As expected, the Florida non-primary goes to Hillary Clinton. I congratulate her on her prize of zero delegates. Good luck to HRC with her lame spin.
« Florida | Main | Bullets Dodged »
Clinton Wins!
29 Jan 2008 08:32 pm
Comments (166)
Olbermann and Co. are being absolutely brutal about her fake celebration on MSNBC. He just ask Andrea Mitchell what the celebration was for. She responded: "That it's not South Carolina."
Jesus, Matt, the partisan bit is getting old.
The numbers indicate that nearly 2 million registered Democrats will have voted in Florida - the largest primary yet to date for the 2008 Presidential Race. Your comment is insulting to voters not only in Florida, but across America. This campaign has been going on for nearly a year and I think Florida voters supported Hillary Clinton. Let's not kid ourselves, these delegates will be seated at the Dem Convention in Denver. The exit polls from TODAY following 3 days of positive Obama media coverage still demonstrate a commanding lead for Hillary. Can we please report the news with an ounce of reality?
She's spinning right now. The record turnout means Florida voters want their voices heard (and Hillary wants their delegates). It's a vote of confidence in Hillary, she says. Yep, pretty lame. But she probably will get those delegates eventually.
Anderson,
Whoops, think you had a minor typo there. "Partisan bit" should have been "anyone with an IQ over 65 bit."
Lame is exactly how this looks, and desperate. It's a non-event, and will be completely overshadowed by McCain, if he in fact pulls out a victory.
A simple question for Matt, the totally biased Chris Matthews crew, and the commenters here: If Obama had won the popular vote, would you all be sneering about THAT?
I thought so.
Blake,
C'mon. Edwards & Obama didn't even fight! Although I agree that they will be seated. I also know that if those delegates put her over the top, she will be abandoned by at least 1/4 of the party, maybe more.
Is this drunk-blogging?
If Obama had won the popular vote, would you all be sneering about THAT?
No, I'd be in dumbstuck awe since Hillary was the only name on the ballot.
Welcome to the Village. I see Matt has arrived and knows the correct narrative. His snarky anti-Clinton invective is now up there with Broder, Klein, Matthews, Dowd, etc. What a nerdy little wannabe.
Reading through the exits, I see Clinton got 35% of the voters who decided this week... and Obama also got 35%. This after a week of Clinton grabbing Florida headlines with her "I'll never forget you!" promises and victory celebration.
Yeah, Clinton's on a roll.
And they cut away from her "victory" speech after about two minutes...
Such a dumb move on her part. This makes her look really desperate.
And, yes, Sheldon, I would say the same about Obama or Edwards or anyone else. When a group of people decide it doesn't matter...it doesn't matter. No matter how hard one person later wishes it wasn't so.
Edwards and Obama didn't campaign in Florida! So great, 1.5 million democrats voted on name recognition and unsurprisingly the original front runner won.
It's a hollow victory but a good excuse for a show.
I think mostly what this result demonstrates is that name recognition gets you pretty damn far.
The pandering by Hillary though is...ugly. I have to look away...
Anderson:
Then don't read, fucktard. Hillary gained 0 in case you didn't know. Evidently you're one of the ball-less castrati who support Hillary. Heh.
If it's true that McCain's the winner, and if Empress Livia manages to get the X number of delegates seated, Jan. 29 will go down in history as one of the 10 greatest days in the history of the Republican party.
Fortunately, Lady Macbeth is as transparent as Banquo's ghost.
Ed Marshall-- nice to be fact free in your posts, eh? As a matter of fact, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards' names are all on the ballot according to TPM, and there has been some shadowy campaigning by at least Clinton and Obama supporters, though I do agree that this lacks the significance of a fully contested primary.
Ed Marshall, you don't know what you're talking about. Unlike in Michigan, Obama was on the ballot. LeChuck, it MAY not matter in terms of delegates - that is far from clear at this point. But it surely at least suggests that her campaign is far from over, and therefore not completely irrelevant, Also, I don't for a second believe that the sneering and contempt displayed by the Matthews crowd in particular would be there if her and Obama's numbers were reversed.
Jay,
Let's consider the dynamics of the Feb 5th Super Tuesday vote.
All three candidates will have limited ability to campaign on the ground in 20+ states. We're fooling ourselves if we believe that Obama giving three town halls in Florida would eliminate a 20 pt victory for Hillary Clinton tonight.
Despite your 1/4 attack which is independent of any stats, let's look at today's Exit Polls. She performed very well 2 to 1 with latinos, very strong with women, winning men - even increasing her support from African Americans. Thus I think your 1/4 of the party abandonment comment is lacking merit. Florida Democrats came out strongly in this primary despite equal registration #s among Dems & Repubs in the state. Hillary will bring out female voters and latinos. Not to mention a Ted Kennedy endorsement is not going to bring repubs and independents out for Obama.
These are huge numbers of American voters and last I checked we were never a country to celebrate disenfranchisement.
Ed Marshall, you don't know what you're talking about. Unlike in Michigan, Obama was on the ballot. LeChuck, it MAY not matter in terms of delegates - that is far from clear at this point. But it surely at least suggests that her campaign is far from over, and therefore not completely irrelevant. Also, I don't for a second believe that the sneering and contempt displayed by the Matthews crowd in particular would be there if her and Obama's numbers were reversed.
Oh come on, LeChuck. Why was the decision made? To placate the early states and help them retain the millions in tourism dollars they bring in by holding their primaries and fending off other, interested states. Noble principle. As soon as that decision was made, everyone realized that, as soon as the early states voted, the leading candidate would call on the DNC to seat the Florida delegates. Obama would've done the same. Indeed, Obama ran ads on cable television. There was 92% saturation of the Florida media markets. Ask yourself this: will the dynamics in the Feb 5th states resemble the ridiculous, narcissistic retail politics of IA and NH or what we same in Fl? Undoubtedly the latter. The candidates will have little time for personal campaigning. This will be about television ads, preconceived notions, and policies. Obama doesn't have time to preach his way to this nomination by wooing progressive parishioners. The head beats the heart, which is of course the way it should've been in this so called reality based party.
though I do agree that this lacks the significance of a fully contested primary.
Nice of you to overstate the obvious, Marlowe. Florida is absolutely meaningless except to Hillary idiots such as yourself and completely uninformed voters living in American Samoa.
Has a more contemptable figure than an Obama supporter ever shown up in political campaigns in the past? There is nothing on this planet more obnoxious that BHO cultists.
As far as I'm concerned, once we rid ourselves of his candidacy we will rid ourselves of his loser rabble. That day cannot come soon enough.
Fuck you, Ken. Your constant arrogant babble falls on deaf ears. My guess is that even your fat ass wife doesn't even listen to you.
Ken,
Stop stealing my name, you dick. I wish I could fall in love with Obama, but I think he's got enough obsessives with all the Ugg-clad sorority whores and 20 year old frat boys that he can thank for giving his campaign any semblance of momentum. Oh how I wish I could support the candidate that can turn my supporters away from "Life of Ryan" and "Real World:Syndey" enough to vote in slightly increased numbers. How inspiring.
Say what you want about whether or not the votes of Floridians should be taken with a grain of salt without anyone being engaged in the state (well, explicitly anyway), but Hillary's victory party in Florida tonight reeks of desperation.
While Hillary is out in Florida at her Potemkin party trying to dramatically shift the national narrative of this race, Obama's in Kansas City speaking with five thousand supporters and undecided voters in two February 5th states. Meanwhile, Hillary's wasting a day in Florida. A victory party is to congratulate your supporters for pulling through for you, but she didn't campaign. Few of the people with signs at the rally put signs up for her. It's a fabricated event spun out of a popularity contest that wouldn't have happened if South Carolina was even close, and it's exactly the kind of bullshit meaningless ploy that Obama's running against.
Breaking: Gravel ties Hillary for delegates from Florida, news at 11.
Let's call her ploy to change the rules and count the Florida delegates exactly what it is:
Hillary Clinton's Florida "signing statement"!
Ken:
More self important bullshit from a self absorbed asshole. What a surprise. As an example of what a world class tool you are, you assume that somehow you have a monopoly on the name Ken. You're hilarious. When you get sick of being such a know nothing windbag blowing smoke on a blog you can always go back to alerting shoppers of blue light specials at Kresge's. Fuck yourself, old man.
"Has a more contemptable figure than an Obama supporter ever shown up in political campaigns in the past?"
How about Bob "Secular Madrassa" Kerrey? Or Mark "Microtrends" Penn? Or Bill "fairy tale" Clinton? Or Bob "neighborhood" Johnson? Or Billy Shaheen? Or Marcia "betrayal!" Pappas? Or whoever it is trying to peddle the notion that Blacks and Hispanics won't work together?
Nope, doesn't get worse than Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle, evidently.
smm55
All of those are valid points. However, my point remains. The DNC and the candidates agreed that Florida was a non-event, for whatever reason, Hillary is now attempting to spin it as a big deal. Which makes her look desperate.
To be honest, I have no idea why she's doing this. If she just sat on her hands today (without sending out the clear pander signals of the last couple days) she still would have won. Secondly, she has a huge advantage on Super Tuesday already. She doesn't really need the press, which will only be slightly critical. Nobody likes a rule-breaker, which is what she comes off as here (or, at least, a rule-circumventer).
Zach---
Please. My name has become the comparative cliche of the campaign. Think up your own similes. If there's anything "potemkin" about this campaign, it is the rhetoric of Obama, which, in this general's opinion, would fit better in a children's book than in a state of the union address.
C'mon. Edwards & Obama didn't even fight!
Either did Hillary. She showed up the night before the primary for a fund raiser. How much could one night of "campaigning" do for her? And if this one night really were that effective, than Obama's in more trouble next Tuesday than I thought. Moreover, unlike Obama, Hillary didn't place a national media buy -- cough, break the spirit of the rules, cough -- to get her spots in Florida markets.
This is a solid PR victory for Hillary in a much larger state than South Carolina on the eve of Super Tuesday. It's even more impressive given the punditocracy's hyperventilating about the supposed negative reaction to Bill's antics, and Barrack's canonization by Pope Teddy.
Oh, and if Hillary's successful in getting her delegates seated, it will be a lot more than a PR victory.
Great post MY. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Short, sweet, and right on.
Ken,
I'm so glad you'll be happy to be rid of our "rabble" if HRC wins the nomination. However, I don't think Billary would agree with your viewpoint as a general election strategy. Chopping off more than a third of the Democratic electorate would guarantee even Mr. Mittmentum a landslide.
I suspect a lot of people who might otherwise have been drawn to Obama are getting sick of the endless demonization of Hillary by certain of his supporters. Maybe this result is a symptom of that.
Fox,
No, we'll gladly take your votes in November, since you have nowhere else to go, and then go back to ignoring you. Even rabble has its uses.
Fucktard here. Those of you actually interested in winning the White House in 2008 might want to consider:
(1) Hillary is indeed playing up to Florida voters, particularly Democrats.
(2) Florida's votes and turnout will very likely be crucial to any Democratic victory in November.
(3) Point (2) makes point (1) perfectly reasonable, even intelligent, behavior.
I am open to either Hillary or Obama, and certainly I think Hillary's going to lose the nomination if she keeps on with the stupid negative stuff ... but the bitterness of the anti-Hillaryites is affecting their analytical abilities.
Shit, if I want to read an Atlantic blog that's pathologically anti-Hillary, I could read Sully.
Great first steroids in our athletes, now steroidal overambitious candidates, making the rules up and calling the victory as they go along.
So Clintonian. Do they ever do anything fairly?
Lies, distortions, racial innuendo, WTF?
Oh that's right, it the Clintons. Who else should be elect, but a cheat before the world this century.
Wake up America, you have a choice this time and not the lesser of two evils.. You have two good guys and one cheating lying status quo candidate.
You decide.
Maybe this result is a symptom of that.
You mean the result that's been reflected in polls for months now? Yeah, it was clearly a huge swing in her direction.
LeChuck, it MAY not matter in terms of delegates - that is far from clear at this point.
It shouldn't matter in terms of delegates. That was what everyone agreed to, Clinton included.
But it surely at least suggests that her campaign is far from over, and therefore not completely irrelevant
No one has suggested that Clinton's campaign is over and irrelevant. She has a big lead heading into Super Tuesday.
My name is Steve M, and I am addicted to politics. Here is my confession... I am a left center kind of guy that will vote for the Democratic candidate 90% of the time. I hate where the state of American politics is going, especially in the last 8 years of Rove/Bush. In fact, I hate it so much, that I refuse to support such tactics for the rest of my life, no matter which party chooses to utilize them. If both parties choose to go that route, I pledge to vote for a random third party of my choice. I urge other people to do the same.
A few things about myself... I am a white, college educated male in his 30's who was born and raised in the great state of Illinois. I currently reside in the 6th Congressional District of Illinois. I voted for Tammy Duckworth in two separate congressional elections, including one where it wasn't so cool to do it. I have voted for and supported Carol Mosely-Braun. I crossed party lines in the last state-wide elections to not only vote for Judy Baar-Topinka in the general, but also to do so in the primaries. I also full-heartedly support Amy Madigan and wish that she would challenge our current clown of a governor in a few years. Hell, my first vote was for Dawn Clark-Netsch versus the idiot Edgar.
That being said, I would like to thank the Clinton campaign for turning what should have been a walk in the park presidential election into something that I will fight tooth and nail (and I imagine that I am not alone). There is no way under God's green earth that I will support them if Sen Clinton becomes the candidate.
To paraphrase a movie line... I have... I have forsworn myself. I have broken principles I swore to defend. I am content that I have done right...
But I will do it no more until the Democratic Party recognizes that there are millions of people like me who are just waiting for them to nominate someone who we can like... Someone we can respect... Someone we can get behind. I have been played for a fool and I refuse to play any longer. I refuse to be called a misogynist because I do not respect a single candidate in a single election. I refuse to be called biased when I support a qualified bi-racial man over a qualified white female.
The bottom line is that I am tired of this BS... I am tired of the senseless partisan warfare that has become commonplace in this country. I am tired of the fact that people can't seem to have civil conversations about legitimate differences of opinions. I am just tired... And I do not think, at least anecdotally, that I am alone... And the sooner that one party or the other realizes that, the sooner we will all begin to heal.
Maybe this result is a symptom of that.
No, Jason...it's a symptom of the establishment candidate getting more votes in an uncontested contest. But thanks for the entertaining conspiracy theory though.
Billary's woes have been self inflicted. No media embellishment required.
Checking out the exit poll, it looks like 74% of the democratic voters were over 45 and 60% were women.
If that holds through the final count, I'd say Obama did okay. Hillary won't get better demographics for her candidacy in any other primary. Even in her most friendly state, she only just made it past 50% (62% of precincts reporting). Definitely not a sign that Hillary has the nomination locked up.
Let's put this another way: even though Florida's Dems were (rightly, I think) frozen out of the nomination process ...
... with 50% of precincts reporting ...
... ONE MILLION of them showed up to vote anyway.
Should a Democrat be interested in what those people think? Hell yes.
Jason,
You are probably correct. People are sick on the anti-Hillary narrative.
Jasper,
I think you might be correct.
If that holds through the final count, I'd say Obama did okay. Hillary won't get better demographics for her candidacy in any other primary.
Just like Obama won't get better demographics for his candidacy than he enjoyed in South Carolina.
No, Jason...it's a symptom of the establishment candidate getting more votes in an uncontested contest. But thanks for the entertaining conspiracy theory though.
Establishment candidate getting more votes? On the contrary, Obama got fewer votes in Florida.
People are sick on the anti-Hillary narrative
And who are these "people"? Clinton supporters?
Your comment is insulting to voters not only in Florida, but across America.
But mainly voters in Florida. Oh, the humanity.
Should a Democrat be interested in what those people think? Hell yes.
And the people of Florida will, actualy, get to spend plenty of time with the nominee. Let's estimate once a week or so.
There's no such thing as an uncontested contest, mellman.
But thanks for the effort to convince us that you've managed to convince yourself it doesn't matter.
LOL @ Jason. So Obama's now the establishment candidate? That must make Billary the insurgent.
Lay off the smoke, dude. It's affecting your thinking.
Well, I'm a yellow dog Democrat who would never vote for a Republican, and I never will. I show up for local primaries for school board where like 2% of the electorate comes, and I show up educated. I am damn excited to be a Democratic voter, and I could not be more loyal. Hillary was not my first choice, but I was contended with all the candidates, even when there were six or so. I would have voted for any of them, were they the nominee.
That said.
If the Florida delegates are given to Hillary because she raises a stink and gets them counted after them not being counted, fair or not, was a decision that was made and was expected to be stuck to, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for her and I will sit out an election for the first time since I was 18 years and one week old and voted for Bill.
And I realize I am just one person and that I do not have the HRC campaign running scared , but I would like for them to realize that their win-at-any-cost strategy for this primary is going to cost them votes, when there is almost nothing else she could have plausibly said or done that would make me not vote for her, other than that.
This week has had the nastiest blogging I have ever seen. HRC's shenanigans - blatantly violating an agreement she made with her fellow candidates - and the utter lack of sanction for it from a party machine that she and her husband are driving have frustrated the ever-living hell out of all of us who desperately cling to the last shred of hope that these contests are actually elections, where voters matter more than the condescending tea-leaf reading of a bunch of pathetic, whoring leaches who want to maintain their influence over this process at any cost.
HRC is the self-appointed madam of the Dem wing of that whorehouse, and I will be mortified if she becomes President. Those who say that Democrats will come together, hold their noses and vote Hillary in the general election are wrong. A great number of us will either stay home or actively vote against her.
"Just like Obama won't get better demographics for his candidacy than he enjoyed in South Carolina."
Sure. I didn't say Obama would win. Just that Florida held some good news for him. I've assumed all along that Hillary is going to win the nomination eventually, but if she's not breaking 51% in very friendly territory it tells me that she's not as strong as I thought she was.
And I realize I am just one person and that I do not have the HRC campaign running scared , but I would like for them to realize that their win-at-any-cost strategy for this primary.
How is fighting to get your delegates seated constitute "winning at any cost"? It seems to me an aggressive, but perfectly reasonable strategy.
After all:
1) There won't be anything undemocratic about it. Hillary will have to get people to vote on a rule change. She may not be successful.
2) Florida's an extremely important state. Alienating its voters isn't a very wise strategy.
What this really shows, I'm coming to realize, is that Hillary Clinton, whatever her faults, is a far more experienced and seasoned campaigner than Obama. Them's just the facts. Seriously -- think about it. She's personally won two senate races to Obama's one. But she's also been the defacto co-chair of two victorious presidential runs (as well as numerous successful gubernatorial runs).
Obamabots are correct to say she's not fighting "fair." It would literally be impossible for her to do so, given the fact that the experience gap between the two candidates pretty much insures this isn't a "fair" fight.
I will not vote for Hillary, I will not vote for Hillary, I will not vote for Hillary.
But she's also been the defacto co-chair of two victorious presidential runs
Ahh, "defacto". So THAT'S where the 35 years of experience thing came from.
Jasper,
Obamabots are correct to say she's not fighting "fair." It would literally be impossible for her to do so, given the fact that the experience gap between the two candidates pretty much insures this isn't a "fair" fight.
-Jasper
Thanks for pointing out your bias by calling voters Obamabots. First, she's been running the experience line for far to long...her two most important decision in her "political" life--she got wrong. Iraq and her horrible failed attempt at healthcare--Truly what experience does she have? If you're looking for that perhaps you should vote for Biden or Dodd...She is pandering and you know it...the taste in her mouth is bad, but she is leaving a worst one in mine. She will not have my vote on the 12th or the 2nd. I will abstain if she is the nominee.
It what sense is it reasonable, when the DNC makes a DECISION that no FLorida delegates will be counted, and it may be a dumb decision, but that doesn't matter because it was made -- and all three candidates pledge not to campaign in the state -- to then, after you "won" the state, to lobby to have their votes counted? If you wanted to stand on the principle that their votes should be counted and lobby the DNC to count the votes, you should have mounted that principle before the PRIMARY! There is nothing reasonable about saying, "yep, okay, those are the rules, too bad for you Florida, sorry, next time maybe you won't move up your primary; oh wait, what? You say I won? Count the votes! Count the votes!"
No. Way. No. Freakin'. Way. I will not reward people who play politics that way, against other Democrats.
Jasper:
You're obviously young and very naive.
Obviously that's a bit patronizing, but sorry to say that it seems to be the case. Duplicitousness, dishonesty, plausible deniability, etc, don't make someone a better campaigner, just a bigger asshole.
You think about it. I know you'll get it eventually.
I think it's obvious that endorsements don't mean that much anymore in terms of national campaigns. Contemporary voters don't like being told by their betters who they should vote for. I haven't seen final numbers, but at least one article I've read mentions Hillary utterly dominated the Latino vote in Florida. So, so much for Pope Teddy's kind words for the Obamster. Still, I thought y'all would like to know that influential California congresswoman Maxine Waters has just endorsed Hillary.
It's pretty clear which way the wind is now blowing.
Ahh, "defacto". So THAT'S where the 35 years of experience thing came from.
That was good.
Jason...Maxine Waters is a joke and renowned partisan hack. The only "wind" you feel is the blowback from your own bullshit.
influential California congresswoman Maxine Waters has just endorsed Hillary.
Yeah, she's influential alright...from Wiki:
Waters was named in 2005[4] and 2006[5] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son."
Give it up, Jason. You suck.
Billary is spinning this hard because a twenty point victory is nothing it's a joke just like bill bennett my new hero said, and Obama is going to *turn around* (heh heh ) and pull a big win out of his ass next Tuesday! Yeah! can you feel it? He's behind in every poll but he RAWKS!
Looks like nearly 2 million Florida Democrats are voting. 0 delegates and all, but do most folks here really want to pretend that these voters (who could have stayed home) have nothing to say?
And for those who urge that we stay home if nasty Hillary is on the Democratic ticket instead of uplifting Barack, do you really want McCain or Romaney appointing clones of Roberts and Alito when Justice Stevens retires? If so, have at it.
I'll be campaigning for whoever gets the D nomination.
It what sense is it reasonable, when the DNC makes a DECISION that no FLorida delegates will be counted, and it may be a dumb decision...
Jen: It's reasonable because staying with a dumb decision is dumb. Changing said dumb decision is wise. Or, as Florida congressman Alcee Hastings wrote today to chairman Dean: (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/01/29/hastings_to_dean_reinstate_our.html):
...one of our two front-runners has already stated that she will work to seat Florida’s delegates in Denver while the other broke the four state pledge and has been running TV ads in Florida since the South Carolina Democratic debate. As such, the only logical, responsible, and fair thing for the DNC to do is to reinstate Florida’s delegates immediately. In doing so, the DNC would be implementing a policy which just about everyone has already agreed is going to happen in any case. More importantly for the DNC and all of us involved, it will begin the difficult task of restoring faith in the Democratic Party in Florida, something which has been lost due to DNC actions..
Florida is a must win state for the Democrats this year. Taking the White House back from the Republicans is my top priority this year -- a higher priority, in other words, than getting my nominee chosen. And as I have indicated before, I'll enthusiastically support whomever Democrats nominate because I desperately want a change in the country's direction. But then again, I'm not an Obama "my candidate or I'm voting for John century-of-warfare McCain" supporter. I'm just a loyal Democrat.
I read that the union had a 'get the voters out ' pledge to reduce property taxes as per Florida laws.
Apart from that, news for you folks, Clinton has found a paid surrogate in the form of perez hilton. He is misrepresenting and putting out Clinton's version of news in his website thereby feeding false news about her victories everywhere to youngsters who hit his website thousands of times. It 's absolutely putrid. I thought bloggers have to be accountable.
No, we'll gladly take your votes in November, since you have nowhere else to go, and then go back to ignoring you.
Sorry, you're not getting mine, period. I have a zero-tolerance policy wrt bullies and politically-minded asshats.
It's interesting that so much of the anti-Obama sentiment on the internet, or in blog comments in particular, sounds like this: Obama's supporters are cultist Ugg-wearing Obamabot retards who watch MTV! Pretty dumb, as far as criticism goes. It's kind of like deciding not to like Red Sox anymore because you saw some 18-year-old Boston University freshman from Tampa wearing a pink Jacoby Ellsbury shirt, or because the young fans these days weren't alive to see the ball squib through Buckner's legs in '86.
The dumbest thing about this line of criticism, aside from the fact that it's got nothing to do with the actual presidential candidate, is that it based not on an actual homogeneity among Obama's supporters but on a small, stereotyped fraction of an incredibly diverse group of people. Sure, maybe young voters will prove to be the "base" to Obama in the same way that Bush had his base of evangelicals, but so what? You're ignoring the candidate and you're ignoring the millions of other Obama supporters who aren't uninformed or young or dumb or stoned or Hillary haters.
I also think it would behoove people to pay attention to the thousands of citizens like Jen who are taking a few minutes out of their evening to say that, much to their own surprise, they will NEVER vote for Hillary after witnessing her recent weeks of vile political gamesmanship. Is there the equivalent sentiment among the anti-Obama population? If so, I haven't seen it.
Jasper:
Speaking of dumb, first you reference Maxine Waters, one of the Congress' most corrupt politicians, you now reference Alcee Hastings, an impeached and removed judge. WTF? You, sir, are indeed an idiot!
Is there the equivalent sentiment among the anti-Obama population?
tinisoli: No, thank God. Most Clinton supporters I've spoken with will gladly support Senator Obama against McCain. That's just the point. We know that putting a Democrat in the White House is absolutely vital for the country's well-being. I mean, just on this thread alone there have to be a dozen or so "If my candidate isn't chosen I'll be staying home or voting GOP" statements from Obama supporters. In the last few weeks, I've literally seen this type of statement hundreds of times. I never see this sort of thing written by Hillary supporters. So, I hope you can understand that, to many of us, there is indeed something vaguely cultish -- not to mention pathetically immature and naive -- about the Obama campaign at least as it is represented by folks visiting blogs like Matt's. I mean, if you don't think there wouldn't be major differences between having another eight years of Republican rule vs. its Democratic equivalent, even if that Democrat turns out not to be Barrack Obama, well, then I guess I just don't know what else to say.
This is nothing but a glorified poll. If everyone agreed it wasn't going to count, then it doesn't count. For her to say it counts is just going to make her look bad. But she is very much one to fight tooth and nail in a battle that loses her the war, so have at it, HRC. The fact that she is also trying to make Michigan count, where she WAS the only one on the ballot [the only one still in the race anyway], completely destroys whatever shred of a point she could have had. She is not a grownup.
I can list 1,000 reasons why Hillary is an inferior campaigner and inferior candidate compared to Obama. HRC could never have risen as rapidly as that boy has. He's just a much more gifted politician all the way around than her. Period, end of discussion.
That said, I will still vote for her if I have to come November. Partly because we are really just voting on the Supreme Court at that point.
But mostly just to see the look on the Republicans' faces. They *hate* them some Hillary, and if I can't have the best candidate, I'll settle for watching them suffer.
Jasper,
The point is, if HRC is the nominee then the party you are so self-satisfyingly loyal to is LESS LIKELY TO REGAIN THE PRESIDENCY. She's too divisive, she's absolutely hated by the right and right-of-center voters, the GOP is totally prepared to destroy her and her husband yet again, and yes, there are thousands of reliably Dem voters who are now so disillusioned with Hillary that they will indeed stay home or maybe even vote for McCain. Yes, that is a problem. But HILLARY is the cause of that problem. She's running her campaign as if the most important thing in the world is that SHE and Bill get back into the White House so they can save us from the horror of the last 7 years. That, along with so much else that she's been responsible for, is insulting and awful. Dems aren't threatening to boycott her out of spite; it's because she SUCKS and we DON'T WANT HER TO BE PRESIDENT, even though she's got a big D alongside her name.
One thing to take into account in all of this is the overall numbers in the Democratic and Republican primaries..
So far, it has generally been the rule that democratic primary turnout has been significantly higher than Republican turnout even in states where the party membership was roughly equal.
This was true in Iowa (roughly equal), where the turnout was:
Dem: 236,000
ReP: 120,000
And Obama won it by about 10% over Hilary
Then there was New Hampshire (Roughly equal, tending Democratic):
Dem: 287,300
Rep: 238,200
Where Clinton won by about 3-4%
Then Nevada (Roughly equal, tending Republican):
Dem: 116,000
Rep: 44,000
Where Clinton won by about 5-6%
Then South Carolina (mainly a Rep State)
Dem: 532,100
Rep: 431,200
Where Obama won it by 29%.
(I'm not including Michigan, because not all candidates names were on the Ballot.)
And now, here's Florida--another state that has roughly equal sized Democratic and Republican parties.
Voter Turnout here is (as of 81% precincts reporting):
Dem: 1,587,300
Rep: 1,787,300.
Note the difference. Florida is the first primary so far (unless something drastically changes in the remaining 19% of precincts reporting), where the Republican primary race has garnered more votes than the Democratic one.
What this would imply is that it, as a primary race, is uncharacteristic of the campaign races so far, because the Republican contest is obviously being fought much harder than the Democratic race has been.
This should be obvious to anyone following the basic statements about the Democratic race here. No one openly campaigned here.
Thus, to make any sort of claim about Florida having some significance in terms of the Democratic race is really misleading. It's a totally different race.. one where the Democrats are either not nearly as influential in this state in terms of their capacity to get out the vote (in which case the winner of this state on the Dem side in a general election is totally moot) or the Democratic race here was but a shadow of what it would have been if it had been actively fought for (in which case, the winner of this state is again relatively unimportant, because it wasn't a really a race--because the candidates weren't really running in it.. more like taking a stroll, with one person already having been ahead of the others when they already started walking..).
Anyway... for me the most telling part about the Dem side of the Florida primary is that HRC is trying to get the delegates reinstated although she publicly pledged not to. If she disagreed with this policy back when it was instituted.. then she should have publicly said so. But to say so afterwards does not speak well of her character AT ALL.
And, you know, she could really have thwarted all of her critics if she had taken the more noble path and declined to act as she is doing here. But instead, her behavior makes it seem as if she is willing do anything to win power.. and that means she has basically become a Republican, at least in her methods, which is something this country does not need any more of.
I have voted Democratic in every election since I was able, beginning in 1990. This year, however, if she is the Democratic nominee, I will not vote for her, because I'd rather not see the Democratic Party continue down this pathway into dishonesty and deception. I've always been lenient with regard to the flaws and failings within the Democratic Candidates.. but I cannot go as far as would be needed for Hilary.
tinisoli: HRC is "hated by the right and right-of-center voters," and she's running a campaign that is so shockingly awful, so downright diabolical, that she's acting as if - da noive of da woman! - she thinks she ought to be the nominee!
Gosh. That's quite an indictment of a candidate.
You would prefer another Democratic candidate be the nominee. Fair enough. But in the event that she is the nominee, maybe we try to get her elected? Or is the Joe Lieberman approach (hey, I didn't get nominated, too bad, I'll wreck my party instead) more attractive than I thought?
The point is, if HRC is the nominee then the party you are so self-satisfyingly loyal to is LESS LIKELY TO REGAIN THE PRESIDENCY
Says you. There is ample evidence contrary to your assertion. Mind you, this is all very debatable, but that's just the point: nobody knows who is more likely to win in November. The most common analysis I've seen indicates Obama would indeed be the stronger candidate vs. McCain among independents, and Clinton would be the stronger candidate vs. McCain among Democrats.
I think we all simply have to make our own judgments on this issue. My own conclusion is that Hillary, for all her supposed inferior likability ratings, is the safer bet. Partly it's because of her greater experience in presidential politics, but also it's because we have a stronger sense of what the "ceiling" is on the negativity factor (she's been around a long time, after all). I think Obama's potential upside (coattails, etc.) is quite high. But so is his potential downside.
Again, I can respect people who come to different conclusions than I on such issues; nobody has a crystal ball. What I don't respect so much is when, upon arriving at a different conclusion, they announce in advance their decision to refrain from supporting the party's nominee if they don't get their way. That's just naiive. Believe me folks, another Republican administration would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States of America.
This Florida play will be another one of those cynical gambits that seems to work in the short term, but in the long run will probably have blowback.
Unknown at this time: What is the ultimate takeaway from this? Clinton does get some facetime on tv with the happy supporters, but it places third place in terms of stories as it gets mocked on MSNBC/CNN behind the talk of a McCain mo' surge and the Great Giuliani collapse.
If the dominant meme that emerges: "There she goes again, breaking a promise to do whatever it takes to win," then this probably wasn't worth it. This only reinforces the negatives that she has with any undecideds out there. This also really fires up Obama's ground game to work even harder to get out the independent and youth vote. This also reinforces that he's an underdog -- which can only help him in the expectations game come Tsuper Tuesday.
Perhaps this is a stretch -- could this Florida trick be the straw that breaks Gore's back to endorse Obama?
--
Agreed that its unfortunate seeing zealots on both sides (Obama and Clinton) making ugly comments on the blogs. That being said, I'm an Obama supporter from the jump, who also had voted in '92 and '96 for WJC. Witnessing the cynical Clinton tactics (Let's skip Iowa, no let's compete in Iowa, and after we lose in Iowa let's say that the caucus system unfair; let's keep dropping codewords and smears; let's have our allies challenge the Nevada at-large caucus after we don't get the Culinary Workers Union; let's distort our opponent's record on abortion rights...just to name a few), I doubt that I'm going to the polls for her in November.
Sure -- "politics ain't beanbag," but it doesn't have to be like this either.
I have voted Democratic in every election since I was able, beginning in 1990. This year, however, if she is the Democratic nominee, I will not vote for her...
Wow. Another Obama voter for a century of warfare, and immigrant bashing, and right wing judges, and a tax code only Bill Gates could love, and eight more years of being the only rich country without national health insurance. I'm shocked!
I thought bloggers have to be accountable.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
Andrew,
When you emulate the Republicans in your tactics, you're no longer a Democrat in my book. I voted for Gore and Kerry, but Hillary has crossed a few too many lines for me to support her in November. In fact, for the good of the Democratic Party, we may be forced to actively campaign against her. I'm sorry it's come to this, but we didn't choose this -- she did. I know this is hard for the old and cynical to understand, but we've seen the future, and we're not turning back. You can either join us, or get out of the way.
No, Andrew, it is not the "I'll wreck my party" sentiment, but rather the "if Billary is nominated it ain't my fucking party no more" sentiment. Get it?
I've got a good feeling that the Clintons will win the nomination come August - and an even better feeling that if they do, I will be sitting home or voting for Bloomberg or McCain come November. Maybe something will change between now and then to make me forget the Clintons' campaign's shameless racebaiting - but I doubt it.
I love to see the Obama supporters engaging in what is essentially political blackmail--vote for my candidate or we're going to screw you come November. What a truly unifying message, rising above the din of partisan politics. You know what? For those of us that are gay, African-American, low income, etc--individuals who have real, tangible things to lose if the GOP captures the presidency and are able to appoint SC judges, not to mention judges to all of the appellate courts--this line from Obama supporters is absolutely LOATHSOME. I'm glad to see that your petty political narcissism is so great that you're willing to see your fellow progressives get truly fucked over. How god damn magnanimous. You're upper middle class, you're white, and you're straight. What the fuck do you have to lose?
Jasper
I agree with you that with respect to HRC, you know what you are getting but with Obama you are rolling the dice. I think that the reason why Obama supporters say they won't vote for her is because they are probably new to politics and therefore feel they are not beholden to the democratic party. I also think that Clinton's condenscending attitude toward Obama doesn't help the situation.
You know, you Obama supporters are getting on my nerves. It is true, you are all popular jock wannabes. You tried to get into a fraternity but could be accepted only in band. Stop swearing and offer some grown up arguments.
I am not sure who I will be voting for in California but, I am sick of Obama supporters making him to be a saint. You know why he is not?
1. He tried to get the republicans to vote for him in Nevada. That Reagan praising was done for a reason.
2. Obama's "Hillary, you are likable enough" comment, was so lame and off-putting.
3. I hear absolutely nothing of detail coming off that guy. After 8 years of Bush, I want someone who is competent, not someone who is "inspiring"
Lay off your high horses. Obama's aint no saint.
Winning Florida in the Democratic primaries doesn't mean anything, seeing as how there wasn't any campaigning at all there due to Florida's punishment for moving its primary up the calendar. If there had been actual campaigning, would the vote totals be anything like they are now? Is anyone so sure that if it had been a real contest between Barack and Hillary in Florida, Hillary would have won by as much as she did? Or even won at all?
Also, you Clintonistas do not have a leg to stand on in this argument. If Obama had won Florida instead of Hillary, you'll all be doing your damnedest to reduce Florida to complete non-importance. It's only because your beloved Hillary won it that you're trying to argue that it matters even a whit in this primary season. Shame on you.
To find out more about Obama go to his webisite. There is a great blog entry on the various candidates' approaches to poverty as well as a link to Rebecca Blank's article on ranking the candidates and policies: Here is the link:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/25/taking-on-class-and-race-the-candidates-on-poverty/
OK. Let's try a counterfactual here.
HRC, informed of the vote in Florida, says "Really? Dear me (laugh which will be described as a cackle). People in Florida actually voted in the Democratic primary? When there were no delegates at stake? What were they thinking? Senators Obama, Edwards and I have more important business to attend to."
Or we could try telling people like these http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009881.html#009881 that they really shouldn't have bothered, whether or not they were endorsing someone who employs (whisper it) cynical gambits.
Gosh: the thing that really makes obama supporters crazy mad here seems to be that anyone with an education could stick by thier candidate Hillary Clinton when they have already sharply told us that we should not, that the world looks different to some of us than it does to them. We didn't jump to Dean last time and we aren't jumping to this new neophyte, that we think when Hillary promised to fight for people that logically includes the disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, that"in it to win it" means she isn't going to quit just because the old boys club of failed presidential candidates (Kerry and Kennedy and maybe al think I'll win by wearing earth tones gore) boorishly join the anti-hillary hate crusade.
What has the obama supporters pouting and stamping thier feet tonight? Jasper's intelligant arguments against Obama and for Hillary?, that Jen's plaintive cry didn't win over hundreds? that Hillary's getting 50 % in a state no one campaigned in (except Obama) disproves the central tenet of obama's campaign, that she is too divisive and hated to get a majority? that the pledge didn't stop people from voting thier hearts? that even if millions don't like hillary or a woman president, that in a country of Hundreds of Millions of people, that hillary can win with out them?
Maybe they cry and pout and shout because they care so much? Or maybe its that they can't think of a way to blame Florida on Bill? Or that nothing about Florida lets them accuse hillary of being bad for feminism?
She won in a state she did not campaign in by 20 percentage points and we all know its an important state. It's those apples you don't like isn't it?
Gosh: the thing that really makes obama supporters crazy mad here seems to be that anyone with an education could stick by thier candidate Hillary Clinton when they have already sharply told us that we should not, that the world looks different to some of us than it does to them. We didn't jump to Dean last time and we aren't jumping to this new neophyte, that we think when Hillary promised to fight for people that logically includes the disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, that"in it to win it" means she isn't going to quit just because the old boys club of failed presidential candidates (Kerry and Kennedy and maybe al think I'll win by wearing earth tones gore) boorishly join the anti-hillary hate crusade.
What has the obama supporters pouting and stamping thier feet tonight? Jasper's intelligant arguments against Obama and for Hillary?, that Jen's plaintive cry didn't win over hundreds? that Hillary's getting 50 % in a state no one campaigned in (except Obama) disproves the central tenet of obama's campaign, that she is too divisive and hated to get a majority? that the pledge didn't stop people from voting thier hearts? that even if millions don't like hillary or a woman president, that in a country of Hundreds of Millions of people, that hillary can win with out them?
Maybe they cry and pout and shout because they care so much? Or maybe its that they can't think of a way to blame Florida on Bill? Or that nothing about Florida lets them accuse hillary of being bad for feminism?
She won in a state she did not campaign in by 20 percentage points and we all know its an important state. It's those apples you don't like isn't it?
Abe Geronimo: got it. You and Tim are going to destroy the democratic party in order to save it.
Steve M:
Where in Illinois is that?
I am from northern Ill also, born and raised there. Actually, Fitzgerald's turf. I, too, will unconditionally oppose the smear politics. Obama has had a strange effect on me. I hated Bush, and I have come to hate Hillary, too, and cannot, will not support her when she wins the nom.
I'm not in Illinois now, but my fam still's up there. I intend to sit the Show out.
...this line from Obama supporters is absolutely LOATHSOME. I'm glad to see that your petty political narcissism is so great that you're willing to see your fellow progressives get truly fucked over. How god damn magnanimous. You're upper middle class, you're white, and you're straight. What the fuck do you have to lose?
Gee, make presumptions much?
Haha, I have to say this:
Stop swearing and offer some grown up arguments.
is hilarious considering it comes directly after this:
You know, you Obama supporters are getting on my nerves. It is true, you are all popular jock wannabes. You tried to get into a fraternity but could be accepted only in band. Stop swearing and offer some grown up arguments.
Andrew,
What would Hillary be doing tonight if she'd won South Carolina? Would she be in Florida, or would she be in New York/California/somewhere-else-that-matters? You don't go celebrate a victory that you didn't work a second for unless you just want to convince the world that you've got something to celebrate.
Wow...Matt is suddenly as petty as the Obama man himself.
Sad.
Why everyone thinks that being called a Democrat makes you a Democrat is beyond me. Case in point is Lieberman. Me thinks there is even a fable about wolf and sheep.
Perhaps Hillary would be a fine Democrat. Her behavior in regards to seating the Florida delegates after agreeing not to seat them smacks of a power move and belies her true moral standing: Lying Down.
Next time you are playing a game with rules, try changing them in a way that transparently helps you in winning - see how many friends that makes you. For those of us who desire a moral character for the Democratic Presidential Nominee, voting for someone who has shown a willingness to do anything to win goes against that, even if all else Hillary is honky dory. At least with McCain you have a good idea of what you are going to get. Hillary makes it clear that she will be/do whatever it takes to win.
Enough with the scorched earth policies - we can vote Republican to get that.
smm55 - what you and other die-hard Democrats cannot fathom is that this whole realpolitik bullshit within the parties cannot change until people are ready to vote their consciences, rather than vote for whom the ward captains tell them. I am well aware that this is a revolutionary point, to say that even though I'm progressive-minded and tolerant, etc., and even though I loathe the current Supreme Court, I will nonetheless write OBAMA on the fricking machine in pencil or vote for Bloomberg or the equivalent of UNCOMMITTED (which may mean staying home) before I vote for HRC - even if by my doing so I increase the chances that some other people succeed in electing a somewhat pompous but disciplined Romney or a somewhat deluded but otherwise honorable McCain to office. Neither of them is nearly as crazy or narcisistic as Giuliani, or as phony as Edwards. They don't really scare me as people or make me queasy with their oiliness. HRC scares me AND makes me physically ill with shame for my country. That's a price I will not pay for what I can only imagine would be four to eight years of mostly empty rhetoric and the unguaranteed prospect of progress on a couple of social issues.
At some point, you have to hold candidates and parties responsible for the quality of their offerings, and HRC is not even close to worthy in my book. As crazy as you may think it sounds, I am an independent and character matters to me, especially for the office of the President, and I would much, much rather have McCain or Romney in office for 4 years, followed by another run by Obama or someone like him, rather than allow the Clinton machine to continue to dominate the more progressive of our two parties with their conniving nonsense for one more day.
These Clinton supporters are so fucking obnoxious. And they wonder why people hate their candidate so much.
This thread cracks me up.
Hillary Clinton had an impressive showing in an uncontested election. It's nice that Hillary Clinton is famous.
If the Florida Democratic party wants to have a real primary election some time soon, I'm sure Obama and Clinton and Edwards would be very pleased to run and the Democratic party would be overjoyed to seat the resulting delegates. Until that time, why don't we respect the rules everyone agreed to?
Zach: fair question. If Hillary Clinton had won South Carolina, I think the chances are she'd be seen as a clear front runner - not a certain nominee, but the likely candidate. As it is, she and Senator Obama are in a scrap, likely well into the spring. Lots can happen between then and now.
I still turn back to the point that 2 million Democrats voted in the primary. Had they been told, by the candidates as well as the DNC, that their votes count for nothing, how many of them would want to come out in November? Having a million people turn out and vote for you is something to celebrate in my book.
Had Obama won the greatest number of votes in Florida tonight, I have no doubt that he'd have found a way to let people know he was happy about it. No doubt, he'd have done so more gracefully than the Clinton campaign was able to do - in general, I think that the Obama campaign manages the optics better than their rivals.
I'm with Jasper, BTW, that Obama has greater upside and downside than Senator Clinton. If he wins, he wins big - but he could also lose big. The remaining primary voters will have their say on whether the Democratic party wants to take that bet.
It's alright Michael C. You go ahead and keep believing it was Obama who campaigned in Florida, when it was actually Hillary sending out mailers there. Or that Hillary won a state she didn't campaign in by 20 points, when she actually DID campaign there, while no one else did due to the DNC's ruling. Because that obviously couldn't have had an impact on the way Florida voted, could it?
Christ. You Clintonistas will do anything to spin Hillary's B.S., won't you?
I'd like to push for the reinstatement of the NFL pre-season games. The New England Patriots are not, in fact, undefeated this season. They've lost to the Titans and Bucs. The Miami Dolphins remain the only team with a perfect record for an entire season. Huzzah!
Perhaps Hillary would be a fine Democrat. Her behavior in regards to seating the Florida delegates after agreeing not to seat them smacks of a power move and belies her true moral standing: Lying Down.
Hillary did not agree "not to seat" the delegates. This was a decision handed down by the Democratic National Committee. What Hillary agreed to was to refrain from campaigning. She kept that pledge, although supporters of both her campaign and Senator Obama's did indeed engage in some campaigning.
Why shouldn't Clinton's campaign advocate a rules change? She certainly didn't promise to refrain from proposing rules changes beneficial to her campaign and that of the eventual nominee (which, after all could well be Obama).
Bottom line: her campaign is trying to play this situation to Hillary's benefit. As well they ought to. The ability to be creative, to be resourceful, to think several steps ahead, and to engage in clever strategizing are strengths I want to see in the eventual nominee. But then again, I'm just a crazy person who really really wants the Democrats to win in November.
Why is it that Hillary supporters employ such bad grammar, poor spelling, and faulty logic? See: Michael C, Gaspar, and Jasper.
Fucking idiots (right, Gaspar?)
The ability to be creative, to be resourceful, to think several steps ahead, and to engage in clever strategizing are strengths I want to see in the eventual nominee. But then again, I'm just a crazy person who really really wants the Democrats to win in November.
That is fine - by any means necessary. But what you get at the end may not be what you thought started with. Especially if start with that philosophy at a higher level and say:
It would be a great strategy to tell the democrats what they want to hear to get them to vote for me.
I think it would be a disaster for the Democrats to nominate a young, inexperienced, no-foreign policy experience community organizer (Obama) against such a old, serious war-house like McCain. And look at the way McCain ran against Romney in Florida -- one of the dirtiest campaigning I've seen to date (putting Romney's face on Kerrey's body and calling him a flip flopper, intentional inaccuracies re Romney's record, etc. etc.). Obama keeps talking about getting the independents -- well, they're all going to vote for McCain! Also, McCain is weak on the economy and health care, where Clinton is strong. Clinton can blunt to some degree McCain's experience and foreign policy experience and then come out stronger on the economy and health care.
My prediction (as I stated on this blog four months ago) is that it's going to be Clinton with Bill Richardson as her running mate, to try to shore up the Hispanic vote in Florida and elsewhere.
BTW -- Obama is on record as supporting talking to Fidel Castro and opening up relations with Cuba. While that may be rationale policy (I've always thought our foreign policy with respect to Cuba was absurd), his views will definitely lose Florida for us.
Obama has offered nothing throughout this campaign except for "hope" and "new era".
Obama is also a liar. Here is a video posted on Matt's blog:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/because_she_asked.php
Listen and weep!
O my gosh! Obama lies? That can't be!
Shorter ken mellman: yah, boo!
firebrand: this from the NY Times: "[S]upporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama worked hard to get their voters to the polls to make a symbolic show of strength." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30dems.html
Pretty balanced article - quotes from both campaigns, and some good quotes from two voters:
"But no matter what happens at the convention, voters here on Tuesday were determined to make their choices felt.
Ruth Weiss, 80, a transplanted New Yorker who lives in Sunrise Lakes, said she cast her ballot for Senator Clinton. “It probably will count eventually, and this is an indication of who we think should be president,” she said of herself and her husband, Manny, who also voted for Mrs. Clinton.
William Perry, 77, of Lauderhill, called the state and national parties’ spat “stupid.”
“Why punish your own party?” he said. “It doesn’t make sense.”
He said he had been vacillating between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama but decided in the last two days to support Mr. Obama."
A major element I do not hear from the Clinton Camp is how she was "fighting" for the rights of Florida Democrats prior to the clear evidence that South Carolina was going to be brutal for her.
I suppose the timing of her "fighting" was really part of her clever strategy.
Sounds like throwing the FL Dems to the wolves so you can rescue them "just in time".
Clever? or Manipulative? Ask the Evangelicals how they feel after being used by Bush to garner votes for 8 years.
Tim--
A couple of social issues? Casually dismiss what are, to millions of people, issues of substantive rights and benefits all to uphold YOUR sense of honor. Let me guess---you're a college educated, gainfully employed, white, heterosexual. What do you have to lose? We easily forget how this logic fucked us all back in 2000--how issues were discounted for some misplaced sense of honor and purity.
Or that Hillary won a state she didn't campaign in by 20 points, when she actually DID campaign there, while no one else did due to the DNC's ruling. Because that obviously couldn't have had an impact on the way Florida voted, could it?
firebrand: Both campaigns wanted this one -- and both had independent supporters doing their damnedest to prevail; don't kid yourself: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/politics/27florida.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)
Even as Mr. Obama’s advisers have sought to play down the results, his campaign has bought television time on national networks that has been hard to miss on Florida television stations. Grass-roots groups who say they are operating independently of Mr. Obama’s headquarters in Chicago have also been organizing across the state, trying to encourage support for him. Terry Watson, who heads one of the grass-roots groups, said his organization handed out thousands of leaflets promoting Mr. Obama and asked Floridians to vote for him at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in St. Petersburg last Monday. Mr. Watson said his group was “the largest grass-roots organization” in the state and was preparing to help Mr. Obama should he win the presidential nomination.
Obama didn't manage a win even with a monopoly on television advertising. Granted, the demographics of Florida are far more favorable to Clinton. But then again, so are most of the Super Tuesday states.
Ken Mellman,
I know the words "hope" and "new era" make you feel better when you look in the mirror and see you fat ugly self. That won't make a difference though. You will still be left with words and no plan or action on how to make a better "you" You have to be competent and determined to change yourself from Frankenstein to "Franken-fine".
Keep loving Obama while sitting in front of you old shitty TV chowing down the tub of ice cream you fat ass!
this is truly unbelievable to me. people are admitting on this thread that they have been thoroughly brainwashed by the msm to loathe hillary clinton. obama comes from the chicago/daley machine, yet clinton is the one who "will do anything to win". the double standard for senator clinton is truly mind boggling.
i also find it amazing that obama's campaign actually peddled the line that they had no control over the ads being played in florida. that is utter bull. individual television and radio stations can easily independently program what goes out over their signal. a national ad buy actually purchases ad time at an individual station. no money to the station, no national ad and a local ad is easily substituted by computer to go out over the signal. the excuse that the ads "had" to play in florida because they were "national" is pure bull.
And shorter Gaspar: boo!
Let's step back for a second. The Washington Post has just pointed out that Clinton got more actual votes than McCain - in a "worthless" victory. Looks to me like the energy in the Democratic races is still there.
And, in case people have overlooked this, the Republicans are about to tear themselves apart over their own nomination. McCain, an authentic conservative with no economic credentials, wins among moderates and people who care most about the economy. Romney, a moderate panderer who's kept alive by his own checks, is the choice of the majority of conservatives. Limbaugh and DeLay threaten hostile fire if McCain's the nominee.
So why call down mortar fire on your own positions? There's a kind of twisted, Marx Brothers logic, I guess, about both the main party candidates having folks in their own party swear they'll have nothing to do with them. Funny way to run a railroad, though.
Oh, and Obama's people did not campaign for him in Florida?
Look at this:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-29_unite_flier_fl_1.jpg
Andrew, you must not have seen the movie "Dodgeball" :)
finally, what am i to make of people who claim that they would rather vote for mccain than hillary if obama is not the nominee? sounds to me like there are a bunch of moles who are calling themselves democrats for obama who want both parties to nominate a candidate they can vote for, which is not really how an adversarial system is supposed to work. why should i believe that any of them wouldn't vote for mccain even if obama is the nominee? that doesn't exactly inspire confidence among fellow democrats and is actually a better argument for obama to run as an independent or third party candidate than as a democrat. i mean honestly, if he really means to transcend politics as usual, shouldn't he just form his own party?
I think that the reason why Obama supporters say they won't vote for her is because they are probably new to politics and therefore feel they are not beholden to the democratic party.
This is my sixth presidential election, and my third involvement in the primaries (skipped the first three due to youthful inattentiveness, absentee hassles, & an incumbent POTUS, respectively), and I'm not "beholden" to the Democratic Party. Assuming you meant 'invested' instead... well, I'm rethinking that just as I'd rethink any associations with embarrassingly inept organizations. Most of us actually don't want to be affiliated with groups that are dull, shortsighted, and utterly lacking in vision at best. I'm not new to politics; I'm utterly fed up with the Democratic Party.
english teacher:
gud logic. Bad Capitalization.
Gaspar: nope. Sorry if I missed the reference. I did see "Blades Of Glory," if that helps.
Going to bed now. Hope the supporters of the Democratic party are still talking to each other in the morning.
I remember blithely thinking in 2000 that I'd prefer that Gore win, but with a recession looming, this might be an OK election to lose. Dopey me.
It will take a lot more than four years of another Republican president to destroy the US, but a lot of people will be a lot worse off for a lot longer than they need be, and a few well off people will end up much better off than they deserve to be.
Why supporters of the Democratic Party believe that's a decent outcome because their tender sensibilities have been bruised in a primary contest is quite beyond me.
Given the fact that Hillary is down there "thanking her supporters," it looks like she's thanking them for campaigning for her which is against the rules. Of course we all know the Clintons will do anything to win. It does sound well-organized and pre-planned..
Tamsin,
Which part of this picture did you not understand?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-29_unite_flier_fl_1.jpg
Various incarnations of Clinton supporters:
(1) The angry old-pro: "Don't you stoopid college kids realize that politicians are supposed to engage in putrid campaign tactics!?! That shows how "tough" they are! And how dare you refuse to support OUR asshole in November! She's got our letter after her name, for Christsakes!!!
(2) The whiny "victim" of identity politics: "Don't you see that Hillary is a WOMAN!?! We have to vote for her -- she has ovaries!!! If you don't vote for her, then you're a MYSOGYNIST!!! And nevermind the race-baiting, if we don't have Hillary, then the blacks, and the gays, and the women, and the hispanics, and the jews, etc., etc., etc., are all screwed. Ahhhhhh!!!
(3) The meme-spouting moron: "You guys are stoopid -- Obama's just sayin' stuff, he ain't actually gonna do nuthin'. Not like he's developed detailed and well thought-out policy proposals. And even if he has, I'm not lookin' 'em up. He's gotta say 'em into my ear when he's makin' a speech -- like a momma bird feeding a baby bird. And Hillary genuinely emphathizes with the voters of Florida -- loves 'em, really. Too much to follow the rules, in fact. And did you hear about Obama? He said he wanted to fellate Reagan -- honest to gawd."
smm55:
Glad you have a group you hold a grudge against too. Why you feel that Clinton is going to help, I am not sure.
What are your guarantees she gets anything done? Change? Maybe she can get the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy established for the whole country. It's all about the Supreme Courts?
And on top of it it - do we really need a president who stayed in a relationship where her spouse had non-sexual relationships with other partners? I would cotton that swinging is an acceptable life style and deserves respect. Absent that mutual decision, my few anecdotal experiences point to it being an unhealthy life style.
Andrew:
Why you assume the NAFTA committee will help more people get more... I am not totally sure. Rest well regardless.
The financial system has more power than any democrat or republican president can wield. All that whining Wall Street does is called posturing. Let me hear that Carter sob story one more time, please.
english teacher:
gud logic. Bad Capitalization.
==========
Elliotness- hilarious!
Good night guys! I am going to bed too. We Clinton supporters are actually productive and work in the morning.
You guys can keep smoking. You "ain't doing nuthin" tomorrow anyways!
I have to admit, this was fun though.
Also, smm55, didn't Bill Clinton vote FOR the DOMA?
Yes, Bill signed the DOMA into law in 1996. But hey, he's a Democrat, so he must be in favor of progressive policies, and so must be his wife, right? I mean, it's just that simple, right?
Yes, EXACTLY, tinisoli. That's the kind of stuff that drives me insane. You can imagine Bill reluctantly signed that into law, but hey, triangulation is just politics, and he didn't really mean it, you know?
Can't you imagine Hillary doing the same thing for expediency as well?
That's why smm55's raw-nerve defense of her is ... as bizzare as the NY NOW's defense of her. Cuckoo identity politics strangles the blood flow to the brain.
Wow. Another Obama voter for a century of warfare, and immigrant bashing, and right wing judges, and a tax code only Bill Gates could love, and eight more years of being the only rich country without national health insurance. I'm shocked!
So why can't we get behind a Democratic candidate we can ALL support? Wouldn't that solve the problem? I'm not understanding why it HAS to be Hillary Clinton, hell or highwater. You've been given valid reasons over and over why many DEMOCRATS won't support her. (My own is that I can't support dynastic politics.) I saw in one poll that number was as high as 20%.
You know how high her negatives are. You know independents won't vote for her. You know she has zero Republican crossover appeal. You know she is the only candidate on either side who will energize a demoralized Republican electorate.
And yet..
Instead of giving Democrats a positive reason to vote for her, the Clinton campaign just went negative in an effort to drive up the other candidates' negatives. How does that help any of us in general election?
Instead of winning on the merits, the Clinton campaign just pulls a double-cross on the other candidates with Michigan and Florida and expects the victims of the double-cross to smile and warmly fall in with the perpetrator of the double-cross. How does that help any of us in the general election?
Instead of Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh and other various and random blog commenters making the positive case for a Hillary Clinton candidacy, it's just non-stop spurious and misleading attacks. How does that help us in the general election?
I settled on supporting Barack Obama not too very long ago because of the swaths of new supporters he is attracting: disaffected Republicans, independents, young voters, idealists. I am intrigued by the possibility of working for more than just a 50+1 electoral result that is decided by hijinks in Ohio and Florida. I confess to wanting to try running against the Iraq debacle that 70% of Americans hate with a candidate who actually opposed it, calling it "stupid".
Folks are seeing the possibilities with Obama. His campaign events are humongous events, no one else is even close to his turnouts. Outside of a core diehard group, Edwards supporters (I was one in 2004) are peeling off slowly but surely to get on the Obama train.
In fact, we'd practically have a MOVEMENT in this country but, inexplicably, Clinton supporters are blocking it. So just to be clear, it's not Obama supporters who are preventing the national resurgence of the Democratic party, it's Clinton supporters for not rallying around a candidate we can ALL support. The writing is clearly on the wall but you refuse to read it.
Let's also remember HRC's pathetic, pandering attempt to make flag burning a crime.
And the Kyl-Lieberman bill, too, which essentially could've been used to bomb Iran if only that pesky NIE hadn't come out and exposed Bush's warnings as just another version of the mushroom cloud bullshit from 2003.
Hillary and her supporters:
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
so clinton "triangulates" and "panders" but obama has "crossover appeal". double standards abound among obama supporters, that's for sure.
Consider the symbolic issues that reveal the political unconscious of the parties. I never really got the animus that conservatives felt toward McCain for the campaign finance reform. True, I should know more about it. But cons always frame is as a betrayal of free speech.
Ironic, free speech to the cons is about what isn't free, money.
To me, the concomitant betrayal of free speech on Hillary's side (god the pandering!) is flag burning, which you just brought up. Here, it's about actual speech, the right to dissent.
To me, it seems revealing; Dems value dissent and plurality of political voice, cons value the right to speak with one's wallet. Doesn't that right there show the way 'speech' is framed in the two collective minds? Fascinating.
It's a minor issue, but I'm glad you brought it up. I get so goddamned mad when I think about it... I just can't stand her lack of principle. Richardson's quote about Obama and the debate today, can you imagine Hillary doing that? I can't either.
Unfortunately, however, don't the polls show Hillary beating Obama in Super Tuesday?
If that's the case, it's Hillary as the candidate, right?
Which means it's McCain vs Clinton, right?
Which means war in Iran either sooner (McCain) or later (Clinton) - but guaranteed either way.
Ditto Pakistan.
And of course, neither one will get the troops out of Iraq before 2013 - or a hundred years from 2013.
So who's happy tonight?
English teacher:
Make an argument that Clinton hasn't pandered? Give me a break! on her Iraq war vote, on the flag burning, on DOMA - I mean really, these are core values we're talking about.
Defend her. I'll listen.
RSH: (I visited your site. You're way out there in Cali)
I, for one, am not happy tonight. We're certainly stuck in the forever war. To prove her toughness, Hillary will never bring the troops home, right or wrong. She wants to be a two termer.
I think Hillary wins the Presidency, myself, but is only a one termer as the entire nation harbors a malignant dislike of her and Fox works full time to pin the recession and the return of Iraq's body counts (the Surge is ending now) on her shoulders.
Former Clintonite, Simon Rosenberg:
But there is a line in politics where tough and determined becomes craven and narcissistic, where advocacy becomes spin, and where integrity and principle is lost. I am concerned that this Florida gambit by the Clinton campaign is once again putting two of my political heroes too close - or perhaps over - that line.
where was all this whinging when Michigan Democrats caucused?
crickets
i did not say clinton does not "pander". i am simply saying that obama "panders" just as much as she does, except when obama does it is called "crossover appeal". i said there is a double standard. try responding to what i said if you want to have a discussion. don't put words in my mouth and tell me to defend something i did not say.
obama is a machine backed, calculating politician who has had presidential ambitions for a long time. that is true of every candidate. it is not a flaw, although people who support obama want to say it is when applied to senator clinton. obama gets a pass on being ambitious, calculating, and willing to do what it takes to win, yet for hillary it is a major "problem" and goes to her "character". that is a double standard.
So I ask you:
How has Obama pandered on free speech?
How has he race-baited?
i swear to god people say the dumbest things. the florida legislature moved the primary, not the dnc. the dnc said we will punish florida because of what republicans in the legislature did. the primary is held. clinton wins big. clinton thanks those who voted for her and promises to do what she can to have the delegates seated. any candidate faced with that scenario would do the exact same thing. yet when the clintons do what any rational person would do, it is a "gambit" that "crosses the line". the hyperbole aimed at senator clinton is simply astounding. more than that, it is simply stupid. no democrat who wins florida would just take a shit on those electoral votes. that would be stupid, but that is what people think clinton should do.
i know you will not take my word for it, but i saw an article today which quoted obama from september, when the dnc made its' decision on the florida delegates, in which he said that if he were the nominee, he would fight to have the delegates seated. but that doesn't matter. it doesn't fit the narrative.
grabbit, are you going to vote for obama in the general election if he is the democratic nominee? yes or no? I AM AND WILL BE GLAD TO. yes or no, are you going to vote for him?
obama is pandering to clinton haters big time. tell me i'm wrong.
I'd vote for Obama, yes.
I don't know what "Obama is pandering to Clinton haters" means.
I see Obama as talking in lofty, sugary rhetoric about transcending political dualities. Not about hate or even Clinton so much. There might be the occasional reference, but his theme is this larger Hope, not the sequel of Hope from Arkansas.
will you vote for the democratic nominee regardless, even if it is clinton?
would you vote for obama if he is opposed by mccain?
At this point, I'd be hard pressed to. I dislike Clinton's ravenous ambition. It's so hard to stomach. So no, I don't think so. I saw your earlier post about moles. I suppose you'd label me as such. I wouldn't know how to characterize myself.
I certainly am pro-gay marriage, flag-burning, free markets, likely a hawk (but not a psycho like Giuliani or the neo-cons - hopefully a more responsible and prudent one), pro-debt balancing.
I greatly fear universal health care, though. I think however bad it is now, it will be a disaster if enacted by the Dems.
I also can't see bringing home the troops this Pres term. Doesn't make sense to me. We're stuck there for a decade or more, I think.
So what am I? I don't know.
I just can't bring myself to reward someone so divisive and personally unappealing. Plus, her particular history of pandering is so ... repellent, see the examples I listed above.
I don't think Bill was all that great a Pres, either.
you see obama talking in lofty rhetoric about transcending political dualities, i see a lot of bullshit.
the right does not want to transcend political dualities. an earlier poster describe enthusiasm for obama as a "movement". yet, the recent conservative ascendancy was also described as a "movement". so what is being transcended here? i don't want a movement. i'm not signing up for that, and if you think the right wing in this country, particularly the right wing media, will sign up for it, well that is just a pipe dream. sorry, but you are being naive as is obama.
didn't bush also claim to be a "uniter". how did that turn out? rhetorical question: he united the conservative movement. obama is spinning a fairy tale if he thinks he will have the lasting support of crossover republicans. in fact, now that mccain is the apparent republican nominee, i would wager there will be a drop off in support for obama as they basically appeal to some of the same voters. think about how many times you have seen or heard someone say they will vote for mccain if clinton is the nominee. how do you know they will not vote for mccain if clinton is not the nominee?
Well, I agree pretty much that Obama is not going to be able to be some sort of uniter.
Kevin Drum has written a bunch of posts lately on how Americans WANT polarization because they really do disagree on how run the country.
I would vote for Obama not because I think his rhetoric would be magically actualized, but because, sadly, I see him as a better person than Hillary.
He is very intelligent, learned, and appears to have a strong sense of decency to him. He seems humane and prudent.
I think if he really believes his rhetoric, he's a fool. I think maybe he just thinks that Americans are exhausted with the Clintonian/Bush politics of hate and partisanry. Let me tell ya, English teach, I am. I really am. Hillary loves herself a good, rancorous fight. That much is clear.
Well, I don't like it. It's disgusting to me. Sausage making and all that. Bush has nauseated me about being an American. Watching Bill at work has burnt me out on being an American, period. THIS is our elder statesman? It is to weep.
I'd vote for Obama because I think he'd pull back on torture. Because he represents a shift away from dynasty and money, from Gores, Clintons, and Bushes. Enough with all that.
Can you see this much, at least? Can you grok this weariness, at least, if not agree with it?
well of course i can certainly understand those arguments. however, i see the ultimate cause of "clinton fatigue" to be the media itself. i also blame the media for enabling the excesses of the bush administration which you so rightly decry.
i think an obama presidency would simply be an invitation for a whole new round of scandal mongering by the media. see rezko, for example. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF OBAMA IS CLEAN HERE. i don't know if he is or isn't. i hope he is. but the media will never let that one go. if you think whitewater was bad, what are they going to do with rezko. the election of hillary clinton, however, would send a definite message to the media to stop manipulating our politics. the media needs to be transcended here. electing another clinton would, i think be a giant "fuck you" to the media from the electorate. that, to me, is the issue that obama's candidacy simply ignores.
anyway, good talking to you. i'm out...
I love the intra-party bickering. But let's remember who the enemy is-it isn't Clinton or Obama. Come November, it's whoever the hell the republican candidate is. So please, don't get too pissy about the contest for the democratic candidate-you might lose sight of the real stakes in this election.
And by the way, as a sidethought, there was a meaningless Democratic primary contest yesterday in a state where all the candidates had campaigned the same amount, except for Obama, who ran national TV that played in the state while nobody else did.
In this meaningless contest in the nation's most important electoral swing state, 1.7 million Florida Democrats cast meaningless Presidential ballots yesterday, with Hillary Clinton receiving just over 50% of the meaningless vote. Clinton received over 850,000 meaningless Florida votes herself, which is a little over 78% of the total number of votes Obama has received in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida combined.
Just for a meaningless haha, since all the candidates took a relatively equal campaigning shot at Florida, if we combine Florida's meaningless vote with the actual vote counts in the other primaries and the caucuses (but leaving out Michigan, where some candidates weren't on the ballot), Clinton now has received about 11% more total votes nationally than has Obama. But most of them are meaningless and it's just hilarious to imagine that Clinton actually went down to that state last night to speak to those meaningless 1.7 million Democratic voters. What a laugh we kool kidz are having over that!
(By the way, LBJ ('64), Hubert Humphrey ('72), George McGovern ('72), Jimmy Carter ('80), and Teddy Kennedy ('80) all played delegate-count hardball over rules fights at their conventions, so if we're going to kick Bill and Hillary Clinton into the political wilderness for this "sin" then we have to kick those dudes, too, if we're gonna be consistent. So with not much recent history left, why don't we change the party's name, like maybe to some kind of sleek animal that projects vibrancy and dynamism and sex appeal, like the Gazelle Party, or maybe something futuristic-sounding, like Plasmeon? Yeah?)
My god, Trickster, what are you doing up at this hour?
Trickster's got a point. They've got a history of gaming the system. They really are corrupt. Let 'em lost 08. Sit this one out. Hillary is part of a venal tradition, otherwise the Democrats will never learn.
grabbitt: Yeah, I got Clinton being a "one termer", too. In fact, I got either McCain or Clinton being one termers.
I guess Matt can start handicapping who's gonna be the Prez in 2013 now - get an early start on the rest of the pundits.
One termer for the same reasons? Fall guy for recession and/or Iraq?
I love to see the Obama supporters engaging in what is essentially political blackmail--vote for my candidate or we're going to screw you come November. What a truly unifying message, rising above the din of partisan politics.
That one won the thread, folks. Further comment was superfluous.
Anyone who would vote Obama but who stays home b/c Hillary's the nominee, is not a Democrat.
To Jaspers and Anderson and others...
As an Obama Supporter, I am:
1. Not a political Neophyte. I've followed politics long before I had the chance to vote. I know what I'm doing.
2. I'm not cultish. I do not love Obama in any starry eyed way. I admire him and think that he is a great candidate.
3. I do not hate Hilary, but I do think she is not a politician that I can support. The reasons why I don't support her is that I believe than a Hilary Clinton administration, were she to win (which I tend to think is questionable even if I would change my mind and vote for her) would do for the Democratic party as Bush Jr. has done for the Republicans--namely trash the party so much that it has lost all of its principles and core senses of value. Thus, and I'm looking at you Anderson, when you say that if we would vote for Obama, but not Clinton, we are not Democrats, you are being very short-sighted. We can still be democrats and think that Hilary is an awful candidate who doesn't represent the core values of the Democratic party we feel a part of. Thus, not voting for her doesn't mean that we aren't Democrats.. it just means that we are not Clintonists...
In a similar fashion, if you were a Republican who didn't vote for Dubya in 2000 or 2004, because you didn't think he was a good representative of the Republican Party--does that mean you aren't a Republican? I don't think so. Parties are more than just the current candidate that they offer up..
4. Another specific point: Another Obama voter for a century of warfare, and immigrant bashing, and right wing judges, and a tax code only Bill Gates could love, and eight more years of being the only rich country without national health insurance. I'm shocked!
Problem I have with this statement is that on a number of these points (warfare, tax code) I seriously don't trust Hilary to do the right thing. Her behavior over these past years speaks more loudly than the words she currently uses to try to get the nomination and thus I cannot trust her to do what she now says she will.. (although she still hedges on the war anyway..) Thus, it is not naievete or spite that keeps me from voting for her, but rather the fact that I do not trust her flat out and she is not doing anything now to alleviate that distrust. One can always try to make the argument that "But, you know, her opponents are 100% evil, while she's only 75%... " but that's not enough for me anymore... At this point, I'd rather rid the party I've voted for for nearly 20 years get rid of this kind of thing and accept the greater consequences for the country than to prolong this continual political degredation.
5. Speaking about greater consequences.. I also sincerely believe that even if most democratic Obama supporters did vote for Hilary, that her very candidacy would probably doom the party's chances anyway by the effect it would have on the Republican base and the lack of effect in bringing in new young voters. Obama's candidacy, one could claim, would do the same thing.. but I don't think that the facts back this up... Obama does have the ability of attracting Republicans and new voters, while also not being fundamentally out of line with core democratic values such that it would push away the democratic base. Strategically, it would thus be much smarter to go with Obama...
If Clinton is the nominee, I will first hope for Bloomberg to run, barring that will vote Republican for the first time ever.
I will do this because I know McCain or Romney is at least as honorable as the Clintons, would likely nominate centrist judges, and can do no worse than Clinton on the economy.
I will also throw my heart and soul into electing solid progressive members to Congress to rid that body of the cancer that is both party politics over good governance.
I have come to believe there is a different way to govern ourselves and I know the Clintons will not deliver that to me.
.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Please read the blogging comments of Lisa and Jason C. on Ross Douthat's prompt "Kennedy Vs. Nixon." This is the best analysis of the Democratic race.
Comments closed February 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Oh snap!
Posted by Christopher M | January 29, 2008 8:36 PM