Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« It's Sunny Here | Reading Today »

Friday, March 28, 2008

Hillary Deathwatch

posted by on March 28 at 18:08 PM

When Slate rolled out the Hillary Deathwatch this morning—a daily feature tracking Clinton’s fortunes and assigning a percentage to her chances of gaining the nomination—they put Hillary’s chances at 12%. Well, Hillary had a rough day: Slate has dropped Hillary’s chances down to 10.3%. Says Slate….

Friday was not kind to Hillary Clinton. Based on Deathwatch’s top-secret morbidity formula, Hillary tanked on four metrics today, reducing her chances of winning the nomination by 1.7 points to 10.3 percent. The nastiest news for Clinton is in the polls. She has drifted eight points behind Obama in a national Gallup survey—the first time that she has trailed Obama by a statistically significant margin since the Rev. Wright imbroglio.

Here’s that Gallup daily tracking poll…


Hm. Looks bad.

There was also the Casey endorsement today, Leahy’s call for Hillary to drop out, and Howard Dean’s call for the nominee to be selected by July 1—which would require, of course, the superdelegates to make up their damn minds well before the convention.

But… um… after taking a late-afternoon look at the Hillary Deathwatch… it occurs to me that if Barack Obama were behind in delegates, states won, and the popular vote, Slate probably wouldn’t use the term deathwatch, would they? And using terms like morbidity?

RSS icon Comments


somebody throw obama and dan down the well

Posted by benxer | March 28, 2008 6:36 PM

This risks backlash.

Posted by tsm | March 28, 2008 6:44 PM

Nobody in Pennsylvania gives two shits what Bob Casey thinks. That endorsement earned Obama nothing. Hillary is going to walk all over him there.

Posted by PA Native | March 28, 2008 6:54 PM

It's kind of absurd to think of anybody but Hillary Clinton doggedly soldiering on with no regard for who is hurt. But if Barack Obama were behaving like that, they'd say deathwatch, because he'd have that kind of stink around him.

Anyway, when this is all over, we will all have learned a valuable lesson. And we're going to hug. Each other I mean. We will hug each other; we won't hug Hillary Clinton.

Posted by elenchos | March 28, 2008 6:55 PM

Elenchos you rock.

Posted by ZwBush | March 28, 2008 7:06 PM

Of course it would be inappropriate to have an Obama 'Deathwatch' were their positions reversed, exactly because Obama presents such a threat to the status quo that so many of us deeply fear he will be assassinated. For Hillary, that fear hardly exists as she presents no threat whatsoever to the status quo. This is not a double standard.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | March 28, 2008 7:17 PM

If anyone besides Hillary were behind in the popular vote, behind in number of delegates, and behind in the polls no one would take them seriously and this would all be done with.

Posted by mikeblanco | March 28, 2008 7:23 PM

Exactly, @7, because none of them were the assumed frontrunner for an extended period of time.

Posted by tsm | March 28, 2008 7:26 PM

I don't get it. Other than the point Grant mentioned regarding assassination worries, why wouldn't they use the term "deathwatch"?

Posted by keshmeshi | March 28, 2008 7:49 PM

She will never surrender.

They will drag her kicking and screaming from the convention floor, her sensible jacket askew, one low heeled pump skittering away across the tile, and they will have to sedate her.

They will have to sedate her heavily.

Posted by It's Mark (Holier than Thou) Mitchell | March 28, 2008 8:03 PM

I'll be mighty generous here and suggest that maybe it's more about some sense of responsibility to her supporters at this point.

If she left without another solid primary loss, she'd look like she was caving into pressure, and her fans won't stand for that. Portions of her base have just gone completely batshit - go read Taylor Marsh's blog, for example. These folks seem all but ready to put on a belt full of C4, run to the nearest Obama campaign office, and blow the young punks inside to kingdom come yelling "CLINTON AKBAR!" I fear they may never return to Earth, even after she steps out.

Posted by whatever | March 28, 2008 8:10 PM

Hope floats for the Hill backers, to the extreme extent that they believe where there is a Clinton there is a way, to the nomination. If you are above the age of 30, you know she just might do it. She will take PA by 8+%, (they voted for frothy discharge).

So who in the msm is still saying this is what democracy looks like, that this fight is good for the party, that day one at 3 am in the morning, fuck all.

Fuck the party.

I'm going to enjoy this moment, this "fight", this soap opera. Either one, they're going to be the next fucking president.

Posted by Help, I'm so stupid for being a democrat!! | March 28, 2008 8:13 PM

The so-and-so "Deathwatch" is a developing tradition at Slate, if not really a regular column since political news doesn't have many occasions when all disinterested observers can agree that someone's exit is probably nigh. Last year Slate debuted the Alberto Gonzales Political Deathwatch (which gave up on him prematurely, though if the track record is any key Clinton's chances may be better than they are currently giving her). Clinton's exit is likely to be just as irrationally delayed, so they've set up the commentary under the same section of their site. Not really that surprising, now is it?

So yeah, I think they would call it a deathwatch any time they were anxiously awaiting a political personality to leave the stage. It's what they call these things. As a little click on the "Deathwatch" navigation at the top of the page would have informed you...

And really, Dan? Are you now in that camp that interprets every event with the assumption that the media gives Obama the soft-glove treatment? Seriously people.

Posted by Exile in West Seattle | March 28, 2008 8:41 PM

Gee, 'deathwatch' and 'morbidity'... Those sound a little... Vindictive, don't they?

Maybe if they didn't use the same terms with Obama, it's because he's not a raging asshole?

"Would you call Senator Clinton a ragi-"




Posted by Max Bell | March 28, 2008 9:04 PM

Who cares? Did you read the NYTimes' rave review for Ms. LuPone's performance in the Broadway revival of Gypsy? I hear she's to die for. Especially her "Rose's Turn"--you know, the one where she laments being born too soon and starting too late. The song where she's really upset that she's been upstaged her whole life and then she loses it. . .

Hmmmm. . . .

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 28, 2008 9:18 PM

It's ironic for Slate, of all sites, to be bold enough to issue a "deathwatch" on anybody...

I sort of thought that site shut down in the late 90s...

Posted by Peter F | March 28, 2008 9:28 PM

Can't we just remove her feeding tube without talking about it?

Fuck, it's grandma all over again.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 28, 2008 9:46 PM

If it were Barack Obama who was behind in delegates, popular vote, etc, they'd be using terms like, "dropped out a long time ago," "conceded the obvious," "stepped aside in February," "suspended his campaign for the good of the party," these kinds of things. Since Hillary refuses to accept the obvious, insists on turning this into a bloody war, then "deathwatch" it is.

I do think the MSM is finally catching on though. If Hillary won't end it, if the superdelegates won't end it, maybe the media can step in and put her to bed.

Posted by Mr Me | March 28, 2008 10:48 PM

Hillary is the new Nader.

Posted by montex | March 28, 2008 11:38 PM

No, Hillary is the new Huckabee.

Posted by also | March 29, 2008 12:08 AM

Time for HRC to power down. Then she's gonna need to quit the race, effing robot.

Posted by superyeadon | March 29, 2008 12:44 AM

there'd be quite a lot of people crowing in some kind of way if o were going down. maybe not "deathwatch," but something. and maybe not in the media. the media had a brief period of clinton like when the story was "boy she really won over those rubes in buffalo." but now that she's back on the national stage, the media have reverted back to not liking her very much.

Posted by Quincy | March 29, 2008 12:45 AM

Leave Hillary Alone!


Posted by Will in Clinton Denial Land | March 29, 2008 1:33 AM

Can you guys please stop posting things and asking us to decide if they are or are not politically correct? Thanks!

Posted by mintygreen | March 29, 2008 3:19 AM

Before everyone writes Hillary off, let's see how she does in the states she actually campaigned in. I'm not saying that I am for her or not...I'm just sayin'it's only fair.

Posted by lawrence clark | March 29, 2008 3:51 AM

With all due respect, Mr. Clark--Ms. Clinton is behind because she wrote off many states that her competitor didn't.

And we're not electing the President of the Several States that Hillary Clinton Bothered to Campaign in.

Otherwise, your assessment would be fair.

Fact is, she picked the wrong strategy, and blew it in a game where there are no real do-overs.

I'm going back to bed now.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 29, 2008 4:56 AM

Why Hillary won't cave to largely MALE pressure? Male dominated pressure efforts ...

GOD GOD GOD can't figure that out, can we ... sexist pigs and shallow male "feminists" .... women have had to FIGHT their way up in this country. One labored and bad ass step at a time, going back to the earliest suffragettes.

As the leading woman political figure in America, AND on the planet, remember international as in small world, Hillary should cave in to some vague pressure to make everyone happy???? AND in the process betray her politics as a feminist and all her female supporters who are indeed, telling her to fight ...

Esp. the males of America, black, white,
latino or whomever... oh stop, Hilary, you are just to combative in this close contest, contemplate political death for our click numbers ...shit she replies, NO way.

And should she do so, history will remember her as the quitter in a close political contest.... very common for centuries, political contests. She is playing it right for her and her supporters, and you all are a bunch of silly asses who can't figure it out. AND congrats Dan, it is a bit strange how all insults are OK against Hillary, all ... dress, voice, marital history, attorney work, haircuts, on on on on on

Mc Cain is going to be weaker than we all expected. He has backed in public recently, more war, private social security, and no help for middle America who are losing their homes, (they were irresponsible, very Herbert Hoover) and is acting like a recent stroke victim. Dull, doddering and very old.

Polling now shows the age thing IS a problem for voters, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM BY FAR, and he is very vulnerable as he acts older than his age. I have relatives in their 80'ies who are flying thru life, doing great.

Poor, John Hoover Monger Mc Cain. (and the money is going to Dems, now that is a novelty, no bets on John)

Posted by Adam | March 29, 2008 6:14 AM

Anyone - some more details on the age issue and Mc Cain - modern America is the worst age culture in history - and the campaign has not started for real.

Ask the Obama youth what they think of Mc Cains age ...

But, the polling, anyone, I have an old computer and limited skills, sorry.

Posted by Freddy | March 29, 2008 6:19 AM

Gotta say whatever here @11 really achieves maximum truthiness:

If she left without another solid primary loss, she'd look like she was caving into pressure, and her fans won't stand for that. Portions of her base have just gone completely batshit - go read Taylor Marsh's blog, for example. These folks seem all but ready to put on a belt full of C4, run to the nearest Obama campaign office, and blow the young punks inside to kingdom come yelling "CLINTON AKBAR!" I fear they may never return to Earth, even after she steps out.

It's counterproductive for the likes of Patrick Leahy to call for her to drop out. Instead (as others have noted), he should call for her to cut it with the Tonya Harding crap.

As far as the whole concept of a "Hillary Clinton Deathwatch," I think it sells her short. I mean, she is, politically speaking, the Terminator (far more than that girly-mon Schwarzenegger ever will be). So you can't actually kill her. She will just regenerate herself and keep fighting.

Posted by cressona | March 29, 2008 9:17 AM

The real question is when certain Stranger writers (not just Erica) will face reality and publicly admit that it's over.

Posted by Trevor | March 29, 2008 9:35 AM


Hey, y'all, it's over. James Carville, Mark Penn and the rest have slipped a pair of shades on the campaign's corpse, and they've been taking it out for a wild Weekend at Hillary's.

Posted by oneway | March 29, 2008 9:55 AM

Reflecting more on this concept of a Hillary deathwatch...

So far we have only seen the amoral, indestructible killing machine Hillary. That is, through those 35 years of public service we have seen only the Terminator (1) Hillary.

The question is, at some point will we see the Terminator 2 Hillary? That is, will she decide to save the young Obama (and the future of the human race) from the Republican robots, and, ultimately, to self-terminate?

No mere human can pull the plug on Hillary. Only Hillary can pull the plug on herself.

Posted by cressona | March 29, 2008 10:03 AM

Back to Dan's original question: "Slate probably wouldn’t use the term deathwatch, would they? And using terms like morbidity?" On the surface it might seem like lefty Seattlite navel gazing, as in, "Is that politically correct?" But biting down harder it's about a black man and a woman being big ol' movie screens we can project onto, "we" as in the culture. So, yeah Dan, I would hope that if the C and O political fortunes were reversed that Slate wouldn't use words like "deathwatch" or "morbidity" coz there's been too many lynchings and executions and weird f-ed up violent stuff against black men by, you guessed it, a white power structure, so that if Slate used those kind of words toward a black man, well, sure, I would cringe if only in my brain. The big O movie screen makes all of that shine (see what I mean?), coz it's in us, and the opportunity is that the movie makes us more conscious of all of that, you know "the past isn't even past." On the big C movie screen is misogyny, and man is that a big, long movie or what? We sure don't want to see that one either, but C brings it up. It also is an opportunity. I head a black woman on the radio, somewhere, say something like, "When I'm out in the world I always have to deal with the fact that I'm black and a woman. When I get home I don't have to deal with the fact that I'm black anymore, but I'm still a woman."

Go Dems!

Posted by intro_verse | March 29, 2008 10:05 AM

Obama's campaign and their media friends may be killing his chances in November. People like cressona repeating pure bullshit like the Tonya Harding fabrication will push Hillary supporters to the point of not voting or voting for someone else. If Obama has it in the bag, why not just campaign on his/your positions and against McCain? Why spend time trying make her quit? Welcome the fight at the convention. Offer FL and MI their delegates as their state party wants. Obama will only lose if something awful is discovered about him.

From Mediamatters

Summary: After ABC's Jake Tapper quoted "an anonymous Democratic Party official" saying that Hillary Clinton's "securing the nomination is certainly possible -- but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option,' " numerous media figures have repeated the "Tonya Harding option" analogy in reference to the Clinton campaign -- some going so far as to assert that it is a specific strategy adopted by the campaign.
Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 10:09 AM

Indulgent, ahistorical whiners. Kennedy took it to the convention against Pres. Carter, LBJ against JFK, Bush against Reagan, candidates who are behind and who have about a one percent chance DO NOT QUIT. Look at the graph -- just a few days ago HRC was on top and things can change. She'd be an idiot to quit now.

And interesting that nearly no one answered the fucking question posed here --tacitly admitting the answer is fuck no, no one would use the term deathwatch or morbidity if the roles were reversed and no Obama folks would say he should quit if the roles were reversed.

Instead, they and the media obamaphiliacs would be praising Obama's gumption dedication, & perserverance.

Hey Obamatons you disagree ? You'd all be for quitting if the roles were reversed? If you say yes, you'd be a bunch fo quitters.

I don't think you are. I think you'd say stick in there Obama. You're not quitters. You're just ahem "disingenuous" in calling for HRC to quit when your dude doesn't have the numbers and is going to lose PA and isn't, in fact, entitled to win at this point under the rules nor under the customs and usages of our political history.

Posted by unPC | March 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Why do so many of you spell Hillary's name with one "L"? Is this some campaign strategy?

Media matters coverage of Harding crap

Obama should come out against these attacks and ask the media to stop the unnamed source reporting.

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Way up there @15 -- Imagine the grim and toothy determination of Patti Lupone in Hillary's role. She'd be chomping through the scenery and minting Tony awards!

Someone wake up Sondheim and get him to work...

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | March 29, 2008 10:46 AM

Fair minded thought based on that Gallup chart would conclude "things are in flux, sure glad we have until August to be sure our nominee won't be torpedoed by a new Wright or Rezko revelation just after we choose him."

Meanwhile, if Obama and his supproters want to end this and get on to win in the Fall, offer HRC VP. Mario Cuomo is now on board with this idea which you've read here for some time now: "Obama and Clinton can [agree to] form a ticket that offers both of them, a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president who is clearly good enough to serve as president, should the occasion arise. That candidate for vice president would also have a good chance of being elected president eight years from now because neither of the two would be too old in 2016. If they are not capable of doing that, the two could announce they will complete the primary schedule and convention with the winner becoming candidate for president and the other agreeing to be a candidate for vice president, thereby mollifying to some extent the constituency of the candidate who was not chosen as the nominee for president."

This is so obvious it's rather pitiful that this is not the Obama strategy already. IT's hubris to want to triumph AND grind your opponent into the dirt.

But the dream ticket idea would require real vision, unity, and leadership.

Too bad Obama isn't showing much of it lately, and instead is relying on HRC blunders and gaffes to swing a few ppoints ahead in a poll, using the politics of tearing someone else down via surrogates. Same old same old.

Btw HRC clearly has floated this a few times.

Do Obamatons want HRC's whole hearted support in the Fall for OBama? Do they want the HRC folks to wholeheartedly support Obama in the Fall?

The "Tanya Harding" smear-based strategy, "oh she ought to quit, we're entitled to win noooow, she's being so tacky by not quitting, oh my, why it is in appropriate and indelicate, tsk tsk tsk" isn't strategic, visionary or good leadership to unity a party where we need every single Democratic vote for Obama to win in the Fall.

, or not?

Do they want to compete in FL and MI or not?

Posted by unPC | March 29, 2008 11:18 AM
39 about issues. It sickens me that the press is so bored with the day to day struggles of our lives that they resort to this mindless rating games. A friend's cousin was one of the soldiers that took us over the 4000 mark this week. Tell me in detail about that! So tired of all this petty news.

Posted by Bob | March 29, 2008 11:31 AM

@37--I get chills just thinking of it!

Oh, unPC. If Hillary *really* wanted to be Obama's VP she wouldn't have said that John McCain had already crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold with her. Honestly. How on EARTH at this point could Clinton "wholeheartedly" support a candidate for president that she doesn't think is presidential enough? It's nonsense.

Do I think it would be a good idea? Yep. Sure do.

And I get tired of HRC supporters talking about MI and FL. Where was Hillary BEFORE when all this was *first* going down? She was doing what the rest of the candidates were doing--signing pledges saying that the votes in MI and FL didn't count. And now--surprise!-she's changing her mind b/c it suits her strategy. And we're supposed to see her as some sort of savior? Sorry, that boat doesn't float.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 29, 2008 11:36 AM

if the roles were reversed, obama would have been out ages ago. please. the only thing keeping clinton in the race right now is the deathgrip she and her husband have on the party. if anybody else suffered 12 consecutive losses they would have been laughed off the stage.

Posted by brandon | March 29, 2008 11:45 AM


I don't see how Obama can possibly be responsible for Hillary's recent "blunders and gaffes". It is ridiculous to insist that Obama go on the air and defend Hillary from herself, she certainly hasn't put any water on the Wright fire.

There will be no dream Obama/Clinton ticket. She's burned that bridge to the ground with her petulant suggestion that he be VP.

So what if some unamed source coined the term "Tanya Harding" strategy? Its funny and appropriate and all too close for comfort for the Clinton camp.

Finally, what can you possibly hope to gain by insulting Obama's supporters by calling them Obamatons? You're not going to win any converts that way. Which is the problem with Hillary Clinton in general: she's not interested in bringing the party together, only a scorched earth policy will make her and her followers happy.

PS. If you hadn't noticed, Obama won every, single caucus jurisdiction in Washington, where I presume you live. Not by small margins - by a ratio of 2 to 1. That means she lost fair and square. But never mind your home state - what do they know? Look to the eastern (more white) states. You hold on to the bizarre idea that all she needs to do is win in Pennsylvania and she gets the nominee.

Clinton may walk out of Pennsylvania with at best a net gain of 10 more delegates. That's not going earn her the nomination behind Obama's 159 delegate lead. Her only hope is to pressure the Super delegates to vote against the will of the people. That's not Democracy, that's king-making, and you should be ashamed for advocating the abolishment of our right to vote.

Posted by montex | March 29, 2008 11:55 AM

Please give one example of a candidate running second to a candidte that had no way to get enough elected delegates to win the nomination that quit before the primaries were over.

Democratic unnamed consultants say that Obama is using a strategy from the movies. Stop the Obama SNUFF Strategy, just beat her you don't have to smother her.

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 12:00 PM

Clinton has one every big state in US. That Gallup poll has them neck and neck over time. She's competitive. Why drop out? 'Cause some people are bullies?

I don't think she's given up on any state, just the bully vote, and rightfully so.

Posted by me | March 29, 2008 12:09 PM


Oh yes, the "only big states matter" strategy. How nice to see that Clinton supporters advocate the disenfranchisement of Americans who just happen to live states without huge populations. I guess votes in some states do count for more than others.

How do you account that Obama has 700,000 more votes and 159 more delegates than Clinton? Those are the numbers that matter - not who won New York and California.

I'd also be interested on why you think Rush Limbaugh is encouraging his listeners to register as Democrats and vote for Clinton in the remaining primaries? Could it be because he thinks she is easier to beat? Please reply.

Posted by montex | March 29, 2008 12:20 PM


Clinton has already been beat. And that graph is only a Poll - no votes, no states and no delegates are figured into. It is an artificial contest that has no real, provable meaning. And a good thing our Democracy does not rest on some relatively miniscule sample of a poll!

Every day that Clinton is in this race, John McCain is getting a free pass on his way to November. Time that should be spent on reminding Americans that we are running against the policies of George W. Bush and the disasters he's going to leave behind.

Posted by montex | March 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Obama's sexist snuff history

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.,1,57567.story

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 12:36 PM

@45: I'm not a Clinton supporter. My post didn't endorse a strategy. I was outlining some basic facts. Calm the fuck down.

The commenters are acting like she's some Nadar/Huckabee outsider with 4 percent of the vote. That poll shows that within a week or two ago, she was outpolling Obama. I wouldn't call that a landslide.

I'm undecided in this race, but every day I'm baffled as to why people are faulting Clinton for being fiercely competitive. If a football team was losiing the Superbowl by 7 points in the fourth quarter, should they just put the ball down and walk up to the other team to gracefully concede? No way! They should play to win. I know the math might not be on her side, but if Clinton concedes, she's a WIMP!

Posted by me @ 44 | March 29, 2008 12:45 PM

Me, but if the sportcasters doing the game thought the team should quit, then they should quit, right? I mean, they are professionals.

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 12:51 PM


Not surprisingly, you didn't answer my Rush Limbaugh question. And I even said "Please". Tsk tsk tsk.

Posted by montex | March 29, 2008 1:09 PM

Obama - won Wyoming and Utah and Idaho, nice people, piddle states ref. political power.

and those victories should be a big fucking deal? Give me a break - instead of NY, Cal. and NJ and Texas??

Some of these people are reading talking points, please engage brains.

Posted by Larkin | March 29, 2008 1:14 PM

What I don't get is how the Hils supporters are so confident she'll win after her horrifically embarrassing lies about Bosnia and Ireland. Wright wasn't good news for Obama, but he was forthright and direct about it. Hillary saying she "misspoke" as she recounted this non-existent experience in Bosnia is ridiculous - she LIED and got caught.

Posted by AMB | March 29, 2008 1:16 PM

Right AMB - when Obama forgot that he walked his mansion property with Rezko, the thug crook, in 2005 that's nothing - Hillary says they cancelled a greeting ceremony in 1996 and that's a crime.

And as for Rush read this article on how the Repubos supported Obama until lately.,374100,374100,2.html

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Thanks for your response, but you ignore the main point. YOU need HRC supporters with you in the Fall. Soooooo...offering her VP is the way to go.

Now to address your points, all of which are an attempt to distract from the logic and correctness of what I just said:

1. Obama is not being a proactive leader --he claims to rise above the politics of tearing people down yet his surrogates engage in it all the time -- like you!

2. "There will be no dream Obama/Clinton ticket. She's burned that bridge to the ground with her petulant suggestion that he be VP." Um, are you lying or are you just ignorant?

a. She didn't say he should be VP. Go listen to the tape. She said to a voter "you may get to vote for both of us on one ticket one day soon" which is clearly ambiguous as to who's on top and clearly opens the door to Obama being on top.

b. anyway, why the big offense if she did say she expects to be on top and he could be VP? Wow, a friendly admission he's qualified to be president! And the whole premise of her campaign is...she would win. So taking offense at what she said is ... ridiculous.

3. "So what if some unamed source coined the term "Tanya Harding" strategy? Its funny and appropriate and all too close for comfort for the Clinton camp."

No, it's a gutter slime ball smear as you well know. Which is why you like it. Your candidate is on TV decrying the politics of personal slander.
Hypocrite. There's nothing HRC has said or done that is dirty campaigning. Much less assault. And the white trash allusion is very clear. What was the name of that balck woman who falsely claimed rapie and accused a white dude? Tawana something? I don't think is someone called Obama Tawama Brawley or whoever she was you would find it funny and appropriate.

4. "Finally, what can you possibly hope to gain by insulting Obama's supporters by calling them Obamatons?"

I try not to insult people unintentionally. If you dismiss the logic thru the copout of taking offense, it's your problem. I don't agree that my job or purpose is to convince....that's part of it but it's also just to express.
Meanwhile "Obamaton" has a nice friendly ring to it, it dates back to the time when the Obamatons themselves used that term first, and I also refer to Clintonistas.

Can't believe you are using the "mommy he called me names" "rebuttal."

5. "You're not going to win any converts that way." Ok, go ahead and lose the general election. I am simply putting the ideas out there. You are free to ignore them out of PC petulance.

Poor widdle Obamaton.

6. "Which is the problem with Hillary Clinton in general: she's not interested in bringing the party together, only a scorched earth policy will make her and her followers happy."
Right. Using the word "Obamaton" is a scorched earth policy. Poor widdle...oh it gets so boring.

Oh and the record of HRC in being a self serving bitch is so clear! She's never helped us, the people or our party. She has a terrible record of starting Children's Defense Fund and working to impeach Nixon and helpin Bill for decades and helping reform education in Ark. and trying to do health care and being Clinton's no. 1 advisor for a few decades while he brought us peace and prosperity and she actively helping him fight off a bullshit smear campaign and a bullshit impeachment and helped us Democrats win the presidency twice when the only other time we won was the fluke Carter in about the last forty years. Oh, what a selfish do nothing bitch she's been.

People like Humphrey Mondale McGovern Dukakis Kerry and GOre all did so much better for us, by losing!

Oh and she was out here helping Cantwell and helping Murray and helping tons of other candidates in the party. Oh, HRC has been horrible for the party!
Hey when you can't name one example of someone who gave up while the no. 1 contender didn't have the delegates you have no call to whine about HRC staying in the race and no call to accuse her of scorched earth. It's all just made up in your head. PArt of the Obama snuff strategy -- a pretty good one when he can't win PA.

6. "PS. If you hadn't noticed,"
yes, you use sarcasm too, but only the ultra passive agressive kind -- not fooling anyone really -- "Obama won every, single caucus jurisdiction in Washington, where I presume you live. Not by small margins - by a ratio of 2 to 1. That means she lost fair and square. But never mind your home state - what do they know? Look to the eastern (more white) states."

a. um, entire premise of my posts is Obama's the nominee so your point is....?
b. go back east sometime you will see lots more African American folks than here in Washington. It's pretty lilly white out here in fact.
c. I should follow my state? Huh? Be a chicken shit who bows to PC consensus -- um not my thing you may have noticed.

, d. "You hold on to the bizarre idea that all she needs to do is win in Pennsylvania and she gets the nominee." Um, 180 degrees wrong, you are again falsely acusing, never said that, don't you read the posts? The premise is Obama wins.

e. "Clinton may walk out of Pennsylvania with at best a net gain of 10 more delegates. That's not going earn her the nomination behind Obama's 159 delegate lead." Yawn, yes we know, OBama wins. Now can we use our brains and progress to the next thougth segment:



--this can also bring this divisive battle to a close earlier and reinforce change, unity, etc.

g. " Her only hope is to pressure the Super delegates to vote against the will of the people." Um, which is what they were created for -- what everyone approved in democratically based votes adopting those rules -- which Obama never had a problem with till it behooved him politically. "That's not Democracy, that's king-making," oh cut the crap. Every time democracy works against HRC Obama loves the insider party driven rules as in excluding FL and MI "and you should be ashamed for advocating the abolishment of our right to vote." Ha HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha I am the one advocating the right to vote of FL and MI -- I often mention DC voting rights, too -- and drug felons' --if OBama would gwet behind some real fundamental changes like that I ght be more inclined to believe he really is about change -- but you know what? He's never specific about what hte change will be.

It mainly seems to be about him.
No one can point to any change he brought about as an organzier or a lawyer. He just runs for office all the time. He says the change is in us.

big yawn.

Oh and cut the crap as Obama and you presumably think it's just fine to take the support of Kennedy and Richardson IN VIOLATION OF WHO THEIR STATES VOTED FOR.

Here's the deal my friend.

Obama is going to win he he needs to win in the fall he needs to mazimize supporlt from HRC and her supporters so make her VP.

Se? Pretty simple. But instead of addressing those points you go off in a litany of distactions.

So answer me this:

do Obama supporters want the support of the HRC supporters in the Fall?

Yes or no?

Can Obama be a leader who unites this nation if he can't unite this party?

Yes or no?

OK. So, he has to win in the fall and he has to unite this party.

Isn't offering VP a pretty good way to do that?

Seems to be a fairly obvious, reasoned, and reasonable point .......very interesting it is so avoided in your response...obviously you fear the reasonableness of this logic because you have worked yourself into a frenzy of HRC bashing to the point where you honestly feel it's okay to call her a white trash felon by calling her a Tanya Harding.

Not a smart way to achieve unity and success in the Fall. But have you even thought of that?

How do you propose to get all the HRC supporters on board with Obama?

Posted by unPC | March 29, 2008 1:35 PM

I find it laughable to point to big states (any states, actually) as if they're winner takes all. They aren't. Is a Republican really going to win CA? Nope. Right now it's about delegates, and Obama's got more of them. Hillary won a few more in some states, and Obama won a few more in others.

It doesn't make sense to point to NY and say that Hillary won it and it should mean more. The fact is, in the race for delegates it doesn't matter. This isn't the general election. Obama has done a better job of accumulating delegates up to this point, and it looks like it's almost impossible for Hillary to surpass him.


Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 29, 2008 1:38 PM

obama supporters have made me so sad and mad, and i have felt this whole time that thay have been cheating us. women have come so far and we will be missing our chance to show the world what we think of women...they are stong, have experience and can potect us from terror. africans have already proven that they can run a whole continent! obama lies, hates white people, and has no experience in anything! obama supporters never answer the questions my fellow supporters McG and unPC ask, and that's telling. i honstly believe that obama is a muslim, and will kill americans from the inside out. hillary wouldn't. why won't you give us hillary supporters a chance to show that we can top the delegate count by adding FL and MI? you won't answer the questions my buddies McG and Sven and unPC have tried to ask. there is always a double standard - let all the votes count plus more! you won't win without us, so give us a chance. not a chance...but give hillary the nomination. i'm not certain how to let go of the dream. and all you guys talk about is hope....hope this hope that. if i spent my whole life hoping, i would end up hopefull, and hope leads to dreams and good feelings. we need concrete feelings: safety & a mothered sense. hillary is a wonam and barak hussein is a man. we've spent enough time being controlled by white men. hillary is for the people and wants real change. she will read all the bills in the future (if elected). the polls showed that people liked her. FOLLOW THE POLLS! hillary can end global warming and get people to build 100 story low income housing surrounded by green space. hillary will build a waterfront tunnel for less money. we need a village, and it takes one. bruce babbitt. barak hussein will not protect us. hillary can dance too. unPC. obama will get murdered in office, hillary won't. america is too racist, not sexist. barak farrakhan. barak mondale. barak dukakis. barak dole. barak ahmadinejad. barak horton. barak crystal. barak pitt. barak jolie.

HRC = Hils = 43

Posted by HRCfangrrrl | March 29, 2008 1:50 PM

This isn't about Hillary being a woman.

It's about her being an incompetent and destructive campaigner with no chance to win the general election.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 29, 2008 1:52 PM

yes it is about her being a woman. i bet you're a man. if hillary's skin and reproductive organs were on and in obama, and obama's on and in hillary, would you think that ECB would vote for the barak version of hillary? or would she vote for the hillary-barak? answer the question you chauvinist pig!

and the second part, you just described barak hussein obama.

Posted by HRCfangrrrl | March 29, 2008 2:01 PM

"if hillary's skin and reproductive organs were on and in obama, and obama's on and in hillary...."

I think you just described a sex act.

If you haven't noticed, not even ECB is posting pro-Hillary mush anymore. That ship is emptied.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 29, 2008 2:08 PM


Nice try. There's nothing in that article that indicates any sexism on Obama's part. God forbid you address the actual questionable practices that that article raised.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 29, 2008 2:17 PM

A little from the Barrett story - Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Limbaugh was so worked up about Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama that he devoted most of a day to it, invoking Camelot and concluding that "the Clintons are the evil knights hiding out in the woods to steal from everybody and get rid of people that get in their way." To make this argument, Limbaugh had to momentarily buy into the Obama phenomenon, contending that the Clintons were alienating blacks who see "Obama as a nice guy, a soaring visionary." Careful to put this praise for Obama in the mouths of others, Limbaugh nonetheless portrayed him as "above the fray" and "not taking the bait" and deserving of "all this Kennedy appellation."

Where was the media outrage when the right wing was supporting Obama?

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 2:37 PM

In other news, when asked whether Senator Clinton should drop out, Senator Obama responded: "She should be able to compete, and her supporters should be able to support her as long as they are willing or able."

Classy answer from our nominee, huh?


Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 29, 2008 2:39 PM

Keshmeshi - And where is the evidence that Hillary has kneecapped Obama?

Obama hired high priced "civil rights" lawyers to deny the progressive woman a spot on the ballot - nice. Now he wants Hillary to quit - nice. When was the last time we had a president from IL? Wonder why?

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 2:44 PM

Dufus. Some of are talking about the GENERAL election - and it IS winner take all.

Obama will not be saved by primary victories in small states, states he will not carry, cannot carry in the general. ie. Utah, Wyoming, etc.


Posted by Barnes | March 29, 2008 2:45 PM

If American Idol were as intellectually stimulating, full of bombast, confrontation and derision as this Slog, I'd understand its popularity. Oh, wait - American Idol is popular - because of its mindlessness - Americans' best state. Do voters scream at contestants to drop out because they're flawed or because they don't like them? No, they text/vote for the ones they like and proceed to the next mental masturbation available.

Question: Hillary drops out right now. Would you be coming all over yourself with self-congratulation and sating the Slog with your verbose elation? Or would you go down to Obama's headquarters and start volunteering, writing checks, making phone calls? Or would you just luxuriate in your I-told-you-so-ness? Or whatever people do after they vote for an American Idol.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | March 29, 2008 2:45 PM

I have always thought the ticket can be up or down - both Hillary and Obama have time to run again for the top.

If Hillary drops out, she has no chips in the game. How basic is that??? All you Obma folks seem to have been eating pixie dust too much - as someone said a while back.

I love this fight and love the fact that Mc Cain is going to be easy to beat. Assuming they do not nuke Iran prior to the election.

Those who do not understand the Herbert Hoover thing need to get up to speed. Hoover refused to do anything to stop or cushion the Great Depression. Mc Cain is saying the same thing. Let them loose thier houses, let tent cities spring up in America full of the middle class, let them starve.

By comparison either Democrat will win. Plenty of time, no panic needed in my opinion many months to go.

And all these people on TV with all the opinions are mainly full of crap and very wrong mostly. Who pays them? God, they are awful.

Posted by Kenneth | March 29, 2008 3:00 PM

@64 There's really no need for name calling, is there? Honestly. The fact is that SOME people on here are saying that winning big states in this primary should mean more. My point is that it doesn't mean more and shouldn't.

I think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about those who were speaking in terms of the general election.


Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 29, 2008 3:12 PM

Of course winning big states means more - the general is winner take all .... and the electoral college.

No Democrat can win without the big states. Hillary has shown she can carry them. Fuck Utah and Wyoming, and a half dozen others, negligible electoral votes..

I think you have been brain washed by the talking points of you favorite candidate.

Sorry, for me Dufus is endearing. Will call you M and M in the future.

Cheers as well. At this point, what do you think of Mc Cain - I think he is a paper tiger and an easy hit. His first commercial dwells on the prison camp, of course.

Posted by Barnes | March 29, 2008 3:29 PM

HRCfangrrrl, it is because of your post @56 that I am glad I made it all the way through this thread. I bow before you.

Posted by cressona | March 29, 2008 3:44 PM


The big-states-mean-more argument is faulty because it suggests that Obama won't be able to win over Democratic voters in California and New York, a nonsensical argument if I ever heard one.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 29, 2008 3:48 PM


Right on.

I really do think that if the roles were reversed, Obama supporters would be adamant that he should not quit.

HRC has balls, and that's why I like her.

Posted by kmonkey | March 29, 2008 3:49 PM

The big state argument isn't that Obama won't carry CA, NY et al. but rather that he hasn't done well in races that more resemble the general. In Idaho he had a rally where as many people as caucused for him showed up. Figuratively he could talk directly to all those that ended up "voting" for him, but in big states as in the general that is not possible. With 2 to 1 spending he still lost in OH, TX, and RI.

The other aspect is winnng the votes of the blue collar workers, Scoop Jackson democrats, who are strong on defense and bullshit patriotism and are needed to carry some on the rust belt.

Posted by McG | March 29, 2008 4:37 PM

i guess the Stranger went black
and never looked back

Posted by benxer | March 29, 2008 4:51 PM


Of course, you're still ignoring that he started off way behind in those states and caught up, to the point where he barely lost the TX primary.

And Rhode Island is indicative of the nation as a whole? That's rich.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 29, 2008 6:23 PM


You're also conveniently forgetting that Obama outpolled Clinton in California on Super Tuesday. If it hadn't been for early voting, he may very well have won that state.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 29, 2008 6:30 PM

one commenter above decried the view that superdelegates should perform their intended role by saying hey you scumbag, that's anti democratic. Well NSDT -- that's the point of those rules setting up those superdelegates.

But check it out--,0,1843097.story?page=1

Election rules in Chicago let you get down 'n' dirty and win by simply throwing everyone else off the ballot.

Presto -- the voters have a choice -- to vote for you and you alone in the primary election!

Now, that's some real upholding of democracy and voting rights. Like Kruschev and Fidel do it!

Oh for the clueless: this is not an "anti Obama" post. this is a "pro-information" post. My personal belief? Tactics such as these are legal and proper and by the rules. The poin is, this is what "politicians" do. They pick and choose rules to abide or decry, as it suits their interest -- and they are all pretty much the same in that regard. As they freakin' should be. So one can be against superdelegates doing their job, for excluding MI and FL, against Kennedy and Richardson following the votes of their states, etc. etc. and otherwise totally flip flop from case to case on supporting or opposing the democracy oriented principle and in the end all you can say is:

hey that person is acting like most politicians do.

and what you can't say is this:
hey that person is morally superior and different from other politicians.

Oh and additional news flash: unicorns do not exist!

Posted by unPC | March 29, 2008 9:01 PM

your argument seems to be that all lies are the same, all flip-flops are created equal, and the clintons are just your average everyday politicians who've been given a bad rap. i get your point -- i got it about 100,000,000 words ago -- i just don't agree with you.

Posted by brandon | March 30, 2008 9:09 AM

Hillary will probably win in Pennsylvania. I hope she enjoys it since this will be the last time she wins an election there. The state has Pittsburgh at one end, Philly at the other, and Mississippi in between. The same people who put that ugly brown wad of Santorum into the Senate wouldn't vote for Hillary against Osama bin Laden. So she won NY, Mass and California. Big Fucking Deal. The Dems could nominate Elmer Fudd as their candidate and still win those states. I just don't see it happening for her in the fall if she goes up against McCain. Too many people in this country, rightly or wrongly, detest the ground she walks on. Give it up, bow out gracefully, and focus on how to break the GOP grip on the White House in November.

Posted by RainMan | March 30, 2008 10:06 AM

no brandon you don't get it. the point is that obama and his supporters have made him into a man above the usual politics - that he is better, cleaner, wouldn't use underhanded tactics - he speaks to our hopes not our fears - but in fact he started his political life by having opponents disqualified by hiring top-notch civil rights attorneys to challenge their petitions on a spectrum of misstakes from the mundane to the highly technical. One candidate was the sitting state senator. His action were legal, unPc thinks are OK I don't. He is using a variant of that tactic now by using his surrogates to pressure Hillary not to run. The people of the remaining states want to vote, particularly those that are independents. They will resent not having that right.

Hillary, worst case, lied about her landing in Bosnia 12 years ago at a few campaign rallies not wide spread ads or a major policy speech and the Obama campaign correctly pointed out her lie. Stupid on her part - not much to gain and a lot to lose.

Obama "forgets" that he arranged to have a man buy part of his home that has a bad rep, is known to be in big trouble, was his first and biggest contributor/fundraiser. Obama says it was boneheaded - end of story.

Fabricated Tonya Harding stories and the Bosnia "lie" are the big negs on Clinton right now - how again is Clinton attacking Obama in a way that ruins the party? Not what was said a month ago or done 20 years ago - what is the Clinton campaign doing now that is in any way below the belt?

If Obama has it sewn up, he should just ignore her and push his plans and attack McCain - trying to snuff her out only hurts him and the party.

Posted by McG | March 30, 2008 10:28 AM

79 - obama and his supporters haven't made him out to be superhuman, but his detractors sure like to peddle that line. seems to be the easiest way to take him down -- demand unobtainable perfection of him. personally, i don't expect him to be anything other than human.

but here's the ironic part: clinton gets caught red-handed padding her resume with a really stupid lie, and even in the face of irrefutable evidence she still can't admit it. no, she "mispoke." first time in 12 years. wow, 12 years! who's superhuman again?

Posted by brandon | March 30, 2008 5:13 PM

"Hillary says they cancelled a greeting ceremony in 1996 and that's a crime."

Hillary blatantly lied to make herself seem like she had vast amounts of foreign policy experience. She lied about Bosnia, she lied about Ireland. These weren't little white lies either, but giant whoppers that she was stupid enough to keep flogging despite knowing that there's ample video evidence depicting the contrary.

It's not a crime at all, it's just YET ANOTHER in a long series of fabrications her campaign has put forward in her desperate attempt to claw her way to the nomination.

Hillary is awful. It's amazing that so many Democrats are dumb enough to buy her bullshit. I feel sorry for you. My only hope is that the super delegates have the wherewithal to base their decision on the majority of voters, delegates, and a refusal to buy into her campaigns fear mongering and race baiting. I also hope that when she gets dragged kicking and screaming from the convention floor, screaming "MINE!", that her supporters wake from their stupor and realize they've been hoodwinked.

Posted by AMB | March 30, 2008 7:22 PM

All of this garbage about forcing Clinton to quit is absurd. I mean, come on, half of the pro-Obama bullshit we see here is from people who work for or have worked for his slimy campaign!

No wonder they're spreading the word the "Hillary should quit"! It's all part of the strategy of discrediting HRC (as the past few months have all been about) and keeping a stranglehold on the blogosphere.

The Obama fanatacs don't get it - Obama doesn't have enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

When the convention comes around the superdelegates will vote for the candidate who has the momentum and is leading the polls in popular vote. And that's not Obama.

And if that doesn't happen, those of us who have learned how low Obama and his moronic
campaigners can go - will vote for McCain.
("The Warmonger" Ha ha ha.)

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | March 30, 2008 8:52 PM


Hillary discredited herself. Did Obama force her to pad her resume with bullshit? Did Obama force her to embarrass herself with that Bosnia story?

HRC should quit because it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for her to gain enough votes to beat Obama, unless the superdelegates ignore the popular vote and the seated delegates. If HRC and her brainwashed minions manage to actually force that to happen, you'll see the younger generation leaving the Democratic party in droves - deservedly so.

Posted by AMB | March 30, 2008 10:07 PM

Just wondering if UnPC plans to disassociate herself from her piece of shit co-blogger or if she'll continue to be an apologist for racists and liars.

Ha ha. Who am I kidding? Of course she'll continue to speak out in favor of racism all the while crying and playing the victim card.

We don't want people like you, UnPC, in the Democratic party. Feel free to go back to working for the Republicans like you used to. Don't forget to pack your white hood but if you do, they've got plenty at MyDD and Hillaryis44.

Posted by just wondering | March 30, 2008 10:40 PM

Hillary WILL take the VP - that is why she is staying in the game, her super chip. The History Ticket, and she will be part of it.

Now it makes better sense.

The VP slot will have enhanced responsibilities, cabinet level, as agreeded between her and Obama.

Since she did not quit, bulldog fighter, her esteem will rise a great deal, and now, the unity ticket goes forward. Later she can go the the Supremes, or prestige cabinet post, ambassador to the EU, etc, or later anew run for the presidency.

She is smart enough to do it. History, all history.

(Of course I am coming off a long buzz with two months worth of wonder sex to boot. Clears the head for better political thinking, yup.)


Posted by Adam Kelper | March 31, 2008 4:20 AM

they wouldn't use those terms because he'd have dropped out and endorsed the presumptive nominee by this point.

Posted by Phoebe | March 31, 2008 5:19 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).