The headline says “CNN projects Obama clinches nomination”, but during what in many ways has sounded like a concession speech, Clinton has declared: “I will be making no decisions tonight”.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
2,132 Comments
Screw it. Pop the champagne corks anyway.
Can we finally get on with beating McCain now?
Darling Edward (from previous thread):
Fair enough that you think BHO is unelectable. We’ll know the answer to that in a few months.
What I find bizarre is the weird wish-fulfillment stuff that you and the Troika have repeatedly swished across these posts – that the superdelegates should ignore the Democrat’s party processes and endorse the less-voted-for candidate – completely ignores the ruptures and fall-out that such a position entails.
BHO has raised more money than any presidential candidate ever, from the largest number of individual donors ever. His candidacy has massively increased primary turnout, especially among young and black Americans. These people will vote in November.
Had the supers been dumb enough to make your wishes real, the fissure in the Democratic Party would, I reckon, guarantee a McCain win. HRC couldn’t win the race fairly, and thus she could never win at all.
PS: nominations for favourite r/R/Won-ism of the primaries? My vote goes to “comaparitively gentile”.
What an insular, selfish “it’s all about me” speech.
Once again the Clintons show what a steaming pile of selfish shit they are.
Good riddance to them and their cronies the Bush’s.
And now she is playing ‘Simply the Best’ in a moment reminiscent of David Brent’s motivational speech moment in The Office.
Unbelievable.
It’s still all about Hillary.
Such grace, such style, such delusion and narcissm.
And such an embarrassment to women.
Pancho!
LOL:
David Brent…perfect.
And Bill is her Gareth.
Obama has the numbers and is the nominee. Game Over.
If the other team wants to keep running around the field after the siren has sounded then good for them. The winning team is moving on to the next game.
There you are. She’s basically saying “FFFF U Barack Obama”!!! So what do you do now my lovely?
She doesn’t need to make a decision. The people have decided. Thats how democracy works. I was hoping for Clinton but anyway time to move on. Good luck Barak against McCain.
Despite having been a Clinton supporter I don’t think Obama is unelectable. Also I am quite disturbed by these “either my candidate or I’m not voting” democrats. McCain is not as evil as Bush but he is still stupid and the US economy is a mess. Democrats, whether Obama or Clinton supporters, should just suck it up, work together, and remember that the world needs a US president that is not hostage to big oil. Plus, several members of the prvious adminsitration need to be jailed, and McCain won’t do that.
Finns@9 – laugh.
Hillary may be winning SD but she’s losing Custer County, which contains the site of Litle Big Horn – Custer’s last stand. How appropriate!
Obama
http://cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2
Socrates -
a man (I assume) of honour, despite your disappointment.
A few others around here could take a leaf out of your book.
Out of interest given your preference for Hillary , did your opinion of her change throughout the campaign?
Obama has taken the stage.
We will know in about two minutes whether or not it’s the exact same speech as leaked to the media. Which was a pretty poor effort if it was, kinda takes the fun out of it
Crowd is already going nuts, very stark difference to the Clinton crowd. Not unsurprisingly of course.
Seems a very low turn out in South Dakota with probably only 100,000 total turningout to vote
Ok, and now the crowd just won’t shut up.
Seriously people. Things to do, people to see.
Now Obama is individually thanking each and every one of his immediate family members. Slowly moving on to his staff, team, supporters, blade of grass he stepped on outside, the mosquito which is hovering above his left shoulder…
And now we have confirmation that it is the speech he leaked to the media a few hours ago.
Speech is here for those who haven’t found it yet.
Seems the leaked speech:
‘I will be the Democratic nominee’
Deafening cheers.
No VP For Hillary after that performance!
A huge cheer for HIllary from the Obama crowd.
Compare the class and graciousness of Obama’s speech with the pathetic selfishness of Billary’s speech. That’s why he won.
There you go. Hillary will be Health Secretary.
Come on, say it, say it: i will sign Kyoto
“And oh, by the way, he has crossed the threshold of delegates to claim the nomination. Just after the polls closed in both states, 28 people –_ with a total of 26.5 votes — pledged their votes to him.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/season-finale/index.html?hp
The US Senate would need to ratify it. No chance.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah …. he can indicate the real change by 4 simple words: i will sign Kyoto. i will support him 120%
Now that he doesn’t need to fight Hillary, he’s going to chew McCain up and spit him out.
Jen
On Hillary, my view changed a little, though it was perhaps more that my opinion of Obama grew over time. I think (and still do) that Hillary CLinton is capable and could do the job, plus as a woman she has never gotten a fair go with US media and religeous bigots. But I think it got to her and I regret her having gone negative.
As for Obama, at first I thought he was too light weight and just making populist statements without being able to fulfill expectations. I still have some worries in that regard. He is not lightweight but very smart. However to win the nomination he has appealed to the hopes of some people who have impossible demands – e.g. people in mid-west states who want their jobs saved, even though they are linked to protected, obsolete and heavily polluting industries. The only way they can be saved is if they are protected even more, but the US is in debt so it can’t afford to carry them. Obama is at some point going to have to level with them and say their jobs can’t be saved. What they really need is help (retraining etc) to change jobs to new industries.
That being said, I really believe either Obama or Clinton can beat McCain. As long as all democrats are constructive and get behind him, it should be automatic. Unfortunately for US citizens, there is still plenty more bad economic and other news that will hit them before November (Afghanistan could be a real mess by the time the NH summer is over), and the democrats just have to remind them who is responsible for that and point out that the US can’t afford another Republican administration.
What, even though he has more -gates than a row of cottages Finns? And a runaway bus that people keep getting thrown under? And even though he’s not a woman and has been so mean to Hillary? Don’t sellout so cheap man!
What I don’t get is this “popular” vote stuff constantly spruiked about. With a mixture of caucuses and primary’s its already hard to say who had the most “popular” support – and then the fact that the primary’s seem to be a mix of closed, semi-closed, and open primary’s (meaning Republicans can vote for the Democratic Party nominee?? – how weird is that??) so you can’t even say its the most popular person in a particular state.
Surely its up to the party, by whatever means, to determine who it’s candidate is, not the general public – otherwise surely they’d just run as Independents wouldn’t they? Or is it because people want to vote Republican or Democrat so you have to be aligned to a party label to get a good run – thus necessitating that you go through the party procedure.
Otherwise its just a beauty contest, devoid of real politics and substance, just who can win the most votes based on who can convince people they’re the nicest person. At least a party has conference’s, caucuses, debates and policies that give a guide to voters (and their members!) about where they stand.
So, to be honest, I don’t really care who wins the nomination – I think Hillary actually might be more “electable” – but then people voted for GWB, so I’m not convinced that “electability” is any more about politics than it is about getting your “tribe” (read party) into power, and not about trying to determine what IS in the “national interest” (to borrow a phrase from JWH), or what is going to be good for the people who’ve elected you. As for Obama, I hope he wins in November because I trust McCain less than I trust him – and I also hope that US politics (especially foreign policy) takes a progressive turn, but given history (especially from the Democratic Party in terms of getting involved in other people’s disputes) I suspect we may just see more of the same.
Amigo, i just love the look on the pundits’ face on CNN and Faknews after hillary’s speech. they look like the stunt mullet. it’s a pity i cant see the obamabots’ face here.
I reckon they’d be pretty smiley.
You’re gonna be dragged through an historic few months Finns. Enjoy the ride.
Or maybe I’m just feeling pessimistic today…
It’s over now Pancho. Before today, he needed 39.5 to win, now he’s 33 over the majority. There were only 31 pledged delegates at stake, and it’s now clear that he’s had the SDs stitched up for a while.
Tonight is the beginning of the coalescing of the party that was needed, and by the end of the week, even Hillary will have joined in. I think tonight was a last minute pitch for VP… I think she may have considered conceding tonight, but the reports from AP pushed her to addressing her supporters in one final victory/campaign speech.
Amigo, we have an agreement. Yes, i will Enjoy the ride.
Wow, your candidate made some BIG BIG promises. just pray and pray he can deliver.
The Long Campaign:
“I will be making no decisons tonight”.
June 3, 2008
Hillary initiates Whack-Watch.
Someone needs to explain to Hillary that it is not her decision to make.
And it’s done.
Obama’s Rally is amazing. Can’t think of anything else I’ve ever seen like it in terms of a political speech. The man is gracious, dignified, passionate and truly inspiring.
We are watching the course of history changing. Finally.
26 Dinsdale Piranha Thats why we need 60 seats to prevent Kyoto being stopped in the senate.
Hillary hits 0.1% on DeathWatch (and she’s lucky to get that). She still wants poor saps to donate money to keep her million dollar a day fantasy camp going.
http://www.slate.com/id/2192823/
Diogenes-
who?
Credit to Jason Linkins of for pointing out what happens when you Google McCain’s slogan “A Leader We Can Believe In”.
http://www.google.com/search?q=a+leader+we+can+believe+in&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Romney wins Montana!
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MT
…in Feb. Sorry.
Looks like Hillary is still trying to get as much money out of her supporters as she can before she dumps them:
“She also asked people to go to her Web site to “share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.”"
The contrast between Obama’s and Hillary’s speeches could not be starker. While Hillary was trying to puff herself up, Obama talked about the future of the country. Is it any wonder why Obama won? Democrats have made the correct choice.
One thing that has often bothered me about Hillary is her frequently repeated catchphrase, “we’ll take back the White House”. It always sounded like she was just running for President so she could get back into the White House to pursue various vendettas. An absolute turn-off. It further underscored the perceived selfishness of this woman.
But thankfully, we have now dodged that bullet!
Noocat – did you have your head down as you ran straight to your armoured car? You can never be too safe…
CNN projects Obama has won Montana, and according to their exit poll, he won the female vote!
(L) Won,
Good one; entries are still being processed and confidently expect the pile to grow on the way to Nov.
Today is ‘R’ free day. Respect.
Good point Pancho, but dodging sniper fire is the true art, as Hillary would know.
I’m looking forward to the discussion now turning to Obama vs. McCain. Will be interesting to see the shape and form that Obama’s campaign takes. His team were incredibly well organised for the primaries. I expect they have a detailed plan for the general.
Hi GG, the Obamabots here are desperately seeking the concession final nails. where have you hidden them? you bad, bad man.
From the previous thread, a line that will be copied and copied and copied:
#
2146
Pancho Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can xerox.”
Hahahaha. Put your dime in the copier Hillary.
…a classic Pancho, as Hillary proved herself to be nothing more than a bad copy of an astute, engaging and charismatic leader who has real grace and style.
No prize for the bad copy, is there?
Finns sez…”Amigo, i just love the look on the pundits’ face on CNN and Faknews after hillary’s speech. they look like the stunt mullet.”
No touring Fish Circus is ever complete without a team of well drilled “stunt mullets”.
yes he (the hopemaster) is such a weak candidate he couldnt even “win” the nomination (despite the FL and MI) rigging on delegates but had to have the supers save him yet again. More portents of doom in November.
“Put McCain’s speech against Obama’s – and this was a wipe-out. Not a victory. A wipe-out. Rhetorically, they are simply not in the same league. And if the contrast tonight between McCain and Obama holds for the rest of the campaign, McCain is facing a defeat of historic proportions.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/this-moment-1.html
Another nine supers for Obama too, at 2160 delegates now. But don’t worry, they will all have an epiphany before the convention and switch their votes.
43
Pancho Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Romney wins Montana!
Pancho, that’s going from the sublime to the ridiculous! LOL
ESJ
If only they had elected the more electable Clinton!
Hillary passed up a golden opportunity tonight to show some class and bow out with dignity! She has now effectively disqualified herself from being a contender for Obama’s running mate!
OK, a great day, but I’ll keep the champagne on ice until November, the battle has only just begun!
KR: good on ya mate, you’re a legend!
All is not lost for the Clintons: how about Chelsea for President in 2016? LOL
I think I’m having the post-euphoria come down.
Grief even – I may well miss Grinch and Finns daily bucketing.
Tues, June 3 (4RB): “Poofski!”, The Gentle Art of Airbrushing in Modern Russia.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jeffdanziger;_ylt=AvkTTTgpmhecKe.Fu2gwGydX_b4F
We could all make the occassional snide comment at you if you’d like Jen.
Just to keep the memories fresh, so to speak.
Jen
Every little slip-up or bad poll during the real election will be shortly followed by “Billary wouldn’t have done that, she’s more experienced. Billary polled much better in that state blah blah blah. Why did the Democrats throw the election away?”
It will make victory in November all the sweeter as we will have really suffered for it.
A wave is comin’ in Nov.
Hope the Republicans can swim. Only the strong swimmers will survive.
Forget Hillary. She is finished.
Did anyone hear David Axelrod earlier? He very implicitly mentioned Dick Lugar(R).
Then Obama spoke about ALL Americans…Reds and Blues.
Obama/Lugar 08?
I don’t think Hillary is gone from the campaign of either side. Obama will throw her a bone, and she’ll be all over the RNCs ads.
No Obama-Deval 08 more like it.
And in the other corner:
…to the theme from “Raiders of the Lost Ark’’ – which these days conjures up images of an aging action hero called in to a last adventure — Mr. McCain reappeared.
NYT
…how’s that for a nice comic touch?
62
dogb
I don’t think we could keep the standard as low as the professionals! LOL
Finns and GG
This one’s for you.
Turn out the lights, the party’s over
They say that all good things must end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJBxGsCJD3I
(I can’t believe I’m linking a Willie Nelson song. How low can I go!)
Why Hillary lost:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/04/hillaryclinton.uselections20084
Thanks dogb and others.
No offence intended, but you could never intentionally offend the way the stooges have. But you’re welcome to try.
jen as long as you stay on horsey. i will always love you
Jen dont forget me too!
KR and Jen – re: my standard of snideness.
Oh I don’t know, how hard could it be? Just bang on incessantly about electability and popular vote in spite of any evidence to the contrary – use the term obamabot at every opportunity – and every now and then make an implication about a foul personal habit.
Easy.
(Oh, I forgot the occasional sleazy surreptitious hit on Jen)
CNN just now:
Carl Bernstein hits it on the head.
Hillary Clinton lost this nomination because of her stance on the War. And even her closest advisors are now admitting this.
Each candidate had a rare opportunity to speak to the whole country on free to air prime time tv tonight.
We had 3 speeches:
John McCain spoke about Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton spoke about herself.
Barack Obama spoke about Americans.
#65 Amigo, i know it hasn’t hit you Obamabots yet but i think it has hot the Obama Team. it’s like the Archibald, yes Obama has won the Jury Prize but Hillary has won the people’s choice.
Obama needs Hillary more than ever to win in November. He is now crawling all over to win her and her supporters over. It’s now on his shoulder to unite the Party, the Nation and to win in November.
It also depends on Hillary. She needs to concede. She needs to pledge support to Obama. And she needs to stop all the silliness from her supporters threatening to vote for McCain.
No Noooocat, he is now the supposed “Nominee”, dont be a chicken.
dogB-
you also need to include opportunistic attacks on our personal relationships and suggestions of unusual sporting activities.
ESJ- I continually try to forget you.
Yes let the hopemaster bring peace and light.
Finns
Want to make a bet right now?
That Obama wins the Presidency and wins it without Hillary as his VP?
Yes or No?
State right now that Obama will not win the presidency without Hillary as his VP. come on.
Historic day, on that we can all agree.
Many more to come.
Catch ‘yous’ all later.
Jen – Point taken – oh and Finns has just shown us you need an astonishing level of self delusion. I’m starting to think you and KR were right – this is harder than it looks.
More crawling:
- To Bill and our Dear Leader, but where are the working families?
well, the fisrt thing Clinton should do is asking Obama to absorb and/or
dissovle her $20 million personal debt incurred during her campaign.
Where’s Ron? Not down at his local early opener I hope.
Well i think it is time to consider Vice presidential candidates once more. Im a little sick of Webb and don’t think it will be him so he does not make my list. Mostly because it would be antagonistic to hillary supporters.
1. Mark Warner (Virginia): Former gov poular in rural aareas say no more
2. John Edwards (North Carolina): Polls well and North Carolina only southern state that didnt go backwards under Kerry. Good name recognision.
3. Janet Napolitano ( Arizona): Steal Arizona from under Mcains wrinckley nose
4. Mike Easley (North Carolina) Popular governor big state. Prob more likely to do better in home state but less so name recognition outside of home state.
5. Kathleen Sebelius ( Kansas): Very poular govenor of a very red state. Myabe a little to red though.
6. Claire McCaskill (Missouri): Popular senator of bell whether state.
7. Brian Schweitzer (Montana): Most peoples ruffy. poular goveror ofa purple stae. Only worth 3 votes.
8. Evan Bayh (Indianna): popular former Governor red state. Dwon side no geographical balance. Supported Clintons.
9. Hillary Clinton (New York): To make her stop hurting the party
10. Brad Henry (Oklahoma): Governor of a red state. Worked with republican legislature and is young for a national politician at 46. Doubtful he could pull his state.
Senators Blanche Lincoln Arkansas and Jack Reed Rhode island get honourable mentions as Does Virginia governor Time Kaine.
reckon the Stooges and compadres will be spending a bit of time on the Clinton Commisseration Self-Help site where they can all blog about how “we woz robbed ” until the cows come home.
jen, love you when you are on the horsey. just stay there, dont ever get off.
Finally change we can believe in!
Fascinating Crikey articles today for those who have a subscription (no idea if the said articles are free, can’t be arsed checking it out.)
Guy Rundle provided a recap of the nights events, running commentary on the two big speeches. He did a much better job than I did, that’s for sure. Always worth a read.
Bernard Keane – who, to his credit, has become a much better journalist in the past month or so since he has stopped sucking up to the left as he did for his first few weeks in the job – also wrote a fascinating piece on why the Democrats have, quite simply, stuffed up in nominating Obama. I note with interest that people like Finns have been saying similar things.
To be honest, I would have probably been in this camp… if not for the fact the only alternative to him was Hillary Clinton. To me, it was quite simply a case of better the devil I don’t know than the one I do. I really am not a fan of her. But I digress…
The Democratic Party has made its biggest mistake since… well, the last presidential election. Worse than that, really. Barack Obama is a disaster of McGovernesque proportions, and his nomination will give the McCain camp confidence that what should have been an unwinnable election will be within reach.
Let’s be clear. Obama is the weakest, least substantial candidate from either side for a generation or more. At least Michael Dukakis had run Massachusetts. Obama hasn’t run anything, has been in the Senate for five minutes, and has an undistinguished record in Illinois.
All he’s got are words – eloquent, uplifting, energising and wholly vacuous words. And nothing else. Particularly, no experience.
Ouch. And then…
Obama’s only hope is to get Clinton onto the ticket. A solid core of Clinton supporters have consistently said they won’t vote for Obama. A lot of that will be resentment at Clinton’s (grotesquely unfair) treatment at the hands of the press compared to the golden ride Obama has had, and will vanish once the battle is joined. But Obama already has too many major constituencies who have consistently demonstrated they won’t vote for him – lower income workers, Hispanics – to afford to alienate core Democrats who not merely vote but help organise and get out the vote and, crucially, donate.
It’s an interesting point, and one I suspect will be expanded upon by many in months to come.
And Harry – let’s be fair here. Lets not ask for predictions on the race until both parties have chosen their VP. Which might not be until the end of June yet, and technically could not be decided until the end of July.
Hillary today:
“Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes — for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history.
And because of you we (Team hillary) won, together, the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes”
Absolutely , won easily the 270 e/v and the easily popular vote. Stewart J , agree with almost all your post and your conclusion ‘I suspect we may just see more of the same.’ Hillary has not conceded & I do not think she should. However I do echo Hillarys speech ‘I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished’
I expect Obama this week to acknowledge a truthful fact despite the Obambot and the ObamaRealists here that Hillary based on the actual audited votes cast (app 35.5 million) won the popular If you do not honestly acknowledge wwhat your opponent won vote then don’t expect your opponent to show respect Its like Tony Mundine winning by a one points decision and then saying he won every round
Really Max? I find him vacuous at times, nitpicking both sides of Parliament on things that no one really cares about anyway. I really miss Christian Kerr.
Max – that is the same ahistoric argument that Clinton has run for 17 months. It is also one which has been proven false at every turn so far. Nor has it stopped Obama building a revolutionary fundraising machine and grassroots organisation which has been able to outmanuever Clinton on every conceivable front.
Scotty 89
You could add another dozen to that list. It really is a guessing game.
I can say with certainty though, you can cross off numbers 8 and 9 in your list.
I think Obama is in a difficult situation of having to accept Clinton as his VP,
considering their rifts, disagreements during the campaign.
The disharmony is even worse than that of Howard-Costello, Nelson-Turnbull pairs
Obama and the Clintons; one big happy democratic family in the white house. Sounds like a sitcom.
Nonetheless, I will be cracking open a bottle of the good liquid tonight.
Here’s to November.
If the two jokers in the CQ linked article, Ram-Ram Emmanuel and some publisher guy start making conspicuous visits to either BHO or HRC, then HRC for Veep is being tried on.
I think Obama would be making a huge mistake offering the VP slot to Hillary for many reasons (eg. “the face doesn’t fit” ie. wisdom is knowing the things you “can’t fix” then leaving them well enough alone, she can’t be trusted to stick to a deal etc.), but mostly because of the way she wallowed in her own hard-done-byness tonight. Vainglory and hubris doth pale beside thy narcissism, sweet lady! She just doen’t get it.
Havn’t seen the full clip, but understand that HRC didn’t offer Obi congratulations on his historic achievement but reassured us all that SHE hadn’t made a decision yet!
*fcuk….. me…… dead*
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/06/two-possible-power-brokers.html
Frank I really don’t think It’ll make that much difference after all Kennedy and Johnson HATED each other.
VP is essentially baggage anyway
#93 – Max, you are in big big trouble now. are you tough enough?
yep, is that easy. Just say them and they will happen. Is this guy from Disneyland.
Just say it, I WILL SIGN KYOTO. that’s the change we need.
Rage on with the mixed messages Finns! Obama must reach out to Hillary…but he’s a crawler! A nuanced response to energy and the environment is crap…but just sign Kyoto! Yeah!
Breaking: Hillary will be VP…………..for McCain LOL LOL LOL
Breaking: Democrats nominate turkey for November
HarryH @ 97
Who exactally? I think they will have been on my list. It will not be Bill Richardson. He and Obama are South polls of a magnite so to speak. Obama needs a north poll. Ideally they will have good name recognition be southern or mid western. They will be white but pro woman enough (exit Webb). If you notice 4 of my top 5 were governors or former governors. They will need to have a good chance of pulling their own state. Age and lengthof servie plays a role. Not to long, not to short.
Bill Ritter: Obama will probably win Colorado anyway), Vilsak, culver (will win iowa anyway), Ted Strickland (old to coonsevative), Ed Rendell (too old, too defensive), Sherrod Brown( Maybe but not there that long and only a senator).
Phil Bredesen (way too old), Kathleen Blanco (Katrina), Steve Beshear (not even there a year), Sam Nunn ( If only he were 10 years younger)
Frankly i think they will be from my top 8.
EC 100
I sat through the whole speech waiting for her concession … instead she asked for a write in to help her make up her mind in the coming days – as you said WTF?
That’s why at the end all the commentators on the networks were acting like stunt mullets – nobody could believe the way she was ignoring reality.
BTW love the fish circus!
That took you all day to think of that line didn’t it eddy, so witty
In the mean time Obama will probaby gain about 20000 votes on Clinton today, increasing his popular vote lead
Obama with Hillary as Veep would probably crush the Republicans by a simple flood of turnout.
The problem is having the Clintons running around in the background causing mischief on the one hand, and as Ecky says “the wrong face” on the other.
But if Obama made Hillary Veep as well as Secretary of Health – the latter would be solved because she’d become the face of Universal Healthcare, and would certainly reduce the magnitude of the former because she’d be too busy to get up to much mischief.
Bill on the other hand….
The big problem with choosing Hillary would be how to counter the Repubs national security narrative – which is what a Veep other than Hillary could bring to the table if they were a General or some other well credentialed white bloke with a history of fight’n bad guys.
Al @ 95,
I miss Cristian too, but I assume at some point he will start writing in the oz? Has to be a matter of time, surely. Unless he has already started and I’ve missed it. I think Keane has improved dramatically in the past month, along with Crikey itself, since they’ve finally stopped blowing smoke up Kevin Rudd’s arse. For an outlet striving to be different and independent of the mainstream, well, you’d have had a hard time picking it.
With the exception of Mr Rundle, who has been superb if not slightly biased.
Pancho @ 96
Tend to disagree. I think she has been running that argument solidly for three or four months – before Super Tuesday she was playing the ‘inevitability’ card, not the experience one she has been harping on about since.
I tend to think she scored some hits with it as well, you only have to look at the recent string of results to confirm that.
Nonetheless, whether or not McCain can effectively ramp up the tempo remains to be seen. The more I see of this campaign, the more I think his age will be more of an asset than a liability. Time will tell though, and there’s plenty of time to discuss it.
Finns,
pffft, give me a break I spent much of last year coming on here and taking heat for supporting the Howard government. I did a random count one day, and from memory something along the lines of 5% of people were on my side in these debates – and this was on the good days. I had no chance once October hit. This is pissy compared to that, you’ve had it easy!
Anyway, I’ve always reserved judgement on the McCain-Obama battle, and will continue to do so
The popular vote means nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Why? Because some states have open primaries, some have closed primaries, some are caucuses. It’s not even worth discussing; but it’s all the Clinton camp had left to cling to. Go tell Minnesota that because only 200,000 people took part the caucuses it’s only a quarter as important as Missouri which had 800,000 people vote in its primary on the same day, even though they have the same size delegations.
#110, Poss – [Assuming that the rumored Michelle Obama “Whitey” video never turns up, or is confiscated if it does before it’s broadcast] – not another “gate”. Surely, Obama would not throw her under the bus.
Interesting that Obama opened his speech about his grandma. But which one? the racist one or the one that assumed responsibility for him while his mum was savvy around in Menteng, Jakarta as the white Buana.
Let’s indulge this idea of HRC as VP Dem nominee a little furthur.
Could you imagine her strutting aroung the Dem War Room during the next five months with the antsyness of one who feels righteously aggrieved that she has been spurned on a vile “technicality” from getting her claws on the POTUS Seal? (Remember BillBo’s “Hillary’s Downfall” link from You Tube?)
To put it mildly Hillary would be a disruptive influence, a daily nightmare relentlessly sapping esprit de corps. Then there’s the package-deal angle with Bubba. Any political marriage broker with half a brain can see from a mile away that such a union would be “untenable”.
Team Obama will have enough on their plate dealing with the MSM’s “Adoration of Johnny Bomb-Bomb”, rather than to have to unnecessarily deal with a self-inflicted Insider Swiftboat!
Max at 111,
For what it’s worth with my conflict of interest – I think Bernard, Tingles and George Meg are the three best nationally focussed political journalists in the country…. and then there’s daylight.
And they’re excellent for different reasons, Meg because he has an inquisitive mind and actually does real issue analysis, Tingles because she’s seen all the shit before and calls it like it is and Bernard because he “gets it”. Especially the nuance and detail that fly over the heads of most people but are actually kind of important, like the way the public service actually works for instance (and he’s one of the funniest writers around to boot)
I’d think the same if I didn’t write for Crikey.
Possum
115
I would add Chris Graham and Brian Johnstone from NIT for Indigenous issues. Chris has contacts in the remotest communities.
Possum @ 115
Shaun Carney?
To each his own Possum. I just find that sometimes Bernard misses the spot, dwelling on things that aren’t quite as important as they may initially seem. His work on the most pointless debate I think we’ve had in the last year (oil prices) I’ve enjoyed.
I agree Ecky – she’d be a disruptive nightmare.
But I wonder if that would actually play out in a meaningful way if she was given SoH as a chaser to the Veep. Becoming the face of the biggest Democrat policy wish in history – Universal Healthcare – as well as being seen to be not only its architect, but the deliverer of the policy is something that even Clinton wouldnt sneeze at.
Especially now as it’s extremely doable in political terms – every major corporation in the US with a history longer than 2 decades would be lining up behind it, spending big bucks singing its praises and threatening to withdraw campaign funding to anyone that opposed it, simply to get the health liabilities of their current and in many cases, previous workforce off their books.
She’d be a media tart and almost impossible to manage in that regard – but she’d also be the ultimate attack dog to unleash in Appalachia. She’d bring Florida to the table and turn 6 states that Obama wouldnt have a pink fit of a chance into play.
And as VP – she wouldnt mobilise the Republican base nearly as much as if she were the Dem nominee.
If the Dems want to run a 50 State strategy – tying down McCain in the backblocks of traditional Red States with Hillary pouring working class buckets on him, Obama mobilising a voting block that doesnt usually vote and McCain trying desperately to bring out his base to save those states – Hillary in the Veep ticket might not be a bad way to go.
It certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier to grab States like PA, OH and FL by huge margins because the Repubs would be reduced to firewalling.
Especially with all the money that a truly united Dem party could flush into advertising.
And perhaps, just maybe, despite the taste, it might be better to have her inside the tent pissing out. She could certainly never even think about playing spoiler if she was in the tent.
“In becoming the presumptive nominee — the first African-American to ever lead a major-party ticket — he put himself just one step away from an achievement that would echo around the globe: No black man has ever led a major Western democracy, much less the world’s leading superpower.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10830.html
Hello FINNS , amigo
#102 (Kyoto , something that does affect us all)
How many times have we brought Kyoto up. got me going mate , climate change
Obama has repeatedly avoided interviwers questions of “will you ratify Kyoto”
If the answer was ‘yes’ , he would say so. Obvioudsly the answer is “no”. Instead Obama’s answer is always to say he will set up a competing forum to Kyoto , which is a cute way of saying ‘no’. This is a fact
What Obama proposes INSTEAD of Kyoto is a Global Energy Forum — based on the G8+5, which included all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South (but not ‘oz’ the World’s 3rd worst emitter per capita). Obama’s reserve ’spin’ defence is Kyoto only goes to 2012 , so lets address from 2013 , which still avoids ratifying Kyoto doesn’t it ! and implys let the world pollute itself to death frf the next 4 years till Obama ‘looks’ at it post 2013 with 13 only Nations.
Hillary will , a Kyoto mark 11.
The 3 Amigos have for 3 months , (between The approx Obama supporters sniping at the 3 amigos and us returning fire) have pushed for debate on Ktot , healthcare & other domestic policys of Hillary vs Obama The Obama supporters
almost totally for 3 months will not discuss candidates policys. william’s site records are the evidence , so any casual live new blogers here shouuld go through all of the thousands of blogs made here & they’ll see the indisputable evidence and so shouuld not be making blase uninformed views from casual/infrequent live viewings of this site about anyone That was Obama supporters perogative & right but cann’t have the the apple & eat it
What you are trying to get Amigo is a policy committemnt (Obama to say ‘I will ratify Kyoto’) Mate , some of the new guys live today need to go over the last 3 months blogs closely and ignore the 35 to 3 Amigos snpes & our return fire , and look at we have regularly perued policy issues and the Obama supporters will not discuss Obama’s policy at all or avoid our Kyoto questions with a red herring (Obama’s competing to Kyoto conference of about 13 most polluting nations)
If climate change is one of the top 4 world crisises (& I think it is) then neither Obama or McCain will seriously address it without without threats from Edwards , Hillary or Gore
Al – Bernards job is to report on the daily happening in politics. If what’s going on is superficial shit, he’s still got to report on it.
That’s the big difficulty for all political journos that are expected to do the same. How to make fluff and nonense interesting.
Only a select few can do it well.
Westie – I like Shaun Carney when he’s good, and when he’s good he’s Good (Like Phil Coorey), but I think the daily grind kills him.
If a lot of the political journos were allowed to write when they had something to say, rather than being forced to write as part of their job description, journalism in the country would improve dramatically.
But no one has figured out a model like that which can pay the bills yet.
93
Max
I find it interesting that when someone wants to disparage someone who’s just collected the biggest endorsement in the history of the Democratic party, and injected a level of enthusiasm and passion not seen since the halcyon days of JFK, the writer says something inane like “he only has uplifting words”
FFS, politicians ONLY have words!
And Clinton? An utterly stuffed up effort to get a universal health plan, a husband she could not keep from embarrassing himself in front of the entire world, a vote to let GW Bush ruin a Middle East country on the shallowest of stitched up ‘evidence’, and a primary campaign of such ineptitude that she squandered the best hand ANY candidate ever took to the race!
Really, but Obama’s only got ‘uplifting words’….give us a break! LOL
The only problem with all that Ron is that it’s not the Presidents job to ratify Kyoto – it’s the Senates.
If Obama or any President started rabbiting on about ratifying this or that protocol or treaty, they’d be effectively talking shit.
yawn. Once again amigos:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Plenty more on the above link to have a look at as well. Or you could offer up your support for a gas tax holiday. hahahahaha.
My advice to Mr. Obama, in his effort to unite the Party and win over Hillary’s supporters – The supreme excellence is not to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles. The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without having to fight them. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War. c.400-320 b.c.
Possum @ 122
Oh, The Daily Grind. That dreadful old rag.
And as a reviewer of rock biographies?
Poss
Clinton as VP just aint gonna happen.
If he brings her onto his ticket, his message of change is dead.
He will win easily without her.
Penn , Ohio, Michigin, Wisconsin, Minnesota will all be won on the economy.
Obama on his own “change” message will win Colorado, New Mexico and probably Virginia.
The anti War base anchor him in educated areas.
She is not the difference between winning and losing.
Obama won’t fold for her. If he was going to he would have this week.
Him and his team have run to a finely tuned plan. They aint gonna let Billary f*ck it up at the last minute.
Part of his plan is governing in a new fashion.
Team Hillbilly are 90’s leftovers. The relics of the Boomers.
Hillary clinton during the primaries won all the most populous states which have the most numbers in electoral college votes during a presidential election(California, NewYork texas florida Pennslyvania ect). Barack Obama won a lot of the less populous states which although overall showed his primary vote higher than higher and as subsequence his overall delegate count. Hillary also won the so called swing states ohio and West Virginia for example. I believe that John McCain will now win the Presidential election due in November experience counts this 71 year old veteran is more than a match for 46yo one generation american.
Various people are trying to run the line of ‘what has Obama ever done’.
Beating the Clintons in a nationwide campaign should count for something by itself, in my opinion.
Possum (@ 110 – I’m running a bit late),
What do you think about Gen. Wesley Clark for VP then? (OK, so flubbed his own run for POTUS 4 years ago – did manage to win one of the Carolinas (I think?) in the primaries) but he meets all the military service background the Dems need and then some…
Ian did you compromise the boat?
Many people on campus had their suspicions given you were a mature age student.
MB
without putting words in Possums mouth, i think it’s safe to say Wes Clark is his preference for VP.
he stated that previously. not sure if that’s changed lately
Interesting to note that Michelle Obama does not dress conservatively like other female politicians. See the differnce between Michelle’s and Hillaries outfits. Chelsea was also dressed conservatively. Is this the sign of some of the changes to come? No more grovelling to pick up religious votes.
Possum at 119: I’m sure that “Rational Hillary” would agree with the case you put for having her inside the tent and loaded up. Looks great on paper. She could help spread McCain all over the court before November. But is she worth the risk?
Her presence on the Dem ticket would sully Obi’s primary theme of “Change” because of her deep connectedness to Beltway interests. However, could HRC be trusted to have all her snakes securely back in the box after some of her outrageous performances over the last 6 months as the orb slipped from her grasp? Lousy leadership really considering all her initial campaign assets. But you can’t buy character.
Reckon her risks far outwiegh her assets in the surge to November.
Be better for Obi to win his way by 20 or 30 ECVs, than to punt all on a “sure thing” (a potentilally monster ECV margin with Brutusina as Vice), than have the “sure thing”, oodles of potential though highly strung, break a leg in the home straight and have to be “destroyed” by deeply concerned MSM officials.
ESJ,
*laugh* Your paranoia is showing.
We came, we saw, we got the media attention which was the point of the exercise.
Finally, mature agent student ? Callow youth was more like it.
Paul Nash,
Your argument shows that, like Hilary Clinton, you can’t count, so you’re on for $20. ESJ can hold the money – I’ll get my Kopassus upline to pass him the cash. Damn. Outed myself.
Harry at 128
I think Obama can win without Clinton, but to win big would require a McCain meltdown (which could well be on the books, he’s not across any brief when push comes to shove, and he doesnt have a good way to hide it – which is what separates McCain from good candidates: They can hide the fact that they arent really across what they’re talking about).
But politics is also an uncertain business, McCain might not meltdown – what if he campaigned well? What if something came out about him that resonated badly in a few key States?
With Clinton, if she could be attached to Universal Healthcare, I dont think the power of Obamas change spiel would be reduced (but so saying, that change spiel alone wont win him the election, the US electorate is a complicated messy place like every electorate).
Her benefit is that she could bring more States to the table that would be in play – meaning that she could lead to a larger Dem victory on the upside, and bring enough states to the table to create a buffer on the downside – especially Florida. That would not only protect Obama, but increase the reach of any Dem victory.
We’ve got to remember that there’s two things Clinton does well – her attacks resonate with low-median income blue collar workers and hispanics, and she brings women over 50 into the voting tent in volumes. What an asset to deploy on the ground in key States.
The sacrifice? – a few of Obamas supporters will be pissed, but they’d still vote for him anyway.This is the pointy end of politics here – the game is about electoral college votes, like it was all about delegates in the primaries. Everything else other than those metrics is piss and wind.
Popular Vote? – irrelevent
Carried more States? – meaningless
Getting as many electoral college votes as is possible? – Everything!
That might sound a bit callous and crass and not with the general vibe of Obama, but this is politics we’re dealing with here – Obama is a politician like any other, he just does PR better. Sure he might have policies that the US could do with a dose of, sure he might be great for America and the world, and sure Washington needs a broom taken to it. But unless he actually becomes President, carries Congress and the Senate, and does it by large margins to give him a buffer for policy action – all the good things that everyone thinks about Obama probably wont amount to much more than surface value (which in itself is important – the first black guy being President will change the country in itself). But Obama can do a lot more, but he needs to win big.
Because what he is proposing will shake up vested interests, and the only way to clobber vested interests is with a powerful mandade and enough soldiers in the Houses.
I’m not a Clinton fan and never have been, and she’s done her fair share of deliberately damaging Obamas candidacy as a way of trying to gain Superdelegates when she knew that she’d probably lost, but I think that she could still bring a hell of a lot to the table at the pointy end.
And it’s the pointy end that delivers.
133 HarryH An ex General for VP. That would be a huge backward step. It would also signal change is dead.
MB at 131 – I reckon Clarke would be the best choice for Obama if he goes route of using the Veep to bolster his national security credentials (unless there’s another 4 star white male General that knows Democrat politics floating around somewhere).
But there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Pancho #125 & enemy marsupial #124
May I ask for blogers patience , as we all know Kyoto is important to us all
Pancho: “yawn. Once again amigos:Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050 etc”
In my #121 to any objective viewer of this site I made 3 points none of which Pancho addressed :
1/ I said Obama will NOT say ‘he will “ratify” Kyoto’ (I’ll define “ratify” later) Pancho did not rebute my assertion at all
2/ I said Obama will create a COMPETING to Kyoto organization , Global Energy Forum (’GEF’) of 13 countries. Obama is saying he’ll create ‘GEF’ INSTEAD of Obama “ratifying” Kyoto. (Obama is not setting up “GEF” AND concurrently
“ratifying “Kyoto’). Pancho did not rebute my assertion at all
3/ I said Obama supporters here for 3 months have avoided acknowledging that Obama will not “ratify” Kyoto and instead use generalised unspecific Obama ’spin’ words (see Panho’s #121 Obama words) to avoid acknowlegding this point and therefore Obama supporters were/are avoiding justifying why the hell Obama won’t do what the other 199 countries out of 200 have done and that is to “ratify” Kyoto. ‘Kyoto’ signifys not just symbolic political committment a Country is locked into but imortantly also committment to Kyoto protocols & climate targets , which is why Howard would not “ratify” Kyoto. Pancho , you’ve done it again , ie avoided the central Kyoto points and avoided having to justify why Obama will not
As to “ratify’ , lets be very clear. Firstly , Obama will NOT say “I unconditionally support the ratification of Kyoto”. Marsupial he will not say that nor has he ever said that. Secondly , Obama will NOT say ” I not only unconditionally support the Kyoto ratification but I will use all my POTUS influence (considerable) to get the Senate to ratify Kyoto”. Why cann’t Obqama supporters say they support Obama for POTUS , but on this issue he is dead wrong ! (Kyoto , Obama is playing with words to avoid saying he doesn’t support Kyoto’s “ratification”)
Why on earth would you choose an army man if you want change? You’re locking yourself into the establishment. Therefore no change.
Sorry – part of 137 should read re:McCain
“But politics is also an uncertain business, McCain might not meltdown – what if he campaigned well? What if something came out about Obama that resonated badly in a few key States?”
It works much better that way
People here keep saying Hillary would lock us into the past. For goodness sake what does a General do?
Possom,
On the down side, VP is a less influential position than Senator from New York.
Look, the only region Obama is losing is Appalachia, because die-hard mountain rednecks wont vote for a black man. Thats Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.
On the other hand, he’s winning Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado.
Finally, a lot of Americans hate the Clintons. The sad, battered, gutshot defeated remnants of the Republican party know how to attack the Clintons.
However, given the pathetic showing of the Republican Party and their utter inability to craft an anti-Obama message in their shocking, spineless, gutless loss in the Missisippi-1 special election, you’d have to say they know nothing about running against Obama.
Ron, If I were Obama I wouldnt say ” I not only unconditionally support the Kyoto ratification but I will use all my POTUS influence (considerable) to get the Senate to ratify Kyoto” either.
And I think the protocol is important (even if not very effective for reducing emissions – but that’s another argument for another time)
Possom,
If anything that bad existed, then the Clinton would have used it against Obama.
He fessed up to youthful cocaine use. His pastor wandered well outside the bounds of public discourse. For crying out loud he voted *against* the War.
He wasnt annointed after winning Iowa and New Hampshire – the long campaign put him through the mill, and he has shown strength throughout the country.
At the end of the day, thats the great service Hilary Clinton did to the Democratic Party – she forced Obama to win the thing, and in doing so, turned himself into a winner.
144 Ian Whitchurch I’ve just checked the maps on CQ politics. West Virginia has more blue areas and Virginia has more red areas. You can click to enlarge.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=28
Poss
I agree with nearly all of that and am not unaware of what politics and EVERY politician is all about.
but
Do you honestly think Obama and Dean, after making the biggest, hardest break of all, beating the Clintons and the DLC, will give them the kiss of life by shovelling her and entourage into the VP spot.
This is now Obama/Dean, make no mistake.
Hillary will cop Health, because that’s all she will be offered.
And the Democrats will win the election. “Hillarys women” are not going to vote for Republican and a stacked Supreme Court. “Hillarys battlers” are going to vote their pocket and vote Democrat. “Hillarys racists” are gonna vote MCCain like they are going to anyway.
And Obama’s flood of new voters , and a “on the nose” Repug Party,will deliver a comfortable win in the EC to the Dems.
And then Obama can govern without Billary and their ego’s breathing down his neck.
Besides, i think Barry values his marriage…so he knows what not to do lol.
Chris B,
I hate to break this to you, but there’s a fair number of US voters who will vote Democratic, but not if they run a black candidate.
Fortunatly, GWB has done such a great job trashing the Republican brand that it simply wont matter.
ChrisB
just to make it clear. Clark is not my preference for VP or who i think would be the best pick. I was just relaying Possums opinion to MB, who had enquired.
Chris B – the US population will simply not, under any circumstances, jump to the left on just about anything. They arent Europe, they arent Australia, they arent cuddly little Canada. US political activists often are, but activists are outnumbered by massive margins by the majority of the population in every single seat and district in the country.
They will jump to the centre at the most. And by centre, I mean THEIR centre, not ours. That’s why Obama has been very careful about what he’s said over Iraq and the military – it’s why he keeps on talking about the importance of US military dominance.
National Security is an extremely important issue for US voters – military activity goes to the heart of the modern American narrative. If the US conquered Iraq successfully – the Republicans would be a shoe in for this election.
Let’s not kid ourselves about what’s happening here with Obama.
The US population is not “anti-war”, they are just “anti-wars-we-arent-winning”
This is the same population that thought back in 2004 that the Representative (name escapes me) that had his two legs blown off in Vietnam was wimpo-peacenic because of a couple of ads!
Look at what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry – a Vietnam Vet!
Obama’s appeal for change isn’t an appeal for socialist revolution comrades!
Harry, I dont know if Dean and Obama will or not, but gawd, it’s worth thinking about!
Wed June 4: Celebrity Psephs
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/mattbors;_ylt=AldOf4zT03gvQLksP5k6×4nX.sgF
Poss 152
I think both sides know exactly where they stand and thats why the loser is still acting the way they are.
0% chance Hillary for VP.
#151 Poss, in other words, once a great satan, always a great satan.
Sorry Ecky – missed you back up at 135
I agree -Hillary is a killer of a risk! Especially since she’d be impossible to put on a leash.
But I wonder if she’d really need to be if she was both Veep and SoH? If Hillary wanted to be Pres, her best chance would be for Obama to have a kick arse 2 term presidency and run for Pres in 2016 as the wise old lady of US politics that played a big part in the New America.
If Obi could tie Clintons self interest into making sure he succeded – maybe it might not be such a risk at the end of the day.
My worry with Obama having a small victory would be the nervous nellies on the Dems side effectively not giving him the capability to reform things like campaign finance or health care or social security in Congress. But a big thumping win would solve that problem completely. And if it took Brutusania to be on the ticket to get that majority – boy, if I were Obama I’d be tempted to take that risk.
I said a while back that Clinton ought to concede at this point, but I’m tempted to change my mind. Two reasons:
* For a candidate of a party whose brand is utterly discredited, and which will be thrashed in the congressional elections, McCain is polling very strongly. Clearly the voters don’t associate him with Bush or the Republican Party generally.
* For a candidate of a party which is cruising to victory in the congressionals, who has been the presumptive nominee for some time, and who ought to be getting a bandwaggon effect by now, Obama’s loss in SD was a very ominous sign. He won all the other western plains states easily. Now at the last minute SD has rejected him.
Clearly “buyer’s remorse” has set in. I’ve no doubt at all that if all the primaries were re-run now, Clinton would win most of them. She has won a clear majority of votes and delegates since March, when the Jeremiah Wright story broke and revealed that Obama was not the Messiah after all, just another shifty and dishonent pol, Al Sharpton in a good suit. If Obama is nominated, it will be on the strength of votes he won before March, many of which he wouldn’t get now.
All this is very ominous for November. Obama has huge problems with working-class whites, with Hispanics and with J*ws. He therefore cannot carry FL, and will have big problems in OH, MI and PA. If McCain carries these four he will win, unless Obama can somehow carry states like VA, MS, LA and MO on the back of a huge black turnout. Well, maybe he can, but I’m sceptical.
Can I play Devil’s Advocate and suggest that the prevailing depiction of HRC as some kind of monster is tad misogynistic? She fought hard for the nomination, because she had her eyes on the big prize.
I say this as a big fan of Obama, too. I’m just worried that because a woman fights dirty like any male presidential candidate would, she is some kind of crazy harpy.
Just a thought.
Finns at 155 – I’m not a member of the school of thought that thinks the US is the Great Satan – far from it, but the yank population is what they are.
Although, under an Obama Presidency, US military action and foreign policy certainly wont be like Bush, but it wont be too far different from Bill Clinton.
We can only hope it might be a little smarter, but honestly, this is the Worlds superpower here – and despite their economic woes and being bogged down in Iraq, they are still and will continue to be for 20 years the worlds only superpower.
We can only hope that with that continued capability comes leadership that is both compassionate and has the smarts to use force wisely – because as f*cked up as it might be, for the US, those two things are often two sides of the same coin.
Especially when the world starts bleating that “something needs to be done”, because it’s generally only the US that can do it.
Possum
Would you agree with the assertion that even if they win the EC fairly marginally(remember Obama is already winning with 276 and only needs to flip Michigan to get 293) that the Dems will win massive majority in the House and Senate?
The saddest part of all the vitriol here (you lot don’t even get to vote!) and all over the web is the swinging between racism and sexism.
For Christ’s sake–the two contenders for the Democratic Party nomination were a woman and a black man. Historic stuff, people.
151 Possum Comitatus I understand that, but if you want change don’t put a General in as VP.
I dont know Harry – these equivalents of US by-elections lately have been suggesting that the Dems will romp home in Congressional and Senate elections – but by-elections often produce exagerrated results.
I’m not conviced that the blue wash will carry though in those races on election day without the EC doing the same. Maybe I’m wrong and it will happen. Polls and intrade data will start to give us an idea at least, on that score come about August or so.
Define change Chris?
Dinsdale
If we lump Bill in with our criticism of team Billary,are we still misogynists?
Please
There has been no Misogyny on this site. Maybe in American media but not here.
What? Everyone keeps going on about Hillary being the last person as VP, as she would stop change. They were never asked to define change.
Longshot, Fallon Poss? Note key words in this & Obama today…
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/03/phillips.fallon.talks.cnn?iref=videosearch
#164, Poss, you might just as well ask him to define “love”. it’s over used and meaningless term.
For what it is worth the Dream Team is a marketers dream. The newspapers have already coined that term. It is basically giving their approval to those two candidates. The longer they use it the better. If I were the Democrats I would use that term themselves. Publicity money can’t buy. Does Fox News use that term?
Chris – good for those other folks (and I dont mean any offence there)
I’m just wondering what sort of change you think couldnt happen with a General as VP?
Just because someone was a General doesnt make put them into a straight jacket with their politics (look at Eisenhower and his views on the so called “military industrial complex” for instance), so I’m just wondering what sort of things that having a General as Veep would preclude Obama from changing?
enemy marsupial
#145
“Ron, If I were Obama I wouldnt say ” I not only unconditionally support the Kyoto ratification but I will use all my POTUS influence (considerable) to get the Senate to ratify Kyoto” either.”
Thats the difference between Obama/you and Rudd/me. Rudd was prepared to risk huge opposition scare campaigns from ‘big oil’ , the business & mining sectors and exporters as well as middle class fears on the cost impacts & petrol increases and instead ’sell’ the futuree the benefits for future generations If one cann’t put a political risk line in the sand over Climate & Kyoto (even if its big) , then the rest perhaps by 2020 will be fluff academic and Obama will not say ‘I unconditionally support “ratifying” Kyoto’and so as usual we disagree and are you providing a free link for the ‘bararian bama barometer’ predictor
164 Possum Comitatus Better get Obama to define change.
I am well aware of the propensity of Clintonites to denounce all criticism as sexist. Not me. If I had a vote in this thing, it would be for Obama.
I have a problem with the idea that an accomplished and esteemed woman is some kind of monstrosity because she behaves in exactly the same way as her male counterparts. That’s all.
So fire away at the pro-establishment mindset she represents. It’s the imagery I have a problem with.
170 Possum Comitatus See above. Obama is the one using that term.
Then how could Hillary stop change.
Ron
You are grafting Australian political sensibilities onto the US class system. The wealth and power arrayed against something like Kyoto within the domestically-tied capitalist class in the US is mind-boggling. To take it on in a general election is suicidal and would just ensure the cause would be retarded for years.
Awful I know. That’s the awful reality of US political power.
Bored at work, folks. Bored at work.
Hillary Clinton lost this race because she and her campaign made the same mistake Adam did: they grossly underestimated Obama.
Don’t understimate him in the general election either.
The Democrats are the favoured party in a general election because a majority of independents are in their camp. The only way they lose this is if the party base is split come November. That will only happen if Clinton keeps her supporters clinging to false dreams of a Clinton candidacy; giving them even less time to warm to Obama. Or, more improbably, stealing the nomination and upsetting Obama’s entire support base.
Clinton is the one thing standing in the way or party unity. If Clinton wants the Democrats to win the presidency in November she concedes this now and acknowledges the legitimacy of Obama’s victory.
Whitchurch you were a dupe not a collaborator.
The McLaughlin woman was the honey trap right?
I agree, David. I saw McCain this morning, and he is no master orator. Not a clincher, I know, but Obama against McCain in a debate would be a very different prospect that Bush vs Kerry or Gore, who both looked like northeast patricians.
Obama’s pull is not his leftiness, it’s his homespun popularism. Wait and see.
Chris – you’ve completely confused this marsupial.
You said “if you want change don’t put a General in as VP”
But we dont know what change means, but we do know that regardless of what it means a General couldnt do it?
I’m going to go and climb a tree
I dont actually think Hillary would stop ‘change’ – but some argue, and with good reasons, that the marketing of Obama with the whole “change” theme might not look good with Hillary as Veep because he’d be bringing in a member of one of the Dynasties of the past that were responsible for creating the dysfunctional mess that is US politics at the moment.
Now that’s a fair point because the Clintons bastardised political patronage more so than any other President except the current tool that’s in the Office. But so saying, I also think that making Clinton Veep and (if not giving her SoH to boot) making her the face of Universal Healthcare wouldnt damage that marketing brand of Obamas because universal healthcare in the US is an enormous change by any yardstick.
149 Ian Whitchurch You just defeated your own argument. The huge number of black voters that will come out wll be a strong counter balance to that.
Question for you Obamabots out there,
If Obama is for change – whatever that means, and you cant have a person on the ticket who isnt said to represent change – like HRC then why not have another “change” man on the ticket? To show your really serious about change in Washington.
Surely that has got to be Deval Patrick Governor of Mass.?
Better still would be to make HRC the veep and have Edwards as Sec for Health
What I am saying is that a General is a worse choice than Hillary and looks like someone who would stop the change that Obama is calling for. Not that he can.
#157 Adam, i am really surprised by how little attention has been put on Hillary’s win in SD. Obama was projected to win easily in SD. I pointed it out ealier today. But then again, it’s the same old story:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10829.html
In the end, Obama was pushed over the line by the SDs. I seem to recall that there ware outcries over the possibility that Hillary might win via the SDs. Where are the outcries now.
For a winning candidate, he has no momentum at all since March and just limped across the line. If you look at the 3 speeches today, McCain should not be in any race at all. He should be 200-1. Yet, he is 50-50 against Obama. Below would not help Obama at all.
[Exit polls show challenge for Obama – On the night that Barack Obama clinched his party’s nomination, one-third of Hillary Clinton’s supporters in Montana and South Dakota said they would not vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Exit polls from both states demonstrate that Obama inherits a fractured coalition after the longest primary race in modern history. Demographic divisions dug by class, race, gender and political philosophy haunted Obama until his last contests, effectively forcing the Illinois senator to limp across the finish line Tuesday night.
Go for someone as VP who looks like they would be as forward thinking as Obama.
My predictions for Obama’s cabinet:
VICE PRESIDENT Senator Jim Webb of Virginia or Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio
ATTORNEY GENERAL Senator John Edwards
SECRETARY OF STATE Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
SECRETARY OF HEALTH Senator Hillary Clinton
Another ominous sign of the hopemaster’s failure to unite the Democrats, 117 supers are still to declare a preference. Presumably they are the sensible one’s who dont want to be basted with the turkey sauces.
188 Progressive we need Bill Richardson in the senate. He would be a shoe in in New Mexico.
Health is the perfect job for Hillary in an Obama presidency. But not VP.
I guess it is up to Hillary now.
She either accepts Health Reform Czar ,or something else, and becomes a supportive part of the team
or
She and Bill sulk and destroy their own careers.
Eddy
you seem in a confident and predictive mood today. You got indignant earlier and insisted you predicted K.Rudd would win the election.
Seeing as you’re now predicting November Turkies, how about a flat prediction?
Will McCain or Obama win in Nov?
You can even have 2 stabs at it. Obama/Clinton or Obama/no Clinton tickets.
The turnout has been massive for the democratic primaries. More people voted in the primaries this year some places than voted for Kerry at the General Election in 2004. So perhaps it has not all been bad for the party in the end.
I don’t think all the people who voted for Hillary have the same passion for her over Obama that some of her diehards do. There was an awful lot of “they’re both great candidates” going on at times during the year. Hopefully, when this has all have calmed down soon they will see the light and still vote for Barry.
Chris B,
The issue if you’re trying to win an election is votes in the right places. Pennsylvania and Virginia have Appalachian areas, but they also have large AA populations, so they stay in Obama’s column. WVa, Tenn and KY have more Appalachians and fewer AAs, so he loses more votes than he wins.
ESJ,
So, explain to me again what was allegedly compromised, to whom and for what end. No, really, I’m interested. The boat was an extended media stunt. It was designed to keep the eyes of the world on Timor Leste, and it did that. We did what we set out to do. It worked.
On US politics … John McCain polled disgustingly weakly recently Indiana – 77% of the vote ! North Carolina, 73.5% of the vote. Pennsylvania, 72.8% of the vote.
And remember, this is against opponents who have dropped out.
Remember, 25% of Republicans have shown they dont want John McCain. Add to that his fundraising problems, his staff problems and his pathetic and useless recent speeches … and you’ve got yourself a genuine November Loser.
HarryH,
Or, she goes back to being Senator for New York … a job of not inconsiderable influence.
HarryH,
I’ll make a call at the end of September. If the hopemaster is not 10 points in front at that stage he will definitely lose.
I think Adam’s comment was a fair summary of why the hopemaster is a turkey waiting to baste.
Once again for the slow learners if the hopemaster is such a winner (even after winning a rigged process) how come 117 supers still havent endorsed?
Secondly if he wins he will get nothing done – the conservatives (which include the dems) wont touch him with a barge pole once the liberal stuff is teased out – he is very much a Lathamesque figure in an American context. After all he has 40 negative ratings in what 6 months of campaigning it took HRC 8 years to get that high.
Ian and the McLaughlin woman?
It was a provocation set up by Kopassus to flush out independence supporters which you clowns fell into and many people suffered as a result.
Wed June 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=AmOof_QkRXQcPd6uCeAQ7ybb.sgF
Thanks, Grace.
Eddy 196
So you don’t really think Obama is a November Turkey yet? you’re not that confident yet?
You were only bloviating earlier? you know…pissing into the wind so to speak?
No doubt about it – Sth Dakota is a disappointment for The Kid and means that he just flops over the line rather than storms home. It’s been a tough race. I can’t recall another primary this close ever.
But for a guy nobody had heard of a year ago to cross the line ahead of Brand Clinton remaons one of the astounding political feats of recent memory. He came from so far back he could barely be seen. So Hillary went for a campaign stroll and The Kid overtook her when she wasn’t looking.
So, yes I’d have preferred Obama to have won both of today’s contests to put a stamp of authority on his win. But in the end is it less authoratative because the contest ended as it has mostly been fought – with split victories? I think those discussions will be drowned out by the cheering.
And speaking of South Dakota – did anyone notice that McCain could only manage 70% of the vote in his shadow boxing match against Ron Paul and Huckleberry? That’s gotta be a worry for the Repugs. The Dems in that state also brought out the voters 2:1 over the GOP.
Judgement Day is a-comin! (Huckabee should appreciate that).
HarryH,
Enjoying your attempt at Socratic questioning.
Yes the hopemaster looks, smells and feels like a turkey, the confirmation of turkey status will be in by September.
Adam, I don’t buy this at all.
The reason why Hillary continued to win a number of states after Super Tuesday was because many of those had poor, low educated populations who have consistently flocked to Hillary in preference over Obama.
According to the polls, if we re-ran the primaries now, I would expect Obama to win even more convincingly. California, for example, a big delegate-rich state is now swinging firmly toward Obama while it didn’t earlier on.
The problem with your reasoning is that it is really nothing more than contempt in disguise. Clearly, you think the people made a mistake voting for Obama and you don’t think they would make the same mistake twice. That’s nonsense. If anything, Hillary has lost respect over the primary season with her various gaffes and smear tactics.
And to all those who keep trying to extrapolate primary results to the general election, you are making a BIG mistake. Too often, I see people ASSUMING that just because Hillary got more votes in one state, those people would not vote for Obama. This is crazy. A PREFERENCE is just that, a preference. It is not a black-and-white, “I would vote for Hillary and nobody else”.
The only conclusions you can draw from the primaries is that, overall, people preferred Obama, and that Obama has strengths with the upper class whites, blacks, professionals, and young people, while being weaker amongst the working class, Hispanics, and Je-ws. This means that Obama needs to work on getting more support from these latter groups, but it would be wrong to assume he doesn’t have any support from such groups.
I was really surprised by how confident and high spirit Hillary looked today. Especially for someone who have just lost the biggest prize. Maybe she does know something we dont know.
The rumour mill is in overdrive about Michelle’s Holy Whitey at Trinity. If so, Barack would be FARC as they say in Columbia.
Time for the crow calls Finns? In that case it would be black and white to paraphrase Noocat.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/06/obamas_tko.html
More portents of doom for the hopemaster.
Richardson, Warner and Webb are surely needed in the Senate?
Have big doubts about Sebelius adding anything to the ticket apart from being a woman – Kansas is a pipe-dream state for November EC purposes?
Have always supported Obama, but I think he needs HRC on the ticket.
She needs to be convincing as a team player – her speech tonight not good enough. But she has time.
Giving her SecHealth as well would be a great move, but what about their difference on Mandates?
If Obama campainged with a team comprising HRC (on board in full) as VP + SecHealth, Edwards as AG and Biden as SecState – geez, that’d be powerful?
Whilst anything can happen in the campaign (McCain losing the plot, etc), the prudent thing to do would be to maximise his chances in the Rust Belt and Nth Central states. There is no better pick than Clinton, surely? The onus is on her to come to the party now – if she does convincingly, then he’d be taking a big risk not to choose her.
Eddy 202
So he’s alledgedly a November Turkey? He could be a turkey….but he might not be a turkey?
cmon man. you were so confident earlier. as Carville would say…put ya cajones on the table.
What’s with all the angst about S.D. being some kind of let-down for The Kid? He was 18% behind in “the polls” from memory and he sailed in at a 10% loss by ten and a half thousand votes Statewide while he was stitching up the Supers for today’s spillover that annointed him.
Not a bad week’s work really.
Like every sperm, every ECV is sacred but you’d have to be applying Hillary Math to figure Sth.Dak.’s 3 ECVs are gonna swing it for Obi one way or the other come November.
—————
Tues June 3:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=Apj31l0vunla06ngacINNURS_b4F
207 Expat Follower Spot on about Richardson, Warner and Webb. Breaking the filibuster with 60 votes, means we can bring in the change we need. Although their is another 3rd of the senate up for election in 2010.
HarryH,
My condolences to you if you suffer from anxieties about penis size and quality
Eddy
i guess that means you’re gonna sit on the fence until Election Eve then huh lol.
You’re gonna bloviate for the next 2 months about what a turkey Obama is without the conviction that he really is a turkey.
Pretty much sums up your M.O.
My tip – she makes the decision tomorrow night.
Chris – they’ve got to replace Pelosi & Reid (who appear to suck badly)… some good candidates in the Senate (Webb – too jnr), surely also in the House (??). Just not sure where the numbers are in terms of unseating them, but a more heavyweight crewto work with Obama’s exec team could really produce interesting results…
What do people think of Biden for SecState?
Clark for SecDef… I dunno. Where can Dodd fit in – he’s impressive.
156
Possum Comitatus
You’ve presented a strong and pragmatic case for hauling Clinton out of the water and onto the Obama ship, but it’s going to irk a lot of people. The question is can the irked be mollified with a Democratic wipeout of the Republicans? I suppose it depends on how it’s presented and how Hillary Clinton behaves, but so far she does not exactly inspire on that front.
And as for keeping Bill chained up! God help Obama if he’s got to put up with that old Alpha dog limping around in the background. Sedate him for four years maybe?
Personally I’d be surprised if Obama offers her VP, but I’d understand the decision.
215
Expat
Don’t discount Dick Lugar(R) or Chuck Hagel(R) as either VP(longshots) or more likely one of the defence portfolios.
I’m still intrigued by David Axelrod’s deliberate insertion of Lugar’s name in his interview today before Obama’s acceptance speech.
Senator Clinton deserves every single word of praise spoken by Senator Obama in Minnesota. I would be delighted if she does become Senator Obama’s choice for Vice Presidential nominee. However, she’s much more valuable in the Senate and well-placed there for another run at the Presidency in 4/8 years.
Watching Senator McCain kickoff the General Election with multiple egregious falsehoods at his “huge” rally of 200 Republicans makes me acutely aware that there’s no more time to waste before Democrats fully unite. This is doubly true for those Americans deeply worried about civil rights, especially the rights of women secured in Roe vs. Wade. The next Supreme Court appointments must not be made by Senator McCain.
Following such a long, bellicose and heated Primary process, are the Democrats mature enough to refocus, immediately, all their resources and energy to ensure the election of Senator Obama?
159
Possum Comitatus
One point about the cry ’someone should do something’, which is maybe except for Kosovo, when did the US do what anyone thought would be a good thing to do?
Iraq was clearly NOT in that category, and Afghanistan was done with bombers at 20,000 feet and CIA guys with bags of money…in other words, a cock-up.
I know people like to think the US is the big strong daddy who can defeat the bad guy, but you’d hardly say so on recent performances, would you?
“Per Obama communications director Robert Gibbs: At about 12:16 am ET Obama and Clinton chatted by phone where Obama congratulated her and reiterated his offer to “sit down when it makes sense for you.”
Gibbs suggests Clinton responded affirmatively, but wasn’t specific. “There are no plans to meet tomorrow” as of now.”
http://thepage.time.com/
Prof Higgins
This was Hillary’s one and only shot at the presidency.
However, even a Clinton hater like myself agrees that she has earnt a rise in the Senate. Harry Reid is a dud. But could they shanghai her up the ladder?
That eternal sook and creep, The Senior Senator from New York Chuck Schumer would scream blue murder, as would Dick Durbin. But i agree she could do good work in the Senate.
Betfair Odds: $1.57 Obama $2.98 McCain.
I would suggest that ESJ should get the biggest possible loan he can and place it all on McCain.
The treachery of the hopemaster predicted by Nostradamus
Sad counsels, disloyal, cunning,
Wicked advice, the Law will be betrayed:
The people stirred, wild, quarrelsome,
In borough as in town, the entire peace hated.
Nostradamus XII Century, 55th Quatrain
ESJ, if you were McCain who would you pick as running mate & why?
HarryH, if Obama picks some flake and McCain runs a good campaign (possible), then HRC is a shoo-in for the nomination in 2012? She just has to not obviously undermine Obama (eg, say she wants to focus on her Senate role) in the campaign. Of course if he wins, then she is screwed!
ESJ-
resorting to 13th century predictions is about as relevant as the rest of your
commentary tonight. – penis size?? Gawd’s sake man.
Finns- I’d rather be on a high-horse than a pompous ass.
Wed June 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=AiKqzG8Umw7FZiZninTDmPBJ_b4F
ESJ 223
What an accurate picture of the state of Australia 1996-2008.
jen – [Finns- I’d rather be on a high-horse than a pompous ass] – i notice you have caught Showy’s disease, namely good at describing yourself.
gotta love some of these girls.
read Ginger Snaps – she got it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/
Also according to the Betting market McCain has 1 in 30 chance of not making it to the convention.
People like Obama only come around once in a lifetime.
224- If Obama loss as he is too “unconventional” then expect a “White Male” to be the candidate in 2012.
come on Finns- you can do way better than “anyway anyway, you are.”
btw – how are you coping with the outcome? Please tell me you won’t be supporting McCain in defiance. Come aboard and all will be forgiven – we can be a role model for the divided Dems.
B.S.Fairman
Going by Macca’s speech today i’d say anyone who attends one of his rally’s has a 1 in 30 chance of slipping into a coma.
225
Jen
It seems that now Eddy is bereft of a purpose, ie cheer the candidate most of us realised would lose, he’s at a loose end, so has reverted to his usual charming self and is flinging his own faeces around again.
Harry- not before he does.
234
HarryH
LOL, shorter odds than that I’d say HH!
Looking back over the last 18 months Obama has produced an upset more unlikely than Bangladesh beating Australia in a 1 day match. Would think anyone in Democrats would be keen to be a team player given the chance win Presidency and to get 60 in the Senate, if not this time then 2010 and having the chance to weild some serious power. So, hopefully little chance of Hilary and Bill being public nuisances over the next few months.
The biggest problem for the Democrats and Obama is their own internal difficulties with conflicting policy directions, influence of military industrial corporate lobbyists, etc. Good luck to Barack and Michelle. Seriously likely to challenge the entrenched establishment, at least in some ways.
Jen
Finns has set the bar that unless Barry implicitly says he will immediately ratify Kyoto, then Finns has the right to hate on the black man all the way to Nov. and beyond.
223 ESJ
Nostradamus? I was wondering what happened to that PB poster. Sounds about as reliable as ever.
But it’s good you’re still in touch with him.
jen, like i said just earlier. look at the 3 speeches today. I give Obama 9, Hillary 7 and McCain 2.
McCain and the Repugs should be so far behind, you cant even see them and the Dems can just walk across the line. But the reality is McCain Vs Obama is 50-50. Now you tell me why.
OK Finns- my understanding is that there are no polling figures as yet reflecting the fact that there is now a decided Democrat nominee, rather than a divided Dem vote.
With Hillary as VP, Obama would bury McCain. Everyone talking about the swing that is coming in the polls now that the Democratic nomination is settled is, I suspect, engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. It may turn out to be true, of couse, but until we see the numbers, assumptions on polls are not that useful a basis on which to make decisions. On current polling, Ohio (or perhaps Ohio and Virginia, depending on what sites you examine) is still the key to an Obama victory. If he does not bring Hillary into the tent, to use Possum’s phrase, then she (and, more importantly, her supporters) will piss into it.
This is a significant point, by the way: if Hillary’s supporters think that she has been unfairly treated, then some will, out of vengeance, vote for McCain. In certain states, this could be very damaging and threatens to make the race much closer than it should be.
While I think that Obama will likely win, I only think that he will win big if Hillary strongly supports him. She may not strongly support him just for health care. She will definitely strongly support him if she gets VP with an implied second shot at the presidency in eight years.
Um…is it a divided party driven by Hills (now kaput) candidacy, along wih her fuzzy logic and stirring of her dumb supporters with lines about gas tax, bombing Iran, Commanders in Chief and sexism Finns? If so that problem will recede now that she has lost. Watch out for that Obama bump!
Well what a fun day that was.
I guessed that the Obama camp had 30 supers up his sleeve for today and the kid goes and pulls out 60. I still keep being impressed at the measured and disciplined way the Obama camp has conducted under months of pressure.
Now we’re onto the VP question and Clinton is putting herself in the mix. Based on the chatter in here, I put some money on Webb and I think I’ll lay off as I really have no idea how this will pan out.
If I had to make a guess, I’d say the Obama camp will, with a great sigh. sign up Clinton for VP and SoH.
She’ll deliver key idiot demographic that missing is from the Obama profile.
Its better than the devil finding work for idle hands if they don’t pick her.
Oh, and I am a Hillary supporter who would vote for Obama regardless of who was VP, but – and this is another key support – I would not be wholehearted about it. I was very disappointing that Hillary did not get the nomination. Not disappointed enough to be an arsehole, but disappointed enough to realise that there would be plenty of others who might very well be disappointed enough to be so. Just a warning from my own personal internal narrative.
The tale of Robert Taft and Dwight D. Eisenhower. You see, in politics, what is new is old, there is no such thing as NEVER and there is no permanant frienship only permanent interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft
Much as I feel anxious at the idea of having Billary wandering the halls of the Whitehouse again, angry that they’re not back in the residence where they clearly believe they belong, I also want to see the Repugs get totally obliterated. I reckon Obama could win without Hillary, but it would be a total wipeout if she was VP.
Maybe Obama could draw up a ‘Pre-nup’ – where if she was caught with a dagger at the ready she gets tossed out with nothing.
d’oh – bloody typos
What if she used a dagwood dog, though?
Ah, that MoDo has a way with words:
He thought a little thing like winning would stop her?
Oh, Bambi.
Whoever said that after denial comes acceptance hadn’t met the Clintons.
If Hillary could not have an acceptance speech, she wasn’t going to have acceptance.
NYT
…sums her up, really.
The reality is on SBS right now.
Well David, I think poisoning him would also count as very naughty.
248
Jen
Jen, it’s getting awfully like Greek tragedy already, and the unkillable harridan does not need to be pre-nutped, she needs neutering! LOL
If you don’t get the pre-nup right, she’ll get you on a technicality. Really, you Obama people are like babes in the woods.
It’s not the legal technicality that I’m worried about – it’s the revenge.. you know,
prawns in the curtain hems in the Oval office and such like.
Forget the pre-nup – Just keep Clinton busy – I think this is why they will give her SoH.
Commisar Jen’s here surely Doktor Robert is sure to follow………
Well, given that Hillary had already measured the curtains, that might well be an issue …
#256 – Jen, what about Bill and Michelle then. Can they be left alone?
Isn’t it rich, aren’t we a pair
Me here at last on the ground – and you in mid-air
Send in the clowns
Ferraro’s continued harping about Obama’s sexism gets a thorough deconstruction here: http://www.theroot.com/id/46697#
“Ferraro has a right to her opinions but her drumbeat of nonsense should not go unchallenged. If race were not a factor in this election, she would not be harping on it every chance she gets. At least voters in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and elsewhere who felt comfortable saying on television that they could not, and would not, vote for a black man, were being honest. Ferraro’s comments, on the other hand, speak volumes about the depth of her intellectual dishonesty.”
Sigh. The Richardson-for-the-Senate baloney rears its head again.
Warner and Webb, yes. Richardson, no.
The New Mexico primaries were last night. Tom Udall (D) will face Steve Pearce (R) in the general election. Polls show Udall with a wide lead. The other New Mexico Senate seat is held by Democrat Jeff Bingaman. So Richardson doesn’t fit into this picture.
A question to the experts. Once elected – can a president change VPs?
I would imagine so. I would also expect that it could be terribly damaging to the party to do it. Hillary has enough supporters to make sure that Obama could not do it without destroying his own presidency and burning the Democratic Party to the ground.
However, on a positive note, it would certainly be change that we could believe in.
footnote: I’m not an expert
Harry H,
Spot on about Senate Majority Leader Reid, who has been repeatedly outwitted by the Repubs and Lieberman for two years. Clinton would be a huge improvement.
If she is not Veep nominee, I’m not worried about a significant % of Clinton Democrates voting for McCain, but a fair number would follow any coded messages from key Clinton surrogates to sit it out and certainly to eschew shelling out donations. That’s just what an equally fair swag of Ron Paul’s, Mike Huckabee’s or Mitt Romney Repubs are likely to do if their preferred Veep candidate is not running with McCain.
Finns – I’m sure Michelle would know to steer well clear of Bill. In fact if they get VP, my guess is there will be staff training sessions on protective behaviours and personal alarms handed out for all the women. And of course, no tobacco products.
I think I may be wrong about the VP thing. The VP is an elected official in their own right. I do not think that they can be sacked by the president.
There is nothing wrong with tobacco products between consenting adults – in moderation, of course.
There might be something wrong with Bill Clinton between consenting adults, howver.
So jen, i assume the NSC has to issue an edict on a security device for the female staff like this:
http://trulyequal.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/chastity-belt.jpg
What i have been most impressed about with Barack Obama’s campaign, and why i don’t quite understand others doubts about him, is that he has beaten the vaunted Clinton Machine on his own.
The Clintons had Hillary, Bill and Chelsea all campaigning non-stop for the whole campaign.
Obama did it on his own. No big backers…just himself and his message.
He didn’t have Richardson to help him in Texas or New Mexico or Nevada or Colorado or Florida.
He didn’t have Edwards to help him in the Carolinas or Virginia.
He competed in those states first, by himself, and then those guys came on board afterwards.
The only help he enlisted for the whole campaign was Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. And he didn’t help one bit. Casey’s catholic conservatives still voted for Hillary, which is totally reasonable to understand.
So all the support he has he has earned himself…with his message, his policies and his style.
With all the Party’s diverse personalities and resources now behind him he will surely improve in his weaker areas of support.
Democrat women and Democrat poor are not going to vote McCain OR sit out.
The only Dem votes Obama will lose are the racists…and they won’t vote for him even with Hillary as his VP.
He has expanded the Dem voter base and the all important Independants are going to vote Democrat over Republican. A lot of them have now already been registered as Democrats through these Primaries.
As for McCain holding onto all the splintering Repug factions….well thats another post altogether.
Jen 267
Its the Democrats not the Australian Greens. I am sure they can be civil.
There is a mechanism to replace Vice-Presidents mid-term, as when Ford replaced Agnew and Rockefeller replaced Ford.
However, I’m pretty sure a Vice-President has to quit of their own accord. I don’t believe the President can force the issue.
Well anyway, apart from being one heatbeat from the top job – does the VP job carry any additional authority? I don’t think she get a set of keys to private quarters of the white house.
Why not give the slot to Clinton and ensure McSame goes down?
Pah – Jen, Finns – Michelle could dispatch of Billy with one hand tied behind her back. What a First Lady she’ll be. Just as Bill’s 90s will be put in the shade by Barack, Hills’ squandered time will also be eclipsed by Michelle.
HarryH, I think that you are overgeneralising. A lot of non-racist Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama not because he is black but because he is not her.
Dinsdale Piranha
#176
Thanks for your Kyoto post & its honesty Politics is ful of difficult choices , my marsupial enemy was a step short of that direction , but you’ve said it which I’ve been waiting 3 months for somones to say Today I echoed Hillarys congratulattions and for me till midnight so I can only say in general terms I feel its not suicidal , a general election environment is the perfect time (with risk) to point out to voters already receptive against big self interests groups their masive conflict of interest & so potentially make a net voter gain.
Finally I do acknowledge your broad point Dinsdale , however for one of our biggest crisises (Kyoto & Climate) , if one is not going to put that issue on the table in a general election , when is it ever going to be put on the table. Conversely , getting it through the Senate is itself a huge political challenge & peopl forget whilst Bill Clinton ’signed’ the original treaty , Senate ratification was the main problem because he did not have a “voters mandate”. A mandate via a general election I feel is a perquisite to Senate ratification & to ‘influencing’ reluctant Senators. Hillary’s plan was a Kyoto mark 11 by 2010 for post 2013 emission targets to achieve base by 2020 set by the 400 odd scientists For mine the selling of “Kyoto” benefits have been poor generally world wide both in environmentel terms , human/animal survival terms & that economic costs of delayed actions will be greater
WTR – VPs get the deadlock breaking vote in the Senate in case of a 50-50.
For the factually inclined – Hillary’s energy policy is here: http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
Targets, you will notice, are the same as Obama’s. The difference is in her lack of mention of an international framework.
WTR- No the President can’t change VP mid-term. The VP is an elected officer by the electoral college. (In the early days, pre-1800 the VP was actually the runner up. So Jefferson was Adams VP, but they ran against each other.)
The President can ask a VP to resign but has no power to make the VP quit. But they can run with a different VP candidate at the next election. FDR had several VPs in his four terms. Ford ran with Bob Dole in 76 but his VP was Nelson Rockerfeller.
Pancho – excellent snipit of knowledge.
Still its not really a big piece of power for Obama to ceed to Clinton.
The more I think about it, the more it seems, wtf, let be VP if they keeps her camp onside.
She can campaign in the “fly over” states & florida and ensure a republican wipe out.
David 276
Why?
If it was tomorrow then maybe they wouldn’t but time heals.
What would they have against Obama?
Hillary doesn’t OWN these people. They just preferred her as Dem nominee. The women are most angry , understandably so because their dream of a woman POTUS has been taken away .
But any woman that is that strong on womens rights or womens empowerment isn’t going to vote for McCain and his Supreme Court.
A lot of pundits are dreaming that Hillary OWNS her supporters. The Dems OWN them. There are hardly any swingers in there.
Gee Jen,
You are firing on all 8 cylinders tonight, there is alot of passion in your comments but I can’t work out your point
Is it that, of the two great icons of victimhood, black african or woman, the greatest democracy on earth appears to have confrmed male octoroon as more deserving of the nomination?
If only the candidates had come sequentially, 4 years apart
For the glass half empty folks:
Five years ago, Obama was a little-known Illinois state senator embarking on an uphill race for the U.S. Senate. Think of all the ambitious Democrats who have eyed the White House in this decade — John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean and all the rest — and realize how Obama just blew past them without ever working up a sweat. This is an up-from-nowhere narrative that puts all modern politicians to shame. Even though Obama’s cool charisma often evokes memories of John Kennedy, JFK had spent 14 years dabbling in Congress before he ran in 1960.
Salon
…and that’s the point, that this guy has done the unthinkable and rolled Hillary Clinton from so far back in the field nobody even knew how to pronounce his name.
Smooth operator.
#283 – dont worry. she never had one.
Harry H @ 192 says to ESJ -Will McCain or Obama win in Nov?”"
@196 Edward StJohn Says:
HarryH gave you the chance to be actually express an opinion about something other than fellow posters, and you demurred. Not to put too fine a point on it, that is a dead set softc*ck wimp response ESJ. I know KR goes off, but you do behave like a transparent niggling nobody, who runs way from stating a position. The Gerard Henderson of PB.
Mr Squiggle-
just having fun really. Main point being that I am delighted Obama has won, I ubderstand that Hillary makes an attractive proposition as VP, but I don’t trust her.
Nothing very complex I’m afraid. I’ll leave that to Ron and ESJ- incomprehensible in fact.
Excellent!
June 4 has arrived, and electoral-vote.com has started the general election battle.
Time to roll boys and girls
LOL – JV
I feel no need to get into a masculinity contest.
I think we have all focused on one team but yes I personally would like to see how the other team performs. To me it seems very much like one team (McCain) has been training in secret and we just havent seen the moves they will put on yet.
I expect the hopemaster to take a lead in the next 3 months but for that to be pegged back, I believe he is a fatally flawed candidate hence my turkey comments but yes sometimes the turkey does escape the butchers knife.
Obama’s speech was tremendous, very (overly) nice to Hillary. I sincerely hope he doesnt choose her as VP, maybe Health Secretary??? She has too many negatives, too much baggage, she is the antithesis of the change message, and quite frankly she has behaved so badly she doesnt deserve it. My only concern is that the Hillary supporters are quite bitter, and may not turnout or vote McCain, but I think Obama has 5 months to win them over and will do so, particularly if Hillary doesnt behave badly
ESJ youre doing great in your spoiler role, but guess what you can say turkey all night if you wish doesnt change the fact that Obama WON. And seriously, did you see Obama and McCain’s speeches?? And the crowds at each??
I have previously stated that there was no way the Americans were going to vote for a black president whose middle name is Hussein 7 years after 9/11.
Believe me, I hate getting it wrong, but now that Barack is the Democrats nomination – I had bloody better be.
Go Obama.
As perhaps the most virulent Hillary-hater at PB, the thought of Hillary and Bill being “co-VPs” fills me with bilious nausea (BTW someone earlier said Nausea was a Sartre play, it was actually quite a readable and enjoyable existentialist novel).
However, we have to remove emotion from the equation and I would prefer an easy victory with Hillary as VP (which is largely ceremonial, just look at what Bill did to the environment with Gore as VP) to a small chance of a loss with someone else. Obama could just get her to sit in the corner and screw up the universal health care again.
I make no secret that I admire Juan Cole for his astute observations and historical knowledge, but sometimes he just ‘gets it’ in ways you don’t see anywhere else.
His first comment is that everyone is carried away with Obama being black, but why not Hawaiian? Remember, it was asked often enough early on, ‘is he black enough?’
But he gets it right with metro-racial, and how this really applies to a heck of a lot of Americans who don’t see things in such narrow polarised categories as ‘black and white’.
Oh, and it’s the Web 2.0 thing, without which Obama could not have done it.
Intelligent comment:
http://www.juancole.com/
Just looking at the demographic breakdown from the 2004 election from Wikipedia:
The two education level fields that Kerry won were No High School and Post-Graduate Study. So it is the middle level of Some College and College Graduates which need to be touched by Obama.
Bush also got 45% of 18 to 30 vote. So Obama does need to bring out the Young as he is supposed too.
As for Union members being the key they only made up 14% of the voters and then 38% backed Bush anyway.
Max
I see Missouri has moved over to Blue already
Diog old son, some anger management would help
Now that Clinton has been removed from the frontpage graphic, of perhaps more interest on e-v.com than the fact Obama leads McCain by about 60 votes is that the predictions currently show the Senate numbers at 58-42.
Diogenes wash your mouth out!! You cant possibly want Hillary. I think she is overall a negative and the VP candidate I dont think counts that much in terms of getting votes anyway (Edwards who seemed a good choice for Kerry did nothing in the south)
293
Diogenes
It’s hard I know, to separate the rather vile narcissism of Hillary from her utility to the party in another role in November, but I guess that’s the kind of real world decision making that will happen.
But just to let you know, I ain’t so keen on her either, and would much prefer to see the Clinton era as TV re-runs rather than Hillary lurking behind the arras as VP.
I find those who opinions are derived entirely from other peoples commentary so tiresome.
Your comments of course Andrew are entirely original.
FINNS
For anyone innterested in seeing Hillary’s exact words to set up & sign Kyoto mark ii , that I referred to in # 277 see below.You know however references to Hillary/Kyoto are a red herring. The issue was Obama not supporting Kyoto ratification (not Hillary) Today first you then I , asked (for about the 20th time since March) “will Obama support ratifying Kyoto” and “if not why not”. As of now your questions & mine have been avoided. (thanks dinsdale)
Hillary 2008 “One of the worst messages the President (Bush) sent was when he took office and rejected completely Kyoto. He could have said we don’t like Kyoto but we’re immediately starting a new process. But that didn’t happen I’ll change that by leading the process to develop a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012. One of the worst messages the President sent was when he took office and rejected completely Kyoto. He could have said we don’t like Kyoto but we’re immediately starting a new process. But that didn’t happen. Well, come January 2009, I’m sending a different message. I want to act quickly to help develop a new treaty. I will engage in high level meetings with leaders around the world every three months, if that’s what it takes to hammer out a new agreement. My goal will be to secure a deal by 2010. We can’t wait for two more years. Hillary would act quickly in 2009 to restore U.S. leadership in the global warming arena by playing an active role in developing the post-Kyoto treaty. As a guide to the treaty, Hillary would propose a science-based goal to limit global warming to levels needed to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. She would re-engage in negotiations, work to bring rapidly developing nations like China and India along, and convene high-level meetings every three months with the goal of getting a new deal in place by 2010, two years ahead of Kyoto’s expiration.
KR
i’m not sure if you were watching CNN today but
They were saying all the PC things and how this was a monumental day in history with the first black nominee and what a proud moment this would be for Barack….then Barry hit the podium and
Not 1 word about being the first black, or history making or any of that stuff….he was just the candidates for Americans.
The Baby Boomers in the media just don’t get it. Those fights are over…especially now. Barack gets it.
I love those comments HarryH its kind of the OMG its all gone wrong for years because we have had cynical calculating politicians in charge and all we need is one good man to change it.
Entirely naive.
Jen,
Is the glass half full or empty for you just now?
I was in the US when the black caucusus debate was televised and I really couldn’t see any rational reason to choose Obama over Hillary.
She walked all over him in the debate. He was really average and Hillary outskilled him when the pressure was on.
Have the dems chosen the best presidential candidate or just the better democrat?
My view is the secong….its like watching Rudd with 18 breifing papers in Parliament, you just know he wasn’t ideal, he was just there when the tipping point came along
we are all naive compared to you Eddy,it’s just that most of us are relevant also though.
i think the depression stage has just hit the Obamabots here that the POTUS is actually for Obama to lose. How many times do i have to say that Obama needs Hillary more than Hillary needs Obama.
[It’s Now All About Respect – By winning the nomination, Obama supporters may feel that they have gained the upper hand in debates with Hillary supporters, but this is a false perception. This campaign is not over until the race is over. Political campaigns can never afford the luxury of feeling superior to anyone. Obama may have won the nomination but it will mean nothing if he does not win the General Election in November, and to do that he needs the votes and even the enthusiastic support of Hillary and her supporters. Clinton’s supporters cannot be insulted, bullied, or guilted into enthusiastic support in the fall………..
Specifically, there are three areas where Obama supporters need to look at their current posture and messages and prove that “change” is not an empty promise of a “new politics” by changing their message to something more welcoming, inclusive, and respectful.
First, stop labeling Clinton and her supporters as the politics of the past.
Second, Democrats need to reclaim the luster of the Clinton years.
Third, embrace feminism as one of the indispensable pillars of the Democratic coalition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_now_all_about_respect.html
Of course your important too HarryH
Rumour: Obama and Hillary are meeting later this week!
I’d be OK with a joint ticket, but I wonder if it can work in reality! Of course Obama has to bring Hillary and her supporters on board in some way, that’s obvious! As said earlier, with a team behind him of Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle etc, he will win this thing in November!
McCain looks like a sad, old loser in comparison.
v.true Finns
Does Hilary deserve to be VP:
argument for no – she’s run a pretty nasty and divisive campaign
argument for yes – she’s won almost 50% of democrat support
Should Hilary be chosen as VP:
argument for no – not a change persona, not a team player
argument for yes – she can help to deliver votes that help Obama win
The “yes” arguments are more persuasive in both cases to me…
I’d be more worried that she has a 2012 strategy in mind – publicly focus on her senatorial ambitions and hope Obama loses. Of course, that’s risky for her if he wins! Too big a risk for her to turn down VP now, I would think.
Can Obama win over Hilary-fans – yes. Can McCain flop so badly that he can’t win – yes… but does the risk of HRC as VP outweigh the reward of an almost certain win? (Mind you risk might include a higher probability of being assassinated)…
That’s me being conciliatory to the Clinton supporters! Believe it or not, I really do like Hillary, I think she’s still got a lot to offer!
Potential Obama running mate profile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick
Have a look at Terry McAuliffe here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/7336/07191/721/529130
He’s actually a pretty funny guy.
Diogenes re the VP – I agree generally, but must disagree on Hillary for VP – as stated by others earlier – she is steeped in the old politics and has more baggage than Imelda Marcos. No General is necessary but someone with strengths in addition to Obama’s. They are all there in the Betfair list.
#302 – Ronnie, i was actually a touch more gentle with Obambi here. I simply asked him to sign Kyoto first, simply symbolically as a commitment to real change.
The Votemaster is up and running with his map. Here is the state of play at the moment. Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24. As more polls com in the maps will become more accurate, I doubt that Florida will stay like that. The data is updated daily, and as the formula kicks in we shall get a better idea how things are going.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
ESJ- you still can’t get yourself up for a … prediction, can you. Dont worry , if you look on the internet you might see some ads for a blue pill.
I am going to have to work out where I can. I never realised I could until tonight. I mean I knew I was an American Citizen by birth, but I didn’t realised I could register to vote from aboard.
Hey Finns ol chap
Have you seen the map on your favoured http://www.electoral-vote.com today?
Diogenes and KR, Hillary could bring over her supporters with a major non-VP role such as health
#310 ESJ – Has Evil Hillary has morphed into St. Hillary right before our eyes tonight. Amazing.
HarryH, given Obama is already 60 votes ahead, I dont think electoral-vote is going to be Finns favorite site anymore!!
307 Finns
The “feminism” line is pure BS. Billary got where she is PURELY due to who she married. Without her husband, she would have been a nobody. True feminists want a woman to be POTUS who got there on her own merit, not riding on the coat-tails of her husband.
Sibelius and Pelosi are much better examples for feminists.
I’d look into Pelosi’s history a bit more closely before you make that claim Diogenes. I think you will find big daddy played a part as did her husband.
Finns more on that theme below
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html
Diog, need any help in enrollment in the anger management course?
FINNS
Amigo you have always been the more gentile , but clarity especially with characer & gates , leaving the 1200 BC arrows with the barbarian Amigo , perhaps today we made the point finally on the ‘green’ issue
Check out the Senate race also, almost 60 seats to defeat the filibuster.
Who kidnapped GG?
#325 ESJ, Bob Beckel apparently is predicting Michelle Holy Whitey at Trinity is a coming.
Andrew, to what extent do you think is their difference on the qn of mandates a potential problem?
You reckon she’d give up potential Senate leadership role for exec role that didn’t include VP (am not refuting it, just not so sure)?
If she’s acceptable enough to be part of the team as SecHealth, then why not VP? Either she should be part of the team or not – yes but not for VP doesn’t make a lot of sense to me…
Pancho
Terry McAuliffe has been on a bender since Puerto Rico. He’s been pissed at every appearance he’s made.
ESJ, methink jen baby had him in a chastity belt as shown earlier
I am having another “road to Damascus” moment on the VP subject. I had one when Rudd and Gillard were preparing to roll Beazley back in 2006; I wasn’t against it at first but then thinking about it, it made a lot of sense. Since then I have never regretted changing my opinion.
Hillary as VP would create an unprecidented double (or even triple) headed monster and it would be politically very unorthodox. But then again, if there is one thing Obama is not, it is orthodox. He is about being different and it would be very different. She could use her position as President of the Senate then to push her barrows (Health etc). I can see it making a lot of sense…..
I am still not sure about it but I think it might just have wings (I know kids I am scared myself).
Exactly Diogenes.
the obvious answer to such twaddle that all Feminists support Hillary is to say that the women who supported Obama are not feminists.
Rubbish.
This race is about who has the best policies and ability to lead the United States, not what gender they should be.
Ronnie, the Obamabots are dis-integrating right before our eyes, even without Amigo3. should we send out a search party for Amigo3?
326 Finns
I can assure you the blood runs very cold in my veins. Not a flicker of anger.
I have a question about the VP thing. Does the nominee usually name who their Secretaries during the campaign? I thought they only named the VP and the Secretaries were only decided if they won. If that was the case, Obama would have to break protocol to announce Hillary as SoH during the campaign.
jen, it’s good to see you still around. what have u done with GG.
Mr Squiggle (somewhere back there)-
sadly the glass is actully empty. And there’s no more, but if someone would be so kind as to share…
Obama/John Edwards is still attractive to me, Edwards appeals to much the same constituency as Hillary. I noticed the electricity between the two guys when Edwards endorsed Obama in May! And Senator Edward’s wife is a powerful advocate for health, especially breast cancer prevention.
Actually Finns- I was wondering the same thing. He’s probabaly outside yelling at the passing kiddies to get off the nature strip again. Or just plain sulking.
Was he arrested by a Green snatch squad Jen?
JEN
#335
“This race is about who has the best policies and ability to lead the United States, not what gender they should be.”
Jen , then per your own words you are saying the 60% of white women (vs Obama 40%) who voted for Hilary did so because they thought Hillary “has the best policies and ability to lead the United States” ? just wish to clarify
Me too Progressive. I reckon Edwards would mollify the disgruntled Clinton supporters in time, and Obama and Michelle wouldn’t have to check under the bed everynight.
Ron- not sure if you’ve noticed yet, but Obama has won. ie- hillary lost.
337 – Exactly Diogenes-[I thought they only named the VP and the Secretaries were only decided if they won.]
It would be presumptuous to get down to that sort of detail at this early stage of the general. And, anyway, who cares? Hillary in the meantime can be SoSFA
expat, being VP is more prominent and really blunts the CHANGE message. And could Obama really trust her??
I still think Bill is a liability. There is a whole scope for a lot of questions on his last minute pardons that might be dug up with Hilly is VP candidate.
I can’t see them getting along however and it will annoy the heck out of some of the middle ground. I doubt Obama wants to do that, but if he choose Hillary then I sort of see it working….. I growing cold on it, now I think about it….. maybe I am not turning complete around on the road….. just stopping to consult a map.
Diogenes,
Is electoral fraud justified if it furthers a greater social purpose?
Diogenes – wouldn’t they still indicate who it would be IF they won – particularly this time?
haven’t got a clue really, but it seems to be expected.
Finns- why would the Greens want to snatch Growler?? We have no access to safe storage facilties, and I can’t imagine anyone would pay a ransom.
Jen
you made a statement in #335 , if my #343 was simply asking you to clarify . What did you mean then as to why the white women voted 60% for Hillary ?
(I never gave an opinion , I just you to explain what you meant)
re GG , he’s just has just told me he is quite ovewrwhelmed by the affection shown by blogers re his absence. What happened was the millemiums older bronze arrows take longer to sharpen so assistance was needed by the barbarian & GG is helping and leaving the literary prose posting in my hands so he’s fine & cheerful as all us
Ron- just to be really clear I NEVER mentioned the word ‘White”.
Even Black women can be feminists… surprise!!
Jen, the problem with our hypothesis is that Edwards has repeatedly said no to another run at VP! But in recent polling, it’s been shown that a hypothetical Obama/Edwards ticket would wipe the floor with McCain in many states.
As I said previously, if it’s the only way to keep white women and elderly folk on side, Obama/Hillary is a viable option!
jen, he is a “Greeens” – borough Growler . so obviously you want to reclaim him
Progressive, BS Fairman and Diogenes-
I think we are all dealing with same dilemma , and you can bet your boots Obama is too. Politically it makes sense to try and gain Clinton’s supporters, but she can’t be trusted, and that makes it dangerous.
What to do?…. glad we don’t have to work it out.
Night all.
353 Progressive I’ll second that.
WTF was I thinking. No, I am completely and totally against the idea now. I feel so unclean…. ahhhh….. I going to have a go and have a wash. No, he needs a governor or a general. Hillary is too much like Obama and she has been too much of a liar.
Obama and Hillary together as the Dream Team would wipe the floor.
If you think there is any danger of this election being close, BHO would be utterly crazy to choose Hillary as VP. (And if isn’t going to be close, he might as well choose the person he could work best with post-inauguration, and that surely isn’t her!).
One of McCain’s big problems in this election (he has several) is how to be a moderate (which he probably is by Republican standards, and needs to be to have a chance of getting enough independents), whilst still getting out the Right vote, people who have never trusted him anyway.
Easy solution: have a Clinton on the Dem ticket. Then McCain can be as moderate as he likes, but the Right will still vote for him, just to keep her out.
A Clinton VP candidacy also feeds the most obvious attack line on Obama – that he is a good speaker but fundamentally weak, easily led and naive. “He’s so wet behind the ears he needs Hillary (ie Bill) to tell him how to be President!”.
He’d be mad to even consider it.
I guess at the end of the day, Obama will pick Hillary as his VP candidate only if he thinks he cant win without her. Good old-style politics, I guess.
I think he can win without her
ESJ
That’s a “Do the means justify the ends?” question. I’m not a Kantian so I am not big on the categorical imperative argument. The means can justify the ends in some cases. However “electoral fraud” and “social good” are both terms which are sufficiently vague to render the question one about semantics rather than anything rational.
Andrew,
Picking her takes a lot of the pressure off McCain. Why do it?
FINNS
disintegrating you said , your clarity as usual Amigo is spot on.
I’m still getting over the Obama supporters today making over 100 blogs about Hillary being VP , VP ??? when for the last 3 months up till yesterday she was vile , corrupt , part of the Bush establishment , was not part of the ‘ NEW style of politic’ , Washington whor….type , no integrity , cares about no one but herself , wanted Obama dead were some of the most complementary
BUT the nicest were after her RFK wrong analogy comment where for 2 days Obama supporters said Hillary wanted to hire a hitman to shoot Obama , she’d be happy for him to be dead and her RFK comment was what she really wants for Obama , death now
Is this the same site FINNS Amigo we’ve been on for the last 3 months ?
Dyno I agree, I was trying to say that he will only pick her if she convinces him she cant win without her. I think he can
Ron
I still think she’d be awful tempted with that itchy trigger of hers. She might mistake Obama for a duck.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/06/03/bob-beckel-says-shoe-will-drop-on-obama-tomorrow/
More portents of doom.
Diogenes – cop-out.
More worrying; I think the reason the white working class was voting for Hillary was not a vote for Hillary but a vote against Obama. There is no reason adding her would really bring this people onboard. If they are voting against him, add her is not going to help.
Mind you, the white working class is not as big as people claim and it was not an area where Kerry did well last time either.
And we know how John Forbes Kerry ended up dont we?
John Judis with more emphasis on the looming “problem”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=66e16e0d-572f-4a38-9ed8-340a4f602341
Jen #355 probably sums it up – Dyno, Andrew, you make a good point on the repub right voting bloc. But he needs to shore up the rust belt – who don’t seem anti Hilary. With them, he can give away the repub right vote and have change to spare?
At a minimum would have to pick someone very amenable to the Hilary supporters and who has rust-belt appeal… Evan Bayh?
Do you really think HRC hurts his prospects in FL, MI, PA, OH and the mid-west more than she helps him? So, he doesn’t take the south (though Arkansas could come into play) but doesn’t need it…
Ron says
“What happened was the millemiums older bronze arrows take longer to sharpen so assistance was needed by the barbarian & GG is helping and leaving the literary prose posting in my hands so he’s fine & cheerful as all us’
Which makes no sense – but its close as you will get to a concession and congratulation to Obama – so enjoy.
Diogenes #365
“Ron
I still think she’d be awful tempted with that itchy trigger of hers. She might mistake Obama for a duck.”
No chance of that. Robert doctorinateEmperius is in charge of the ducks
368 – Lost by a 119,000 votes (Ohio). Highest percentage for a losing candidate every. Who would you have preferred in 2004?
Kerry is a snob. GWB3 a failure.
Gore?
WorktoRule
#370
I did offer congratulations to Obama & his supporters to toiday
Ron 94 Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“Hillary has not conceded & I do not think she should. However I do echo Hillarys speech ‘I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished’”
Yes, I agree Gore should have run in 2004. You are right on that.
ESJ: a lot of wishful thinking on your part, but hey, if Obama did implode in the next few months, they can always turn to Edwards instead, now he’d destroy McCain in an election and turn a few Southern states blue too.
Ron @ 374,
Conession duely noted, I’ll stop baiting you (for a while at least).
Gore has stayed very quiet, I guess he’ll make his big speech at the convention.
366
Edward StJohn Says:
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/06/03/bob-beckel-says-shoe-will-drop-on-obama-tomorrow/
What a sad sad lot. I suspect Obama will not make it and
the US will continue it’s spiral into oblivion. Sad really; buts that is the way it goes, empires rise, empires fall.
Edwards is just a haircut and an empty suit (+ a rich lawyers ego) after all he couldnt even win his home state primary.
Bet he wishes hed stayed in though – with a big enough swag of delegates he could have brokered the convention.
321
Andrew
Health was her big failure, so maybe it’s enough of a reward in which she can redeem herself, get the proverbial second chance?
But the way she was talking, about the 18 million (by whose count?) her voted for her not being ‘disrespected’ (so you’re entitled to respect because you cast a vote for the the runner up??????), she’s clearly angling for a bit more.
I’ve heard all the arguments in favour of her being on the ticket, but jesuuuz, she’s not endeared herself to this little brown duck, and many more I suspect.
Oy my God I will have to agree with ESJ. He is nothing more than a pretty face who failed to help Kerry in the south
Obama has won by regenerating support the Democratic Party as the voice for change in America. This is his pitch. He both embodies and heralds change. He cannot be beaten on this issue.
By contrast, Hillary has commanded a lot of loyal support from the poorer, less-well educated and older voters. She also has a strong following amongst females – the mainstay of democratic support. In some ways, it is convenient to describe these voters as conservative and traditional. But this misses the point. These voters also have a stake in change.
The question is what these people will do when their champ – Hillary – is no longer a candidate. It defies credulity to think that the legions of democratic voting women are going to flee to the wife-cussing, curmudgeonly McCain.
Likewise, the issues that must concern Hillary’s supporters – health care, the cost of education, the availability of jobs – are not McCain’s territory. These are substantive issues. Hillary ran on them and nearly won on them. But she does not own them. Obama can win support from these echelons by appealing to them on the issues and by linking them to his appeal for a new America.
He doesn’t need Hillary to do this. In lots of ways, he has to present himself as a leader who has freedom of thought and action. In his rhetoric, Obama places himself in debt to the people of America – he gives them the credit for his success. Symbolically, by choosing Hillary as running mate, he could be saying that he and his supporters lack the strength to win and accomplish change: that he needs a Clinton backing him up. I think it would be a terrible mistake, both for his campaign and his presidency. He stands for more than this. He has to and he does and he will.
318
jaundiced view Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
ESJ- you still can’t get yourself up for a … prediction, can you.
…he’s only really good for insults and snide little stupidities. Predictions require a bit more commitment.
I’m happy to collect my winnings however! LOL
KR: She’s angling for a job (is the conventional wisdom). But the cynic in me wonders how important a certain candidate’s debt is.
WorktoRule
I congratulated nut did not concede as Hillary has not. I said “However I do echo Hillarys speech ‘I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished”
whether Hillary decides to fight to the Convention based on her ‘electability’ argument & popular vote win (which the Amigos have argued todate) or whether she thinks the now 60 days gap will lead to too much Party pressure with the Party suggisting 60 days of nothing happening shows the party is still determining its Nominee & if so what she wants , is presumably what she is considering till Tuesday
What I can say as a political reality Obama faced is Hillary has 17.5 million votes , alot hard core.If Hillary publicly infers she wants the VP , Obama will be forced to give it to her or lose the election for sure. Hillary could have done that done if she chose Obama can now if he choses try to pre empt her by nominating a VP but until he does Hillary can have the VP if she choses Thats because on pledged delegatesfrom Primarys she won 48.1% of the delegats to Obama 51.9% and won the poular vote on actual audited votes cast so he has the total whip hand on VP and if the roles were reversed Obama would , Polies are good at counting vote numbers if nothing elese
Intrade:
Dem Vp
Clinton drifts 5points from 30 to 25 today
M.Warner firms 5 points from 5 to 10 today.
RB
Her debt is her No.1 priority. HER 18 million voters rank about 28th on her list of priorities.
385
Robert Bollard
Yes, I’ve always thought if she was offered the choice she’d take the money and run!
Cynical? You and me both, it seems!
I have to agree with others about John Edwards. Dud politician.
Has good and decent ideals and policies but he really is an empty suit with a haircut.
Good contest between him and Biden for most insincere looking.
I had to have a laugh at the talking head on Fox News.
She was saying how Obama rang Hillary last night just after midnight but only got her voicemail.
Talking head said he should have waited till 3am to call her on her red phone.
Relatively recently (ie; in the last 5 years) I read Mailer on the ‘68 nominating conventions. The Republicans in Miama were pretty straightforward, with Rockerfeller losing to Nixon, with Reagan making a good showing (and we know what happened to him 12 years later). The interesting thing was about Hubert Humphrey (”Dump the Hump”) and the Democratic nomination – the angst and indeed hatred of the Eugene McCarthy supporters towards Humphrey and the party strongmen – Chicago Mayor Daley and co) – but Mailer nailed it when he said that McCarthy would have been a great Republican, and Rockerfeller a great Democrat, but they were just in the wrong parties at the wrong time.
But the real problem was that the Rockerfeller supporters still wanted a Republican president, but the McCarthy supporters wanted some one else. Yes, I know that there was George Wallace – and if you look at the vote Wallace was a divisive 3rd party spoiler. It was a “house divided”, albeit for vastly different reasons (factor in the shift in over race, Vietnam etc). And then came the McGovern Commision, which recommended changes to the selection process that took power from the hands of Democratic Party powerbrokers like Daley and handed it to voters – caucuses and primary’s. Daley and co withheld their support and we see the disaster of 1972 for the Democrats.
Will 2008 be a mirror of 1968 or 1972. Will Obama be scorned by the Clinton supporters allowing a weak President McCain through, or will they become the spoiler? Or will they back their party’s nominee and create a break from the past?
Or am I deluded, the Republicans will win, and the Democratic Party are really just the party of Opposition who only gain power when the party born to rule are just too corrupt and failure-ridden (eg; Carter in 1976)?
Make that “Republicans in Miami” – coz I’ve no idea where “Miama” is…
Who will blink first?
‘But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama’s throat and said, in not so many words: I’m still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that’s the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don’t choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can’t lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that’s putting the interests of the party first, isn’t it?’
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html
‘(5) There will be lots of pressure on Obama to change his mind, though.
Unquestionably. And since we’re in the moment, a lot of it is to be expected. You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he’s going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there’s almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That’s pretty much it, yes.’
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/questions_to_ask_about_the_uni.php
Pelosi Says The Dem Primary Is Over, Declares Obama The “Nominee”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/pelosi_says_the_dem_primary_is.php
In the meantime, in response to questions about Clinton’s speech, Obama responded with some interesting words…
Asked whether Clinton had given him any indication that she’d be dropping out of the race, Obama said:
You got to love that last line!
And on another front 15 supers have moved to Obama so far today. There are still 281 supers (about 34%) hanging on to Clinton and another 130 odd (16%) undecided compared to 410 for Obama (just under 50%).
catrina, i miss the sound of your one woman yapping at the wee hours. Maybe you can do a time trial as each minute passes by. many thanks.
Hillary’s supporters tell her to STFU about her 18 million ‘hard working white Americans’. Time to go 4am party guest:
Ed Rendell:
Charlie Rangel:
James Clyburn:
Toy Boys at 394
Funny really – haven’t missed you at all.
Must be a quality thing.
Morning all,
I’m not sure Hillary is interested in unifying the Party, Pancho. Divide and conquer.
There really was no justifiable reason for her not to concede yesterday. This was turning the knife, and that’s all it was.
Ferny Grover at 397
I figure Hillary’s between a rock and a hard place.
I’m guessing she’s going to do the right thing – and reasonably quickly.
Pancho, if Hillary deserved the VP slot, which she doesnt, her refusal to concede last night and the tactics you report should disquaify her anyway. If Obama chooses her, it will spoil his image
I agree with Possum’s analysis that Hillary as VP is the most sensible option for the Democrats if they want to make sure they win POTUS. (Although I disagree with his character assessment of Clinton).
While I understand the arguments about delegate counts etc., 18 million votes is a genuine source of legitmacy for any candidate and to contemplate blowing them off as losers is arrogance of the highest order.
Obama has not campaigned well in recent months and the reality is that he had many chances to take the nomination outright but failed to do so. That he has won on super delegate pledges means that ultimately he can be portrayed as the machine candidate. These SD votes won’t come cheap. So much for the new politics!
As said previously Hillary has the keys to the voters that Obama can’t reach at the moment. I think team Obama faces the dillemma that do they press ahead without Clinton’s support and hope to squeeze through or do they embrace her and bring her and her supporters on board for a smashing victory.
I would say that Hillary still has other options from running a spoiling campaign, staying in the race just to wait and see what happens beween now and August, to endorsing McCain and even running as an Independant. If any of these were to occur, they would no doubt damage the campaign of Obama and certainly cause distraction.
Obama has many faults including lack of experience, foreign policy, poor judgement, race and the Liberal disconnect with working class Americans and Hispanics. Hillary can help him on all these.
So now we will find out if Obama really wants to win. In the Australian experience we’ve had front runners or anointed politicians like Peacock, Beazley and Costello all of whom failed to achieve the highest job because of a perceived lack of desire (amongst other things) to do waht is necessary to win.
Over to you Mr. Obama.
GG at 400
Welcome back – we’ve been worried about you!
Wed June 4: Woe is the courter on a “dynastically significant” first date when from the moment of eyefall he knows things just aren’t gonna work out no matter how much nice he makes.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/patoliphant;_ylt=As1zl6ku7vqVabVPkkvdtjXd.sgF
having slept on the VP issue overnight (checked under the bed for a stray Bill first) I am with dyno and blindoptimist – forget Hillary as VP.
Obama does not need her as most of those supporters would rather chew their arm off that see teh Repugs get back in. They are disappointed but they’ll get over it.
I agree it sends the message that she is the defacto leader – Obama needs her ‘experience’ because he isn’t up to the job. Bollocks.
She is incapable of honestly supporting anything other than her own ambition, proved by her narcisstic speech yesterday. She believes she is the rightful POTUS, and so she will never truly support him .
Hey Grinch!
GG – your argument that Hillary can mount a case which will require serious consideration by Obama (and the party) is well made. But I would make a couple of other points about your post.
First, either victor would have needed to win ‘on super delegate pledges’ as you put it, being such a close race. We shouldn’t forget that along with a majority of SDs (now) Obama has also won a majority of PDs.
Second, I agree that running spoiler is something she would be considering, but she can’t do this overtly (and running independent is out) as she would be trashing the same machine she will need in 4 years time if this is her strategy.
Pancho at 405
And the independent options is already out of scope – it already too late to mount an effective deployment (admin, registration, etc., etc.).
BTW – good to the that the Party of the Democrats is swinging behind the new leader.
https://www.democrats.org/
Hillary to formally concede on Friday: according to American ABC News!
That was my projection!!
I believe Hilary has succesfully snookered the hopemaster.
If she is on the ticket he will look weak, if she isnt on the ticket he will look divisive. Either way Hilary wins – one she runs for VP and has a co-presidency or tri-presidency if they win OR the hopemaster dooms his campaign by rejecting her, she plays the loyal victim of the hopemaster and has an undisputed crack at 2012.
Uncle Eddy
I think you underestimate the guy.
But it wouldn’t be the first time you got projections arse about face.
Catrina what’s this ? Your up and about late morning, normally expect to hear from you at 2am
Oh Eddy, she lost presendential nomination race and now you are claiming it’s really a victory for her – she’s alot more wily and cunning than I gave her credit for. You really are having a sook aren’t you
I reckon there would be a few more who think like this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html
ESJ – yep, she snookered him! It was her cunning plan to lose all along so he would be in a…predicament. (insert evil Clinton laugh here).
Come on man, you can stir better then that.
Uncle Eddy
Don’t feel bad about it – I know some people can’t cope with late nights.
It’s a stamina thing.
ESJ- a victory for Hillary????
You lot are f@#king amazing!!
Yeah catrina a late night with you is not on my agenda I can assure you.
Progressive at 408
More reporting on a Friday concession from the NYTs.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/clinton-is-moving-toward-suspending-campaign-and-endorsing-obama/
Pancho Left,
Its a pyrhhic victory, the hopemaster usurped the natural order and he will have to suffer the consequences.
“Moving toward suspending campaign”??? FFS, SHE’S LOST. Unbelievable
Headline on Yahoo page: Clinton refuses to concede defeat. Obama’s victory makes way for a Hillary headline. In her usual way. Hillary has made it all about her
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080603/2/174k3.html?f=mv
Uncle Eddy at 418
That’s good news Eddy.
After all – that’s one less thing you mother won’t have to feel ashamed about.
We’ll see ESJ. While I know you are ‘reserving your right’ to try to save face like you did with your Howard victory prediction, by switching to Obama mid September, I’ll just keep pointing out your wonderful predictive record: Howard, Hillary, and now (by the looks of 420) McCain. Perhaps you should put that Nostradamus down and take a look at the political landscape instead.
The problem here for Hillary is that every day she hangs on and sees more defections, publicly or otherwise, she loses more bargaining chips, and looks like more of an ass.
Catrina 423 you are right my mother generally disapproves of schlappers.
Pancho Left – I always get it right in my predictions to be honest.
Hi all. Well, Jimmy Carter has warned Obama about choosing Hillary as his VP:
“If you take that 50 per cent who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds,” he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/dont-pick-hillary-says-carter-20080605-2m2m.html
I agree. While I would accept Hillary as VP, I think that putting them both together would actually weaken Obama. It would diffuse his “new politics” message. And everyone knows how ambitious Hillary is, so it would only raise questions about who would be the REAL president. It might also give the impression that Obama is only doing it to get Hillary’s voter support, and therefore lacks the confidence or ability to attract this support himself.
I’m not saying it would be a disaster. It might work. But I think it would be a HUGE risk.
The best scenario would be for Hillary to receive a cabinet position and for Obama to choose a running mate who COMPLEMENTS him. Hillary does not complement Obama. She represents nearly everything Obama is fighting against.
Wed June 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AmKxweD8GUGiJaUIHuRmZUhN_b4F
The bluff was finally called. But I wonder if there’ll be any other tantrums on the way out?
“Clinton delivered something approaching a victory speech Tuesday night, just minutes after the media reported that Senator Barack Obama had clinched the nomination with a majority of the pledged delegates. But reality began to sink in Wednesday, as party leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, declared Obama “the nominee” and close supporters like Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel lost patience with her delays.
By the afternoon, as she made plans to end her campaign’s operations, a question of whether she would drop out and endorse Obama was rapidly turning into matters of choreography and psychology, questions of what form the inevitable would take.
Clinton had convened a conference call with congressional supporters Wednesday to plead for time. Instead, a Clinton backer said, her supporters laid down the law: Time had run out , and she needed to leave the race this week.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/ABC_Clinton_to_drop_out_Friday.html
I am back for the “I told you so” post
Not surprising to see that the Green Grinch (and ESJ) is furiously backtracking from earlier predictions.
Its always curious to see the delusional trying to spin their way out of their previous moronic assertions and coming up with even more ludicrous suggestions and sniping to attempt to justify their previous idiocy.
Surprisingly enough, just as predicted over 2 months ago, Hillary had no chance to catch up in pledged delegates due to her poor campaigning, and as a consequence the superdelegates pushed Obama over the line.
The primaries also closely tracked the predictions made over 2 months ago.
Watch the Clinton supporters move quickly from denial to bargaining now.
Hillary as usual showed her lack of grace and should not be VP.
Nobody who runs a campaign as intellectually dishonest as Hillary should be on the Obama ticket, as this will potentially lose him more voters then he will gain.
I still believe that Obama (regardless if Hillary is on the ticket) will win the general election as the Republicans are irreparably damaged due to the flawed Bush legacy.
Hillary is now planning to drop out on Friday. Did anyone else beat my previous prediction?
And finally:
Congratulations Barack Obama for overcoming the odds to become the first black American democratic nominee.
He is an inspired choice that will hopefully be able to repair the damage from the worst US president ever.
ESJ – the sookmaster @426, didn’t you say Howard would be returned in Bennelong?
429 and 430
Voices of reason!
BTW – is there really anyone here who truly believes that HRC would be the best option for VP? I mean – it just doesn’t make sense.
certainly the Guardian guy doesn’t…
. “Once again, it’s all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I’ve heard in a long time. And I’ve left out some adjectives, just to be polite.”
maybe she did everyone a favour by showing her true colours once and for all. She has given Obama the perfect out.
Well the VP question is going to hang out there for a while.
I notice that on intrade there is a list of a dozen or so candidates and the front runner is still “someone else”, followed by Clinton, then Webb.
I do Cat – if the goal is to win the absolute maximum number of ECVs, districts and Senate races.
WorkToRule at 434
Do you have a url for the intrade Obama VP candidates?
Possum at 435
Up side is that it brings on board the Hillary fringe lunatics.
Downside is that is tarnishes the Obama brand and creates risk in both the general and later during a Presidency.
How are you rationalizing the balance?
Catrina @ 432
“is there really anyone here who truly believes that HRC would be the best option for VP?”
I doubt Clinton is the best choice, but I think he can win with Clinton as VP and could lose if Clinton decides to undermine him.
My hope is that the Obama camp can bring her onside by offering SoH.
The risk with Clinton as VP is that is gives Repub two negative attack lines – whereas a well picked VP could neutralise them.
I don’t really think this is the right time to take the temperature of a Clinton VP push. Her supporters are crushed, she is playing odd games, and Obama’s win hasn’t really settled yet. I agree she has won a huge number of votes, and although Obama has had this wrapped up for sometime, it has been all but a 50/50 race.
But there is no way that swathes of Clinton’s women supporters will vote for
McCain or stay home when McCain is pitted against Obama. The clowns that could fly from their comfortable pads in CA or NY to racebait at the R&B meeting aside, these women are Democrats who do not want to vote for a warmonger who will install judges to overturn Roe. And there is no way that the ‘hard working Americans’ of the Appalacias, who don’t wanna vote for a ‘boy’ will do so just because the duckhunter is on the ticket.
If the first rule of VP choice is ‘don’t let them f*ck you up’, then Clinton – in spite of her support in the primaries – remains a very risky choice.
I think that as some of the divisive dynamic fades away over the next month or so, we’ll really be able to see if Clinton offers something by being on the ticket (either by cancelling negatives, or positively campaigning) when we see a bit more polling, and more of McCain. One thing I is certain – her schmucks will not be able to bully her a spot, no matter how many people Bill pisses off.
Cat,
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
look under Politics – 2008 US elections – 2008 Democrat VP Nom
We’ve been missing the real issue! This comment was posted on Ben Smith’s blog by someone called “I Love Hillary”:
Satan brought forth the Beast from the sea. The Beast was given power, his throne and great authority by Satan. The whole world was astonished and followed the Beast. Men worshiped Satan. The Beast was given a mouth to utter proud and vain words. The Beast blasphemes God and slanders His name, His church and even those who had died and live in Heaven. The Beast was given power to make war against Christians and to conquer them. The Beast was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the Beast, except for whose names are written in the Book of Life. Satan called forth another beast, which did rise out of the Earth. It is the False Prophet. ? The False Prophet has two horns like a lamb, but looks like a man. ? He speaks like Satan speaks. ? He exercises all the authority of the Beast and on the Beast?s behalf. ? He will make inhabitants of the Earth worship the Beast. ? He performs great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from Heaven to Earth in full view of men through powers given to him from the Beast. ? He deceives the inhabitants of the Earth. ? He orders men to set up an image in honor of the Beast. ? He is given power from Satan to give breath to the image of the Beast, so that the image could speak. ? He will kill all the inhabitants of the Earth who refused to worship the image of the Beast. ? He forces everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name or the number of the name of the Beast. ? The number of the Beast is 666, for it is man’s number. The Beast exercised his authority for forty-two months. The Beast and the False Prophet will make war against Jesus Christ, but Christ will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings; and with Him will be His called, chosen and faithful followers. The Beast is here on Earth today waiting for Satan to conceive his False Prophet so the Biblical prophesy can be fulfilled. It is what Satan desires most, except in Satan?s apocalypse the Beast is victorious and the Earth will be ravaged eternally. We are given warnings of the False Prophet and he must be stopped in our lifetime. Each generation of the Earth is challenged and tempted by Satan. Do not yield to this temptation. Stop Obama before it is too late.
Pancho at 439
I agree. I see multiple negatives in the Hillary VP scenario and negatives that can be largely eliminated by cabinet roles around Health. I also think Obama is following the direction you just mentioned – let is cool down and during which time Hillary’s oxygen will get reduced and the issue will not have the ‘pressing urgency of now’.
“close advisers to Sen. Obama signaled an Obama-Clinton ticket was highly unlikely. People in both camps cited what several called “a deal-breaker” — Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262109484746703.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Poss,
Hillary would have to be a ‘loose cannon’ – I just can’t see how it would work.
She has shown herself to be vainglorious and self-absorbed.
She can’t control herself, so I can’t see Obama controlling her.
Big liability, it seems to me…
It’s pantomime time: T-Mac, Hillary’s architect-of-the-month and brain du jour (R.I.P. Patti Solis Doyle) talks turkey to Jon Stewart. Gobble gobble.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080604_t_mac_is_pumped_up/
Possum’s argument is a good one. I see McCain as a very weak candidate, who has been able to get by for the last few months because of the Democratic battle.
His public speaking skills are poor… if it turns into a battle with speeches and debates, he is going to get creamed. Just look at what Huckabee was doing to him in the Republican debates. His best chance is turning to the attack dogs and 527 groups to try and attack Obama’s personality. Whether this will work after 8 years of Rovian tactics and GWB is another matter entirely. I think after a few months of the general election contest we will begin to see Obama break away from McCain in most of the purple states and make a contest in some of the slight Republican states (NC, MS maybe). So in my opinion, I think Obama will win, but it won’t be a huge record-breaking map-shifting win.
Now, if he got Hillary on board as a VP candidate, he could use her to shore up Appalachia. West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and possibly even Florida would become good bets. This would open Obama up and allow him to attack in NC, MS as well as a swag of other Republican states. Alaska, Arkansas, Virginia, Indiana, the Dakotas and Montana could all be brought into play. Even if Obama were not to win in most of those states, by pushing McCain back and making him play defence (exactly like the Libs were forced to here last year) you could be looking at a huge Democrat win.
If McCain slipped up for a second in his defence of those states, or had a meltdown (possibilities for a guy who is rumoured to have a fierce temper) you could be looking at a massive re-shaping of the electoral landscape in the US.
So what I’m beginning to think is that if Obama wants a slight win, he should not pick HRC as running mate. If he wants to seriously attack the Republican base and re-shape the electoral landscape, I’m beginning to think she may be the best option.
Oh no, according to ESJ, :”Either way Hilary wins” Damn! I thought Obama had won…
Asanque, a great wrap-up
I actually think Hillary burnt some valuable bridges to the VP spot. She gave the Repugs a lot of ammunition for attacking Obama, especially her comments about McCain being better suited to be president than Obama.
Running ads on this (which the Repugs will surely do) would have greater effect if she is running as VP and therefore taking a big role in the campaign because it raises questions about the VPs faith in the President, the ability for the VP and President to work together, etc.
On another point, Hillary is actually unpopular outside the Democrat voter circle. Obama has consistently done better with independents. What you lose from the loony fringes of Hillary’s support base, Obama gains with independents. But I’m not so sure if they would put as much faith in Obama if Hillary is his running mate.
Cat at 437- If Hillary was made Veep and framed by the entire Obama campaign over and over and over again as the person that will bring in Universal Healthcare – perhaps even by saying she’ll not only be Veep but also Secretary of Health, I think that any damage that Clinton would do to Obamas brand of change politics could be overcome.
Universal Healthcare is the biggest change issue around, Clinton has always been at the forefront of it and importantly it’s already synonymous with her in the minds of the politically active (i.e. voters). It’s easy to bullshit people into believing something if they already partly believe it anyway – so it wouldnt be that great a step to frame Clinton as a change politics representative via the universal healthcare push.
Look at the way Howard framed himself as a conviction politician successfully – even though it was 95% bullshit and he’d change his mind on a dime if there was something in it for him, the 5% nugget of truth allowed the 100% framing to take place.
Black can be made white in the minds of voters as long as you have a realistic vector to carry the message – and universal healthcare is a pretty good vector if the message you’re trying to deliver is “change”.
There’ll be problems around the fringes, especially with Obama attacking McCain as a beltway stooge while havining CLinton on the ticket – but a couple of deliberate story plants in the media where it’s leaked that she told overbearing lobbyist/donors to piss off and stop trying to buy influence on Obamas platform would have a pretty powerful effect.
Americans accept that their politicians flip flop. The flip only becomes a problem for a candidate if the voters disagree on the position that candidate is flopping to.
The biggest problem that comes with Clinton is Bill, and the shit that he brings with him, especially over his presidential library donations and things he did after he left the Whitehouse. The stuff that the Clintons did in the whitehouse has all been done to death already – if the Repubs run with that, it just reinforces the differences between the type of politics Obama would be running with compared to the grubby republican 1990s redux that McCain would be running with, and that would also make him look more like a Republican, the very thing he’s trying hard not to make himself look like (because generic Republicans are getting smashed by Generic Democrats on votes as a general branding issue).
If McCain starts getting identified as a Republican, he’ll lose 10 points in the polls.
It’s a big risk – but the benefits are enormous, a greater potential victory in terms of ECVs, and with that comes larger district wins and possibly even 60 Senate seats if the campaign runs well.
You can use Hillary to target the Apppalachian white vote, older women, working class voters (where universal healthcare plays extremely well) and Florida, use Obama to mobilise the black, educated and youth vote and combined the two could drown the Republicans in a massive flood of turnout, bringing States into play that the Dems 12 months ago would never have dreamed of. Especially if McCain chooses Romney as Veep because a large amount of the evangelicals will stay home.
It’s risky, but the rewards are worth thinking about.
great point about the ads Noocat. How would it look to have ads from the VP candidate attacking their running mate?? Make no mistake the repugs would rehash these and milk them for all they’re worth
Pancho @ 439, agree. Who will blink first is the game now; Fri Sat over? Sort of.
Plus Carter & Pelosi…
‘She held a rhetorical knife to Obama’s throat and said, in not so many words: I’m still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that’s the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don’t choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can’t lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that’s putting the interests of the party first, isn’t it?’
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html
‘You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he’s going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there’s almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That’s pretty much it, yes.’
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/questions_to_ask_about_the_uni.php
Those ads of Clinton attacking Obama are going to run regardless.
Which is the better way to address them – having the VP actually there to confront those ads, or letting those adds run free, and reinforce all the messages that Clinton used to sucessfully undercut Obama in certain demographics that the Dems need for a big victory?
EC just watched Terry Mc –
no wonder Hillary didn’t concede .She is surrounded by out and out lunatics.
Asanque- good to have you back.
‘The topline numbers are good for Obama: he’s slightly ahead of Sen. John McCain outside the margin of error, and 63% of self-declared Clinton supporters say they’re certain to vote for him.’
Interesting, start of the coalescence?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
Poss- everything you say makes sense, but you have left out one important factor- Hillary herself. Your argument relies on her being co-operative and trustworthy. I don’t believe she can be. Plus, as you mentioned she comes as package with Bill, and that is going to by definition undermine Obama’s authority- the Clinton’s back in the Whitehouse. If she was a different kind of person then she should be a shoe- in, but you don’t put a snake among the pigeons (or doves as the case may be).
441 Thankyou for posting that Robert! I needed a good laugh this morning!
Possum, Allow me to be somewhat startled! You’re talking like a cynical tactician, what with the line: “It’s easy to bullshit people into believing something if they already partly believe it anyway – so it wouldnt be that great a step to frame Clinton as a change politics representative…”
Hillary has been beaten. She’s tried to finesse the point by declaring she’ll be making “No decisions tonight.” She has no decisons to make. Obama has won it and he will leave her behind. He won’t be gloating about it: that would not only be out of character, but also bad politics.
Indeed, Obama already seems to have cut her loose: she’s fading off the list, though not because of anything she’s done, but because of Bill’s possibly murky financial links. “It’s the baggage, you see, the baggage. The people won’t wear that. The Republicans will make hay. Sorry. It’s not you, I’m sure you understand.”
The idea that Obama can gain more than he can lose by taking Hillary on board is a fantasy. Hillary’s negatives – rightly or wrongly – are in the high 40’s and have not changed for years. The people who dislike her make up a large part of Obama’s new plurality. He has to cultivate this constituency and bring it to maturity. He can do this by campaigning on the issues and being seen to be his own master. The voters will follow the winner and feel good about it in the end.
Jen, on the Hillary being cooperative – I think the best way to guarentee that is to tie the success of her political future into the success of Obama. If Hillary becomes the Veep on the ticket, if Obama loses because of even the slightest hint of anything she did, she will be stuck in the Senate for the rest of her life and flush a 2012 run down the toilet. Having her as Veep means her best chance would be for a highly sucessful 8 year Obama government with her running in 2016 as the natural continuation for sucessful government.
Self-interest is a powerful weapon.
I dont think Bill would undermine Obamas authority – Obama now runs the party, if he became President he would be the President, half the Democrats reckon Bill has turned into a cartoon of himself, and a lot more realise the glorious days of the Bill Clinton whitehouse were’nt actually that glorious.
I think Bill is slowly becoming a Jimmy Carter figure – someone that few pay any serious attention to apart from comic value.
Possum- agreed about Bill, but overall maybe it’s time for a real change. The Clinton’s represent the past, and while that may be comforting to some the momentum is on for something altogether new- that’s why Obama won. So I reckon in a week or so Hillary’s star will already be waning and Obama can select a new clean VP. She’s covered in muck.
Pancho @ 403,
I agree that neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright and both would rely on the SDs to get over the line. My point is that the endorsement of Obama through a joint ticket with Hillary makes him a far more legitimate candidate in being a representative of all Democrats.
Hillary at this moment can suspend her campaign but stay in the race. If events change the circumstances she can still appeal to the SDs to overturn their current endorsements and select her. This would be disruptive and disconcerting to Obama’s campaign as he will be constantly having to look out for Hillary or her surrogates as well as the Republicans.
Ultimately, she could run as an Independant and gather 15-20% of votes and possibly win some States. The question is the proportion of Dem/Rep vote she would attract and how that would affect the eventual election of POTUS.
As for trashing the machine, with 18 million votes in her pocket she is entitled to respect and consideration. If the Obama forces wish to exclude her then worrying about 2012 or the feelings of the Party will not be high on her agenda.
Some here are urging a winner take all approach which would lead to Hillary being completely sidelined. If you believe in all or nothing, be prepared to accept nothing.
Blindoptimist at 457 (I’d call you BO for short, but that would just be weird on a few different levels
)
I might be talking like a cynical tactitian – but honestly, what do you think has been driving the Obama campaign?
The audacity of hope?
I know it’s depressing, but Obama isnt different to any other politician in US when it comes to strategy and tactics, he’s just better at it than everyone else.
The thing that makes me wonder about Clinton as Veep is that Veeps dont tend to lose the ticket votes because they arent running for President – they arent the headline act, but they can sometimes add votes to the ticket.
Look at Cheney – his ratings with the general public have always been somewhere between arms dealers and drug traffickers, but he didnt lose Bush any votes, but he gained votes for the ticket among middle aged white men.
Obamas new plurality has only been demonstrated among likely Democrat voters in the Primaries, not the wider public yet- but then it was only about 50% of likely Democrat voters. The next month we might get to see how it plays in the wider public with the polls, which will be good because Obama doesnt need to choose his Veep any time soon.
I’m not sure that having Hillary on the Veep ticket would undermine him being seen as his own master. Especially if it’s handled right.
Poss
I gotta say your arguments for VP Clinton are all over the shop. I know politics is cynical and downright grubby but Obama/Clinton is a terrible terrible mix.
It completely kills Obama as a politician. It simply will NOT happen.
Whatever votes Hillary adds to the Democrats she will at least add the same amount to the Republicans.
McCain has massive trouble playing to his natural Independants and to the conservative base. With Clinton on the ticket, he can freely court the Independants.
Picking Hillary will be a disaster for all sorts of reasons.
They’re all over the shop Harry because the electorate is all over the shop – I think Hillary brings costs and benefits to the ticket in many different ways to many different voting demographics.
I agree with you though, I’d be really surprised if it happened. But I wouldn’t be shocked at such a calculating move should it occur.
Didnt Hillary win more Independent voters in the primaries than McCain by about 3 to 1?
BBC and Time are reporting Hilary’s team has thrown in the towel – but still no word from the woman herself. Can’t be far off.
RB @ 441
I’m not quite sure why I did this (probably related to my general anxiety about repetitiveness) but I just did a quick count: in the 451-word text you provide, I Love Hillary used the appellation “The Beast” 8 times and “the Beast” 13 (spooky) times. Accounting for both words in each appellation, that’s a total of 9.3% of this inspired individual’s text.
It should be trademarked.
Ed Rendell,who is a big Hillary supporter, was just on Faux News and he said Hillary will probably not be VP.
Looks like more mystery to me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0432012020080605
If HRC is fair-dinkum about being devoted to her Party and America, she would have already gotten behind Obi with all her political capital and begun campaigning for The Team like a trouper. But Senator Me-Me is damaged goods. Her character is flawed. What Donnie Brasco referred to as a “fugazi”.
Bazza would be wiser to work with the team that has put him where he is today, and whom he can trust with my life, than have to fight the battle of his political life with a temperamental, though stellar 2-I-C. Tem Obi would have to be needlessly and drainingly vigilant about a potential Brutusina dummy-spit. She’s not worth the drama. She hasn’t got the character.
Don’t care how many ECVs the “Dream Ticket” is capable of pulling, if it can also do a Hindenberg when exposed to a rogue spark, then it’s worth squat.
The volatile NY Senator is the wrong zeppelin:)
Poss
i’ve got no doubt Obama would make a calculating decision if it had to be made.
but Hillary Clinton on his ticket kills him stone dead as a politician.
his whole message is looking passed Old Washington.
it is a winning message.
Poss, you make some good points, and if anything, it suggests that if Hillary became Obama’s VP, maybe it wouldn’t be all bad.
But I think the risks are too high. Hillary is a loose cannon. She says dumb things at the worst times. Her politics in the primary season were all wrong, which is why she ended up squandering a 20 point lead over Obama to end up losing the nomination. She would muddy Obama’s core messages. And because she only ever wanted to be POTUS, I doubt she would be able to toe Obama’s line without creating disagreements and friction.
Apart from this, I would be VERY surprised if Obama actually offered her VP. Judging from Obama’s campaign in the primary season, I suspect his team already has a carefully worked out plan for the general election, and this would not involve Hillary as VP.
If there are concerns about Obama’s ability to draw in the working class whites, then I would suggest he choose a VP who can help with this, perhaps someone from the Appalachia. But taking on Hillary with all her baggage and flaws would be a desperate move, and I don’t think Obama is anywhere near desperate.
For all those saying that Hillary would not be where she is without Bill, you are selling her way short. Sure, him having been president has helped her, but she would have been in a position of power and influence without him or anyone else. Look at her career, for Pete’s sake. From 1979 until he became president, she earned far more than he did as a lawyer and worked incredibly hard for very important causes – children’s rights being the main example.
Basically, it seems to me that a lot of people on the left have simply bought into the Republican hatred of her and swallowed their lies whole. One of the main reasons they started hating her, by the way, was because she worked so hard on building protections for abused and neglected children into the legal system. Christian conservatives saw that as an attack on the family, because it took rights away from parents.
Sure, she is ruthless; sure, she plays for keeps. But given what she is playing for, I would have thought that would garner respect, not contempt. But maybe I do not understand the left anymore; maybe I am no longer part of the left.
As to baggage, Hillary’s baggage is all old news. There is nothing there for the Republicans to get a handle on anymore.
I have said all along that there is 0% chance of Hillary as VP.
The whole reason of Obama running in this election is to cleanse the Party of the Clintons and the divisive tactics of the Bush/Clinton era.
Obama and Dean are building a new Democratic Party.
I heard on the radio this morning that Obama will offer the VP to Hillary only after receiving an iron clad guarentee that she won’t accept. Politics is a funny game!
[trust with "his" life]…..and “Team Obama”.
DG @474,
Hear! Hear!
Bloody hell there are some dreamers in this place! A new Democratic Party. roflmao … this is getting to be like religion for some people.
Having been wavering between pure political pragmatisn and an uneasiness at the thought of Hillary as VP I’m going with gut feeling.
Definitely NOT supporting her as VP- frankly she’s just too much hard work.
David Gould-
Hillary lost me beacuse of her behaviour throughout this campaign – nothing to do with her past, which I know nothing about.
I wanted her to win until I got to see and hear more of Obama, and I thought him to be a better candidate. She then went on to prove me right.
DG
I am no friggin dreamer. I am the biggest cynic you could ever come across. believe me.
When i say a new Party, i mean a Party without the Clintons and their baggage and their 50/50 carve up of the country with the Republicans.
Obama/Republican Senator Chuck Hagel: you heard it here first!
Harry – I dont think there can be “new Politics” in the US, it will always be “old politics” just with new faces.
’cause politics is politics – the best we can hope for is that at least some of the new faces are better than the old ones.
But the games have been the same since the first time someone was appointed leader in a cave.
David G-
. “Sure, him having been president has helped her,”…
I am going to nominate you for “Understatement of the PB Site” award.
The naive dreamers are the people who believe the 18 million people who voted for Hillary are HERS. They are DEMOCRAT voters who preferred her over Obama.
Obama is the one who brought NEW voters along. Virtually all the people who voted for Hillary are lifelong Democrat voters. They will vote Democrat in Nov with or without Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s biggest handicap was her husband, undoubtably! If Bill had been kept in mothballs, she might have won the nomination. And, also her people didn’t pay enough attention to the caucuses, Obama fleeced her in those contests!
Poss
I’m not talking about radical new politics. I’m not stupid.
I’m talking about different politics than what Clinton/Bush played.
they carved up the country between them and played games for 20 years.
It is in the Dems interest to rid themselves of the Clintons and expand their appeal.
The fact is that if Hillary had not been married to Bill she would have had no more chance of getting to where she is than the millions of talented, educated and ambitious women who work tireleslly for all sots of causes and organisations and yet never get close. Yes, she has much to admire, but what has set her apart from all these other equally and even more admirable women is who she is married to.
It’s silly to pretend otherwise.
Jen,
What utter nonsense. You have admitted that you know nothing of her career, and yet you make these statements. I suggest you actually do some reading about her. It would be more accurate to suggest that Bill would not have become president were it not for who he married. This kind of patronising rubbish is pure Republican spin.
No-one has ever said that those 18 million are hers. They preferred her to Obama, some marginally, some more strongly. They do not belong to the Democrats, either, by the way. Voters do swing, or not vote. This is how governments actually change – voters change their mind about which party to vote for. One of the factors that may influence this is anger. Given the vitriol that is spewed at Clinton by so many Obama supporters, it is hard to see why a passionate Clinton supporter would stick with the Democratic Party. This hatred has shocked me, to tell you the truth. And saddened me greatly.
Re 483
Hagel has been my quiet pick for a while too Progressive.
He’s a rule breaker. He’ll fit right in.
462
Possum Comitatus Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Blindoptimist at 457 (I’d call you BO for short, but that would just be weird on a few different levels )
“….I might be talking like a cynical tactitian – but honestly, what do you think has been driving the Obama campaign? The audacity of hope?…”
Call me old-fashioned, Possum…:) There’s good strategy and there’s pure bullshit. There is a difference, even in Presidential politics.
Personally, I don’t think Obama should be indulging Hillary. She has run over time and out of luck. She lost. He has shown he can win among democrats and the non-aligned in spite of Hillary’s sleight-of-hand politics. He can certainly win with the wider community wiithout her. He has to be unequivocal about this. Presidential politics is about leadership above all. It is not about ass-kissing. This is McCain’s problem: he has started the kiss-kiss politics already and it is going to lead him into the abyss.
Hatred? Strong word DG. Disappointment that she has shown such an abysmal lack of character – definitely. Disapproval of the campaign tactics she has adopted – absolutely. But not hatred.
Hatred describes the words that I have read on many a blog from around the world, I am afraid. And even if it is not hatred, if that is how I – a moderate Clinton supporter – interpret it then think how it will be interpreted by those more committed than I.
Actually, DG, if you read the U.S. blogs, FAR more vitriol has spewed from Clinton supporters than the other way around, despite blogs being dominated by Obama supporters.
Some of her supporters view Obama (and his supporters) as having stolen the nomination from her, which has created a great deal of anger, along with threats about voting for McCain if Obama gets the nomination (which he now has).
But anyway, it is all about healing now. Once the general election campaign gets into full swing, and the main issues about the future come into the spotlight, such as the economy, healthcare, Iraq, climate change, and so on, I think that many of the angry Hillary supporters will think twice about whether they really want another four years of Republican rule.
correction: ‘more committed than me’
If you are the sort of person who is not awfully fond of George & Dick, then it’s worth lingering to catch the detail in this one.
http://caglepost.com/cartoon/Pat+Bagley/51608/Cheney+Bush+Inbreeding+COLOR.html
Noocat,
That is not how I read it. But, again, hearing from reasonable voices in the opposite camp does give you an insight into the perceptions that will play a big part in determining what happens at election time.
This is a major issue, I think. In fact, I think that the hatred or percieved hatred among supporters is way more significant than any personal problems between Hillary and Barack. This is why Hillary as VP could be necessary. Hillary might be satisfied – or at least say she is satisfied
– with health alone. But will her supporters be satisfied with that?
It is not Hillary who must be appeased or indulged or however it might be described. It is her supporters.
David- I do not hate Hillary.
My point was that as an Australian observer I know little about her, and intially hoped she would win. She lost my support (irrelevant anyway as i can’t vote) because of the dishonesty and lack of integrity that she displayed throughout the campaign. my other point is that it is sill to suggest that her being first lady for 8 years has not had any bearing on her rise to power.
You can try and dismiss what I say – I expect that from Clinton supporters, but many American women have swapped to Obama for the very reasons I am stating. (I read the international media and blogs too).
Of course it has had some bearing on her rise to power. She was going to be powerful and influential whoever she married. She married Bill and that marriage helped him become President and then that in turn helped her. It is patronising to dismiss her by effectively saying, ‘Oh, she wouldn’t be where she is without having married him.’ It is technically true, but it is false in the sense that is intended – which is simply to belittle her.
Good point, although I would add that we are talking about a subgroup in each supporter camp. Plenty of Obama supporters, including myself, would have supported Hillary had she become the Dem. nomination (even if less enthusiastically), and I’m sure there are plenty of Hillary supporters who are about to throw their support behind Obama.
But regarding the Hillary supporters who are deeply angered over an Obama nomination, I don’t think making her VP is necessary to bridge the divide. If she is offered a key role by Obama, if Hillary throws her support behind him, and if he speaks glowingly and respectfully of her and her supporters, then I think the wounds will heal.
DG
I agree with you that there is tremendous hate for Hillary.
That is my whole point.
There is tremendous hate for her. There is tremendous hate for Bush. Supporters of one or the other can’t understand the hate but it is there…and in massive quantities.
Politics doesn’t have to be this bad.
People don’t hate John McCain. They don’t hate Al Gore. They don’t hate Barack Obama.
The Dem Party need to rid themselves of the Clintons. I don’t mean altogether from the Party, but at least from leadership status.
The Repugs will do the same to the Bush’s when the penny drops.
btw DG, i agree with your #501. They have always been a team.
HarryH at 503:
“The Repugs will do the same to the Bush’s when the penny drops.”
http://cartoonbox.slate.com/dwanepowell/2008/06/03/
It is my point that this tremendous hate is irrational and should not be pandered to. It is also the case that thinking that you can have nice happy non-partisan politics when there are incredibly important issues about which people passionately disagree combined with the need to seek power to get your way is simply a denial of the real world.
Hillary to endorse Obama on Saturday: BREAKING NEWS!
EC, this one’s a keeper…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6076155,00.jpg
David
The hate is real. It is a reality. And it is deserved.
Everyone knows that politics is ugly and brutal but the politicians don’t have to be hated this much.
As i said, others aren’t. So there is a reason why the Clintons and the Bush’s are.
On the question of ‘new politics’ – there has been a tremendous shift within the Democratic Party’s power structures over the past year or two, and it is well illustrated by Obama’s victory. The party is no longer controlled by the Clintons, the DLC, and big soft money donors who are giving to both parties. That faction has been defeated by Obama, a legion of grassroots organisations like Move.on, and millions of internet donors. It remains to be seen how Obama will behave when beholden to more than the Democratic base, but this is a very worthy start, and if any ‘new politics’ were to arrive, they would start here.
HarryH,
I can understand why the right hate Hillary. I have no idea why the left hate her.
I also do not understand hatred of Bush. But maybe that is because I do not understand hatred too well. I mean, I would not vote for him or indeed a Republican in a pink fit, and I do not have many of those (unless it’s pink tafetta). But hatred?
HarryH
I agree on the hate thing and that it is best if Hillary is not the VP. However I don’t think the hate is all her fault. She has become bitter and negative in the second half of this campaign but the hate started long before that. So was she hated because she was negative or negative because she was hated. Overall I find it hard not to conclude that the USA is more misogynist than racist, and its still pretty racist!
For the record, although I originally preferred Clinton to Obama, my real preference for the Dems was John Edwards, but he dropped out early. Still, I’m happy with Obama now too. As for Bush, there are good reasons for the hatred.
Mutiny forced her out:
“Howard Fineman dropped a bombshell tonight on Countdown. On the lead story, about Hillary Clinton’s decisions to suspend her campaign, Fineman reported that figures in Hillary’s campaign reached out to strong Clinton supporters in the Senate to talk her into dropping out!
Fineman didn’t identify his source, other than to say it was someone inside the campaign “who would be identified as a hard-core supporter.” People inside Clinton’s campaign arranged an intervention by her peers to get her out of the race, knowing she had lost and apparently also knowing that she didn’t know it.”
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/4/21524/30103/37/529822
Soc
I’m not trying to diagnose why the hatred is there. I’m just saying that it is a reality. And it is wide spread.
Pancho 510
I agree.
Hehehehehe
I wonder how many electoral votes 78% of the popular vote gets you?
Ridiculous.
David –
I completely agree that Hillary does not deserve to be hated.
But she certainly deserves the loss of respect she has brought upon herself throughout this campaign.
Bush on the other hand deserves to be hated.
For those enjoying the theatre of this whole shamozzle, I just saw a good question posted at DKos – what’s Bill gonna do on Saturday?
Play golf with Ron Paul?
1. She will “suspend” her campaign
2. She will “endorse” Obama candidacy and “do whatever required” to help him and unite the Party
3. She will “keep” all her delegates and supporters
4. She will sit back and enjoy herself
5. Interpret whichever ways you like with “suspend” “endorse” “do whatever required” “keep”
1.) ‘Win the nomination’
2.) ‘Win the nomination’
3.) ‘Win the nomination’
4.) ‘Win the nomination’
Then she can sit back and enjoy herself.
David
I’ll have a go at why I hate Bush. First, he deliberately started a war that killed a million people for completely false motives. Second, he has ignored almost every principle on which his office and nation was founded (abuse of powers, domestic spying, torture, corruption, nepotistic appointments, religeous activism …). Third, he does all this while claiming to be a devout christian.
He comes across as a polite guy because he wants to, but it is only for instrumental purposes – he does it to manipulate people. His treatment of those who oppose him is utterly ruthless eg dismissals from Justice Department. He sees the world in very black and white terms (you’re either with him or against him) and thinks any tactic to advance his causes is OK. And he uses the State assets of the most powerful nation on earth to that end, even if he creates enormous long term problems for that nation in the process.
All these are only symptoms of the real problem: he is a lying sociopath. I think those drugs and alcohol binges as a young man have done some damage in his brain IMO. The moral centre is pretty much gone, if it was ever there. He’s ben a moral coward since he dodged the Vietnam War in a drunken stupor.
I’d recommend reading Peter Singers “The President of Good and Evil” on Dubbya.
DG – I’d have thought something a little more confrontational. Probably with more swearing. Seriously though, I wonder if he will endorse too.
.
1. That’s not “really” the “number” one.
2. Yeah sure. I’m just “typing”.
Socrates,
I guess I just see Bush as a product of his environment and upbringing. There is nothing there to be hated, just a suffering human being to be pitied. Oh, and preferably removed from any position of power or influence, of course!
I will note for the record (and this will completely destroy my leftist credibility on this forum – assuming I have any, of course!
) that I supported the invasion of Iraq, although for none of the reasons presented by Bush and co.
David
You are very kind and perhaps I am less noble. But I think ther are too many innocent human beigns being harmed by Bush to tolerate him. Also there are lots of people who had Bush’s upbringing who haven’t acted the same. In the end, if we are adult human beings with free will, we must be accountable for our actions to some degree. I marched against the Iraq invasion in 2003, because it was obviously based on lies from the start.
I’m sure that he would swear at Ron Paul. Especially if Paul had brought along a bunch of his annoying supporters along. And they could both complain about conspiracies to defeat them by the MSM every time they missed a putt.
So Hillary is hoping Obama either implodes or gets assassinated and then the Democratic Party turns to her?
Ah, Socrates, but I do not believe in free will. That enables me to seem nobler, to those who do, perhaps.
I agree that the Iraq invasion was obviously based on lies from the start.
Yes, Hillary is sitting up at night praying that someone kills Obama.
Honestly, this is the kind of crap that pushes Hillary supporters away. Even if it is meant facetiously, it is not helpful in bringing the Democratic Party back together. If you are using it as a joke, you need to be more explicit because internet communication is notorious for difficulties in that regard.
Gosh, I’m pompous!
Kinda like running an electoral poll at Daily Kos though Max. I don’t think I really learnt anything from it!
I’ve been poking around the InTrade state by state data.
On most days, most of states have no trades at all. Number of contracts over the last week is (contract value of $100):
Date Volume
30/05 2
31/05 91
1/06 0
2/06 46
3/06 126
4/06 16
5/06 356
By way of comparison “Obama to win POTUS” has traded about 8,500 contracts over the same period.
So the volume in the state by state contracts is picking up but still very thin.
As Richard Nixon once famously said: “just think how much you’re going to be missing. You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore”.
The POTUS is for Obama to lose. He better wins in Nov. Getting a bit scared are we?
Finns – not really.
Sullivan on the timing of the end of an era:
“The concession speech has been postponed to Saturday. That couldn’t have had anything to do with the fact that Friday will be the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F Kennedy, could it?”
1 thing i think people have missed throughout this entire campaign is the behind the scenes enmity between Howard Dean and the DLC.
The DLC(led by the Clintons) defeated Dean and moveon in 2004. Kerry got the lame duck nomination that was always doomed to fail in the afterglow of 9/11 and the young War. Clinton was biding her time for 08.
Dean got the job as DNC honcho against the concerted efforts of the DLC. Dean and moveon joined with Obama to accelerate his plans and with his antiwar stance there was an opening to go for the gold in 08 against the Hillary Powerhouse.
DLC attack dogs like Carville and others started pushing for Dean’s sacking as DNC head, saying his 50 state strategy was a disaster etc etc.
Unlike 2004, the DLC has lost the battle this time.
It is now firmly Obama and Deans Party for the immediate future.
And the looks on peoples faces like Carville,McAulliffe,Ickes,Lanny Davis etc etc are priceless.
The DLC missed the internet boat.
The DLC controlled the fundraising in the Democratic Party and hence controlled the power.
But then along came the internet and people like moveon. Dean cottoned on early and harnessed it.
They now control the fundraising and hence control the Power.
Hatred is an intense emotion. Like the other intense emotions (fear, anger, sadness – even euphoria), it is okay in short doses – because it can (should) produce a response to deal with dire, or threatening situations – and the intense emotion should then subside. When it doesn’t – it is a problem.
Hatred can be ‘neutralised’ by other emotional states beginning with ‘tolerance’ but even better with ‘acceptance’ and best of all – ‘forgiveness’.
Those who cannot let go of their hate – remain in a very unpleasant emotional sphere. But if they can allow themselves to literally ‘feel’ some tolerance within themselves – that is, tolerance of themsleves (first) & also others – then hatred loses it grip on them.
And they – of course – are nice happy little fluffy bunnies, with no personal ambitions, spitefullness, nasty personality flaws et cetera et cetera … Change we can believe in, indeed!
Just heard that McCain’s slogan is “A Leader We Can Believe In”.
The Americans are even Me-Tooing Me-Tooing.
Maybe the slogan will be ‘Yes, me can.’
No kumbayah on my part David. Politics is brutal and ugly.
I do think the DLC and the Clintons were a blight though, and i think Obama and Dean suit my positions a bit better.
But then again, i prefer Julia to Kevin.
I tend to think we would disagree there too. No?
DG – No doubt there are plenty in the Obama camp with mountainous egos and unsavoury connections. The main thing they have over the DLC though, is that they have built a 50 state strategy (whereas the DLC concentrated money and power in DC around Bill), they have taken Congress back (which was lost for the first time in decades under the DLC), and they are on the verge of winning a filibuster-proof majority (which would mean that reforms that the DLC led party couldn’t achieve – eg. a healthcare package – will be a thing of the past, and other policies actively championed by DLC stooges – eg. interventionist wars of choice – will also be out the door). Seems like all good stuff to me.
I would prefer Julia to Kevin, actually, but in a pragmatic political sense Kevin is the better leader. And I do like Kevin a lot, apart from his religious bent.
I doubt that they will reach the filibuster. They might, but it will be very tough.
As to the DLC losing congress for the first time, they also just happened to win two presidential terms, something that the Democrats have never been very proficient at …
Obama’s nomination victory speech is worth a view,
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c
Stirring stuff and surprisingly detailed in term of what “change” means. Skip to the last few minutes if you are in mood for a big cresendo. I can’t see McCain generating that kind of energy.
Only one mention of “working families” – which is one too many in my view.
DG – With just a touch of help from Ross Perot. The DLC left the party in tatters, and won’t be missed by much of the rank and file.
I agree with you about St Kev lol.
I will be eternally grateful for him for beating JWH. He was perfect kryptonite to JWH. And i supported him vociferously here leading up to November last year.
I don’t like him though.
Ok sorry for the off topic guys n gals.
About this “all politicians are the same” thing that keeps getting thrown around when comparing Obama to whoever – it’s crap.
Here in Oz I have a distinct preference for Bob Brown over say, Phillip Ruddock. To say the 2 men are similar is utterly ridiculous, but they are indeed both career politicians.
RA @ 537: I could hardly believe my eyes. It’s not like they were trialling it in some non-televised yokel event to see how it went. It’s also not even catchy (’a leader’: 3 syllables; ‘change’: 1 syllable).
Sure, there are advantages to playing the underdog card when you’re from the incumbent party and the incumbent is disliked. But the message it mostly sends is ‘Obama is the primary candidate, he’s the one who comes up with the ideas, and I’m the secondary candidate who responds to those ideas’. Why, 5 months out, are you already playing on the opposition’s turf?
If the McCain team don’t come to their senses and run a Presidential campaign rather than a spoiler campaign, they will do very badly indeed.
They need to be careful, too, because the anticipated message of ‘this man is untried, untested, not experienced enough to lead’ undercuts the tried-and-true GOP message of ‘this Dem candidate is just another cosy member of the liberal northeastern college-educated Washington club’. It might work; I’m just saying it’s risky, because it’s not easy to think of many US Presidential elections where ‘lack of experience of the losing candidate’ was a real motivator of votes on polling day.
WTR – some good excepts of the old fella’s speech and responses here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198681.php. Pretty funny stuff. And a terrible tactical choice to be speaking in parallel with Obama. I don’t think we’ll be seeing too much more of that happening.
Me either harry- still prefer Beazley, but Kev beat Howard so eternal gratitude from me.
(which, by the way, is exactly why I think ardent Clinton supporters will support Obama in the end.)
possible concession
This is my first post since Obama’s speeech on what I think Hillary will do. My prediction is that , IF Hillary does concede she will make all of yous obnoxious venimous remarks for the last 3 months look politically foolish by again showing she has class , ‘ticker’ and has been & is a fine Democrat (with far better ‘left’ policys than Obama on Kyoto & universal healthcare)
Hillary will first of all legitimatively talk about her compaign as is normal political practice. She will talk longer than normal because the race was close being only on a 2% pledged delegate swing and 17.8 million voted for her. Hillary will mention the closeness of the ultimate result based on actual audited votes cast reflected in Obama just winning the pledged delegate race and she just winning the popular vote. She will mention key ‘left’ programs she has put to voters such as conservation & the need for global warming targets (whether she mentions the key policy difference of her ‘Kyoto vs Obama’s 13 country only ‘”GEF” alternative perhaps , or a generic reference to a World agreed targets mechanism) Naturally reference to universal healthcare made , a subject most of yous butterflys by your 3 months lack of comment on it , regard like an oyster picture frame , just to look at & ‘move on’ and forget. She will say she will continue to fight for ‘universality’ of healthcare. Then all the voters & supporters thanks , and maybe a shot at the Repugs policys. She’ll emphasise her & Obama sharing common Democrat values & that will be met with universal agreeement here. The gracious congratulations to Obama will include a concession that the people by majority have spoken and she will pledge to work for the Party & ask her supporters to also do so so that Party can win POTUS plus the US of A jigabit they all do. Thereafter some bees will hot rod williams bandwidth & I’ll again redefend the lady
Jen,
All successful politicians are the same, in that they need ruthlessness and the ability to compromise (and, yes, this means compromise their principles, too). I respect Brown. However, he has not actually acheived all that much of his political agenda. Indeed, Garrett and Wong will acheive far more of Brown’s political agenda in the next three years than Brown has in his career, and they will not be implementing much of it.
Obama has read his Machiavelli, as a colleague of his said yesterday.
I accept that there are obviously degrees in all this, however.
And, yes, I am a cynical bastard. I work at Parliament House, so I need to be.
As the Democrats have rejected the views of the one person who has won two elections for them in the last 60 years perhaps the views of the only living Republican to win 2 elections in the last 60 years are worth considering:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262224698246807.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
(nowhere that matters, by the way)
DG
536
I was surprised to read your sarcastic line about “nice fluffy bunnies” after your noble sentiments earlier (523) where you felt that GWB should be understood on the basis that he is a product of his environment? (As opposed to a war criminal who should be hauled before the international court of justice)
Aren’t the nice fluffy bunnies products of their environment too?
*laugh*
DG@551
Ah, but would Garrett and Wong be there to implement their agenda if Brown wasn’t? I know the AD’s were there for many years, but there’s was a very centrist agenda (notwithstanding some individuals attempts to be both radical and left wing) – Brown’s capacity to move a bunch of people on the environment has now meant that it is an agenda that needs to be considered. Or maybe Labor just remembers Richo and the environment movement in 1990 and knows they have to deliver something (even its not that much). I like to think of it as Brown et al providing a balancing agenda in a parliament that tends towards conservatism.
My point was that there are no nice fluffy bunnies in politics, and people who claim that the people they support are nice fluffy bunnies are deluded.
However, any nice fluffy bunnies in politics would indeed be products of their environment. They would not last very long, though, as all the predators would devour them. That’s natural selection for you.
Fellow Bludgers, please allow me to share with you once again on this glorious occasion, the wit and wisdom of Gouldie on the Hill, or GotH, to his legions of neonatal devotees.
(boos, jeers, hisses followed by conga line of chortlers)
-Order! Order!
-Thank you, Mistah Moderator…..
-Today’s installment:
-The Lonliness of the Long Distance Decider.
GotH upthread: “I guess I just see Bush as a product of his environment and upbringing. There is nothing there to be hated, just a suffering human being to be pitied.”
(from the four corners of cyberspace assorted Bludgers roll from their seats laughing uncontrollably, some on the verge of apoplexy)
So what do you do in Parliament House, Gouldie, put out the chairs for the H.R. Nicholls society meetings when your not too busy tugging your forelock for PNAC missionaries?
Stewart,
I accept that Brown has helped move the agenda. Indeed, it is my belief that you need the moral crusaders and the unprincipled bastards to shift public opinion. However, Brown and the Greens in general could have done a lot more if they had been willing to shift a bit of ground now and then – particularly in Tasmania. Leaving it totally to Labor, who are obviously stacked with unionists from non-green industries, means that any progress at all is very slow. A bit of compromise here and there would have worked wonders. (imo).
I am not sure what a PNAC missionary is, but I am sure that my forelock tugging would be favourably commented upon by any such that I encountered.
I am a humble Hansard editor.
And Uriah Heep was an ever so ‘umble man too.
Gouldie, you’re slipping, you only managed to fit four “I”s into two sentences.
Well, on any division these days the ayes tend to have it.
Disappointed at the title of the thread. Why focus on Hillary. How about “this is the moment”
Touche!
Pancho @ 543
Although the editing was unkind – McCain’s speech was clearly woeful. You felt sorry for the guy as he tried to smile and laugh and instead looked like he was in pain and trying to breath.
I think it is pretty clear from the story that Reuters is running that Obama has not intention of picking HRC as his running mate.
Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would search broadly for a vice presidential running mate and feels no pressure to make a quick decision.
“It will be a deliberate process,” Obama told ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, a day after clinching enough delegates to become the Democratic party nominee.
“You know, my charge is to cast a wide net. I will narrow it down,” he said. “I will meet with a range of individuals and get my sense of whether they share a vision for where the country needs to go and whether they can provide me with the independent counsel and possess the integrity that I think are necessary for the presidency.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/04/obama-says-he-will-cast-a-wide-net-in-vp-search/
WTR
McCain is gonna completely bomb in the campaign.
He is like a walking talking(mumbling) corpse.
64yo Maverick McCain would have been a good candidate in 2000.
72yo Warmonger McCain is a dud in 2008.
He has respect but is a horrible future president.
Agreed HarryH what he gains by being less conservaytive than Bush on some issues, he loses by being hand in hand with Bush on Iraq. Watching the 2 speeches you would expect this will become a walkover
Serious question – what happens if he (McCain) dies, or even if he gets too sick to campaign? I mean he really does look a little frail to me.
What’s the GOP’s fallback position? Hucks?
That might be Hillary’s best shot.
432
Timbo
Ah, Bennelong, that was my best bet last year! LOL
Poor Eddy only backs losers and then spends months telling us why and insulting everyone who doesn’t want to join his losers club. What a crack up! LOL
569
dogb, I have wondered that myself. Every time I have seen him, he hasn’t looked at all well, and often seems out of breath. It’s not a good start to competing for what is potentially one of the most stressful jobs in the world.
If he didn’t become too ill to run, then I guess the GOP would have to come up with a new candidate, but they would be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Huckabee came second, so I guess he would be the next fairest option, but there’s no way he would have a chance at winning. He pulls in the religious Right, but not much else.
Noocat @572
It doesn’t appear to have been that stressful for W. Just for those around him with a vestige of a conscience.
Ron, you’ve been telling us non-stop that the superdelegates will ditch Obama en masse and switch to Clinton, thereby handing her the nomination and you think her concession is going to make US look politically foolish?
553
Edward StJohn
Hillary Clinton did not win two presidential elections Eddy, and if her husband had not she would not even have been in the primary race most likely.
And as for regurgitating Karl Rove, let’s remember the Republican Reich has already fallen and now it’s architect is a paid talking head and McCain adviser.
Why would anyone take anything he says as being anything but the most partisan bit of game playing?
Bush’s ex-gimp is not top on the list of Democrat’s reading list although apparently you’re gullible enough to think his drivel is something else.
573
Inner Westie – that is very true! That’s why I snuck in the word “potentially”!
My thoughts exactly Noocat. Has GWB does so much damage to the GOP that the alternative to a frail old man is a religious nutbag?
Seems to me that one side of politics is scraping the bottom of the barrel while the other has had an embarrassment of riches. I mean Edwards would have been an extremely good nominee and he came third!
HarryH,
How quickly the narrative changes, in 24 hours its gone from divided democrates to resuscitated republicans.
Noocat @576
Ah yes, the old sneakily-inserted “potentially” (LOL). And the Vice President’s job is potentially one unsuited to creepy misanthropic war-fetishists. (So that rules out Hillary, potentially.)
Very perceptive article setting out the weakness of the hopemaster by the dean of the Washington press corp, David Broder. Urging a “nominee” to be strong at the moment of “triumph” tells you everything about how the race is shaping up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_stumbles_into_the_genera.html
For those with a keen interest in the US election, you may wish to visit this site http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
580
EStJ
Thing is Eddie, Obama has faced his toughest opponent already, and he beat her -easily.
McCain will be easy in comparison.
579
Yep, she sure showed some potential for war-mongering a few times during the campaign, so with Obama winning, I reckon we potentially dodged a bullet there.
And she didn’t hold back either. She played the role of a Republican very well, with as much smear and fear as she could manage, yet Obama came through with barely a scratch. I’d say he is more than ready to face the GOP. The question is, however, are they ready for him?
Eddy
All you have to do is say “yes, at this stage i think McCain will win in Nov” and then all your posts can take on an air of credibility.
At the moment all you are doing is throwing muck at the walls.
Hmm. Given that it was one of the closest primary races in history, Obama did not beat Clinton ‘easily’. And I would also argue that because he is a Democrat, she played with one hand behind her back. She had no choice but to do that, as any cost-benefit analysis would show. However, the Republicans are not so constrained. So, while it certainly was an excellent test for Obama, it will not necessarily have been the easier of the two campaigns.
AL
Replying to your post to me , IF Hillary does concede , I indicated in #550 what I thought she’d say (being 95% of my post) and I assumed any reader would see the intro sentences as just that , an intro. So I’ll make it plainer
If Hillary warranted the gutter level personal venimous remarks made by most Obama supporters against Hillary for the last 3 months , then she would be making an extremely ‘bitter’ and/or grossly unhelpful to Obama speech , (further alienating the already aliented Hillary voters in millions ) But If instead Hillary does not do so , then Hillary will make all of yous politically foolish by again showing she has class , ‘ticker’ and has been & is a fine Democrat (with far better ‘left’ policys than Obama on Kyoto & universal healthcare etc)
David
Do you also acknowledge that Obama played with one hand tied behind his back? and much more so than Clinton.
Gloves are off now. The Dems will hit the Republicans with the kitchen sink from here on in. Just as the Republicans will do to them.
Everything favours the Dems.
Don’t be scared of the big bad Republicans. They are gonna get slayed.
I agree that Obama played with one hand tied behind his back. However, given that Obama is making much of his new politics idea, if he gets down in the gutter with the Republican attack machine, he may not come off so well. That is another reason why Hillary would be a good VP pick. She can do the dirt, so he can retain the shine.
As a cynical bastard, I do not think that the Republicans will be slayed. I think Obama will win, however. With Clinton as VP, though, the Republicans would indeed get slayed.
enjoying the back and forth David.
i think we will agree to differ where we differ and agree to agree where we agree though.
Come on y’all – give Hillary her dues. I’d like to borrow from 236.com for my appreciation. Ahem…
http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/03/hillary_clinton_tminus_0_days_1_6913.php
Those who think the hardest part is behind Obama should think again. The US is a very strange place: voting is not compulsary; the popular vote does not decided the winner; most states almost always support one side or the other; the big issues are usually things like abortion; their head of gov is also their head of state; they are extremely religious, etc. This race is unprecedented in almost every way and picking the winner may as well be a coin flip. I suspect it will be close and for Ohio to determine the winner.
*No Republican has ever won the Whitehouse without winning Ohio
HarryH,
Oh, debates like this are not for changing each other’s minds. They are for fun.
Pancho
591
And that was HRC “playing with one hand tied behind her back” (DG @ 586) – glad she lost the nomination before she could unleash armageddon!
HarryH
I don’t think the Obama campaign will throw mud at McCain. He was clear in his speech the other night that his differences with McCain were over policy – (which he attacked with a great deal of eloquence) – but he would not descend to personal abuse no matter what McCain said about him.
EC enough with the touche parliamentary paper! Mr B oops Dr Bollard may strike a match.
586
DG, you are right about the margin of victory not showing an “easy” win. But if you consider the fact that Hillary was around 20 points ahead of Obama in the polls a year ago and was widely recognised as a shoe-in for the nomination, plus of course, a tonne of name recognition and a heap of money, you have to give credit where it is due: Obama did EXTREMELY well to overcome all these hurdles and clinh the nomination.
Sure, it wasn’t easy, but it was an impressive triumph considering the starting lines.
You might assume that, but in fact Hillary did nothing of the sort. She dumped on Obama as much as she possibly could, even to the point of saying McCain was better qualified to be president than Obama, not to mention the smear attacks, race-baiting, and so on.
It was the way in which Hillary went about trying to beat Obama, by doing the dirty work for the Republicans, that created such a division between Obama and Hillary supporters. While the hardcore Hillary supporters were happy for Hillary to do whatever it took to win, the Obama supporters were aghast over the depths that Hillary sunk to, which is why she lost so much respect.
I think that people are forgetting clashes between Hillary and other opponents of the Clintons if they think that she went full out for the jugular and the testicles …
And, yes, Obama’s victory was very impressive indeed.
Agreed re Ohio. (unless Hillary is veep) But I think Obama will win Ohio without Hillary.
Grace
I wholeheartedly agree.
The kitchen sink that they will throw at the Republicans is their record and their stances. The facts. They will be killer.
The Republicans will throw fear…as usual.
In 2008 the Democrats with Obama have a winning combination for the mood of the nation.
The Repugs had that in 2000 and 2004.
Politics is all about the countries mood. It goes in cycles.
Do people vote on facts these days? There must have been some kind of revolution somewhere that I missed.
I do not think that McCain will descend to personal abuse, either. But the Republican attack machine will.
“I think that people are forgetting clashes between Hillary and other opponents of the Clintons if they think that she went full out for the jugular and the testicles …”
over the Pastor , Ayers , Rezko , ‘bitter’ -gate , Iran , . Farrak Nation of Islam , his Lobbyists & the oil companies etc, Hillary was gentile because Obama was a fellow Democrat. The Repugs hate Hillary because she has not been gentile with
them You guys should bypass Obama’s ’spin site’ (all Pollies sites are ’spin’) and look at Senate records
602
David of course they will, but they won’t get the numbers in Nov.
You can tell by the mood and body language and words of guys like Sean Hannity. They know they’re f*cked. They are gonna throw mud like it’s going out of fashion. But it won’t work.
80% of the country think they are going in the wrong direction.
Core Republicans from 43% in 2003 to 29% in 2008.
Core Democrats from 43% in 2003 to 51% in 2008.
Independants may like both McCain and Obama but they are preferring the Dems. Thats all that matters.
You cannot beat those numbers.
HarryH,
Again, I think that Obama will win. However, those numbers are a distortion of the true picture, simply because of where those increased numbers turn out. If they turn out in safe Democrat states, they will have no impact. If they turn out in safe Republican states, they will have no impact. Thus, there are certain key states in which the game will be played, this magical ‘50 state strategy’ notwithstanding. I think that the game favours Obama. But not by as much as everyone here. (And I am more positive about Obama’s chances than I was a week or so ago after reading what Possum had to say).
David G @ 593 [Oh, debates like this are not for changing each other’s minds.]
I don’t know about that David – we Obama supporters here changed r/Ron’s mind successfully. He used to be a Barry supporter, but we turned him on to Hillary with our “gutter level personal venimous remarks”. So, people can be persuaded if you try hard enough
David G @ 589
As Noocat said, Barry started 20 points behind Hills even late last year, with no profile, little top level Dem support, no spouse in the White House for 8 years, and nothing but a message. He then built a superb campaign, harnessed the internet, raised huge financial support, devised an amazing primaries strategy, spoke as a visionary right throughout, stood above the political hackpack, and changed the minds a huge proportion of super delegates. Hillary arrrogantly expected to win by 5 Feb, ignored the internet, ran a terrible campaign throughout with resignations and sackings, had big money problems, went nasty and negative, lied brazenly (hence the ‘hatred’), lost the support of the senior members of the party, used her husband (which backfired), and generally squandered the huge advantage she had 6 months ago. Gee, what an organiser!
She failed to convince those of power and influence in the party that she was up to the job of POTUS, and how people can now argue that she demonstrated anything that would be of value as VP in the Obama campaign or administration is simply denying the obvious. Compared to Barry, she is a dud.
80% of Americans want change – no, they want CHANGE!!. Obama has a coherent plan for change domestically and internationally. Hillary, with her old lobby politics and ars*licking of the rabid US based Israel lobbly, when the majority of Israelis themeselves are prepared to give up land to the Palestinians for peace, and belligerent foreign affairs approach (obliterate the bastards) disentitles her to lead the people of the US at this potentially historical moment in world history. The US has to try to fix the M East, Iraq, Iran and relations with a large part of the world. She is simply not equipped to assist in that endeavor.
That isn’t hatred – it’s a realistic judgement of degree as to which candidate is the more likely to change the US and the world into safer, more inclusive and constructive places.
And yet despite all that at 606, Hillary is at $4.20 favourite for VP on Betfair, with Kath Sebelius at $5.50, Jim Webb at $6.40, Al Gore at $10.50, and Richardson at $12.50.
jv
you say it much more eloquently than i.
Spot on JV, Obama has overcome great odds to be the nominee. I like many used to like Hillary until she morphed into a republican with rhetoric and tactics. I dont hate her, I just think she has conducted herself very poorly, and doesnt deserve the VP job
I like webb for VP but didnt he rule this out weeks ago
She’s conceding on Saturday:
http://wonkette.com/400220/hillary-quits-i-will-extend-my-congratulations-to-senator-obama-and-my-support-for-his-candidacy#more-400220
jv
the VP is wide open. But the Fave has no chance.
Sibellius
Gore
Richardson
Nunn
Dodd
Hagel
Lugar
I’m still intrigued why Axelrod dropped Lugar’s name in his important interview right before Obama claimed the nomination. They have worked well together in the Senate, introducing Bills together etc. He is on the Senate Arms services committee and is a respected antiwar Republican.
Other than that i don’t know much about him.
612
*when i say antiwar, i mean he turned on the Iraq War long ago and basically supports the Obama Democratic view.
Apparently the Clintons have something on Richardson rooting around, and have made known they would use it if he was to get the VP nod. While the rest of the world would chuckle at the irony of such tactics being employed by team C, I wouldn’t be plonking a bet on him.
Robert B @ 611
Just look at Hillary’s photo with the letter – dear oh dear.
HarryH @ 612
Unfortunately Hagel and Lugar aren’t available on Betfair. If they were it would be a winner to back all the others with the same amount, but leaving HRC out. Like a non-punter’s Melbourne Cup bet – back everything but the favourite.
Maybe they’ll put Lugar in now he’s been mentioned.
Pancho 614
That is funny and most probably true.
Richardson really did sell them out at a crucial time.
The Clinton camp would hate him with a passion.
Best off Richo just gets a cabinet spot then lol.
There goes the dancing in the street of West Bank and Gaza as Obama thundered that Jerusalem will always be the capital of Israel and he will not allow it to be divided. Poor Hamas, they were just setting up a dancing ensemble to celebrate the election Obama nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?em&ex=1212811200&en=1251af2bab183afd&ei=5087
Described as weak and emasculated – hmmm great descriptors for the next President of the United States?
The doom-meter must be ringing off the charts in Dean Central.
Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world – from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.
Who said this Jen?
HarryH
It wont be dodd. The democrats have learnt the hard way NEW ENGLAND is a BIG No NO. If only Nunn were younger.
It will depend on Hillary to a degree. Interestingly there is a rumour if she cant have it she dosnt want another woman to have it as it may diminish her place in history. Is it true? maybe maybe not.
I am intruiged at reading American sites that they don’t metion Easly the North Carolina governor that much.
There does seem to be abit of a renewed push for edwards due to his nuetral status in the campaign and the high reguad many women have for his wife Elizabeth. Big problem is he dosnt really want to again. Shame.
I think of the big 3 rust belt surogates Bayh is in front.
I would also blanche lincon seems to be a hot ruffy. (not that type of hot. but).
Many like the bumper sticker idea due to her name. Supported clinton. (Mirror mirror on the wall who is the bluest purple southern state of them all). Still i think governors trump senators.
Eddy
who do you think will win in Nov at this stage?
easy question considering one of the candidates is a turkey?
interested to hear your answer.
#621, HarryH, to get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. The right question is not whether Obama can beat McCain in November. The right Q is can Obama not beating himself in November.
November will be a referendum on Obama on all fronts. The signs are there that Obama has to change positions more often than the Kama Sutra recommended. He has to live up to the expectation of many people. In the end, the US voters might not know him as Arthur or Martha and just stick to the devil that they know.
After my moment of doubt last night and sudden retraction, I got bored with the conversation and went and looked at a little side issue…
According to the producers of the West Wing their character Matt Santos was based on Obama. So I went on Wikipedia and had a bit of a look. This is how the primaries on the show went to the various characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WWDemPrimaryElection2006.svg
What is interesting is Hillary won more of the states Santos won in the show than Obama did. And Obama’s victories look more like Russel’s than Santos’. I know it means nothing… but it was a little strange that they wrote about a long drawn out campaign two years before it actually happened.
Well said Finns. V.incisive analysis.
Eddy
One of the candidates is a turkey.
It is an easy question if you are fair dinkum in what you are posting.
If not, then you are posting an opinion that you don’t believe.
Don’t dodge it. If Obama is a November turkey, just say you think McCain will win in Nov.
It’s not a difficult question.
HarryH , I think Finns answered the question very well for you. If you dont understand the answer I cant help you.
You can not be any more transparent Eddy.
You actually realise that Obama will win more than some of his supporters here lol. You’re not silly.
Carry on though. It’s all fun right?
I look forward to your big pronouncement in October….after you have a few months of fun.
Harry If you need me to be a blank canvas for your hopes and aspirations thats OK by me.
BSF #623 The different states won by the fictional Santos and Obama are a product of different demographics. Santos was Hispanic so the show had him winning California, Texas and Florida. Also, there’s a 3rd candidate in the West Wing election who took out the deep south. Obama won that largely because of the black demographic – irrelevant to Santos.
very poor Eddy.
It’s very easy. Whether McCain beats Obama or Obama beats himself, the result will be McCain wins.
So if Obama is a turkey waiting to be basted, it shouldn’t be a hard question for you.
Who will win in Nov?
PS i won’t bore the board with this drivel any longer. A simple answer McCain or Obama from Eddy will suffice.
C’mon Eddy….it’s an easy question.
and no Eddy…not your usual reply of, yes Harry it is drivel (you are so predictable).
McCain or The Turkey?
The crescendo of faith in Obama reached cold fever pitch in j/v at #606 to DG
“80% of Americans want change – no, they want CHANGE!!. Obama has a coherent plan for change domestically and internationally”
“Change ?” I’ve been shorted “change” , what is it , where is it , buttercups please don’t tell me it’s all on an internet sight Don’t tell me its written by the same computer geez who wrote the Huck’ ’s site , can anyone detail what this change will be that i’ve asked for since March I asked k/r 2 nights ago what will change for the black poor after 4 Obama POTUS years. He says (quote) they won’t have to wait 4 years they’ll see it in 4 minutes. Well they’re easily satisfied , so I’ll ask about the white poor then , what change will they see from their own current poor status after 4 years & how and how will Iran’s uranium enrichment be curtailed if they ignore an Obama oratory coalese to th Mullahs ?
Thurs June 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=ApipKVn3FDeqFvKCE1aN0_pT_b4F
Thurs June 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tonyauth;_ylt=ApIVIMJ6O6w6cVRukrW0._MV2r8F
Thanks EC
Thanks for the 2nd link EC , the link has at least told me where the secret “change’ message is hidden…….its in the clouds. couldn’t see the butterflys , they must be indem clouds as well
Ron, you’re more than welcome, butterflys don’t go out in the rain but do be reassured that there is an ant at every picnic, mate.
Rain, hail or bloody shine!
———————————-
Thurs June 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AhnIURDmMmwoKbHkcpten3ZN_b4F
Thurs June 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/edstein;_ylt=AgmhFHbh0NBlC_J5SC6_13JJ_b4F
Thus June 5:
Pointless having a death-style really if it can’t be enhanced.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=AgiS0Gx_Q9q9DgRLmCxY2b7X.sgF
629 – Yeah, I understand why it is; I just think it is interesting and instead of life following the art, it is instead giving a mirror image. And that is somewhat cool.
appreciate that , an ant , it must be with the donkey , the only one who has an umbrella
So Hillary loses on Tuesday and concedes Saturday. Any explanations for the latest act of lunacy???
EC , amidst the rain Obama & the supporters are being showered except the donkey with the umbrella and his mate the ant , and I left you the punchline of the donkey rider
Dominate the media on a slow news day? I think she was a little suprised that the Supers all came out on the final day of polling and not the day after. That is the only explaination I can think of.
Actually, Ron, the ants are hiding behind the tuft of grass in the lower right hand corner of the catoon. If you get a magnifying glass you can just make the a*se end of one. Argentinian, I think.
Surely it cannot be. To the right of Dubya? Not that soon anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403508.html?hpid=topnews
But some are harder to convince.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/05/israel_backers_hear_obamas_vow_of_fidelity/?page=2
True Finns, the bs detector has well and truly sounded with the hopemaster.
Ron,
Thing is, Hillary IS bitter. She’s gotta be hurting real bad, can you imagine sinking the amount of personal money into a campaign over a year and half, expecting to win and then being beaten? If she’s not hurting and not bitter, then it’s a miracle. I very much hope though, that she can conceal that well enough and come out with a strong concession speech and help to bring together the party.
The way things stand at the moment, most of the work to bring party unity needs to be done by Clinton. Obama’s been extending the olive branch a lot so far, and it’s time Clinton took it. I sincerely hope that she does do it, otherwise Obama won’t win the general election.
The Finnigans @ 642 – He hasn’t been saying anything different, but isn’t a ‘hardliner’ like McCain and Clinton are. Obama’s approach will be different, as his policies indicate, but he must spell out his credentials to local interest groups first:
“He said a safe Palestinian state is needed but terrorists must be beaten back and Israel’s security is and always will be paramount.”
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080604/NEWS07/80604070/1009/NEWS07
ESJ, maybe i should dub him the Kama Sutra man
Delegate totals:
2, 158 Obama 1,926 Clinton
1,763Pledged: 1,640Pledged:
395Superdels: 286Superdels:
(needed to win 2118)
Are there any undeclared supers left?? Where’s Cat when we need her??!!
Obama 6 points on McCain nationally according to new CBS poll. 12% of Dems saying they will support McCain compared with 8% in 2004 who suported Bush.
But of course this 12% figure will drop as time heals the Hillarians’ wounds. Clinton can assist this greatly by saying the right things in the right way on Saturday.
“Sen. Barack Obama holds a six point lead over Sen. John McCain, 48% to 42% with 6% undecided, according to a new CBS News poll.”
http://politicalwire.com/
Al youre right, and its a fallacy that Clinton has to be the VP candidate in order to help mend the divisions. She can start with a gracious (if belated) concession speech
JV, 12% of Dems for McCain is not a bad start for Obama, given the high % of Clinton supporters who said they would support McCain- would have expected the figure to be higher.
Andrew,
Demconwatch had Obama at 2190 with 117.5 undeclared supers remaining before they stopped tracking endorsements. Of those 33 are add-ons (some of which wouldn’t have been selected yet), 43 are DNC members and 28 members of the House of Reps.
It’s over, the numbers don’t matter any more. I wouldn’t expect to see any more official endorsements between now and the Convention (except hopefully Clinton’s).
Yes Andrew about a 100 havent endorsed him. Seems like they are underwhelmed.
Andrew [12% of Dems for McCain is not a bad start for Obama]
That’s right, just 4% above the 2004 defections isn’t too bad at this stage.
Not only that but the CBS poll was taken 30 May – 3 June, before the last primaries. So the ‘presumptive nominee bounce’ hasn’t been seen yet
So Hillary loses on Tuesday, and releases a statement on Wednesday saying she will concede on Saturday. She cant even lose properly
McCain’s problem is that he can’t do better than 45% in polls. Now the nomination battle is over, I’d expect a lot of Hillary’s supporters will move over to Obama, and that’ll improve his numbers in comparison to McCain.
barbarians never had dem magnifying glass’s , took an hour to make one , out of bronze , yea you’re right , can just make the a*se end of an Argentinian ant , only found in the ‘bush’
According to the CNN exit poll from 2004, the democratic vote for Bush was 11%. So I would say 12% is not too bad.
Stewart or Colbert (ok, their people) ought to slip this bill guy a juicy retainer. He writes some killer lines.
http://bill-in-portland-maine.dailykos.com/
From the same CBS Poll: Bush’s approval rating is now a stunning 25%!
EC
That is hilarious.
And every point made is exactly what i was thinking while watching the Geriatric Bomb Bomb give that speech. It really was deplorable stuff. I was actually laughing while he was warbling.
The talking heads on Fox News still haven’t pulled the lip off the floor. They are shattered. Their special pollster guy said it was beyond deplorable and if he doesn’t improve markedly then he is a dead duck lol.
Ron,
an Obama butterfly and a Beltway locust brush wings in the corridors of power. Both were flying under the radar at the time, nevertheless, this being America, demarcation disputes are simultaneosly bunged on by representatives of both aggreived parties. Fierce rainstorms soonafter lacerate Amazonian rainforrests. Damage is catastrophic.
Under what circumstances, do you believe that the butterfly had “right of way”?
ESJ’s sloppy work:
Referring to an article by Maureen Dowd in the NYTimes he said (619):
What Maureen Dowd actually says:
For months, Hillary has been trying to emasculate Obama with the sort of words and themes she has chosen, stirring up feminist anger by promoting the idea that the men were unfairly taking it away from the women, and covering up her own campaign mistakes with cries of sexism.
Leaving aside your reliance on Maureen’s peculiar brand of pop-journalism, you have a) misrepresented your source; and b) exposed your sloppy floppy habits.
The maturity gulf between the camps remains. Obama in Minnesota after his speech with Clinton supporters here:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/06/04/2100/clinton_supporters_wowed_with_warm_reception_at_obama_rally
And the Clintons couldn’t even let the Obamas know they were pulling up stumps, according to http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/.
Indeed, Harry, the fact that the old warmonger was so appaling in his delivery is just another reason why Brutusina must be kicking herself ahead of her Saturday Night Prom Concession Speech.
————
codger, Leake’s cartoon today sure is/was a keeper.
Who said McCain was old?
“The spotlight may have been on Montana’s presidential primary this week, but it was two fringe candidates who stole the show by nabbing major party nominations for Congress.
The biggest shock was the 85-year-old Republican Senate candidate who has run for political office at least 16 times over 40 years, including as a Democratic and a Green Party candidate. He’s more liberal than the Democratic incumbent on numerous issues, such as handgun restrictions.”
Andrew at 647
It’s over. The watchers have all but stopped watching. Anything from here on is like the last dregs of a mustard marinade slowly and inevitably sliding out of the bottle in globular chunks.
Chuck Todd & Co think Barry’s got the wood on Macca in electoral votes:
Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (153 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: ME, NJ, MN, OR, WA (47 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA, WI (138 votes)
Lean McCain: AR, GA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND (84 votes)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, KS, KY, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (116 votes)
“While both McCain and Obama get to 200 when adding up their base and lean states, it’s clear to see that Obama has an early edge with the map. Not only does he have a stronger base than McCain does (153 votes vs. 116), but he also has more potential pick-up opportunities. ”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1115257.aspx
just back , watched the last of the footy show , always good for some fun , oh the lacerate Amazonian rainforrests, Damage is catastrophic , “right of way”? , time for fairness & compassion for the lovable breeds of butterfly their rainforests torn down , but surely the other can not be forced to go ‘right’ either not to the dreaded ‘right’ , so the choice , magnamity rules , the lovable breeds of butterflys are given complete ‘right of way’ , and of course turn to the equity ‘left’ , and moments later graciously gesture the other to follow
Evening all.
I’ve been doing some crawling in the electoral-vote archives, and found an interesting comparison which might interest some of you…
June 5 2008
June 5 2004
I understand the differences of the two campaigns – in ‘04 the GOP was somewhat more competent, the incumbent President was broadly liked (sorry) and most of Kerry’s ‘lead’ at this point was marginal at best.
But still. My point is… polls are useless this far out from the election. The 2007 election should have taught us all that. And they will probably remain that way until October. And even in these polls, you swing Ohio and Montana – both of which are inside the margin of error anyway – and the electoral collage is tied.
Frankly, I think we should all calm down and make the most of the peacetime
This from Political wire
Republicans Fear Obama Money Machine
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/06/05/republicans_fear_obama_money_machine.html
The latest from the Votemaster although their are no new polls today, so the political map won’t change. For anyone that isn’t familiar with the Votemasters maps, he has been very accurate in his past predictions. The Votemaster uses a complicated formula that reflects all polls. He gives pollsters taken by the party pollsters less weight than independent companies. This is only the second day the new polls have been running, it takes at least 1 to 2 weeks of polls for an accurate reflection to show up.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
And have a look at the adjusted Electoral Vote numbers ready now for the general election:
Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24
What’s that again about how Barry can’t win without Hillary as VP?
There are things to admire about Clinton’s tenacity, but how about this angle…
Hillary is setting women back decades. Can you imagine any male candidate needing a few extra days to come to terms with the emotional upset of losing — especially when if they had a clear vision they would have known months ago that this day was coming? Ready on Day One? But if its a bad day, she might need Day One to cry her eyes out and just not be able to face any decisions that need to be made. Hillary has proved to be a “princess” who has set women back by decades. What a disgrace in so many, many ways. Everyone has to walk on eggs for her delicate, delicate feelings. Poor thing. She’s pathetic.
Posted By: Gretchen | June 05, 2008 at 01:17 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/No_communication.html#comments
Okay Ron, I can accept that you believe Clinton is the better candidate… but thinking that The Footy Show is “always good for some fun”? That’s just intolerable!
Here’s how the Votemaster works.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/map-algorithm.html
Max: Nail, head.
Obama has a database of at least 1.5 million individual donors.
That is 10 times more than George Bush or Bill Clinton had at their peak.
Al 673
You are an elitist bitterfly lol
669 Max Good one Max. I actually missed yours before I put mine up. I followed those maps in 2000 and 2004. I went into denial about Bush. The Votemaster is a Democrat supporter, but that doesn’t colour his results.
Anyway, what an historic week in world politics it is. The political mood is electric because of Obama and it looks to me as if momentum is going to build for the Dems from here, despite their long selection battle and some superficial damage to the presumptive nominee.
McCain won’t shape up enough to be able to match it with Obama, and the kid should sh*t it in in November, barring a catastrophe. The way the recession and the Iraq and Afhanistan war fronts pan out will be important, but it’s hard not to see Barry not being able to use any worsening developments to his advantage, while McCain will be associated with the architects of several political disasters.
It will allso play into the theme of change, and provide springboard for Baz to completely alter the approach in foreign policy and also in economics. (Perhaps commencing with not wasting 3 trillion dollars on an illegal war)
Things are looking up at last.
Goodnight all.
re 679 ‘…hard to see Barry…’ – too many ‘nots’ in the middle there.
Al , one advantage of being a barbarian is you get taught young that there is a light side in most things , its just people don’t try , so be patient with the footy show and there’s not only fun to be seen but sex , now alternatively up there in those clouds up in the Ivory Towers the daffodils have sterner eyes without a smile reading 1200 page literature books , and there’s not even any pictures or cartoons in them The dark side has many advantages in Naw Shaw
662
apres
He can’t even plagiarise without misrepresenting the author! LOL
First class turkey our Eddy, and he’s stupid enough to think nobody notices.
658
Enemy Combatant
He could have asked if the formaldehyde smell was coming from McCain! LOL
Both Brooks and Shields reckon he’s actually human when he’s not on a stage, in front of real people and trying to read the autocue.
We’ll probably never see that, and unlikely anyone else will either. The more I watch him the more painfully uncomfortable he looks and I seriously wonder how much worse he’ll look on those townhall meetings with Obama next to him.
On another note, a young black American commented that the MLK ‘I have a dream’ speech is great, except you wake up each day and it’s not there, but today he woke up and it was.
The sap is rising, and cold grey winter of Republicanism is melting away.
Cheers Al!
Chris – I concur. His site is brilliant, one of the few out there which manage to remain impartial in their reporting and also one of the few I actually check every day for updates.
Of course, you can only work with the numbers you are given – all throughout the month of October last year the map kept swinging from Kerry to Bush. Interesting to read and watch nonetheless.
Frankly, I don’t think the polls mean much at all until after the debates – and the last one of them finishes on October 15. Three debates, ’s going to be a lot of fun that’s for sure.
*October last election sorry.
Up on Hillary web site about 15 mins ago.
Max ,
yes that is a good site I agree. Re your comments polls on their own, agree are of only some value this far out , however collectively used in models etc provided thereafter numerous other psephological factors are then considered , reasonable predictions this far out can be made as of now Alot of US sites only go to either the first step , or others alittle more sophisticated go to the 2nd step , but with all 3 (the last the most detailed) sound predictions can be made if time is put in..Naturally events can occur in future to alter predictions but that principle can be argued right up to the day of the election , look at the Lindsay paphlet affair last Nov.But for example using just base polls without the other steps eg. in matchups Obama vs McCain in both April & May some site maps using simulations had Obama winning NC , biut I could not see that happening as of now , conversely some had states McCain winning off the Dems when Obama to me was always going to win anyway. Also you mention looking at Polls in say Oct , well some sites weight their pollsters which is good , but some pollsters also favour one candidate over another due to their methodology
BTW – here is the link to the 686 comment.
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/05/144631#view_comments
What is interesting (but not very surprising) is that most of the comments are basically saying they will back Hillary in that if Hillary backs Obama, they will fall in line. Sure – there are a couple of comments from some hardliner individuals – but for the most part this is reconciliation in motion.
I am getting more and more sure that Kathleen Sibelius will be Obama’s VP.
HarryH at 689
And I’m more and more sure Mark Warner will be Obama’s VP.
In Clinton’s email to supporters the word “I” gets a good run – the word “we” get used twice.
two question are now outstanding who will Mr Obama pick to run with
him as VP and can he win?
given the tide is with the democrats he has a chance but it well may be
close
If he can win any of the south I think it very likely he will win
otherwise it will be so close
ironically Mrs Clinton maybe able to help in with states like Arkansas, Kentucky
and Florida
Thurs June 5: Please stand by as we now cross live to the Valley of Elah…….
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=Avp7sa2U3TtZQSRAseOdiC7b.sgF
Good for her. About bloody time.
So Hillary has confirmed she is not seeking the VP slot. More like Obama doesnt want her but I appreciate she has to save face and shouldnt alienate her supporters from Obama any further
What a relief though
Link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2266634.htm
686
Catrina Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Up on Hillary web site about 15 mins ago.
…and now, finally, after months of facing the inevitable, the fat lady has sung.
It’s over!
Amen.
691
WorkToRule
That’s what we’ve come to expect, eh?
Why does she make it so hard to like her? A little grace, a little humility, just for the cameras even, would have made the last few months so much better, even for herself.
The question is why can’t she see that, and if so, then what’s wrong with her?
The Democrats dodged a bullet in my opinion, and judging from the way her peers split for Obama, they know that better than we do.
693
Enemy Combatant
Mornin’ Ecky, and a fine one it is too. The fat lady has sung, and el Kid has vanquished the giant.
For all those who want to p!ss and moan that Obama just squeaked it in, that cartoon might put the unlikely outcome in perspective. Clinton literally had gigantic advantages, but as the presidential historian on Lehrer said yesterday, she was a victim of her own past success. She did what Bill did on his second run, raised a mountain of cash, puffed himself up, and scared away the mumbling contenders who were not happy he’d let the party get decimated. She thought the same strategy would work: I am Hillary Clinton, I’m worth 100 million, and I can armwrestle any Democrat into submission.
Yeah, but she completely (mis)underestimated her opponent’s abilities, and especially that of his team.
I’ll collect on Obama happily, and have a celebration drink for all the Bludgers, including your fine self, but will keep one special toast for Herr Doktor…he deserves his very own!
Don’t you think? LOL
Cheers,
Ignorant Loathing Leftie
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_needs_vision_to_beat_hi.html
Why the hopemaster may still win inspite of it all.
Funny how she still cant say she wont seek VP in her statement. Her campaign said it after she released the statement.
ESJ youre so fickle- switched sides already???
No Andrew, this is a year the Democrats should win – no question.
The point is the hopemaster is a flawed candidate who might blow it and McCain may win. Think Australia 2004 and the UK in 1992.
I think the point was made by one of the MSM commentators the unelectable party with the electable candidate and the electable party with the unelectable candidate.
electoral-vote is still showing that Ohio is important. The Indiana tie is not a tie – it is a rogue poll. Indiana will be Republican, no problem. The interesting thing is Virginia. If Obama can win Virginia then it he can win without Ohio. That would be excellent. However, I still think that it is going to come down to Ohio, which Obama will win, but not by a massive amount. The Republicans will not get massacred.
That all changes if Hillary is VP. But is she is not seeking it, then I doubt she will get it. However, my suspicion is that she is indeed seeking it.
ESJ how you can say Obama is unelectable given his performance over the past 18 months?? I think its called a delusion
DG her campaign has ruled out the VP slot. I think its more than Obama doesnt want her
Michigan is also interesting. It is a state that the Democrats probably should win. But Obama is not currently resonating too well there. Significant Democratic efforts there could turn that around.
Andrew,
Can you provide a cite for that?
I am also interested that you believe what her campaign says on this issue!
Found it:
“While Sen. Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her. The choice here is Sen. Obama’s and his alone,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said Thursday.
In other words, she is not ringing him every day asking for it. That is a long way from not trying to get it.
705
Andrew
Ah, that’s his modus operandi, believe me! LOL
Say things to be confronting, rude, whatever, just to get attention.
Notice how many posts there are in the last few days? It’s not about discussion, it’s about getting someone to ‘bite’, that’s the only reason he’s here.
Kirri I think you need a smackdown dont you? Your getting uppitty again!
A nice summary of why Obama will choose another as VP:
“Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Sore Loser”
Barack Obama can’t possibly be bright enough to capture the Democratic presidential nomination and dumb enough to immediately undermine it by offering second spot on the ticket to Hillary Clinton.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/06/04/173293.aspx
And the Wall Street Journal doesn’t think so either:
“Clinton Unlikely as No. 2″
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton suggested she would like to be Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate, but close advisers to Sen. Obama are signaling that an Obama-Clinton ticket is highly unlikely.
Some in the Clinton camp also noted a possible deal-breaker for a party-unity ticket: Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library.
Time to back a couple of non-Clinton VP possibles a juicy odds. Off to Betfair.
710
David Gould
Obama can’t pick her DG, since it would simply look like he didn’t believe in his own ability to do it without her, and that she’s backed him into a corner.
Aside from the fact (I’d presume!) that she would be the last person he’d want in his face, and especially not Bill too.
Nup, he’s gotta be his own man, and she probably realises that too.
She’s now publicly stated she’ll back him, that’s all that’s needed to make Obama’s campaign a success in November.
WSJ link for above
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121262109484746703.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox
713
jaundiced view
Yeah, it’s over for her JV, and she’s just beginning to sing that tune.
When she gets over the personal stuff, she’ll bounce back into professional polly mode and start hitting the high notes in Obama’s praise, and then watch the Kid’s numbers in the polls.
This next broadcast of the Grand Old Opry will have Hillary and the Banjo HillBilly Orchestra (BHO) doing a medley of songs in praise of the Kid, and his triumph over the Grand Old Party.
It’ll be Grand, yes indeedy, it’ll be Grand.
I would actually suggest that it would show supreme confidence in himself to pick her as VP. Not picking her makes it looks like he needs to not pick her in order to show that he is strong. If he cannot handle having Clinton as VP, then he is weaker than I think he is.
KR @ 716 – The pressure is on from the Clinton camp for VP though. From another article in the WSJ. This is tough on Barack, but fair:
There are many experienced Democrats who would make suitable running mates, and for the purposes of governing Mr. Obama needs to pick someone he can work with. Above all, he can’t appear to bend to ultimatums from the House of Clinton. This is a test of Mr. Obama’s political judgment and toughness. If he can’t stand up to Hillary and Bill Clinton, forget about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262418608646917.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
I would also at this point emphasise from the point of view of a moderate Clinton supporter my feelings.
It does not matter whether Clinton makes happy noises. If she does not get something very significant then I will feel that she has been very hard done by. This will not endear me to the Obama camp. I will feel bitter and angry on her behalf. (These feelings, by the way, are not within my control in that I cannot help but feel that way.)
These feelings will not prevent me – and I emphasise the ‘me’ – from voting for Obama. I understand that they are natural and normal feelings that will pass given time if I allow them to pass. But it may well prevent others from voting.
I think that this is something that needs to be taken into account by Obama supporters and the Obama camp.
Great to have you on board Eddy.
717
DG, that reasoning is a little far-fetched. Should Obama perhaps choose Huckabee, just to prove that he can handle a guy like that as VP?
I agree with KR. Everyone knows that Obama and Hillary are not well suited to one another. Picking Hillary is therefore FAR more likely to be viewed as a desperate move, either because Obama thinks he can’t win without her or that Hillary somehow twisted his arm to get the spot.
Obama is far better off taking full charge of his campaign and installing the person who best complements him and his core messages.
David G – [If she does not get something very significant]
She can be given a job, but on the domestic front only, definitely not foreign affairs based. That would keep Bill off the scene, and keep her gung-ho approach off the world stage. But if she keeps making arrogant demands as she is this week, then she could play herself right out of calculations. She’d better be fulsome on Saturday.
Anyone could handle Huckabee. Even me.
jv,
You are still not getting it. This has nothing to do with what Hillary wants, says, does or feels. This is all about how her supporters feel – you know, voters?
Politicians do not win elections by pissing of voters who normally vote for their party.
Now, if the Obama camp thinks that Obama can win even if he pisses of a few per cent of Democrat voters, with half of them not voting (say two per cent of Hillary supporters, or one per cent of the Democrat vote) and half of them voting for McCain, fine. But when you look at the key states, I think that that is a very problematic strategy.
Again: this has nothing to do with Hillary. It is about how supporters of Hillary feel.
Try this: imagine that Obama had lost. Hillary then gives him nothing much, and he says that he is extremely happy with that. Would you believe him? What would feel on his behalf?
All I want you guys to do is think like a Hillary supporter for a little while. If it would help, buy a demonic mask and look in the mirror.
Actually, DV, I wouldn’t mind if he didn’t get much. Rather, I would be hoping he would make another run for the presidency at an appropriate time in the future, and therefore also be hoping that he manages his exit from the current race in a way that didn’t burn bridges to this future goal.
I would still give my support to Hillary, hoping the Dems beat the Repubs.
I also think that a large number of Hillary supporters think the same way when it comes to Hillary. Being handed out some kind of consolation prize is actually demeaning. Far better for Hillary to keep her irons in the fire and plan for another run for POTUS in the future.
Sorry, I mean DG (David Gould)… been thinking too much about stats lately.. dependent variables and all that!
David G @ 724 – Fair question – I’d expect him to have been given something that used his strengths – such as Secretary of State, where a change of approach is so badly needed. VP I would have seen for him as a waste of time and talent.
For Hillary, the circumstances are different. She is yesterday’s politician, not tomorrow’s. She just needs to be given a comfortable possie where she can’t do too much harm, to see her out to twilight home time. You can’t give her VP for all the reasons we’ve discussed, and you can’t give her Sec of State, given her dangerous old-style policies. So for her it is probably Health, with the running instructions to consult the stakeholders this time (unlike 1993), and get the needed changes through. That should keep her busy and out of Obama’s hair.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91474
Um, WTF?
Good timing for Macca. Let’s see how this comes back again and again over the coming months:
WASHINGTON — A long-delayed Senate report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans has concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.
The report was released Thursday after years of partisan squabbling, and it marks the close of five years of investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the use, abuse and faulty assessments of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
NYT
…this will be the weapon of Macca destruction (WMD).
Of course Hills will be thrown a bone DG – most likely something to do with health (committee leader in the Senate?) – and she will be pandered to a little until her tantrum ends. And once Obama is presenting these concilliatory airs, her supporters will come around, just as the supporters of losing candidates do after each combatative primary. In recent history, this includes the 50% of McCain supporters in 2000 who claimed they would not vote for Bush in a pink fit, and subsequently signed on in November.
720
Timbo
ROFLOL
DG, the fact that the Hillary camp has said she is not seeking it rules it out in my opinion. If she wanted it, and was putting pressure on privately, why undermine that publicly??
725
David Gould
Not just a mask DG, but we’d need to start talking in tongues (think Ronsperanto! LOL) and speaking untruth until we could no longer bear it.
Nah, better to just move on and get over it.
She lost.
Next item on the agenda please.
Noocat,
A large number of Hillary supporters do think the same way. But some of them do not. These are the people I am talking about. And they are the ones who could well prove vital in the election.
(Although given how optimistic you all are, maybe this is a point that I am futiley trying to make. It is my hope that Obama’s people have a more realistic grasp on the situation).
Andrew,
Again: if you believe that public statements are representative of private feelings and manouverings, I assume that you think that Howard and Costello are the best of buddies?
KR,
She may well get over it. However, I am talking about her fanatical supporters here.
Excactly KR!
So sick of this Bullshit that Obama somehow owes Clinton something, how has he done anything wrong how has he pissed anyone off. All he has done is won – end of story.
This crap that somehow he stole something that was Hillary’s is just that – crap! He won fair and square.
As to the McCain comparison, given that Bush lost the popular vote in that election, how do you know that the McCain supporters came on board? It would seem to me that they may well have not come on board, but just not in the right states for the Democrats.
DG
Hillary lost. She will not be VP. What her rabid supporters do is up to them.Nearly all will vote Democrat because they are hardline Democrats.
I suggest Obama will get enough of the states in Nov to get 300+ votes.
Timbo,
We are talking about perception here. Clinton supporters will feel that she has been hard done by if she does not get a good deal. This is simply a fact. Some of those Clinton supporters, if they feel that she has not got a good deal, will not vote for Obama. Some of them will even vote for McCain. (I am talking about small numbers here.). In some key states, this small number of votes could prove crucial. That is political reality. It is not about owing anybody anything.
HarryH,
I think that he will get around 290. I have trouble seeing which states would tip him over the 300 mark.
And I agree with you: nearly all will. In key states, however, a per cent here or there – especially if it is a per cent that switches from Democrat to Republican – could be crucial.
Timbo he won dirty and will suffer the consequences.
Get ready for the lampooning, it’s not going to be pretty for Macca, in fact it’s already started. Here’s Gail Collin’s in today’s NYT:
But for all the talk about McCain wanting a “higher level of discourse,” the bottom line is that he is begging to be rescued from the big problem his campaign has encountered: which is that the only thing their candidate is good at is town-hall meetings.
This was driven home Tuesday night when the Republicans decided to try to insert a McCain speech into the Democrats’ final primary night. They were hoping to steal thunder from the moment when Obama clinched the nomination. The actual effect was to offer viewers a chance to compare the skills of the greatest orator in modern American politics with a guy who has never really learned how to read a teleprompter.
“I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas,” McCain said. Pause. Smile. McCain has only a couple of versions of smile. And for speeches, he tends to employ a kind of scary, humorless teeth-baring.
…can’t wait for Stewart and Colbert to start imitating him! LOL
No, Obama won within the rules of the game, nothing dirty about it.
Talk dirty is what Eddy does when he wants attention.
All he did Eddy is outsmart her (which was surprisingly easy) outcampaign her, out organiser her, outfundraise her. If you call thses things dirty, than perhaps poitics isn’t for you.
I think the kind of Clinton supporters DG is talking about are like (some of) these folks:
http://www.hillaryis44.org/
I say “some of” because there’s quite a few raving lunatics in the comments that are way beyond consoling.
Telling that the hopemasters campaign bragged about a 54 primary campaign – there were 56, the ole Florida and Michigan hmmm battleground states anyone.
A poor start for the hopemaster in a week which should have been a big one. Telling too that even now a 100 supers havent endorsed the hopemaster.
The supposed dream VP pick Jim Webb has sensibly not even endorsed the hopemaster according to politico.com. Tells you heaps about what he thinks!
David I think your right about the perception thing, I’m just saying it’s a really misguided perception is all.
Possum – I saw an analysis of posts on His44 posted on the DKos a few weeks ago. It found something like 10,000 unique posters on its site over a period of time, and just over 300 in His44. And they made up a similar number of total posts. Morons can be loud and persistent, but these fringe lunatics do nothing but hurt Hillary.
Oh yes, ‘historic’, and if you haven’t seen Jon Stewart rip on this theme, rip up Hillary’s ‘non-concession’ and pillory the pundits who told us that Hillary ‘had it in the bag’, then don’t miss it:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=171106&title=headlines-obama-makes-history
(one talking head, on 20th Dec last year told Obama to go home, don’t even bother. That was almost two weeks after I’d put my money on him! LOL)
Oh hush ESJ, you’re sounding silly now.
1. Jim Webb just introduced Obama at a rally in Virginia yesterday. He was introduced at another by Mark Warner. So you can start counting Virginia as a battleground state, and count on Webb’s support of Obama.
2. No one is further officially tracking SD endorsements, and further no one is probably making them.
3. About 40 Add-on SDs have yet to be announced, so it’s little surprise they haven’t endorsed.
I am basically going on my own feelings here. I am looking at how I feel and projecting that (possibly accurately, possibly not) onto other Hillary supporters who likely support her far more than I do. Given how I feel, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that there will be a number of them who will not vote or vote for McCain.
I think that this small number will be in the whole per cent range, not in the negligible category.
748
Pancho
“Morons can be loud and persistent”
…oh, pray tell (as Jon Stewart would say! LOL)
Silly Pancho Left,
If you doubt the facts check for yourself on politico.com. The smarter democrats wont “endorse” because they know it hurts them. If the turkey does baste an endorsement will be used against them for years to come. Imagine how many Democrats regretted endorsing McGovern in 72?
(Again, the above is assuming that there is a perception that the deal she gets is not a fair one). And, by the way, the deal – whatever it might be – would need to be announced well before the election. Is that usual with regard to, for example, health secretaries and the like?
Obama will not go the way of McGovern. If Obama does lose – and I doubt he will – it will be by a very, very small margin (one state).
750
Pancho Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Oh hush ESJ, you’re sounding silly now.
…Pancho, you’re many months late with that comment, but better late than never.
But if the evidence contradicts your opinion, just ignore it and make up your own version! Now, which candidate does that remind you of?
Eddy @ 753, Perhaps the same reason why they havn’t endorsed Clinton either, Yes?
Why would Hillary even want the VP position. Until Cheney it was a nothing position, except waiting for the POTUS to die. With a strong leader, it most likely will become a background role again.
Timbo – no I think that is because of devious black power intimidation or something. Or maybe sexism.
In breaking news, 86 of the 168 members (i.e. 51%) of the RNC have still not yet endorsed a candidate. I expect that this means that McCain has no support within his own party and he will not be nominated at the convention.
Ross Buckley’s piece in The Age today offers an interesting perspective on Obama’s achievement, and on how US politics of race has shifted over the last 50 years. He points out:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/obamas-win-50-years-in-the-making-20080605-2m97.html
760
Al
LOL, and he’s the one that actually looks like a turkey!
Nice friends that Obama makes. So glad he is into “change” politics.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-rezko5-2008jun05,0,864831.story
Maybe Rezko can give a testimonial in October, along with Michelle’s whitey speech?
What nett effect will those “Repug” voters, that either voted for Hillbilly or The Kid during the primaries to try to sway the real deal, have when they are deducted from the totals in the different States.
Does anyone know how many or what %age.
I get the impression from Flash Eddie that he has jumped on to the Kid’s wagon because he may have heard a whisper that if the GOP get back in there will be a national draft for conscription fur eyeraq and the first crab off the crank will be yous all wit toaffy hyfernateds whoch wil be extrur poalated to include Aussys.
Fur kit ive been ron-strated!
ESJ,
You are a renowned doyen of US history. Can you fill in some details as to the “Bradley Effect”. Apparently, this is a phenomenon that describes people lying about their preferences for black candidates when juxtaposed against their actual voting behaviour. Any insight into how this likely to play out in the General election?
GG that was almost a Dorothy Dix question!
758 Rusty
Hillary doesn’t want the VP. Some of her voters do, because it will vindicate their faith in her. And she has sent the signal to ensure sourness with her hardcores.
As you say, why the hell would Hillary want to be VP to Obama? She doesn’t.
She is loitering for the purposes of snipping more campaign funds and a better debt relief deal from the Obama camp, and to do as much damage to him as possible(think about her disgracefully ungracious speech on a historic night on Tuesday).
Her sole ambition now is for Obama to lose and to run again in 2012.
In order to be viable in 2012, she will from Saturday swing fully behind Obama.
PS: she will endorse Obama and suspend but she won’t hand over her delegates(remember Bobby Kennedy is clearly in her thoughts).
She will not be VP. She doesn’t want it and she is definately not wanted.
It is not ideal for the Democrats but the Repubs have FAR bigger problems.
Keating Five:
Let’s see, Macca and his wife were right in the thick of it.
Rezko:
There’s nobody saying that Obama had any involvement with Rezko’s illegal activities.
Monumental difference, but let the Ronettes clutch at straws, it’s all they know how to do.
767
Timbo
‘doyen’
ROFLOL
GG – That is one handsome dogwhistle!
Latest Rasmussen poll has Obama leading McCain 43-42 in Missouri. In the previous poll, McCain led 47-41.
Perception is an interesting thing. Where Obama supporters saw an disgracefully ungracious speech, I saw a very gracious one. Whether I am stupid for thinking it gracious or not, Obama supporters need to think carefully about that difference in perception.
HarryH,
It is interesting how Hillary keeping her options open is construed as skullduggery, yet Obama’s prevarication on annouincing whether Hillary will be VP is construed as some sort of statemanship. The choice is his. Any damage caused to his campaign is all his own doing.
Phil Robins
That Missouri poll is one of the reasons i think Sibellius will be VP. She will help in places like Missouri. And her father was a popular Governor of
Ohio in the 70’s. She would campaign excellently through states like these and more.
She gave the rebuttal speech at this years State of the Union and she is the immediate past president of the Governors Association.
She is popular in a Ruby Red state like Kansas, yet she is progressive as well.
Above all she is rumoured to be Obama’s preference.
That Missouri poll is a statistical tie. Don’t get too excited.
I didn’t think the speech was disgracefully ungracious, perhaps after evrything, and coming so close, she deserved the right to think it over for a few days. Having said that, I think since about April, everyone new how the nomination was going to turn out and nothing much has changed, she must’ve known this was coming, surely she would have been prepared to endorse Obama on Tuesday.
And the Missouri poll is included in the delegate total that takes Obama to victory. That victory is still dependent on Ohio, assuming that Virginia is held by McCain. I personally think that Virginia is the interesting one.
David G – 773 [Perception is an interesting thing.]
Human nature dictates that the minority bitter and twisted Clinton supporters will get used to what has happened to their emotional maypole.
In time, they will see Obama not as an ogre who did their girl down, but as the front-running legitimate nominee supported by the party structure and elders, performing well against a lack-lustre dope.
The logic will sink in and they will come across to Barry, as the fury subsides. This is not a ‘maintain the rage’ situation for them. Why take self-destructive action by voting for McCain?
The CBS poll yesterday showed that the proportion currently of those Dems nationally who say they will vote for McCain is not much more than those who did vote for Bush in 2004, even at this early stage.
Clinton must assist in the healing with her speech on Saturday. The speech on Tuesday was a litany of denial. If she doesn’t do much, much better on Saturday she deserves to be cut loose.
Geraldine Ferraro has just announced that Barack Obama should hold some fundraisers to pay down Hillary’s debts.
LOL
Yeah , keep doin’ it for all those whitey women Gerry…pfffft.
Don’t fret Gerry, $100Mill Hill will get her money back.
What difference does it make between Tuesday and Saturday? Obama people everywhere are acting as though it was the ultimate insult to him for her to wait. People: he won! A lot of Obama supporters seem to want to continue with the ‘Yah, boo, sucks to you!’ act that is just not helpful to unity. Being on the winning side, you guys can afford to be gracious. We are feeling hurt, dissappointed and angry; you guys must be feeling absolutely over the moon. Think about it. Please.
Clintons Poll numbers have been taken off the RCP website
jv,
I think that you are wrong for the minority.
David G – maybe a handfull will remain truculent enough to not vote, but Baz will bring out son many more new voters that any such remaining numbers will be swamped. Anyway, hopefully the time for healing has begun in earnest, and of course that is in the interests of the party’s chances in November.
There is an easy solution to the debt. Hillary has $23 million that is for the General, and cannot be used to pay off her debts, but can keep for further campaigning for other contests.
All she needs to do is work out a way to refund this to those who paid her, and ask them to forward it onto a special account that Obama sets up. As he receives this money he should then ‘refund’ some of his own donors, who can donate that same amount to Hillary’s primaries account. Bit of smoke and mirrors, Hills is home free and that pig Mark Penn gets his 10 million from Hillary sources rather than small-time internet donors.
DG @ 781 – Fair enough. But why angry, this is what I don’t get. Hurt, maybe – disappointed, definately, but why angry.
Timbo 777
Hillary’s key backers in the Party were even outraged at her speech Tuesday.
For 20 years the Clintons were the supposed champions of African Americans. Bill’s office is in Harlem.
For her to not recognise and laud a momentous moment on Tuesday night has left deep rifts. It was unconscionable. The race was over. It was hard fought. But it was over.
For her to not recognise the moment and it’s importance was a reflection of her own extreme selfishness and single mindedness.
David-
I think people’s reaction to Hillary’s speech is not because thay don’t understand her disappointment, but because she is behaving as if it is her decision as to what happens next. And that shows an arrogance beyond belief. She lost, and she is saying she will consider her options – what options?
Now it’s up to Obama, not her.
Timbo,
It is difficult to explain. Feelings are not within the control of the person experiencing them. All I can really say that I feel hurt, dissappointed and angry – not angry at anyone in particular, just angry perhaps at the universe for not being other than it is. For others, those feelings will be magnified and they will lead to action – unless they are acknowledged and appeased.
I think Sibellius is a good choice in itself but it runs the risk of the perception of if you want a woman, why not Hillary? And whether we like it or not, a white male is the obvious choice from a political point of view
Pancho, there is another solution for Hillary. She sells down her own assets to pay her own debts and lives a more modest life in one of those white working class neighbourhoods that she so cares for.
784 ’so many more’, not ’son many more’.
Which brings up the question, can Obama’s daughters bring about an Obama dynasty in the future? Malia will be 18 in 8 years’ time, so might be old enough to run in 2016 against Chelsea for the nomination. Or must candidates be 21 – which in the US is the age you’re allowed drink?
Jen,
Hillary has many options, some of which are indeed dependent upon Obama’s decision. I honestly cannot understand the feelings of those who think that her speech was arrogant or ungracious. However, I acknowledge that those feelings exist due to differences in perceptions. Perception creates our individual realities, and these realities need to be dealt with.
Did you catch Maureen Dowd’s interview with Kerry last night on 7.30 Report?
She says Obama hates Hillary, she brings out all his insecurities! For that reason, I doubt she gets VP, unless it’s forced on Obama by the party hierarchy for electoral reasons, ie. he can’t win Ohio and Pennsylvania without Hillary as running mate.
Also, a new Rasmussen poll out today shows Obama leading McCain in Missouri.
DG at 773, I dont know how you can say Hillary’s speech was gracious. She lost and she did not concede defeat. What was supposed to be Obama’s moment became hers. A poor effort by her when she could have regained some dignity
DG, I understand your point, and I am optimistic about Obama’s chances, but I don’t think I am unrealistic either.
Right now, feelings are raw. Some Hillary supporters are very disappointed, which is understandable. But by the time Obama has to name a VP, I doubt there will be many left who seriously pledge not to support Obama, or worse, support McCain, just because Hillary is not given the VP spot.
It would be a BIG mistake for Obama to suddenly rush out now and offer her VP.
Besides, there is a bigger picture for all of this, which is about getting some proper change happening in Washington,. I think this will become clearer to Hillary supporters in the coming months, especially if the economy keeps declining.
I agree, however, that Hillary should be offered some kind of big role, perhaps in health. Whether she will accept it or not, who knows. What I do suspect, however, is that whatever Hillary does, she will probably seek ways to privately undermine Obama. She is part of the establishment that Obama wants to change, so she naturally feels threatened, plus of course, having her crown “stolen”, yada, yada, yada.
Also- let’s not forget that teh SD’s supported Obama because he proved to be the most likely winner for the party, not for some mean-spirited Anti- Clinton sentiment.
Yes, there are some groups who prefer Hillary over Obama at this point, but most of them will support the Dems at the general. Hilary proved to be a divisive and narcisstic candidate. And her behaviour to date is further proof of this.
She now has one last chance on Saturday to undo that perception and I hope for her sake she doesn’t blow it. But if she does, too bad. She’s finished.
David 793 – Yes, but the challenge is always to temper our emotional responses and personal perceptions by trying to see the objective realities. The best punters achieve that goal.
Andrew,
Perception. Perhaps it is because I am a Clinton supporter, and therefore interpret her words charitably, and you are an Obama supporter, and thus do not.
Another GOP angle stymied.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2334905,00.html
Andrew, the top 4 possible picks for VP seem to be:
Jim Webb or Mark Warner – Virginia could be in play this time
Bill Richardson – New Mexico is a swing state, and he brings the Hispanic vote
Kathleen Sebilius – a viable alternative to Hillary as a woman on the ticket
Ted Strickland – Ohio has to be won by Obama for him to get past 270 electoral college votes
Hillary is a contender, for all the reasons canvassed here
Chuck Hagel is my wildcard pick for a Republican on the ticket, but the disadvantage is that the Democrats won’t carry Nebraska
John Edwards? An Obama/Edwards ticket would be very attractive, but Edwards has said he doesn’t want to run for VP again, my guess is he’ll be Attorney General in an Obama administration
jv,
I agree. However, we are not talking about the best punters. We are talking about the small group of people who, if they think Hillary has been treated unfairly, will respond by voting for McCain. I want the Democrats to win this presidential election. As a political pragmatist, throwing a bone to these people is something that I would do in a heartbeat.
noocat,
By the way, I do not think that there needs to be any rush about it, either. I am simply making a case for why the VP choice – or at least some significant post – should be given to Hillary.
btw David-
I do feel for the disappointed Clinton supporters. I think she let down a lot of people with her poor campaigning, and I for one expected better from her than some of the crap she got into. But she really brought it on herself – many people including me initially wanted her to win, but Obama unexpectedly outshone her and she was not able to rise to the challenge.
jv – they actually have to be 35.
GG, good question about the Bradley effect. It explains why some of our PBludgers shouldnt be popping their champagne corks prematurely so to speak.
It is of course named after Mayor Bradley of LA who was a dead cert for the California governorship in 1982 – all the polls said so – yet on polling day lost. Mayor Bradley in fact was black and it was surmised after the event that whitey’s and others (including hispanics) couldnt bring themselves to tell the pollster they wouldnt vote for the black man but in the privacy of the polling booth did so.
The Bradley effect has been estimated as being up to 10 points. In the hopemasters case that of course means he would need to lead by at least 55-45 in all of the battleground states polls to win if you believe in the Bradley effect.
I of course think the Bradley effect is overrated but still applies (there are many more recent examples)- it may be people vote against the hopemaster because he is a fraud and not because he is black. But certainly racism is a factor – Fox News featured a poor white cracker saying “I’ve had enough of Hoosain” you wonder just how many of them there are out there.
Of course who is most likely to be “bradley effect” susceptible – working class whites from oh Ohio, Penn, Missouri – surprisingly states the hopemaster must win.
Maybe GG those people suporting HRC are on to something? Do you think?
I didn’t think it was ungracious. In fact, she spent the first couple of minutes speaking highly of Obama.
But what did disappoint me was the fact she spent at least the second half of her speech puffing herself up. The words “I”, “me”, and “my” were littered throughout. It simply reinforced a general perception that Hillary is only in it for herself. This was not the speech of a future POTUS, and it only confirmed in my mind that Hillary was never the best choice for the Dem. nomination, so I am only grateful, and relieved that Obama put his hat in the ring, and put together such a solid campaign.
On that, we are agreed.
David – Yeah throw the madder Hillarians a bone – good analogy. That’s what one does with a rabid dog to stop it biting. But a whole leg of prime lamb isn’t necessary, which is what VP would be like. Just a nice shank will do, which is what Health is akin to. That should keep their fretting frothing mouths off our ankles.
I got the impression during obama’s lengthy and fulsome praise of Hillary during his speech that he was lining her up for health (can’t remember the quote),. Did anyone else get that?
Jen, Do you actually under the meaning of the word “fulsome”?
Jen,
I cannot remember it, either. It was something about her being a big part of providing health care to all Americans. It certainly sounded like a health offer.
Pancho – [they actually have to be 35]
Oh well, no Obama dynasty then. Some states probably have 35 as the drinking age too, I’d venture.
Or alternatively with the Bradley Effect, we could examine the data from the primaries:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/04/reverse-bradley-effect-fact-or-fiction.html
And notice that there was no statistically significant Bradley Effect anywhere, but among Southern States with a high African American population there was a significant anti-Bradley Effect
jv
Michelle/Wright 2016
I think people are putting a lot more faith in Hillary Clinton than her behaviour over the last 5 months has demonstrated she deserves. If Clinton is made a part of Obama’s campaign then I would not put it past her to sabotage his campaign. A few more Bosniagates from Hillary while Barack is responsible for her is not what he needs.
If Clinton wants to be an Obama booster of her own accord then that is the least she could do to reconcile with Obama after all the sh!t sandwiches her reckless campaigning has made him eat if he wishes to remain statesmanlike. He owes her nothing. If Hillarian democrats are so driven by their egos that they will vote for McCain then so be it. Obama aint their house boy, Hillarians need to be respecting and supporting him as the Democratic candidate.
ESJ – I’m not sure I under the meaning of 811.
Heard some dill on ABC radio (so-called US politics expert from RMIT) say that poor and working class people DONT vote for Obama. Now, he has carried a far chunk of these voters, and the fact that they preferred Hillary doesnt mean that they will prefer McCain over Obama. And these guys are experts??
Possum,
I suggest it is impossible to statistically quantify and calculate a prejudice which may exist to varying degrees in the population other than to say it exists. Although I think a few have had a crack at it.
Perhaps the 2008 Presidential election will be a giant Bradley effect test. But as I have said previously there may be many reasons the turkey gets basted. Are the 40% of American’s who regard the hopemaster negatively (already) racist?
DG and Jen, Obama said the Hillary would be an important part of healthcare reform/ universal healthcare. I thought it sounded like he would offer her Health
TurningWorm,
That ’so be it’ attitude is not conducive to winning the White House. Elections are won by building coalitions between groups that may well be antipathic towards one another on some issues. It seems to me that a minority of Obama supporters are guilty of the very thing that they accuse Hillary of being: they want to win on their own terms and if they cannot then they are quite happy for the Democrats to lose.
‘Are the 40% of American’s who regard the hopemaster negatively (already) racist?’
No, they’re generally referred to as ‘Republicans’. It can be easy to confuse the two at times though, particularly in the south.
DG at 799, its NOT about perception or interpretation. Hillary did not concede defeat- that was the issue
Andrew,
Why is that an issue? What is the difference between her conceding on Tuesday and conceding on Saturday? You guys won, remember?
DG, telling Obama that he better kiss Clinton’s arse or your voting for Mccain doesn’t sound too conciliatory to me either. Hillary has far more to be sorry for. Obama in contrast has been a model of restraint. If Clinton supporters want a Democrat in the White House then they will fall in and shut up or else we all need to start digging our shelters with President bomb bomb running the show.
Possum @ 814 – I remember discussion here about the Bradley effect back in December and January. It was one of the balsa planks upon which Adam built his Fortress of Clinton Inevitability, over the parapets of which he bellowed torrents of abusive disdain on those of us who suggested an Obama victory was both possible and desirable. Fortress Adam is now rubble, as is the Bradley Effect justification for Hillary’s ascension.
The analysis you cite shows that the ‘Effect’ will not play a part in the general, and is consistentt with the polls showing a great increase in the acceptance by Americans of the concept of a black President.
Andrew @ 818 [Heard some dill on ABC radio (so-called US politics expert from RMIT) say that poor and working class people DONT vote for Obama.]
What was the ‘expert’s’ name? Anything familiar among our regulars here …?? Something starting with a G, E, r/R or F perhaps?
ESJ -
do I ‘under’ it??
(just looked it up: fair point – always inderstood it mean generous and effusive).
David@824
the difference is that Tuesday would have indicated to her supporters that she accepted and endorsed Obama as the nominee, Saturday suggests she had to go away and think about it. Not a good show of support for her leader.
TW,
It is not conciliatory. But we are talking about political reality here. If you want a Democrat in the White House then you are going to have to do what it takes to get there. If one of those things includes appeasing some Clinton supporters, then appeasing some Clinton supporters is on that list of things that you are going to have to do. It is really very simple.
Re the Bradley effect – I must say that generally exit polls showed Obama doing better by a couple of points than he ended up with in contest after contest. It was only ever a couple of point margin though.
Jen,
I still cannot see it, I am afraid. If Obame had lost, I would not have minded how long he took to concede. Losing a close presidential primary race would suck big time. But I accept that that is how Obama supporters, and perhaps others, see things.
jv- I totally agree (with fulsome praise!) -
The Bradley Effect reflects a time that has been by and large left behind, just as most people now accept that women should be allowed to vote.
Obama could never have even got past first base if the hidden racism card was still as potent. No doubt it’s still there, but the rise of a new generation of voters will swamp it.
By the way, I am not saying ‘Give her the VP or else I won’t support Obama.’ I just thought I should clarify that. I support Obama, and want him to win the presidency in November.
If it helps Obama win, put Hillary on the ticket, but I think it’s more likely they turn to Governor Strickland of Ohio.
DG, the political reality is that Obama is the Democrats one and only chance of winning this presidential election, he deserves and should demand the loyalty of every Democratic party member.
A presidential candidate does not – or should not – ‘demand’ anything from voters. That sort of attitude – taking voters for granted – is the politics of defeat.
We are not talking about he voters, we are talking about the party members.
David- you are the one talking about perception!
Her perceived support for Obama is crucial, and quickly conceding and endorsing him would have helped her supporters to move on and get behind the nominee. As it is she has dragged it out, and much of the conversation is still about her – something I think she will find very difficult to let got of, which is another reason why I hope he doesn’t give her VP: she’ll still want the limelight.
I have been talking about nobody but the voters. Who are you talking about?
Eddy,
You wouldnt actually be calculating the prejudice, you’d be calculating if there is any systemic difference between polling estimates and voting results for black candidates – and what usually happens is you do that after controlling for other sources of systemic bias like party affiliation and age cohort.
That gets done to death every election, especially since there are so many district and house races at both State and Federal levels that has accompanying polling that provides the data.
The Bradley Effect looks like it **might** have been in action in the past, but has faded into history without a even a whimper.These days it seem to be used as an excuse by campaign officials for losing black candidates without an ounce of supporting evidence.
Even with the most highlighted cases like, well, Bradley – but others like Harold Washington and Harvey Gantt, the rhetoric only has a dubious connection at best with the reality of the data.
I’ve yet to see any proper analysis that show the Bradley Effect at play that doesnt require a rather fanciful dismissal of the type of polling variation that is universally considered “ordinary”
Obamas negative ratings have nothing to do with measuring any Bradley Effect, because the data in question is voting intention vs voting outcomes.
Jen,
Fair enough. However, as a Hillary supporter, the speed or otherwise of her endorsement had no effect upon me moving on or otherwise. It is the small numbers who will not move on without major concession to Hillary that we are concerned about here, and I do not see how the speed of her concession would alter their opinions at all. Indeed, a speedy concession might have seemed as though Hillary was pressured into giving one.
In other words, you need to stop thinking like an Obama supporter for a moment and think about how Hillary’s actions are affecting/would affect Hillary supporters.
sunk beneath the waves…
http://www.slate.com/id/2193035/
Jen- You’re natural use of language was right! You used ‘fulsome’ correctly – it has more than one connotation:
From the Free Dictionary”
In your context there was no doubt you meant it literally.
I’m talking about people talking about Obama having to be nice to Hillary or her supporters won’t vote for Obama.
exactly David-
that’s the whole point. It is the effect on her supporters that is at issue, not Obama supporters- we’re pretty chuffed!
TW,
The supporters that we are talking about are the voters.
Jen,
And as a Hillary supporter, I can inform you that the delay has had zero effect on my feelings one way or the other. I do not think that Hillary supporters are worried about the timing of her concession at all. So: no need for you to worry.
Thank you jv!
does that mean Mr Smarty-Trousers Eddy owes me one – again?
David- in all honesty it probably makes no real differnce, but it reflects badly on her, given the perception that she believed she was entitled to this and therefore can’t accpet that she has lost. Not a very dignified response.
Quite right DG, Hillary and McAuliffe and Carville and Bill are all just voters now, but they are also members of the Democratic party and they need to be puckering up to kiss that black ass so the Hillarians can all move on from the fairy tale..
Jen,
Again: perception.
However, I would suggest that it is the perceptions of the Hillary supporters rather than the perceptions of the Obama supporters that are more significant at the moment if we want to ensure that Hillary supporters vote for Obama, no?
TW,
And it is rhetoric like that from Obama supporters that makes it more difficult for Hillary supporters to move on.
on a more personal note –
spending umpteen hours on the West wing series, and have just got up to the part where Santos tells Josh Lyneham to pull his head in and does a live-to air ad , and gets an amzing reaction. I know that he is modelled on Obama but the writers could never have predicted how real life would imitate rt. Incredible synchronicty!
David, stop listening to her supporters then. Listen to the man. Have he ever been unduely critical of Hillary?
his supporters…
David Gould
You just do not ‘get it’. I suggest you copy all of your posts today re Hillary’s supporters & Hillary and all replys. Sort all of yours together and read all yours first to see if you are being unreasonable & unfair. Then read the replys and clearly you are. Then imagine doing it for 90 days in a row over healthcare , electability Kyoto etc.
Now to my varied varietys of butterflys , especially the marshmellows , as at right now & unless future events change this, the e/v’s are close , you cann’t rely on maps or stimualation models alone but suffice to say almost all Hillary supporters & Hillary ar needed by Obama to win POTUS Thats a statisical fact whether yous like it or not.To get Hillarys voters , those voters need to be want to come out & vote , its not compulsorsy That requires Obama & his supportrs to show respect 4 50% of their own Party The disconnect is there is no respect
The cultural , attitude, financial , ediucational & aspirations are so diffferent , & worse Obama & his supporters think they are the future and the ‘change ‘ and the new style of politic , and Hillary & her supporters are all the past , ‘the old style of politic’ A tactic that may have won the delegate race , but a theme that is not only flawed but politically naieve
Another one under the bus. Yesterday, Obama said that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel and he will not allow it to be divided. Virtually slapped the Palestinians on the face and threw them under the bus. The reactions from the Palestinians and the Arab nations have been furious:
And from Aljazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93FE247B-452D-4022-8374-088D8704C1DE.htm
And Hamas which has setup a dancing ensemble to celebrate Obama’s victory has now “Un-Endorses Obama”.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/hamas-un-endors.html
The Liberal left must be furious also with Obama. So now he is furiously back pedaling.
Facing criticism, Obama modifies Jerusalem stance
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN05476731.
This is not looking good on Obama for making a fundamental mistake like this so soon after “securing” the nomination. He is looking more and more like the Kama Sutra man. Trying different positions.
Obama has never been unfairly critical of Hillary.
And again: this is not about me. I am happy to support Obama. He has won an historic victory and will be a good president, hopefully a great one.
However, we are talking about the small percentage of Hillary voters who are hurt, dissappointed and angry enough not to vote for Obama and perhaps to vote for McCain but who can be brought round if Hillary is not seen to be treated fairly. This small percentage of voters could, in certain key states, hurt Obama’s chances to be president. Dealing with this is critical for the Obama camp.
I pretty much skim past Ron now but finishing his rant with “….politically naieve” just caught my eye. Another instant classic from the ronster.
Storm in a teacup re the 4 days. No news service is running big, ‘It’s over– why is she taking so long to concede?’ stories. Come November, everyone will remember the support that Clinton gave (or didn’t give) on the campaign trail; no-one will remember that she was a bit slow in admitting that she lost.
EsJ @ 819: When confronted with the evidence that, on at least the primaries, there was no Bradley Effect at all (quite the reverse in some states), the best you can come up with is: “I suggest it is impossible to statistically quantify and calculate a prejudice which may exist to varying degrees in the population other than to say it exists”?
Now, who was it who said earlier that the Bradley Effect measures those who “couldnt bring themselves to tell the pollster they wouldnt vote for the black man but in the privacy of the polling booth did so” and “has been estimated as being up to 10 points”? Whoever that was, clearly thought that it was measurable if it were there. In fact, it seems like the easiest of all things to measure:
1. Take black candidate
2. Look at black candidate’s opinion polls
3. Look at black candidate’s result on election day
4. Compare 2 and 3.
Oh, wait a minute. It was you, you old split-personalitied devil.
Next time, it’s probably better to stick with a generic, “I disagree”, when confronted with evidence you’ve been talking out of your hat.
Oh, and yokels who drawl, “I’m tired of that Huuu-sayun” are not an example of the Bradley Effect.
So DG, you are sating that not only should Obama defer to Clinton, his supporters (even ones who live on the other side of the planet and can’t vote in the election) should defer to her as well? It’s that kind of arrogance which has placed you firmly in the loser camp with Hillary.
Ron,
I agree that I have a different view of things than at least some Obama supporters. However, I enter into forums not with the intention of changing the views of others but to try to gain an insight into their views and give them an insight into mine. If you expect to convince others that they are wrong, you will usually end up frustrated. That will come across in your posts. And they will respond.
So, I do my best to not have any expectation of change, and take part to enjoy the exchange of opposing viewpoints, to hone my own arguments and to test my own thinking.
DG
Oh of course, and I think he’ll do everything in his power to do exactly that. At the heart of the problem however is Hillary herself, without her explicit support some people just aren’t going to accept BHO.
I guess that’s the problem. A lot of Obama supporters see Hillary’s persistence as irking. They see her failing to fall in line and that’s annoying.
I think it would have been better for everybody (inc Hillary) for her to concede on Tuesday. I think it was a mistake to do what she did. It’s her right to concede whenever she chooses I just think she lost something by her actions that night.
You see it differently and I accept your point of view.
TW
What David’s trying to get across is that its more important for Obama supporters to realise that they/he are/is ultimately responsible for making it easy for Clinton supporters to come into the democrat fold. This is not about rights and wrongs and arrogance. Its about creating a politically expedient position that will allow poeple to make this change without losing pride/face etc and by making them feel the ownership and loyalty they felt to the Clnton campaign, to the Democrat campaign.
While i understand that this shouldn’t be the case, its how it is. We can say how ridiculous this is, and how selfish, arrogant whatever. But in the end, these people have to be made welcome, or the Dems will lose
TW,
I am certainly an arrogant person. (Seriously.) However, I do not think that that has any bearing on this particular issue. If we want healing in the Democratic Party, then we need to be nice to one another. That should be obvious. As the victors, it should be much easier for Obama supporters to be nice. The small percentage of Obama supporters who are not nice are not making healing easier. That should be obvious.
I will add that of course the small percentage of Clinton supporters who are not being nice are not making healing easier, either. But the power is with the Obama supporters.
There is a problem with not conceding on Tuesday. It was well put on another post….
Hillary is setting women back decades. Can you imagine any male candidate needing a few extra days to come to terms with the emotional upset of losing — especially when if they had a clear vision they would have known months ago that this day was coming? Ready on Day One? But if its a bad day, she might need Day One to cry her eyes out and just not be able to face any decisions that need to be made. Hillary has proved to be a “princess” who has set women back by decades. What a disgrace in so many, many ways. Everyone has to walk on eggs for her delicate, delicate feelings. Poor thing. She’s pathetic.
Posted By: Gretchen | June 05, 2008 at 01:17 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/No_communication.html#comments
CountryKid,
Perception. Personally, I think that that comment is something that sets women back. It assumes that Hillary held back because she was a woman, and it assumes that she has delicate, delicate feelings.
There has rarely been a race as close as this one. It was historic for many reasons. Close races create strong feeling. If a man had delayed for a week after such a race, no-one would have been accusing him of being a princess.
“This next broadcast of the Grand Old Opry will have Hillary and the Banjo HillBilly Orchestra (BHO) doing a medley of songs in praise of the Kid, and his triumph over the Grand Old Party.”
Ain’t that the truth, Kirri. Girl gon’ hafta sing fo’ her suppah if she wants to write off 20-30 Extra Large in campaign debts AND become Boss Cocky of Health under President Obama.
Throughout the Appalacians and Mid-West, her fame will grow as regular folk tune in to “The Hillary Home Companion”, with Bubba cuddlin’ up to a buxom upright bass and deliverin’ lots o’ oomph on the bottom end. Billy Jeff gon’ do his encores usin’ a see-gar plectrum. It’s the little touches that make a Rovin’ Eye Man all that more redeemable and boy, won’t the punters love it. Sure’ll keep them fund-raisin’ dollars rollin’ in.
Background vocals from the Moron Tabernacle Choir and Garrison Keillor doin’ a guest spot or two of M.C.in’.
Yes Suh! Git on board the Minstrel Special and come see
Sistah Hillary and her Travellin’ Salvation Strutters.
Simon H, Possum
Tell me in November the Bradley effect doesnt exist.
The Democratic primaries (and unrepresentative caucuses) are not gen.pop.
Yo Ho Ho, I know what David is trying to get across but maybe I’m just bitter and angry enough to want Obama to not apologise, just to spite the Hillarians. In just the same way that the Hillarians want Mccain to win just to spite Obama, because Obama beat their grrl.
I’m just testing out how many people are trying to tell me to be reasonable.
YHH, I agree, and I think most Obama supporters would agree. It is in Obama’s interests to do as much as he can to heal the rift, and to therefore bring Hillary supporters in behind him. In politics, EVERY vote counts.
BUT where disagreement is occurring is on the issue of the VP slot.
This is where I think Obama should draw the line. Hillary should not be VP. The issue is not about her not deserving it (and I don’t think she deserves it, by the way), but an issue of politics. With Hillary as the VP candidate, Obama weakens his own image, his core message, and gives Hillary a major spotlight for making more of the sort of errors she was making during the primary season. She is a loose cannon and fails to display anywhere near the same level of political nous that Obama does.
Noocat,
The VP slot might be necessary to bring those Clinton supporters on board. In other words, if she only gets health, they might percieve her as having been hard done by.
SimonH I suggest if you can exactly quantify the difference between your 2 & 3 and the reasons for the discrepancy there are untold riches for you working as a pollster.
TW
I totally understand. It’s been an emotional period and the negative tone that Clinton adopted towards Obama has made me very angry. But not as angry as McCain winning would be!
Noocat.
I think that’s a fair point. I think Clinton can have a role in the administration – i think Health is the one that is most obvious – but i think that if she is involved in the campaign (beyond stumping for Obama) it will not only tarnish BHO’s image/message etc, but also provide another target for the repugs.
However, as David points out, the VP may be what is required to get the CLinton supporters on board.
Which is why i think he should only offer it to her if she agrees to not accept.
It’s worth the risk in my opinion.
I wouldn’t trust her to not accept.
[Which is why i think he should only offer it to her if she agrees to not accept.}
Well that would be great, but can she be trusted to not go back on her word? What if she did turn around and accept?
Eddy at 869,
The Dem primaries don’t have to be the general population for the Bradley Effect to show, because pollsters polled more than just the people that turned up and voted, they polled likely voters in Democrat primaries (a much larger group) and some polled likely Democrat voters in the general election (a much much larger group still). If there was a Bradley Effect operating at the time of the primaries it would have come out because of the wider reach of the polling sample population not confined simply to those that actually voted.
But if you reckon there is a Bradley Effect in action, I just ask for the evidence?
If you are looking for the General to find a Bradley Effect, even if for arguments sake there was one operating, it will be extremely lucky to show up statistically because of the large number of undersampled Obama voters in the population, particularly the 18-29 year old cohort, and relatively wealthy households with no landline phone (the first has exceeded turnout expectations, the latter cant be polled by phone but have broken for Obama both in the primaries and compared to F2F polling)
Hi Possum- where are you at with the Hills for Veep thing to day?
Bit of info about the Obama/Clinton meeting currently going on (or just concluded) at http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
The discussion re the Bradley efferct.
1. This was the Primary not the General Election. You would expect the people voting in the Primaries to be more politically aware and either colour blind with their intentions or blatantly prejudiced (a la West Virginia).
2. If some of you had not noticed, Hillary is a woman and there may well be anti female style Bradley effect in play to counteract the true Bradley effect. Obviously, this won’t be apparent in the General election.
Jen – I still think it would be a pretty easy way to get a thumping Dem majority if:
a) it was managed properly
b) if Bill could be dealt with
I still think it’s about as likely to happen as I did yesterday – not every.
But there’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
I was watching some Brian Schweitzer youtube stuff today, the Dem Gov of Montana (yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaw!)
Sorry, that just happens when I think of Montana
He’d be an interesting chap for VP. His one-liners would make Granpa McCain lose it completely.
EsJ @ 873: Anyone with one of them new-fangled calculamator things can work out the exact difference between my 2 and 3.
I think where the untold riches lie is in the reasons for the discrepancy. Possom Comitatus and his brainy ilk are on the case, and there is no evidence at this point that any difference in Mr Obama’s votes on this front is attributable to Mr Bradley. Not least because in the majority of states where the pollsters were wrong, he did *better* than opinion polling suggested. But sure, feel free to get back after November and tell us that it was.
Oh, and on the whole Veep thing: the debate being held here, and across thousands of other parts of the interweb as we speak, is precisely why O isn’t likely to announce a running mate until July at the earliest. Everyone calms down a bit, takes a bit of a breather, and the nice people speak to HRC and ensure that she’s happy with the role she’s been offered and will be prepared to go ‘yay, team!’ if the candidate isn’t her. Which, let’s face it, isn’t likely.
Provided HRC is prepared to barrack hard for the team announced, that’s what matters. Of course a fringe of hardcore Clintonistas will say, ‘No! They’ve lobotomised her when she says she supports the team– I can see the glassy look in her eyes! It’s her for VP or I vote McCain!’ You can only control what you can control, and if HRC is on side, the mainstream of her supporters will be on side. Electorally, HRC largely appealed to the old-school Democrat support base. It’s less likely that they are going to be ’should I vote GOP?’ waverers.
GG – ‘2. If some of you had not noticed, Hillary is a woman and there may well be anti female style Bradley effect in play to counteract the true Bradley effect. Obviously, this won’t be apparent in the General election.’
We could extend this though to include an anti-old man Bradley effect (which polling has shown to be more of a concern to a more people than gender or race). Worrying about Bradleyism without evidence is understandable, but irrational.
Bloody interesting odds at sportingbet today.
Who will be Obama’s veep?
Hillary Clinton 2.25
Jim Webb 5.50
John Edwards 7.00
Kathleen Sebelius 7.00
Bill Richardson 11.00
Ted Strickland 11.00
Wes Clarke 13.00
Sam Nunn 15.00
Joseph Biden 21.00
Many outlets – slate being the most recent example I can find – have ruled out any chance of HRC being the veep. I tend to agree. I also think there is no chance Edwards will be on the ticket – the Dems are daft but they aren’t that daft. And I tend to think that Obama won’t pick a woman either, given the cons will outweigh the pros.
Makes the betting market a very interesting one. Brave of Sportingbet to offer odds. Mind you, they have a chance of cleaning up if none of the above get chosen…
Pancho,
Speculating about what might never happen is what this blog is all about.
What if there is a backlash against Obama supporters’ rhetoric. Have you heard anything that didn’t sound like incomprehensible, childish, change-change-change, his-time-is-now gibberish. A steady diet of Obama will “unite the country”, he’s a “fresh voice for change”, “he will bring the sides together” is likely to piss off a lot of voting adults by the time November gets here.
Yes GG alot like ‘Working Families’ LOL
DG at 867.
Do you have any evidence for this being the “closest” primary for a long time?
It has been strongly fought, but it hasn’t been close for months. The numbers have been against Clinton for a long time, with the margin 269 delegates when demconwatch stopped counting superdelegate concessions:
Pledged Super Total
Obama 1765.5 424.5 2190
Clinton 1639.5 281.5 1921
I haven’t seen any data comparing this to previous races. The data point I’d want to see is the delegate lead of the presumptive nominee when the last serious contender suspended their campaign. I would guess that in previous primary seasons, that difference would have been smaller than Obama’s delegate lead for at least a good few weeks. To be psephological for a moment (out of place in this thread, I know), I guess you should compare that delegate lead to Obama’s delegate lead at the equivalent stage of the primary campaign (perhaps measured by proportion of total convention delegates allocated). My guess (as I said, without data) is that the difference of this race is not closeness but the persistence of the loser.
GG -
his supporters might talk gibberish (as do Clintons -there’s some salient examples right here!), but he doesn’t. And voters tick the box for the candidate, not his/her supporters.
and i can’t stand “Working Families” phrase either. – but still glad Kevvie won.
Greeny, Obama probably wont stay full time on the rhetorical bandwagon.
The change spiel with not much substance was a good strategy to win the primaries, but he’ll pivot to the General like every other primary winner does.
Though that change spiel provides a good framing to whatever he actually pivots to.
Thanks for the Veep response Poss – do you do a lasso with that??
Pancho
The old man effect could be a reverse Bradley with a twin pike.
As I see it, the Hillary VP question is a bit of a heuristic probablility puzzle with a zero sum game. Obama has a free political bet.
There are two scenarios:
1. Choose Hillary as VP and have an 80% chance of winning (and a 20% chance of losing). But the win is only worth $80 political dollars as Hillary would be a pain in the arse to have hanging around you (I certainly couldn’t stand four years of her in the next office and I’d be surprised if Obama could).
2. Don’t choose Hillary and have a 65% chance of winning the full $100 dollars but a 35% of losing everything.
Both scenarios average $65. As a gambling problem, 80% of people would chose scenario 1. But I think Obama is atypical and will chose scenario 2. (The reason for most people choosing scenario 1 is that we tend not to take risks when we are in a winning position, but we like risks in a losing situation).
Simon H and DG, you might dismiss the 4 day delay between losing and conceding but I think it speaks volumes about Hillary’s attitude and campaign. Not conceding on the night made things seem uncertain/unfinished and I think detracted in some way from Obama’s victory. I think she delayed to see whether anyone would support her to fight on to the convention- in other words, she really couldnt accept that she lost. It now appears that she wasnt able to convinve anyone that she should press on.
I think it also shows lack of character to do the concession by press release first rather than in person.
I dont expect to convince you though, so can we just let it go??
Does the Bradley effect take into account the Upright and With A Pulse factor? If so, McCain is gone.
David
bee away , was going to post but perhaps oyu’ve gone for the day , if so haveagoodweekend Maxie walker said to all aussies
ESJ @ 764
I suggest you read David Weigels piece in
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
before you peddle the Michelle Obama Whitey stuff again.
DG
I agree with Jen – HRC should have conceded on Tuesday night. John Stewart did a good analysis on her speech and how it was all about herself and as a result she also bewildered many of her supporters and others.
Can you imagine what would have happened last November if John Howard had said he needed time to make his decision?
GG, you’re all grown up now are you? No more charming Untouchables references then I guess.
Re: the Bradley effect, I have posted multiple times about whether US voters could vote for a black president. I think if anyone has a chance, Obama does. My understanding if you ask voters was that AGE would come before gender or race, and McCains age will be an issue
Hi Grace-
that link doesn’t appear to work, but I’d love to read it.
The other night there were several references to this about to blow Obama out of the water, but haven’t heard another thing since then. I take it it’s just another beat up.
Andrew- the fact that people will vote for a black candidate has pretty much been proved by the unusually high turnouts in the Primaries. Hopefully the racism of old is a dying attitude.
Grace, the link is problematic but eventually worked- fascinating reading indeed
Reminds me of the time before the last election (after the Scores episode) when there was a Crikey rumour about a story about Rudd that was going to blow him out of the water. Never happened.
Jen at 893 asked:
“do you do a lasso with that??”
Not safely
Hope so Jen but these are the same voters that voted for GWB twice, well kind of once I suppose
Jen
901
I re-pasted the link:-
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
According to David Weigel:
“I’m now convinced that Larry Johnson, the blogger who’s done the most to make the rumors public, is spreading misinformation.”
David Weigel sets out all the information that Larry Johnson has put out about this and details the inconsitencies and how the story continues to change. He contacted Larry Johnson to clarify the many versions and was told to f*ck off.
“Until he comes out with a video tape that shows at least one of the many rumored “Michelle speeches,” I think that’s the last we need to hear from Larry Johnson.”
886: Sportingbet odds appear very ungenerous (they want to be cautious as they probly don’t understand the market awfully well). Last I looked on intrade, you cold get HRC at about 18% (approx $4.50).
I would have thought that in a contest that could be very very tight, the first requirement of the Veep is: they improve your chances of winning a state that you otherwise would (or might) have lost. That counts out Sebelius (Kansas too much of a long-shot) and Edwards (not only couldn’t win Kerry NC, but didn’t even achieve a swing there). A lot of the others are worthy of consideration; of those not listed, the positives of Evan Bayh are:
a) Clinton supporter from way-back, so get her supporters in the tent without having to pick her
b) I think that Indiana would be winnable if he was on the team (and it ain’t small: 11 EC votes)
c) Has been politics a long time, but looks young and in Washington ‘only’ 10 years so wouldn’t undercut the ‘not the old Washington establishment’ message too badly
d) Tends towards the conservative end of the Dems without explicitly rebutting Obama on too many points.
And on that topic, there are two notable things in http://www.fivethirtyeight.com today:
1. A comparative electoral map on how McCain is doing in polls now, vs how GWB did in 2004. At this early stage, not that well; albeit their map is based on raw numbers rather than a more detailed analysis.
2. Obama does have a real problem: and it’s Michigan. Obama can win without winning Ohio, but in my opinion, if the Dems lose Michigan, it’s near enough to game over. Intrade has them as a 70% chance to hold it, but 538’s analysis of polling data has Obama at a mere 42% (and before the Clintonistas start crowing, her figure was only 43%). The disparity is perhaps explicable by Michigan Dems and Dem-leaners being pissed off at the pretty ordinary way their primary was run (or not run). So now that that stoush has concluded, the next few polls from MI are going to be very interesting indeed.
FINNS
#857
Thanks for your info re Obama new policy yesterday on Israel mark 11. I was going to post re Obama’s mark 1 version from Wednesday. i was going to comment on that & j/v’s incredible dual assertion , well its the same as Hillarys , and Obama is going to provide ‘a new way’ on foreign policy. Now should I still post on mark 1 or just go to mark 11 ?
Grace- just got it.
what a disgracful bunch.
Cheers.
JEN
#910
are you talking about me in the plural ?