The Stump - All Comments

re: Edwards and Kentucky

roidubouloi — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:35:50 GMT

Perhaps it has been obvious all along, but this morning I only just understood that Hillary actually is trying to win. Her strategy has several parts, but they all come down to race-baiting in the end.

The core of the strategy is to convince the public and the super-delegates that Obama cannot win in the fall. Of course, the fact that he is better positioned in the Electoral College and generally out-polls her is inconvenient, but in some sense irrelevant. The basic meme is that a black man cannot be elected president, not matter what the polls say. To this end, Hillary is perfectly willing to engage in race-baiting behavior with two objects -- the first is to legitimize and encourage racial voting, to tell all the possibly inhibited racists out there that it is OK to vote accordingly. At the same time, she want to create the frame that Obama is unelectable because "hard-working white people" won't vote for him. Then she points to results such as those in WV to "prove" that it is true. In proper Hillarista fashion, she of course ignores all evidence to the contrary.

For this to lead to the nomination, other things have to happen too. She needs to seat as many MI and FL delegates as possible to bring the delegate margin down toward 100 so that she can claim the difference is trivial. She needs to get the popular vote margin down for the same reason. To that end, she is perfectly willing to "include" all of the MI votes although only she was on the ballot. We are not talking reality here. We are talking the creation of a frame in which she claims to have won more votes or that the difference is trivial. She claims that the difference in delegates is trivial. She claims, subtly and not so subtly, that nominating a black man will result in a loss to the party in November.

Basically, her strategy is what someone here recently quoted from Gore Vidal, referring to Nixon: Hillary's strategy is to wave her arms in the air and yell "nigger, nigger, nigger." There are plenty of Hillarista posters here who are willing to aid and abet her. All the more reason for good Democrats to keep trashing her disgusting behavior. Helps make sure that the party professionals know exactly what is going to happen to them if they start sipping her racist Kool-aid.

Somewhat like Gore/Bush, where the Bushies knew that if Gore were ever ahead in the counting the whole thing would blow up in their faces as the public would demand to count all votess, she also has to forestall the supers committing for as long as she can so that the matter remains "open" for her arguments. She has certainly been trying to do that, both behind the scenes and by verbal retaliation against prominent Obama endorsers, Richardson, NARAl.

Given Hillary's strategy, I agree with whomever it was who said that MI and FL should not be settled by Obama prior to the convention. That is exactly right. He needs to have the nomination in his pocket, a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of super-delegates, with MI and FL the cards he saves until Hillary's nigger strategy has fully failed.

I cannot wait for the Democratic party to be rid of Hillary Clinton. The Hillaristas can call me whatever names they want. I detest her.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

blackton — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:32:29 GMT

well roid, you have about covered it. dkrieger has succumbed to the "what have you done lately" line of thinking, it will be interesting to see what he says after the last primaries where Obama is favored. Maybe "they don't count since he was always favored to win them anyway." Which is the line they used after North Carolina. Hillaryistas just refuse to grasp that the winner of the primary season should get the nomination, they think the Dem. party is just Avis.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

psantillana — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:28:21 GMT

What tomeg said, but amended to read "either is electable".

And dkreiger, looking at how much money Obama got from how many people - how very many people really really really want that guy to be president - it's mind boggling that you - or she - should try to present HER as the candidate of the people's will. Pfft. The racist people in a few states with an ever-dwindling relative population and therefore delegate count. Yeah, those people, I'll give you, and it's not because they love HER, they just noticed who she's running against. In the primary. They'll stampede to the white guy in the general.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

jerb — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:19:59 GMT

Rhubarbs.

See you are making that elitist mistake of thinking and maybe knowing more than somebody else, which is apparently anathema in the Democratic Party these days. See, we all have to assume a hayseed preacher in WV knows more about the world than a biologist with a PhD, that Grandma Johnson who has gut feelings kows more than someone who has applied their life to study witha methodology that arms against self-delusion. See, the democrats, I guess, are no longer in favor of rying to give folks a fair shake economically so they can enjoy their lives as they see fit, we now have to extoll the virtues of the cultural things they choose to do and be extra careful to make it clear that we don't look down on their cultural activities and apologize for doing things like reading books, seeking out ideas, and trying to come to grips with how the world is. I am unclear why resentment is perfectly ok as a political tool, but any imagined sign of contempt and you are out of the game. Anyone who thinks Hillary could actually live in WV for several years with her working class fans more comfortably than Obama could is really a fool.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

jerb — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:14:14 GMT

Yes, I don't get how some people can be so dense as to not understand that Obama approached the campaign to win by the rules as they are, not some fantasy rules. Hillary and company complain about his only winning caucus states, or whatever other metric she thinks is over-rated, but Obama precisely alotted his resources to win delegates and would have apportioned them differently if the rules were different. Hillary is trying to make her strategic ignorance look like a problem with the system rather than a problem with her tactics.

And how stupid is McAuliffe to suggest that the pundits are calling the race over before the voters decide (as if WV is the first instance anyone has voted). The voters HAVE decided, Terry, and they have voted for Obama more than Hillary And how one earth can he think Michigan can be seated as is, as if absolutely nobody in Michigan supported Obama - what the hell does he think the 45% who turned out to vote "uncommited" were doing? Seating the MI delegation as is would be a violation of the voting rights act - a huge disenfrahcisement of Obama voters which of course will include a significant proportion of black voters.

And furthermore, Terry, Obama doesn't have a problem with white working class voters, he has a problem with folks for whom their culture won't allow anyone who isn't white and presumably an evangelical Christian. He has a problem with people who think he is a Muslim and lay awake at night worried that someone somewhere out there might be smarter than them and know it. The problem, obviously, is race and folks where I am from make no secret of it.

re: Dept of Friends Like These

r-ennis — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:09:00 GMT

If the voters wanted Hillary to quit, they would not continue to vote for her in the large numbers that they are. The truth is that, either way, about half of the party will not happy with the candidate. To make matters worse, large percentages of either candidate would defect or not vote.

Obama is in the drivers seat and it's his choice who is running mate wiil be, but if I were a super delegate or party leader, I would caution him not to totally humiliate Hillary. She is still preferred by just about 50% of the voters and resentment will be great if she is summarily dismissed, as is wished by many who post here.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

Rhubarbs — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:58:23 GMT

"Edwards's endorsement ... probably raises expectations for Obama in Kentucky next week."

See, this is where one has to wonder whether America's political journalists, as a class, wouldn't have been better served by attending college instead of whatever the hell they did between the ages of 18 an 22. (Present company excepted.) Because even to contemplate the above statement being a meaningful use of the English language, one has to assume that the journalists whose expectations we are talking about are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts of causation and effect. Even four years of C-for-attendance schooling at a third-rate state college ought to leave a person with some ability to make reasoned statements about causality.

As a mental exercise, let's assume that the Edwards endorsement raises political journalists' "expectations" for Obama in Kentucky. Then let's say Obama fails to meet those expectations. Will Hillary Clinton be any closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination? No. Will Obama be any further from winning the nomination? No. Ergo, such "expectations" are meaningless and have no relationship with, nor effect on, material reality.

If a person writes a book whose words do not describe actual reality, nor are likely to influence any aspect of actual reality, we call his book "fiction" and describe that person as a "novelist." If a person goes on TV and speaks words that do not describe, and cannot affect, actual reality, we call the activity "punditry" and the person a "journalist."

re: Edwards and Kentucky

virginiacentrist — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:20:45 GMT

dkrieger:

FAIL!

The superdelegates are coalescing around Obama because he's about to hit the pledged delegate majority and the race is over. There's nothing else you can read into it.

If you really want to look at the "will of the people", look at national polls of Democrats that unianimously show that they favor Obama over Hillary by 4-8 points. You'd have a point if they heavily favored Hillary or something....

re: Dept of Friends Like These

sabatia — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:02:14 GMT

Several commenters above have more eloquently than I hit the nail on the head: If Hillary Clinton and her supporters want to be treated with respect, they should have treated Obama with respect. Demanding respect, as Clinton and her supporters are, does not earn or gain one respect--quite the contrary.

In debate after debate and interview after interview, we saw Obama defer when offered the opportunity to attack or besmirch Sen. Clinton. When Hillary was offered similar opportunities, we saw what she did. When she wasn't offered any opportunities, she nonetheless sought out ways, contrived as they might be, to belittle her opponent.

Sorry. The longer she stays in, the less respect she deserves.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

dbhuff — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:42:25 GMT

And the argument that what if we voted again or now at this point in time or whatever doesn't matter either. However, I would point out the pollster and gallup polls have for quite some time shown Obama in the national lead too.

There is always the faint possibility that the remaining contests will go 70/30 for HRC though so by all means we should keep the party split and argue this out until the convention while McCain gets to take free potshots at us.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

roidubouloi — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:38:14 GMT

dkrieger says:

"Now that Obama is in the lead, we are told that supers ought to swim with the tide, regardless of what the voters indicate with their ballots -- which, West Virginia and Pennsylvania show – is at best an ambivalence toward Obama, at worst, a case of buyer's remorse."

This is a classic Hillaryism. Only the voters who vote for Hillary count. The voters who don't, don't. Thus, even though HIllary is losing, even though Obama racked up a couple hundred thousand votes in NC, even though he will win OR, SD, and MT, "the voters," which means those that vote for Hillary, will have indicated their ambivalence. The rest of the voters are to be ignored.

What a load of hogwash. If only Hillary's supporters said this sort of thing, it would be mere hogwash. But because Hillary says it, she begs to be ridiculed. I'm game. She is narcissist of the first order, "in it" so that she can continue for a little while longer to have people pay attention to her. I can only hope that her $11 million goes up in smoke.

re: Dept of Friends Like These

sdemuth — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:37:14 GMT

r-brown: "Hillary is fighting till the end because she thinks she is the best candidate and there are quite a number of people who agree."

Of course. The same is obviously true of Barack Obama, so this distinguishes the two not at all. What does distinguish them, most importantly, is that his "quite a number of people" is self evidently going to turn out larger, in the counts that matter, than hers. Regardless of what she thinks about herself, or what Ellen Malcom thinks about her, that makes her the loser.

The question here is whether she will leave gracefully, or kicking and screaming like a spoiled child.

re: Would Obama Support Class-Based Affirmative Action?

teplukhin2you — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:20:16 GMT

Not needless at all. Just not evidence of political skill, maturity or fitness to be POTUS.

He's a nice guy. He means well, looks good, gives a good speech. A lot of people find him glamorous. I'm sure he was a cut above his peers in Springfield, and he's probably smarter than most of his peers in the Senate.

As to teh glamorous aspect, Charismatic is certainly a valid leadership type, but charisma without toughness and vision doesn't make you a leader. Obama's not a visionary, he's not tough, and he has no signature issue-- aside from Iraq and "Bush Sucks"-- that edxplains his run. Sure, I voted for him in my state's primary and would do so again in the general at this point, but let's stop pretending that he's an exceptional leader.

I don't see him as much of a leader at all, to be honest, but he's a liberal Dem, as I am, and has my vote. Just as Carter, Mondale and Dukakis all did.

re: Would Obama Support Class-Based Affirmative Action?

GSpinks — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:40:31 GMT

tep,

jumping on it now may not take balls, but making it happen would because people will still fight tooth and nail to maintain the system. then again, Obama got Chicago cops to agree to record confessions from suspects in capital crimes.

As for assessing what he would or would not have done if he was the kind of person you wanted, I think you should enlighten us with a detailed account of his time as a civil rights attorney and public servant in Illinois, and explain how the things he has accomplished were wasteful and needless.

re: Edwards and Kentucky

GSpinks — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:33:51 GMT

dkrieger,

I agree with your hypothetical; nothing is a lock until someone has a majority of delegates and the nomination is formalized at the convention.

The problem I have is with the situation you describe:

"Now that Obama is in the lead, we are told that supers ought to swim with the tide, regardless of what the voters indicate with their ballots"

Who is saying this? Where was it said? I'm thinking some hyperlinks are in order. I have not noticed any such activity myself, but I have not been paying too much attention in recent days.

"can't fathom the concept that their hero might be losing his luster"

In the face of a lack of demonstrable proof, it is more like "we don't agree with your assessment" rather than "we can't fathom". A convincing argument would be a margin of victory that exceeds nominal expectations, her WV clobbering of 40% was below many analysts expectations, which were based on the voting patterns of previous primaries. However, I do not think anyone realized that Edwards was on the ballot, and pulled away a bunch of votes. Adding Edward's votes in with Hillary's bring the margin of victory to around 50%, which is in line with the trend of pulling about 75% of white voters who are elderly, or make below 50k, which pretty much describes WV to a tee.

"will be arm-twisted into bowing out after June 3"

First, not winning a majority of the pledged delegates is not considered "arm twisting". Second, from an interview I saw earlier it looks like the only person that will decide when Hillary stops campaigning is Hillary. Finally, I got the distinct impression she was amenable to ceding the race on 2 conditions: 1) the last of the votes are counted, including MI and FL, and 2) she does not have a majority of delegates.

"But I would not be surprised if she reenters – at the party's request – right before the convention (assuming Obama's polling numbers against McCain really tank by then)"

Nor would any of us; we're just a lot more confident than some people, like yourself, that those numbers won't tank.