Just my opinion butchie65
Nice spin, but where was HIllary's concern about the disenfranchisment of voters before the primaries and caucuses started? She agreed, as did all the other candidates, that votes in Florida and Michigan would not count.
Why not give everyone a break and focua on democracy. Obviously noone thought ahead enough - Howard Dean - that it would be a closely fought race. Everyone just assumed the credentials committee would handle it at the end of the primaries and go ahead and seat them at the convention. And now we have a real contest.
So move on and do the right thing and work - work to let people vote. It is what democrats want. Or should want even if you are an Obama supporter. You should have democratic values and make it easier for people to vote. Demonstrate your patriotism.
You are 100% correct that the ONLY reason Hillary is staying in now is that she is hoping for a complete meltdown of some kind from Obama which would leave her as the last alternative standing. I will go a step further and say that HRC is hoping to be the one to CAUSE that meltdown by pushing the Wright scandal and leaking the turban picture and having her surrogates make incendiary comments in the hope that O will respond in a way that will sink his campaign. And who knows what else her oppo research people still have in the vault to pull out right before Pennsylvania? But I think this is the real reason HRC is getting frustrated: they have thrown the kitchen sink and O is still standing, they keep trying to push his buttons and O is still confident and unperturbed, while her campaign has never managed to respond in a calm and rational way to any of their political setbacks. This more than anything else highlights the difference in character and personal integrity between the two candidates and the two campaigns. Every day this goes on increases my respect and support for Obama and reduces what once was the great admiration I had for the Clintons.
Yes TrueBlueMajority, your observations about this campaign are clear and concise. I too once had respect for Mrs. Clinton. I never thought of her as liberal, but at one time I thought she was basically honest. Alas, naked ambition has peeled off any veneer of decency. The ex-president has ruined whatever reputation he had left.
http://thebeerdoctor.newscloud.com/
I know Barak Obama wants to suppress the vote in Fl & MI so he can win. I know you all want to shut the election down so 10 states won't have a say. Your willing to deny millions of people their right to vote just so your candidate can win. Jeese, talk about doing anything to win. A lot of us don't think Obama is the second coming. Let the voters decide.
Yes, let's make sure FL and MI are cut out. Then let's make sure that Penn, NC, Indiana, and Kentucky get no say. Let's send Hillary packing even though she's within spitting distance of him. Let's ignore the polls that show her voters will NOT vote for him if he's the nominee in the Fall at a MUCH higher percentage than vice versa.
After all, we just don't want the golden boy to have to possibly be vetted anymore or allow him to screw up again.
You guys are something else.
FL and MI both candidates agreed wouldn't count in advance.
The other states you mention Hillary would have to win all of them in landslides which ISN'T happening.
The polls for primary elections cannot be compared to polls for general elections, cause they're two different animals.
So you're down with this scenario-
"Well the black guy won according to the rules that everyone agreed to IN ADVANCE, but we're giving it to the white lady because ahhhh, uhmmm, welllll, that's the way it goes"
That would be very unfortunate for this country, yet quite a familiar pattern.
Hey those percentages go up when the question is asked if SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION through the superdelegates will you support her. Which happens to be her only option. This would be reported by all news channels without the Clinton spin should she steal the nomination. Faux News which is channeling Hillary right now, would turn back to their regular programming and would have this on Blast. They would be making appeals to her supporters including the African American and telling them to see how their loyalty to the Democratic Party has paid off. If Hillary had ran an effective campaign through all of the states she might be leading or this thing would actually be close and Obama's supporters in that context would have no problem supporting her. As it now stands it has been a blow out in terms of "ELECTED" delegates. I challenge you to locate a decent delegate counter and do a scenario with her winning every state up now by 10 percent and see what would be her delegate lead. It would be something close to Obama's lead. The reason he is ahead at these insumountable margins for her is because of the number of contests he has beat her by a 20 plus percentage. Hillary has two states, Arkansas and Oklamoma, that she managed to pull off 20 plus percentage wins.
I'm sorry, what did you say? I couldn't hear you with all the sniper fire going on around me.
Hey Annin I floated a proposal about three weeks ago that according to Bob Beckel is actually being considered. And it is at least in the case of Florida apply the rule that Democrats, similarly to the Republicans, had on the books to cut the delegations in half for violaters of party rules. Even with 50 percent of the vote applied for Hillary there won't be enough net delegates to change the metric of "ELECTED" delegates. And in Michigan cut the delegation in half and split them evenly between each candidate. As an Obama supporter I sugggested it as a way to the high road for Obama. Either they were already considering it, or someone is monitoring these blogs. Because these states violated the rules they have to suffer some penalty or we will be having primaries in 2010 for the 2012 elections. Michigan skipped ahead of at least a couple of the selected "first" states to vote. Florida actually held their "beauty contest" after them (IA, NH, NV, SC) but not within the timeframe that allowed candidates to do on the ground campaigning in Florida. At this point it might be all you are gonna get. I suggest Hillary takes it.
I'm so sick of this woman. Can you imagine how peaceful things would be if she was not in this primary? She was the one who decided to go down to the lowest levels at the first hint of her losing! Her mentality is If she can't win then no Democrat will win. Then she can focus on 2012. She is sabotaging everything. The only thing she can do is tap into the same ignorance from blue-collar workers in the form of fear and hatred exploitation that helped Bush get re-elected.
How odd to be quoting David Brooks as a voice of wisdom. Normally, I detest the man, yet I found myself agreeing with this column just as much as you did.
Yesterday, I also saw a quote comparing Hillary Clinton to Tonya Harding. That's right on the money, too.
I agree with you completely. The leadership in the Democratic party has got to put a stop to the Clintons destroying the Democratic party's chances in the November election. As surprising as it is, she lost. It's time to stop the Clintons beating up our party's leading candidate, and get on with beating McCain. I admire Richardson so much for showing leadership and stepping up, now it's time for the other superdelegates to do the same. Superdelegates, this is your chance to be a hero for our party and our country! If Clinton was running a campaign that wasn't bent on destroying Obama then you could continue to sit on the sidelines. But she is running a scorched earth campaign, and it has to stop now.
This was an excellent analysis of Sen. Clinton's audacity. Superdelegates, are you listening?
The Sept. 11 statements Rev. Wright made were quotations from former Republican Ambassador Edward Peck, who said them on FOX News in 2001 -- anyone who likes truth can find the un-edited and much less sexy version of the full sermon. While I don't agree with everything the reverend said, it's sad that so many people don't know this, considering it's just as accessible on the same "YouTubes." Apparently, the media don't trust the public to make decisions based on truth, so this fact just gets buried and ignored and the people keep believing Wright originated those words. Utterly sad and telling.
Look, Mr.Ostertag... Hillary has already outlined her camaign strategy very clearly:
"Now, I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.'"
Then there's that "Magic Wand"...
First of all, if this were China, Hillary Clinton would not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything even if it were "her turn." Secondly, superdelegates can change their pledges any time they so choose. Thirdly, why would any Democrat with a scintilla of integrity listen to a word that David Brooks speaks or writes? He is totally without intelligence on any level. Just because you hate Hillary Clinton doesn't make that nasty article in NYT by Brooks credible. Fourthly, daring Hillary Clinton to "make up" a scandal about Obama to win superdelegates is insulting. Did you live through the '90's? I think that Hillary Clinton has had her fill of "made-up scandals." Oh, and BTW, I am surrounded by Hillary supporters and every one of them has stated that if Obama wins the nomination, they will all work for him and vote for him in November. It is only the Obama supporters that have stated they will not vote for Hillary based perhaps on Obama's own comments that he is not sure if his supporters will "cross over" for Hillary.
Dear kfs, I think you missed something where Bob states that one fifth of Obama *and* Clinton backers say they won't vote for the other in the general election. This will change when the nomination is decided, reality sets in, and the backers of the unsuccessful candidate look at the alternative in McCain, with 100years of war, possibly 3 supreme court picks, and no resolution with economic and health issues. I am an Obama supporter and I would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over McCain....don't paint everyone with a broad brush. I haven't heard Obama ever say his supporters won't cross over to Hillary (as they should if they have some sense). When the nominee is decided, unification will follow, unless this drags on too long and there is not enough time to unify.
kfs,
I am one of those people, and yes, I shall NOT vote for Hillary Clinton because of her win by any means necessary tactics. Not because she's a woman or any superficial thing, it comes down to character. IF the republicans had pulled the stuff she's pulling on Obama on a democratic candidate, you Clinton supporters would be crying foul, but since it's Hillary doing to Obama, that's fair game.
There are plenty of Hillary supporters who say they won't vote for Obama. They are all over HuffPo. There are even more on mydd. There are also plenty of Obama supporters who say they'll vote for her, even though most of us will hate it.
I think David Brooks may be right this time, but he's such a weasel that it doesn't matter.
Try asking why. You'd be surprised at how he could turn this around.
First: she doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning HERE so why are you backing her?
Second: If Hillary was winning and Obama was the one digging his claws in, you wouldn't go completely ballistic if he was trying to overturn the will of the people (popular vote), the states (state count) and the politicians within those states (pledged delegates)?
The super delegates were made so a weak candidate would not be put to the slaughter against the GOP. Well, the GOP won't need to work very hard with Hillary and her campaign (Judas, Ferraro and the worst of them all Penn whose firm ALSO has McCain as a 'client') doing it for them. The people have already picked the strongest candidate and even her own campaign say sshe had only 10% of a chance (if that). Give me a break. Give it up.
Third: Brooks doesn't have any intelligence on any level? Isn't he a professor?
Fourth: It's no secret for anyone on any side that she's pushing scandals. And apparently she hasn't lived through enough 'made-up scandals' or she wouldn't have made up all those facts about her experience.
5th: Oh, so your 'friends' all say they would vote for Obama still? All those pollsters can close shop and just have your group of friends speak for the 250 million people in America. God only knows what the country would be like if my friends were representative of what the country wants.
kfs,
"why would any Democrat with a scintilla of integrity listen to a word that David Brooks speaks or writes?"
My very first thought exactly! It may be that Bob is a great musician, and a heckuva Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music, but I don't see anywhere in his credentials the training or education that gives him more standing here than any one of the posters that may write in. I've noticed that about bloggers on HuffPo before, and it's starting to bother me, especially when they take this line of reasoning and try to advance it as something of substance, or even as their own.
It also says that Bob's writings have been published, gosh, just about everywhere, but all that proves is that either Bob likes to write, Bob has a big mouth, or Bob is using his pulpit from the music Biz like Bono, or Sting, or Pearl Jam. but that still doesn't give him any more credibility or authority than many folks here.
He wants Clinton to give up. So do I. But this article is really a just an opinion piece, not journalism,wrapped up in whatever poisonous respectability David Brooks confers on him. Was it really necessary?
Hillary works for the establishment... the PAC's and lobbyists funding her campaign.
She has never worked for the American people and clearly won't consider the Democratic Party in her machinations.
Anybody hoping for a quick settlement is deluding themselves.
If she can't win, she will go down helping McCain.
When she is finally forced out, Obama will be stuck with a huge decision.
How can he welcome her endorsement without opening his campaign to internal sabotage from both Hillary and Bill? Neither can be trusted, but since unity is Obama's campaign theme and the only hope for a Dem win in November, he has no choice.
Like it or not, we are stuck with the Clintons until then, and it seems many many Americans have swallowed the Clinton spin to the extent they can and may be manipulated further. Progressives need to come to terms with the reality that Hillary's DLC wing can still influence beyond the primaries.
With the media unwilling, it's doubtful that Hillary's health mandate a la Romney will be exposed as a GOP-friendly plan designed to cement the role of the profiteers.
Her support for NAFTA and Bush's war is likewise getting a pass.
Despite ample proof, her supporters insist she is the more liberal/progressive choice, and this ignorance is the Clinton's last bargaining chip.
Perhaps a deal where we agree not to run a real Democrat against her in NY should be considered?
Once again people. Obama is a politician. Not a Messiah much less The Messiah. Get real.
Posted March 25, 2008 | 04:52 PM (EST)