Elite Unity

John Sides argues convincingly in the LA Times that once the Democratic nomination race is finished, the dynamics of an Obama-McCain campaign are very likely to unify Democratic voters around Obama. It's a good piece, and a welcome reminder that it would be good to see more political scientists doing popular writing on these much-discussed points about election dynamics.

I'd say that the more legitimate concern about unity would have to do with elite unity. There's a certain set of people who, say, donated to the Clinton re-election campaign in 1996, to Al Gore in 2000, to the DNC when Terry McAuliffe was chair, to some pro-Kerry 527 groups in 2004, and to Hillary Clinton's primary campaign in 2008. These folks aren't going to vote for McCain, but how invested will they be in backing Obama? That's in part going to be a function of whether or not Bill and Hillary urge them to be deeply invested in backing Obama. And much the same could be said for other brands of elites -- interest group leaders, random consultants and strategists, etc.

Maybe Hillary Clinton would strongly prefer being Vice President to being Senator from New York. If so, her sway over these kinds of people could be a good reason for Obama to seriously consider a unity ticket even though such a ticket has a bunch of other drawbacks.

Comments

Dear Matt: The hell with the people you describe. Their money is nice but not essential, their egos are a big handicap, and based on the record of the campaign they backed, they ain't that smart. Besides, their deep inner need to be on the inside looking out will rally them to Obama.

Posted by JMG | May 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Matt - Hillary didn't help Kerry, she hasn't helped ANY democrat. She won't help Obama. She has aimed to kneecap him and the Democratic party from the beginning.

But you won't see her aiming the "kitchen sink" at the republican party.

Matt, you must be blind - the Clintons have insulted and threatened true blue democrats. She will probably have to find a new "home" state, probably West Virginia or Kentucky, where there are more of her constituents - those hard working (and poor) white voters.

Posted by Laura Roslin | May 25, 2008 4:57 PM

I think this post ignores the dynamic of elite power brokers; namely that to stay relevant they need to retain power.

So if out of loyalty to the Clintons, they take themselves out of the game and sit on the sidelines as Obama becomes president, guess what? They don't get any credit for the win. Au contraire.

Plus they are out of power, perhaps for the next eight years. Which may also mean they are not elite anymore.

You think anyone serious about power, including (especially?) the Clintons, will do that?

No.

Posted by c cobb | May 25, 2008 5:09 PM

Polls are meaningless this far out, yada, yada, yada, but I wonder if the current polls showing Clinton doing better than Obama against McCain are a reflection of the fact that Obama supporters have no difficulty announcing their support for a hypothetical Clinton candidacy, because it ain't going to happen.

Clinton supporters, alternatively, are still too invested in this (non-) race to support Obama. But that will change in a month.

Posted by Ryan S | May 25, 2008 5:09 PM

If so, her sway over these kinds of people could be a good reason for Obama to seriously consider a unity ticket even though such a ticket has a bunch of other drawbacks.

Wow. How drunk are you? Those drawbacks include "her sway over these kinds of people." Absent absolute necessity, who the fuck forms a unity government with the person who most wants to stab him in the back? Maybe reflect on the Iron Law of Institutions for a bit.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 25, 2008 5:12 PM

The Hillary constituency will evaporate...quickly. Gays? What good would it do to let McCain win? Older white women? They've got few choices and no real animus towards Obama. Their problem is with men in general and that's not going to change by staying home. Power elites? C Cobb is exactly right. Why stake everything on a very slim chance that Hillary comes back in 2013 and remembers their loyalty. White hillbillies? Voting R in the general until they die.

The only thing that Hillary could do to really change this outcome would be to form a unity ticket....with John McCain.

Posted by wren | May 25, 2008 5:22 PM

They will try to get onto the Obama bandwagon because he is the future. It is as simple as that. Clinton has so discredited herself that I really think it is going to be difficult to pick her.

Posted by Chris Diornan | May 25, 2008 5:28 PM

Ryan S: That's exactly my theory. You will notice that Clinton's support with Obama voters rose as it became more and more clear that Obama was going to win. The reverse happened with Clinton voters, who stopped saying they would support Obama as he became the frontrunner. Its a natural reaction, really. I would answer a pollster today that I would vote for Clinton over McCain because its a moot question and I am concerned about party unity. The same wasn't true a few months ago, when I would have been most concerned with making sure that the pollster knew I was strongly for Obama.

Right now, about 25% of democrats are saying they will vote for McCain over Obama. That's about double the usual number I think. Assuming the usual number of Dems come home by the fall, Obama's due a 4-5% bump over the next few months. Even if that full bump doesn't materialize, a 2-3% bump would be pretty huge considering Obama is already the favorite in most analyzes.

Posted by Leo | May 25, 2008 5:30 PM

Who really cares what they think? Their money doesn't matter anymore. It would be nice, but lets be honest, the Democratic money advantage doesn't come from them. It comes from us.

Posted by soullite | May 25, 2008 5:30 PM

That's in part going to be a function of whether or not Bill and Hillary urge them to be deeply invested in backing Obama.

I strongly disagree with this. It is OVER for Hillary Clinton -- and Bill is totally yesterday. This is largely due to their behavior, all of which has been hostile to party unity.

Posted by Econobuzz | May 25, 2008 5:30 PM

I'll never vote for that lowdown scum, Obama. The insults and damage he's done to Hilary and the Democratic Party cannot be overstated and is a national tragedy. Senator Clinton is truly one of the Great Americans of our time and to see her disparaged in such a fashion brings a tear to my eye as well as gets my gander up. Shame on you, Barack Obama and supporters, SHAME.

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 5:51 PM

EWard,

God, I hope they're paying you well.

Posted by Persia | May 25, 2008 5:58 PM

The EWard imposter has resurfaced. The post at 5:51PM belongs to someone else.

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 5:59 PM

EWard:

I think that there are a large number of Obama supporters who have been extremely mean and unfair to Clinton, in the comments to this blog and in many other places on the web. I say this as an Obama supporter who isn't that big a fan of Clinton.

However I'd like to know what you think that Obama and his actual campaign aides have done to damage Hillary? There have been some normal political give and take (I am for change -- you are establishment), but what are the specifics? It seems to be that they've been fairly gracious to her, if perhaps occasionally dismissive the last month or so as they've gotten closer to wrapping up the primary.

Posted by mrs | May 25, 2008 6:05 PM

You have lived too long in Washington and it really shows. Too bad.

As even some of the talking heads on cable recognize you can't run on changing the system and have the embodiment of the corrupt old guard as a running mate.

Posted by Martin | May 25, 2008 6:14 PM

mrs

British Journalist Andrew Stephen had the best summation about the norms of the Democratic race. He writes for the New Statesman. This paragraph describes the culture of hating Hillary.

"...Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious US presidential candidate in history."

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 6:17 PM

IF these people want to be part of the new Democratic coalition and part of Obama's campaign, then THEY need to make the move to do so, not Obama. He owes them nothing, in fact, they need to work for it. If these folks are Democrats, they'll support him and the party. If all they are, are Clinton loyalists then Obama shouldn't want them any where near his administration.

Posted by tom.a | May 25, 2008 6:18 PM

mrs

Whoops! Correction
"...to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history."

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 6:21 PM

Whether Haim Saban and the other Hillary billionaires support Obama depends upon whether Obama will be their puppet or not -- not on what their now-irrelevent puppet Hillary says. Although they may be satisfied if Obama accepts Hillary inside his Administration as their spy.

Haim Saban noted in his Haaretz interview that one buys the media for influence, not for profits.
So why do you guys think Haim bought Univision last year -- the Spanish-language TV network that's the fifth largest US network and which could have enormous influence over the Hispanic swing vote of Florida, California, and Texas?

The decisive vote will be whether the other billionaires in this country decide that Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham, Shelton Adelson and big oil deserve a nice slap on the balls for this mess.

Plus Haim and S Daniel Abraham could write checks tomorrow to the RNC for $20 Million and not break a sweat.

Posted by Don Williams | May 25, 2008 6:26 PM

"John Sides argues convincingly in the LA Times that once the Democratic nomination race is finished, the dynamics of an Obama-McCain campaign are very likely to unify Democratic voters around Obama."

The Democratic primary race may be over but Obama supporters are blind to the dismay felt by many white working class Democrats and disappointment felt by many Democratic women - especially middle aged and older women - who have waited their whole lives for a woman president; these voters have a deep sense of having been disrespected.

I think this election could turn out to be the final undoing of the old New Deal Democratic coalition rather than the beginning of a new Democratic majority (even if Democrats make gains in Congress, as seems likely).

I'll be surprised if any candidate for American president who denounces a war while American kids are still deployed in the service of that war - while that war is still happening - can win the presidency.

Posted by Linus | May 25, 2008 7:05 PM

This is the closest run nomination race in decades. Some might say that Hilary has earned a place on the ticket.

What I don't quite understand is why she would want to be veep.

One posibillity is that she thinks an Obama/Hilary ticket would be more electable. There is a certain bizarre logic here, the GOP is so used to going into attack dog mode on her its almost comical. Hilary could certainly help with the Florida Jewish vote. But other than that it is hard to see the logic.

The only other area would be governing once elected. Having someone in the cabinet who really understands their way around the White House and who is likely to try and throw a monkey wrench in plans and when could be a real asset.

If she wants the job, the only reason I can think of her wanting it for is to lead the charge on healthcare.

Posted by PHB | May 25, 2008 7:05 PM

I assume Hillary wants to be on the ticket. Back in February when she was hopelessly behind, she floated the idea of a dream ticket. It was pretty transparent to me that she was already angling to be the vice presidential nominee if she didn't win - not seriously offering the vice-presidency to at the time the front-runner.

Can Hillary force her way onto the ticket? I hope not. Three data points:

Intrade last traded her as VP at 17.6. Behind Webb at 21.9.

At the moment, that is a rough guide to the conventional wisdom. To intrade there is only one person more likely than Hillary to get on the ticket with Obama but Hillary is not 50% to get on, or even 25% - far from a lock.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html

Bob Beckel thinks Hillary has the delegates and superdelegates to force her way on.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

Al Giordano reports that Hillary has already asked and Obama has already said no so the matter is settled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Obama's quote:
"Two weeks from now, we will know who wins the Democratic nomination," Mr. Obama replied. "I don’t want to jump the gun. I will tell you though that my goal is to have the best possible government — and that means me winning. So I am very practical-minded guy."

Sounds to me unfortunately like "Paris is worth a mass ... the Presidency is worth Clinton on the ticket". But it could also mean the presidency is worth a Republican on the ticket.

Posted by Arnold Evans | May 25, 2008 7:12 PM

This is the closest run nomination race in decades. Some might say that Hilary has earned a place on the ticket.

What I don't quite understand is why she would want to be veep.

One posibillity is that she thinks an Obama/Hilary ticket would be more electable. There is a certain bizarre logic here, the GOP is so used to going into attack dog mode on her its almost comical. Hilary could certainly help with the Florida Jewish vote. But other than that it is hard to see the logic.

The only other area would be governing once elected. Having someone in the cabinet who really understands their way around the White House and who is likely to try and throw a monkey wrench in plans and when could be a real asset.

If she wants the job, the only reason I can think of her wanting it for is to lead the charge on healthcare.

Posted by PHB | May 25, 2008 7:17 PM

PHB:

When you see the error message when you post, don't post again. Just wait. Open the blog in another window or tab and reload the post. Most likely it will be there. If not, resend the message after you've checked (reloaded the page) two or three minutes later if it still is not there.

Every single time I've gotten the 501 error I think, the comment was on the way and showed up without reposting. This happens about 50% of the time when I try to leave a comment here.

Everyone else:

What we need now is Matt to predict that Hillary will be on the ticket.

Matt Yglesias:

Come on, if we've ever needed you it's now. After this I won't ask for any more predictions until I ask you to predict McCain in November.

Posted by Arnold Evans | May 25, 2008 7:44 PM

"I'll be surprised if any candidate for American president who denounces a war while American kids are still deployed in the service of that war - while that war is still happening - can win the presidency."

Another Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

He may be right, however. As I've said, unless Obama can gut McCain over the "war hero" crap, McCain is going to win - especially with Hillary sabotaging Obama right through to November and Bush making air strikes on Iran.

"What I don't quite understand is why she would want to be veep."

There are two very obvious reasons:

1) It's as easy to be elected President having been Vice President as it is being a Senator.

2) She can undermine Obama for the next four years, thus insuring she has a better shot at the next four years.

That should be obvious. And it fits the power mad way Clinton thinks. The notion that she cares about whether the Democratic ticket is "electable" or that she cares about "health care" is just laughable. The only thing Clinton cares about is money and power.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 25, 2008 7:50 PM

Do you really think those people will remain loyal to the Clintons after their spectacular self-immolation? I'm sure they just hitched themselves to what they thought was an unpleasant but winning team. Don't you think they'd want to be hitched to a rising star of Barack's talent and magnitude?

Posted by cnnr | May 25, 2008 8:08 PM

The "Dream Ticket" with Obama and Hillary will be a disaster. Any democrat who wants to see a McCain presidency in 2009 should keep pushing this idea. Hillary still has the power to mobilize a huge negative GOP vote. Why would Obama ever consider picking a VP candidate with so many liabilities and negatives?

Posted by nick | May 25, 2008 8:20 PM

"these folks aren't going to vote for McCain, but how invested will they be in backing Obama?"

who cares? what purpose do they serve?

Posted by mr. whipple | May 25, 2008 9:45 PM

Hillary has burned too many bridges. Here's a post from Sullivan about her needing to mend relations with blacks in New York. If she doesn't do that, she could find herself in a primary fight for her Senate seat in 4 years.

Bill has also burned his shared of bridges. Here's a post from Sullivan with some recent Bill quotes. Bill is throwing temper tantrums. He traded his political skills in for ranting advocacy of Hillary. He's looking really bad and really pathetic.

These two are now damaged goods, and it is completely their own doing.

Posted by LFC | May 25, 2008 9:59 PM

I really don't get Matt's logic. The one thing Obama clearly needs the least from Clinton is money, which seems to be the main point of Matt's post. And as for "interest group leaders" ... look at the unions, look at NARAL, and so on. They are rallying behind Obama, for all the reasons people above have given.

Posted by DTM | May 25, 2008 10:40 PM

Now Matt, "don't you get all wobbly on us".

Unity isn't purchased, especially by blackmail.

There is a thick catalog of reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be VP to anyone, and particularly to Barak Obama - and you know those reasons are sound. And we don't need Terry McAuliffe or Mark Penn either.

In mid-March, it might have been appropriate for Hillary to QUIETLY approach Barak and say that she would exit the campaign and would be willing to serve as VP if Obama so chose. That would have been unifying, without duress. Bill Clinton et. al are attempting blackmail to gain their support, and it should be not only unacceptable to Obama but to ANY smart-thinking Democrat.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 25, 2008 11:45 PM

The Unity ticket is a non-starter. Not going to happen. Now or ever. Period. Point final. If someone offers to put money on Clinton as VP, take the bet.

Posted by Bullsmith | May 26, 2008 12:28 AM

I think some people here have totally lost perspective. The Clintons are not your enemy.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:37 AM

Oh, yes, the Clintons most definitely are the enemies of every American - except morons like you, Tim.

Corrupt, lying bastards are always the enemy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 12:43 AM

Richard:

You're basically a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. Maybe you should go investigate Area 51 or the JFK assassination. And no, that isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on the loony tune statements you make on a daily basis.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:47 AM

If Hillary's plan is to do some form of damage to Obama that only she can undo, to force her way onto the ticket, she is the enemy of at least Obama, if not of Democrats and if you believe liberals are right, to the country and the world.

Hillary has spent a lot of money on negative attacks on Obama after her campaign staffers began anonymously telling reporters that they believed they had a 10% chance of winning.

If Obama believes either that Hillary is not the best choice for winning the election or the best choice for a well-functioning executive branch after inauguration, or the best choice to replace him if he cannot serve, he has every right to choose a different candidate.

To the degree Hillary is threatening to compromise party unity if Obama chooses another candidate - and she has not made that threat explicitly, but it could well be the rationale behind some of the measures she's taken since around March, she is the enemy.

One thing I'm confident in though is the political competence of the Obama team. I'm sure Obama shares my preference that Clinton not be on the ticket, just in my gut and I'm sure if there is a good way to keep her off the ticket, they'll do it.

If the Obama team calculates that they are better off putting her on the team, for whatever reason, I'll support that as a competent decision and I'm sure adequate measures will be taken after inauguration to ensure that the Clintons are not able to distract the administration.

But the Clintons at this time appear to me as clearly incapable of putting the party or liberal or any other ideals before their ambition. If the positions had been reversed, Obama certainly would have at the very least stopped any negative campaigning by the end of February when he realized the nomination was close to tied up and by now would be supporting Clinton.

Team Clinton's claims today that Obama is being sexist, that the nomination process is illegitimate for various reasons and her efforts to exacerbate any problems Obama has reaching poor Appalachian whites, a problem Hillary has spent a lot of resources making worse - are the actions of an enemy.

Posted by Arnold Evans | May 26, 2008 1:40 AM

How much do we really need a small handful of big money supporters? After all, every time the Democrat has to go to Burbank to suck up to Hollywood stars, those pics make it into attack ads or whatever. If you rely on 1 person to give you $1,000, you have to support whatever microinitiative they want. If you rely on 100 people to give you $1,000 collectively, you have more leeway to set good policy. Obama's small donor base and internet model could hopefully be the death knell for the likes of AIPAC having such a large amount of influence on political actors.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 4:14 AM

I don't think there is any argument that the Obama campaign needs Hillary Clinton or President Clinton for fund-raising.

Ultimately the Clintons' strength is people. They have a highly committed core of staffers and political allies in the Democratic party, as well as a huge personal following of supporters. Clinton didn't start out the race this way, but she has proven herself as tough and dogged a campaigner as you're likely to find as a VP or high-profile supporter. There are very Democrats I would rather have as surrogates going into places like rural Missouri, southern Ohio, central and western Pennsylvania, West Virgina, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Arkansas. And for a campaign so highly energized by young people, there is no better prototype of a highly-engaged, talented and intelligent young person as Chelsea Clinton to act as surrogate.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 10:11 AM

question is, why did Matt say this? He isn't an altogether stupid guy but a) he knows it ain't going to happen, and b) how do you appoint a vp who thinks your opponent is better suited to be commander in chief?

Money -- she's broke and in debt.
Campaign moxie -- her campaign was an unmitigated disaster and endless soap opera

So what motivated Matt to say this? Is he looking to succeed David Broder?

Posted by Storm | May 26, 2008 10:18 AM

Investment in Obama sounds a lot like contribution so I'd like to give my view as someone who supports Obama but has not given any contributions.

I gave his Senate campaign a $50 contribution back in 2004. He won handily partly due to a lack of a credible GOP candidate. I kind of felt that my money would have been better spent elsewhere.

Today, he has no trouble raising funds so I think his election this November (assuming he gets the nomination) will hinge on something other than money. Because of this I still feel that any money I give this year might do better somewhere else.

Posted by CarlP | May 26, 2008 10:33 AM

Hillary has run perhaps the worst campaign in primary history. She lost despite having every advantage over her opponents. She lost largely due to the incompetence of Team Hillary.

She can't go 2 weeks without committing a major gaffe. She's neither a great orator, nor does she hold good rallies.

Why do we want her on the ticket? She's proven that she can't campaign worth a crap.

Posted by Luke | May 26, 2008 10:48 AM

The worse campaign in primary history? Is that some kind of (unfunny) attempt at humor?

If Hillary Clinton is such an incompetent bafoon then how did she trounce your candidate in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Kentucky (and beat her in Texas and Indiana) even after he became the de facto nominee and outspent her at least three to one? The last nominee to get his ass kicked so thoroughly in late primaries, even after building up an insurmountable delegate lead, was Jimmy Carter in his 1980 re-election.

There is no question the Clinton campaign committed some unpardonable strategic errors during their campaign. Yet she has still won more popular votes than anyone else who has ever run for president, and come closest to the nomination than any runner up in history.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 12:26 PM

Tim K, if you want to be overly literal, some kook interviewed on the Daily Show or Mike Gravel had the worst campaign run. However, I can't think of anyone (at least since Meese) who failed as spectacularly as she did. This should have been the electoral equivalent of making a layup. Any Clinton would rack up a lot of votes, but there is no excuse for being a Clinton and still losing to a first-term Senator. Think about that: she had the name advantage, the family advantage, the nostalgia advantage, the advantage of the fact over half of all Democratic primary voters are women, the early money advantage (with early money often being the most important money in a primary to overwhelm challengers early) and she still lost. Buddy would probably have won at least 5 states because he was a Clinton and he got hit by a car years ago. For Clinton to not win big in at least 5 states as a Clinton would probably require her promising to make bin Laden her VP and shoot Oprah on live TV. The spectacular size of her failure hasn't hit you yet. Her campaign is the Titanic of primary campaigns: huge, famous and supposedly unsinkable.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Tim:

Who would you say took strategic advantages comparable to Hillary's into the primaries and and lost?

In December 2007:

Hillary was the single highest name recognition active politician in the party;

Her husband, who was voraciously campaigning for her, was the most popular inactive or active figure in the party;

She had more money when the primaries started than anyone else;

She had large poll leads nationally and in every state over every candidate except maybe, maybe some home states;

She had the support of party GOTV machines in many states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio;

She was the last white candidate facing an approximately 75% white primary electorate. She was the only female candidate facing an approximately 55% female primary electorate, and an historic female candidacy at that;

She started the race with a nearly 100 superdelegate lead before the first vote was cast.

A candidate that fails to win given these advantages can fairly be said to be a poor campaigner.

Maybe Kerry, Al Gore, Clinton or Dukakis also would have lost to an Obama-level candidacy given these advantages, but that's hard to call and I lean towards doubting it.

Hillary was an unusually ineffective campaigner for a front-runner.

Everyone else:

I think the most compelling data point on the VP nomination is the leaks to Al Giordano at The Field blog. The Obama campaign's claim to fame is its lack of unauthorized leaks, so this leak had to be authorized, coming from multiple sources as Al says it was. It was a dog whistle to Obama's supporters that he will not take Clinton on, but the message was sent before he could say it publicly, since we at this time still have a divided and wounded Democratic party.

I'm part of the anybody-but-Clinton contingent of the VP issue because I feel like her campaign was and still is unnecessarily destructive considering it was run against another democrat. I think Webb would be a great choice, but ideal would be an anti-abortion, pro-Iraq-withdrawal republican.

That would send an astonishing message that the democrats intend to take the independents and dismantle the republican party. It would just be overwhelming.

Posted by Arnold Evans | May 26, 2008 1:10 PM

Reality Man:

Don't patronize me and talk to me as if you're some kind of psychiatrist. It hasn't "hit me" yet? Give me a break. You are representative of the spectacular arrogance of the entire Obama operation and its supporters. Ultimately it is that arrogance that is the greatest threat to him being elected president.

I never thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable. I wasn't even sure she'd end up running because I knew how tough a sell she was going to be. Primarily through her debate performances she convinced me of her savvy, depth of knowledge and readiness to be president; this was at a time when Barack Obama was bush-league, amateur hour.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Ultimately the Clintons' strength is people

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 10:11 AM

What a stupid fucking thing to say. Certainly one of Tim K's top 10 hits of idiocy.

Do you believe children are our future too, Timmeh?

Quit the glue sniffing. It seems you lose IQ points by the day.

Posted by Selene | May 26, 2008 1:35 PM

"Don't patronize me and talk to me as if you're some kind of psychiatrist. It hasn't "hit me" yet? Give me a break. You are representative of the spectacular arrogance of the entire Obama operation and its supporters. Ultimately it is that arrogance that is the greatest threat to him being elected president."

Oh, I just love the self-parody and lack of self-awareness. I'm patronizing to you because everything you say is patronizing. Do you get that? Even when you think you're engaging people, you're patronizing. I'll stop being your psychiatrist when you stop treating everyone on this board as your shrink as you act out to get attention and free treatment.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 1:39 PM

Reality Man:

How would you like me to present my sincere belief that Senator Clinton is the stronger general election candidate with the more solid electoral college map? How would you like me to phrase my belief that she would be a strong VP pick for the likely nominee?

I'm open to hearing constructive criticism if you feel I have been overly abrasive, but I'm not going to alter the substance of my analysis just because you MAY not want to hear it.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 1:54 PM

I'm open to hearing constructive criticism if you feel I have been overly abrasive, but I'm not going to alter the substance of my analysis just because you MAY not want to hear it.

You're not going to alter the substance of your analysis if objective facts contradict it either, so what's our reward for engaging with you at all?

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 2:03 PM

What southpaw said. Whenever holes are poked in your argument, you keep on repeating them as if that's going to make them more convincing. It just shows how few arguments and facts you actually have.

"How would you like me to present my sincere belief that Senator Clinton is the stronger general election candidate with the more solid electoral college map? How would you like me to phrase my belief that she would be a strong VP pick for the likely nominee?

I'm open to hearing constructive criticism if you feel I have been overly abrasive, but I'm not going to alter the substance of my analysis just because you MAY not want to hear it.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 1:54 PM"

Oh wait, now you want to engage? Make up your fucking mind. When someone pokes holes in your logic, you insult them, then you get smacked around and then you act all insulted like we're the ones being jerks. Stop acting like a child and take some fucking responsibility for being an asshole. If you want to be an asshole, be proud of it. I would have some respect for you if you embraced being the asshole you are, but you seem to be in denial about your entire personality.

The truth of the matter is you really don't have a map to show that tells us anything useful because nobody really has such a map. I can drudge up maps based on actual polling that show Obama is more electible. This changes from week to week, as I've explained to you many times, yet you don't have an answer for this. No map based on a week's worth of polling is going to change the fact that for years roughly half of all Americans, including the very independents and crossover Republicans that any Democrat would need to win, just plain don't like her. Obsessing over one or two states is how Kerry lost. Thinking small is why Clinton lost this primary. You are just repeating the same flawed framework that led to both of these losses.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 2:10 PM

There is no question the Clinton campaign committed some unpardonable strategic errors during their campaign. Yet she has still won more popular votes than anyone else who has ever run for president, and come closest to the nomination than any runner up in history.

The usual way to refute this familiar canard goes something like this, "This only makes sense if you count the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida, award Obama zero votes in Michigan despite the substantial expression of support for him in the Uncommitted vote, and exclude the popular vote totals of four caucus states. And that's just absurd." That's useful and comprehensive, but a bit overlong.

I'd suggest the following instead, This false because it leaves out four states.

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 2:11 PM

Oh wait, now you want to engage? Make up your fucking mind. When someone pokes holes in your logic, you insult them, then you get smacked around and then you act all insulted like we're the ones being jerks. Stop acting like a child and take some fucking responsibility for being an asshole. If you want to be an asshole, be proud of it. I would have some respect for you if you embraced being the asshole you are, but you seem to be in denial about your entire personality.

Just as I suspected, you really are not looking for a civilized discussion. You prefer to resort to investive, harsh and unnecessary rhetoric, personal insults, and hurling expletives. If you are not prepared to rise to the occasion when I do try to engage you, then please refrain from constantly complaining about me.

This changes from week to week, as I've explained to you many times, yet you don't have an answer for this. No map based on a week's worth of polling is going to change

There you go again with the same patronizing style you constantly accuse me of. Don't presume that you are so intelligent that it is for you to explain electoral math to me. I don't care where you went to college, it doesn't give you that right. And, again, it's not based on a single week's worth of polling.

Southpaw:

Then she's only accumulated 300,000 votes less than anyone who has ever run for president and come closer than any runner-up (at least in the recent history of Democratic primaries). Is that better? Either way she has a lot of support by any historical measure.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 2:30 PM

Either way she has a lot of support by any historical measure.

Well, in your original version, she has "won more popular votes than anyone else who has ever run for president." In truth, she hasn't won as many popular votes as the fellow she's losing to. I think there's a bit of difference there.

Sure, she has a lot of support, but there's another candidate who has even more support--and that's the one who's winning.

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 2:41 PM

"Just as I suspected, you really are not looking for a civilized discussion. You prefer to resort to investive, harsh and unnecessary rhetoric, personal insults, and hurling expletives. If you are not prepared to rise to the occasion when I do try to engage you, then please refrain from constantly complaining about me."

Funny, you're the only one here who draws this much ire. I'm more than willing to engage you when you put forward actual arguments. I only start smacking you around when you turn nasty. You really don't know what a nasty piece of work you make yourself out to be. It's not my fault you lack self-awareness. I've been called a nice guy all my life and rarely been called a jerk (usually by the bullies who grew up to be thieves and rapists) and a lot of the posters here that you throw nastiness at have a long history of engaging people, so I'm guessing the problem here is you. Considering how you have hurled insults at people in every thread you've taken part in here without prior provocation, I'm guessing you just have a short fuse. Are you in anger management at work?

"There you go again with the same patronizing style you constantly accuse me of. Don't presume that you are so intelligent that it is for you to explain electoral math to me. I don't care where you went to college, it doesn't give you that right. And, again, it's not based on a single week's worth of polling."

I'll stop being patronizing when you stop lecturing others on things you don't really understand in a patronizing manner. I'm just throwing back everything you throw at people because I enjoy beating up bullies.

Also, such averages are pretty much based on just one weeks worth of polling because the value of a polling goes up as the election nears. If you could assign a poll a value by how far advance it is from the election (say, the day before the election = 1) in terms of how much that poll tells you, a poll two years before would be = 0 and all polls in between would fall on that spectrum, but just about any poll so far out in advance would lean more towards 0 than 1 in value with the most recent poll being closest to 1 but still being closer to 0. You're basing an argument on smoke.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 2:44 PM

Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me

This and more on…

http://sensico.wordpress.com/

Posted by Brittanypatroit | May 26, 2008 2:49 PM

"Then she's only accumulated 300,000 votes less than anyone who has ever run for president and come closer than any runner-up (at least in the recent history of Democratic primaries). Is that better? Either way she has a lot of support by any historical measure.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 2:30 PM"

Nobody is arguing she doesn't have a lot of supporters in the Party, so you're arguing with a strawman. However, your use of her number of supporters as historical is lessened by the fact that this is partly due to population growth. After all, the second-biggest vote getter in American presidential election history was John Kerry in 2004 and that was largely a result of population growth.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 2:49 PM

This race is not about a left or right wing ideology. Most rational people want a President with experience. In every other profession, this is the norm. As Obama supporters, you are asking the other voters to make a giant leap in judgment about his thin resume.

What we care about is how will a candidate handle the problems of the country and demonstrate their leadership? Obama's speeches about unifying the party are in stark contrast with his campaign strategy of targeting Hillary's voters as racists, bitter, or low-information types.

If it's a losing strategy that you want, demeaning and belittling her side will cost him millions of votes. You also underestimate the anger against the MSM. Never before have the pundits asked one candidate to drop out before the convention. Hillary has the votes of 17,000,000 people. With the exception of Reagan, none of the previous Presidential candidates came close to that number, and they took their campaigns to the convention.

The Atlantic is a pro-Obama website. As bloggers, everything you say represents Obama on the web. By your words, you are pushing voters away from him. Furthermore, the personal slurs against Hillary's supporters only deepen the rift and will likely result in a Democratic lost in November.

Posted by EWard | May 26, 2008 2:50 PM

Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me

This and more on…

http://sensico.wordpress.com/

Posted by Brittanypatroit | May 26, 2008 2:51 PM

Reality Man:

Use a little bit of logic here. Do you think I would be "drawing this much ire" here - as you put it - if I were an Obama supporter? Clinton supporters are vastly out-numbered on this blog and it's difficult not to let that stoke a sort of siege mentality. Although I'm sure I'll regret making that admission as you'll no doubt once again once again resort to mockery and name-calling.

I only start smacking you around...

How do you figure you've done that? Save the macho bravado for impressing women or something like that.

a lot of the posters here that you throw nastiness at have a long history of engaging people, so I'm guessing the problem here is you.

There's a difference between engaging fellow Obama supporters and engaging with people you fundamentally disagree with. The latter is a lot harder. I'm not going to let Obama partisans like you walk all over me.

I'll stop being patronizing when you stop lecturing others on things you don't really understand in a patronizing manner. I'm just throwing back everything you throw at people because I enjoy beating up bullies.

You aren't being very convincing to anyone but Obamabots who already agree with you. You're the only bully here, anyways. Have I ever implied you are dumb or uninformed? No. You're the only person I'm talking to right now who doesn't know how to have a polite discussion.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 2:56 PM

"This race is not about a left or right wing ideology. Most rational people want a President with experience. In every other profession, this is the norm. As Obama supporters, you are asking the other voters to make a giant leap in judgment about his thin resume."

Actually, the historical trend in presidential voting says otherwise. After all, if that was true, Bush I would have been re-elected in 1992 over Clinton (who has more experience being president in relevant circumstances than the incumbent?), which means Hillary would never have been able to run in the first place. In fact, that argument was often used by Bush supporters against Bill.

"Use a little bit of logic here. Do you think I would be "drawing this much ire" here - as you put it - if I were an Obama supporter? Clinton supporters are vastly out-numbered on this blog and it's difficult not to let that stoke a sort of siege mentality. Although I'm sure I'll regret making that admission as you'll no doubt once again once again resort to mockery and name-calling."

Probably. I've thrown my fair share of snark at Richard Steven Hack in my time before I stopped reading his posts once he made it clear he's an absolute loon. You are using being a Clinton supporter as a shield to explain away why people don't like you. I was actually surprised reading through the first thread I saw your name in how quickly you turned nasty (and I got to read it pretty much in total while at work on the other side of the world, so by the time much of the discussion had taken place I was just starting work). You just simply lack the awareness to realize how sensitive you are to imagined provocations and how quickly you respond to a difference of opinion with insults. I count several Clinton supporters among my close friends, yet they don't turn nasty right away so we've never insulted each other over this. However, you are the type of person who if someone disagrees with you over Israeli policy, you accuse them of not caring about the deaths of innocent Israelis over a difference of opinion. That is simply beyond low class and nasty. You act like an asshole, people disagree with you and try to reason with you, you start calling people names, I and others call you an asshole, then you accuse me of not caring when children die. Do you understand why this makes you a special type of nasty?

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 3:12 PM

"You aren't being very convincing to anyone but Obamabots who already agree with you. You're the only bully here, anyways. Have I ever implied you are dumb or uninformed? No. You're the only person I'm talking to right now who doesn't know how to have a polite discussion.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 2:56 PM"

Umm, actually you have and have implied this about Obama supporters in general, such as saying people who think change and hope are arguments aren't worth engaging. Not only are you an asshole, you are a liar.

Posted by Reality Man | May 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Reality Man:

Some Obama supporters are naive and unrealistic. I certainly won't withdraw that observation I have made more than once. And "hope" and "change" are slogans and an example of clever gimmickry in the tradition of P.T. Barnum.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 3:29 PM

However, you are the type of person who if someone disagrees with you over Israeli policy, you accuse them of not caring about the deaths of innocent Israelis over a difference of opinion.

Oh my God, you're still not over that? That was like two months ago, man! I really struck a nerve there. And you call me insensitive! At least I'm not re-hashing harsh things people have said about me on here going back months. I'd need to hire a research assistant to dig all of them up, anyhow.

I'm sure you care about the deaths of innocent Israelis, okay? Just not quite enough to sanction using force to protect them or retaliate against their murderers... but you care. Oops, look, I did it again.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 3:37 PM

While I think of myself as pretty open-minded and moderate, my opinions on political matters put me firmly in the Democratic camp. So, I watched the GOP debates for reasons similar to those who watch cheesy horror movies. But my point here is that when the debates began, I had no particular favorite among the Democratic candidates. This time last year, I could have very easily lived with HRC as the Democratic nominee.

“Primarily through her debate performances she convinced me of her savvy, depth of knowledge and readiness to be president; this was at a time when Barack Obama was bush-league, amateur hour.”

I have to be honest; I find this hard to believe. I watched almost every single of every single debate, both the Democratic and GOP. First of all, it’s hard to distinguish yourself when you only have two hours, including commercials and moderator grandstanding and you have to share the stage with 8-10 opponents.

The only standouts I saw early on were Sen. Joe Biden and Rep. Ron Paul. Joe Biden displayed a mastery of foreign policy that was so stunning, neither HRC nor Obama could hold a candle to him. (That’s why Sen. Biden was my top pic, Obama was only #2.) And Ron Paul showed that he carried solid brass in his pants for actually stating why Bin Laden attacked on 9/11, in the midst of the GOP’s “they hate us for our freedoms” refrain.

I certainly didn’t see HRC outclass Obama by any huge margin. Was there something I missed, something that makes HRC so superior? (And I don’t mean the phony “GOP” talking point issues either. The fact that the media doesn’t spell out the point of the very defensible “no pre-conditions but preparations” posistion regarding Sen. Obama’s stance on meeting foreign heads of state only serves to illustrate how very useless the American Media is.)

“I never thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable. I wasn't even sure she'd end up running because I knew how tough a sell she was going to be.”

Yes but you understand that HRC and her people thought she was inevitable. She thought she’d win Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada by wide margin, maybe take a slight loss in South Carolina, (only because the blacks might vote for one of their own), and then wrap the entire race up by Super Tuesday. Clinton herself said in very late 2007 that the race would be over by Super Tuesday and she would be the winner.

Considering that level of arrogance and all of the built-in advantages that she had, I don’t think it’s a wildly inaccurate statement to say that she got routed by Obama. Who, in your words, was a “bush-league amateur.” Sure, she won a lot of votes in the process of getting routed. In the process of turning the tide in the Pacific theater and eliminating the Imperial Navy’s ability to wage an offensive war, the US lost a carrier at Midway too.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 3:50 PM

Clinton herself said in very late 2007 that the race would be over by Super Tuesday and she would be the winner.

Nearly every analyst I read or heard from in 2007 said the exact same thing. A lot of people were wrong.

I certainly didn’t see HRC outclass Obama by any huge margin. Was there something I missed, something that makes HRC so superior? (And I don’t mean the phony “GOP” talking point issues either. The fact that the media doesn’t spell out the point of the very defensible “no pre-conditions but preparations” posistion regarding Sen. Obama’s stance on meeting foreign heads of state only serves to illustrate how very useless the American Media is.)

I don't want to use any ideologically-tinged labels, as I'm told that's considered name-calling here. But some of those "phony" talking points are legitimate areas of concern vis-a-vis Barack Obama . Sometimes politics does mean giving the so-called "political answer." Sometimes the political answer is even the right one on substance, even if it doesn't jive with one particular world-view or is the view shared by party activists.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 4:01 PM

"Clinton supporters are vastly out-numbered on this blog and it's difficult not to let that stoke a sort of siege mentality."

"I'm not going to let Obama partisans like you walk all over me."

Tim, why do you still post here?

Note, I’m not questioning your right to post here. Nor am I asking why you would want to post on a political blog. As a political junkie with a college degree, I often feel the need to share a political view and lack real life people to talk to.

But Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. You’ve pretty much admitted to this. She most likely will not be the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2008 either. It does not really matter how many votes she has gotten, or how well she polls in this state or that state. Obama has more pledged delegates than her and will always have more pledged delegates than her. And as it is now, Obama actually has more super-delegates than her as well. She is only staying in now because of her own ego, well, her and Bill’s. The remaining 200 or so super-delegates are not going to all shift for Hillary. There’s no trickery that she can pull at the May 29 meeting of the rules committee, if FL and MI get counted, they will never count in a way that will change the nominating possibilities. Obama has smart people working for him too, for example, I’m sure Daschle’s people can play hardball too. The race is over.

My point is the majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents posting here are not going to want to talk about how HRC should be the nominee. A lot of the Pro-Obama people here are probably not pro-Obama as much as they are pro-reality and pro-victory. It’s over, Obama is our candidate, let’s concentrate on winning in November. The closer we get to November, the more you are going to see even Clintonistas and hard-core Hillary partisans posting about how great Obama is.

Post what you want but you are going to find yourself more and more alone.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Raindog:

To be completely honest I'm not sure what Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents here want to talk about. Certainly to come to a place where no one really disagrees about anything and amounts to a virtual pep rally for Obama isn't very intellectually stimulating or democratically healthy.

I agree we should all be thinking about ways Obama can win this election. That is exactly what I have been doing this week by advocating for him to choose Clinton as his running mate. You may not agree with me, but I do believe it would boost his electoral college prospect better than any other candidate.

What exactly will posting about how great Obama is accomplish? It's not like anyone who posts here seems persuadable either way.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 4:33 PM

“Nearly every analyst I read or heard from in 2007 said the exact same thing. A lot of people were wrong.”

Yes, so? They are paid to bull-sh*t the same stuff over and over again. Some are smart, many are actually fairly ignorant. None of them are paid or would be thought to have the same interest in HRC’s campaign as HRC herself and her staff. The MSM can be wrong and it won’t make much of a difference to the 2008 race. Obviously, the same does not hold true for Hillary and her staff.

“I don't want to use any ideologically-tinged labels, as I'm told that's considered name-calling here. But some of those "phony" talking points are legitimate areas of concern vis-a-vis Barack Obama . Sometimes politics does mean giving the so-called "political answer." Sometimes the political answer is even the right one on substance, even if it doesn't jive with one particular world-view or is the view shared by party activists.”

Tim. I’m not even sure what you are talking about anymore.

Obama’s point is simple.

The GOP of George W. Bush says we can’t talk to certain people without pre-conditions. Basically they mean; “we can’t talk to Iran until they recognize Israel, stop funding terrorism and prove that they are not working on any nuclear bomb technology.

Let’s ignore the fact that the NIE said that Iran showed no sign of working on a nuclear bomb. Let us also dismiss the story of the 2003 Iranian government, through the Swiss, offering all three concessions in exchange for an elimination of all economic embargoes and full diplomatic relations and being turned down flat by “W”.

So basically Bush’s point is; “we can’t talk to the bad guys until they do everything we want”. (Let’s ignore the fact that we have engaged with far more dangerous nations, like North Korea, under Bush’s watch. Let’s also ignore the fact that even Israel talks with Iran, albeit very secretly.) Even if such an outlandish idea was feasible, what purpose would the talks serve then, as the US would already have everything it wants? A similar historical analogy would be JFK, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, saying; “we can’t talk to the Soviets until they remove all of their missiles from Cuba, renounce Communism, embrace both Democracy and Capitalism and send Jackie a huge bouquet of flowers…..then we can talk”.

Obama says the US should talk without such ludicrous pre-conditions. But, there must be preparations. There must be a reason why the talks are taking place. Pres. Obama would not let any third-echelon tin-pot dictator score a propaganda victory off of him and the US. There must be an understanding; maybe if the US does “X”, maybe the other country will do “Y”. Again, if the US media was worth a damn, they would have already explained this in detail.

Obama’s view is the smart view. Of course, Republicans disagree, but most Republicans tend to do whatever their leaderships tells them to do. Democrats are different but then again, we are talking about the Democratic Primary here. Those who approve of Bush’s foreign policy would probably feel more at home in the GOP.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 4:51 PM

You may not agree with me, but I do believe it would boost his electoral college prospect better than any other candidate.

Having Clinton on the ticket would probably mean running with Clinton's electoral map and battleground states. I think that's a mistake.

Obama's general election strategy is based upon turnout and forcing the GOP to compete defensively in the border south (VA, NC) and mountain west. It's a continuation of the 50-state strategy. Clinton's addition to the ticket is counterproductive in that regard, because she's a lightning rod for the right and has conducted a campaign based upon discounting a much larger . It was based upon Kerry states+Ohio. I don't want the election to hinge on a few hundred thousand people in Dayton and Columbus.

I'm also unconvinced that Hillary (and Bill) won't go freelance, or that any of Clinton's campaign staff brought into the campaign wouldn't do likewise.

And that's the last time I'm going to engage with Tim K or EWard.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 26, 2008 4:56 PM

Raindog:

I don't want to talk about pre-conditions anymore. We've been having that debate for months until we were blue in the face.

pseudonym in NC:

It would be a mistake to run with Clinton's electoral map?

Clinton's electoral map: All the Kerry states + Ohio, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico and Nevada.

Plus, I'm sure Obama would still be able to compete very effectively in Iowa, Colorado, and perhaps Virginia.

Unless France recently received electoral votes and somebody forget to send me the memo, I'm not sure where else you think an Obama victory would be coming from.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 5:12 PM

“To be completely honest I'm not sure what Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents here want to talk about. Certainly to come to a place where no one really disagrees about anything and amounts to a virtual pep rally for Obama isn't very intellectually stimulating or democratically healthy.”

Tim, did you ever see that Kia car commercial for their Sportage SUV? It had two women in the front seats, a driver and a passenger. The voice over starts talking about how better female driver’s Kia is than the female passenger’s Toyota. The voice goes on and on until the female passenger turns around and says “will you stop it”, thus reveling a woman in the back seat. The woman in the back seat was actually the woman doing the voice over.

You are the woman in the back seat. The papers have been signed, the car is already off the lot and you keeping talking about how the “other” car was so much better. Your opinion might have been valid, it might have even been right. But it lost out, the choice has been made, it’s over.

There are plenty of other things to talk about, as illustrated by the comment threads on others posts here at the Atlantic. Talk all you want about HRC being the right choice but don’t expect that your continued advocacy of HRC is going to win you any new friends.

“What exactly will posting about how great Obama is accomplish? It's not like anyone who posts here seems persuadable either way.”

Come on, you know I was speaking with my tongue somewhat in my cheek. Basically, fewer and fewer Democrats and like-minded Independents are going to be talking about how other candidates would have been better and start debate more relevant issues. You started to do so when you began your Hillary for VP push. But now you are backsliding into not “Hillary would make the best choice for VP because she might help in state “X” or state “Y” but “Hillary would make the best choice for VP because she is even better than Obama”. That’s no different than saying HRC should be the nominee instead of Obama, which as I’ve said, is a concept that is going to be increasingly unpopular as time goes by.

It does not matter what states Hillary beat Obama in and by how much. That was the Democratic Primary race, the Democratic Primary race is just about over and HRC lost. She can’t make up the difference in delegates by getting bonus points for being the biggest vote-getting in the history of Democratic Primary runners-up either.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 5:16 PM

Talk all you want about HRC being the right choice but don’t expect that your continued advocacy of HRC is going to win you any new friends.

That's the last thing I believe. But I think this election is too important to base my commentary on whether or not sharing it will endear me to Obama supporters. As I said, choosing Clinton as VP is a decision that lies in the future, and does not qualify as navel-gazing or rear-view mirror analysis.

“Hillary would make the best choice for VP because she might help in state “X” or state “Y” but “Hillary would make the best choice for VP because she is even better than Obama”. That’s no different than saying HRC should be the nominee instead of Obama, which as I’ve said, is a concept that is going to be increasingly unpopular as time goes by.

What is this? The Obama version of Pravda? I'm still allowed to think Hillary Clinton is the better choice and express that. But lately it has been in the context of "this is how choosing her would help Obama" or "this is what Obama should learn from Clinton" and it's meant to be constructive.

I do not think the current Obama trajectory is towards victory in November. That's why I'm making these arguments.

Posted by Tim Kt | May 26, 2008 5:24 PM

Tim, I'm awarding you a theme song: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o8ozMybeyyE

I know, it never ends . . .

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 5:39 PM

"I don't want to talk about pre-conditions anymore. We've been having that debate for months until we were blue in the face."

Hmm, well, you have not discussed it with me, I don’t think. But that’s a rather awkward dodge.

You say that you support Clinton because of her debate performances.

I ask you what in her performances made you support her and reference the issue of the GOP’s attacks of Obama’s prospective foreign policy.

You confirm that some of your support for her is because of the “pre-conditions” issue.

I question the logic of the no talks without “pre-conditions” posistion.

You then say you don’t want to talk about it any longer.

Putting aside the fact that you have no-problem with going on about how great HRC is over and over again, why did you allude to the “pre-conditions” issue in the first place?

Basically, you purport yourself to be a person favorable to the stances of the Democratic Party. Yet you embrace the same criticism of the Dems leveled by the GOP. Others have accused you of being a right-wing troll. I have not; I have tried to give you enough respect to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you might want to mention why you supported HRC over Obama, besides the issue of electoral chances in November and those issues where Clinton takes a GOP stance instead of a Democratic one. So her support of flag-burning bans and greater restrictions on violent video games don’t really count here.

Perhaps I should just give up here.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 5:46 PM

Tim K: "You're basically a conspiracy theorist with no credibility."

You're a Republican tool with no credibility.

Your posts are more loony-tune than anything I can come up with - and that includes my Terminator posts, my Corrs posts, my Transhumanism posts, and even my joke posts.

You're a troll. Everybody here recognizes that.

You want "conspiracy theory"?

Alex Cockburn just said in Counterpunch exactly what I've been saying, to wit:

"Death-Wish Hillary Primes Manchurian Candidate
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05242008.html

Money Quotes:

Ever since she realized back in early March that Obama was going to take the nomination Hillary Clinton's long-term strategy has been to do her best to ensure McCain will win this November so she can become the Democratic nominee in 2012.

[That's EXACTLY what I said!]

In fact, right now she's probably sitting down with some numbed vet and whispering coyly in her best Angela Lansbury mode to the Lawrence Harvey stand-in, "How about passing the time by playing a little solitaire?" I pass on whether Hillary reprises Angela Lansbury's famous incestuous kiss on her son's lips. Perhaps Sid Blumenthal is the stand-in, though I doubt he's a very good shot.

How did Hillary Clinton try to remind Oregonians of her claims to be the authentic rep of white working-class America, without whose votes no Democrat can ever win the White House?

She held a press conference in the upscale Portland suburb of Beaverton, in a subdivision where $500,000 homes have gone unsold for the past year. She spoke movingly of the pain being experienced by the developer. A few miles north, homeless Oregonians were besieging the offices of Portland's mayor, Tom Potter.

The Gothic Politics of Hillary Clinton
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair05212008.html

Money Quotes:

Once upon a time while she was still the front-runner, Hillary chastised Barack Obama for his naïve pledge to take unilateral action to assassinate by cruise missile Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda leadership if their hideaway in the mountains of Pakistan could ever be located. She said such a strike would be destabilizing and in contravention of international law. Now Mrs. Clinton, following in the footsteps of her hero Goldwater, is vowing to take unilateral nuclear action to obliterate an entire nation: Iran.

The Clinton camp has become so entrenched in their racial rhetoric that I've begun to wonder if they begin their morning strategy sessions with a screening of the Rodney King beating tape as a motivational tool.

For the dull-witted, Clinton's surrogates are sent out spell it out in capital letters. Obama used cocaine (Bob Johnson). Obama's middle name is "Hussein" (Bob Kerrey). Obama is a master of "shuck and jive" (Andrew Cuomo). Obama is another Jesse Jackson (Bill Clinton). Obama's story is a fairy tale (ditto). And, most recently, Geraldine Ferraro told the Los Angeles Times that Obama is a "sexist" (most black men are, right?) and she won't vote for him if he is the nominee.

To sum up: Obama is a drug abuser, a huckster, a secret Muslim, a con artist and a misogynist. And that's without dragging Jeremiah Wright into the scenario.

Her campaign now resembles a political neutron bomb that wipes out all living contenders and leaves only the super-structure of her own aspiration standing. Apparently, the idea is to crush the interloper Obama, either in Denver, through some deus ex machina of spineless super-delegates stampeding her way, or to have McCain do her work for her so that she can challenge the septuagenarian in 2012. If so, her motto will be the familiar taunt of the schoolhouse tattletale: "I told you so."

If Obama survives the primaries and falls to McCain in November, Hillary will attempt to remake the Democratic Party in her own image. It will replay of the origin of the conservative DLC, designed by her husband and Lieberman to keep the party from falling into the hands of Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. This time the C will stand for Clinton.

The Clintons have always been graceless and petulant in defeat. They seek to destroy any defectors from their camp (c.f., Bill "Judas" Richardson). Now that NARAL has jilted Clinton for Obama, Hillary is probably contemplating coming out in favor parental notification for teenage abortions and joining the next senate filibuster against stem cell research."

Hillary Clinton is a right wing troll just like you, Tim.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 6:08 PM

"Unless France recently received electoral votes and somebody forget to send me the memo, I'm not sure where else you think an Obama victory would be coming from."

Uh-oh! Disregard the question in my last post Tim. I’m afraid, I think that I should give up on you as being who you say you are. That France crack is pretty close to verification of right-wing troll status. Why not start in on Massachusetts while you are at it?

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 6:10 PM

"As I said, choosing Clinton as VP is a decision that lies in the future, and does not qualify as navel-gazing or rear-view mirror analysis."

Only if you base your support of HRC as VP is on reasons other than the “she won way more votes/swing states/big states/red states/blue states/purple states/primary states/states that count/states of denial” than Obama argument. Praise for her as VP should be more than simple scorn for him as President, if you want to avoid the rear view mirror analyst charge anyway. That’s one of the two reasons why so many other people give you so much static.

"What is this? The Obama version of Pravda? I'm still allowed to think Hillary Clinton is the better choice and express that."

And there’s the other reason! Tim, before you get all pissy with me, perhaps you should actually read what I wrote in this same damn thread.

“Note, I’m not questioning your right to post here.”

“Post what you want but you are going to find yourself more and more alone.”

I think I’ve been more respectful of you than any other person here who both posts and disagrees with you as much as I do. The fact that you can’t restrict yourself from making such histrionic comments, even with me…..it’s just sad for someone who claims to have a progressive political orientation. But why listen to me; I’m nothing more than a sexist Marxist poster. Or a sexist totalitarian poster…..or whatever you meant with your silly charge.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 6:15 PM

"As I said, choosing Clinton as VP is a decision that lies in the future, and does not qualify as navel-gazing or rear-view mirror analysis."

Only if you base your support of HRC as VP is on reasons other than the “she won way more votes/swing states/big states/red states/blue states/purple states/primary states/states that count/states of denial” than Obama argument. Praise for her as VP should be more than simple scorn for him as President, if you want to avoid the rear view mirror analyst charge anyway. That’s one of the two reasons why so many other people give you so much static.

"What is this? The Obama version of Pravda? I'm still allowed to think Hillary Clinton is the better choice and express that."

And there’s the other reason! Tim, before you get all pissy with me, perhaps you should actually read what I wrote in this same damn thread.

“Note, I’m not questioning your right to post here.”

“Post what you want but you are going to find yourself more and more alone.”

I think I’ve been more respectful of you than any other person here who both posts and disagrees with you as much as I do. The fact that you can’t restrict yourself from making such histrionic comments, even with me…..it’s just sad for someone who claims to have a progressive political orientation. But why listen to me; I’m nothing more than a sexist Marxist poster. Or a sexist totalitarian poster…..or whatever you meant with your silly charge.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 6:17 PM

Damned Double-Post. Damned Lousy Server.

What was it O'Reilly said? Ah-yes.

F**KING THING SUCKS!!!!!

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 6:23 PM

Raindog:

With all due respect you can say you aren't questioning my right to post here, but still kind of be questioning my right to post here, if you know what I mean. The subtext I'm getting is that I should shut up and go away, and I don't appreciate it that. Or that if I were a real progressive I would just get on board with Obama.

I'll admit though that you have been more respectful of me than most people here. I appreciate that.

My Pravda comment wasn't to imply you are a Communist or a Totalitarian, but to suggest that this should not become a place where people come to heap praise on Barack Obama. There's been way too much of that already. It's not going to help him get elected.

What I genuinely think will help elect him in the long-run is if enough Democrats cause enough of a stir now that the Obama campaign realizes it doesn't walk on water and must change it's current trajectory.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 6:37 PM

"I've thrown my fair share of snark at Richard Steven Hack in my time before I stopped reading his posts once he made it clear he's an absolute loon."

Thanks, now I don't have to respond to your moronic snark. Saves me time to respond to Tim K's moronic snark.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 6:38 PM

“With all due respect you can say you aren't questioning my right to post here, but still kind of be questioning my right to post here, if you know what I mean.”

I’m sorry but I don’t even think God knows what you mean.

“The subtext I'm getting is that I should shut up and go away, and I don't appreciate it that. Or that if I were a real progressive I would just get on board with Obama.”

No, the subtext is if you keep on posting about how great HRC is, then you are a glutton for punishment. Just because I won’t respond to you like others might doesn’t mean I feel for you. Most Democrats and like-minded Independents don’t want to hear about HRC anymore, they want to win in November. You continue at your own peril but post all you want, as long as you want.

“I'll admit though that you have been more respectful of me than most people here. I appreciate that.”

Oh, and you show that by using my words to bring up Pravda??? I happen to come from a Catholic family that didn’t care for Communism much. My father fought the Communists in a certain Southeast Asian War, after he died I found out he had PTSD for almost 20 years afterwards. How he coped without becoming an alcoholic like his father, I’ll never know.

How would you react if I used your words to bring up NAMBLA’s newsletter, assuming such a thing even exists?

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 7:02 PM

I happen to come from a Catholic family that didn’t care for Communism much. My father fought the Communists in a certain Southeast Asian War, after he died I found out he had PTSD for almost 20 years afterwards. How he coped without becoming an alcoholic like his father, I’ll never know.

Every family has it's sad stories. There's no need to bring them up in order to defend oneself in a trivial argument on a blog.

If you could find a reason to bring up the NAMBLA newsletter in context then good on you, I wouldn't care.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 9:26 PM

"Every family has it's sad stories. There's no need to bring them up in order to defend oneself in a trivial argument on a blog. "

Well it puts into context why he might be particularly reactive to certain comparisons, there's nothing wrong with giving context to why you react a certain way.

Posted by RTG | May 26, 2008 9:58 PM

If you could find a reason to bring up the NAMBLA newsletter in context then good on you, I wouldn't care.

NAMBLA? You're a bit of a scumbag, Timmeh.

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 10:09 PM

southpaw:

Why because I'm not going to be baited into getting offended for no reason?

Posted by Tim K | May 27, 2008 12:10 AM

Are you still on about this, moron?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 4:17 AM