May 18, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
JXB
Recent comments by this user
The Need to Nominate the Strongest Candidate
Like many other posts arguing that Clinton is more "electable," this one completely ignores the fact that the only valid "electability" comparison, if one can be made at all, must be between Obama and Clinton as nominees, and not in terms of their current performance as candidates in the nomination process. That is, taking into account what will happen as the result of a convention process in which the second place finisher in pledged delegates is selected by party insiders over the first place finisher (who also happens to be half African American). The simple fact is that whatever Clinton's electability might look like now (and given her over 50% dislike rating and nearly 60% dishonesty rating, any favorable argument on her behalf is dubious, at best), once she is made the nominee in a process that will look (and be) undemocratic and will be perceived as thwarting the will of the primary/caucus electorate, the Democrat Party will almost certainly fracture, and profoundly so, and Clinton will likely become the most damaged nominee ever to emerge "victorious" from a convention nominating process. It's simple math, really. Superdelegates who ignore democratic principles and the public's sense of fundamental fairness do so at their and their Party's peril. Bald statements like, "I think it is ok to overturn the pledged delegate lead that Obama has," reflect a distinct naivete regarding the likely consequences of such an undemocratic maneuver made in the service of very doubtful and highly debatable "electability" arguments. posted 05/18/2008 at 00:17:48
Florida, Michigan cannot save Clinton
Giving a tantrumming child what he or she wants reinforces the tantrumming behavior. Being firm , fair, and consistent, and holding to limits previously put in place, produces better results (and behavior) in the long run. posted 05/16/2008 at 16:50:18
Ignoble Hillary
No question that sexism is present in politics, just like racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, ageism, and other discriminatory attitudes continue to be. However,...
Her decision in February, after losing 10 contests in a row, to shift to a "kitchen sink" strategy based on "electability" and centered around tearing her opponent down was ignoble.
Her numerous attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game, including rules that she and the other candidates explicitly agreed to in writing at the outset, were, and continue to be, ignoble.
Her refusal to accept defeat and bow out gracefully were, and continue to be, ignoble.
Her explicit appeal to the identity politics of white vs. black in an effort to buttress her flagging campaign's viability was, and continues to be, ignoble.
And, perhaps most of all...
Her public statements clearly suggesting that the Republican nominee was more qualified than her Democratic opponent was ignoble, and possibly unprecedented in the history of primary politics.
These are not male v. female issues. These are not issues grounded in or arising from sexism. These are issues of basic primary decorum, not being a sore loser, and not placing your personal issues and ego above the interests of your Party. These issues would be just as pertinent, just as ignoble, if committed by a male candidate. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:54:43
Her decision in February, after losing 10 contests in a row, to shift to a "kitchen sink" strategy based on "electability" and centered around tearing her opponent down was ignoble.
Her numerous attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game, including rules that she and the other candidates explicitly agreed to in writing at the outset, were, and continue to be, ignoble.
Her refusal to accept defeat and bow out gracefully were, and continue to be, ignoble.
Her explicit appeal to the identity politics of white vs. black in an effort to buttress her flagging campaign's viability was, and continues to be, ignoble.
And, perhaps most of all...
Her public statements clearly suggesting that the Republican nominee was more qualified than her Democratic opponent was ignoble, and possibly unprecedented in the history of primary politics.
These are not male v. female issues. These are not issues grounded in or arising from sexism. These are issues of basic primary decorum, not being a sore loser, and not placing your personal issues and ego above the interests of your Party. These issues would be just as pertinent, just as ignoble, if committed by a male candidate. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:54:43
Six Reasons Why Obama and Clinton Would Each Say "Yes" to VP
2008 Vice Presidential Candidates' Debate. Question #1: "Mrs. Clinton, obviously as the VP candidate on Obama's ticket, you now believe he has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold," so my question is, when did he pass that threshold, before or after you said he had not in March 2008?" Question #2: "Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that Obama has amassed a sufficient amount of life experience since March of 2008 so that he now offers America more than just a speech?"
Campaign commercial: various clips of Hillary Clinton in press conferences directly suggesting that McCain has passed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn't, and that McCain can put forward a lifetime of experience and Obama can only put forward a speech from 2002. Still of Clinton's face with Obama's smaller image sliding into the bottom corner of the screen, narrator: "If his own choice for Vice President thinks this about him, what should we think?" Fade in, shot of McCain in Iraq, or in uniform, or with military commanders, "McCain for President."
It didn't have to be this way. This is the result of choices the Clinton campaign made, apparently after Wisconsin, about the style of campaign they were going to run. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:07:14
Campaign commercial: various clips of Hillary Clinton in press conferences directly suggesting that McCain has passed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn't, and that McCain can put forward a lifetime of experience and Obama can only put forward a speech from 2002. Still of Clinton's face with Obama's smaller image sliding into the bottom corner of the screen, narrator: "If his own choice for Vice President thinks this about him, what should we think?" Fade in, shot of McCain in Iraq, or in uniform, or with military commanders, "McCain for President."
It didn't have to be this way. This is the result of choices the Clinton campaign made, apparently after Wisconsin, about the style of campaign they were going to run. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:07:14
Please, No Obama/Clinton Nightmare
It would also be nice to shed a great handicap from 2004 and present a ticket with no one on it who voted for the war. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:18:57
Flawed Messengers and Wooden Soldiers: Why Obama Beat Clinton -- and Why He'll Beat McCain, Too
Of course, without knowing specifically which bombing runs he was on, we can't know that innocent women and children were killed on his (certainly many were on many of the war's bombing runs, and these victims, and the misguided U.S. policy that produced them, should never be forgotten), but you make a fair point nonetheless. Maybe we will reach a time in our politics where such issues, on both sides, can be discussed more openly and honestly by the candidates, and this seems in part to be what the Obama philosophy is about. But given the generally puerile level on which our political discourse exists today, I'm guessing that one of the last things the Obama camp wants to get into in the general campaign against McCain is an argument about whether he should be criticized or hailed for his military service in Vietnam. Again, a very potent brew, and one which I agree is worthy of a separate discussion. posted 05/09/2008 at 19:11:09
I would also avoid calling a "Wooden Soldier" anyone who has bled on the battlefield. Again, not to take away from the main point, that being the clear difference in genuineness and authenticity that are currently clear, and will become even clearer, between Obama and McCain. But there are some real landmines in campaigning against McCain that are not present in a campaign against Clinton. posted 05/09/2008 at 01:32:59
While the root cause of McCain's "microphone-holding technique" may not be confirmable from any source other than McCain himself, his wartime injuries certainly come to mind first as the possible explanation. It's a good lesson learned. As a quick refresher of McCain's Vietnam experience should remind everyone (see, for example, the Wikipedia excerpt below), criticism of or humor directed at McCain's personal appearance or physical attributes, even in connection with a valid point, is a potent brew, potentially offensive, recalling of his war injuries, and best stayed away from.
_______
John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[36][37][38][39] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[40] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[36] After he regained consciousness, a mob attacked him,[41] crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[41][42]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[41] posted 05/09/2008 at 01:24:34
_______
John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[36][37][38][39] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[40] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[36] After he regained consciousness, a mob attacked him,[41] crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[41][42]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[41] posted 05/09/2008 at 01:24:34
Clinton's Open Letter To Obama On MI and FL
Yep, the citizens should be allowed to vote and those votes should be counted, but of course if those votes favor my opponent and cause him to receive the most pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should ignore the citizens' votes and make me the nominee on "electability" grounds. posted 05/08/2008 at 20:29:33
Hillary Clinton and the Veepstakes -- a Logical Move for Her
2008 Vice Presidential Candidates' Debate. Question #1: "Mrs. Clinton, obviously as the VP candidate on Obama's ticket, you now believe he has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold," so my question is, when did he pass that threshold, before or after you said he hadn't in March 2008?" Question #2: "Mrs. Clinton, do you believe that Obama has amassed a sufficient amount of life experience since March of 2008 so that he now offers America more than just a speech?"
Campaign commercial: various clips of Hillary Clinton in press conferences directly suggesting that McCain has passed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn't, and that McCain can put forward a lifetime of experience and Obama can only put forward a speech from 2002. Still of Clinton's face with Obama's smaller image sliding into the bottom corner of the screen, narrator: "If his own choice for Vice President thinks this about him, what should we think?" Fade in, shot of McCain in Iraq, or in uniform, or with military commanders, "McCain for President."
It didn't have to be this way. This is the result of choices the Clinton campaign made, apparently after Wisconsin, about the style of campaign they were going to run. posted 05/09/2008 at 00:36:57
Campaign commercial: various clips of Hillary Clinton in press conferences directly suggesting that McCain has passed the "Commander in Chief threshold" and that Obama hasn't, and that McCain can put forward a lifetime of experience and Obama can only put forward a speech from 2002. Still of Clinton's face with Obama's smaller image sliding into the bottom corner of the screen, narrator: "If his own choice for Vice President thinks this about him, what should we think?" Fade in, shot of McCain in Iraq, or in uniform, or with military commanders, "McCain for President."
It didn't have to be this way. This is the result of choices the Clinton campaign made, apparently after Wisconsin, about the style of campaign they were going to run. posted 05/09/2008 at 00:36:57
Ed Koch: Obama Is A Sure Loser, Clinton Should Fight On
True, that is Koch's point. But, as far as he has articulated it, Koch is arguing that the Reverend Wright is going to be more decisive among independent and moderate voters than 1) a Republican incumbent with some of the lowest approval ratings in history, 2) a Republican nominee who has marched lockstep or nearly lockstep with the Republican incumbent on most major policy issues (and has promised to continue to do so during the campaign), 3) an occupation in Iraq seen by the majority of the American public as a Republican-led policy and an enormous mistake, and 4) an overwhelming majority of the American public holding the view that the country is, and has for some time been, headed in the wrong direction during the time the Republican Party was in control of the White House (and Congress as well for most of the time), etc. posted 05/07/2008 at 22:26:48
"The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail. And...even though he does not win on his own merits in terms of racking up sufficient delegates, in all probability the superdelegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment. And we will simply go along with the count of the delegates that were chosen in the polls."
Koch's denigration of the voting electorate and of democratic principles is palpable. But even more fundamentally, what he fails to acknowledge is that, irrespective of what Obama's actual chances may be in the general, because of what will happen to the Party if the superdelegates thwart the will of the primary/caucus electorate and choose the second place finisher in pledged delegates over the first place finisher, Obama is the only candidate of the two remaining who can be put forward by the Party and have any chance in the general. So at this point (and it's more or less been this way since the end of February), it is not particularly relevant what Obama's chances will be; those chances are measurably higher than the other candidate emerging as the nominee from a broken Party. And this is before anyone gets to the issue of whether Koch's assessment of Obama's chances is profoundly wrong. posted 05/07/2008 at 22:09:53
Koch's denigration of the voting electorate and of democratic principles is palpable. But even more fundamentally, what he fails to acknowledge is that, irrespective of what Obama's actual chances may be in the general, because of what will happen to the Party if the superdelegates thwart the will of the primary/caucus electorate and choose the second place finisher in pledged delegates over the first place finisher, Obama is the only candidate of the two remaining who can be put forward by the Party and have any chance in the general. So at this point (and it's more or less been this way since the end of February), it is not particularly relevant what Obama's chances will be; those chances are measurably higher than the other candidate emerging as the nominee from a broken Party. And this is before anyone gets to the issue of whether Koch's assessment of Obama's chances is profoundly wrong. posted 05/07/2008 at 22:09:53
Obama To Pick Up Four Superdelegates After Primary Win
And similar to Bush, no Plan B in the event her planned Super Tuesday Knockout did not occur. posted 05/07/2008 at 16:39:12
Report: Wesley Clark Privately Urging Clinton To Quit Race
And likely even earlier, after the 11 consecutive victories in February and the final pledged delegate lead became inevitable. posted 05/07/2008 at 04:35:28
Pandering vs. Presidential
I think you are correct about this. After NC and IN, it would seem that the percentage wins needed in the remaining contests, in which a combined 217 pledged delegates are at stake, is much higher than 63%, probably closer to 75% now. posted 05/07/2008 at 03:00:40
Obama Victorious, Clinton On The Ropes
No trouble either with suggesting that superdelegates overturn the will of the primary/caucus electorate and choose the second place finisher in pledged delegates over the first place finisher, or that pledged delegates can/should change their allegiance at the convention. No trouble devaluing Democratic voters from "small" states or "red" states or "non-swing" states or "caucus" states. posted 05/07/2008 at 01:49:13
Obama's Clinton Dilemma
The nomination of Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court would evaporate faster than you can say Harriet Miers. posted 05/07/2008 at 02:46:51
And having Clinton as your VP means having Bill Clinton at the table and in the White House with you as a de facto part of your Administration. That involves much more than your usual VP bargain.
But perhaps even more important, Clinton's public comments comparing Obama to McCain and clearly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be President/Commander in Chief than Obama should effectively preclude her from being seriously considered for the ticket. Imagine the questions put to her by the press as the VP on Obama's ticket: "Now you obviously feel today that Obama has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold' so my question is, when did Obama pass that threshold, before or after your comment in March 2008 that he hadn't?" posted 05/07/2008 at 02:31:40
But perhaps even more important, Clinton's public comments comparing Obama to McCain and clearly suggesting that McCain is more qualified to be President/Commander in Chief than Obama should effectively preclude her from being seriously considered for the ticket. Imagine the questions put to her by the press as the VP on Obama's ticket: "Now you obviously feel today that Obama has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold' so my question is, when did Obama pass that threshold, before or after your comment in March 2008 that he hadn't?" posted 05/07/2008 at 02:31:40
Now, It's Really Over!
Sorry, mickey. Under basic democratic principles, the winner by 2% is the winner, just like the winner by 20%. It's never been premature to recognize this, or to recognize the enormous significance of the final pledged delegate lead becoming inevitable. Palermo correctly understood this in February, and it looks like he is going to be proven correct.
There is a reason why the Clinton campaign had to shift dramatically into desperation mode after February 20, waging a "kitchen sink" campaign based around "electability," "readiness to be Commander in Chief at 3 a.m.," etc., and hoping for a massive scandal or collapse by the Obama campaign in order to secure the nomination. If things were as razor close and up for grabs as you suggest, none of that would make any sense (remember, negative campaigning hurts you in addition to your opponent; the point is to damage your opponent more than you are going to damage yourself).
If you cannot understand why a 2% lead in an election process is very significant once it becomes clear that you are going to finish with that 2% lead at the end of the process, then you must have been quite surprised by the way things have gone since February. But no worries. There is likely just one more surprise in store for you in this nomination "fight" which, after tonight, may now be coming very soon. posted 05/07/2008 at 04:50:40
There is a reason why the Clinton campaign had to shift dramatically into desperation mode after February 20, waging a "kitchen sink" campaign based around "electability," "readiness to be Commander in Chief at 3 a.m.," etc., and hoping for a massive scandal or collapse by the Obama campaign in order to secure the nomination. If things were as razor close and up for grabs as you suggest, none of that would make any sense (remember, negative campaigning hurts you in addition to your opponent; the point is to damage your opponent more than you are going to damage yourself).
If you cannot understand why a 2% lead in an election process is very significant once it becomes clear that you are going to finish with that 2% lead at the end of the process, then you must have been quite surprised by the way things have gone since February. But no worries. There is likely just one more surprise in store for you in this nomination "fight" which, after tonight, may now be coming very soon. posted 05/07/2008 at 04:50:40
You were one of the first (if not the first) poster on this site to declare it was over with that Feb 20 piece, which I remember well. The power of those consecutive victories, the 50-state strategy, and, most important, the final pledged delegate lead which essentially became inevitable at that time was there for all to see, but many in the media and in the Clinton camp either could not or would not see it. posted 05/07/2008 at 02:04:29
At Speech, Clinton Reminded That She Was From Scranton Two Weeks Ago
Clinton as the VP candidate seems foreclosed by her decision after February 2008 to campaign negatively on the basis of "electability" and in particular make direct comparisons between Obama and McCain in which she directly suggests McCain is more qualified. Just imagine the commercials featuring Clinton making those statements, or Clinton as the VP on Obama's ticket being asked this in a debate or interview: "Obviously you now believe Obama has passed the 'Commander in Chief threshold,' so my question is when did he pass this threshold, before or after March 2008 when you suggested that you and McCain had done so but he had not?" or "Since March 2008, has Obama accumulated a sufficient lifetime of experience so that you now believe he has more to offer America than just a speech?" posted 05/07/2008 at 05:15:05
Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell: Only You Can Prevent the Nuclear Option, and Mutually Assured Destruction
The Party leadership let it go on longer than it should have, once the pledged delegate outcome became clear and especially once the Clinton campaign announced its intention to change course and pursue a "kitchen sink"-style campaign based upon "electability" (translation: tear your opponent down hoping that his negatives rise faster than yours). But given the leadership displayed in dealing with the current Administration on Iraq, Guantanamo, Habeus Corpus, FISA, politicization of the DOJ, and numerous other issues, perhaps there is no cause for surprise here. posted 05/06/2008 at 23:10:12
Terry McAuliffe Has Become Baghdad Bob
Indiana might have been a tiebreaker, if there was a tie. But with one candidate possessing an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates (with insurmountable leads in states won, populor vote, money raised, and total donors thrown in), there is no "tie" to be broken. Perhaps the best way to understand the comment is in the context of the three primary contests that were being addressed at the time. In a three-state micro-contest of PA, NC, and IN, Indiana would indeed be the "tiebreaker" if Obama and Clinton split the other two states. But to extrapolate this comment into some larger meaning for the nomination race as a whole is to stretch common sense beyond the breaking point. posted 05/06/2008 at 22:53:10
Liveblogging the North Carolina and Indiana Primaries
The jello is jiggling, the butter's gettin' hard... posted 05/07/2008 at 00:14:42
Juan Cole: Clinton's Iran Comments "Monstrous"
Hyper-aggressive tough talk about taking military action around the world, gimmicky tax cuts during war time, dewey-eyed reminiscing about learning to fire a gun as a young child,...is this a candidate for the Democratic nomination we're talking about? posted 05/06/2008 at 13:43:17
Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option
Point taken. Given the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country continuing to take its toll in human life and U.S. treasure, it is incredible to think of a presidential election in 2008 where both major party candidates voted for the war. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:25:36
Following a presidential election widely viewed as having been stolen and ushering in one of the most incompetent Administrations in history, the last thing the Democratic Party needs is a nomination that will widely be seen as having been stolen. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:18:27
Carville: If Hillary Gave Obama "One Of Her Cojones, They'd Both Have Two"
Ferraro: Obama is where he is in the campaign because of his race.
Murtha: McCain is too old to be president.
Gibson: Qualified female candidates are those that show "testicular fortitude."
Easley: Hillary makes muscular male Hollywood heros look like "pansies."
Carville: Hillary's got than two "cajones."
Is there a specific page in the Clinton surrogate manual for this kind of stuff? posted 05/04/2008 at 18:18:38
Murtha: McCain is too old to be president.
Gibson: Qualified female candidates are those that show "testicular fortitude."
Easley: Hillary makes muscular male Hollywood heros look like "pansies."
Carville: Hillary's got than two "cajones."
Is there a specific page in the Clinton surrogate manual for this kind of stuff? posted 05/04/2008 at 18:18:38
Eight Belles, Kentucky Derby Horse, Dies On Track
The injury was deemed to be fatal, and that is the reason they euthanized her (euthanizing a horse for a non-fatal, and therefore recoverable, injury would be inhumane, of course). A broken leg injury that cannot be fixed and therefore will not allow a horse to stand will cause death slowly, as opposed to immediately, but death from the injury (or secondary infections, etc. caused by the injury) is certain nonetheless. posted 05/04/2008 at 00:03:09
The Gore Factor
Gore was following an economic boom of sorts (the poor didn't make out too well under a number of policy changes, such as Welfare reform), but more importantly he was following an impeached Chief Executive and the most embarassing and specific details of personal sexual conduct (misconduct to many) ever to be publicized about a sitting President. This, plus the presence of Nader and the historical disadvantage VP presidential candidates face, makes Gore's victory in the popular vote (and probably in the electoral college too) quite impressive, and underscores the vast difference in qualification between him and his opponent then, a difference that has been felt keenly by the country every year since. posted 05/02/2008 at 23:40:03
Gore was the most qualified out of all contenders to be president in 2000, and he remains so today. Obviously, Obama will not need to resort to a dramatic maneuver such as this if he is able to secure the nomination himself over Clinton (either at the convention or due to her withdrawal beforehand), but it is an intriguing possibility to consider if he cannot. An Obama/__________ ticket will be very strong, and a Gore/Obama ticket would be overwhelmingly strong. posted 05/02/2008 at 22:51:43
What Will A Clinton "Victory" Feel Like?
Indeed. posted 05/03/2008 at 02:13:32
18-cent "discount" on gasoline for a few months while the country spends trillions on the occupation in Iraq which is largely responsible for increased oil prices. Stunning. But not suprising that it comes during election time from the establishment elements in both parties. "Toss them some crumbs." posted 05/03/2008 at 00:04:35
Obama Rolls On
This may be a fair comparison. An Obama-McCain contest in 2008 has the potential to go much the way Clinton-Dole did in 1996. posted 05/02/2008 at 04:44:16
Clinton: Base "Broader And Deeper" Than Obama's
"And I've won the big states. I've won the states that we have to anchor."
The degree to which Clinton is willing to relegate and denigrate the "small" states (and the Democratic voters in those states) is striking. For example, with this comment, isn't she in essence saying to the Democratic voters of North Carolina and Indiana that they are just not very important? Isn't it clear that the traditional electoral model has only been marginally successful on a presidential level for the Pary and that a 50-state strategy is the way of the future? posted 05/01/2008 at 18:02:05
The degree to which Clinton is willing to relegate and denigrate the "small" states (and the Democratic voters in those states) is striking. For example, with this comment, isn't she in essence saying to the Democratic voters of North Carolina and Indiana that they are just not very important? Isn't it clear that the traditional electoral model has only been marginally successful on a presidential level for the Pary and that a 50-state strategy is the way of the future? posted 05/01/2008 at 18:02:05
On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
To the extent "commitments" make the convention result all but inevitable and bring to bear sufficient pressure to cause one of the candidates to withdraw in advance of the convention, they are certainly not worthless. And to the extent the "commitments" support the notion that the will of the primary/caucus electorate should be respected, they are also not worthless. posted 05/01/2008 at 15:14:03
Superdelegates and the Rules of the Game
Clearly, the superdelegates are going to "choose" the nominee. The current rules permit this and provide no formal restrictions upon the way they vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is the impact the superdelegates "choice" will have, and how it will be perceived. A choice that affirms the candidate finishing ahead in pledged delegates will be defensible as "democratic," consistent with the collective will of the primary/caucus electorate. A choice that gives the nomination to the candidate finishing behind in pledged delegates will have a different impact. It will be peceived as undemocratic and disenfranchising. It will subject the convention outcome to accusations of illegitimacy, to being a rigged game, and it will subject the Democratic nominee (and the applicable superdelegates) to accusations of "stealing" the nomination (can you imagine this, after the 2000 election). The potential negative impact of this choice may very well be huge -- irretrievable-Party-fracturing huge.
This is not an Obama vs. Clinton issue. The above has always applied irrespective of which candidate was to finish with the most pledged delegates. This is a party-insiders-thwart-the-will-of-the-electorate issue, in a particularly incendiary election year.
"It's the rules," you say. True. But if you think the rules are all that matters here and the superdelegates are not weighing the consequences of their decision, then it is you who is holding your breath. posted 05/02/2008 at 02:29:36
This is not an Obama vs. Clinton issue. The above has always applied irrespective of which candidate was to finish with the most pledged delegates. This is a party-insiders-thwart-the-will-of-the-electorate issue, in a particularly incendiary election year.
"It's the rules," you say. True. But if you think the rules are all that matters here and the superdelegates are not weighing the consequences of their decision, then it is you who is holding your breath. posted 05/02/2008 at 02:29:36
Agreed that, under the circumstances of this campaign, the superdelegates get to choose the overall first place finisher. But my point is that many of the superdelegates likely have in mind the impact upon the Party and the nominee if they choose the second-place finisher over the first-place finisher in pledged delegates, and this impact is likely to weigh more heavily in their minds than polls that do not take this impact into account. Put more simply, voter reaction to a convention outcome which looks and is undemocratic, thwarting the will of the primary/caucus electorate, is likely to be huge, and this likely reaction is not accounted for in the polls (but it probably is being taken into account by many superdelegates). posted 05/02/2008 at 01:59:04
Do predictions such as these account for voter reaction to party officials choosing the second place finisher in Democratic Party pledged delegates as the Party's nominee over the first place finisher? Or are they based on straight-up match-up polling questions? posted 05/01/2008 at 15:24:45
The candidate with the most pledged delegates is the first place finisher according to the millions of voters across the nation and beyond who took the time to go to the polls or caucus sites and cast their vote. The selection of the second place finisher over the first place finisher by party officials and insiders would be seen as (and would be) undemocratic. Superdelegates who ignore democratic principles, the public's sense of fundamental fairness, and the voice of the primary/caucus electorate at large do so at their Party's peril. posted 05/01/2008 at 12:14:17
DNC Chairman Under Bill Clinton: Unite Behind Obama
Another plausible "chickens coming home to roost": Clinton's negative "kitchen sink" campaigning, while effective at driving up her opponent's negatives (as well as her own), turns off many superdelegates who decide to support the other candidate. posted 05/01/2008 at 12:02:32
"Mission Accomplished" 5 Years Later
Agreed that the decision not to impeach may have been a political calculus with an eye to November 2008. But some principles of our constitutional system of government may be more important and run deeper than short term political gain. And the calculus is certainly doubtful. The Republican House impeached Clinton, the Senate tried him and did not convict, and this arguably impacted 2000 election in favor of the vastly less qualified Republican nominee. One also has to wonder whether, once the evidence was amassed, compiled, and openly presented to the Senate and the American public, Senate Republicans could refrain from convicting. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:02:08
The House impeaches. The Senate tries and either convicts or does not convict. posted 05/01/2008 at 04:52:07
Labor Leader Says Clinton Has "Testicular Fortitude"
Ferraro: Obama is where he is in the campaign because of his race.
Murtha: McCain is too old to be president.
Gibson: Qualified female candidates are those that show "testicular fortitude."
Looks like the Clinton campaign is covering all the bases. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:12:09
Murtha: McCain is too old to be president.
Gibson: Qualified female candidates are those that show "testicular fortitude."
Looks like the Clinton campaign is covering all the bases. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:12:09
Charisma and Leadership
Charisma is substance when it comes to leadership. The ability to influence, persuade, inspire, and motivate are very important. So is working hard, of course, as well as exceptional judgment and intelligence. But when it comes to working hard, which campaign has done that? One campaign rolled up its sleeves, did its homework (including the tedious stuff, like figuring out the Texas primary/caucus system), put together a bona fide 50-state strategy, and worked extremely hard to implement that strategy. The other campaign rested on its establishment-supported, early money-advantage, name-recognition laurels, content to ignore caucuses and most states in favor of achieving a "knockout" on Super Tuesday. It was a lazy strategy and lazy campaign without even the work put in even to prepare a Plan B in case the main strategy failed. It is only after losing the frontrunner luster and having inevitable victory turn into inevitable defeat that this campaign began to work hard, out of shock and desperation. Unfortunately, that hard work was devoted to a "kitchen sink," tear-your-opponent-down strategy, when further positive competitive campaigning could have done much good for the candidates' Party and discussion of issues important to the country. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:35:35
Did North Carolina Governor Use Gay Slur In Front Of Clinton?
Let's see,
Ferraro, race (Obama is where he is in campaign because of his race)
Murtha, age (McCain is too old to be president)
Gibson, gender (qualified female candidates like Hillary have "testicular fortitude")
Easley, sexual orientation (Hillary makes muscular male Hollywood heroes look like "pansies" by comparison).
Just a few more bases left for Clinton supporters to cover. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:58:30
Ferraro, race (Obama is where he is in campaign because of his race)
Murtha, age (McCain is too old to be president)
Gibson, gender (qualified female candidates like Hillary have "testicular fortitude")
Easley, sexual orientation (Hillary makes muscular male Hollywood heroes look like "pansies" by comparison).
Just a few more bases left for Clinton supporters to cover. posted 05/01/2008 at 05:58:30
No More Debate: Why Clinton Must Bow Out
Unfortunately, the Party "power brokers" and superdelegates have already let the nomination campaign go further than it should, increasing the likelihood of a McCain presidency and a Clinton candidacy in 2012. Had the Clinton campaign stayed on an issue-based, non-negative tack, then she can stay in the race as long as she wishes. But as soon as her campaign announced, after 11 consecutive losses and in advance of the Texas/Ohio/Vermont/RI primaries/caucuses (and at a time when the ultimate pledged-delegate victory was all but determined), that Clinton would now be pursuing a negative, tear-Obama-down strategy essentially based on "electability" (which translates having the superdelegates select the second place finisher over the first place finisher in pledged delegates), the Party leadership should have taken firm action, such as meeting with undecided superdelegates and, after getting sufficient buy-in, meeting with the Clinton campaign and advised them they had three options: 1) renounce their intended "kitchen sink" approach and go back to an issue-based, non-negative style of campaigning, 2) gracefully withdraw and throw support behind the Party's nominee and begin directing collective firepower against the Republican nominee, or 3) face an announcement by Party leadership and X number of superdelegates that, in deference to principles of democracy, representative government, and fundamental fairness which the Democratic Party has always counted among its most important ideals, they will be supporting whichever candidate goes to the convention with the most pledged delegates. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:59:23
Murtha says McCain too old to be president
Just what the Clinton campaign needs after Ferraro. A supporter making discriminatory statements on the basis of age. Wonder if Murtha voted for or against the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. posted 04/16/2008 at 13:50:49
The Wrong Playbook
And another GOP stratagem from 2004 that will not be available against Obama: the Kerry torpedo based on his vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. "He voted for it, and now he's against it," "Now that the going is getting rough, he's lost his nerve and wants out," etc. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:20:03
The Real Feminist Thing To Do is Acknowledge Hillary's Failures as a Candidate and Move On
Clinton's refusal to accept defeat gracefully and with dignity does a disservice to women presidential candidates in the future. The style of her campaign does so as well. It invites comparisons to Veruca Salt and her reaction to being told she could not have one of Willy Wonka's golden egg-laying geese. posted 04/15/2008 at 17:57:00
Obama Outraises Clinton Among Small Town Pennsylvanians
Being in the lead may mean nothing, but being guaranteed to finish with the lead in pledged delegates definitely means something. It means being the winner of the contest involving millions of primary/caucus voters. It means being able to claim the mantle of the "voter's choice," the electoral victor, the person who prevailed "democratically" within the primary/caucus electorate. It is pure folly to believe that the superdelegates will a) overturn the will of the electorate so that the second place finisher in pledged delegates is selected as the nominee and b) will even allow the nomination fight to go to the convention by remaining uncommitted after all primaries have been conducted the pledged delegate winner is decided. But clearly that is all the Clinton campaign has left to rely on, which is why her chances are generally being assessed in the range of slim to none. posted 04/15/2008 at 17:11:07
Judis Exaggerates Barack Obama's Electoral Death
So then more power is required, like the presidency. Do you really think voters who want to see an end to the occupation in Iraq are going to choose McCain over the Democratic nominee because the slim Democratic majorities in Congress in 2006 and 2007 failed to do so? posted 04/15/2008 at 13:44:09
Judis needs to take a look around and notice the Bush Administration's approval rating, public opinion on the occupation in Iraq, and Democratic fundraising and primary/caucus participation levels in comparison to the Republican's. These are the factors that will weigh most heavily in November, not some archetypal "model" candidate categories based on elections past. The level of dissatisfaction with where the Republican party has taken this country over the last seven years is enormous. And once the Democratic Party stops fighting within itself, it will be able to turn the country's attention, and the media's, back to this reality. posted 04/15/2008 at 11:25:25
Obama, The Rookie
I'd take some rookie mistakes over an Iraq war vote and lying about taking sniper fire any day. posted 04/15/2008 at 10:58:03
John McCain Should Go on Vacation, Hillary Clinton is Doing His Job for Him
"But she doesn't pretend to be anything other than an ambitious, committed politician who will help us address real problems. "
For a while she pretended to be someone who braved sniper fire. Many also argue that she is pretending to be a Democrat. posted 04/14/2008 at 17:58:10
For a while she pretended to be someone who braved sniper fire. Many also argue that she is pretending to be a Democrat. posted 04/14/2008 at 17:58:10
George Bush: I Was Aware Of Harsh Tactics Meetings
Thirded. posted 04/12/2008 at 03:17:56
Bush: General Petraeus "Will Have All The Time He Needs"
The Dems have all the votes they need. Only a simple majority and control of the Speakership and Majority Leadership is required to prevent any vote on a bill that funds further combat operations, and to force, at least in the House, passage of only bills that fund the withdrawal of the troops. Congress has ultimate control of the purse, but it has not had the stength of will to use that control to bring an end to the war. posted 04/10/2008 at 20:30:44
There should be no surprise here. It was quite predictable that this is where things would end up if Congress did not take strong action in 2006 and 2007 to force an end to the war by passing (or putting up for vote) only war funding bills that would fund the troops' withdrawal from Iraq and would not fund further combat operations. posted 04/10/2008 at 16:28:36
Obama Gets "Very Flirtatious" At Campaign Stop
And quite a contrast to the current White House occupant as well. posted 04/01/2008 at 14:50:33
Clinton Compares Herself To Rocky Balboa: We "Have A Lot In Common"
The metaphor may actually be somewhat appropriate. Rocky kept fighting, bloodied up his superior opponent in a phyrric effort, and lost at the end. posted 04/01/2008 at 14:37:49
How to Avoid a Democratic Disaster
I make my interpretations for myself, and there simply isn't any question that Clinton places McCain above Obama in her comments:
1. I've crossed the Commander in Chief threshold; McCain "certainly" has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold; and as for Obama, well, you'll have to go ask him...
2. McCain will put forth his lifetime of experience; I will put forth my lifetime of experience, and Obama will put forth a speech he gave in 2002.
The implication could not be clearer, and your "interpretation" of her remarks -- that she was only saying her experience stacked up better than Obama's against McCain -- is pure sophistry. If that's true, then why the plain suggestion that McCain has a lifetime of experience but Obama does not; that there is doubt that Obama has crossed the threshold while McCain "certainly" has?
Now, how can Clinton possibly be the VP on Obama's ticket when these comments will be played in Republican ads, and she is asked questions like: "When did Obama pass the Commander in Chief threshold? Before or after your March 6, 2008 comments?" Take a look at he remarks again in full glory to get a real sense of the impact of those ads if she's on Obama's ticket: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o10lQUm5gKM
Clinton's comments are breathtaking in their desecration of the sacrosanct unwritten rule of Party primary decorum that you never suggest your opponent is less qualified than the other Party's nominee, and they are probably unprecedented. posted 04/01/2008 at 03:20:33
1. I've crossed the Commander in Chief threshold; McCain "certainly" has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold; and as for Obama, well, you'll have to go ask him...
2. McCain will put forth his lifetime of experience; I will put forth my lifetime of experience, and Obama will put forth a speech he gave in 2002.
The implication could not be clearer, and your "interpretation" of her remarks -- that she was only saying her experience stacked up better than Obama's against McCain -- is pure sophistry. If that's true, then why the plain suggestion that McCain has a lifetime of experience but Obama does not; that there is doubt that Obama has crossed the threshold while McCain "certainly" has?
Now, how can Clinton possibly be the VP on Obama's ticket when these comments will be played in Republican ads, and she is asked questions like: "When did Obama pass the Commander in Chief threshold? Before or after your March 6, 2008 comments?" Take a look at he remarks again in full glory to get a real sense of the impact of those ads if she's on Obama's ticket: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o10lQUm5gKM
Clinton's comments are breathtaking in their desecration of the sacrosanct unwritten rule of Party primary decorum that you never suggest your opponent is less qualified than the other Party's nominee, and they are probably unprecedented. posted 04/01/2008 at 03:20:33
Good point. Clinton cannot be effective as the VP on Obama's ticket, because she is on record personally saying Obama is not qualified, and that McCain is more qualified than Obama.
On the Obama side, having Clinton on the ticket would be incosistent with his whole campaign premise, a premise that will be very powerful against McCain: no more politics as usual.
There are numerous other problems with a joint ticket as well. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:53:57
On the Obama side, having Clinton on the ticket would be incosistent with his whole campaign premise, a premise that will be very powerful against McCain: no more politics as usual.
There are numerous other problems with a joint ticket as well. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:53:57
Obama Set To Announce A New String Of Key Endorsements
Agreed. And the candidate finishing with the most pledged delegates will be winner according to what the people have said. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:37:14
Clinton from the article: "There are some folks saying we ought to stop these elections,"..."I didn't think we believed that in America. I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everyone a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted."
Clinton's current convention posture: But if the people's voices and votes cause Obama to end up with more pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should step in and make me the nominee because I'm the better candidate. Hell, even Obama's pledged delegates can change their vote too.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Clinton. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:34:44
Clinton's current convention posture: But if the people's voices and votes cause Obama to end up with more pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should step in and make me the nominee because I'm the better candidate. Hell, even Obama's pledged delegates can change their vote too.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Clinton. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:34:44
Obama Overstates Kennedys' Role In Helping His Father
Absolutely right. The press loves this game of gotcha and gotcha back. Who cares if the grave problems and issues facing the world and the nation get put on the back pages or go undiscussed, this is fun, this is "news," this is sales and advertising revenue. posted 03/30/2008 at 13:32:12
The World is Watching and Wants More: Clinton-Obama Race Should Go All the Way
In some sense, Mr. Clemons is right. U.S. presidential and presidential nomination campaigns have served as examples to the world of the potency of American democracy, and no doubt this nomination campaign cycle, particularly on the Democratic side, is as high profile as any has been. But there is dark storm cloud on the horizon waiting to make landfall in this campaign. If the second place finisher in the Democratic primary/caucus electoral contests is ultimately selected as the nominee by Party officials and insiders over the first place finisher, the "global public diplomacy" message to the world will be that America puts on a good show about democracy and the power of the people, but in the end it's only for show. posted 03/30/2008 at 14:15:44
Clinton: Stick It Out or Withdraw?
Yep, factcheck.org is a good resource, but it doesn't appear to have the answer either, although it confirms what is already known, that Obama has enjoyed greater crossover Republican support overall than Clinton. But the question raised by Amminadab is not who has gotten the most crossover Republican votes, but whose crossover Republicans are "authentic." Again, the conventional wisdom is that Obama's crossovers are genuine due to his Reagan-like crossover appeal (his superior appeal to independents does serve to corroborate this a bit), and that Clinton's crossovers are instead simply engaging in primary shenanigans egged on by characters like Rush Limbaugh. Factcheck.org does not seem to answer this question of "authenticity," nor have I seen the answer elsewhere, but it does note that Limbaugh began his "Operation Chaos" in advance of March 4 because he said Clinton would be the weaker general election candidate. The following from factcheck.org on Ohio is somewhat illuminating and indicates that booksnmore4you has at least some basis for concern:
"In Cuyahoga County, 16,000-plus Republicans switched parties when they voted in the primary, some of them adding to their ballot words like 'for one day only' or 'I don"t believe in abortion.' Some Republicans who voted for Clinton freely admitted to reporters that they were doing so to throw a wrench in the Democratic primary process."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_10_percent_of_hillarys_votes_come.html posted 03/31/2008 at 02:50:57
"In Cuyahoga County, 16,000-plus Republicans switched parties when they voted in the primary, some of them adding to their ballot words like 'for one day only' or 'I don"t believe in abortion.' Some Republicans who voted for Clinton freely admitted to reporters that they were doing so to throw a wrench in the Democratic primary process."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_10_percent_of_hillarys_votes_come.html posted 03/31/2008 at 02:50:57
This is a fair question, and I haven't seen any firm analysis of this yet. However, the conventional wisdom on Obama's strong showing among independents (including conservative-leaning independents) and Republicans, which has existed from the start of the campaign, is that Obama has Reagan-like crossover appeal, and that these voters were actually likely to vote for him again in the general election. Again, conventional wisdom, and not conclusive analytically as far as I know. Nonetheless, one thing that is clear is that strong Republican crossover support for Clinton seems to be much more recent and to coincide with calls from persons like Rush Limbaugh to create "chaos" in the Democratic Party and potentially cause it to field a weaker general election candidate by Republicans inauthentically crossing over in places like Texas and other open primaries and voting for Clinton. In light of this fact alone, booksnmore4you's concern seems well taken, although it is probably unlikely that such improper (and in Ohio, illegal) crossover voters will actually decide the final outcome. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:10:42
Peggy Noonan: At This Point You Either Understand The Problem With Hillary Or You Don't
Actually, it is surprising to see Republicans doing anything other than propping up Clinton. If you don't believe, listen to Rush Limbaugh or read some of Earl Ofari Hutchinson's postings right here. Things have just gotten so distilled at this point that more intellectually honest Republicans are beginning to call it as they see it....even if as a tactical matter the Republican Party would be much better off with Clinton in the general than Obama. posted 03/28/2008 at 18:50:20
Edwards Donors Prefer Obama To Clinton
Edwards was a more progressive candidate than Obama, and Obama is a more progressive candidate than Clinton. Seems like simple math which remaining candidate should get the lion's share of Edwards' supporters. posted 03/28/2008 at 17:39:55
University Of Chicago: Obama Was A Professor
And in comparison to the Clintons today, he is positively poor. posted 03/28/2008 at 13:54:58
Obama Gets Boost; Clinton Urged to Quit
Yeah, but only if McCain will agree to be her VP. posted 03/28/2008 at 11:08:54
Hillary's Bosnia Boast -- Not a Big Deal
Given how central to her campaign Clinton has made the issue of experience, her supposedly superior qualifications, "we're interviewing for the job of president," etc., this incident effectively equates to resume fraud. Now what do you do with a applicant seeking employment at your company after you find out their resume contains falsehoods? posted 03/28/2008 at 02:36:36
Reuters: "Somebody Forgot To Tell Hillary Clinton The Democratic Presidential Race Is Over And Barack Obama Won"
She's already ridden his coattails, to the Senate. The magic carpet ride is now over, and you correctly point out that her continued efforts to create an outcome that thwarts the will of the primary/caucus electorate and tears down her fellow frontrunning Democrat threatens the Party in very material ways. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:23:57
Run, Hillary, Run. Ralph, Too.
An excellent point. If Clinton stuck to running a positive campaign, advocating her policy positions and message as better than Obama's, then it would be a much different story. The problem is that the Clinton campaign, recognizing it was getting beaten badly in January and February, made a decision to change its campaign focus to "electability" and "qualification to be Commander in Chief" issues built centrally around direct negative attacks, fear-mongering advertisements, and, incredibly, direct statements that McCain is more qualified than Obama. It is these tactics, more than just staying in the race, that are so destructive. And it is the reason Clinton is getting so much pressure to withdraw on grounds of being destructive to her Party's chances, and Huckabee, for example, did not. posted 03/27/2008 at 14:01:47
Pelosi Should Recant, then Zip It Up on Pumping Obama
Sorry. "Asinine lapse of judgment and common sense" describes voting to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. And "asinine lapse of political ethics" describes explicitly comparing the Rupublican nominee as more qualified than your frontrunning Democratic opponent. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:50:06
What Hillary Really Learned in the White House
Perhaps they would be pursuing this "angle" if 23 other senators hadn't seen through the supposed lies and made the sound judgment that giving this president this kind of authority in this situation was a bad idea. posted 03/26/2008 at 20:35:17
Clinton Donors Object to Pelosi Comment
They are not just supposed to go along with the voters. They are supposed to act in the overall interest of their Party. And in this particular nomination cycle, acting in a way that effectively thwarts the will of the primary/caucus electorate by selecting the second-place finisher in pledged delegates over the first-place finisher, will be very harmful to the overall interest of the Party. posted 03/27/2008 at 13:53:25
They can write their letters, and the people can pass their judgment. posted 03/26/2008 at 19:51:14
Big money people did a bang up job for the Party in the 2000 and 2004 elections. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:21:29
Of course they wrote a scathing letter. The idea of giving up influence within the Party is upsetting, especially when you've paid good money for it. The problem is, they are on losing side of this argument in at least two big ways. First, they want reinforced the ability of party officials and insiders, and not the primary/caucus electorate, to choose the nominee. Such a Sovietesque position looks, feels, and is very undemocratic. Second, they claim that the superdelegates must remain "independent," but they fail to acknowledge that supporting the candidate who has won the pledged delegate contest can be an independent judgment reached by the superdelegates, one that clearly Pelosi has reached and probably many other superdelegates as well. And because such a position is on the side of fundamental fairness and democratic principles, ideals which the Democratic Party should alway wish to count among its most important, it should not be surprising that superdelegates who place high value on the good of their Party will come to this position "independently" of their own accord. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:19:40
Clinton To Attend Forum At Monica Goodling's Alma Mater
She would probably say that McCain can be her VP. And Bill Clinton would start saying that Clinton/McCain would make a "dream ticket." posted 03/26/2008 at 11:35:56
Congressman Sees Gore As Nominee If Race Goes Until August
Would you support a Gore/Obama ticket instead of a Hillary/______ ticket? posted 03/27/2008 at 01:56:40
Gore remains the most qualified "candidate" to be President, to restore the country's credibility and veritas in the world, to end the war in Iraq, and to begin repairing the damage to democratic institutions and constitutional rights at home. He is also the most qualified politician to lead the country and the world on the issue of global warming, an issue which has the potential to make all other issues moot, to put it mildly. A Gore/Obama ticket could break records for general election landslides and secure 16 years in the Whitehouse for the Democratic Party. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:33:11
Time for Superdelegates to Ratify Obama's Insurmountable Pledged Delegate Lead and Settle the Democratic Nomination
No, the best thing for the Party obviously would not be to hand the presidency to McCain, the nominee from another Party. (Makes you wonder why any member of the Party would publicly state or imply that McCain is more qualified or loves his country more than the Democratic frontrunner.) Just as obviously, the Party must make a choice between two candidates for its nominee. One must be the winner and one must be the loser. Now, with or without Michigan and Florida counting (which both candidates agreed in advance would not count, and which would not change the pledged delegate outcomes even if they had revotes and did count), how in the world could it be in the Party's interest to select as its nominee the candidate that came in second place in a contest involving 26+ million voters? Again, add in Michigan and Florida, with both candidates given the full opportunity and time to campaign and compete for votes there: 29+ million voters, and the result is still the same, the same candidate finishing in first place and the same candidate finishing in second place. The first place finisher is know. Best thing for the party is for the second place finisher, and her supporters, to acknowledge this and accept the voters' outcome. posted 03/27/2008 at 02:10:54
Best thing for the Party would be for Clinton to withdraw gracefully on her own with a heartfelt message of unity and support for the Party's nominee, without the superdelegates or the party leadership having to act (would have been even better before Ohio/Texas/CT/RI). Next best thing is for the Party leadership to force a withdrawal by telling the Clinton campaign behind the scenes that they will come out publicly for the pledged delegate winner unless she withdraws. Next best thing for the Party is for the superdelegates to force a withdrawal by openly declaring that, in order to honor the majority will of the primary/caucus electorate as reflected by the pledged delegate count, they will support as a block whichever candidate ends up with the most pledged delegates. Things don't look so good for the Party after that. posted 03/26/2008 at 21:03:44
US, Iraqi Troops Battle Shiite Militia
Good points. Whoever in the administration thought of walls as a solution so that people would live in isolation from the people on the other side should be made to read Dr. Suess' The Butter Battle Book. Basic stuff, but on point and much more advanced that My Pet Goat. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:17:01
A Superdelegate Mini Convention Makes Sense
Superdelegates deciding this thing is bad. But superdelegates deciding this thing by supporting as a block the candidate that finishes with the most pledged delegates is not bad, since this effectively defers the decision to the primary/caucus electorate, and thus looks and is much more democratic. It is a very straightforward and principled position to take (fairness and democracy vs. backroom king making by party officials and insiders), with the added bonus that it can be implemented at any time, even immediately, to stop the damage that is occurring the Party every day. All that is needed is some firm leadership and superdelegate herding. posted 03/26/2008 at 03:06:53
The Clinton Credibility Gap: More Nixon than Gore
No doubt Gore is a heavy Party voice, and there is even some speculation I've read today about him appearing at the top of the ticket as part of an agreed resolution. True, they all must see the damage being done, especially from unprecedented tactics such as explicitly saying that the Republican nominee is more qualified than frontrunning Democrat, and it is disappointing that the leadership did not take decisive action earlier once the pledged delegate race became decided and Clinton turned the campaign especially negative. Edwards, Gore, and the others can still likely bring this to a dignified close, but the damage continues daily. posted 03/25/2008 at 23:57:16
Not sure Gore alone could do it, particularly given the state of his relationship with Hillary. But Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Biden, Dodd, Hoyer together almost certainly could. Throw Gore or Edwards into that meeting for good measure as well if you like. The superdelegates could even do it themselves. If 50, 75, or 100 as-yet-uncommitted superdelegates, through several designees, privately advised the Clinton campaign that if she doesn't withdraw they are going to announce support for Obama (or, even better, that they will support whichever candidate ends up with the most pledged delegates and will advocate the same to all other superdelegates), that likely would do it as well. It's not that hard to end this with some firm leadership. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:34:12
Clinton: Pledged Delegates Are "Like Superdelegates"
I suggest you consider Professor Lessig's analysis on "electability." http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/10_minutes_on_whether_hillary.html posted 03/25/2008 at 15:53:01
Fine, and superdelegates who support Clinton in states won by Obama must change their support to him. Or, more simply, all superdelegates support as a block the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Either way the outcome is the same, a democratic outcome reflecting the majority will of the primary/caucus electorate per the pledged delegate process. After 7+ years of watching our democratic institutions and Constitutional rights eroded under the current administration, the last thing the Democratic Party needs is a nomination result that looks and is undemocratic. posted 03/25/2008 at 14:17:25
If pledged delegates can and should vote any which way like superdelegates, then what was the point of the 25+ million votes cast to select them? Seems like Clinton is suggesting the disenfranchisment of the entire primary/caucus electorate. posted 03/25/2008 at 14:10:24
Connecticut Newspaper Apologizes For 2006 Lieberman Endorsement
They disagreed with him on the war -- the most important issue of our time and literally a matter of life and death for thousands of people -- but endorsed him because of his "condemnation of former President Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his even-handed political approach"? Are they joking? posted 03/23/2008 at 22:51:36
Report: Clinton's Private Objections To NAFTA "Ludicrous"
Said nothing but privately opposed it.
Voted for it but secretly hoped it would fail.
Smoked it but didn't inhale. posted 03/21/2008 at 19:30:38
Voted for it but secretly hoped it would fail.
Smoked it but didn't inhale. posted 03/21/2008 at 19:30:38
Why the Democrats Should Use the "Defeat" Word
If Democrats were willing to face up to the "defeat" word at this juncture, presumably they would have effectively ended the war months ago by passing only war funding bills that funded the withdrawal and return home of the troops. Remember "Surrender Monkeys," "Defeatocrats," and similar epithets hurled at congressional Democrats during the war funding battles last year? Apparently, a political calculus was made that a 2008 Democratic White House is very likely due to public disapproval of the war (and of the current Administration, due in large part to the war), and that this boat should not be rocked by exposing the Party to accusations of being "defeatists," "weak on defense," "against the toops," etc. Unfortunately, this apparently has meant that nothing material will be done by elected Democrats to bring the war to an end until after the presidential election, and taking on the concept of "defeat" in Iraq seems doomed to a similar fate. posted 03/21/2008 at 21:37:08
The Day Hillary Clinton Knew She Had Lost
"...that is the Clintons' legacy, once again: making it harder for Democrats other than themselves to gain power, whether in the Congress in the 1990s, or in this year's presidential election."
Or, perhaps most unfortunately given where the country is now, in the presidential election of 2000. posted 03/21/2008 at 20:34:40
Or, perhaps most unfortunately given where the country is now, in the presidential election of 2000. posted 03/21/2008 at 20:34:40
Obama Endorsed By Bill Richardson
I'll see your Murtha and raise you a Richardson. posted 03/21/2008 at 11:07:04
War and Remembrance
Under this definition, it seems our National Security is in worse shape now that it was seven and a half years ago. posted 03/20/2008 at 22:53:23
Popular Stories on HuffPost
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The AP reports on Obama's swift and forceful response to Bush and McCain's criticism of...
The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few months ago,...
***UPDATE*** Roughly five hours after making comments about...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
Sixteen tips for getting good sleep. There's a lot of advice out there about getting good...
