h1

By the way

March 6, 2008

Obama won Texas.

Advertisements

No comments yet

  1. You know Hillary will fight all the way to the convention and not drop out. She’s already claiming “mischief” from the Obama camp during the Texas primary. She will also go after the Michigan and Florida delegates even though Obama wasn’t on the ballot. In Ohio, she seems to have found a small chink in Obama’s armor and the media has finally started to question his experience and connection to Rezko. One station even called him a product of the Chicago Democratic Party machine. I’m not supporting Hillary or Obama, but as an observer on the Republican side, Obama’s had pretty much a free ride with the media. Last Saturday’s SNL satirically drove that point home. It will be an interesting and historical race to the Democratic convention; there will be either a female or a black male Democratic candidate for President.


  2. If I were senator Clinton I wouldn’t even think of giving up at this point. I don’t know why she would.

    There’s no going after Michigan or Florida. It’s water under the bridge. No way will those delegates be seated unless there’s a redo.

    Rezko is story about nothing. It’s all innuendo. I’m sure someone will find some real dirt on this guy eventually, but that isn’t it.

    As far as who’s getting a free ride and who isn’t, the media is just going after a story. As soon as Clinton rebounds, guess what? Suddenly the story is no longer “Clinton in trouble,” it’s “Obama fails to deliver knockout punch.” These guys are after a story, a conflict, something juicy. And if nothing much presents itself, they’ll exaggerate or even manufacture it.

    Actually, what’s bugging me most about the media is all the dark-cloud-ism aimed at the Democrats this week. It’s a dilemma! It’s a crisis! Democrats are divided! The candidates will destroy each other with attacks before the convention! They’ll spend all their money fighting each other! Neither of these candidates is strong enough to clinch it! C’mon. The only real problem the party has right now is that they have two very strong and popular candidates. On the other side, Republicans have one candidate that they don’t like very much. Our candidates are raising mountains of cash, your side not so much. Our campaigns have been noteworthy in their civility, too. So why do the talking heads report it this way? It’s sexier. And this wasn’t Fox news, this was Tom Ashbrook of NPR on Wednesday night. Troubling.


  3. Not to brag too much, but I believe I predicted this result. 😉


  4. I am glad you are so positive about this. I am certainly not. I don’t see this as being all that civil. The only way Clinton was able to acheive these stop-gap victories was by going negative. This mud slinging is going to leave stains. The more they repeat their opponents weaknesses the more vulnerable they become. It is a bad for the party that this is able to drag on as long as it has.

    Clinton’s negativity has really turned me off. I find this issue about her unwillingness to disclose her tax returns really troubling. She has stepped over the line a number of times, but comparing Obama to Ken Starr is astonishing. Especially since she attacked her opponent in her senate race for not providing his tax returns.

    I just wish there was some sense of fairness in the coverage. Obama did have favorable media treatment early in the campaign. After the SNL skits the meme was all about how Hillary was not getting a fair shake. Since then they have been playing up Hillary as underdog and Obama as untested vulnerable newcomer. It is all about making headlines and drawing an audience. I agree it is troubling.

    Obama should have wrapped this up on Tuesday. If the superdelegates were distributed according to percentage of popular vote he probably would have it wrapped up.


  5. I definitely agree that she gained by going negative, and that we’re likely to see more of it soon. But let’s put things in perspective. The campaigns have been remarkably civil relative to to others in recent history. And how negative did she really go? The 3 AM ad? C’mon. That’s not the kind of negative that turns people off to politics. That’s not Obama’s face morphing into bin Laden’s. It’s not horror movie music behind a list of alleged improprieties. So yes, it was negative, and we will probably see more. But frankly the hyperventilating over the negativity started before anyone even brought UP Clinton’s taxes etc.

    The only route for Clinton to the white house is that a) things remain tight throughout the rest of the primary season, b) Michigan and Flordia have re-dos and she wins more delegates. If that doesn’t happen, he wins the nomination. The superdelegates will fall mostly toward the person in the lead and that’s him.


  6. It is the repetition of innuendo from Clinton that I find so unsettling. We both know there are plenty of morons out there that still think Obama is a closeted Muslim. It is infuriating when someone on our team says things like “as far as I know” Obama is Christian.

    I was not a fan of Clintonian politics going into this election, now I feel simply repulsed by it.

    If Obama is not the nominee I see plenty of independents going to McCain, and plenty of these new young voters staying home. Clinton must be stopped. Wednesday morning I gave Obama another contribution. I never thought I would donate to a primary campaign like I have to this one. Sheer craziness.


  7. Another strike against Hillary, as far as I’m concerned, is that if she becomes the nominee, she will in fact face unrelentingly negative coverage through the general election campaign, because the so-called liberal media really dislike her. I’m not really sure why this is (much like the frothing hatred from the far right), but to pretend this dislike doesn’t exist would be shortsighted. On the other hand, they looove John McCain. He’a always been good for a quote, he’s always been fun to hang out with on the bus, etc., etc.

    I hope he doesn’t go negative, though. I’d honestly like to know if that would work in this day and age, if, when all is said and done, people will at last recoil from the negative ads. I’m probably too damn old to be that naive, but what the hell.


  8. Frankly I think a lot of the dislike is sexism. She’s no more devious or coldhearted or opportunistic than anyone else in Washington. Less so than some. But you’re right. Whatever the reason, I think it’s a really bad idea to ignore it. It’s a fact and it’ll hurt our party and our causes if we nominate her.


  9. I watched a biography or something about Hillary and learned that she was involved in some way as a lawyer during the Watergate/Nixon stuff and was later assigned or appointed as a lawyer by then President Carter for something else. Maybe there is some hatred stemming from her involvement in some things from way back then from the other side of the isle.

    Maybe she just does not properly respect a woman’s role to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership. If I remember that bio correctly she was Hillary Rodham until the early to mid 80s when she caved to political/sexist pressure (I am not judging her for it) and had the Clinton name legally pasted on the end of her Hillary Rodham.

    I know she was pregnant at least once but I can not vouch for the amount of that time she spent both without shoes on her feet and in the kitchen, perhaps it was a substandard amount of time. I think she might just be the type of broad to talk back and give some sass from time to time as well (shudder).

    I think the Hillary hating is partly the things I just wrote but mostly just being on the receiving end of the rightwing carpet bombing campaign against every target they can get their crosshairs on. Hillary is a target they have had X’d on their maps for a long time. The best they have been able to do against Obama so far is drop leaflets claiming he might be a closet Muslim on an apparently unimpressed populace and trying to make their lack of Obama coordinates his weakness. Like how Kerry’s service in Vietnam was a major strength over our “War President” so they attacked him there and just made an ugly scene when the fact of the matter is that even if the stuff the “Swift Boaters against Kerry” said was true Kerry had still put himself in harms way against people who were trying to kill him while the frat/flyboy could not even be bothered to do his stateside duty for the last couple of years.

    As far as Hillary as a rightwing punching bag is concerned I have written something similar to this before but I would like to add that I think that because of sexism a woman has a much harder time defending herself from attacks on character, and is more easily marginalized. At least that seems to be how things work here in America.


  10. Oh and I am getting pretty tired of the press trying to declare winners and losers in elections. I seem to remember an incident back during the 2000 Presidential election where some moron (unscrupulous, lying, snake in the grass, turd in the punchbowl, hope he has to bunk with Ed Ghein in hell) cousin of one of the contestants in said election placed the ball on the T for the rest of said contestants family and Supreme Court friends hit a hole one.

    Should there be a law against reporting any results until every poll in the nation has closed and/or every vote is counted?
    Should voting districts that still have people in line at the closing, have to open the next day till everyone gets their chance to vote?
    Would this just make the contests easier to rig or have paper-trail-less voting machines removed any and all reasons to make an election easier to rig, at least for the incumbents?


  11. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, our latest Vietnam. She is evil. Clinton voted for the (alleged) Patriot Act. She is evil. More or less than McCain? Evil is evil.

    Feingold should have ran.


  12. It’s not to late. Obama Feingold 08?


  13. Congressional Democrats like Clinton have often been naive in understanding the purposes of the Bush administration, and spineless when they did understand it. But I don’t think it’s helpful or accurate to lump them all in the same category because they were “for” the war.

    It’s hard to visualize how Feingold wins. What’s his appeal beyond a small number of active civil rights supporters? ACLU members and a few Libertarians may think he’s great, but that doesn’t get a guy into the white house.

    Obama will tap Bill Richardson for the VP spot. He’s hispanic–a demographic that Obama isn’t doing as well with as he’d like, and an area where Republicans are making inroads. Just a thought.


  14. I voted for Obama in the Wisconsin primary but I would rather a ‘Clinton-Obama 08’ ticket than ‘Obama-Richardson08’.
    Richardson’s qualifications are impressive, Bachelor’s degree in French and political science, master’s degree in international affairs, US Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations, US Secretary of Energy and Governor. But under Richardson’s watchful eye as the US Secretary of Energy Enron did the worst of its Enron type stuff and California had the rolling blackouts and whatnot.

    Richardson served on corporate boards of several energy companies until he was nominated for Governor of New Mexico but held on to his considerable stock holdings until he started getting distracting questions about them while running for the Democratic nomination for President.
    I see no reason why Richardson’s loyalties will be to the American people any more than Bush’s (his last name is Bush) or Cheney’s (Has Halliburton not done well (money wise) in Iraq?) have been.
    The ex-US Secretary of Energy later serving on several energy company boards? We have had more than enough of this sh*t the last seven years. I don’t trust Richardson. Not sure why I should trust Clinton either.
    Maybe I’ll vote for Ralph Nader. It might not count for anything except maybe to cleanse my aura or something.
    Did it feel as good as I now imagine it would to pull the lever for Nader Scott?

    ‘Obama-Nader08’? ‘Nader-Feingold08’? ‘Feingold-Gore08’?…… ‘Gore-Vidal-Sassoon08’?

    ‘McCain&freakingRove08’?…… ..


  15. I voted for Nader as a protest against Lieberman in 2000. It did not cleanse my aura. I was really supportive of Gore, but turned off by the typical Democratic politics associated with Lieberman. In hindsight I see how foolish it was to vote Nader. I will never do it again.

    I would like to see Dodd as Obama’s running mate. He needs someone with solid experience and a long history. Richardson is a logical choice for the reasons Scott outlined. Bradley also would not be a bad choice. An Obama/Bradley ticket would be the senatorial dream team in 2 on 2 hoops.

    I also like the thought of Colin Powell. Obama could never have a better security blanket than a black man as vp. Any wannabe assassin would be stuck with the same problem post assassination.


  16. Oh yeah I was repulsed by Lieberman in 2000 too but truly liked and still like Gore and knew Bush was exactly who he proved to be (OK he is worse) but I was way too opposed to Bush to vote Nader.
    Remember (did you see) when Bush brought up the way gas prices had gone up under Clinton during a debate with Gore and then just stood there smugly like he was resting his case? The implication being that somehow a vote for bush was a vote for lower gas prices. In what dimension? Because it sure ain’t this one.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: