Democrats & Liberals Archives

Clinton & Obama: a Team?

No way! The entire current brouhaha about a serious primary conflict between Clinton and Obama that would require a brokered Democratic convention has been manufactured by the Clinton camp. The Obama camp has said almost nothing about this. Maybe it’s time for Obama to speak.

Before the primaries of Ohio and Texas, the momentum was with Obama. Even Bill Clinton said that Hillary must win both Ohio and Texas. And she did. But the number of net delegates she picked up was slim, not enough to change the math and the dynamics in any way.

That does not stop Hillary. She declares that now the momentum is with her. All the math guys in the party say that she can't get to the winning number, unless she gets more than about 60% of all the votes cast in future primaries. Nobody believes she can do this.

What does Hillary do? She gets everybody excited about a possible brokered convention. She goes on the air and says that maybe the best way to resolve the issue is by a joint ticket - naturally with Clinton on top. She further picks up the volume about having the delegates of Florida and Texas seated, even though the party barred them from the convention and no one campaigned there.

There's a way out. Mark Schmitt of Tapped has a brilliant idea for Barack Obama:

Here's the answer, and it's a little off the wall: He should offer a major concession. Agree to seat the Florida delegates from the January primary, along with a do-over caucus in Michigan. Don't concede the full legitimacy of the Florida primary, but just acknowledge that all the candidates were on the ballot and the expense and political cost of a do-over is too high. Seating the Florida delegation would be conditional on a do-over caucus in Michigan.

If you follow the competitive logic most of us use, this makes no sense. Why should Obama give in to something that is obviously wrong? Because this will enable him to win on his terms. Schmitt puts it neatly:

The advantages to Obama here are tremendous: it puts him firmly on the record in favor of enfranchising both states, it denies Clinton a second win in Florida, it shows a more magnanimous and graceful brand of politics than the win-at-all-costs mania we're witnessing from the Clinton camp, and it draws out the actual mathematical challenge she faces, without the fudge-factor of Michigan and Florida.

The philosophies of Clinton and Obama are so different they cannot be a team. One or the other must win. Schmitt's suggestion seems perfect for solving the problem.


Posted by Paul Siegel at March 6, 2008 6:05 PM
Comments
Comment #247230

And why, pray tell, would Clinton and her supporters ever go along with a proposal that was a “brilliant idea for Obama?” Forget about it. Not going to happen.

Posted by: Liam at March 6, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #247234

Right on! Interracial action, come get ya sum o dat!

And most of you were thinking,”we better get there before there’s a line.”

Posted by: dobropet at March 6, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #247235

Paul,
What you are suggesting would not make sense. The most likely scenario is that Obama will go into the convention with more delegates than Hillary, but not a majority. As Woody noted in another thread, the system of using superdelegates is shaping up to be a disaster, because it guarantees this kind of situation if one contender does not establish dominance early in the process. Most likely Obama will pull in enough superdelegates to win the convention. But after all is said and done, the long process will be expensive, and that’s not good considering the money could have been used for the general election.

The platforms for Hillary and Obama are very similar. Their philosophies differ, reflecting the nature of their power bases and their personalities.

The only sensible solution will be for Obama and Hillary to join, with Hillary as VP. Right now it seems less likely, because they are fighting hard for the nomination. But when the time comes, they could make a formidable team.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2008 7:15 PM
Comment #247236

phx8

Not a bad idea except for one minor glitch. Hillary will never accept second place! She is in this to win and I believe that if she doesn’t, she will go back to New York and sulk about the stupid people who voted for her much less qualified opponent. I have watched since she was in Arkansas. A couple of things I know about her: don’t trust her any farther than you can throw her, and: she has an ego bigger than Bill’s. She doesn’t take kindly to losing. Watch the rest of the primaries. She will do whatever it takes to defeat Obama.

Posted by: Old Grouch at March 6, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #247246

Why do Democrats think Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama is a dream ticket? I keep hearing that but I really don’t get it.

Fielding two northern Senators from deep blue states who have fought a contentious primary might unify the Democrats, but it doesn’t put any additional states into play for the Democrats or reach out to independents.

What’s the use of unifying the Democrats at the cost of lowering your chance to win the general election? If either of them has a lick of sense they’ll pick a governor of a swing state. A person like Mark Warner of Virginia, or someone else with similar qualifications.

Posted by: Liam at March 6, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #247251

And what platform would that run on. One way or the other. Neither has defined what they would promote to America that is different than where we are today. The media continues to give a pass on agenda to these two which is pathetic.

Posted by: Honest at March 7, 2008 1:36 AM
Comment #247255

I don’t think that Barack Obama will allow Clinton to be his VP. No way, no how - and rightly so.
She is doing nothing but attack a fellow Democrat - not on policy - but very personally. She has now compared him to Bush, Rove, and Ken Starr on various occasions. Twice now, Clinton has actually praised McCain over Obama for the presidency.

I honestly don’t see how even the strongest of Clinton’s supporters would wish to defend this.

Most recently, this is what she said:

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.

Comments on these comments, and on Paul Siegel’s article topic:

1. This praising of McCain over Obama is a HATCHET JOB on the entire Democratic Party, not just Obama.

2. This hatchet job on our party has to be making many of the super delegates think twice about giving her their vote. Not to mention the fact that the Clinton Entity never had any coattails to offer Democratic politicians, and clearly Obama does.

3. She is not just allowing, but actually WELCOMING THE IDEA of having the GOP frame the issue of major importance in the general election. GOP issue-framing is exactly how Democrats LOSE elections.
With Obama, the GOP’s p*ss-poor judgment on the war(s), and on Republican handling of national security issues, and all the grave and serious issues surrounding these things and many more, will gain much more prominence.
Clinton doesn’t want to draw attention to her vote that took us to Iraq, or to the fact that she didn’t even bother to read the NIE before she voted YES on the Bush Lies that took this nation to war mistakenly and makes us occupiers of Iraq to this very day. Her judgment is so questionable, that McCain now actually looks like her “good friend.” As they say: Misery Loves Company.

4. Queen Hillary in this chess game has no intelligence or judgment, and has stupidly and willingly moved herself into check. If she had better judgment and wasn’t so out to ‘rook’ Obama of this nomination, she wouldn’t have sunk so low. If she was thinking clearly, she’d naturally see that by calling McCain’s ‘years of experience’ with national security the most important issue, and far superior to Obama, she only pointed up the fact that if this experience is actually all that really matters (rather than intelligence and sound judgment) McCain’s years clock in far superior to her own. Checkmate.

5. Hillary was head of the Republicans At Wellesley while in college, and she still obviously is a Republican if she really believes that McCain is preferable to Obama for the presidency. True Democrats would never make a comment like this in a million years simply to score points for themselves over their fellow Democratic opponent. All of us know this, and so it is amazing to the majority of us to see Hillary willing to dump all over Obama and her own supposed party simply because she is losing, and nasty desperation seems to be all she is living on.

6. If she manages (through such nasty and desperate measures) to win this nomination, she should definitely go and ask Zell Miller to be her vice presidential running mate. Not only do these two angry cranks deserve each other, but they’re sure to lock up the angry-cranks-and-bigots vote without even having to break a sweat.

7. Obama does not need to make any concessions.
Let’s face it folks, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Clinton who was this many delegates ahead, everyone in the Democratic party would have been screaming for Obama to drop out of this race. And because Obama possesses so much innate dignity and good manners, he probably would have done so by now. Hillary, having not an ounce of class, and being such an obvious angry crank who is clearly willing on behalf of her vanity to burn down the Democratic party’s tent with everyone inside it, should not be expected to do likewise. As she said from the beginning, she was “in it to win it” and at this late stage, she obviously doesn’t give a rats ass HOW.

8. Hillary decided that “throwing the kitchen sink” at Obama was the only way she could win Texas and Ohio. Well, going all-out negative seems to have worked for her - even if she did lie about Obama/NAFTA/The Canadians (because it was actually HER campaign who did exactly what she accused Obama of doing!), and even if her employment of Rovian dirty tricks didn’t gain her many electoral votes.
If I were Obama, I would not allow myself to stand idly by as she continues to keep up this crap on a daily basis. In other words, Obama should not wish to play the John-Kerry-being-swiftboated role in this election. Obama should come out and say he is very sorry it had to come to this (because he never wanted, or expected, to have to stoop to this level) — and then he should proceed to unload the gigantic AVALANCHE of crap that can be employed against Clinton and keep it up until she is virtually buried in their very long and dirty history of corruption and scandals.

Best of all, Obama wouldn’t even need to lie or twist any of the facts, as she did.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 2:59 AM
Comment #247260

Paul, Hillary seems to be putting her foot in her mouth without any assistance from Barack. It would be a mistake for Obama to go on the attack. He is the front runner in delegates and money donations (handily), it may be smart for him to let Hillary act the role of desperation and pull out all the ethical and fair stops, which by the Convention will come back down on her like a ton of bricks. Her strategy has very short term gains, but no carrying power to the convention. Obama’s lead will continue to the Convention and his superior money raising will not be ignored by the Super Delegates, especially considering the broad grass roots base for it, which Hillary can’t compete with.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 3:31 AM
Comment #247261

We now see clearly that Hilary is just like Bush. She will break all rules to satisfy her ego. What’s she going to do next, take us into war without following the rules? Why don’t we go ahead and re-write the constitution while we are at it, since rules set in writing don’t matter.

Of coarse the heads of state in Florida, and Michigan want a do over, their political future is at stake, including the VP nod of the Florida Governor going out the window. They caused this and in my opinion the people of those two states should give them the boot and not further drive the Hilary wedge into the democratic party.

Since when do democrats listen to what the republicans think they should do? Can you imagine if they were telling the republicans what they think the republicans should do? oh right…Al Gore. If there is a re-do primary or Caucus, the dems will loose all credibility as a party.

So the argument is “well Floridians will just vote for McCain in revolt” the only person that can prevent that from happening is the person creating the division. Howard Dean must go to Hilary and say, “you are the one causing this divide, the divide will not be there if you stop asking for those states to be seated. You knew the rules, There will be bigger revolt and the death of hope for and of the democratic party, if you end up getting the nomination”. He should look her in the eyes and rightfully ask her “Are you working for the republicans?”

I hope Americans now see clearly that Hillary will not be able to get anything she is promising done, because she will fight her own party and give into the republicans like she did before, instead of bringing the parties together to accomplish the goals she has set forth. If she is fighting her own party now, she will fight her own party when in office.

The rules were set, plan and simple. Winning 3 out of 15 contests is not momentum, it’s not a comeback and it’s not a fight. She’s already lost and she should gracefully exist now rather than crying foul at everything, including the rules. I hope Hillary voters kept their receipt.

Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 7, 2008 3:54 AM
Comment #247262

So Ohio decided to give the Clintons a chance at a 3rd strike. Stike 1: NAFTA, Strike 2: Iraq, Stike 3? I can’t wait for this disaster.

No wonder their jobs got shipped to countries where the workers are a little smarter. How do you vote for the same person that you claim, cost you your job?

Women I’m sorry but I don’t get it. If Hilary was running as a Divorsee, who kicked her cheating husband to the curb, then sure rally behind her and chant her on. But to give this perv Bill a reward by putting him back in the white house? My god he stuck a CIGAR in Lewinsky’s genitals. Nancy Polisi will be the perfect 1st Woman President of the United States Of America when she runs in 2016. You can honestly say she did it on her own merit and not her infamy. If you can’t see that this is Bill’s loophole to get back in the white house I just don’t see what you guys are looking at.

Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 7, 2008 4:01 AM
Comment #247265

David:

It would be a mistake for Obama to go on the attack.

I fully understand this sentiment, and I once shared it, but over the past few weeks I’ve been discussing Hillary’s Rovian tactics with friends, and have ended up being persuaded out of holding this particular viewpoint. Like you, I at first thought that similar attacks directed from Obama’s campaign towards Hillary’s might make Obama seem like one of his major messages is hypocritical, but then too many other folks have been pointing out that these sorts of Republican attacks were exactly John Kerry’s undoing in the last election.

After giving this quite a bit of thought, I have to agree. Obama does have to get more forceful in return with her - even if he does risk an accusation of hypocritical behavior. It’s nice to be polite, but when someone is lying, and simultaneously trying to humiliate/kill you off, the dynamic truly does need to change.

So, now I agree that it would be a huge mistake for Obama to only stand passively by while Hillary keeps dumping as many personal attacks and lies as she possibly can on him. If all Obama does is try to ignore or greet these attacks with silence, not only does this make him look weak and ineffectual, but it allows all of Hillary’s Rovian-style attacks to get way too much media play without issuing responses.
Two reasons 1. Because the media thrives on this kind of sensationalized dirt-throwing and scandalbroth. 2. Even the GOP fearmongering that Hillary has and is engaging in with her ads is getting an enormous amount of attention, and because a large percentage of people in this country only get their news from television sound bytes that want to feed all of this to them daily, it means that only Hillary’s voice issuing damming comments and/or accusations at Obama will end up being what is disseminated widely, as well as constantly repeated.

Therefore, Obama has simply got to respond forcefully to these “kitchen sink tactics” Hillary is using. He can start by reminding people that for every single comment or accusation that she is directing his way, there are at least three or four strictly factual and verifiable nuggets of unflattering information that can be fired off about Clintonian corruption, cronyism, and hypocritical empty rhetoric.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 4:44 AM
Comment #247266

Here we go again. Its the “We Hate Hillary Show!”
The point of which is to find as many ways to hate and dump on her as possible.

Barack doesn’t need to worry about turning negative-he has his legion of fans to do it for him.

Good work guys-Barack would be proud!!!

Posted by: Carolina at March 7, 2008 8:01 AM
Comment #247267

Carolina

I do not hate Hillary. I have avoided writing a response in this tread until now because I don’t believe in the panic that a few wins for Hillary have caused. While I do not care for her cheap shot style of campaigning I certainly will not let it affect my judgment. This is not a man, woman, race, liberal or conservative thing for me. It is about nominating the best person for the job, period. The person who can be most effective at representing an atmosphere of necessary change in government. I think that the number of people lining up at the primaries to vote are testament to that desire for a new direction. They are not showing up for Obama or for Hillary specifically. They are showing up in record numbers because they no longer believe in or support the status quo. Because for the first time in many of their lives they feel as though their vote is desperately needed to help erase the collosal mess our currently dysfunctional government has created.

I would urge voters to go with their instincts and consience when going to the polls. I hope that most voters are wise enought to look beyond all the nasty inuendo and see the candidates for what they really are. Not a perception that someone with no moral conciense would like us to believe.

Persoanlly for me I have made my judgment as to what is best for this country at this point in time. To date I have been impressed by Obama’s ability to rise above the corrosive nature of cheap inuendo and false accusation. I feel it is an extemely important quality which a new president will need to unite, lead and effect reform in government. If I have to I will vote for Hillary. But I feel that a Hillary in the seat of the presidency will be nothing more than an assurance of forestalling that change most of us yearn for.

Posted by: RickIL at March 7, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #247280
Here we go again. Its the “We Hate Hillary Show!”

Oh, so it’s reasonable for her to have praised McCain over Obama? Her supporters actually like this?

The point of which is to find as many ways to hate and dump on her as possible.

Just like she’s done to Obama.

Barack doesn’t need to worry about turning negative-he has his legion of fans to do it for him.

Maybe the 527’s could take over. Or at this point since everyone is questioning her loyalty to the Democrats, maybe Howard and the DNC will want to do this for him.

Good work guys-Barack would be proud!!!

Good work Hillary supporters - you’re doing the job of the GOP, and in a GOP-like manner are now defending the indefensible.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 7, 2008 11:59 AM
Comment #247296

I will say it again. I have said it in other posts I AM NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER. I am sick though of everyone making her out to be a monster. I like Barack, I hope he wins. I DON’T hate Hillary.

Whats wrong with senators praising each other they do it all the time-its called respect and reaching across the aisle. You only take it negatively because you hate Hillary and because the media is making a big deal out of it. Barack praised McCain why is that ok but when Hillary does it its wrong.

I would love a Barack-Hillary ticket or a Hillary-Barack ticket but am afraid that they can’t win, IMO. IMO This country is barely ready for an African-American MAN and its obvious that we aren’t anywhere near ready for a woman in the white house doing more than making cookies.

IMO if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was ahead, Barack supporters would be singing a different tune. It would be use any means possible to get elected. Do whatever you have to do to get superdelegates. The superdelegate system has been in place for years at least 30 I think and now all of a sudden people don’t like it and don’t want to follow it. IMO too bad you should have screamed for change before now.

IMO Barack preaches a good message but I see little of it rubbing off on his supporters-at least the ones here-where is that reaching across the aisle, changing the way politics is done. I see the same old stuff here. I want my person to win so I will bash the opposition. This is why I do not buy into Barack’s message of hope and change. When his supporters start practicing what he is preaching then maybe I’ll buy into it.

Do I think McCain would make a good president-NO-it scares me to death but if the democrats lose it will be be the fault of the democrats. IMO it would be healthier for all involved to tolerate both candidates.
We can decide not to let all the political pundits decide how any of this stuff impacts us and the democratic party.

IMO being angry at Hillary and trashing her will not get Barack elected. The only thing that will get Barack elected is to take his message and practice it.

Everyone is angry at Hillary because she won’t give up but she just won three states, if she doesn’t win in the end so be it but until people stop voting for her then I don’t think she should quit. We have a system that was fine with everyone for the last 30 years and now its not because it might put Hillary in the white house.

Posted by: Carolina at March 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #247315

Carolina, so what does it mean to you when Hillary says McCain and She have demonstrated their ability to be Commander in Chief but, she will leave it to Obama to make his own case?

Do you not see she is endorsing the Republican candidate and expressing doubt about the Democratic candidate, Obama? If you have another read on this, I would love to hear your rationalization.

And just how is it, having never served in the military or as an elected executive of anykind, that she has demonstrated her CIC ability more than Obama, and on par with McCain?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #247318

“Maybe it’s time for Obama to speak.”
He would have to have something to say in order to do that. Then he would have to be worried about contradicting himself, or getting so carried away with his owns words that he stops making sense, or end up denying what he says privately.

According to ABC news, Hillary has more actual votes than Obama, although Obama leads in the delegates.

The Florida delegates will have to be seated at the convention, they had a real primary, just not at the time that our party wanted it, but that was the Rpblcns doing.

The superdelegates are trending more towards Obama, so he will most likely be nominated. Should he offer Hillary the VP spot? Yes, as a courtesy. Should she accept? No, Obama, with his base of support in MN,WI,IL,MO,MD,CT, and smaller places, will ultimately be defeated by McCain. Hillary can run again in 2012, and we have the Edwards example of what a career move it is, being VP on a losing ticket.

Primaries are different than general elections, and only the electoral college vote matters. I don’t see Obama’s numbers adding up to a victory.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 7, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #247319

ohrealy, according to a news release by the Obama campaign, Obama won the delegate count in Texas as well, picking up the majority of the caucus delegates, the 2nd step in the Texas 2 step process.

Which means Texans willing to put their time and effort where their mouth is, went strongly for Obama, whereas the majority of those who just wanted to touch a Diebold screen and trust their vote was counted correctly and who reside in Republican counties, went for Clinton.

Rather revealing, I thought.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #247329

Doing well in caucuses is contra-indicatory of doing well in general elections. Different kinds of people are involved. In the general election, dumbells who vote once every four years come out, not a big demographic for Obama.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 7, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #247332

Hillary Clinton should have to answer for her statements supporting McCain for the presidency over Obama. This is pehaps unprecedented in the Democratic primary process (some with longer political memories may correct me). It is only one step up the ladder from Bush supporters push-polling the notion that McCain had an interracial, out of wedlock child.

Carolina,
Is this what you want? four to eight more years of this kind of shit? She out-Roves Karl himself, then accuses OBAMA of playing rough! Isn’t it time to put an end to that kind of politics?

Posted by: steve miller at March 7, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #247366

David Not sure there is any reason for me to address the issue re: your view that hillary is supporting McCain over Barack since you have already dubed anything I say as rationalizing.

Steve I have already said that I hope Obama wins. No I do not want another four to eight years of Bush politics that is why I am AGAINST McCain for president. I do not think that Hillary is anything near as bad as bush and rove. I think that is a gross exaggeration to compare Hillary to Karl Rove. I think politics is politics and people are forgetting that Barack is a politican. Right now he is ahead and so he has no need to play dirty politics but we don’t know how he would play if he was behind. Sure its time to put and end to this type of politics but that ain’t never going to happen. When football teams go to the superbowl, they play to win-its hit them hard and harder and harder and if they can injure a player so that he is out of the game so be it. Isn’t that why they have referees that call penalities to keep the players from seriously injuring each other in an effort to win. Politics is no different and to think the game is all of a sudden going to be played differently is dreaming. Every time we have elections people start to call foul and to talk about elections being dirty and wouldn’t it be nice if politics stopped being dirty but nothing ever changes and it won’t change this time.

My question to you is: So when Barack uses Hillary’s name and Bush’s name in the same sentence and makes it sound as if they are one in the same why is that not Karl Rove tactics?

Posted by: Carolina at March 8, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #247368

Paul,

Clinton will never agree to that because she cannot win that way. It would not be a bad idea for Obama to offer that though. He should offer to seat Florida’s delegates. Then he should say that he will seat the Michigan delegates if 75 of the super delegates currently supporting Hillary will agree to switch their vote to him in order to reflect the real will of the Michigan people - like me - who never had the opportunity to vote for him. In fact, I think, if I have got this right, he could agree to seat them all without precondition, she would gain 75 or 80 delegates on him, and he could then point out that she still cannot win and needs to concede now. The delegates will be seated. He may as well just say so now and look like the good guy - because he is.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 8, 2008 12:26 AM
Comment #247371

David,

You wrote:

and his superior money raising will not be ignored by the Super Delegates, especially considering the broad grass roots base for it, which Hillary can’t compete with.
I think that you are correct about this. Super delegates would be foolish to overlook the enthusiasm for Barrack - campaign events with 20,000 people when she draws a 1000. They will follow their districts or vote for him. She is dreaming if she thinks they are going to choose her.

Carolina,

I don’t like Hillary anymore. I used to like her a lot. The problem with praising McCain is political stupidity. She is not being bipartisan. That would be fine. It is an act of political desperation for her now that will fall into the Republican political trap during the general election for her or Obama. The Repubs want to make this about experience because he does have more. We need to be making it about judgment - for 2 reasons - politically it is a win for us - more importantly it is the truth. Judgment is what really matters. Hillary is praising McCain’s experience in order to put Obama down. Obama had better judgment than both Hillary and McCain on Iraq. Hillary should attacking McCain’s judgment. It would be politically smart for her to do that. It would allow her to rise above the petty in fighting with Barrack and appear Presidential. It would also help the Democratic cause. It would also be the truth. She would regain my respect if she did that which could be worth a lot if Michigan does wind up having a do over primary.


Posted by: Ray Guest at March 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Comment #247372

Bear in mind Barrack is going to win some of the remaining states most of the remaining small states and at least tie the big ones. So for Hillary to win, she needs to win the states that she does win with 75, 80, or 90%. Not gonna happen.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 8, 2008 12:53 AM
Comment #247373

Carolina:

Whats wrong with senators praising each other they do it all the time-its called respect and reaching across the aisle. You only take it negatively because you hate Hillary and because the media is making a big deal out of it. Barack praised McCain why is that ok but when Hillary does it its wrong.

You honestly don’t get it, do you Carolina?
The sort of vague generalized praise of McCain’s years of service that Obama has offered has never, ever, come close to being an official endorsement of him over any other Democrat, including Hillary Clinton.

That was not the kind of praise that Hillary offered at all. No, what Hillary just confessed is that she’d actually rather see our troops have to fight and die in Iraq for the next one hundred years than to see Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination, or the presidency of the United States.

There is no other explanation for this despicable sh*t, other than that she is so completely desperate that she’s willing to say anything to tear Obama down, or that she is so mindlessly petty and egotistical that she’d choose to totally forget about the fact that she’s expected to be loyal to our party.

Consider this:
Didn’t she previously tell us that she would support Obama if he became the nominee?
But then, if Obama doesn’t meet the “threshold of Commander in Chief” why would she choose to do such a thing? Especially over McCain who she just came out and informed us does meet this exalted experiential threshold?
And now she’s also talking about having him as her running mate, isn’t she?

But, wouldn’t that show terribly poor judgment — to choose such a horribly unqualified vice president who doesn’t meet her “threshold?”

Or, could it be that this “threshold of Commander in Chief” talk is nothing but a stinking pile of BS?

Whatever way we look at this, none of it reflects at all well on Hillary Clinton, does it?

I would love a Barack-Hillary ticket or a Hillary-Barack ticket but am afraid that they can’t win, IMO. IMO This country is barely ready for an African-American MAN and its obvious that we aren’t anywhere near ready for a woman in the white house doing more than making cookies.

I think this is all your own mind. The Republicans are in complete disarray, and McCain is a horribly flawed candidate. It’s long past time for Democrats to stop acting afraid, and start demanding some real leadership.

IMO if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was ahead, Barack supporters would be singing a different tune.

Nonsense. Obama would have conceded by now if he was as far behind in delegates as Hillary is, because unlike her, he would want to see a Democrat in the strongest position to win the White House in November.

The superdelegate system has been in place for years at least 30 I think and now all of a sudden people don’t like it and don’t want to follow it. IMO too bad you should have screamed for change before now.

I think it’s going down at this convention. So many Democrats are currently outraged by the idea that this rich and powerful group of people actually has the power to totally ignore the will of the voters and possibly throw the nomination to whoever they want (or to whoever promises most of these people the choicest of perks and favors in exchange for the nomination?).

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 1:08 AM
Comment #247376

Veritas Vincit

Reckon I don’t get it.

Posted by: Carolina at March 8, 2008 7:48 AM
Comment #247379

Another untruth distorted by Obama supporters. The story is that the Canadian media picked up stories that the Clinton camp had talked to Canadian officials that they weren’t serious about renegotiating NAFTA. When they heard about this, they called the press immediately to indicate their facts were wrong. Upon further investigation, the Canadian media reported correctly it was the Obama camp.

The reason why Obama wins all those caucuses is they have fervent voters that can outlast the older demographics of Clinton supporters. Get rid of the caucuses and give everyone one vote. Make things simple. We have a one person, one ballot system here in Canada and it works.

Posted by: steve at March 8, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #247380

This is old news, actually. There was a great article in Time about a month ago that went over the pros and cons of a dual ticket from both sides. In a nutshell, not gonna happen. Hillary as Obama’s veep would damage his image as a change candidate, and he would be better off with someone with more gravitas, more foreign policy experience, and less image as an insider. Barack as Hillary’s veep would be good for her but bad for him, and let’s be honest, it won’t happen. While she may be willing to break the rules to get elected, the powers that be in the Democratic Party will stop her, for image’s sake if nothing else.

I also don’t appreciate her behavior lately, but I never have hated her. I just care about one thing: putting a Dem in the White House. I support Obama, not because I believe his rhetoric, not because I am from Illinois, but because I think he is the most electable. Hillary winning will give the GOP base a reason to show up at the polls in November, and reducing conservative turnout is the key to winning the battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. No Dem has a chance of winning anything significant in the Midwest or the South, the coasts and Great Lakes are ours, so it comes down to those four states. Whoever can win 3 of four gets the nod, and Obama can, I believe.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 8, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #247385

“as far behind in delegates as Hillary is,”
In what alternative reality is this a factual statement? 1520 minus 1424 equals 96, right?
from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Some fun and reality here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=barack+obama
Another possible theme song for his campaign,
What would Barrack Obama/Brian Boitano do?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 8, 2008 11:00 AM
Comment #247391

ohrealy:

In what alternative reality is this a factual statement? 1520 minus 1424 equals 96, right?

At this point I wonder what alternative reality makes Clinton’s supporters believe that she can win without this coming down to the super delegates going against the delegates already pledged to Obama in order to give Hillary the Democratic nomination?
If you folks are having trouble doing the math, this breakdown of the situation might help.

The truth is the Clinton’s have already lost this race, and without the super delegates ripping off the real winner of the primary, it’s over.
Which is exactly what makes this hatchet job she’s now pulling on Obama, and this complete betrayal of our party by damaging our chances for the general election (with her praising of McCain) so transparently indicative of this being a case of a scorned woman with an ego problem.

steve:

Upon further investigation, the Canadian media reported correctly it was the Obama camp.

Uh, no, you’re not keeping up with this story. Here’s how it stands:
Canadian CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office is now claiming that Hillary did not contact them about NAFTA. But this might be just a case of them being willing to lie for Hillary since she’s now so willing to betray the Democratic Party with praise for McCain - Harper’s conservative US counterpart.
This leak started with Ian Brodie, Harper’s Chief of Staff. According to a reporter who was standing there when Brodie made this comment, they’d received reassurances from Clinton’s campaign on NAFTA. This is how Brodie was quoted by that repoter: “someone from Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt… That someone called us and told us not to worry.”
Does this sound at all feasible? Yes, because Hillary has always been very pro-Nafta until she started running for president, so it wouldn’t exactly be out of character. But the Clinton camp claims this didn’t happen.
Somehow this leak then turned into a story about how the Obama campaign had given that reassurance to them.
Obama says that isn’t true, and that would not be out of character since he has long gone on the record being critical of NAFTA in regards to issues of Labor, and the Environment.
But it seems it is also true that Goolsbee, who is an adviser to Obama’s campaign, did meet with someone from the Canadian consulate in Chicago and may have said something very similar to what has been alleged about Clinton. Goolsbee is now claiming his comments to that person are being mischaracterized. However, Goolsbee’s pro-NAFTA position, as well as his position on Social Security are not even close to those held by Obama.
So, this may be a case of Obama getting burned for having an over-reaching adviser whose viewpoints aren’t a mirror of his own stances on several issues. Personally, I’m rather glad that Obama hasn’t been surrounding himself with Yes Men (a major problem with the Bush Administration) — but obviously it can spell trouble if some of these advisers start making assurances based only on their own beliefs.
It has already spelled trouble for Obama in Ohio, since he had been inching up on Clinton’s lead in that state, until this story hit the headlines.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #247393

“scorned woman with an ego problem.”

This is a nonsense statement, you should have just said “uppity woman”, since that appears to be the entirety of the problem the Obamite cult has with Hillary. Your characterizations of her are so far from reality, they are delusional.

Obama’s chances in the general election are slim to none. He doesn’t have much appeal for the tobacco spitting fried food eaters who vote every four years.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 8, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #247394

Carolina,
Obama had been WAY behind, abysmally behind, in the polls for a long time. His message has not changed much.

I stand by my Rove comparison. If Obama starts to respond in kind, my support for him would diminish. Clearly all she cares about is winning, come what may. Sounds like someone else we’ve all come to know and love for the last seven years. Enough!!!

Posted by: steve miller at March 8, 2008 1:56 PM
Comment #247397

Orealy:

This is a nonsense statement,

It’s simply my opinion that Hillary is acting like a scorned woman. I’ve witnessed this kind of scorched-earth attitude following a major disappointment before — and men can be equally prone to this kind of behavior.

Btw, The Hillary camp is now admitting she can’t possibly beat the pledged delegate numbers, and can’t win without the Super Delegates giving her the nomination.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 2:16 PM
Comment #247402

Carolina:

Veritas Vincit

Reckon I don’t get it.

Perhaps you just need to have it explained to you by someone other than me?

Towards better understanding among Democrats, I submit:
Breaking the Final Rule.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 8, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #247407

VV I am very tired of the assumption that you are right and I am wrong. I will say it again I am entitled to think what I want. You think you are right and I think I am right. Your statement that I need someone else to explain it to me assumes two things: that your position is right and I am stupid. you can have every Obama supporter explain it to me nothing will change. I am not into trashing a fellow democrat.

There will be no further comments from me as this is pointless.

Steve-when Obama was far behind-the campaigns had barely begun and no one was being negative. There was no point being negative early on they were still debating and most people had not voted yet. Had Barack lost Iowa things might be different. I can’t say cause I don’t personally know Barack and I’m guessing you don’t personally know him either so you can’t really know what he would have done. No one truly knows another person. We only know the person they present.

Posted by: Carolina at March 8, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #247426

Carolina:

VV I am very tired of the assumption that you are right and I am wrong. I will say it again I am entitled to think what I want. You think you are right and I think I am right. Your statement that I need someone else to explain it to me assumes two things: that your position is right and I am stupid.

I’m very tired of the kind of comments that try to project a whole bunch of irrational assumptions onto my comments because of the way some netizens obviously feel about themselves.

I am not into trashing a fellow democrat.

Uh huh. Yet obviously you are very much into trying to defend a fellow “Democrat” (Hillary) who is into totally trashing another Democrat (Obama) by saying he’s unfit to hold presidential office, and who thinks nothing of heaping praise on the Republican nominee (McCain) who Democrats are supposedly trying to defeat in November.

Perhaps in addition to defending that, you’ll also want to defend that she has compared her fellow Democratic opponent to Bush, and Karl Rove, and recently to Ken Starr — simply because she isn’t willing to release her tax returns, or release information about her “strenuous and important” duties while in the White House, or release any of the information regarding where the money came from that built her husband’s presidential library. And then maybe you’ll move on to defend that her campaign very obviously darkened the image of her fellow Democratic opponent in recent ads and mailers. And then somehow defend that when asked if she thought her Christian opponent was actually a Muslim, she said “No - as far as I know…”
In other words, you can defend a trasher of a fellow Democrat because then you can act as though any one who is willing to call her on her trashing is being terribly unfair and horribly out of line.

Sorry, but that sort of thing just doesn’t wash.

when Obama was far behind-the campaigns had barely begun and no one was being negative. There was no point being negative early on they were still debating and most people had not voted yet. Had Barack lost Iowa things might be different.

In Iowa in November Hillary said:

“I’m not interested in attacking my opponents. I’m interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans.”

Now of course, she’s attacking her opponent because he’s winning and she’s losing, and the only heat she’s turning up on the Republican nominee is her inflamed and passionate admiration for his vast and superior “experience” — because their long entrenchment in Washington is her favored theme.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 1:40 AM
Comment #247441

VV

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

Posted by: Carolina at March 9, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #247463

All the morning shows say that Hillary was the victor in TX, yet some folks here are declaring Obama the winner. Is this another cult delusion, or are these results innacurate:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

Posted by: ohrealy at March 9, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #247465

Ohrealy

My understanding is that hillary won the vote and Barack won the caucus and so he ended up getting more delegates than she did. Although they are putting the state in her corner as a win. So a guess it could be called a draw

Posted by: Carolina at March 9, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #247468

Carolina, Cokie Roberts quoted you this morning on “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” on This Week with George S.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 9, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment #247469

Primary contests are about winning delegates, not the popular vote. The Texas primary is a two step process - a vote and a caucus combined to determine who wins their delegates. While the press called Texas early for Clinton based entirely on the first part of that process, Obama has now ended up with more pledged delegates when the process was over. That’s why people (although not the press, as yet) are saying that Obama is the one who actually won Texas.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 9, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #247516

Yeah, the Patriots should also tell the Giants that they (the Giants) are the runner ups. Losing with dignity is not in the rules for the Clinton’s either.

Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Comment #247566

Ohrealy

I saw most of this week with George S. and especially enjoyed Cokie’s comments. I will admit to some embarrassment for my “blah….”. I felt it was a childish response and did not live up to the high level of dialogue that one sometimes finds on this message board.

Posted by: Carolina at March 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #247597

Well, I’ve been wondering how long it would take, so here we go….. the beginning of low-level comments from the idiots and ignorants around the country. I mean, we’ve heard tip-toeing around the issue, but this is the first bellowing I’ve seen or heard of. It’s both assenine and would be embarassing if I were a neo-con.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_el_pr/congressman_obama_5

Posted by: Jane Doe at March 10, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #247643

Jane Doe

I couldn’t agree more

Posted by: Carolina at March 11, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #247668

Can you smell the fear on the other side of the aisle??? Their little empire is starting to crumble and it doesn’t feel good, so they cover it up with nasty.
Too bad a lot have wised up to the way they do things….and good for us.

Posted by: Jane Doe at March 11, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #248321

Obama HAS spoken. He says he’s “change”. LAUGH.

Posted by: Stephend at March 17, 2008 10:39 PM
Post a comment