The pace of superdelegate endorsements seems to be picking up this week, with Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley signing on with Obama, Rep. Ike Skelton going for Clinton, and before that Senator Bingaman for Obama and also someone else whose name I forget. That's as it should be. Whichever candidate you prefer, it's just better to have the superdelegates state their preferences sooner rather than later.
« Change | Main | What About the Good News? »
Off The Fence
30 Apr 2008 09:18 am
Comments (74)
Clinton is highly likely to win most of the remaining contests
Clinton is "highly likely" to win Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico. Obama is "highly likely" to win North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. Indiana appears to be a tossup - maybe you could say Clinton is likely to win.
and also someone else whose name I forget
Governor Easley of NC for Clinton, no?
Petey:
Besides WV and KY, what contests do you see Hillary winning? IN? Then what?
"Of course, the "I'd rather lose in November with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd isn't too concerned with what makes the best sense for the Party, but that's a topic for another day."
That is loaded with irony.
"Besides WV and KY, what contests do you see Hillary winning? IN? Then what?"
Well, I think Clinton will easily win PR, in addition to WV and KY.
Of IN, NC, OR, SD, and MT, I think Clinton will end up taking 2 to 4 of those contests.
Obama has been running noticeably behind his numbers in the famed Plouffe "The Math" spreadsheet for two months now. And the deterioration seems to be accelerating.
I think Obama committed a classic Kinsley-ian gaffe in saying that Indiana was going to be the "tie-breaker". I think he was speaking the truth, but I don't know why the hell he said it out loud.
'the "I'd rather lose in November with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd'
Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence.
Spreading the belief that only a member of the Clinton family can win as a Democrat has been the political strategy of the Clinton family for twenty years. I have no doubt the Clintons seriously believe that it's true, but it is also quite obviously self-interested. It is unfortunate that Petey has been convinced by it.
Is Marc Ambinder a super-delegate?
Lol, the only reasons someone would think that Clinton is 'highly likely to win the remaining contests' is if they think South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and NC aren't real states and only Kentucky and West Virginia count.
And yes, I've seen the latest SUSA poll. SUSA can have outliers too, and it's the only poll that says that this race is anything like 'close'. If you really think Indiana is the most important state in the union, you're kidding yourselves. But keep arguing that Clinton can win the nomination because of 'magical' (white) states that nobody thinks we have a shot at in November.
Seriously Petey, you act like Clinton is a sure thing in November. Yet you can never really explain how she intends to win without the 80+% margins in the black vote that she just isn't going to get.
Be honest, you'd rather have a white candidate than keep the senate.
Here's a respectable center-left take on Clinton's new non-issue, the "gas tax holiday":
In a new TV ad in Indiana, Hillary hits Obama for not supporting that model of reactive, politically expedient, election year tax policy: the federal gas tax holiday.
--David Kurtz
And here's Marc Ambinder's:
HILLARY CLINTON's new Indiana ad is tough. The Obama campaign calls it the "first attack ad" in Indiana. What they really mean is that they think it's demagogic. But these are facts: Clinton supports a gas tax pause and a freeze on foreclosures and Obama doesn't. He's said that both ideas are expedient and potentially harmful. The ad implies that Clinton favors action NOW and Obama does not. Clinton does not do Obama the courtesy of explaining his positions. Generally, you don't do that in political ads.
Please, Atlantic, why does Ambinder still work for you?
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1
April 30, 2008
Obama's 'Race Neutral' Strategy Unravels of its Own Contradictions
By Glen Ford
Perhaps it is fitting that, having absolved American racists of all manner of crimes against others, Obama also holds them blameless for their assaults on himself. That's his prerogative, as long as he's the only one being assaulted. But Obama was also dogged over the long weekend by the ghost of Sean Bell, whose death in a 50-shot New York City police fusillade was held blameless by a white judge. Many African Americans anxiously awaited Obama's reaction to the three police officers' acquittals on all charges. "We're a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down," said Obama, when asked about the case by reporters in Indiana. "Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and is counterproductive." That was it.
Hillary Clinton, aware that the Sean Bell verdict was an outrage to Black America, issued a prepared statement:
"This tragedy has deeply saddened New Yorkers - and all Americans. My thoughts are with Nicole and her children and the rest of Sean's family during this difficult time. The court has given its verdict, and now we await the conclusion of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation. We must also embrace this opportunity to take steps - in our communities, in our law enforcement agencies, and in our government - to make sure this does not happen again."
It is difficult not to conclude that Obama distanced himself from the facts of the acquittal - except to counsel against violence and urge folks to "respect" the verdict, whatever that means - while Clinton had the sense to prepare a statement that sounded sensitive to Black anger and on top of developments in the story. The Sean Bell police and judicial atrocity revealed with horrific clarity that Black life continues to be systematically devalued by police in the United States, even when the officers involved are of African descent, as were two of the three shooters in the Bell case. The New York verdict shows that Black lives are devalued by all actors in American society, including Black actors: the essence of institutional racism....
"But keep arguing that Clinton can win the nomination because of 'magical' (white) states that nobody thinks we have a shot at in November."
I understand that you're happy to write off PA, OH, and FL in November, Soullite. But I would suggest that is not within the mainstream of Democratic opinion.
-----
"Spreading the belief that only a member of the Clinton family can win as a Democrat..."
Y'know, I went with Clinton over Obama due to universal healthcare, not electability. If you'd asked me in February about electability, I'd have said that the two were about even.
But the Obama brand has not fared well in the spotlight. The arugula-ization of Obama does not bode well for a national Democrat.
While I think it's a good enough Democratic year that Obama would have a shot at winning in November, I think it's pretty much beyond question at this point that he wouldn't run as strongly as Clinton would.
"HILLARY CLINTON's new Indiana ad is tough. The Obama campaign calls it the 'first attack ad' in Indiana. What they really mean is that they think it's demagogic. But these are facts: Clinton supports a gas tax pause and a freeze on foreclosures and Obama doesn't. He's said that both ideas are expedient and potentially harmful. The ad implies that Clinton favors action NOW and Obama does not. Clinton does not do Obama the courtesy of explaining his positions. Generally, you don't do that in political ads."
Right for me.
"Seriously Petey, you act like Clinton is a sure thing in November. Yet you can never really explain how she intends to win without the 80+% margins in the black vote that she just isn't going to get."
I think Obama is going to get the Veep slot to assuage both AA voters and upscale goo-goo donors.
Obama will get the top slot in 2016, by which time he'll have learned he should run with the Democratic Party's economic agenda, not against it.
your bad, soullite. i understand that petey has, with his intemperate comments of the last couple of months, invited attack. i find that unfortunate. petey, in the past, has shown himself capapble of thoughtful analysis, and i have no doubt that, if he'd restrain himself, he could do so again. while his recent posts may annoy you, calling him racist is neither a thoughtful response nor a fair one.
i know it is part of the "fun" of being on a blog to call everyone who annoys us a name, but this particular aspersion seems far out of line
Clinton could never win the general. The only prayer she had was running against Romney, the only person in the race who seemed faker than she is.
The arugula-ization of Obama does not bode well for a national Democrat.
When did you become a Republican? Maybe Obama can't win OH and PA, but he is ahead in WI(where Hillary is not). He also puts states like VA and CO in play where Hillary doesn't. Do you support a bi-coastal party, Petey? Or would you rather improve the party in all 50 states? Ever heard of the term, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? You are nuts if you support Hillary over one issue. What happens if she doesn't get anything done on HC in her first term(if there is one)? What will you say then?
How is Clinton supposed to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida without healthy African American turnout and support?
What's happens if Obama loses both NC and Indiana next week? Will the superdelegates who have declared their support for him begin to get cold feet? Will those who are now undeclared begin to break for Hillary?
Since they are not obligated to vote for him anyway, what will happen when the first one or a group of them declares he's unelectable and do so at a press conference standing next to Hillary and say that she's the only candidate who's got of chance of beating McCain in the general. It's going to a lot of fun watching to see if the Obamabots will be calling on Obama to drop out with the same zeal that they've called for Hillary to do so.
Yes sir, a lot of fun indeed.
"How is Clinton supposed to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida without healthy African American turnout and support?"
It will be there for either nominee.
Obama will get the top slot in 2016
If the superdelegates impose a color line on the Democratic presidential nomination by refusing to nominate the first African-American to win a majority of primaries, caucuses and pledged delegates, there won't be a Democratic Party in 2016.
It will be there for either nominee.
One would fervently hope so. But I don't think it's unreasonable to fear that if a superdelegate 'coup' for Clinton overturns an Obama majority (or plurality) among elected delegates, some of Obama's supporters -- perhaps especially African Americans -- will see this as an illegitimate outcome and won't vote for Clinton in November. I would argue strongly against such a boycott (and indeed have been doing so against Hillary-haters here lately) but it could very well happen. Clinton needs to be aware that she's running that risk -- and it's not just her risk, it's the party's and the country's.
If Obama stumbles badly and Hillary passes him fair and square, she's got my vote. But if she is nominated by coup, then this (non-AA) Obama supporter will sit on his hands in November, and I expect to have a lot of company.
Joe Klein,
For petey's sake, do not give in to Petey like that. "Maybe Obama can't win OH and PA..." Don't say that. That is what Clinton supporters want you to believe, but it is flat out bullshit.
"When did you become a Republican?"
Hmmm... Let me check my voter registration card. Huh. Seems I'm a Democrat.
I just happen to be opposed to symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidates leading the Democratic Party.
There's noting that more undermines the natural advantages the Democrats have than a symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidate.
"Maybe Obama can't win OH and PA"
The "I'd rather lose in November with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd certainly is a loud faction in the blogosphere.
If Clinton is perceived as stealing the nomination, I GUARANTEE she will get clobbered here in Ohio, because GOTV efforts in African American neighborhoods will be a total flop. The Clintonistas just don't want to deal with this elephant in the living room.
"If Obama stumbles badly and Hillary passes him fair and square..."
She's already passed him in the popular vote.
And she's almost definitely going to extend that lead over the next month.
You have to be a real dishonest cunt to say that Hillary took the popular vote lead. Petey, its really time that you kill yourself. For the good of the party, of course.
Of course, the "I'd rather lose in November with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd isn't too concerned with what makes the best sense for the Party, but that's a topic for another day.
Posted by Petey
No, no, Petey, I think today is a great time to talk about that.
The arugula-ization of Obama does not bode well for a national Democrat.
So apparently the average liberal wears Birkenstocks (even though quite a lot of us live in relatively inhospitable climates like Seattle or Vermont), drinks lattes, has a trust fund and drives a late-model fuel-efficient car when they aren't biking around on fixed-gear bikes. And now, we're supposed to start seasoning our lattes with some kind of lettuce? Got it.
But most sane folks think that making decisions after the voting ends on June 3rd makes the best sense for the Party.
Since this is obviously a principled small-d democratic argument, I expect to see Clinton partisans denounce their own superdelegate supporters as well as Obama's for rushing to judgment before everyone has voted. However, I doubt anyone at the Clinton camp is actually upset with Ike Skelton for making an endorsement before we've heard from South Dakota and Montana. Of course, after Super Tuesday -- when people were treating it as a tied race and Obama was slightly ahead in pledged delegates -- the Clinton campaign argued that they were in the lead because of their superdelegate advantage. They didn't seem to have a problem factoring superdelegates into the equation back then.
That said, I can't understand why any superdelegate would come out for Clinton now. If they prefer her, then fine, but if it was a tough enough choice that it took them this long to decide, it would make sense to go with the candidate who is obviously going to win at this point. If they really thought Obama was that bad (or Clinton that good), they should have said so months ago. Maybe Wright changes things for some of them, but they are only hurting the eventual nominee by making the consensus for Obama weaker. I suspect the Clinton campaign is trying to spread out the announcements to try to make it look like she is still steadily gaining support (as the Obama campaign seems to be doing as well), hoping that people won't notice that he's announcing two superdelegates for each one she announces. Based on the inability of the media to convey the basic math of the nomination process, it probably isn't a bad idea. We'll just hear "both are still getting superdelegates" without regard to how many each are getting. But I still don't understand why the superdelegates themselves are going along with it.
symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidates leading the Democratic Party
In what way does Bill Clinton not fit that description?
" Whichever candidate you prefer, it's just better to have the superdelegates state their preferences sooner rather than later."
That's not their job. They are supposed to be the vested interest of the Democratic party. They are supposed to be the guardians of the party's priciples and prospects. If they are just going to vote for whom they would like to be president, then they should not exist.
I'd say they should have spoken out when Clinton lost all chance of victory in March. They really screwed up.
You can't really blame Clinton for not dropping out. No candidate this close has ever dropped out before. But she has no chance. She is just hurting the party. People whose ostensible interest is the good of the party (superdelagates) should have given her the excuse she needed. Then, she could "suspend" her campaign. That way, if there was a real scandal (unlike the fake crap we're seeing now) the supers would have every right and justification for changing their minds. That's what they're there for. But no, they just fart around.
"Since this is obviously a principled small-d democratic argument, I expect to see Clinton partisans denounce their own superdelegate supporters as well as Obama's for rushing to judgment before everyone has voted."
As a Clinton supporter, I'm obviously happy when superdelegates come out for Clinton and sad when they come out for Obama.
But I'd be even happier if all of them had held their fire until June 4th.
Please stop with the popular vote stuff. RCP has her ahead by 11,000 if you count Florida and Michigan. Anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty would acknowledge that Obama would have gotten 11,000 votes out of 600,000 cast in Michigan if his name was on the ballot (or even 121,000 which is Clinton's lead if you don't count the estimates from the caucus states that didn't report vote totals), and that, no matter how you decide which votes should count and which shouldn't, it is clear that Clinton is not the favored candidate of the voters in the states that have voted. Saying she leads the "popular vote", or that "more people have voted for her", which was the formulation her surrogates have tried to use, obscures the fact that the Democratic electorate clearly favors Obama.
"Whichever candidate you prefer, it's just better to have the superdelegates state their preferences sooner rather than later."
Unless of course the candidate you prefer is Clinton. But I'm pretty tired of those people anyway.
See, it doesn't matter how Petey and his fellow Clinton trolls spin. If Clinton wangles the nomination despite being unable to close the elected delegate gap, the spinning will not persuade me or millions like me, and she'll lose badly in November. That's reality, and spinning doesn't make it go away.
"Please stop with the popular vote stuff. RCP has her ahead by 11,000"
Thank god we've reached consensus that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote and can stop all the nonsense about it forthwith.
The Obama supporters who are trying to act like Katherine Harris certainly don't help his campaign.
I should have stated that my post was not intended to be a concession that Florida and Michigan should count. Just that the only way you can give Clinton a miniscule lead is by giving her 328,000 votes and Obama 000,000 from Michigan. Clinton supporters say it's only fair to give Michigan voters a voice, just not the one's who would have voted for Obama.
Insults don't make reality go away, either.
Lmao, yeah, if you count Michigan as having no votes for Obama and refuse to count 4 other states, then Clinton is slightly ahead in the popular vote.
But if you do that, you're pretty much living in a deluded fantasy land. If we don't count California, NY, or Ohio, then Clinton is hopelessly behind! See the magic of selective counting!
I called you a racist because of deluded shit like this. You started out hating Clinton, then Edwards left and you HATED Obama and started pretending Clinton had all sorts of policies she was never going to support, like universal college and universal healthcare (as opposed to universal insurance). You weren't a slathering mouth-breather when you supported Edwards. You are now. All that hatred and hostility comes from some place, and you don't have a logical argument as to where. So I'm betting it's based on the fact that you don't want a black President. Thats usually a safe bet.
In the past week, supers have run 6 to 4 in favor of Obama. Clinton has needed a ratio of 2 to 1 in her favor since over a month ago. The super split is dropping fast. Clinton had a nearly 100 superdelegate lead up until the week of Feb. 10. It's now down to 20.
If she's such a strong candidate who can win in November, why couldn't she close the deal with that huge advantage, an initial money advantage, an initial political machine advantage, vastly more political contacts, nearly unprecedented name recognition, and a spouse that is (was) the most popular Democrat of the past two decades? Sorry, but if you can't even take that to the bank for the Democratic nomination, you're not going to be a serious general election candidate.
To follow the day by day, go to this web site and scroll down past the lists of superdelegates endorsing the two candidates. They keep a running track of about their last 30 days or so of updates.
The Obama supporters who are trying to act like Katherine Harris certainly don't help his campaign.
And Clinton supporters who are acting like the Cheshire Cat certainly don't help the Democratic party.
It will be there for either nominee.
The black vote, that is. I wouldn't count on it. The problem the Democrats have now is that supporters of both candidates might not be willing to vote for the other in the general election. Obama's problem will be with working class whites. Hillary's problem will be with blacks.
Clinton supporters like to make the argument that she should be the nominee because she does better with working class whites and that we should just assume blacks will show up as usual and vote for Hillary. What they fail to acknowlege is that the Clinton brand, once so strong with blacks, is severely tarnished.
Perhaps they don't much like the argument that Hillary should be the nominee because whites will vote for her (because she's white) and we can take black votes for granted just like we always have.
Cheshire Cat: Oh, by the way, if you'd really like to know, he went that way. Alice: Who did? Cheshire Cat: The White Rabbit. Alice: He did? Cheshire Cat: He did what? Alice: Went that way. Cheshire Cat: Who did? Alice: The White Rabbit. Cheshire Cat: What rabbit? Alice: But didn't you just say - I mean - Oh, dear. Cheshire Cat: Can you stand on your head?
"I just happen to be opposed to symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidates leading the Democratic Party."
Yep.
"And Clinton supporters who are acting like the Cheshire Cat..."
Look, it's hard not to have an ear to ear grin at the moment.
This thing looked close to hopeless on March 1st, and now I think we're actually going to win it.
I feel your pain, but you ought to be able to understand my joy.
Petey:
Hillary is not ahead in the popular vote. Where do you get your information, Jerome Armstrong? A number of the caucus states don't release their voting numbers so your claim is wildly inaccurate. I am suprised at you, especially coming from a former Edwards supporter.
In terms of the black vote's presence or absence for Clinton, I have no doubt that Clinton would win a solid supermajority of the African American vote if she were to become the nominee. I will suggest that it would likely be noticeably lower in percentage terms than what Gore and Kerry got, and perhaps even than Clinton got in 92 and 96.
What I am fairly confident of, though, is that African American turnout will be lukewarm at best. Sure, not showing up is only half as bad as showing up and voting for the Republican, but it's still bad. Historically, for Democrats to win these "key swing states" Petey, et al, talk about (e.g. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, but also Michigan, New Jersey, Missouri, even Illinois), you need very healthy Black turnout. If you have low turnout in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and so forth, it's very hard for Democrats to win statewide.
And I see no reason why we should be at all sanguine that this will not happen should Clinton get the nomination. Certainly it bears at least as much discussion as the idea that Obama can't win because he can't win the redneck vote.
"I just happen to be opposed to symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidates leading the Democratic Party.
There's noting [sic] that more undermines the natural advantages the Democrats have than a symbolically liberal but economically royalist candidate."
Yes, Petey, I happen to agree with you here. You've just articulated why I happen to think Bill Clinton was a mediocre president and a disaster for the party. IOW, what Marshall said.
Why would Hillary be any different? And furthermore, why do you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt on universal healthcare this time, when they fucked it (and the party) up so monumentally in 1993?
"And Clinton supporters who are acting like the Cheshire Cat..."
Look, it's hard not to have an ear to ear grin at the moment.
It's not the grin I mind. It's the lack of other substance.
"Hillary is not ahead in the popular vote. Where do you get your information"
The official election results.
Y'know, I accept that you folks are ahead in pledged delegates. Is it really so difficult to accept that Clinton is ahead in popular votes?
This stuff really isn't too complicated, unless you want to be Katherine Harris. And given the additional popular vote margins Clinton is likely to rack up over the next 5 weeks, even being Katherine Harris isn't going to work.
"why do you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt on universal healthcare this time, when they fucked it ... up so monumentally in 1993?"
Hillary Clinton wasn't my first choice for the nomination. I think she's a pretty flawed standard-bearer for the progressive cause, though I do think she's a 'less bad' option than Obama.
But on the issue of universal healthcare, I actually think she's going to prioritize getting the thing signed into law, and is rather likely to succeed.
First, if she wasn't serious about this, she wouldn't have signed onto the Edwards plan. She would have come up with a gimmickier plan that was politically easier to digest. The Edwards plan allows certain openings for political attacks - attacks that Obama has already used repeatedly, and that McCain will reprise this fall. If she was just posturing, she'd have taken an easier way out in terms of the plan.
Second, and even more importantly, Hillary Clinton's political interests are aligned with the progressive community's interests on universal healthcare. Her 1993 failure is the greatest stain on HRC's reputation, and passage of a functional and popular piece of legislation like the Edwards/Clinton plan will permanently erase that stain. I trust Clinton to act in her own political interests, and passing universal healthcare is in her own political interests.
(Also worth noting that in 1993, despite all the errors, it was Hillary who wanted to do universal healthcare before NAFTA, which would have provided a key negotiating pressure point on GOP Senators to come on board. It was Bill who vetoed that idea and did NAFTA first, essentially dooming universal healthcare in the Senate.)
Y'know, I accept that you folks are ahead in pledged delegates. Is it really so difficult to accept that Clinton is ahead in popular votes?
Only if you believe the contest should be conducted according to the predetermined rules.
Through the looking glass, of course,
"Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is - oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate! However, the Multiplication Table doesn't signify: let's try Geography. London is the capital of Paris, and Paris is the capital of Rome, and Rome - no, that's all wrong, I'm certain! I must have been changed for Mabel!"
Ibid.
"I should have stated that my post was not intended to be a concession that Florida and Michigan should count. Just that the only way you can give Clinton a miniscule lead is by giving her 328,000 votes and Obama 000,000 from Michigan. Clinton supporters say it's only fair to give Michigan voters a voice, just not the one's who would have voted for Obama."
Soullite
"Lmao, yeah, if you count Michigan as having no votes for Obama and refuse to count 4 other states, then Clinton is slightly ahead in the popular vote.
But if you do that, you're pretty much living in a deluded fantasy land. If we don't count California, NY, or Ohio, then Clinton is hopelessly behind! See the magic of selective counting!"
Yeah, objectively looking at it - which Petey does not, he spins like a cheesy lawyer - Obama is ahead in the popular vote.
Concerning superdelegates, Moira Dinauer at Tapped pointed to an interesting Wall St. Journal article yesterday:
"When the year began, about 200 of the superdelegates had taken sides, most for Sen. Clinton. Her campaign, including Mr. Clinton, had quickly signed up Clinton-administration veterans, others on the DNC and elected officials in Arkansas and New York, so that she initially led Sen. Obama by more than 100.
But the Obama campaign correctly figured that she had gotten the easy pickings and that the rest were up for grabs. Once he began winning more states than she did, her endorsements slowed to a trickle, and her lead eroded to less than two dozen now."
----
Basically Moira believes this trend will continue and the supers won't go en masse for either candidate, no matter what arguments Clinton or Obama partisans make.
Popular Vote Total
Obama 14,418,784 49.2%
Clinton 13,917,318 47.5%
From RealClearPolitics
Advantage Obama.
Not to rain on your parade too much, Petey, but if Obama ends up ahead by 150 in pledged delegates (probably reasonable since he's more than 150 ahead now), he needs only 29% of the total number of supers to win the nomination. He already has over 30%. So game, set, match Obama.
If Clinton can manage to get 60% of all the remaining pledged delegates (a chance somewhere between "slim" and "fat"), she'd still need to get almost 2/3 of the remaining supers to tie. Since her initial lead in supers has been dropping for 2-1/2 months and there hasn't been a week in that time when she's gotten more supers to endorse her than he has, that's not real likely either.
If she wins the nomination, it would have to be in some way other than via math.
"I feel your pain, but you ought to be able to understand my joy."
Just like that joy you expressed when John Edwards won Iowa and became an unstoppable juggernaut... oh, wait.
Those who wish to argue with Petey, may wish to consider his obvious lack of political acumen and penchant for ill conceived political "strategy". He's neither an expert nor a particularly accomplished amateur. But he does enjoy rude provocations based on illogical premises.
"So I'm betting it's based on the fact that you don't want a black President."
I've felt the same about Petey for quite some time now.
The dysphoric nature of his posts, the caustic rants, it's quite disturbing. When MY devoted a whole post to Petey, I was a bit concerned that Petey might take all the criticism as justification to do himself or someone else harm. Now, I just think he's an asshole and an attention monger. If everyone just ignored his bait, he'd probably find another blog to troll in...
If she wins the nomination, it would have to be on something other than her record: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Is it really so difficult to accept that Clinton is ahead in popular votes?
The problem is that you are making a very technical argument for a metric that has no technical significance. The national popular vote has no procedural significance in determining the nomination (if it did, you can be sure that the current results from Michigan would not stand). The reason to argue for its consideration is that it represents the "will of the people," but the certified results in Michigan obviously have no resemblance to the will of the people. (I know Clinton supporters will argue with this, but Florida can not be considered an accurate representation of the will of the voters either -- many Democratic voters stayed home because they knew the election wouldn't count. But I'm sticking with just Michigan since that is the clearer example, and it is all I need to make my case.) You can't argue that supers should side with Clinton because she was chosen by the people, and then use a method that does not accurately measure the will of the people to support your claim. Once you make a reasonable estimate from Michigan (the CNN exit poll asking who they would vote for if everyone was on the ballot came to 46-35-12, C-O-E, giving Obama about 200,000 among those who voted in the Democratic primary, and presumably more Obama supporters stayed home or voted in the GOP primary than Clinton supporters did), it is obvious that Obama has more support than Clinton, and if supers want to base their decision on that they should support Obama. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that supers should reverse a solid advantage in pledged delegates -- the measurement on which the primary was actually being contested -- based on a virtual tie in popular support when you disregard Obama's supporters in a large state, you are free to do so. You probably won't get many takers, though.
Her 1993 failure is the greatest stain on HRC's reputation,
I'd actually say that her Iraq vote was a MUCH bigger stain.
Her Iran vote was another pretty big stain.
Cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife and many others on the right who have spent much of their lives trying to destroy the Democratic Party is an enormous stain for any staunch Democrat.
Signing a pledge to not participate in the Michigan primary, then stating it was not "participating" because Michigan didn't count, and then turning around to say it must count as is would be viewed by many as a GIGANTIC stain ... and an out and out lie.
Actually, she's got more stains than Monica's... oh, never mind.
and passage of a functional and popular piece of legislation like the Edwards/Clinton plan will permanently erase that stain.
Uh, no it won't. F***ing up an important issue for an entire generation is not something that can be turned into "no harm, no foul".
I trust Clinton to act in her own political interests, and passing universal healthcare is in her own political interests.
No way. She's once again overreaching, and the issue will end up once again in the dust bin of politics. She doesn't get the meaning of "incremental progress". She'll dig in, she'll fight, fight, fight (something that she IS good at), a stalemate will ensue, and the issue will be tabled once again. You may like her plan, but the fact is that she can't deliver.
"if Obama ends up ahead by 150 in pledged delegates..."
...he'll be the nominee.
But he's not going to end up that far ahead.
Clinton is going to net more pledged delegates over the next 5 weeks than Obama, and in order to avoid the fight stretching out past June, the RBC is going to have to forge some kind of compromise on FL & MI at the end of May.
Superdelegate update!
One more for Clinton today, but THREE MORE for Obama. That's 8 for Obama and just 5 for Clinton for the past 7 days. That's 61.5% for Obama over the past week, a week which is supposed to be terrible for him. This is the ratio Hillary needs, but IN REVERSE (assuming she wins all of the remaining pledged delegates by a 60/40 margin).
Drip, drip, drip.
Math, Petey. It's called math.
Petey: This thing looked close to hopeless on March 1st, and now I think we're actually going to win it.
You crazy.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy deadAnd the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"
I'm going to throw a grapefruit into the bathtub, even if you demand that I throw in a radio, southpaw.
I think Obama is going to get the Veep slot to assuage both AA voters and upscale goo-goo donors.
In other words, they are going to put him in the back of the bus.
Seriously, the one way NOT to assuage black voters is to announce "we're putting giving your guy the Vice President slot because we need to assuage you after screwing him over for President".
But on the issue of universal healthcare, I actually think she's going to prioritize getting the thing signed into law, and is rather likely to succeed.
First, if she wasn't serious about this, she wouldn't have signed onto the Edwards plan. She would have come up with a gimmickier plan that was politically easier to digest. The Edwards plan allows certain openings for political attacks - attacks that Obama has already used repeatedly, and that McCain will reprise this fall. If she was just posturing, she'd have taken an easier way out in terms of the plan.
I haven't seen any evidence for this.
Second, and even more importantly, Hillary Clinton's political interests are aligned with the progressive community's interests on universal healthcare. Her 1993 failure is the greatest stain on HRC's reputation, and passage of a functional and popular piece of legislation like the Edwards/Clinton plan will permanently erase that stain. I trust Clinton to act in her own political interests, and passing universal healthcare is in her own political interests.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
(Also worth noting that in 1993, despite all the errors, it was Hillary who wanted to do universal healthcare before NAFTA, which would have provided a key negotiating pressure point on GOP Senators to come on board. It was Bill who vetoed that idea and did NAFTA first, essentially dooming universal healthcare in the Senate.)
There's a lot of contrary evidence that you are just blind to. They're blindspots or "lacunae" - to use a big word - in your argument and narrative.
"So I'm betting it's based on the fact that you don't want a black President." I've felt the same about Petey for quite some time now.
No, Petey is not a racist, he is a fanatic. Whatever he wants, he adjusts reality to make it true. He did it with Edwards earlier. The best examples are his posts about the Denver Nuggets.
By October he will be condemning someone for criticizing Obama with a zeal most of the rest of us could never muster.
" it's just better to have the superdelegates state their preferences sooner rather than later."
Some of these superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama. Just for argument sake, what would happen if Obama were to lose in North Carolina and Indiana? Might that cause some of these delegates to switch back? My point is you can declare all you want but if the possibility exists to adjust your preference down the road, how important is it really?
"I trust Clinton to act in her own political interests, and passing universal healthcare is in her own political interests."
It was in Clinton's interests to vote against the war. She wasn't going to lose her Senate seat if she did that and she would have sealed up the nomination by now if she had (in fact, there is a decent chance Obama and Edwards would never have run if she had been against the war from the beginning and she could have offered either of them the VP slot early on to seal her victory). It wasn't in her interest to tell Senator Moynihan that she would demonize anyone who got in her way in 1993. The truth of the matter is that Iraq is going to be too much of an issue for either candidate to focus a lot on health care from 2009-2013.
Also, what isn't economically royalist about telling working-class people they have to fork cash over to huge insurance companies or face government fines?
Comments closed May 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"it's just better to have the superdelegates state their preferences sooner rather than later."
Considering that Clinton is highly likely to win most of the remaining contests, I understand why the Obama partisans feel this way.
But most sane folks think that making decisions after the voting ends on June 3rd makes the best sense for the Party.
Of course, the "I'd rather lose in November with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd isn't too concerned with what makes the best sense for the Party, but that's a topic for another day.
Posted by Petey | April 30, 2008 9:35 AM