Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Barack Obama | Props to the Kids »

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Shut Up Hillary

posted by on January 3 at 18:45 PM

Savage has me pegged as a Patty Hearst fan—which is true enough (mainly cuz she looked like Laurie Partridge with a machine gun )—but I’m also a Hillary Clinton fan… and my advice to Clinton is to stop spinning this Richardson story.

From ABC:

8:17 pm CT: Clinton folks are pushing the storyline of a deal between Richardson and Obama possibly contributing to defeat.

It makes you look like a sore loser. (And what’s the story really? Richardson delegates don’t like you? You’re not good at making deals? Those aren’t such great stories…)

Your spin should be: You’re not a loser. You’re actually more of a winner than many of the polls predicted yesterday.

Dude, you’re in a dead heat with Edwards. No one predicted that. This was supposed to be Edwards’s turf, but with 80% reporting you’re at 30.2% to Edwards’s 30.5%. Obama is at 36.3% Thanks Oprah.

RSS icon Comments


Go Clinton!

Posted by six shooter | January 3, 2008 6:45 PM

Guess a certain husky SW governor doesn't want to be vice president.

Posted by Big Sven | January 3, 2008 6:52 PM


Posted by zryzryardyh | January 3, 2008 6:54 PM

Suck it, IMAdrgQ, ya little shit. Obama will be president. Deal.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 6:56 PM

Obama's got 37% now with Edward just barely edging Clinton by a fraction of a percent. This is a huge victory for Obama. Edwards is still my first choice, but I would happily support Obama. Even Hillary is acceptable. We can only hope that Huckabee continues to romp through the Republican primaries -- after Giuliani, he'll be the easiest Republican to beat in November.

Posted by Smartypants | January 3, 2008 7:00 PM

A sore loser implies a sense of entitlement. The last thing we need right now in a nominee. November 2008 is the Dem's to lose.

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 7:06 PM


We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

Posted by rtasdgfzSdg | January 3, 2008 7:08 PM

@5 Fuckabee scares me. I hope he's not on the primary ticket for 2008. all the bible thumpers are going to support him. and south will support him too.

The same was said about Bush back 2000 and look what happened.

Posted by apres_moi | January 3, 2008 7:09 PM

This could end up being a dream come true: a three-way race between Obama, Fuckabee and Bloomberg. God, that would be sweet.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 3, 2008 7:11 PM

Bloomberg--a Perot for the 21st Century

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 7:22 PM

Josh, I don't think anyone calls Hillary Clinton dude.
That term went out with the Excellent Adventure movie.

How old are you?

Posted by Josh, you're just not hip | January 3, 2008 7:24 PM

Her "concession" speech right now is brilliant.

Posted by josh | January 3, 2008 7:29 PM

... Is her point that she lost because of all the people who work night shifts and couldn't caucus? And that she will assume they would have voted for her? IDK I'm not digging the concession speech from Clinton.

Posted by Katelyn | January 3, 2008 7:35 PM

I was amused by Edwards's speech. With all the jabs at Clinton, it sounded like he's campaigning to be Obama's VP now.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 7:36 PM

Hey! Chris Dodd just dropped out. Sorry, Montlake caucusgoers.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 7:37 PM

30.2 to 30.5 margin? Fuck, dude, liveblog this shit.

Posted by levide | January 3, 2008 7:37 PM

Bloomberg is a Nader for the 21st c, and let's all pray he hearts Obama too much to jump in.

Posted by annie | January 3, 2008 7:49 PM

Not impressed with her speech.

The closer:

"What's at stake in this election is literally the future of our nation."


Posted by Cleve | January 3, 2008 7:49 PM

Thats the point. Regardless of her "experience" or her "expertise," Hillary keeps sounding like Processed Cheese, calculated speechifying, etc. And Obama, regardless of his inexperience or naivete or whatever, CAN (at times, though not always) rise up and actually give a speech like there's blood running in those veins and not just political calculation. Huckabee, dare I say, has the same talent (even if his opportunism is a bit more naked). In terms of Who Can Move People, and Who Seems Real, the choices are getting clearer.

As for if that makes said person a better President in this incredibly dangerous time...

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 8:10 PM

Before anyone gets excited over a new, enlightened America - one that can support a real and worthy African-American candidate, ask yourself this question: Who do the Republicans want to run against next November?

Did Iowan Republicans cross over and support Barack? Just asking.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 3, 2008 8:17 PM

Annie, Bloomberg will jump in - I'd bet money on it. But I think that helps. I just can't see many Dems voting for him. All he can accomplish is diluting the Repub votes.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 3, 2008 8:22 PM

and Biden just fell too.

Posted by gnossos | January 3, 2008 8:24 PM

Obama gave a great speech.

what motivated colonists fighting an empire, a generation that liberated europe, and the marchers in selma ...

I dig Obama's tying all together all that's best about America ...

Posted by Cleve | January 3, 2008 8:29 PM

If Obama is our guy when the smoke from the primaries clear, I'm down with him, but young folks better get their asses to the voting booth in November in waves-you're long on enthusiasm and button wearing but short on actually doing the deed of voting. Otherwise we'll have another country killing republican reich. Youth have been primarily responsible for making Obama's candidacy succeed and their failure to finish the job could break it along with our country.

Posted by neo-realist | January 3, 2008 9:04 PM

Bauhaus @20:

Before anyone gets excited over a new, enlightened America - one that can support a real and worthy African-American candidate, ask yourself this question: Who do the Republicans want to run against next November?

Did Iowan Republicans cross over and support Barack? Just asking.

I don't know about Iowa Republicans, but it's sounding like the Iowa independents came out in force for Obama. Bauhaus, tell ya what, if lily-white, middle-America Iowa can look at Barack Obama as a presidential candidate and not just an African-American presidential candidate, maybe we enlightened elitists in Seattle can do the same.

Another thing. Maybe instead of asking ourselves who scumbags like Karl Rove want to run against, we ought to be asking ourselves who would make the best president.

What's remarkable about Democrats is, the more they've tried to overthink candidates' electability, the less electable have been the candidates they've wound up with. (See John Kerry.)

Posted by cressona | January 3, 2008 9:22 PM

what cressona said.

Posted by gnossos | January 3, 2008 9:27 PM

what gnossos said.

Posted by unPC | January 3, 2008 9:31 PM

Lo que dijo unPC.

Posted by tomasyalba | January 3, 2008 9:45 PM

Sen Obama got 9 points - yes, 9 points - more than Sen Clinton.

We call that a whoopin where I come from.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 9:52 PM

basta ya ?

Ya obamamos!

Posted by unPC | January 3, 2008 9:57 PM

What terrible spin. "For the third tier candidates' supporters, I wasn't their second choice. I was their fourth."

Posted by Gitai | January 3, 2008 10:06 PM

I think Sen Clinton lost her original notes that said "The cat did it. Not me."

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 10:35 PM


It depends on who the eventual Republican nominee is. If it's Fuckabee, we're golden. Independent and libertarians will flock to Bloomberg if that asshole (Fuckabee, that is) is the nominee. If it's anyone else, it'll be tougher.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 3, 2008 10:54 PM


I agree in principle with everything you say, Cressona, but a couple of things. If you knew my background, I think you'd rethink the elitist label.

I think Obama is marvelous and I'm ready and eager to support him if he's the nominee.

I want to vote for whom I believe in as well. Nader's supporters in 2000 stand in testimony to that philosophy. But if you think strategy isn't a part of a successful presidential campaign, you be D-R-E-A-M-I-N'.

The Republicans were foaming at the mouth to run against Kerry in 2004 - a Northeastern liberal swimming in money (not that Bush isn't swimming in money, but he has that movie set ranch in Crawford and talks like a half-wit - a lot of people find that appealing for whatever reason). When Kerry received enough delegates to clinch the nomination in May 2004, I knew - against all hope - the election was over for the Democrats.

If Obama won the Iowa caucuses with 38% of the vote from real Iowan Democrats, then I'm moved because this country has taken a huge step toward a more just society.

Posted by Bauhaus | January 3, 2008 11:40 PM

Bauhaus -- back to your post @ 20: your question about whether Iowa repubs crossed over to support Obama in an effort to screw the dems makes very little sense.

In an election where the repug nominee is known (i.e., a sitting president like Bush in 2004), then, sure, that might happen. But in a wide open field in both camps? Think about it: to mess with the dems you'd have to give up your voice in your own party's decision. And how many folks are willing to try and screw the other party while losing any say in who their party nominates?

Posted by gnossos | January 4, 2008 1:08 AM

Comments Closed

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