Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« An Open Letter to KIRO | Today The Stranger Suggests »

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Post Debate Reality Check. Clinton Gains.

posted by on February 2 at 10:17 AM

Despite the O-jobs in the media which have everyone convinced Barack Obama is surging or is Jesus, how about a little post-most-watched-debate-ever reality check?

Per usual for debate captain Hillary Clinton, the daily tracking polls at Rasmussen Reports show this: 1/31/08 (the day of the LA debate) Clinton by 7; 2/2/08 (two days after the debate…sinking in) Clinton by 8. She’s at 45 (she hasn’t been that strong since late October).

Obviously, there are other polls—and more importantly, Super-Tuesday-state-specific polls— that do demonstrate Obama is catching up.

And so, I too am convinced the Stranger-endorsed Obama is poised to score big on Super Tuesday and then have a CNN coronation here in Washington on Feb. 9.

But god damn. The fawning press coverage is embarrassing, and I thought I’d throw a little post-debate Clinton bump into the mix.

And indeed, this text message came in last night from a colleague at the paper:

From: —

Im for hillary now

2/1/08 6:16pm

RSS icon Comments

1

Honestly, if anything I think the media fawning brings Obama (or whichever candidate it's directed at) down a bit, because it gets annoying pretty quickly. The crazy little conspiracy theorist in the back of my head wonders if it's deliberate.

Posted by Beguine | February 2, 2008 10:23 AM
2

Wow, Josh. You are so politically astute to recognize that Hillary would get a 1 point jump after the debate. A whole 1 point.

And there is no mistaking that for statistical noise or anything like that because it is a whole point jump and you got a text message.

I am sure she will continue to build on this great momentum in the next few days.

Posted by Ralph | February 2, 2008 10:29 AM
3

well, because hillary is a better politician and a better candidate than barack obama. he sucks at debates, always has. it's actually a little nerve-racking to me that, after 17 debates, he still doesn't know how to answer the tough questions. and he's been asked some of them before in other debates! i really think that's an indication of what kind of president he'll be.


i'd prefer a president who is ready for the tough questions, is ready for the tough issues, has already thought about them enough that they don't have to pause every 5 seconds to er or um. you know?


go hillary!

Posted by kim | February 2, 2008 10:30 AM
4

Am I missing something here? I think you need to get a new calculator there Josh.

http://realclearpolitics.com/

Clinton is ahead in EVERY Super Tuesday state except Georgia and Illinois.

Hillary will be the nominee in the end... Get out of your Seattle bubble. Geez.

Posted by I can read polls | February 2, 2008 10:31 AM
5

Both candidates are great. Which one can win against McCain?

Posted by me | February 2, 2008 10:31 AM
6
"Despite the O-jobs in the media which have everyone convinced Barack Obama is surging or is Jesus"

Josh you are my favorite.

Posted by Lake | February 2, 2008 10:34 AM
7

@4,
Yes, you're missing something. While Clinton's ahead in those polls, her lead is shrinking. Dramatically. It's called momentum going into Super Tuesday, and Obama's got it.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 2, 2008 10:35 AM
8

@4 is right. She is ahead in almost every state. Obviously, people do watch the debates, and she nailed the last one. Obama is the "hope" candidate, but she was pretty inspiring herself. Obama is good, but he really is pretty green in a lot of ways.
She will be our nominee, so let Hillary fever sweep the nation! Clinton/Obama 2008!

Posted by interloper | February 2, 2008 10:38 AM
9

Josh---
Once again, her 'shrinking lead' is really too statistically insignificant to mean anything. Different day, different results. The numbers really don't say 'Obama momentum". I smell media spin.

Posted by grrrreat! | February 2, 2008 10:42 AM
10

@9,
Well yeah. Which is why I posted the slightly positive Hils up tick....which the media doesn't seem to care about.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 2, 2008 10:45 AM
11

Just watch the momentum, especially after Edwards dropped out. Guess who's gaining with women? It ain't Hillary. Look at the Gallup website.

But yes, we all need the occasional Reality Check. God forbid we get smug and lose to Grampa McCain or Multiple-Choice Romney-bot.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 2, 2008 10:52 AM
12

Josh--
Mmmmkay! My bad. However, if you were ECB they would have put your head on pike by now...

Posted by grrreat! | February 2, 2008 10:54 AM
13

Part of politics as usual is this microscopic interpretation of polling results. Part of politics as usual is the endless jockeying to see which campaign is the greatest victim of media bias. It sucks up the air that could be given to the actual candidates and their positions, records, and judgment.

Another part of politics as usual, and the blogosphere as usual, is to respond tit-for-tat to the usual pettiness. As Obama supporters, we'd be missing much of the point of Obama's candidacy if we descend to this level.

A truer message comes from the likes of Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter, in this Newsweek story, Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’:

Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her—energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world.

Posted by cressona | February 2, 2008 10:55 AM
14

Fairytale?

Posted by it's ME | February 2, 2008 10:56 AM
15

Josh, I wish I had your long-term optimism, but I don't. It would be just typical of Democrats to pass up this opportunity for someone that can, as the LA Spanish-language newspaper put it in their endorsement of Obama today, give us a sense of renewal after 8 years of Bush. Does anyone really think that another Clinton administration would be anything other than a continuation of the division of the last 16 years? The political fights, the anger, the hate? I just can't see how Hillary would give us the type of transformational change that Obama has the potential to give us.

All of that assumes, of course, that Hillary could beat McCain - which I think is a pretty big assumption at this point. I have a feeling he'll embarrass us for not choosing a candidate that he's afraid of attacking and who his own media person says he won't create ads against. McCain beats Clinton going away. There isn't that much that separates them and non-Democrats trust him more than they trust her.

Obama is right - Clinton voters will vote overwhelmingly for him. Will his supporters vote for her? The independents and the youth vote? I doubt it and that means red states stay red, blue states stay blue - and they win.

Posted by Ed | February 2, 2008 11:02 AM
16

Oh, and one other thing--1 point? What's the statistical margin of error in this polling? I don't see it on the page you linked to. I'd bet it's more than a point, as they usually are 2 to 3 percent.

Shouldn't the story be that Hillary didn't get a bump or a more statistically measurable one?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 2, 2008 11:16 AM
17

I'm still puzzled about why so many of you do seem to react to Sen. Obama the way Mars Hillsters react to Mark Driscoll. I'm a good liberal yearning for hope and when I look at BO, I see someone with good soundbite writers and an ego that will trip him up before he so much as crosses the White House threshold. Sen. Rodham Clinton is and has always been the stronger half of the partnership in her household and has been fighting a long time to make this a better country. Here's what I propose: She's president till 2016. Then it's his turn. He'll still be in his 50s, plenty of time to see whether he really has any substance or is just all shiny veneer.

Posted by Not Drinking the Koolaid | February 2, 2008 11:17 AM
18

@15 Untrue. The middle and working class overwhelmingly chose Hillary, why do you think that is?
Also, an interesting note from the Fox news poll from the other day, support among Republicans has slowly but surely been increasing over the past couple of months. The media won't point that out, but the conventional line about Hillary's unmovable approval/disapproval rates are absolutely false. Keep repeating the lie though, maybe it'll come true!

Posted by grrreat! | February 2, 2008 11:18 AM
19

i'm sorry, but if obama supporters won't get behind her or whomever becomes the nominee then fuck them. if americans flock to mccain or any other republican because they just hate hillary that much, then they are idiots who are at least partially motivated by misogyny. i've been fuckin' miserable the last 7+ years, and so have many people i know. if this is a country that is run by a majority, and the majority of the voters are dumbfucks who vote for another republican, then we deserve everything we get. anyone who is smart will get the hell out of here.

Posted by um | February 2, 2008 11:23 AM
20

@3 - How does Hilly answer the hard questions? Questions like why she supported empowering Bush to invade and continue to occupy Iraq, and then following that complete clusterfuck stood by her decision, and then wanted to give Bush the authority to invade Iran? In fact, how about someone ask her to commit to not invading Iran if she is elected. What's her "better politician" answer to that?

How about this one - Hill, why did you sit on the board of Wal-Mart while they screwed their employees, fought unionization, and destroyed many small businesses while importing cheap shit from China made by underpaid almost slave labor in environmentally unfriendly factories?

Or maybe ask her why she feels it's ok to incite and then benefit from racism in Southern primaries? Maybe she can answer why she thinks her slash and burn, win at any cost brand of campaigning is good for the Dem Party or for the country.

No doubt Hilary is better than McCain or Romney, but let's be real, as much as I agree that Obama should be able to answer tough questions in debates (and explain why he is anti-civil rights when it comes to same-sex marriage), Hilary supporters need to realize that Hil isn't perfect either. Supporters of either need to realize their candidates are ultimately flawed in many way, and offer only half ass solutions to many real issues that need full on solutions immediately. End of the day, Hilary is a better debater by some small margin, and Obama is a better speaker by a huge margin.

And since both love to talk about their belief in Jesus as their saviour, do they also believe in Creationism? That would be a nice question for them.

Posted by Meinert | February 2, 2008 11:25 AM
21

IF I DON'T GET TEH ONE I WANT I"M GONNA GO EAT WORMS!

Posted by elenchos | February 2, 2008 11:27 AM
22

I'll vote for Hillary because, while I have no illusions about her ending the war in Iraq (she won't, whatever she says) or leaving Iran alone (she'll run a few bombing raids to look tough) she stands less chance of sending us into a completely insane or suicidal war than McCain does.

But Hillary supporters are the ones with false hopes. Do you actually believe she'll drive a comprehensive health care plan through Congress? That she'll do anything about global warming aside from boutique funding of a few research programs? Take a look at the current Democratic Congress and its feeble "competence" and you'll see what Hillary's years in the White House would look like.

Do you really think the 46% of the country that loathes her now will change their minds because she speaks so clearly and sounds reasonable?

The same jarring white noise that runs through the past 16 years of politics will continue with Hillary in office, no question. It might also continue with Obama in office, but at least there's a chance the tone will change. With Hillary you know exactly what you'll get, and it depresses me.

Posted by Andy James | February 2, 2008 11:33 AM
23

Do any of you honestly trust this years polls? Every post-game show I've watched, all the pundit guys pretty much admit this year is a different race.

For the first time in history, you've got a black dude and a chick running for president. Both stand a very real chance of winning the general election.

People are going to be voting for *very* different reasons this year. So diverse is this year that people who typically do *not* vote in these kind of elections are doing so.

Polls based on assumptions that held true for prior elections just aren't gonna work this year. Nobody knows who will win this election (expect it will be a democrat ;-)

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 2, 2008 11:34 AM
24

Meinert--
You're either ignorant to the truth, or willfully misleading.
Hillary was on the board of Wal-mart--a long, long time ago, where she fought for the rights to unionize, promotion of women and minorities, and workers rights in general. Wal-mart called her a "thorn in their side". Then when Wal-mart tried to contribute to her, she returned the money citing 'philosophical' differences. So, why again do you hate her? Oh wait, it's because she's not Obama.
Incite racism??? You're kidding, right? She has been a champion for civil rights for over three decades. That's why she has every right to cite 35 years of experience taking the good fight to the streets.
Fuck your lies.

Posted by grrrret! | February 2, 2008 11:40 AM
25

How does Hilly answer the hard questions? Questions like why she supported empowering Bush to invade and continue to occupy Iraq, and then following that complete clusterfuck stood by her decision, and then wanted to give Bush the authority to invade Iran?
Um, maybe because the majority of the country thought Sadam had WMD and was a threat to the region, specifically to Israel and the oil interests on which our economy depends? Ya think? Maybe because an Iran that dominates the region presents a similar threat? Hmmm. Wake up.

Also, no matter who gets elected, we're still not going to abandon Iraq. Wait and see.

Clinton/Richardson - 2008!

Obama/Somebody Else - 2016!

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 2, 2008 11:42 AM
26

Why hasn't Edwards endorsed Obama?

Guess he's hedging his bets.

Bill Clinton will be sitting with Gov. Bill Richardson at the Super Bowl, I hear.....

Posted by unPC | February 2, 2008 12:09 PM
27

hearing Clinton live on CNN she's far better at speaking than she was earlier in the campaign. she has cadence, sounds invested, emotional, committed, she talks about the future more instead of bogging down in policy lists. Still not close to Obama, though.


Here's the realclear polls (these are averages of other polls):

National Clinton + 9.8
California Clinton + 11.7
New York Clinton + 21.8
Illinois Obama + 28.3
Missouri Clinton + 12.0
New Jersey Clinton + 10.0
Georgia Obama + 8.3
Tennessee Clinton + 17.3
Alabama Clinton + 1.5
Connecticut Clinton + 3.4

Alabama: !

Posted by unPC | February 2, 2008 12:19 PM
28

Notice Edwards falling out of the moving averages. Down 4 points today - all to Clinton.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 2, 2008 12:23 PM
29

My Dear Feit:

You obviously did not get the memo stating that the salary plan at The Stranger has changed. From now on, Stranger staff will be paid based on the number of times they post the word "Obama" on Slog. Bonus pay will be awarded at a rate of $1 per 25 comment posts that also repeat the word "Obama."

The goal is to have every single post feature the word "Obama" in the headline.

Please make a note of it.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | February 2, 2008 12:27 PM
30

Christ amighty, Jubilation, you're going to get your candidate already. What more exactly do you want? What is the problem with a preponderance of people in a site you visit disagreeing with you?

Try to be a gracious winner in the primary and a gracious loser in the general, mmkay?

Posted by Andy James | February 2, 2008 12:33 PM
31

Obama is the university English major of the candidates: full of rhetoric and utopian ideas, but unable to explain how to get to the future he proposes from the present we have. He's too afraid to step on toes, needs to make sure he's as gentile and inoffensive to everybody. Sure, it means he nabs the coveted young voter, but if there's one thing I've learned from university, it's that young people are pretty fucking stupid.

It's somewhat coincidental that he's ended up with the ovaries, and Hillary's got the balls. I honestly think she'd make a better president, even if I agree with fewer of her ideas.

Posted by Tdub | February 2, 2008 12:33 PM
32

@18,

Because they like her husband.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 2, 2008 12:43 PM
33

@32...um, no. it's because Obama is the candidate of the upper-middle class democrats, while Hillary has championed the working class for...drum roll...over 35 years.

Posted by grrrreat! | February 2, 2008 12:57 PM
34

@30:

You forgot to say "Obama."

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | February 2, 2008 12:59 PM
35

"Obama is the university English major of the candidates: full of rhetoric and utopian ideas, but unable to explain how to get to the future he proposes from the present we have."

Actually, we've heard his plan: He's going to "negotiate in public" for (less-than-universal) health care with representatives of the drug and insurance companies on live TV.

Because --unlike C-SPAN covering Congress debating health care back in the '90's -- this will be seen on our NEW, COMCAST DIGITAL CABLE TV.


They will be shamed into doing our bidding. Bwahahahahahah!

Posted by unPC | February 2, 2008 1:36 PM
36

@19 Holy crap I'm so with you --
If this little weird fantasy that you all are having of the nation voting Republican if Clinton gets the nom come true...then fuck the nation. We deserve it.
@19 and I will be toasting the bad 'ol USofA from within the borders of some other, saner country.

Posted by onion | February 2, 2008 2:37 PM
37

@33,

Are you kidding?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 2, 2008 2:45 PM
38

oooooh, I guess you're right and the working class is wrong. All of the polls and supporters are wrong, because YOU know what's right for the poor, ignorant working class.
You might be able to win this debate if you were arguing for Edwards, but Obama ain't done shit for the working class, and that's a fact. I like Obama enough, but let's not distort the facts, okay?

Posted by grrrreat! | February 2, 2008 3:06 PM
39
Posted by johnnie | February 2, 2008 3:47 PM
40

Don't let the Obama fans see that, johnnie, they'll crucify you for blaspheming their god. Very interesting article though. Why would one lie about a bill being passed? This is almost as slimy as the healthcare ads Obama's been running against Hillary lately.

Posted by hee hee | February 2, 2008 3:54 PM
41

Alright then, try this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/1/234527/0014/392/448115

Not all news looks great for Hillary, either.

Posted by Andy James | February 2, 2008 4:05 PM
42

i was ok with obama, but all of his supporters are acting like paultards. why don't you fly a blimp for tuesday?

Posted by um | February 2, 2008 4:05 PM
43

Supporters for both sides are doing their respective candidates a huge disservice. Enjoy tearing each other apart!

Posted by Sickening | February 2, 2008 4:09 PM
44

@41 - You're answering a carefully reported article from the New York Times with an opinion piece from a Daily Kos blogger?

......wild.

Posted by The General | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM
45

So what has changed exactly since 6 months ago? Nothing the candidates have done or said makes either of them any better than they were. The only thing that even makes me want to vote is how bad the other side is.

Christ, everyone is acting like they are vastly different candidates. They are more the same than they are different! Calm the fuck down! One has been in washington, one hasnt, one voted for the war, one didn't. Thats about it.


Posted by brandon h | February 2, 2008 5:14 PM
46

The General @44:

@41 - You're answering a carefully reported article from the New York Times with an opinion piece from a Daily Kos blogger?

Oh, speaking of carefully reported articles from The New York Times...

Here's an interesting story on Bill Clinton's foundation: In Charity and Politics, Clinton Donors Overlap.

To limit the influence of any single donor, federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election. But presidential foundations are free to accept unlimited and anonymous contributions, even from foreigners and foreign governments. Indeed, the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation.

“The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who introduced a bill to force disclosure of presidential foundation donors. The bill passed the House, 390-34, in March but stalled in the Senate.

Here's another interesting story on Bill's foundation and some help Bill gave a Canadian businessman in securing a uranium mining deal in Kazakhstan: After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Posted by cressona | February 2, 2008 5:34 PM
47

Cressona, what does that have to do with the point I just made? Get a grip.

Posted by The General | February 2, 2008 5:42 PM
48

Clinton/Obama 2008. There's no way you can look at the last debate and not see it. And we will kick the Republicans' asses in the fall.

Posted by Big Sven | February 2, 2008 5:43 PM
49

The General @47: Cressona, what does that have to do with the point I just made? Get a grip.

First off, The General, let me say that it's wonderful that you should suddenly grace this humble forum with your presence, just to share your enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. (I should express the same appreciation to grrrreat!/ grrrret! and um. Always glad to see some fresh names pop up here.)

The point is that there's an awful lot of sordidness surrounding the Clintons. Obama's experience with the nuclear plant legislation doesn't exactly do him credit, but Obama's links to special interests are kids' stuff compared to the Clintons'. On some level, that's a function of the stage on which the Clintons have been playing. And yet, this comes on top of so many other revelations about Hillary's deep ties to some corporate interests with a lot to gain.

Speaking of The New York Times, here's Frank Rich in last Sunday's edition:

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

Posted by cressona | February 2, 2008 5:59 PM
50

@46 cressona:

Please.
Yes, we've seen your link to the K-stan article several times. Hoo-ray, "tat" meets "tit."

But ....Obama, you guys say, is so electable because he'll have the change mantra down pat. He is so pure and different than the politics of old.

Consider:
--$300,000 gift from indicted slimeball halued to jail recently, who's been helping Obama and his associates for 17 years.
--softening bills for Exelon corp. who was his no. 3 donor earlier in the campaign so they don't have to report nuclear leaks
--giving donations from his Senate PAC to various pols, then getting endorsed by them
--says blow is okay for him to do, then run for prez., meanwhile 400,000 other guys (made up that no.) who did blow, like Obama did, have to stay in jail. (I haven't heard him say they should be let free, have you?)
After the GOP hits him with $100 million of TV ads on all these things, he won't be able to use your tit for tat response and argue that he's not as bad as the Clintons.
His head to head poll standing against McCain will go down. 3 points? 10? 17 -- like Dukakis in just a few weeks?
Or 25?
Potentially losing the whole enchilada.

If your whole campaign is change/new politics, the tit for tat response does not suffice.

Thank you in advance for your reasoned, on point, non ad hominem, non tit for tat response. On this point: there's tons of negative stuff on Obama, and it makes him vulnerable to losing the election. Or, continue to ignore the negatives, resume the swooning, you always have so far.

Posted by unPC | February 2, 2008 6:07 PM
51

unPC @50 on Obama:

--says blow is okay for him to do, then run for prez., meanwhile 400,000 other guys (made up that no.) who did blow, like Obama did, have to stay in jail. (I haven't heard him say they should be let free, have you?)

Um, unPC, you're sounding like Bob Johnson on that one. Obama long ago admitted to a youthful indiscretion, not a youthful discretion. Y'all remember Bob Johnson? "To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book..."

Should Obama have lied about and tried to cover up his youthful indiscretions? Bill Clinton tried to do the same about his not-so-youthful indiscretions, and as a result we got GW Bush instead of Al Gore for president.

That said, unPC, you're right that Obama's hands are not entirely clean. No serious presidential candidate's hands are entirely clean. Still, not all politicians' levels of dirtiness are equal. Al Gore was no George W. Bush. Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were no Richard Nixon. FDR was no Herbert Hoover.

Obama has refused to take money from federal lobbyists. He may getting corporate money elsewhere, but I give him credit for drawing the line somewhere—just as I give him credit for receiving contributions from 225,000 donors nationwide in January alone.

Posted by cressona | February 2, 2008 6:22 PM
52

@42:

Okay, that actually did spin me around. I think you have a point. I have grounded the Obama blimp. I officially revert to just liking him and voting for him and apologize for getting drool all over the comments.

Posted by Andy James | February 2, 2008 6:36 PM
53

@49 - Cressie, my friend. I'm sure you've been too caught up in yourself to realize I've graced this forum (by the way, it's called a "blog") since long before primary season. Unless, of course, you're referring to this specific blog post, in which case you're still wrong.

My particular comment in this thread had nothing to do with my enthusiasm for anyone. It had to do with my enthusiasm for well-written, well-reported journalism. My original point was that you can't compare a first-person opinion blog post to a heavily sourced piece of reporting and somehow claim they're on equal ground. That's all. End.

While I respect your unbridled enthusiasm for Obama, might I suggest you do your candidate a favor and lay off? Your debate style is that of a pitbull and you know how we feel about pitbulls around here.

Posted by The General | February 2, 2008 6:59 PM
54

The General @53: My particular comment in this thread had nothing to do with my enthusiasm for anyone. It had to do with my enthusiasm for well-written, well-reported journalism.

Y'know what, I do have to semi-apologize here. I could've sworn your tag showed up earlier in the thread, but in fact it didn't. I hope you can understand. So many never-before-seen names have popped up on this forum (to use the more generic term) to stump for HRC lately that I lose track.

Posted by cressona | February 2, 2008 7:11 PM
55

@54 - No worries. I semi-accept your semi-apology. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to go drink beer and shoot at some virtual bucks. Toodles!

Posted by The General | February 2, 2008 7:19 PM
56

@24:

You're either ignorant to the truth, or willfully misleading. Hillary was on the board of Wal-mart--a long, long time ago, where she fought for the rights to unionize, promotion of women and minorities, and workers rights in general.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for HRC, but do you think you can get away with that here? As the New York Times reported,

Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.
Posted by annie | February 2, 2008 7:35 PM
57

@38,

Obama has done more for the working class (besides just making false promises) than Edwards. I'd like substantive evidence of what Hillary has done for the working class as a Senator, and simply voting against Republican bills doesn't count.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 2, 2008 7:56 PM
58

Honestly, Hillary is going to be moving back into the white house after 10 years and she is going to find out that the whole house has that old man stink from Bush stinking it up from eating all of that nasty Texas style chili. She is going to have to spend about 100000 of tax payers money to clean out the house and get it back to how she kept it in the 90's. Then....she will get to work.

Posted by .... | February 2, 2008 7:57 PM
59

@58 you win.

Posted by um | February 2, 2008 8:45 PM
60

josh is against hope

Posted by t | February 2, 2008 9:56 PM
61

cressona-

Hi. Usually like your work, but this contest is starting to grind on all of us, and you're not your usual self. I was there a couple of days ago, Fnarf set me right. Nothing to be ashamed of. But:

...let me say that it's wonderful that you should suddenly grace this humble forum with your presence, just to share your enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton...So many never-before-seen names have popped up on this forum (to use the more generic term) to stump for HRC lately that I lose track

C, please, if we started doing a count of "excitable new people who we've never seen before arguing about Clinton and Obama," there are large numbers on both sides. Leave the ad hominems for the youngsters. You're one of the veterans, and are held to a higher standard.

Should Obama have lied about and tried to cover up his youthful indiscretions?

Yes. I understand that part of the appeal of Obama is that he is not as partisan and armored as HRC, but it will be an open war the day after we decide our nominee and every "truthful moment" is a bullet that war hawks and religious zealots will use against us in the general.

Bill Clinton tried to do the same about his not-so-youthful indiscretions, and as a result we got GW Bush instead of Al Gore for president.

Ummmm... what? Are you saying that Monicagate caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election? I understand that a lot of progressives are pissed about DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, and other pet peeves. But Al Gore ran a FUCKING TERRIBLE campaign against a retard and if you're going to blame Clinton for that, you might as well blame him for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake too.

Clinton/Obama 2008.

Posted by Big Sven | February 2, 2008 10:18 PM
62

@61:

Actually, Bill Clinton had a cat named Tsunami at Oxford.

And in grade school, he had a turtle named Bilderberg.

My god...it's all beginning to make sense. Perfect sense.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | February 3, 2008 12:26 AM
63

LOL all the new folks posting here is cool and all.. I enjoy their misguided optimism and enthusiasm.

As I've said before I would have to recommend a vote for Obama in the primary this Tuesday.

I have been led to this by a number of factors.

First, consider the candidates' backgrounds. Clinton has a history including being a member of corporate boards, including Wall-Mart, where she is not reported to have ever spoken out against their vicious anti-union drive. She was wife and partner of a pro-business Democratic President who continued the gravely misguided deregulation started by Reagan, made little progress for programs for the people, supported disastrous pro-business trade policies and failed to take advantage of his historic opportunity to dismantle the cold war budgets, programs and alliances. This contrasts with Obama's history as a community organizer in Chicago and as a progressive state legislator and leader on campaign reform. This contrast gives reason to think that Obama in office would be more open and responsive to pressure from the people.

Second, on the central issue of the Iraq war, Clinton voted for the war, Obama spoke out against it. Clinton refuses to commit to getting all troops out of Iraq; Obama has come around to saying that is what he will do, in the first year. And on the crucial and very telling issue of branding the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, which may well have set the stage for the next war, Clinton joined the Republicans in voting in favor, while Obama opposed it. Thus we have reason to believe that a Clinton administration will mean more war and intervention than an Obama administration.

Third, the Republicans seem eager to see Clinton nominated - not, as one would assume from her record, because they like her best, but because they already have the minds of a large part of the public poisoned against her and believe they can defeat her more easily. They are probably right.


Props to Josh for loving my moniker enough to use it in the thread title.

Unless you HRC lovers begin to realize that getting her on the ticket means a certain victory for McCain, you are living in a fantasyland. There is no polling that could possible quantify how her being on a ticket would cause huge opposition turnout to sway the vote for the Republicans.

If you continue to believe that getting Hillary into the Oval Office is a formality, you all are in a for a very rude awakening.

And my moniker will be an understatement.

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | February 3, 2008 3:45 PM
64

I have carefully analyzed the candidates in this important race, and given it much thought. After a careful weighing of the issues, including a trade study matrixing positions against issues, I've reached some startling conclusions.

It appears that Candidate A is pure good, a visionary sent to us unworthy voters by a god who clearly loves us much. The power of love and compassion flow in Candidate A's veins, and I propose that we should consider restocking the human race with Candidate A's genome in order to advance humanity to a new level.

Conversely, candidate B is an abomination of the natural order, an entropy generator, the fountain of all that is vile and putrid in the world. I believe that candidate B would murder puppies for the sheer nastiness of it, if they could.

Also, I have checked with three or four people and they too consider candidate B to be the new benchmark of human evil. Those of you who support candidate B clearly must belong to some apocalyptic church that I don't know about, and are secretly (or not so secretly) working to bring about the reign of Old Scratch. Are you also raising red calves in your basement?

This outcome surprised me, given that I went in with an unbiased view to determining who would be best. I have submitted my research to several peer reviewed journals; I await publication.

Posted by Realty Cheque | February 3, 2008 6:51 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).