Apparently Hillary Clinton's campaign can't get through a day without picking out some new set of states that don't count.
« Predictions Hard, Especially About the Future | Main | A Different World »
Second-Class
18 Feb 2008 02:41 pm
Comments (84)
Gee, does this mean HRC won't be campaigning for "second-class" delegates here in Texas?
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession.
Another day, another thick headed Hillary surrogate comment. These people really don't get it, do they? They're absolutely clueless.
What exactly is the point of this type of spin from HRC? I genuinely don't understand it anymore. It seems like the sort of thing you try early for a bit and then drop. I don't think of HRC's campaign staff as stupid, so I assume there is some advantage, to be claimed down the line, that I'm not seeing.
What an ass. The next logical step would be to take the states that do count and secede from the Union.
All I can say is we might be watching the worst run campaign ever to win the nomination.
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out
Another clueless dolt heard from. Should the blogosphere and media simply ignore these comments, Tim? Get a grip.
To paraphrase:
Those of you who might be running on the democratic ticket for Governor, US Congress/Senate, State Congress/Senate, etc....who live in a red state....don't count on the Clinton campaign spending any time or resources campaigning in your state.
If there is a more effective method of driving red state super delegates into the Obama camp, I can't think of it.
> What exactly is the point of this type of spin
> from HRC? I genuinely don't understand it anymore.
> It seems like the sort of thing you try early for
> a bit and then drop. I don't think of HRC's
> campaign staff as stupid, so I assume there is
> some advantage, to be claimed down the line, that
> I'm not seeing.
It is based on the assumption that we go into the convention for all practical purposes tied (+/- 100 say). Helps to position the insiders, traditional media, DLCers, etc for the argument that the supers should pick Hillary because votes for her count more.
I am still curious to know if Senator Clinton's campaign is suggesting that a Candidate Obama would lose California, New York, or Illinois. If not seems to me that Missouri, Virginia, maybe even Kansas are more important. Guess that is why I am not paid $2 million/year like Mark Penn.
Cranky
Tim K, of all people said : it's beginning to border on obsession.
he uses irony the way John Goodman uses Charmin.
Never let a pollster be the campaign strategist.
Jose:
Well I think we've heard plenty about these sorts of comments on this particular blog. What we haven't heard anything about on this blog is Obama's lifting of rhetoric from Gov. Deval Patrick.
If you're going to defend the power of rhetoric, shouldn't you at least come up with your own? Or at least have the integrity to attribute your source?
As for Matt, this just continues a pattern of being an apologist for Barack Obama and omitting stories that are not favorable to his preferred candidate.
As for Matt, this just continues a pattern of being an apologist for Barack Obama and omitting stories that are not favorable to his preferred candidate.
You should totally punish Yglesias by not reading and not commenting. That would completely destroy him.
What exactly is the point of this type of spin from HRC?
Well, as the more "electable" candidate (who's actually losing the election), she will still be able to beg for $$ without being laughed at - and they've decided that short term calculus is worth insulting millions of democrats across the country.
Of course, if you're at all critical of her and Mark Penn's strategy, you're a cultist under the hypnotic sway of the second coming, or something like that.
All non-cultists love everything about her and think she's doing a great job.
SomeCallmeTim:
Typical of an Obama supporter you prefer only to be exposed to uncritical praise of your candidate without having to read a different view.
That's a fairytale.
I call it the super duper reverse pyschology woe-is-me strategy. It works thusly: Clinton campaign advisors and surrogates say things that are so incredibly tone-deaf and idiotic that people get angry at them. Upon further reflection, electorate begins to feel sorry for Senator Clinton because she has to put up with such incompetent campaign staff. People feeling sorry for Senator Clinton = more votes!!
That's a fairytale.
If this was a fairy tale, you'd have STFU already. Unless it was the original German version, I suppose.
It's getting pretty hard to defend Hillary's campaign. But I still like Hillary Clinton the individual -- call it corny, but I just really identify with her and respect her on some level (even though I am a young male and am far more progressive than she is). I am still going to defend her, and try to make reasonable arguments on her behalf. But when the campaign is over, and she ultimately loses (which I think she probably will), I hope more is written about this dynamic -- the fact that her campaign is shitty but a lot of people actually like HER.
Hillary Clinton could still win this nomination, but it will most certainly be *in spite* of her campaign strategy. I doesn't seem that 130 million buys you very much competence these days.
I call it the super duper reverse pyschology woe-is-me strategy.
It's so dumb it makes my head hurt.
SoCalJustice nails it:
Well, as the more "electable" candidate (who's actually losing the election), she will still be able to beg for $$ without being laughed at
I am beginning to think that Andy Kaufman is alive and running HRC's campaign. This is completely performance theater at this point.
So I guess this confirms it: not only is Hillary not capable of carrying any downballot candidates in red states, she's not even interested in trying.
How exactly does she think she's supposed to win over the hearts of superdelegates with these kinds of tactics? Her campaign is just getting beyond absurd.
Tim K.:
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession.
On the contrary, it's impressive that Matt can keep up with the Clinton campaign's daily faux pases.
Tim K.:
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession.
On the contrary, it's impressive that Matt can keep up with the Clinton campaign's daily faux pases.
It's about time to rename this blog The Obama Echo Chamber.
without having to read a different view
Tim K: Is that what that was, a different view? Oh, and I thought it was just stream of consciousness crap spewing from your ass.
Jose:
Are you even capable of saying anything substantive?
Why doesn't Hillary just get Isiah Thomas to be her campaign manager already? The Knicks seem to be run better than this.
It's about time to rename this blog The Obama Echo Chamber.
Isn't that douche Taylor Marsh looking for you?
Shamelssly stolen from the Politico's comments:
Ready to surrender red states on day one
And to the person who said this will be the worst campaign to win the nomination: Have you forgotten John Kerry so soon? Or was that the worst campaign after the nomination?
Maybe Matt (and others) will stop harping on it when the Clinton campaign stops saying it. On an almost daily basis they're saying that certain states are irrelevant and should be outright ignored by the Democratic Party, and it's obnoxious.
Those of you who might be running on the democratic ticket for Governor, US Congress/Senate, State Congress/Senate, etc....who live in a red state....don't count on the Clinton campaign spending any time or resources campaigning in your state.
To be fair, they probably don't want Clinton campaigning in their states.
Jose, why do you even comment at all? The only thing you add to the discussion is bile.
Are you even capable of saying anything substantive?
Sure, Tim-O, but it's just sooo much more fun to harangue humorless dipshits like you.
Are you even capable of saying anything substantive?
Sure, Tim-O, but it's just sooo much more fun to harangue humorless dipshits like you.
Ryan: I hope more is written about this dynamic -- the fact that her campaign is shitty but a lot of people actually like HER.
Yeah I think that's why she has gotten the support she's gotten, but the more people get to know Obama, the better he does.
I just don't like Clintonian politics. As a commenter at the Ben Smith's Politico blog wrote about the subject at hand:
Classic dismissive Clitnonian politics. Wedge, wedge, wedge, spin, spin, manipulate, insult, belittle. If Clinton gets to be nominee I swear the Democratic party is doomed for ever.
Well are these ignorant comments of yours supposed to be part of the "different kind of politics"?
I make no claim to be affiliated with Barack Obama in any way, Tim-O, so for you to somehow infer that my calling out of you and your bullshit somehow denigrates the man or his positions...well, given your prior "reasoning", I suppose that makes sense in your warped little world. You are hilarious, dude.
Jose:
Give me a break. Not only are you being juvenile but your claim to somehow being impartial is just disingenuous.
I hope more is written about this dynamic -- the fact that her campaign is shitty but a lot of people actually like HER.
Sure, but doesn't it say something about her that she allows her campaign to be run this way? Is there really that big of a difference between Hillary's surrogates constantly insulting people and Hillary doing it herself? When it happens over and over and over again it becomes difficult to argue that it isn't part of an intentional strategy obviously approved by Hillary herself.
To use the old sports metaphor, I think teams tend to adopt the personality of their coach. Likewise, organizations tend to reflect the personalities of their leaders. And as such, I tend to believe Hillary's campaign reflects the personality of Hillary.
but your claim to somehow being impartial is just disingenuous.
How about your claim to being informed?
Well I never made any claim to being informed so that's a non sequitur.
I think it's obvious to everyone you're not interested in having an informed discussion, only school yard taunts.
I think it's obvious to everyone you're not interested in having an informed discussion, only school yard taunts
Fuck off, Timmeh. No, really: fuck off. Troll another blog, because you've established yourself as an asshole, and you're doing your best to spare us a second opinion.
Some of you Obama supporters are foaming at the mouth, really. Almost Certifiable.
Tim K. when your opening comment is
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession.
You should expect to get insulted in turn.
When the only defense of the Clinton campaign is "why does everyone keep pointing out how stupid they are?" the gig is up.
Well I never made any claim to being informed so that's a non sequitur.
I think it's obvious to everyone you're not interested in having an informed discussion, only school yard taunts.
If you, Tim K, purport to want to have "an informed discussion," does that not imply that you consider yourself "informed"? How would you be able to participate in such a discussion if you were not?
And I suppose this was meant to be the start of that discussion: "And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession."
I find your diagnosis of obsession hardly credible. Matthew's behavior appears, on present evidence, neither involuntary nor irrational. Rather, Matthew is a political blogger doing his job. In much the same way, you are a Clinton sycophant doing your job. We all have our roles to play.
Tim K, Random Capitalization does not make your statement any more True. It really doesn't. It just makes you look even more like a douchebag than your previous statements have, an accomplishment I didn't think was humanly possible.
You can't get more ironic than being accused of being a sycophant by an Obama supporter.
Some of you Obama supporters are foaming at the mouth, really. Almost Certifiable.
That's a variety of "informed discussion" I'm not familiar with.
Are you a paid troll, Timmeh? If so, you're not worth your $1.27/hr.
Nanney nanney boo boo!
I know you are but what am I?
I'm starting to miss the insightful commentary of Fred and Al. At least they know when to shut up.
Kevin:
If you were being at all consistent you would at least turn your attention to people who think words like "asshole" and "douchebag" belong as part of political dialogue before lecturing me.
now that Tim K has switched to talking only about pie, i like him a lot better.
I'm frankly embarrassed that I've allowed myself to become embroiled in this kind of mindless, undignified discussion. I apologize to some Obama supporters who frequent this blog with whom I've had intelligent exchanges of ideas and opinions. Unfortunately, some on this blog do not not subscribe to those high standards of debate. I will re-double my efforts to keep to substantive comments in the future and avoid being baited into those kind of personal attacks that have been hurled in every direction by some on this blog.
"Asshole" and "douchebag" can be perfectly acceptable within political dialogue. They're kind of hard to avoid when discussing that douchebag John McCain's mandatory asshole caps.
Jose writes:
Isn't that douche Taylor Marsh looking for you?
Ah, yes, the "casual poetry" of the Obama campaign. What a breath of fresh air!
Meanwhile, maybe somebody could explain how, in a close race, having Obama's margin of victory provided by Republican voters in open primary states is fair to real Democrats, or even ethical. Eh?
I understand that Ralph Nader's decision to run as a third party candidate in 2000 hurt Al Gore's chances to win the election. I also understand why a lot of democratic voters were upset at him considering how everything turned out. I get it. However, as a big fan of our constitutional democracy, I respected his right to run and I respect the votes he got as a protest candidate, even if it screwed all of us into an eight year Bush Jr administration.
This is what I don't understand...
What good could possibly come from Sen Clinton creating her own personal Nader for this particular campaign?
I don't expect a third party candidacy would emerge based on these primaries, nor should one. However, by her campaign belittling red state democrats, using racially tinged rhetoric in early primaries, dismissing some democratic primary voters in Rovian ways who turned up in democratic primaries specifically as a repudiation of the Karl Rove style of 50 + 1 politics... What do they hope to gain?
Ralph Nader got 2.73% of the total popular vote in the 2000 campaign. One can assume that most of those voters either came from the democratic base or from left leaning independents. Why... WHY would a campaign choose to create their own personal permanent imaginary Nader in primary, when one is not likely to exist in a general, when a seemingly undisputed high number of negatives already exist (based on a decades worth of polling)? Why?
It was already going to be a tough general election for her with the negatives so high, especially against an allegedly immigration sympathetic (as am I) Sen McCain, who gets some undeserved support amongst some independents... Even some left leaning ones. Do I think the negatives are completely deserved? No.
Do I think there are massive policy differences between Sen Clinton and Sen Obama? No, I absolutely do not.
Do I think that the country would be generally better off for four years if a democrat were to win? Yes I do.
So someone please tell me why that one of the two candidates for that position seems to be committing electoral suicide on a daily basis? This is killing me, especially from an electoral perspective when you look at Illinois.
Ok Tim K,
Here's why I do not think your preferred candidate is so exceptional as to merit my support:
Her policies are no different from any other Democratic candidate I could have supported. She is the Walmart of politics, nothing intrinsically unique but, until recently, was successful in muscling everyone out of her way. BTW, why does she never mention being on the board of Walmart when she goes all populist on us?
The sheer arrogance of her election strategy. It's like she took the worse parts of the Kerry campaign and said "Hey, let's do that." Like someone else said, how do you think red state dems feel about "state x doesn't matter because republicans will win it anyway?" What's next, "Obama shouldn't bother because a black man can't win." Not to sound like a kindergarden teacher, but you never know until you try. At the very least Obama can make McCain waste money in southern states that Clinton would never visit because she's already written them off. A democratic corpse will win CA, NY, and the other states that "matter." Is Hillary going to go get CO, KY, VA? We both know the answer to that. Dean's 50 state strategy is just starting to pay off and if we nominate Hillary, all that hard work and $$$ will be down the drain.
She complains about caucuses being disenfranchising and yet never spoke up about them until she lost. Further, she supported the Nevada lawsuit that was trying to shut the Strip caucus sites down. So that answer to partial disenfranchisment is complete disenfranchisment? Don't even get me started on FL and MI -- again, not a peep from her until she realized she was going to need the delegates.
Obama is outside the normally channels, he'll be beholden to fewer large interest because he has been able to raise $$$ in small chunks from regular people. I don't care if he gets up and reads selections from MLK's speeches, its the fact that he chooses to speak on the topics he speaks on that I like. Would you mind of Bush plagerized someone's plan to get out of Iraq? Didn't think so.
My $0.02
Tim K
Mediocre poets borrow. Great poets steal.
T. S. Eliot
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Tim K
Is like all I am seeing. I don't read your comments so you are making my scroll finger cramped. Get a grip buddy.
lambert strether:
So Obama should tell independents, who any dem will need in November, "Only those of you who can produce an autographed photo of Al Gore or Bill Clinton can vote in this primary." The only way to win votes that went to Bush in 04 in key states like FL and OH is to, you know, persuade them that you are the one to vote for.
If you were being at all consistent you would at least turn your attention to people who think words like "asshole" and "douchebag" belong as part of political dialogue before lecturing me.
I have read your comment, and have decided, after looking at all of your comments on this thread, starting with the first one, that your complaints are entirely without foundation.
By the way, my very first comment in this thread was this one. I have no idea who the other Kevin is.
Kevin:
Imagine my shock.
Once I was accosted by a Jehovah's Witness teenager on a cold winter's day in Toronto. I didn't want to stop, but she seemed to sad, and when I talked to her she said she had to get X people to give contact info before she could go home. So I did, just to help her get out of the cold.
Tim K: We're sycophants. We're Obamabots incapable of thinking clearly. We follow Matt in reflexively mocking Hillary (good thing her campaign supplies something new almost every day!). We are, as you say, certifiable.
You've done your job. You can go home now.
Hey, good questions, benniefly2.
Why, Hillary, why?!
Tim K: I am frankly embarassed (...)
and so he should be:
And apparently Matthew can't get through a day without pointing it out, it's beginning to border on obsession.
As for Matt, this just continues a pattern of being an apologist for Barack Obama and omitting stories that are not favorable to his preferred candidate.
Typical of an Obama supporter you prefer only to be exposed to uncritical praise of your candidate without having to read a different view.
That's a fairytale.
It's about time to rename this blog The Obama Echo Chamber.
Are you even capable of saying anything substantive?
Jose, why do you even comment at all? The only thing you add to the discussion is bile.
Well are these ignorant comments of yours supposed to be part of the "different kind of politics"?
Tim K:I am frankly embarrased (...)
Give me a break. Not only are you being juvenile but your claim to somehow being impartial is just disingenuous.
I think it's obvious to everyone you're not interested in having an informed discussion, only school yard taunts.
Some of you Obama supporters are foaming at the mouth, really. Almost Certifiable.
You can't get more ironic than being accused of being a sycophant by an Obama supporter.
Nanney nanney boo boo!
Wow, and so, like totally, substantive.
Novakant:
I could fill an 800 page book with all the ridiculous things Obama supporters have said on this blog.
Obama? Yo Mama!!
Meanwhile, maybe somebody could explain how, in a close race, having Obama's margin of victory provided by Republican voters in open primary states is fair to real Democrats, or even ethical. Eh?
Oh, goodie. More Lambert sniping.
I don't see how I can explain how open primaries are ethical in the sense that I can't fathom how they're unethical. I don't really see this as an issue that touches on ethics at all.
As to how it's fair... well, each state party decides how they're going to allocate their delegates. Some states (like Iowa) choose to do caucuses. Some states (like Delaware, which Sen. Obama won) have closed primaries where only Democrats can vote. Some states (like California, which Sen. Clinton won) allow independents to vote. Some states allow people to switch their registration at the door and become members of the Democratic Party in order to vote.
It's fair in the sense that these are the rules, each party can decide how they want to do it, and that's how the process has always been. If you don't want independents or even Republicans who've grown apart from their party and instead want to join with ours, that's fine -- that's an argument to make when the process is being drafted. It is not, however, an argument that's open to discussion after the rules have been agreed to by all and we're in the midst of the contest, with half the states having voted and the other half yet to go.
I don't really have a problem with independents voting, personally, because I think it sends the message that our party welcomes unaffiliated voters because we want to bring more people into our coalition; also, because these are a key group that is essential to achieving victory in November. You don't. That's fine. Bring it up in January, not after you start losing.
Well I can speak freely I guess since I voted for Paul (seriously)
(See I am unbiased because my guy was a huge rascist and sexist so I, by common logic, must also be a huge rascist and sexist and therefore I do not like Obama or Hillary... following?)
That being said I am gonna have to fall on the side that says TimK is a weinus. TimK, you should be embarrassed for yourself the rest of us sure are embarrassed for you.
One more great thing about supporting Paul is that I know all about cultish droolers. Sorry, but the Obama camp doesn't come close.
None of you have any credibility.
Uh oh, Tim K played the "you don't have any credibility" card.
Game over!
Tim K is a loon. I laugh at men like him and their small, shriveled appendages.
To be fair, Tim K wasn't really trying to win this argument so it doesn't count. There's an upcoming argument where he's already polling strong and we feel confident he'll own you all right into the convention.
Karen:
What am I supposed to reply? You're flat-chested? Or have man hands? It's just silly. So I won't engage in it.
Tom:
Well it was hard for me to win the argument because I was having trouble finding somebody else's words that would make my point for me.
"Gee, does this mean HRC won't be campaigning for "second-class" delegates here in Texas?"
Kevin, my thoughts exactly.
Another issue that I think is very important is how this kind of campaigning plays out in the November *Congressional* elections. The make-up of Congress during the next president's first term is incredibly important to what policies we actually get. All of the candidates policy proposals are just campaign fodder unless they can pass through Congress.
Even if a state continues to vote red in the Presidential, they may still replace some Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate.
"Well it was hard for me to win the argument because I was having trouble finding somebody else's words that would make my point for me."
Couldn't find the words? C'mon - how hard is it to Google "batshit crazy screed"?
Maybe I'll ask Deval Patrick.
Timmeh, maybe you should ask a fellow transvestite like RuPaul.
All MY has to say anymore is "HRC says they don't count!" and it's Tim K versus the cheap seats in an all-out flame war. 82 comments on some knucklehead from Michigan. This is either getting pretty ridiculous or Tim K is a McCain intern assigned to make liberals hate each other.
Yes, the Deval Patrick rip-off was pretty clear. But do you really think that Obama himself would steal a well-documented speech, Tim K? Sounds like a lazy speechwriter.
I'm starting to miss the insightful commentary of Fred and Al.
Serioiusly.
Comments closed March 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Sickening. "That are never going to vote democratic." Don't be polarizing or anything.
Posted by Bill | February 18, 2008 2:46 PM