New poll has it very very close in Texas.
« Role Models | Main | Bloggers in Space »
Tied In Texas
18 Feb 2008 05:45 pm
Comments (103)
If Hillary loses Wisconsin and Texas, she's toast, right?
"If Hillary loses Wisconsin and Texas, she's toast, right?"
Yep.
"If Hillary loses Wisconsin and Texas, she's toast, right?"
Of course not! George Bush is from Texas. What do you think it says about Barack Obama if he wins the state George Bush is from!
I guess the whole thing about red states not counting today was just lowering expectations for TX. Ohio! Ohio is the REAL firewall!!!
This is pathetic.
The whole "TX/OH/PA firewall" was just a head-fake. Hillary never really wanted to win TX in the first place.
Now, Obama will be busy campaigning in a state that doesn't really count.
"If Hillary loses Wisconsin and Texas, she's toast, right?"
As a practical matter, yeah. If she loses those two states, Hillary would need Obama to choke a kitten while having sex with a llama in order to just stay even with him in the delegate count.
However, the Clintons have a history of not giving a crap about the Democratic Party except as a vehicle for their own wonderful selves...so, who the hell knows what they might do?
Mike
This is pathetic.
Yes, I agree that the Clinton campaign is pathetic. Up +20% in the polls, raising tens of millions of dollars, 100% name recognition, and the spouse of the most successful Democratic president in the last 40 years, and now being out-smarted and out-organized by a relative novice.
I know even Carville has billed Ohio and Texas both as absolute must-wins for Clinton, but I wish people wouldn't get too carried off focusing two weeks ahead. Wisconsin's tomorrow. Obama needs to win that first.
Having 100% name recognition isn't always a good thing.
Senator Obama has had the opportunity to stage-manage his own entrance onto the national scene, and isn't hampered by his record since he barely has one.
"If Hillary loses Wisconsin and Texas, she's toast, right?"
I doubt it. Regardless of who wins, Wisconsin is going to be close and Texas, as we've heard ad nauseum, is not going to deliver a significant advantage to either candidate. Clinton can't realistically think that she will make up much of the pledged delegate deficit in Texas and Wisconsin. Rather, she's probably focused on Ohio, where she has a better chance to make up ground. If Obama forces a draw in Ohio, Clinton is in a lot of trouble. If Obama wins in Ohio, Clinton can only salvage the nomination if she gets significant help.
So Texas is on the verge of not counting?
As has been said before, it seem like they're going to have to prise the nomination out of her cold, dead hands.
Can you blame me for my bitterness? Mother left when I was 2, my sister turned out to be gay and took off with a dykes on bikes gang out in the Mojave, and finally, FINALLY, I thought I'd found a strong women to hold onto and what happens? She's cheated out of her rightful position by a bunch of misogynist jerks, I can't take it.
Listen, every campaign spins. The Clinton has tried to down Obama victories in caucus states and states with large black populations. The Obama campaign has tried to downplay Clinton victories in every state she has won by the early leads she enjoyed in the polls of those states due to her greater name recognition. Obama tried to declare victory in Nevada even though the majority of the people there voted for Hillary. Both campaigns spin. Let's try to be somewhat even-handed here.
Senator Obama has had the opportunity to stage-manage his own entrance onto the national scene, and isn't hampered by his record since he barely has one.
Obama just needs to keep doing his thing.
He's already winning, and every poll, local and national, is trending in his favor.
"So Texas is on the verge of not counting?"
Absolutely. It's got a (partial) caucus, it's a red-state, and African-American voters have disproportionate influence (apparently because Democrats in predominately African-American districts turned out in disproportionately high numbers in 2006).
Senator Obama has had the opportunity to stage-manage his own entrance onto the national scene, and isn't hampered by his record since he barely has one.
Last time I checked, his record in elected office is longer than Hillary's. Oh, that's right, I'm just a woman-hating jerk. What do I know?
Jake:
Yeah he was under a lot of scrutiny in the Illinois state Senate. That's a really hazardous environment.
Let's try to be somewhat even-handed here.
You first.
Yeah he was under a lot of scrutiny in the Illinois state Senate. That's a really hazardous environment.
Somehow that didn't stop Hillary from skewing his "present" votes though, did it?
What piece of legislation has Hillary championed while a US Senator that stands out for you? Is it the flag burning stuff? I'm just curious.
Can you blame me for my bitterness? Mother left when I was 2, my sister turned out to be gay and took off with a dykes on bikes gang out in the Mojave, and finally, FINALLY, I thought I'd found a strong women to hold onto and what happens? She's cheated out of her rightful position by a bunch of misogynist jerks, I can't take it.
What's sad is that's the best reason I've ever heard to get excited about Hillary for president.
Clinton can't realistically think that she will make up much of the pledged delegate deficit in Texas and Wisconsin. Rather, she's probably focused on Ohio, where she has a better chance to make up ground. If Obama forces a draw in Ohio, Clinton is in a lot of trouble.
Whether she thinks it is realistic or not is beside the point. It's increasingly obvious that whoever wins the pledged delegates battle will win the nomination. She is simply too far behind in pledged delegates to be able to afford any other strategy. Here's the dirty secret: Clinton's states are all past her save Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. Now, she'll blow him out in KY and is likely to do very well in Pennsylvania. Mississippi, Wyoming, and Indiana all look great for Obama and he'll beat her by 30 points in NC unless Edwards endorses her (decreasingly likely? who knows?!) but she'll never get close to winning there. West Virginia should be favorable for Hillary, but outweighed by Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, all of which will go for Obama. Puerto Rico is probably close, but assume Clinton wins 2-1 there. The mathematical reality of the calendar is this: anything less than a 2-1 delegate victory over Obama in the big three combined is the end of the Clinton campaign, whether she likes it or not. The majority of the superdelegates have all tacitly pledged to vote for the winner of the pledged contest at this point (meaning the SDs will ratify rather than reverse the popular decision since they outnumber their announced SD colleagues), and the Clintons know this or they wouldn't be risking floating the Michigan-Florida gambit.
Now, assume the extraordinary and HRC pulls off the miracle 2-1 victories in Ohio and Penn and manages to keep margins as close as can reasonably be expected basically everywhere else. Texas is still a disaster for her. Given the distribution of delegates, it is not enough for her to win 2-1. She has to win around 70-75% of the Texas vote to pick up her 65% win. Almost uniformly throughout this campaign, the more voters see Obama, the more they like him as an alternative to HRC. In short, Hillary Clinton needs more than a miracle. She needs god to materialize and rewrite the nature of the universe or for Obama to say something monumentally stupid, which is extremely unlikely, to have a fair shot at the thing.
Hillary's calendar ended Feb 5. They put resources into those states exclusively not because of hubris alone; they put states into the Feb 5 states because they were all of her best states, period. That's over now.
Let's just say it. Barring a media event (don't expect a third bout of pre-election weeping to do the trick) this thing is over. Barack Obama needs to play the cautious game with his eye on Bush the Third of Arizona rather than Hillary at this point. More interesting is whether Hillary will, in the closing days before her March 5th resignation, decide to kamikaze into Obama's deck. Can the Clintons still prove their power, not by winning an election, but by destroying their mortal enemy, the most talented Democratic politician of Bill and Hillary's life, Barack Obama?
MBunge: "However, the Clintons have a history of not giving a crap about the Democratic Party except as a vehicle for their own wonderful selves..."
This is a recurring MBunge theme, so I will take this opportunity to remind folks about the early-90's Democratic House.
They were responsible for: a check-bouncing scandal (yes, they were allowed to bounce checks at the House bank), the scandal-inspired resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright, they refused to tackle welfare reform OR campaign finance reform (both big issues at the time) after Clinton campaigned on those issues, welfare especially, they enacted an assault-weapons ban that killed Dems (and partly led to the defeat of the sitting Speaker Foley), and the man in charge of the purse strings, Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) was on his way to jail for corruption.
But it was all the Clinton's fault...
I'm not buying it. I'll say he's down five in Texas ... no closer.
But I think Obama can turn it around. Because there are so few Democrats, the 12% African-American population makes up as much as 33% of the party! If he can get an 80% majority there, and then a 60-40 majority in Austin (what he got in Arlington or Fairfax, for instance), and split the white vote in Houston and Dallas, he might be able to do it.
Jake:
Hillary Clinton has sponsored 21 pieces of legislation that were passed into law in her time in the senate, including a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Barack Obama sponsored 2 peices of legislation that later became law, including a bill that renamed a post office.
Here's a list of some key endorsements for Obama.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/02/endorsements-of-barack-obama.html
Tim,
I'm not disagreeing with the numbers you provide, but if you look at the list that Hilzoy put together, you'll see that a large number of Senator Clinton's sponsored legislation were of the post office-variety as well.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html#more
The Obama camp is desperately seeking to put out this plagiarism brushfire.
They are now accusing Hillary of stealing lines from Obama because she used the words "bring the country together" and "turn the page from the Bush/Cheney years"... also because she used the slogan "Yes We Can" which Obama himself lifted from the United Farm Workers who have endorsed Hillary.
Is this the best he can do?
Barack Obama: Desperate and Wrong.
So what's next from the biggest corrupt "say what ever" pair this side of the Bush/Rove?
Trying to make a "charater" story out of lifting lines. From the gal who will do or say anything including stealing Obama's lines?
GMAFB
Here is a real character issue that deserives a lot more scutiny:
Why should that creepy old man Bill be allowed back into the White House where he can once again use his power and force young interns into giving him oral sex?
Joe:
Fair enough. Although at least Hillary passed both important and trivial pieces of legislation, whereas Obama only had the latter.
Mississippi, Wyoming, and Indiana all look great for Obama and he'll beat her by 30 points in NC...
Not as his campaign continues to be rocked by the exploding plagiarism scandal. Americans don't like cheaters. Look at all the flack Bill Belichick received. Plagiarism plus Rezko is not a winning formula for Obama. Good thing the Democratic party wisely maintains its superdelegate policy, so fatally wounded candidacies can be gently nudged aside in favor of strong performers like Senator Clinton. I'm sorry to say these exploding scandals imperil even his chances of being Mrs. Clinton's running mate. Sad.
at least Hillary passed both important and trivial pieces of legislation, whereas Obama only had the latter.
The Lugar-Obama nonproliferation legislation was trivial? Please, please explain.
The Iraqi Information Minister is funny.
Well I'm not surprised you don't view any of Obama's legislation as significant, but if you have to limit things to stuff they've sponsored and take out all the co-sponsored bills, and the best you can come up with for Hillary is benefits for public safety officers, I think you're struggling. I mean, is that all we get from her for the 35 years of experience?
Jake:
How about a bill that assisted family caregivers? Or one that extended unemployment insurance benefits? I'm not surprised if those sorts of legislative achievements are not particularly impressive to Latte Liberals who pay little attention to bread and butter economic issues and would prefer to hear fanciful rhetoric about amorphous "change."
By the way, Jake, how do you feel about Michelle Obama saying that she is only now - for the first time in her adult life - proud to be an American?
You know, pro-Clinton people would do their candidate a big favor if they'd recognize that Clinton's arguments for herself are not very compelling. She says she's experienced, but she's not a more experienced than legislator than BO. He's actually been in elected office longer than she has. She says she's been vetted, but that's only important if it means that she's more likely to win the presidency because negative attacks won't bring her down. But as of right now, all the evidence says that Barack Obama is more likely to win the presidency. This could change, but until it does I don't see why we should shoot ourselves in the foot by voting for the person the evidence argues AGAINST. She pretty never points to a reason to vote for her, so much as an implicit reason not to vote for BO. She says she represents a changes from Bush, but that damn Iraq war authorization won't go away (I think this hurts her more than anyone wants to admit.)
BO, by contrast, stands for opposition to the war, negotiation with foreign leaders, and directness and honesty (I'm not arguing that he's always honest--just that his campaign has come to represent honesty). This is something people can get behind. I encourage HRCs people to revamp her message so it better reflects why we should vote for her, rather than why we shouldn't vote for the other guy.
You know, pro-Clinton people would do their candidate a big favor if they'd recognize that Clinton's arguments for herself are not very compelling. She says she's experienced, but she's not a more experienced than legislator than BO. He's actually been in elected office longer than she has. She says she's been vetted, but that's only important if it means that she's more likely to win the presidency because negative attacks won't bring her down. But as of right now, all the evidence says that Barack Obama is more likely to win the presidency. This could change, but until it does I don't see why we should shoot ourselves in the foot by voting for the person the evidence argues AGAINST. She pretty never points to a reason to vote for her, so much as an implicit reason not to vote for BO. She says she represents a changes from Bush, but that damn Iraq war authorization won't go away (I think this hurts her more than anyone wants to admit.)
BO, by contrast, stands for opposition to the war, negotiation with foreign leaders, and directness and honesty (I'm not arguing that he's always honest--just that his campaign has come to represent honesty). This is something people can get behind. I encourage HRCs people to revamp her message so it better reflects why we should vote for her, rather than why we shouldn't vote for the other guy.
Let's try to be somewhat even-handed here.
Unless you're Tim, then you can be as pro-Clinton and anti-Obama as you want to be. You see, he's very concerned.
Fausto:
If I'm not pro-Clinton here then who will be? There are like 2 of us at any given moment, and like 30 of you all.
Texas doesn't count. It's a red state.
"If I'm not pro-Clinton here then who will be? There are like 2 of us at any given moment, and like 30 of you all."
hmmm, sounds like a caucus.
If I'm not pro-Clinton here then who will be? There are like 2 of us at any given moment, and like 30 of you all.
And you believe you can convert all of us? With inspiring words like:
I'm not surprised if those sorts of legislative achievements are not particularly impressive to Latte Liberals who pay little attention to bread and butter economic issues and would prefer to hear fanciful rhetoric about amorphous "change."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really glad Tim K thinks I'm a Latte Liberal. It's pretty inspiring stuff.
Tom:
Actually that's an apt comparison, Tom. A bunch of upscale (I'm being generous here) liberal activist-types who are not representative of the Democratic Party, let alone America.
By the way, Jake, how do you feel about Michelle Obama saying that she is only now - for the first time in her adult life - proud to be an American?
"Latte Liberals", and questioning Michelle's patriotism. Recycling right wing attacks, very nice. Makes me want to run right out and vote for Hillary.
Because there are so few Democrats, the 12% African-American population makes up as much as 33% of the party! If he can get an 80% majority there...he might be able to do it.
Well, let's consider the implications of this "optimistic" TX scenario from a (seemingly pro-Obama) commenter above.
According to my hand-calculator, that means Obama would need just over 36% of the non-black TX vote to win a majority of the total vote, even excluding all that crazy "weighted-vote" nonsense. This corresponds to Obama losing the non-black TX vote by 37 points.
Don't know whether all the leading TX Democrats would be that thrilled with this sort of "victory" for Obama...
Tim:
I'm not sure I understand, Tim. With your profound insight (I'm being generous here) could you please give me a description of someone who is "representative of America"?
One thing's clear. The over 10 million people who have already voted for Obama are NOT representative of America.
Anyway, what's awful about drinking lattes that disqualifies one's vote?
Nicholas, there may be even more hope for Obama than that. Young Latinos are leaning Obama and the majority of Hispanic voters in TX are under 40. I can only speak for San Antonio, but young voters - at least at my niece's mostly-white high school - can't WAIT to place their first vote for Obama. In my mother's seniors group, all the Dems are for Obama - the women are volunteering for him.
KNOW HOPE!!!
fp:
How is that questioning Michelle Obama's patriotism? If anyone is putting that into question it's Michelle. Here is the exact quote:
"...Hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something: For the first time in my adult life-time I'm really proud of my country..."
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
A bunch of upscale (I'm being generous here) liberal activist-types who are not representative of the Democratic Party, let alone America.
Of course, everyone knows that those Democrats don't count.
Are you the real Tim K or the fake one? Is this self-parody?
When all your entire campaign can do is list all the groups, states, and individuals who "don't really count" because they don't support your candidate, you're in trouble.
Tom in Raleigh:
I'm not a mind-reader, but I think Tim's thinking of
someone whose mother left when they were 2, and whose sister turned out to be gay and took off with a dykes on bikes gang out in the Mojave. Could be just me though.
Maybe I shouldn't have sold all that Starbucks stock. Dangit!
Jake:
Or maybe I'm thinking about a 46 year old woman who is so narcissistic and out-of-touch only now proud to be an American, now that her husband is running for President.
a 46 year old woman who is so narcissistic and out-of-touch only now proud to be an American
Stay classy, Timmeh.
RKU: I think at this point the leading TX Democrats know that if they can survive this far, they can survive anything.
Anyway, what's awful about drinking lattes that disqualifies one's vote?
Only rich people drink lattes -- well, according to Bill O'Reilly. But, anyway, what Tim K was trying to say is that the only real Americans are 60-year-old white Jewish women in New York who make $30,000 per year. Now their votes count, I tells ya. (Unless they vote for Obama -- then their votes don't count because they've been brainwashed by the liberal media..or the caucus system...or second-class red state Democrats...or shuckin' and jivin' Negroes who believe in fairy tales).
For the first time in my adult life-time I'm really proud of my country...
The shame Mrs. Barack Obama has always felt at being an American is just another nail in the coffin of the scandal-plagued Obama candidacy. I wonder if there are any national anthems that do give her a lump in her throat when they're played. Kenya's perhaps? Indonesia's? Sweden's?
Very sad.
Stay classy, Timmeh.
I think we're a bit past that point.
Matthew,
Please lose some fucking weight
Re: Michelle Obama's remark-- I'm several years younger than she is, and this is the first time I've ever seen firsthand this degree of political engagement and courage, a sort of wresting our party and country away from tired, safe assumptions that allowed us to remain detached from the political process. So yeah, I'm certainly proud of my country in a way I'd never experienced, and it's a much more fundamental pride than they usual enjoyment of pageantry and obligatory rhetoric that has passed for national pride in the past.
Note: there was a glimmer of this feeling when Bill won in 1992, but it was a much less certain feeling, with a mere plurality of the votes and turnout that wasn't exactly revolutionary. And the base assumption-- that of an essentially conservative America, albeit one that was rather annoyed with the GOP at the time-- was not really challenged.
Re: The Iraqi Information Minister
Timmeh's sock puppet strikes again.
You suck, Timmeh
Barack Obama: Desperate and Wrong.
Me: Desparate and haven't been laid in years
Barack Obama: Desperate and Wrong.
Me: Desparate and haven't been laid in years
CNN Poll is very wrong. I'm a lifelong Texan and no way it's that close. It would mean that the black pop of the DFW metroplex and Houston would have to come out in a way they never have in the past. Clinton has a lock on a much larger hispanic vote of south Texas. 55% HRC - 40% BO is probably a better guess. (BTW - I take either one!)
You all don't like me cuz you're jealous of how much of a real American I am! Real Americans are bitter name-callers with no principles, just like me!
For all I know it's the same person who keeps writing ridiculous things and attributing them to me. Whoever you are you clearly have zero integrity.
Didn't she (Hillary) campaign in Texas some "35 years" ago? McGovern perhaps? Bill Clinton perhaps?
Therefore, shouldn't she have seen or known about the delegate proportions that she now claims to be working against her?
Shouldn't she or her campaign have had the good judgement to plan for this?
I am stunned by the incompetence of her campaign thus far and feel that it should be yet one more warning sign.
Yikes, this Tim K imposter scenario is undermining the integrity of the comments. But it is a bit funny.
MY, you do have to go after the fake Tim K., they seem determined.
Alright, people, lay off the poor chap. I know how bad it can hurt to be called "Timmeh", "Tiny Tim", "Tim-Tim Terroo" and all the other nifty things you can do with our much-maligned given name.
But I don't discount the general frustration with his postings. His approach, like that of the Clinton campaign generally, has been focussed on taking things out of context and attacking the opponent's strengths.
On a serious note, as a committed Obama supporter, I hope the Obama campaign will begin to tread very carefully with regard to things like the Duval Patrick slip-up, which can and will get blown way out of proportion from now on.
Honesty is one of his strengths vs. Hillary, and he should be very careful to maintain the highground on that issue above all others.
TK:
Seriously, what do you think the general election is going to be like? It's time to get used to it.
I'm not sure what's worse, being impersonated, or the fact that the inane, biased and misinformed comments are believed to be my own.
I would be even-handed, if I had both hands free.
Ok, well THAT was uncalled for...
... not that there's anything wrong with that.
Is there an echo in here? I keep hearing my self.
The sound of one hand clapping.
Honest question here: has anyone bothered to reconcile (1) the Clinton campaign's characterization of Obama's support base as nothing but raving college students and liberal turtleneck-and-glasses cafe activists with (2) the fact that Obama has always been way ahead of Hillary among independents, white men, and black people?
There doesn't seem to be any stereotype of the Obama supporter, but that hasn't stopped team Clinton from creating several of them. And networks and blogs keep perpetuating them. It's brilliant and depressing.
independents, white men, black people.
they don't count.
T.K.,
That has been bugging me for a long time. Many pundits seem determined to come up with some narrow definition of "core" Obama supporters, when in fact the real story of his support is its breadth.
I don't think it is fair to blame that entirely on Clinton, however. It really does seem hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around the idea that a "liberal" politician could also be widely popular, and I personally blame that on the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis series of elections.
I fucking suck.
Well I've clearly provoked quite a reaction from some of you. Although I'm sure most of you are mature enough not to act out about it.
I don't believe that neck and neck poll-yet. I think its going to end up there, though, with both candidates splitting the delegates. Heck, with this caucus and funny weighting of the districts and all, its conceivable that Obama might even win the delegate count, while losing the popular vote-a result that I wouldn't support, and I'm an Obama guy. Regardless, Hillary picked one hell of a state to be part of her her firewall.
I think Hillary is going to split the delegate baby in Texas, but do much better in Ohio-which means that Obama will still lead by 100 plus elected delegates coming out of March 4. I don't see her making much of a dent the rest of the way. If Obama finishes the race with a 100 lead in elected delegates , a lead in the popular vote AND a lead in fund raising, plus leads polling against McCain, there is NO WAY that the supers are going to hand it to Hillary. Not even the Democratic Party establishment would be that suicidal.
Not even the Democratic Party establishment would be that suicidal.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention for the last couple of years?
I'd be offended at the tone used here to disparage Clinton had she run, you know, a clean and honest campaign worthy of our party.
But she hasn't.
So I'm eager for her fall.
Tell me exactly what's been dirty about her campaign. And please be specific.
According to my hand-calculator, that means Obama would need just over 36% of the non-black TX vote to win a majority of the total vote, even excluding all that crazy "weighted-vote" nonsense. This corresponds to Obama losing the non-black TX vote by 37 points.
Don't know whether all the leading TX Democrats would be that thrilled with this sort of "victory" for Obama...
Goddamn! How does Obama keep winning these lily-white states with all of this white racism that RKU is so very "concerned" about? When Clinton supporters are reduced to arguing that white people won't vote for a black man, you know it's about time to pack it in. Our Party is better off without you folks, so do us all a favor and join the GOP.
Specifics:
-Billy Shaheen's drug dealer comment and ensuing parroting by Mark Penn
-Robert Johnson talking about Obama "doing something in the neighborhood, I won't say what"
-Surrogates asserting Obama was raised in a "secular madrassa"(Bob Kerry), is "just your hip black friend"(anonymous, reported in the Guardian), "shucking and jiving"(Andrew Cuomo), "gonna get swallowed by all them whites"(Andrew Young).
-Clinton accepting the following characterization without correction: "John F. Kennedy gave good speeches(like Obama) but he got killed and then it took Johnson to get it done." Ensuing Clinton quote about "it took a president"(making a weak and innappropriate analogy between herself and LBJ and Obama and MLK)
-Saying that Obama "called himself John F. Kennedy"(he never did anything of the sort)
-Saying Obama was a hypocrite based on an essay he wrote in Kindergarden.
-Bill Clinton: Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.
-Running an attack ad in New Hampshire that mischaracterized his record on choice(so much so that several of the signees from women's organizations withdrew their signatures after finding out the facts).
-Running an attack ad falsely asserting that Obama supported Yucca Mountain(he, in fact, never supported Yucca Mountain)
-Running robo-calls in South Carolina falsely attacking John Edwards on trade
-Running a robocall today that falsely asserted that Obama supports raising the retirement age and cutting social security benefits
-Running two seperate attack ads on TV in Wisconsin pushing this lame issue of debates as well as making the same false assertion on Obama's position on social security
-Supporting a lawsuit to disenfranchise shift-workers on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada
-Trying to disenfranchise college students in Iowa by asserting that they aren't real Iowans.
-Agreeing Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, then not taking name off the ballot in Michigan, then completely going back on that issue by saying(after all the early states had finished voting) that she would try to have them seated
-Acting like every lost state doesn't count
-Taking one remotely similiar passage of a speech between two best friends and making a bogus allegation of "plagiarism"
-generally running a nasty and unpleasant vanity campaign
Looks the the beginning of the end. Finally.
Also, the same guy who ran Patrick's campaign is running Obama's campaign. You can accuse Axelrod of not having enough tricks in his bag, but it isn't plagiarism if he's copying himself. You didn't see Clinton accusing Obama of plagiarizing Caesar Chavez with "Si se puede" when she turned it into "Yes she can! (lose every major political fight of her life!)"
It is kind of funny how in this electoral cycle, both of the nominees from New York, Clinton and (until recently) Giuliani, are war supporters who voted for McGovern.
(Please excuse me if I get this wrong, but I'm attempting to use the italics tag for quoting)
"...Hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something: For the first time in my adult life-time I'm really proud of my country..."
Clearly that's a faux pas. It's indicative of lingering resentment among African Americans about history. I think for a moment she probably forgot who she is and what she's doing, when she let some of that lingering resentment slip. I don't think she really meant it.
Those remarks by Michelle Obama were a serious lapse in judgment.
We've heard a lot from the Obama campaign about judgment over the past weeks and months,usually in reference to Senator Clinton's Iraq vote. Yet in the past few days we've been treated to no less than three seperate instances of bad judgment on the part of the Obamas.
1) Waffling on his commitment to public financing.
2) Lifting rhetoric without attribution.
3) Michelle's unfortunate remarks earlier today on her pride or lack thereof in America.
These aren't the first instances of such bad political judgment. How about Obama's comments on bombing Pakistan last summer... or his commitment to meet with rogue leaders without preconditions in his first year as president... or his diplomatically unwise interventions on Kenya even earlier? How about Michelle Obama's comments that she'd have to "think about" campaigning for Hillary if she became the nominee. How about her offensive comments about being able to run your own house if you can run the White House?
This is why experience matters.
"...Hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something: For the first time in my adult life-time I'm really proud of my country..."
I agree with Michelle Obama, for the first time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country. I was annoyed with my country for being deadlocked during the Clinton years, and I've been actively ashamed of it during the W years. I've sadly thought for most of my adult life that America is a power in decline.
Now I feel that America is back, in the best sense. Not only that we are striding toward race- and gender-fairness (although that in itself is a huge plus), but that we are coming together to fight for our shared goals and values. No matter who wins the nomination battle, what has happened already is hugely significant.
Nice duck and cover move there. Obama's comment on Pakistan was about using special forces in NWFP, not bombing Pakistan. It was Clinton who said that she would consider unilaterally nuking Pakistan to get at a terrorist camp there, which reminded me of Chris Griffin going "why don't you blow up the earth!" I guess experience didn't help Clinton read the NIE when she voted for the war, after all. As for the no pre-conditions thing, that has been beaten to death on this blog, especially considering how Clinton said there was no real difference in their positions. The fact that you're parsing his wife's statements just shows how desperate you are. Hell, the fact that we've lived for the past few years with a first lady that committed manslaughter against her ex-boyfriend in high school was one of the least-bad things about this administration. Never mind Bill's race-baiting, the fact that Michelle Obama holds a point of view that is rather common among many African-Americans due to the history of racism in this country isn't surprising and isn't something I can really hold against her. At this point you look desperate and that you're supporting Clinton because she is just as small and petty as you.
"Lifting rhetoric without attribution."
Who attributes every bit of rhetoric their campaign guys make, considering (as I mentioned before) the same person who ran Patrick's campaign is now running Obama's.
"This is why experience matters.
Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 3:10 AM"
Very true. Hillary Clinton, after all, has experience getting her husband to pardon Puerto Rican separatist terrorists to help her Senate run in New York because to her Puerto Rican voter somehow equals = supporter of separatist terrorist. The best part is that they didn't even want to be pardoned because they don't recognize the legitimacy of the US government. This is like a parody of a Democrat: too wimpy to stand up to the Republicans on foreign policy and setting terrorists who target Americans free. She's ready on day one!
I hate it when people post three times in a row, so apologies to everyone.
I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he whored himself out for Bush after Bush and Rove race-baited his daughter. If Michelle Obama would campaign for Clinton, why would I respect someone who would campaign for someone for race-baited their husband?
"My guess is, in Texas [Clinton's] base in the Democratic Party is broader than in any other state that I can think of," said Henry G. Cisneros, who accompanied Clinton on that trip to McAllen in 1992 and later served as housing secretary in her husband's administration.
I just read that in the Washington Post. And Survey USA just released a Texas poll which has her ahead by 5. So despite these "deep ties," it looks like Texas will turn out to be the *closest* race on March 4.
Wow..thought I'd check out the blog this morning and see whether everyone's favorite Clinton shill and mentally challenged dimwit, Timmeh (aka Tim K), was still posting his nonsense. Sure enough, still going strong well after 3:00 am! Way to go, Timmeh!
Keep at it Timmeh...everyone enjoys laughing at a clueless tool like you - especially one who is so incredibly clueless that you think you're making sense. LMAO!!!!
Hillary = Texas toast slathered in Wisconsin butter, with a side order of roasted buckeyes.
Mmmm, Bill is hungry.
I must say, Tim K has given me a whole new level of appreciation of Petey.
Billary will twist anything an opponent says to get votes, and the Clinton machine's say-anything-to-win tactics are transparent. Voters are realizing this and the Clinton machine is gasping for air. Hillary should have ran this campaign on her own and left Bill at home. I really hope that she keeps it clean until March 4th, and if she loses TX & OH that she bows out with dignity. I really don't want to see the party divided and she can save face by keeping the attacks clean. Truthful challenges are fair game, but Americans are worn thin with the 'mostly-kinda-but-not-really-true' cheapshots.
Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.
The Ameri
Uh oh...a close victory's the same as a loss for Hillary.
Buh'bye!
Posted by Jorge | February 18, 2008 5:49 PM