Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Ouch

1

if the super delegates move against the will of the people the democratic party will lose a generation.

Posted by some dude | February 10, 2008 9:32 PM
2

If Clinton can't win VA, she's in serious trouble. DC's going to be Obama's by 80-20, and MD should be his as well. Obama's very close or ahead on delegates even including the supers now. If Tuesday is yet another big Obama day, well, I think Clinton is going to have trouble sticking it out to the convention.

Posted by Fnarf | February 10, 2008 9:34 PM
3

Virginia doesn't look great for Clinton (and neither does Hawai'i). But she's in it at least through Texas and Ohio, I'm sure she's hoping for a few debates along the way to slow the O-mentum.

Posted by josh | February 10, 2008 9:39 PM
4

I love when Virginia is important in elections!!

Posted by Megan W | February 10, 2008 9:40 PM
5

Regardless of what happens Tuesday, she'll probably fight it out. I don't believe that even if the tied of pledged delegates turns against her she won't do everything she can to sway the Supers against the will of the electorate and getting the DNC to seat Michigan and Florida. Either would be disastrous, but I could see it happening. There is too much Dem dynasty involved here.

Posted by nabokovsnose | February 10, 2008 9:40 PM
6

Bill Kristol just phoned in a bland and uninspired rundown of the conventional wisdom from now until the end of the primaries. A dozen regulars in the peanut gallery here could have written that. Anybody at the Stranger could have written that. Kristol's dad or somebody gave him his start, right?

Oh, and Krugman. Obama is starting a cult of personality, comparable to Bush in his flight suit? What has Obama ever done that is comparable to that stunt on the carrier deck? Which candidate followed Bush's lead with a staged town hall featuring handpicked questioners and scripted softball questions?

Krugman's charge of "venom" is interesting. How do you stand up against the Jesse Jackson race-baiting remark, or the attempt to seat the Michigan delegates, without being accused of "venom" towards the Clintons?

Posted by elenchos | February 10, 2008 9:40 PM
7

virginia will go to obama. hawaii will too, since he's kinda their native son. i would think that he could pull ohio and pennsylvania, since they are kinda mid-western-ish, but i'm not sure about that. texas will be interesting. overall, you have to think that obama will be the one. way too many supers are undecided, and i think they will have to go the way of the tide.

Posted by konstantConsumer | February 10, 2008 9:46 PM
8

As they say on the infomercials--but WAIT--THERE'S MORE:

Al Gore's 2000 Campaign Manager says she'll QUIT THE PARTY if the superdelegates and "not the voters" decide the nominee.

Colin Powell makes noises like he might endorse someone who sounds a LOT like Obama.

Then there's Edwards meeing with Clinton last Thursday and with Obama tomorrow.

And all the unsubstantiated rumors about an imminent Gore endorsement...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 9:59 PM
9

the supers won't vote against the pledged delegates. They know that would be suicide for the party.

Posted by markinthepark | February 10, 2008 10:03 PM
10

OK Dan, how about using your writing talents to draft a letter (that we can all cut and paste) to bombard Patty and Marie with to demand that they respect the wishes of the masses and change their endorsements? Hmm? Let's get this campaign rolling and get our so-called superdelegates to nut up and support the votes of the constituents!

Posted by AnothermamaforObama | February 10, 2008 10:05 PM
11

10% of the voting public is not "wishes of the masses". Get over yourselves.

Posted by AGAIN | February 10, 2008 10:10 PM
12

@11--was that only "10%" of seattle clogging the caucus sites on Saturday?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 10:12 PM
13

even if clinton won pennsylvania, ohio, texas, vermont, rhode island, puerto rico, americans abroad, kentucky by the same average percentages (55%) she has won other states she would wind up with 508 delegate votes.

if obama wins maryland, dc,indiana, virginia, hawaii, wisconsin, mississippi, guam, nc, wv, the rest of kansas, indiana, oregon, wyoming, montana, south dakota by teh same average percentage (60%) he has won other states he will wind up with 699 delegate votes.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM
14

Anybody catch Steve Kroft's "are you really ready?" grilling of Obama followed by Katey Couric's puffy "how do you DO it all?" chat with Hillary on tonight's 60 Minutes?

Apparently 6O Minutes also asked Grampa Munster McCain to show up, but there were "scheduling conflicts" (read: he had a nap to take).

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 10:20 PM
15

elenchos, you and me are the peanut gallery.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 10:21 PM
16

@6 - ugh, that Krugman piece. It's telling that he can't actually present real evidence of how "many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of 'Clinton rules'", which is ostensibly his primary point. He goes on to cite Whitewater and the Chelsea "pimped out" line. I guess these are applications of "Clinton rules" we Obama supporters are happy with, which is why we've filled the airwaves and Intertubes with kudos for David Shuster and Kenneth Starr.

I mean, I know I have.

Seriously lazy punditry. And this guy is considered one of the Smart Ones. Disappointing.

Posted by tsm | February 10, 2008 10:23 PM
17

@7: Don't know about Ohio, but Pennsylvania has Pittsburgh at one end, Philly at the other, and Alabama (the white population) in between. I know this area well since I went to a fundamentalist Bible college there. (See my posts on the threads dealing with religion--I know these whackjobs from experience. But I digress.)

In 2004 Kerry just barely squeaked by Idiot Boy to turn the state blue. And this time the GOP will actually have a candidate with an IQ above room temperature. I can't speculate on how PA will go in the primary, but I know Hillary hasn't got a chance outside the two big cities. She couldn't win against Osama Bin Laden with this crowd. The real hard core rednecks won't vote for Obama either, but he has a much better chance of pulling in the independents and moderates who would otherwise go for McCain.

Posted by RainMan | February 10, 2008 10:26 PM
18

!. Obama has momentum at this point, but, the TRUTH, even if it hurts, they are neck and neck. A win in the Dem primary in Idaho means nothing....let's keep our perspective.

2. Neither Patty or Maria will yield to any pressure campaign. Period. Don't waste your time, they are both completely secure, won their respective races by great margins and are very true blue Democrats. Patty is one of the most powerful members of the US Senate, and THE prevailing advocate for veterans rights, and key member of Senate Appropriations, the power center in Congres. For the blinded, Hillary has a big following among feminist professional women.

3. Both Hillary and Obama ARE super delegates. Yes, they are part of this system.

4. Obama has started to trash talk and has increased his messages to evangelicals. He warned that Hilary has a dump truck of baggage, and on a live interview on NPR this AM said his outreach does include all the good Christians who turned Republican and cited several, Rev. T. Jakes among them. Jakes is on TV and is a Rev. Hutchinson clone, great old style evangelical preacher, virulently, frothing and ragingly homophobic.

I can appreciate calling for the new more idealistic America, but for me, that does not include frothing homophobes from the nut case evangelical right wing.

5. Clinton is moving left, Obama to the center. Interesting. The Clinton speech in Seattle was excellent, all progressive issues. Student loans, health care, and affirmation for a national freeze on foreclosure - Obama has never mentioned that topic with a policy. And his health care plan is weak as can be compared to Clinton.

6. Will this Obama youth wave hold? And if Obama does not get the nomination, will they work for Hilary to defeat Mc Cain?? I fear that answer.

Posted by Larkin | February 10, 2008 10:40 PM
19

reposted from another thread:

Clinton is close to being toast. The primaries on Tuesday strongly favor Obama. Clinton's big donors are maxed out. Her campaign is being reorganized.

Obama's campaign is a money-sucking Hoover right now and is bringing in $$ faster than they can spend it.

The record so far shows that the more time he has to campaign the better he does.

I would not be surprised if given his string of big wins, lot's of cash, and time to mount a ground war in PA, OH and TX if he comes away with at least two of the three.

If that happens anyone with any political brains will jump on the Obama train as fast as they can.

Posted by gnossos | February 10, 2008 10:49 PM
20

oh larkin, you're trying to plant seeds of doubt in freezing ground.

anyway, when obama is the nom you'll vote for him right?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 10:51 PM
21

@1 and @8 are right.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 10, 2008 10:57 PM
22

@18,

#1. Obama has the momentum with or without Idaho, and his skills. Hillary has her 47-49% negatives going back years. Her presence as the nominee would raise more money for the GOP than McCain or Huckabee and reunite a currently fractured and weakened party. In SIX polls in the last two weeks, matching up Obama/McCain and Hillary/McCain, Obama won all polls, one by as many as 7 points, where as Hillary lost 4, tied once, and barely one one.

#2. Yup.

#3. Sure, the "Party" itself the system but being a superdelegate doesn't mean you believe it should make the final decision. I'm sure Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 is also a super, but she said she'll QUIT THE PARTY if they decide the winner instead of the voters.

#4. Quotes please on this alleged "trash" talk?

#5. Both had great events in Seattle, but 20K versus 5K? Incomparable. Numbers means votes, including Independents and Republicans (I spoke with several at the Rally)

#6. Obama's about getting people (not just kids) involved in politics for future decades, not reviving policies decades old (or admitting you made mistakes on DOMA, Don Ask/Tell/Pursue, Iraq, etc). But yes, good point. Are these youths "fired up, ready to go" in the same numbers with the same energy? Is Hillary really a "once in a generation" inspiration?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 11:00 PM
23

Larkin - In answer to your question, no, the youth vote won't work this hard (or nearly as hard) to help Hillary vs. McCain. As a matter of fact, it's not unique to the young and more than a few mod-right Dems will vote for McCain first. Hell, I'm a far left Dem who would probably sit this one out.

Posted by Ed | February 10, 2008 11:04 PM
24

if hillary was once in a generation vote, she would have this wrapped up by now.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 11:06 PM
25

ed, you're not a democrat, you're just left out.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 11:08 PM
26

Isn't putting "pressure campaigns" on our representatives part of democracy? Just because Murray and Cantwell had strong support in the last election, doesn't mean the tide can't turn if they disrespect the votes of the majority.

I think it's worth a shot.

Posted by Yes, we can. | February 10, 2008 11:09 PM
27

On Jan 20, 2009, the next president will inherit a government with a Supreme Court with six justices 70 yrs old or older.

Who wants John "I'll appoint justices in the mold of Alitto and Thomas" McCain to fill any (likely) vacancies? Raise your hand.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 11:11 PM
28

What has impressed me most about the Obama campaign is the way it has closed "gaps" between Clinton and himself among different Democratic constituencies. It will be interesting to see how successfully the campaign closes its gaps among working class voters in Ohio and Latino voters in Texas. Clinton's campaign, on the other hand, seems to abandon constituencies once they start to favor Obama. Frank Rich wrote a scathing column about how the Clinton campaign has seemingly given up on the youth vote and black vote. Its strategy to hold out until Ohio and Texas seems rather Giulianian, and voters don't respond well to a presidential candidate cutting his/her losses so easily.

Posted by Bub1974 | February 10, 2008 11:12 PM
29

What has impressed me most about the Obama campaign is the way it has closed "gaps" between Clinton and himself among different Democratic constituencies. It will be interesting to see how successfully the campaign closes its gaps among working class voters in Ohio and Latino voters in Texas. Clinton's campaign, on the other hand, seems to abandon constituencies once they start to favor Obama. Frank Rich wrote a scathing column about how the Clinton campaign has seemingly given up on the youth vote and black vote. Its strategy to hold out until Ohio and Texas seems rather Giulianian, and voters don't respond well to a presidential candidate cutting his/her losses so easily.

Posted by Bub1974 | February 10, 2008 11:12 PM
30

i think its quite comical that far left people wouldnt come out for obama when in the past 8 years, their refusal to support the democratic front runner has destroyed even glimmers of anything they believe in being in the eye of the government.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 10, 2008 11:13 PM
31

I will be nice to all Hillary supporters (save occasionally ECB, when she gets too high on her horse) for one simple reason:

In the end, I'm gonna vote for a crusty sock over the Republican nominee, if that what it takes.

And if Hillary's the nominee (and Obama's not) then: Go, Hillary!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 10, 2008 11:18 PM
32

@31 I second that

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 10, 2008 11:19 PM
33

@31 and 32. Sure YOU will, but how about Muddle America? The Independents WHO DECIDE THE ELECTIONS. Party faithful vote the same everytime. It's the undecideds, and they keep saying, poll after poll "I'm looking at Obama and McCain." Often followed by "I cant vote for Hillary."

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 11:23 PM
34

Well, Andy--yes. That's a part of why I'm supporting Obama.

I'm just saying I've got no plans to waterboard Hillary folks.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 10, 2008 11:27 PM
35

@31: I'll third that.

But I am becoming quite concerned about the prospects of Clinton getting the nomination. And not for the reasons Andy mentions @33.

Money.

Specifically Clinton's ability to raise it. She has tapped out her major donors in a big way. She could try and go after the Obama donors, but one of the reasons so few of them have maxed out is because they don't have the money.

Obama, on the other hand, could go after all of Clinton's maxed out donors and get funds from them.

As this goes on, she is in an increasingly weakened position in the general campaign. She could easliy win the battle and lose the war.

Posted by gnossos | February 10, 2008 11:31 PM
36

At this point it would take a serious Obama fuck-up to derail his momentum. I think we've already almost sowed this thing up.

Posted by Fonky | February 10, 2008 11:35 PM
37

A second added to the second. I will give more money, the max, hundreds of hours doing anything any where - to defeat Mc Cain and elect "Sir or Ms. Dem. Crusty Sock" .... you bet.

Democracy is at stake and beyond that Mc Cain is far more dangerous than stupid silly moronic Bush. Others have mentioned Mc Cain is an arch militarist, and will use nukes.

I agree he will use nukes, perhaps many at the same time ..... his parting page of history to please his dead dad and long dead Granpa, both Navy Admirals.

War monger seems like a tame word.

Posted by Larkin | February 10, 2008 11:35 PM
38

@33 The numbers are clear. If Obama is nominated, he takes the majority of independents 48% to 36% against McCain. If Clinton is nominated, the reverse happens, 49% to 39%. Additionally, if Obama is nominated, Dems retain our traditional advantage among women, but also destroy the traditional GOP advantage among men. If Hillary is nominated, the GOP retains that advantage.

Posted by Gitai | February 10, 2008 11:40 PM
39

@38, exactly.

Someone tell me again how Hillary is going to attract any Republican votes other than Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's promised sarcastic support?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html?nav=rss_opinions/outlook?nav=slate

And we haven't even talked about the Coat-tails issue--who's going to inspire larger turnouts? and who those turnouts might vote for farther down the ticket? meaning a better mandate (especially if the Democrats can regain a 60-plus majority in the Senate)...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 10, 2008 11:45 PM
40

(Point of clarification: I am not equating Hillary Clinton with a crusty sock. But if I were, I'd still vote for her.

If she was the nominee, that is.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 10, 2008 11:51 PM
41

So, Larkin, it's time to bring out the Daisy Girl ads, then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

Posted by litlnemo | February 11, 2008 12:23 AM
42

@18 (Larkin), saying that Hillary's healthcare plan is stronger than Obama's is pure rhetoric.

Mandating that we all have health insurance is not "universal healthcare" except in the sense that we have "universal auto care".

Hillary receives more contributions from the healthcare industry than any Republican candidate. This might be because she is talking about "going after people's wages" [Feb 3], and that money will be going straight into that gigantic insurance business. French- or Italian- (or even Canadian-)like universal healthcare, it's not.

The other plan is not drawing as much vitriol from the other side because it's not as far-reaching: Obama will mandate coverage for children, but will let adults decide if they will buy insurance, which will be partly government-subsidized.

Posted by V | February 11, 2008 1:08 AM
43

#41

It is time.

I have been reading political blogs very heavily the past two months. The same thought has appeared in many places. Mc Cain is an ultra militarist and will up the ante by using nukes.

By the way, Goldwater carried one state as I remember history.

Posted by Larkin | February 11, 2008 1:21 AM
44

@18 - Remember Tom Foley? The sitting Speaker of the House, turned out on his ear by Washington State voters? Murray & Cantwell are just another couple of politicians, hence susceptible to the mood of the electorate that hired them. I very much doubt they thought the state would go so overwhelmingly for Obama. After his next round of victories on Tuesday, they will be feeling even more exposed.

Posted by Andy M | February 11, 2008 2:41 AM
45

Just to make the debate non-theoretical: I would have a hard time deciding between McCain and Hillary.

Right now, I'd probably vote for McCain.

Posted by A Non Imus | February 11, 2008 3:07 AM
46

This has nothing to do with the current discussion in the comments, but with the Maine caucusreferenced in the post...

My dad's family is from a small town in northwestern Maine, and their caucus site went for Hillary 3:1. I hadn't really thought about how the town would vote (it is pretty anti-Bush, very independent-minded)... so, I was interested that that's what happened and trying to figure out why that might be.

My guess is lack of youth involvement (it's not, you know, hip to be into politics when you're 20 and living in the middle of nowhere), and the fact that the people in the town are very practical and likely to be more swayed by Hillary's practicality than Obama's hope. But, just a guess...

Posted by Julie | February 11, 2008 7:41 AM
47

Some people just don't believe in a Place Called Hope.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 11, 2008 7:44 AM
48

for me the issue with our senators is pretty simple. if they vote for hillary, i'll never vote for their own re-election. this is a big reason i'm not voting for hillary.

i'm fucking pissed off about how inept the democratic party has been the past ten years. hillary went along with the political winds, and my vote for obama is partially to send a message to the democratic party that i don't like how they've been fucking up all the time and i'm sure as shit not going to reward their performance with a vote for the establishment candidate.

if our senators nullify that, then i won't vote for them, either.

i think the democratic party needs to realize that they can't just run roughshod over us. that we will in fact kick them the fuck out. i don't care who the person is, what their gender, etc., if you're part of the problem that let george bush happen, then you're done. period.

we'll see how our senators feel about voters when they decide to either vote obama and represent our wishes, or blow us off and give us the finger. that will tell me more about their character and how they feel about my vote.

i'll be the first one to print "who's super now?" t-shirts when they get voted out.

Posted by some dude | February 11, 2008 8:06 AM
49

These Obama fanatics are a bunch of whiny children. The race is still neck and neck, and they're already making threats about what they're going to do if they don't "get their way".

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 11, 2008 8:40 AM
50

mike, you're still gonna vote for obama in november right?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 9:14 AM
51

Bellevue Ave -- Um, that would be a "no".

For what purpose? More fake, unrealistic, vague promises by a Washington insider who has already failed to bring consensus in the Senate?

Besides, I don't support bailing out on Iraq now that the war is over, nor am I impressed by Obama's weakness on the Iran issue.

So again, I'll pass on the hype (oops I meant "hope") and stick to candidates who deal with reality.

But if Hillary is nominated I'll certainly vote for her in November.

Won't you? Ha ha ha.

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 11, 2008 9:39 AM
52

Obama is a Washington insider? who knew!
As I've said, I would rather have McCain than Hillary, and Obama over all.

Assume Obama's first term is awesome? do you vote for re-election?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 9:45 AM
53

Where is ECB these days? She has been unusually quiet since the thumping Hillary took on Saturday. Is she ashamed to be a Hillary supporter? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Cato | February 11, 2008 10:27 AM
54

First, I want to remind all that "As Maine goes, so goes the Nation."

And if Obama does not get the nomination, will they work for Hilary to defeat Mc Cain??

Sure, just like the Howard Dean netroots supporters raced to help John "I got swiftboated" Kerry.

@37: Nice fearmongering! Actually, as someone born without cojones, Hillary's more apt to do something stupid to demonstrate she's got 'em. In contrast, McCain's military credentials are impeccable, therefore he doesn't have to pull an Ehud Olmert bombing-orphanages-in-Lebanon move.

Posted by very old fart | February 11, 2008 10:28 AM
55

Bellevue Ave - Well, it's a little early to gauge my vote on Obama's "second term". He's a charismatic guy. I don't know if that really means anything at all.

What I'd say to Obama is: "talk to me in 2012 or 2016".

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 11, 2008 10:33 AM
56

Mike, you gotta be prepared for these eventualities. ;)

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 11, 2008 11:14 AM
57

Mike @ 49
"These Obama fanatics are a bunch of whiny children"

As oppeosed to the Hillary backers who can't see the corruption of Hillary right in front of their eyes.

I mean at least Obama plays by the party rules. Can't say that about Hillary.

Posted by Cato | February 11, 2008 12:26 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).