Friday Talking Points [31] -- Time To Beat McCain

Now that that's all over with, can we please focus on beating John McCain?

Virtually everyone (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton -- I guess nobody told her) now knows that the Democratic candidate for president is going to be Barack Obama. But while the end of this long and winding road is now in sight, Democrats should not just be heaving an enormous sigh of relief -- they should be turning all their energy towards beating John McCain in November.

Because we've already seen what happens when the candidate lets their guard down between becoming presumptive nominee and the convention (can you say "Swift Boat"?). And we definitely don't want that to happen again.

We also want to help Barack Obama with his down-ticket coattails. A stunning thing happened in Louisiana last week, but very few people noticed. There was a special election for a House seat in a district held by Republicans for 33 years, which voted overwhelmingly for Bush last time around. And guess what? The Democratic candidate won. Importantly, he won even after he was smeared by an anti-Obama and anti-Wright ad campaign by his Republican opponent.

What this means is that Republican strategists who were overjoyed at Barack's "reverend problem," and who saw it as a way to attack Democrats for House and Senate races are now rethinking this strategy. This is good news indeed. Even Newt Gingrich is worried -- warning Republicans (in the starkest of language) of a "catastrophic election" which could bring about a "permanent minority" for the GOP in the House -- a "real disaster."

Getting Obama into the Oval Office is important, but it's just as important to prove Newt right. Democrats have a golden opportunity to rack up overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008, which they will need if they want to actually get anything done -- even with President Obama in the White House. With more and more opportunities for the Democrats to grab seats opening up almost daily, bolstering Obama and beating McCain is vitally important for every Democrat seeking office this year.

So, a few quick awards, and then the rest of this column will be devoted to talking points all Democrats can use to help beat John McCain. Beat him like a drum.

Keep your eyes on the prize, everybody. Don't let your guard down. Don't get fooled again.

OK, I'll stop with the cheesy metaphors. But you get the point....

 

Who else could it be?

Barack Obama wins Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week for his huge victory in North Carolina and his near-victory in Indiana. Actually, the award should really go to the voters in these two states (especially North Carolina) for mercifully putting an end to the drama that was the 2008 primary race.

It didn't even matter that Obama lost in Indiana. The mere fact that the networks refused to call it for so long meant that it was a pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton at best. Obama's voters showed that no matter how many times Reverend Wright was played on television, it could not alter their vote. This bodes well for November.

Barack knows he's won the nomination. His victory speech in North Carolina Tuesday night was the first speech of his general election campaign. Barack knows that his target is now John McCain. He is politely waiting for Hillary to realize that it's over, but he is doing the right thing by basically ignoring her. From now on, every speech he gives should mention John McCain as much as possible, and Hillary not at all. But, like I said, Barack already knows this.

For winning the Democratic nomination for president, Barack also picks up the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Well done, Senator Obama! Onward to November!!

 

Before we get on with awarding this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, we have some "old business" to take care of first. Back in Friday Talking Points [25], the MDDOTW award went to the group of 20 Democrats who signed a letter insinuating that if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi didn't back down on her remarks to superdelegates, they would rethink their donations to Democrats. Now we hear rumors that Harvey Weinstein, another deep-pocket Democratic donor, called up Pelosi a while back, and said basically the same thing. Weinstein denies it, of course, but I'm still awarding him a retroactive MDDOTW award anyway. Since I didn't award one in FTP [26], I've got an extra one lying around anyway.

With that out of the way, we turn to this week. Now, this week's award is not for doing something bad, it is for not doing something at all. The dog that didn't bark in the night, as it were.

John Edwards still won't tell us who he is endorsing for president. He lost his last chance to be relevant this week when his home state (North Carolina) voted, and he still stayed silent on the sidelines.

John Edwards needs to look up the word "leadership" in the dictionary. Because I'm afraid he doesn't know what the word means, or else he's been reading the definition of "follower" in its place. This is a man who earlier this year was running to be leader of our country, remember?

John Edwards, for not barking in the night, is in the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week doghouse this week.

[You can try to contact John Edwards on his MySpace page (who knows, he might still look at it) to let him know what you think of his inaction.]

 

With that out of the way, let's move on to defeating John McCain this fall. Democrats everywhere need to all start working as Barack Obama surrogates in front of the media cameras, and they need to keep the pressure on and not let up. The talking points to hit McCain with will no doubt change as the campaign progresses, but the intensity should not. McCain must be defeated. The Supreme Court, the Constitution, and America's future depend on it.

 

Volume 31 (5/9/08)

 

   "100 years" McCain

The Democrats took a shot across McCain's bow with their "100 years" ad. Republicans have been crying about it ever since, just like a little girl whose brother stole her favorite dolly and then used it to smack her upside the head.

If you listen closely, you can hear them: "WAAAAHHHH!!"

Republicans (and Republican media mouthpieces) have been weeping and wailing, gnashing their teeth, crying "foul," complaining to Mommy, screaming at the ref, throwing tantrums, and generally holding their breath until their face turns blue -- in outrage... OUTRAGE... over this ad. They're not just in a snit over the ad, they've actually had their knickers in a twist over the whole "100 years" quote in general, pretty much ever since McCain actually, you know, said the words "100 years" when asked how long American troops would be in Iraq under his plan.

Now, obviously, the Republicans are upset because they are horrified that it's going to work. They can read polls, and they know that Iraq is not a winning issue for them. And McCain's framing of the issue (the ad shows actual clips of McCain saying it) was so disastrously wrong for this election year that Republicans have been desperately trying to walk it back ever since.

Now, when something works, you go with it. Democrats should use "100 years" every chance they can get. I've said that before, and I will say it again -- it is a losing issue for McCain, and it needs to be hammered hard.

But this week's "100 years" talking point is in response to the weeping and wailing. If some (cough, cough... FoxNews... cough) reporter asks a Democrat this week about the "unfairness" of the ad, the Democrat should gleefully respond with:

"What's that? Excuse me? Republicans are saying that taking quotes out of context is unfair? Republicans are saying that some television ads are unfair? Republicans are arguing for a deeper interpretation of what is a direct quote from John McCain? Republicans are complaining that people might get the 'wrong perception' from a political ad? You know what I have to say in response to that?

"Boo-hoo.

"Seriously, you guys are the masters at producing ads like this, and have been for decades. Decades! And now you're concerned that one Democratic ad is using your playbook? I think you're actually scared that the American people are solidly on our side on this issue, and you'd rather talk about an ad, than talk about the fact that John McCain's plan for Iraq is identical to George W. Bush's. So to complaints about this ad, I have one thing to say:

"Boo. Freaking. Hoo."

 

[Note: no actual favorite dollies or little girls' heads were harmed in the production of this talking point.]

 

   McBush

This is the gift that is going to keep on giving, right up to election day. George W. Bush is now officially more unpopular than Nixon was when he was impeached.

What's great is there are so many creative ways to tie George W. Bush and John McCain together. These need to be used in just about every sentence uttered by Democrats, from now until November.

"McSame"

"Bush/McCain"

"McCain/Bush"

"George W. McCain"

"John McBush"

"third term"

"more-of-the-same McCain"

"Bush's protégé McCain"

"McCain's continuation of the disastrous Bush presidency."

It only takes about ten seconds to come up with each new fun way to inexorably link the two in a cute little phrase. Rinse and repeat, as the shampoo bottle tells us....

 

   What is Cindy McCain hiding?

Speaking of Nixon...

Cindy McCain is now on record that there is no way she's letting the public see her tax returns. "I'm not the candidate," as she puts it. My advice to her is to phone up Teresa Heinz Kerry and ask her how that worked out.

Cindy's got piles of dough, see, just like Kerry's wife. But Kerry got hit hard by the media for refusing to release her tax returns, which means Democrats can play it as a fairness-in-media issue. And there's a great example in the past to bring up, too.

"Why won't the media ask what Cindy McCain is hiding? Why won't she release her tax returns? In his famous 'Checkers' speech, Richard Nixon said the following, while trying to explain a slush fund his campaign had: '...Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat...'

"Boy, how times have changed, eh? From the concept of a candidate's wife having a quote respectable Republican cloth coat unquote to Cindy McCain. You think maybe Cindy McCain's worn a mink coat or two in her life? The Republicans have become the true elitist party, as evidenced by Cindy McCain trying to hide her enormous wealth from the public. How is it that Mr. 'Straight Talk' McCain can't even get his own wife to release her tax returns?"

 

   The age card

John McCain is old. As he puts it, he's "older than dirt."

This isn't exactly a secret. I mean, just look at the guy.

Because he feels vulnerable on the issue, he's launched a pre-emptive strike on Obama, saying Obama "played the age card." For the record, he didn't -- Obama said McCain was "losing his bearings," which is not an ageist comment at all. Maybe it's a "sane-ist" comment, but it's not ageist.

But that didn't stop McCain, who has obviously been waiting to pounce on this issue, from saying Obama is playing the "age card." Now, this is the first time I've even heard of this "age card," personally. And I'm still not convinced it even exists. "Ageism" may exist, but it's not quite the same thing as "racism," as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, I'll go even further. As far as I'm concerned, the age of the man who wants to have his finger on the nuclear button is a valid factor in the campaign. Whether it's "he's too young" or "he's too old" -- it is definitely a factor. And it's not some sort of out-of-bounds issue that can't even be discussed. Not by a long shot, and especially not when McCain uses it on the stump as a joke (see previous "older than dirt" comment).

So my advice is to drive McCain even further off his bearings, but giving him all sorts of places to see this horrible "ageism." The more he rants about it, the more he's going to look like... well, a ranting old man. Which isn't going to help him with the voters, although he hasn't seemed to figure that out yet.

So feed him some ammo. Offer to hold his coat while he shovels the hole deeper.

"McCain's policies are the old way of doing business in Washington."

"McCain practices old-style politics."

"McCain seems to have a twentieth-century viewpoint which is not what American needs to go into the future."

"Barack Obama has the youth of America excited in a way we haven't seen for decades. Of course, John McCain remembers the last time this happened."

"John McCain said recently we needed a 'League of Nations.' Now, I know the League of Nations was around when he was a child, but most of us know that the United Nations now exists."

"John McCain said recently that we should put missiles in Czechoslovakia, which is interesting since that country hasn't existed for over a decade. Perhaps he was just going from his own memories of the Cold War, I don't know."

"I think the American people are going to say in this election: 'out with the old, in with the new.'"

 

   Are you better off now?

This one just needs no explanation. Ronald Reagan used it so effectively that even people who weren't born then have heard the expression. And it is time to use it again, except this time it'll be a Democrat saying:

"Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? Vote Democratic in 2008!"

 

   $1.49 a gallon.

I looked it up because I was curious. When George Bush got sworn into office, the country was getting worried because the price of gasoline was going up that month. The week he took office, the average price of gas in America was $1.49.

This one just writes itself. Just remember the accurate AAA figure:

"When George Bush entered office, the price of gas was $1.49. We can't afford any more Republicans running this country like this. Vote Democratic in 2008."

 

   Are Republicans against apple pie, too?

I know this talking points list was supposed to be all about McCain, but this one could not be ignored. It absolutely made my jaw drop. I bet it'll make yours drop, too.

One hundred and seventy-eight House Republicans just voted against motherhood.

To be more accurate, they voted against one of those flowery proclamations Congress is fond of putting out. The House Resolution (H.Res. 1113) said a whole bunch of good things about Moms (lots of "Whereas" clauses...) and then finished off with a resounding:

Whereas May 11, 2008 is recognized as Mother's Day: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives celebrates the role of mothers in the United States and supports the goals and ideals of Mother's Day.

Not what you'd call a partisan bill, exactly. On it's first vote, it passed with an unsurprising unanimous vote (412-0). But then only eight minutes later, Republicans forced a second vote on it. They've been playing games today, trying to endlessly delay the House from getting anything done, so this can be summed up as just procedural mischief.

But the really astounding thing is that the second vote only passed 237 to 178. That's right. 178 House Republicans were for Mother's Day before they were actually against Mother's Day.

I sincerely hope the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) printed out the roll call of this vote, because it will be so easy to use against these 178 Republican House members back in their home district come re-election time. It's pretty hard to explain to your constituents why you're on the record as being against Mother's Day.

"Republicans have become so obsessed with obstructionism and so blind to the voters' wish that Congress get something done that they actually voted against honoring Mother's Day. This is a disgrace. The Washington Post ran a story about it with the headline: 'Republicans Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies, Kittens.' I mean, what is next? Are the Republicans going to come out against apple pie, too? America deserves better than this. Vote Democratic in 2008. You know why? Because Democrats love their mothers, but apparently 178 House Republicans don't."

 

Chris Weigant (who loves his Mom)
blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
where the comments are up and running.

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

 

Comments

[Dap]

Dear Chris,

It's been awhile since I've dropped in on you, talking point 31 was excellent, and an enjoyable read, done with a great sense of humor.

I'm with ya on there is no time to waste, let's start hammering John McShame, especially as his best days are long gone, as are his cognitive abilities. Agape.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Dap -

Agape, and welcome back!

-CW

[JoDeeVa]

Great talking points, Chris! You just gotta' love all the Republican McJumbo-Mumbo.
Jeez, gas was just $1.49 in only 2001? No!..really? I'm going to have to google that myself...

I do have to disagree with MDDOTW, John Edwards (my choice also..you WERE the epitome of neutral). I actually want to congratulate him for NOT endorsing before the primary. I think that endorsements BEFORE people get a chance to vote, is cheating, in a way. We should inform ourselves about the issues, not vote for a candidate just because a Guv, Senator or whomever endorses them. They should ALL wait until after their primaries, up to the convention. In Oregon, my congressman, Peter DeFazio just endorsed Obama. I had understood that he would not endorse, pledging the voters' wishes after our primary. While Tuesday obviously had an effect on his decision to endorse, I don't know how I feel about it's influence on voters.

Both have been campaigning here today and I attended Obama's rally at the UO. I was more impressed this time than with his first somewhat rote monologue..he definitely seemed more Presidential! Voter registration is up here, people are excited about being part of the process with the candidates' presence. Long-time Oregonians claim it's really the first time since McCarthy/ RFK in 1968! Many declare our primary moot..a fore-gone conclusion. Maybe so, maybe not..can we please just vote first? Aren't the delegates ours to choose with our votes?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

JoDeeVa -

Um, it's been a while since I was in Oregon. "Go Ducks!" (I hope I got that right...)

But, sadly, I'll never pronounce your state's name correctly, according to the locals. Sorry about that!

Seriously, though, yep -- $1.49. And the news stories were bemoaning the "high price" of gas.

You make a good point about the utility (or even the propriety) of endorsements. I can see where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion. But personally, I still wanted Edwards to endorse someone. That's just my opinion, though. If he had endorsed Obama or Clinton, it wouldn't have changed the way I voted, but I would have wound up with more respect for him in the end. Again, my personal opinion only.

Thanks for the kind words about neutrality, too. (he's referring to my Thursday column, which you can get to from the first link in this article's text, the one about nobody telling Hillary) At the beginning of the campaign, I made a conscious decision to keep my personal political choices out of my writing about the campaign. I tried to give both Hillary and Barack a clear-headed look, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses as we went, without getting wrapped up in personal cheerleading. There's enough of that sort of thing out on the web, and after a while it gets repetitive and either boring or really, really nasty. So I'm glad that I went neutral.

(continued... silly word limits...)

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

(Part 2...)

BUT... I simply can't do that for the general election. I do have a bias against Republicans, I will freely admit. I mean, if a Republican is saying something that sounds more intelligent than what Democrats are saying, I listen (my mind is not completely closed, in other words). But for the most part, I find Democrats are saying the things that I agree with. Hence my bias. So for the general election, I have to say I'm on the Democratic team, journalist or not. My apologies in advance if anyone gets offended by this, but I'm betting I'm on pretty solid ground with this audience.

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

I'll post this separately, so anyone who hates sports metaphors can just skip it and read my previous comment (below this one).

It's like the Red Sox and the Yankees.

It's the end of the season, the playoffs have begun. The Red Sox and the Yankees face each other in a seven game series.

But when this happens it is NEVER the World Series. It can't be. Because the Red Sox and the Yankees are in the same division in the same league. So they will NEVER face one another for the championship.

To take it further -- when one team has won 4 games and the other only 2, they NEVER PLAY the seventh game. What would be the point?

So at this stage, Hillary is standing at home plate in an empty stadium wondering where the other team is, when they've already left town to rest up for their next series. Hillary can play game seven all by herself and declare herself the winner, but even if you buy into her "win" she's still down 3 games to 4 at the end of the day.

-CW

[altohone]

I take it you're assuming somebody wouldn't accept $109 million in exchange for helping the status quo maintain their grip on power? Maybe it's not a quid pro quo and the money is just a bonus and she's ideologically in sync with the status quo (as her voting record suggests btw)?

For a sports analogy, think about the Yankees throwing batteries at the Red Sox from the stands during their final practice before the World Series. Are you sure that can or should be ignored?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

altohone -

Oooh, that's an interesting addition to the analogy. That, I guess, would make me a sportscaster watching and reporting what is happening. But in this series, I would venture to say, both sets of fans have been chucking batteries.

That's not to say we can't head into the World Series and beat the other league, though. There will be bruised feelings in the stands, but we've got to focus on the next game, not replay the last ones.

And in this analogy, let me state for the record, I am entirely impartial. I can't stand the Red Sox OR the Yankees. Hey, don't blame me, I grew up an Orioles fan....

:-)

-CW

[grendl]

But the game isn't technically over until someone reaches the magic number, delegate-wise.

Barack Obama still could incur some new scandal, that's what the Clinton contingent are counting on. And if nothing else this race has provided such fireworks in the past. Maybe Mayhill Flowers can come up with another explosive audio of Barack divulging another irrefutable truth, like the earth goes 'round the sun, or water is wet.

The racists of this country, the older generation that fear a black president will somehow enact some sort of vengeance, or exact reparations from this country for centuries of abuses will take any crumb the Clinton campaign, and down the road McCain will throw them.

Unfortunately party rules allot her that time. But it's important that Barack not shirk or dodge any assinine attack, but greet them head on, and dispel them. The electorate has a right to watch and listen to how a presumptive candidate handles themselves.

Again, you have the body of Michael Myers sitting in your back yard, you don't order pizza and watch television ( I love likening Hillary to movie monsters on a board where she might actually read the posts ), you dispatch them.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

grendl -

You're right -- I heard it put best by a political analyst on TV (may have been Mark Shields, not sure). He said "Hillary can't win... but Barack could lose." Meaning just what you said -- Obama could tank through some new scandal, and that's the only way he's not going to get the nomination.

I also agree that Obama should heed the "Swift Boat" lesson, and not sit idly by while ANYone attacks him. We've all seen where that leads.

The same analyst had another good point to make, too. "With everything the Democrats have going for them in 2008, if they lose, they ought to give up being a political party and just start selling aluminum siding or something."

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

OK, I have to jump in with a general comment here.

What is the goal for Democrats? The White House.

Who are we trying to defeat for that goal? John McCain.

When people say "the math doesn't add up" what this means is "it's OK to start ignoring Hillary Clinton now, because although she can keep campaigning as long as she wishes, she's ultimately not going to win." She's just not. Even if Michigan and Florida are seated, Barack Obama is still going to beat her by 100 to 200 delegates at the convention. It's over.

So whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, good or bad, she is now the side show in this carnival. The main big top event is Obama versus McCain.

And McCain has been busy saying all sorts of inane, downright idiotic things in the meantime. The job of Democrats now is to get the media to start paying attention to them, and the way to do this is to point out how unfair it's been that they've been piling on Democrats while they've been ignoring McCain. Hopefully, they'll overreact and start putting some pressure on him and his campaign, and ease up on Democrats for a while.

That's the way I see it, at any rate. I could be wrong, of course, but that's how I add it up.

-CW

[burnt]

of course she lost... she lost a long time ago. But you can't take that fact and draw a logical conclusion that it's okay to ignore her. If there's one thing that you should take away from her campaign, is that if you ignore any of the negative tactics she employs, she interprets that to mean that she has tacit approval not only to continue the slime, but to escalate it until someone tells her ENOUGH... at which point she spins and goes negative in a different direction.

I want to see her stop before I let up pressure. You can cheerlead for peace and harmony all you want, but until she can demonstrate some understanding of those concepts... we might all be better served if you directed those comments towards her camp... not the choir.

I'll wait. I've waited decades for an opportunity to vote for someone who might actually want to change the course we are on. I can wait a bit longer to mount against McCain. He is a loser from day one. Clinton is not done inflicting damage on the Democratic Party however. I want to hear from Obama on the real issues and Clinton won't allow that without going Republican.

[Rescisco]

Excellent as always. I had not heard about the mothers day vote. I think their moms should return the favor and vote against them in November.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Rescisco -

If the DCCC doesn't use this in ads this fall, then they need to fire every single person in the DCCC, and get someone with an ounce of sense in there.

This vote is just TAILOR-MADE for use in campaigning... I just hope Democrats don't forget about it!

-CW

[Rescisco]

I can see it now. "Sometimes a loving mother has no choice. Sometimes a parent has to throw a thoughtless and unproductive child out of the House (or the Senate)."

[JimmyCrackcorn]

Crickey!! This is too funny! Joe Lieberman is personally in touch with John McCain's bearings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBdpEPxTQZw

"I just want to report that this morning I personally checked John McCain's bearings. He has not lost any of them. They're all really in great shape." - Joe Lieberman

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

JimmyCrackcorn -

I truly wonder if the voters in Connecticut are feeling a bit sheepish about sending Lieberman back to the Senate, right about now...

-CW

[stavros]

Most excellent post Chris.
Thanks.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

stavros -

Oh, you're quite welcome. And thank you for the kind words!

-CW

[peterg76]

The Republicans can whine about quotes out of context all they want - the McCain quote is *in* context. (That's what makes it so powerful.)

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

peterg76 -

I agree 100%.

When I heard Fox whining about the DNC using "100 years" in an ad, my reaction was thus:

"BWAH - HAH - HAH!!!"

This is also a good time to dust off that old canard:

"We think the voters are smart enough to make their own minds up."

Heh. Heh heh.

-CW

[altohone]

Good talking points.

I'm afraid the unfinished business with Hillary must be dealt with though.
Perhaps we should send her mirrors since she's demanding more debates?

She seems to have no idea what a gracious exit looks like, and does indeed seem eager to help McSame. Perhaps her war vote was truly indicative as I've been arguing ever since she announced? She's also still pushing Romney's health mandate.

What can be done? Anybody?

[BigBen]

You do not seem to realize that Clinton commands the support of half the democratic voters and more than that of the Democratic machine.In the words of Donald Rumsfeld you want to go to war with the army you have? If Deval Patrick, the Gov. and Sen's Kerry and Kennedy could not dislodge the Mass. supporters from the Clintons do you think just shouting at us will convince us of our folly in supporting Hillary?No sir we are the Democrats not the Black vote and the egghead liberals.We are the heart of the party not it's fringe liberal edge.

[nypoet22]

HuffPost's Pick

speaking as an egghead centrist, i think it's probably not a good idea to go calling people names when we're all on the same side. i have no problem at all with sen. clinton staying in this until the last primary is over; that's her prerogative and her right. i just want both sides to stop bloodying each other and start bloodying mccain.

[burnt]

despite being today's pet of the post, I have to say outright.. if you want me to believe that we should "stop bloodying each other and start bloodying mccain", tell that to Clinton and let us all see the evidence that she understands your concern. She has consistently claimed that we are all one happy party... usually just prior a significant number of new slime attacks.

She lost. She does not get to dictate conditions. If she really believes what you say... then I want to *see* some evidence... because I do not believe the words that come out of her mouth. She is a known, self-serving liar. If she had any real consideration for the damage and divisiveness she was causing, the negative Republican campaigning would have stopped long ago.

Sorry... but I am just not buying your spin. She IS the problem... not those of us who want her to stop what she continues to do... and NOW!

Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992

[burnt]

"Now that that's all over with, can we please focus on beating John McCain?"

NO. Especially after the spinning balloon that is currently being floated by the Clinton campaign that they will only concede if the Obama campaign pays off her campaign debts and insert her onto the ticket... extortion and blackmail on top of all the other slime. She is a known liar and I harbor no misconceptions about the length that she is determined to go to destroy the Democratic Party. She is a Republican at heart and I believe fully intends to do much more harm.

Until she does drop out and Obama states that he has won the candidacy for the general election, I'll stick it out. I was not a premature baby... and I do not practice premature politics. You go on ahead and start planning on Obama defeating McCain. You probably need to do that. I'll catch up later. Thanks anyhow.

[grendl]

Moving onto John McCain at this juncture would be like leaving Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees in your back yard.

Hillary isn't dead yet, and this whistling past the graveyard routine will make it seem like Barack's lucky to just get out of this race with his political life. I would argue he needs to put a stake through her campaigns heart.

If she wants to play by the rules, then play by the rules. If the DNC set primary guidelines that were broken, then those states should pay the penalty. If she wants to adhere to the spirit of democracy and fairness instead, then Ms. Clinton will have to abdicate her superdelegate status and disavow all superdelegates as that is a system inherently undemocratic.

The electoral college determines presidential victories, the delegate count this party's. To say if the democratic party were the GOP, she would have won is specious. If the queen had balls she'd be...well Hillary Clinton I suppose. BTW Mr. Carville if she gave Barack one, and they both had two as result wouldn't that mean she had three to begin with? And do we want a freak of nature as president.

Hillary must be dispensed with, entirely. And Bill and Chelsea. Much as we appreciate their service it's time to move on.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

grendl -

I don't agree with you (see above comments), but I have to say your Michael Myers/Jason Vorhees bit was funny!

:-)

-CW