You know, she's right.  Wouldn't it be great if Democrats just adopted everything wholesale from the Republican party?  

If we had Republican ideology, look at all these laws we'd have passed!

If it were golf, she'd also be winning.

She's not really trying for consistency, so why hold her to that standard?

And if a frog had wings, I wouldn't be so sick of this goddamned primary that I feel like vomiting up a apleen.

Or something like that.

Kristof sez:

I Actually Was for the Democratic Primary Rules Before I Was Against Them:

"We've got a process. The rules are it goes all the way into June. Let's follow the rules and get to those June contests and see where we are."-- Hillary Clinton, "Nightline," May 1

"If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee."-- Clinton, same interview "

The apparent contradiction is just poor comprehension of Standard American English (SAE), my man. I will explain in first-grader English what Hillary was saying, all of which is factually accurate and not even close to being a contradiction: "The current Dem rules are that the contest goes all the way to June, the TNR calls that I drop out notwithstanding. However, had we had the Republican rules, I would already have been the nominee."

..and she is right. Assume Dem primaries with the winner takes all rule, and no open contests and call me in the morning.

What's the point of this post? It's not news to anybody, particularly Hillary supporters, that Hillary is a dishonest, cynical, crypto-Republican. At this point, one has to assume that's _why_ they support her. So adding more evidence of her shiftiness, lack of scruples, and GOP sympathies isn't going to affect anyone's opinion of her. It's like the whole Ireland/sniper series of falsehoods: If people didn't approve of liars, they wouldn't have been supporting Hillary in the first place.

But it does reinforce her statements praising Ronald Reagan as a "great American president" from whom she learned important lessons in her Fox News interview.

If Obama was a Muslim, and Hillary were a man, and caucuses didn't count, and we pretended that Michigan was a real election, and ...

Rhubarbs  said:

"What's the point of this post? It's not news to anybody, particularly Hillary supporters, that Hillary is a dishonest, cynical, crypto-Republican."

Good rhetorical question, barbs. So what is the point of your post? It is news to me that Hillary, as a Hillary supporter, that she is "a dishonest, cynical, crypto-Republican."

But there is not even relevance in what you said in relation to Hillary's purported contradictory statements that I just translated for folks like you in simpler SAE.

After viewing the "Nightline" video, I think it's kind of shocking that Hillary talks about critiques of the gas-tax holiday in terms similar to John McCain's.  She calls Tom Friedman an elitist, while McCain talks about him getting chauffeured around NYC.  Even if his occasional platitudes aren't worth a pie to the face, Friedman can be maddeningly pat.  However, on this issue, he and nearly every other pundit are correct.  Are there any Clinton supporters in these forums who are upset by her pandering and eager use of right wing talking points?  Dcshungu, lymon?

dcshungu: Me immigrant, no unnersand Englese.  Esplain the "conditional" pleez.  "If we had the Republican rules ...".  She run using "Republican rules", no?  Why "if"?

"Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii."

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

Incidentally, if I were a virtual stapler, Clippy and I would be married.  

What kind of a moron would make an "if" statement like that?  Oh, yeah. Sorry.  Back to work.

Um, is dcs wrong?  Why is observing that under winner-take-all rules (which are more odious than the Dems gerrymandered method, but not as offensive as caucuses) she'd win, under the current Dem rules neither has won, and that the popular vote hasn't even been completed, somehow inconsistent?  Sure she's spinning, but if every pol who spins is a "dishonest, cynical, crypto-republican" we could be talking up Obama for McCain's veep.  

One of the possible positive outcomes of this extended primary may be that it has created circumstances under which Hillary, in extremis, feels unbound, willing to let her inner Republican emerge.  She is showing signs of Joe Lieberman syndrome.  Scorned by the Democrats, she is begging for lifelines from the Republicans and flashing them in order to do it.  If she does much more of this, she will ensure that the Democratic party unites behind Obama because she will have rendered herself utterly distasteful even to her own current supporters.  As Hillary visibly descends further into the muck of Republicanism, there will be no buyers' remorse in the Democratic party.  I think we are destined for a whole knew slew of public confessions about "how I was for Hillary at first, but having seen her tactics, I can no longer support her." My god, even from former chairs of the DNC!

The sad thing is, there is a reason in all this for a real discussion about about how parties nominate candidates, and by extension, how national elections get decided, but that discussion is completely subordinated to self interested analysis and calculation, by both Clinton and Obama.

Either the Democratic Party is a democratic subset of the United States in which one member gets one vote -  in which case the rules under which this nomination is being decided are a complete disgrace, particularly in the caucus states.  But, in that case, moving to the Republican winner-take-all counting system, only makes the reasonably democratic primaries much less so.

Or, the Democratic Party is a self-interested organization, which members voluntarily join only if they accept that doing so obligates them at some level to support the party, and whose primary purpose is to get people who will represent its principles elected - in which case they should be free to decide who they run by any system that is reasonably assured to get a candidate with a chance to win, who will support the party.  In that case, the "votes" in the primaries and caucuses should be considered advisory, and the party leaders really should decide the nominee based on the candidates willingness to sign on to the party principles, and their electability.

What is utterly senseless, is this strange blending of primary, caucuses, and party leader determination.  It begs to be gamed, because it is based on no discernible principle.  Obama (whom I support, BTW), has managed to game the system pretty well, turning small votes into big leverage by winning in caucus states, many of which have thin Democratic leanings.  Clinton has gamed it less well to date, but clearly is making a bid in that direction, with her arguments that she should be the nominee, even if she loses in "the system."

As someone who used to defiantly proclaim my independence, only to end up voting in the end for Democrats almost across the board, but who has in the last 25 years been an increasingly a loyal member of the party,  I could live comfortably with either a pure popular vote based candidate primary, or a pure caucus-based system, in which one elects unbound delegates to increasingly large (local, district, state) conventions, culminating in the national convention, and then trusts those delegates to make a choice for us.  Both have their virtues and faults.  But least they are consistent, and make all participants in the process equal.  I could even live with candidate primaries that are consistently structured, but award delegates winner-take-all, state by state.  That has at least the virtue of mimicking our badly flawed national presidential election system.  But the current mess is simply an embarrassment.

Ah, lymon,

There are an endless number of "true" statements that one might make in the course of a political campaign, but statements like these are not made because of their truth.  They are made for their political impact.  Everything that a politician says in the course of a political campaign, every word they utter, is made for its political impact.  If a politician in a campaign let's his attention wander and says something true but impolitic, even if it is something that everyone knows to be true, they pay for it immediately because, part of what a political candidate is supposed to demonstrate is that he or she understands and can carry the weight (and believe me, it is a weight) of being politic all the time.

When Bill Clinton says, "Yeah, Jesse Jackson won SC too," it is not the obvious truth of the statement that is relevant, it is the political purpose that is relevant.  In that case, the obvious purpose was to disparage Obama's achievement and to tie him to a widely reviled political figure who is just the sort of black man that white's would never vote for.  And Bill got called on it, as he should have been.  Sometimes the Clintons really do think that everyone in the universe other than they is stupid.

In this case, we have Hillary Clinton, on a right-wing talk show, publicly disparaging the rules of her own party, and by extension that party, in order to appeal to Republicans.  Why on earth would she do that while she is still running in the Democratic primaries?  (A)  She is, as I believe, a closet Republican, still the Goldwater Girl she was at the start, and, under stress, the mask is slipping, (B) She is suffering from Joe Lieberman syndrome (scorned by Democrats, looking for strokes from Republicans because the loss is unbearable), (C) She is suffering from political Stockholm syndrome -- bashed by Republicans for so long, she has gone over to the dark side.  You pick.

Great logic

1. I want to honor the rules which state I can and should remain in the race

2. If the rules were completely different than they are and were geared to favor me I should have won the nomination

3. HRC in her head "I want to honor rule 2 which just happens to contradict my first rule."  Ef it let's roll with this and see if anyone is paying attention"

How do HRC supporters put up with this kind of logic, how does this make you proud to support her candidacy?

dcshungu, if you don't admire Hillary for her cynicism, faculty for lying, and pro-Republican voting record, then why the heck do you support her? I've always assumed that her supporters knew what they were getting and just happened to value attributes that differ from those I value in candidates. It never occurred to me that Hillaristas would support her out of ignorance of her character and record.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Is that her point?

Watching her campaign die a slow painful death is going to be a joy.

This is the exact sort of thing people mean when they say hey are disgusted by the campain she is running - this just insults the intelligence.  A picture perfect example

On the caucus issue: I'm for caucuses in primaries where there are multiple candidates. Caucuses allow for 2nd choices to factor into the bigger picture. In most primaries (early on, when you have tons of candidates), support is fairly weak and many people have multiple preferences. A straight ballot doesn't allow those second or even third choices to be reflected.

After we're down to 2 candidates, caucuses are a bit silly. However - if we were able to somehow factor in absentee voting into the caucus process (to help working class voters/soliders/the elderly participate), then I think I'd be for it. I'm actually in favor of a more activist driven primary. These are the folks who will eventually donate/volunteer/work their heart out for a candidate. A primary driven by voters who have only a passing interest in the outcome can be overly influenced by fairly superficial issues (incumbency, name recognition, etc).

Caucuses measure intense support for a candidate. Usually when you screen for voter intensity, that favors ideologues, but Barack Obama has proven that you can still perform well in caucuses with an anti-partisan message. If we fix the disenfranchisement issues (perhaps give a separate weighting to absentee ballots), then I think they're fine. There's nothing better for our democracy than citizens meeting their neighbors and debating politics every 4 years.

Why can't you HRC supporters say what you really mean:

If this were a monarchy (like it should be!), then Hillary would be queen by now and all of the messiness of a merit-based voting system would be avoided.

Oh and the other thing that makes your "let's change the rules!" claims idiotic is that if the rules were different, Barack Obama would have persued a different strategy.

Let's say the rules were winner take all, or that the popular vote mattered. Obama would have concentrated on some of the bigger states earlier. In fact - New Hampshire would have been nearly meaningless.

If the rules said that "Whoever wins the most states wins", then Hillary would have focused more on small states.

We can make up all sort of BS, but at the end of the day, I'm still going to bed tonight believing that Hillary Clinton still wanted Al Gore's office and threw a fit about it.

sdemuth,

You are certainly correct that the Democratic rules seem like a hodgepodge.  But I am not so sure that an aesthetically pleasing consistency is in the party's best interest.  Right now, Obama has roughly a 2% lead in the popular vote.  He also has a roughly .5% lead in the pledged delegate count.  That is closer because there is a threshold that you have to cross to gain a delegate advantage in a given race.  Close races are called as a draw.  For that reason, Obama's advantage in delegates seemed to a lot of people for a long time to be a lot closer than it really was -- in terms of what was necessary for him to win it and what would be necessary for Hillary to overcome it, it is quite large.

The current structure is designed to force candidates to campaign widely because they cannot gain much advantage in a single race unless they blow it out.  It requires extended campaigning.  It requires the candidate to build a broad coalition, although not the same one for each candidate.  It prevents someone from winning just because the media declares the candidacy to be inevitable.  It requires a shrewd use of resources.  It mixes caucuses and primaries in a manner that makes it important to appeal both to the rank and file, who are critical to the general, and to the party activists and workers, who are also critical to the general.  I don't know if anyone thought all this through, but in many respects, it is really quite brilliant.  Hillary seems to think it is a bad system because it is one in which she  hasn't succeeded at all let alone easily.  To my mind, that makes it a good system.  Obama's organization and skills will come through this at a vastly higher level than McCain's because McCain had it to easy.  The Republican race began and it was called off very quickly.  I even believe that it would have been perfectly fine for Hillary to campaign to the very end if she could have done it a la Huckabee.  The added attention to the Democrats would have been a very good thing, and indeed has driven up Dem numbers against McCain.  The problem has been Hillary's need to sully a Democratic opponent in a forlorn attempt to win what was already lost.

If the goal is to winnow out a big field in order to find that candidate with the skills, message, stamina, organization to win in the general, there is a lot to commend this seeming mess.  On the other hand, the role of the super-delegates needs to be re-thought now that we have roughly proportional delegate selection rules.  The supers might have made some sense in a winner take all system to balance out a case where someone wins California by a hair but loses elsewhere, still winning a delegate majority.  IN the current system, I think the supers should not vote on the first ballot.  That would allow them to be the brokers in a multi-party race but would make it impossible to overrule the voters in a close race.  They should not overrule the voters, but there is no reason I can think of to give them the apparent ability to do so.

The dumbest part about pointing to the "Republican rules" scenario is that she's assuming the Obama campaign wouldn't have followed a different strategy if those actually were the rules. It's the same fundamental flaw that exists in her popular vote argument. Maybe she would've beaten him under a different set of rules, or maybe he would've laid the same groundwork in states like California that he actually laid in the caucus states and would've beaten her anyway. Either way, it's stupid to argue that you won a game that nobody else was playing.

roidubouloi: Not to be picky, but it's actually a 5% lead in the pledged delegate margin - 1489-1337.  And if you think of it like this: Obama by 5% with 90% reporting - then it's not close at all.

roidubouloi  said:

"One of the possible positive outcomes of this extended primary may be that it has created circumstances under which Hillary, in extremis, feels unbound, willing to let her inner Republican emerge."

No self-respecting Obama supporter should ever call Hillary a Repub, but two can play that game.

Obama's Repub positions, the canonical list:

1. He wants to "fix" social security, well so does George Bush.

2. He opposes "mandates" as the most credible path to universal healthcare insurance, so do the Repubs.

3. He thinks that UN is a useless world body, he is right out there with George Bush and Will.

4. He thinks that the Repubs have had all the "good" ideas over the past decade, Newt Gingrich agrees.

There is no mystery as to why so many Repubs crossed over and supported him in open primaries, and why he won virtually every red state... he is one of them.

Any questions?

gregstolhand  said:

"How do HRC supporters put up with this kind of logic, how does this make you proud to support her candidacy?"

Duh...I am told that Obama's supporters are supposedly the brainy kind, but I wonder, as they seem to be having trouble grasping a couple of factual statements: (1) The Dem rules state that the contest goes until June. True or false? True. Check. (2) Had the Dem contest been held under the same rules as the Repubs, Hillary would already have won the nomination. True or false? True. Check.

I am quite consistent on this because I have said it repeatedly on this board: Obama is ahead today simply because of the Dems' bizarre delegate apportionment rules and their many open primaries...

There is nothing, absolutely nothing nefarious, contradictory or otherwise in Hillary's factual statements other than the fact that good ol' Kristof misunderstood them by thinking that  they represented a Kerry-type blunder and posted it. The thing is, it ain't a Kerryesque blunder. Not even close!

Go home, it is not what you think it is...

"If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee." -- Hillary Clinton

"If we had the williamyard rules, (a) the first of every month would be williamyard Day (a paid holiday, btw); (b) the designated hitter would be history; (c) my boss, my boss' boss, and my boss' boss' boss would, at this moment, be fetching my coffee, toasting my bagel, and tucking my blankee around my chinny-chin-chin, all while saying "Absolutely, sir!" and nodding vigorously; (d) prostitution would be legal, disease- and pimp-free, and covered by my company's medical plan; (e) Dick Cheney would be on the business end of a bikini waxing; (f) polar bears would be thriving while CEOs would be hungry and adrift on melting ice floes; and (g) everyone associated with the Democratic nomination process would STFU and merely, blessedly, finally get it over with before the whole thing turns into a bag of once-promising extra-special Whole Foods elitist gourmet salad mix that's been in the lower left-hand corner of the refrigerator about seven months too long." --williamyard

Yes.

1) Are you kidding?

2) No, really- is that satire?

Everyone wants to "fix" social security, because the system is in danger of breaking.  Putting quotes around it doesn't make it ominous and Republican-like.

Lots of people think the UN has been useless, because, on most of the big issues, it has been.  Did Obama say he didn't think it is a good idea to have the body?  I don't think so.  David Rieff and Michael Ignatieef think the UN doesn't work- are they Republicans?

By "good" he didn't mean moral.  He meant they had ideas that people liked and got them to pass.  That is really an easy one.  Lots of people think and know that because it is a goddam fact.  I'm a little embarassed to have to point it out.

And a lot of people oppose mandates, mostly because mandates are red meat to the Republican opposition.  We want a better health care, and Obama thinks that mandates will slow down the path to that.  People might disagree, but it isn't a Republican position.  I mean, Jesus, Republicans oppose anything to fix the health care system, of course they also oppose mandates.  They oppose Barack's plan.

Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.   And as someone who supports a candidate who is in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment, I would be a little more catious about saying Obama is a Republican.  

1. We've got a process.  The rules are that the candidate with the most delegates wins, regardless of whether that person is or is not actually the choice of a majority of Democratic voters, which, given the imperfection of our process and how close the race has been, we don't really know.

2. If we had rules that didn't include superdelegates, Obama would already be the nominee

Actually, I agree with dschungu about Hillary not being contradictory there.  She was being manipulative and irritating, but her statements don't contradict.

What's with the "Kristoff" thing?  Seriously, man- I don't get it.  Please explain why it is witty and biting.  

Hey, dcshungu,

You forgot a few:

1.  Obama breathes air.  So does George Bush.

2.  Obama attended Harvard.  So did George Bush.

3.  Obama's wife is better looking than he his.  So too George Bush.

4.  Obama is a person of no accomplishment who only attained his status in politics because of his familial relations.  So too George Bush.

Hey, wait a second!!  That last one didn't come out right at all.  It is Hillary Clinton who is a person of no accomplishment who only attained her status in politics because of who her familial relations.

So too George Bush.

I think you are headed in the right direction with this dc.  I think you should devote the remainder of your posts through the election campaign to persuading all of us that Obama is a closet Republican.  You have finally found your true calling.

"Had the Dem contest been held under the same rules as the Repubs, Hillary would already have won the nomination. True or false? True."

Incorrect.  What you mean is: if the Dem contest had been held under the same rules as the Republicans AND ALL THE VOTES CAME IN IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, Hillary would already have won.  There's a big difference.  

If real estate prices had kept climbing over the last year, all those people who walked away from their houses would have lost a lot of money.  See the problem?

Oh dcshungu,

We don't think Hillary made a "Kerryesque" blunder.  But it is fun to pile on to the incredibly stupid, impolitic, sucking up to Republicans things she says all the time.  It reminds us of just why we detest her so.

Go, Annie Oakley, go!!!!  Run, Annie Oakely, run!!!!

It's game six of the ALCS.  The Illinois Changelings are up 3-2 against the New York Fighters in the best-of-seven series, and are leading in the top of the ninth inning 10-4 in what looks to be the last game for the Fighters this season.

The Fighters's manager, Hillary Clinton, sits with her head in her hands.  Her team looks dejected on the field.  There is a runner on base, and the Changelings' Designated Hitter, Smallstate McCaucus, is up to bat.

"This guy's been killing us all game," thinks Clinton, "and really, all series.  Every time he comes up to bat, he seems to hit a homerun."

Clinton's mind turns to other things.  The Arizona Warriors won the NLCS handily after being thought dead going into the playoffs.  His team is having ample time to rest and watch footage of this series to scout the players.  Clinton sees her catcher call for a ball on the Wright side of the plate to brush back McCaucus.  It whizzes by the Changelings' slugger waaay inside and he stumbles back.

"Ball two!"

Clinton thinks back.  "If only O'Florida and Michigansen weren't suspended for the entire playoffs by the league for violating the no-doping policy.  Things would be a lot different now."

The Fighters' catcher calls another Wrightball inside, but this time, McCaucus is ready.  He smashes the ball past the outfield fence.

12-4.

The Changelings are already celebrating.  The players have already poured Gatorade over Barack Obama, their manager, and someone has come from the dugout door to pass out "Changelings: ALCS Champions" hats and shirts to the players.

"The game's not over yet," thinks Clinton to herself, her eyes staring at the Changelings, all smiling and congratulating Obama, their manager.

"Smug jerk," says Clinton outloud, kicking the peanut shells on the floor.  "I hate the DL in the American league.  McCaucus.  He's the only reason they're on the brink of winning the pennant."

"If we had National League rules, I would have already won."

...but Clinton is still in the American league.

newdex  said:

1. We've got a process.  The rules are that the candidate with the most delegates wins, regardless of whether that person is or is not actually the choice of a majority of Democratic voters, which, given the imperfection of our process and how close the race has been, we don't really know.

2. If we had rules that didn't include superdelegates, Obama would already be the nominee.

Now that a contradiction, or rather a non sequitur...

...because (1) is false (you need 2025 delegates to win; "most delegates" won't cut it), and (2) the current rules include the superdelegates, without whose involvement there won't be a "winner", as per the party's own rules.

Well, then, if HRC is going to make completely irrelevant comparisons to other candidate selection processes, she should skip the Republicans (boring!) and go straight to the good stuff:

"If we chose a leader like they do in Putin's Russia, Bill would have handpicked me as his successor years ago and would have ensured there were no obstacles to my taking office."

"You know, if we used the Vatican's selection process, I could have bought enough votes and murdered enough opponents by now to take the nomination. Wassup, Borgia?"

"It's funny: If the Democrats had a system like the Daughters of the American Revolution, I would have won a long time ago because I am a woman and my opponents have all been men."

Excellent points newdex, excellent.

And the NY Times today reports that the as yet publicly uncommitted super-delegates are not buying the Hillarista spin that she should win even if she loses.  The think the winner should win.

Apparently the outcome is going to be the same with or without super-delegates?  Now, what do you think of that?

dcs, are you a masochist? Do you honestly like to get whipped again and again on these pages? With your arrogant and condescending tone I have never seen you persuade a single person, in fact you have alienated far more. It seems to me if you had any desire to persuade people to accept Hillary in the event that she somehow managed to barely wrest the nomination you would at present seek to mollify people.Instead I am certain you would come to these pages completely to gloat. In many ways I honestly pity you since you are the kind of person who believes they are the smartest person in every room they enter and are desperate to understand why you are not perceived that way. Only a genuine wanker who is not an ESL teacher would put up things such as SAE. It is incredibly pretentious. To be honest I seriously doubt you can distinguish between a noun clause marker and a relative pronoun, or between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition. Even the sentences written above are riddled with grammatical mistakes. First grader english indeed. By the way, it should be "explain in First grade English", not first grader English. First grader English is referring to yourself as a first grader. Stupid clown, can't even get the most elemental English grammar correct.

VC -- go back to church and keep up that "I hope Hillary burns in hell" prayer.

Roid: So let me get this straight: going on the nation's most watched news network and doing some mild spin on the Dem party rules (not platform, but rules) now makes her a staunch Republican, the equivalent of Karl "John McCain hates his dead, cancer-fallen sister" Rove, or emotionally needy.  Got it.  I'll keep my "count every vote" comments to myself from now on.  At least for this thread.  

dchungu, I fixed it, I think:

1. We've got a process.  The rules are that the candidate with [2025 delegates, including superdelegates] wins, regardless of whether that person is or is not actually the choice of a majority of Democratic voters, which, given the imperfection of our process and how close the race has been, we don't really know.

2. If we had rules that [required superdelegates to vote for the candidate with the most non-superdelegate votes], Obama would already be the nominee.

newdex says:

"1. We've got a process.  The rules are that the candidate with [2025 delegates, including superdelegates] wins, regardless of whether that person is or is not actually the choice of a majority of Democratic voters, which, given the imperfection of our process and how close the race has been, we don't really know.

2. If we had rules that [required superdelegates to vote for the candidate with the most non-superdelegate votes], Obama would already be the nominee."

This is a perfect example of the way koolaide drinking, brainwashed Obama fanatics contradict themselves.  Newdex might as well say, "I was for the rules before I was against them."  Grow a brain, newdex.

newdex says:

"This is a perfect example of the way koolaide drinking, brainwashed Obama fanatics contradict themselves.  Newdex might as well say, "I was for the rules before I was against them."  Grow a brain, newdex."

newdex gives a perfect example of the twisted hypocricy of all Clintonista-bots.  Your own candidate said:

"We've got a process. The rules are it goes all the way into June. Let's follow the rules and get to those June contests and see where we are," then "If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee." in the same interview!

No, lymon,

That by itself would not make Hillary a staunch Republican.  We can look at her voting record in the senate on the most important issues during her tenure there.  That pretty well covers it.

While the spin is indeed "mild" by Hillary's standards (I mean, not even close to "I have the most votes" or "We had to duck our heads and run to our cars."), it is still hugely entertaining to see Hillary get before a Republican audience and disparage the rules for choosing the Democratic party's candidate.  She virtually says that she wishes she were running in the Republican party, where the rules are ever so much less democratic, and I don't doubt for one moment that that is true.  Imagine this whole business of letting the party rank and file decide rather than giving the whip hand to party insiders and donors? What were the Democrats thinking?  Why should a very important person like Hillary Clinton have to subject herself to all of this ignominious campaigning.

And you wonder why people think Hillary thought she was entitled to the nomination and should have been crowned without having to run against any credible opponent.

Get it?

Blackie, how can he persuade any of us.  We're all kool-aid drinking Obamabots without the capacity to think for ourselves.  We only do what the Messiah tells us to do.  Can't you understand that?  I even said it in firster-gradery englishh.  

newdex, you just destroyed my brain.

roi,

The current system falls far short of accomplishing what you give it credit for:

"The current structure is designed to force candidates to campaign widely because they cannot gain much advantage in a single race unless they blow it out."  -  Because this campaign has dragged on, this appears to be true.  But most campaigns under the current system and its near relatives have been much shorter, because it's hard for candidates to recover from early defeats.  Had NH gone Obama in a big way, I don't think anybody would be campaigning today in Indiana.  If you want candidates to go after every Democrat, make it a popular-vote wins all primary system.  One Democrat, one vote.

"It requires the candidate to build a broad coalition, although not the same one for each candidate."  I don't think so.  Obama is likely to win, never having put together a coalition richer than us much maligned "latte liberals," idealistic young people, and the African American vote.  He's never closed the sale with other parts of the Democratic party.  Remember - he pretty consistently comes in second, in big Democratic states.  I don't happen to agree with the Clinton camp that this means he can't win those states in the general, but it hardly bespeaks an ability to build a broad coalition in the party.

Mainly though, your answer seems to be, this system is brilliant because by design or by accident it will nominate Obama over Clinton.  You don't answer my main point at all: complex, varied, arbitrary systems are wide opened to being exploited as systems, leading them to select for ability in this exploitation, rather than appeal to the party membership, or alignment with the party's interests.  This is a truism - maybe even a provable theorem - in systems analysis.  Complexity creates exploitable loopholes.  Well designed simplicity forces players to address the core considerations around which the system is built.

lymon, I think she did pretty well on Fox, only once did I get nauseated at her, with her "God Bless rich people" line. I seldom watch Fox, except during lunch with Shepard Smith. I never realized just how bad O'Reilly is as an interviewer. He is all bluster and no follow up, asking questions in as provocative manner as possible but not following up on the answer. He seems to be an easy mark for any reasonable intelligent person.

The Hillary on Fox, or the Hillary on Letterman or a couple of the debates is a great candidate, the Hillary who wants to out Rove Rove is a disaster. It is a pity she didn't have a Joe Trippi running her campaign from the beginning.

I refuse to wade into this, but I have to say to bigfish and Woody, those were both pretty funny posts.

roidubuloi: re your question above, I think that's great.  At this point, I hope Obama wins resoundlingly from here on out.  If I was a voter in one of the upcoming states I'd be encouraging everybody I know to jump on the Obama wagon if only for the sake of getting this thing done and moving on - but I wouldn't be running around trying to spread the Its-All-Hillary's-Evil-Ways meme.  

Slightly beside the point of this thread, but Obama has picked up another 4 net super-delegates and the pool of uncommitted delegates continues to dwindle (as does the pool of unchosen pledged delegates).  We are about at the point where Hillary would need 75% of the uncommitted super-delegates to pull this out.

What is most interesting about today's reporting by the Times on the race is that right after PA the MSM view was that Hillary had given herself a chance, a longshot to be sure, but a chance.  In the interim (doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago?), the only thing that has changed is the re-emergence of Wright and all the problems that has caused for Obama.  Yet, now, despite everything in the current news-cycle moving favorably for Hillary, we see the Clinton campaign acknowledging that she cannot catch up in popular votes and the MSM beginning to report the hopelessness of her campaign.

I would say that the reality of the math is finally starting to sink in despite the weeks of Hillarista spin that this is still a race.  Hillary had her moment in PA and Obama is now further ahead in total delegates than he was at the end of the TX-OH-MS round of voting.

For Hillary, even when everything goes right, it simply isn't enough.

Well, newdex,

See the HuffPo post about Hillary's campaign re-distributing right-wing trash about Obama that it picks up on the web.  Not pretty.  As long as Hillary continues to piss on the Democratic party, it will be an unfortunate necessity that someone has to piss on her.  I'm only trying to do my small piece as a loyal Democrat.  

sdemuth,

I don't quite see what loopholes you think anyone has exploited.  Nor do I think the campaign would have ended in NH even if Hillary had not eked out a win.  Given the fact that she has continued to run even when she was so far behind that it was hopeless (right after TX-OH-MS I would say), there is absolutely no reason to believe that she would have quit the race after New Hampshire.  There might have been a complete stamped to Obama, but I doubt it because Hillary has a true "base" in the Democratic party.  A core of supporters -- women above 50 who vote in large numbers -- who will not abandon her under any circumstances.

Nor do I accept that Obama does not have a broad coalition.  It just isn't Hillary's coalition, which you do seem to think is a broad one, but it is larger than hers.  You have fallen into the trap of disparaging Obama's voters while lauding Hillary's as if one vote from one coalition is better than a vote from the other.  It isn't, much as Hillary and the Hillaristas have tried like mad to spin it that way.

Here's the thing that bothers me, a lifelong Democrat.  I like Barack Obama.  I will certainly vote for him if he wins the nomination, even though I didn't vote for him in my very red state's primary.  I will vote for ANY Democrat who wins my party's nomination after the last eight year's nightmare.  Barack Obama is a very good candidate, but I have to admit, I can't see that he's done alot in his political career.  Taking a "position" against any Iraq military action from the safe confines of the Illinois legislature doesn't seem to me to be especially courageous.  The IL legislature doesn't declare war on anybody or commit any national resources to a conflict.  My very red state came out strongly in support of W and Deferrment Dick's position as well.  Again, where's the risk?  They come out strongly in favor of anything the chickenhawk twins do.  There is absolutely no cost for being wrong should the situation turn out differently.

What I don't like is the apparent emergence of a "cult of personality" that has gripped the Obama supporters, the left-of-center blogs and the MSM.  I seriously have to question whether this shows an allegiance to the party, to political change, or merely a fanatical following of rock-star worshippers.  Either Democratic candidate will be light-years ahead of any and all Repugnants, as far as I'm concerned.

My very red state had an open primary that BO won handily (65%).  I have questioned who these people are from the beginning.  BO has absolutely NO chance whatsoever of winning my state, nor does anyone with a D in front of their name.  I really wonder who these so-called independent voters are and how strong their loyalty is to getting the party elected and effecting some real change in the direction of this country.  You can't change policy direction until you gain political power.

I am very disturbed to hear so many from the ObamaNation declare that they'll never vote for anybody else but the Anointed One. Let's be honest, here, a 2% difference in the poular vote count and a 0.5% difference in the pledged delegate count HARDLY counts as a mandate.  It is a tie, by any statistical analysis and I deeply resent the dismissiveness and condescension of  many of the Obamamaniacs toward me and others who have chosen the other candidate.  That's where the elitism charges come from.  The "smartest guys in the room" attitude is exactly what led to the Enron fiasco.

I have to question where your loyalty lies.....to the party or to the personality?  We have to end the reign of terror now in power in our country.  We can't do that unless we are united in our cause.    

Hillary Clinton is a person who will always interpret or manuipulate rules to her advantage. That is all that matters, her advantage. As a prior Bill and Hillary supporter and donor, I am appalled at her lack  of moral integrity and willingness to lie and willingness to use racism to undermine her fellow Democrat.

In The Clinton Rules there is only one rule: The Clintons Win. All rules are meant to be broken by Clintons; all moral values are just weakness. The only thing that matters, and is worth lying, distorting, and maybe even killing for, is that Hillary win. Deceitful.

Her supporters should be ashamed of her behavior and of her blatant undermining of liberal values to pursue her own glory.

blackton -- Oh, I hope I didn't say I thought Hillary has done poorly on Fox (though at times she seems a touch manic).  I still think they should run together and that Bill Clinton is still a campaign plus (everytime McCain says something he'll be there to say "I've been there and that doesn't work"-- who is McCain gonna trout out, GWB?)

PS -- to clarify, I'm not saying that Bill Clinton *has been* a campaign plus.  Anything but.

desertdog,

Every single thing you say about "ObamaNation" can be attributed to HRC's supporters as well. Right down to "where you loyalty lies ... to the party or to the personality." Especially down to that, in fact. Some of the nastiest inter-party vitriol this lifelong Democrat has ever read has been posted right here on this very blog by a select group of fevered Clintonistas - some of whom say (threaten, actually) that Obama will lose a hell of a lot more Clinton supporters as nominee than vice versa.

I'm sorry you have bought the "Obama Cult of Personality" BS, because that is what it is - bullshit. And it's tired, and played out, as well. And it's sour grapes from the Clinton campaign and its somewhat less-than-inspiring candidate. Obama has fired up young voters, and young voters tend to go overboard sometimes. (He's also got them registered to vote, too.) Let's not play that up into some sort of Messiah Complex situation. It's dishonest, untrue, cheap and - to use a couple of your words - dismissive and condescending.

newdex, your posts cracked me up. I do admire how you and lymon try to prevent this from being an obama universe. I found Wrights Brutus act incredibly dispiriting. I am afraid he has been Wrightboated, it was a dubious proposition from the start that a black man could be elected, especially one with such a name, and the combination of Hillary working with the VRWC and Obama's own internals (such as his gaffe and Wright) make it feel hopeless.

May 6 will either confirm that in America it is possible to have an uplifting campaign based on issues or one in which extraneous issues and bitterness hold sway.

On the plus side, a Clinton-McCain campaign has the opportunity to be the ugliest campaign of all time. All of Hillary's new found Fox friends will desert her, and when she comes crying to the left will find littles sympathy. So it will be an out and out flame war, and the election will be decided by each parties absolute base. Hillary can still pull it out since it will come down to who old white people will choose. If Hillary did win, at least I can take some pleasure in watching the idiots at Fox head explode since they are the ones who gave her her lifeline. And if Hillary loses, I will get the pleasure of watching her head explode. A win win for me. Terrible for America, but hey, I don't live there anyhow.

Also, Hillary use of the Holocaust metaphor to pursue her own advantage--First they came for the Communists, then they came for....--really appalls me. As a Jew I am horrified that she would use a Holocaust image in this way. Part of what this campaign is showing--toss the Blacks(whisper whisper whisper), the educated(elitists!!!!!!!!), men(male chauvanist pigs)--If it were to her political advantage, it is pretty obvious that she would "Throw the Jews Under the Bus." She doesn't care who gets hurt by her actions. She only cares about herself.

Hillary Clinton is deceitful in that her ambition has blinded her to the liberal values that brought so many of us into the Democratic Party. The only only only thing that matters to her is Herself, which is not a woman, but a Clinton.

I am one of those moderately prominent Democrats that publicly and repeatedly defended Bill and who initially supported Hillary. Now I understand what kind of people they are.

Hillary will start her own Rein of Terror. She will absolutely take revenge on all the "traitors" like Richardson and now Andrews. Its just the kind of person who this campaign has revealed her to be.

"I have to question where your loyalty lies.....to the party or to the personality?  We have to end the reign of terror now in power in our country.  We can't do that unless we are united in our cause."

Every poll shows that there are far more Hillary supporters who now claim they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee than there are Obama supporters who will not vote for Hillary. Instead of criticizing and lecturing Obama supporters, who about "sane" Clinton supporters making this argument to their fellow Clinton supporters. What deceitful amoral people Hillary's supporters are. Liars and phonies just like their candidate.

desert, there are true believers in every camp, no more so in Obama's than Hillary's or even McCains.

Obama was a combination of two things, a fresh face and not Hillary Clinton. But what is this shit about "the anointed one" that is sacrilege. I can easily say Her Royal Clinton. What does that prove?

This is a democracy, getting upset at the degree of passion people have in the candidate of their choice is silly. I accept that is runs the whole gamut for every candidate. There are people who support Hillary simply because they believe she is most electable, and others who worship her as the realization of feminist desires. I don't lump them all together. Why do you?

The dismissiveness comes partly from your using terms such as "anointed one." Treat people with respect and you will be treated with respect.

There are McCain supporters here I always treat with the greatest respect, like butchie b, or Channy. And there are HIllary supporters I feel the same way about, like Tammya and dkolic.

"I am very disturbed to hear so many from the ObamaNation declare that they'll never vote for anybody else but the Anointed One."

desertdog, I think you may be mistaking "I would vote McCain over Clinton" for "I would vote McCain over any other candidate besides Obama."  If it were Obama vs. Edwards, Obama vs. Biden, Obama vs. Richardson, or any other opponent besides Clinton, I would be surprised if there was this much talk of Obama folks voting Republican.  I would vote for Hillary if it came to it, but I'd have to wash my hands afterwards with Comet and steel wool because I voted for her, not because I voted for someone other than Obama.

Oh, and thanks, adaglas!

roi,

I didn't say Clnton had a broad coalition, I said Obama didn't.

As for what "loopholes" he's exploited - loophole is a loaded word, and I probably shouldn't have used it.   But generally speaking, the fact that so many of his delegates come from states either that held caucuses, and thus saw a quite limited range of voters deciding, or which have large African American populations that voted overwhelmingly in his favor, whereas in most cases, he's lost large Democratic-leaning primary states to Clinton, suggest that he's exploiting features of the system, rather than winning over voters in a broad-based wholesale system.

Again, my point is that complex systems, with multiple sets of rules, cause people to focus on gaming the rules, not on the thing - party platform fidelity and electability in this case - that the rules are intended to make central.

Despite what you appear to think, I'm not making a negative argument about Obama the candidate here.  I caucused for him, I want him to be the candidate, and I'll campaign enthusiastically for him in the fall if he is.  I'm making a point about a system that he has used to his advantage, but which is not in the party's best interest as a system.  That conclusion can be true, even if in this instance, the system results in the candidate I want.

I would make an analogy here with a tax system.  The more rules you put into a tax system, the more you engender a culture of "use the tax rules to one's advantage" and the harder you make it to sell the tax system as a fair and equitable responsibility.  People resent the fact that someone, somewhere is gaming the system, and they're just paying.  It encourages them to game the system as well.

Same in elections.  I have colleagues who resent the fact that my vote in the Iowa caucus counts more in determining a candidate, than their primary vote in California.  I'd feel the same way if our locations were reversed.  More importantly they are right: either we should have equal say in candidate selection, by having a pervasive candidate primary - staggered by state if you like - or we should say that candidate selection is a party-interest matter, and give every part member equal opportunity to influence the makeup of the convention that decides the candidate.  Having some of each, with some super-delegates thrown in for a third way of judging, invites the kind of discussion Clinton is exploiting right now.  

WoodyBombay...

I haven't "bought" into anything.  I never "buy" into anything based on somebody else's opinion.  I form my own opinions based upon my own observations and reading /study of the situation.  

When did I say I would not support BO in the GE?  I'm just concerned whether he can actually WIN the GE for the very reasons I said in my earlier posting.  I'm very wary of all those so-called independents who crossed over in my state's "open" primary.  I have a sneaking suspicion they're really just disenchanted Republicans (what Republican wouldn't be after 8 years of W?) who will fall right back into line come November.  That's what they always do.

By the way, I have an M.S. degree, make $75,000 a year at a full-time job, have a wife of 27 years, the standard 1.3 kids, don't own any guns and find all organized religion to be a form of mind control.  I fit the quintessential BO demographic.  I make it a point to read news and opinions that I don't agree with every single day so I have some  idea of what people are thinking out there in the real world.  Even people I strongly disagree with.  Like the Wall Street Journal opinion page and the National Review.  There are lots of real people just like me out there who support Senator Clinton.  We're not all uneducated, redneck Jethro's who thump bibles and tote rifles on the way to the KKK rally.  

"VC -- go back to church and keep up that "I hope Hillary burns in hell" prayer."

Oh come on, Lymon. I don't even believe in hell. It's a figure of speech. And if I remember correctly, I said it after Grant Wizard Geraldine Ferraro spoke up and Hillary stood behind her.

"I'm sorry you have bought the "Obama Cult of Personality" BS, because that is what it is - bullshit. And it's tired, and played out, as well. And it's sour grapes from the Clinton campaign and its somewhat less-than-inspiring candidate."

Right on - it's an extremely cheap attempt to make Obama's popularity into a negative. "He gets people excited! They must be a cult!"

You know what? There isn't a lick of a difference between Bill Clinton rallies and Barack Obama rallies in the intensity of the crowd/tendency of the audience to faint. That's what charismatic politicians do!

Roidubuloi: As far as I'm concerned, the HuffPo is about as credible on the election as FOX is on the progress we're making in Iraq.  

sdemuth:

I see what you're saying. But remember - if the rules were different, there's no reason to believe that Obama couldn't have adapted to THOSE rules. Or Edwards could have adapted! Or maybe Hillary would have run away with it. We'll never know. What we do know is that Obama seems to have most of the campaign talent this cycle, and that he attracts two things that would help him in any system: affluent internet donors and the activist class.

Sabatia makes my earlier points exquisitely..........

sdemuth,

"I didn't say Clnton had a broad coalition, I said Obama didn't."

BHO has 52% of the votes, when does the broad coalition start?

desertdog,

I'm not sure why you ran down your profile, although that's all great. You and I have a lot in common, apparently. And I don't get the "Jethros" reference, it seems to have sprung up out of nothing. And I know that you didn't say you wouldn't vote for Obama in the general, I didn't claim you did: You made a point about Obama worshipers allegedly saying "they'll never vote for anybody else but the Anointed One." So I responded with my equally anecdotal observation that Clinton backers are just as "my candidate or no candidate" as Obama backers. (Maybe more so, if you believe polls on it, which I don't necessarily. I know that if a pollster called me about it today, I'd tell him damn right I'd vote for McCain over Clinton, although that's not the case.)

Again, let me stress: Your observation that Obama has a "Cult of Personality" following of starry-eyed, closed-minded believers is untrue. It is also very, very, very condescending and demeaning. Insulting, too. Obama was not my first choice, but it took all of twenty seconds for me to realize that my first choice didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of even sniffing the nomination. So I looked at the rest of the field and decided Obama's policies best fit my views, and that I admired him personally. It wasn't because I thought he was dreamy cute, or was intoxicated by his voice, or cried when he speechified, or because he filled some gaping void in my soul.

Those mystery voters you're concerned about might be independents, they might have been Republicans who would be open to voting for Obama, and they might be Republicans who think they're messing with the Democrats. After all, we know that Limbaugh has been encouraging his pinhead listeners to vote for HILLARY, with that exact goal in mind. Hmmm ... I guess I'm wondering where all this Hillary support is coming from in places like Texas and Ohio.

"I'm very wary of all those so-called independents who crossed over in my state's "open" primary.  I have a sneaking suspicion they're really just disenchanted Republicans"

Actually - that's not really a worry. The real worry is that these were just self-identifying Republicans who vote Democrat most of the time in federal elections (lately).

You see the same thing in the South in federal elections. Some of these southern states are still almost one-party Democratic states in their partisan breakdown, but these "Democrats" all vote for Republicans in nearly every election. The term dixiecrat is often used.

woody, my first choice was Gore, my second choice (in an ideal world) would have been Biden, and then after that I was split between Edwards and Obama. I thought when Obama announced he was announcing for VP essentially.

Hillary and her crew never attempted to persuade centrists such as myself. It seems her attitude all along is "you will vote for me in the end whether you like it or not." Even now I see no reaching out besides that presumptive, "we will come together under Hillary."

OK, OK.  Truce Woody.

I probably was a little rash with the snarky references.  I' ve just been getting fed up with the personal attacks on the candidate I voted for.  An attack on one's candidate is an attack on one's person!  I guess we all take politics a little too seriously.  Not so much here at TNR as over on the HuffPo.  I'm starting to wonder if they really want to see a D in the White House.

By the way, Hillary was not my first choice.  My choice (Edwards) dropped out before we had our primary.  And, I'm also well aware of all the past baggage she carries and have never been especially enamored with her personality except for her tenacity and her resilience.  I do like many of her policy proposals and feel like she really does study the issues in depth and has detailed plans for most everything.  I also feel like she will take action rather than just talk about things.  Like every politician, I realize I have to take the bad things (gas-tax deferrment, Iraq war vote) with the good (universal health insurance, fight hard vs. the GOP).  And, like a marriage, you have to balance the good points with the bad to decide if you want to get in or stay in.  Everybody also makes mistakes in their public life and their personal life and thank God we're not all held accountable for every thing we do or say.

My life history and the Jethro comment was only to make the point that I am, in fact, the exact type of person that seems to fit the BO demographic.  The comments about Hillary (and her supporters like me) from many bloggers are hard not to take personally.  It does seem like most of them come from BO supporters, unfortunately.  To insinuate that a person is blind, stupid, corrupt and immoral or worse because you happen to vote for one candidate over another is definitely over-the-top and uncalled for.  I have never said any of those things about BO or his supporters, nor can I think of any bloggers I've read who have.  The thing people seem to forget is politicians are in in to win it. I would be the first to say that I think Clinton's campaign has been a total disaster and not in keeping with her personally.  Obama's campaign has been magnificent.  I'm just not sure I've heard very much in the way of actual policy details.  Inspiration is a good thing, but I want to know what he's actually going to do to help change things.  I haven't heard enough of that from him, yet.

I've had more than a few heated discussions with my better half who's been supporting HRC from the beginning basically because 1) she's female and 2) it's her turn!I  I keep reminding her that she's engaging in the same interest group politics that she doesn't like in others.  I'm sorry to hear that you'll vote for McCain over HRC.  I think you're makinfg a big mistake if you really do want things to change.  I can't understand what was wrong with the record-breaking prosperity and peace of the 90s.

Sorry, misread your comment about the pollster...........

desertdog-

Your points are valid.  I would say that Hillary supporters have been more rude and condescending and all that, but then I am probably more attuned to seeing attacks on my side than from my side.  We all see what we want, right?   One of the reasons I am so sick and tired of this.  

Anyway, you say:

"I can't understand what was wrong with the record-breaking prosperity and peace of the 90s."

Well...nothing.  But we don't live in the 90s anymore, nor is Hillary Bill.   It is like the cloning argument- "No cloning!  What if we clone Hitler?????  Who will think of the children?!"   This ignores that a clone wouldn't be the same person- different background, different environment, different upbringing.  Sure, he might be Hitlerish, but a genetic duplicate wouldn't become Der Furher.  Same thing here.   A vote for Hillary won't erase the last seven wretched years.  Indeed, as her gas-tax thing, with all its faux-populist, anti-fact ways, and her willingness t not back down in a show of strength, makes me think it will be a continuation of the last seven years in many regards.  Sure, she is a fighter, but when has she won?  

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by Obamaniacs' (and Chris Orr is one of the most fervent, I've noticed) ability to completely misconstrue any statement by Hillary Clinton until it looks like something sinister.

She's clearly saying that Obama supporters should be *glad* that the rules are the way they are, because under the Republican rules Obama could never have overcome her early advantage and made this a close race.  That the Democratic rules allow for *two* strong candidates to duke it out in a 19-round barn-burner, rather than winnowing the field of candidates down to one in the first month of the primary season as the Republican rules did.

And she's right.  Though many Obama partisans somewhat pettishly disagree in Hillary's case (largely because of the aforementioned tendency to misconstrue her statements and use five cents' worth of evidence to draw fifty bucks' worth of negative conclusions about her), in my analysis both candidates have improved their game down the stretch due to the length of the campaign and the strength of their opponent.

McCain is gaining absolutely nothing by sitting on top of the GOP nomination already: his share of free media is greatly reduced because all the news media's limited attention is being taken up by the Democratic race.  So is his share of contributions: even Hillary raised two and a half times as much money as McCain!  Obama raised three times as much!  Do you think people would be giving so enthusiastically if the nomination weren't still in doubt?

Ask yourselves, Obamaniacs: would you really prefer that Reverend Wright's videos (or lapses like the one that caused "Bittergate") have surfaced and become a campaign issue in October, rather than April?  Do you think that would have improved Democratic fortunes in the general election?  We know both candidates better today than we did before McCain won the nomination, and from where I sit, that's a very good thing.  YMMV.

But please, people: stop claiming to hear the Wicked Witch of the West's malevolent cackle every time Hillary opens her mouth.  It exists only in your imagination and does you no credit.

Well.......a NY Senate seat twice, CA, MA, OH,TX, PA, NY just to name a few.

virginiacentrist said: "I see what you're saying. But remember - if the rules were different, there's no reason to believe that Obama couldn't have adapted to THOSE rules."

Of course.  As would have Clinton.  But if the rules are simpler - say a national primary for registered Democrats only, either all on one day, or staged state by state over a couple of months - then the only thing a candidate can do to win is try to get the most votes, because every party members vote is equally valuable.    By construction, either you convince a majority of the party - constructed by various interests in the party however you can -  that you're the candidate, or you're out.

Right now, we have no way of knowing whether registered Democrats as a whole want Obama as their candidate.  And Clinton is not wrong to point that out as long as she's in the race, because it's true, and because there is a legal mechanism for correcting the situation if he isn't - convincing the superdelegates to throw him over for her.

There are sound arguments against a national primary of course - the electoral college being one of them.  But that 's why I offered an equally simple alternative, that focuses not on member wishes, but on party cohesion: go all the way with caucuses and conventions, and let the filtered wisdom of that process select a candidate.  Again, every member who cares to participate gets an equal shot at influence - they can caucus, and choose to run as a delegate, and have their say.  This focuses much more on the party of course - since many potential party voters will choose not to caucus, but that's a fair choice for a party to make, as long as it is uniformly applied.  And again, the candidates have no reason to discount any region or segment of the party (assuming the delegates are counted proportionately).

As I said, either system would work for me.  The current one is a travesty, though.

Desertdog: You're right, of course, about the personal attacks.  Right after you wrote your well-pitched lament, another poster referred to "Obamaniacs". (Personally, I'd rather be called corrupt than an automaton, but that's a purely personal preference.) I've never understood the Kool-Aid reference and resent deeply the "cult" implication.  

I think that the temperature of the Talkback room rose massively for two reasons: South Carolina and Wright.  Bill's injudicious remark, plus Mrs. Clinton's exploitation of Wright (and the way she did it), made it more of a personal insult to many - mostly African Americans, but not all - than your normal political discourse.  It does not help that practically every criticism of Mrs. Clinton is answered not by argument but by invective.  We must assume, I think, that most people here are not racist or sexist; I have not seen any evidence of either.  It pains me to have been at the receiving end of totally uncalled for attacks on me personally, and not just on me as a supporter of someone, because of my criticism of Mrs. Clinton.

Still, you're right, and we should all be more civil to one another.

desert, I think bone meant policy wise. Winning elections is all very well and good, it is what she has done with them that matters. So far the only evidence is that she is a fighter for herself, her 8 years in the Senate has shown no issue wherein she has shown she is a fighter for the average person.

I always find it funny when Fox does focus groups and asks "what has Obama done?" yet never ask the same question about Hillary.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Centrist and find little about her voting I dislike but can't identify anything she has taken a lead in. McCain on the other hand has McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, etc.

I realize you can say the same about Obama, but he is not the one who is running around claiming how he is a fighter.

"The current one is a travesty, though."

I wouldn't quite go with travesty. But...it's very inconsistent and random. I'll give you that.

dschungu, I'm so late in this thread that you probably won't even read this, and probably somebody has already responded to you fifty posts ago, but should be obvious to anyone capable of understanding "first-grader English," as you so respectfully put it, that Mr. Orr did not mean to imply that Senator Clinton's two statements were logically inconsistent.  He highlighted them because in their juxtaposition they give clear evidence as to the Ms. Clinton's highly selective appreciation for her party's rules.

But of course you and she are correct, if the Democrats relied on a winner-take-all system and had all other variables remained the same--a rather slippery assumption, but I'll cede you the point--she'd probably have wrapped up the nomination.  And by the same token if all 50 states assigned electors to the electoral college in preference to winner-take-all, Al Gore would, in all likelihood, be finishing out his second term as president, we'd never have invaded Iraq, and instead of nominating the first woman or the first black, we'd be nominating the first Jew.

Are you even able to acknowledge the inconsistency of your candidate's pining for a less democratic system of apportionment--winner-take-all--after all her pissing and moaning about the supposedly undemocratic caucuses?  Implicitly she's advocating that in a state like Georgia, where it was a blowout for Obama, a voter's vote should count less than in a state like California, where Obama lost by single digits.  No elitism in evidence there.  Not a bit.  Clinton has taken the party rank and file's interests fully to heart..y  Yeah, right.

aeromonas,

Far more objectionable to me than the obvious self-serving nature of Hillary's comment about the two systems is that, even while running for the Democratic nomination, she continues to pander to Republicans by dissing her own party.  

Why on earth does she think that Democrats are going to fall in behind her when she is so often found carrying the Republicans' water for them?  More than the sense of entitlement, it is this that I find so personally offensive about Hilllary Clinton, the idea that she can pretty much stick it to Democrats any which way she finds convenient and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.  Except, due to the appearance of Barack Obama, there is.

There can be little doubt that a good measure of Obama's support is created by Hillary herself.  I quite like and admire him and do believe he has what it takes to be a fine president, but if Hillary had not been so repellent, I probably would never have even bothered to consider Obama.  And with everything she does in this campaign, she only reinforces my dislike for her.  Thanks to Hillary, distaste became dislike and dislike has become detest.

sdemuth,

I am simply not prepared to agree with your characterization, and not because Obama has won under the present rules.  And please note, he is not winning only because of caucuses.  He is also ahead, comfortably, in the popular vote.

I do not think a political monoculture is desirable for choosing a presidential candidate.  It may be quick and simple, but a lot can get lost, including the possibility for an upstart getting enough exposure to challenge an insider and "inevitable" candidate like Hillary Clinton.  The insiders control an awful lot.  When they think they can control everything, the quickly develop disdain for the voters.  Disdain I think is evident in Hillary because she has never had to earn votes.  She was delivered her senate seat by the powers that be in NY.  I think of this race as a decathlon.  It requires the demonstration of a broad range of political skills and appeal in order to succeed.  You cannot overwhelm this system with fame, money, or anything else.  That is very good in my book.

I see nothing wrong with letting states choose their own delegate selection method.  If the DNC wants caucus popular votes reported, it should require it.  I do think the DNC should control the calendar better.  There should be a mandatory start date, a mandatory end date, and the permitted dates for primaries and caucuses should be clustered so that each round provides a cross-section.  

And supers should not be allowed to vote on the first ballot so that, in a two-person race, they have nothing to say about the outcome.

With those fairly modest changes, I have no problem with the current system.  It is far more democratic than what goes on on the Republican side and I like democracy.  I just don't think it needs to be practiced in a rigidly uniform way.  It is possible to be fair without being uniform.

If it weren't for all the other candidates in the race, I'd have won the nomination by now.

It's funny, roid, but I NEVER liked her.  Even when she was first lady.  And I was a huge fan of Bill's.  By comparison to her husband she always seemed pedestrian.

Through my wife I'm friends with a lot of fairly (in a few cases outrageously) wealthy Jewish Australians.  They all vote the Liberal--read "Conservative"--Party line, but they worship at the feet of Bill Clinton.  Despite ex-Liberal PM John Howard's cozy relationship with W, this is not a bizarre as it sounds given that at a policy level, the Australian Liberal Party tracks more closely to the Democratic Party than to the GOP.  Anyhow, for the past three years plus one friend in particular has been bashing my ear saying, "Don't you think Hillary will be a shoe-in for the Presidency?"  And for the past three years plus I have responded, "No way in hell Hillary Clinton gets elected president.  All you see over here in Oz is the celebrity.  What you don't see is that over in America there is a giant mass of people that just don't like Hillary Clinton along with a vocal minority who fucking hate her guts."  

And you're right, of course, that this is why Obama's up.  You cannot expect to win elections when before you even get started better than 40% of the electorate has already formed a negative opinion about you.

In a related vein, here's something I've noticed about Clinton supporters here at Talkback: leaving aside pccostello whom, despite his/her denials I'm suspicious is a Clinton campaign pro, only rarely if ever do they attack Obama himself.  They attack his electoral chances or the wrongheaded naivety of his supporters, but other than to question his experience only rarely to they go after the man.  Contrast that to Clinton where her honest, judgment, and lack of loyalty to anything other than the advancement of her own career are constantly under assault.  Now this observation is invalidated by tons of biases, not the least of which being that Talkback has evolved into obvious Obama home turf

I wouldn't say that I never liked her.  At least there was a time that I didn't dislike her although I never found anything about her that particularly appealed to me.  I have, however, always thought that she was a political liability, for Bill and then for the party, right from the beginning with that "Two for the Price of One" shtick in the 92 campaign.  That looked like trouble right away and blossomed into the healthcare debacle.  When she ran for senate in NY, I was happy to have her as a Democrat who could win the seat.  From there, it was all downhill.

Up here in Canadia, for some reason that I have never understood, Bill has been enormously popular; Hillary, never.  It could be because the one time we had a woman prime minister - "inevitable", "new generation", blah blah - she took the governing party from 157 seats to 2 and more or less destroyed her party.  Not because she was a woman, but because she was about as tone-deaf as Hillary. (The death knell of her party was wrung when she made fun of a physical handicap of the leader of the Liberal Party that makes him speak out of only one side of his mouth. ;-)) But I think it has more to do with the fact that we tend not to have much respect for political dynasties at the leadership level - I mean, we already have a Queen, thank you very much, and the British people are kind enough to pay for her and to keep her out of the way ;-) ... In a sense, for this peaceable Kingdom, seeing Charles and knowing that he will be our Sovereign in a decade or so, just makes us that much more suspicous of other attemtps at building or extending dynasties.

Oh yeah - we also know - KNOW in our bones - that merely being the spouse of someone does not, does NOT, entitle or even equip you to follow in his or her footsteps.  I mean, imagine Prince Phillip saying, "I have over fifty years of experience in public office" ...

desertdog, et al.,

I've very much enjoyed reading the back an forth; so much so, that I am using every ounce of self-control to make sure I keep my overly opinionated cake-hole shut on this thread.

However, I have seen repeated mention of people wanting to hear about policy details. I would first like to point out that I understand where this is coming from. Obama is a relatively fresh face on the national political scene; I've mentioned otherwhere that this is one of Hillary's distinct advantages, EVERYONE knows who she is. The advantage comes in not having to introduce herself at each new event: if Obama talks about issues and policies, people complain that they don't know anything about him, but if he spends the time to introduce himself everyone complains they don't know about his policies. I use complain in the more generic here; I happen to agree with both sides, this is one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.

I assure you all, Obama has spent plenty of time working up policies and positions on issues.

www.barackobama.com/issues