home

How Important Is Tonight's Debate?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:51:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

With the polling showing Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead in Ohio and falling behind in Texas (Clinton and Obama also seem poised to split RI and VT), how important is tonight's debate? I think it is important. The last debate seemed to hold Clinton's position in Ohio, a double digit lead, while she continued to slip badly in Texas.

I am of the view that if Clinton loses Texas (I assume an Ohio victory), she should suspend her campaign. And of course she CAN win in Texas. But let's assume for the sake of argument, she does not. What then? First of all, the decision is entirely Clinton's and she has every right to continue should she choose to press on. But I would recommend dropping out IF she can not pull out Texas because she will likely be significantly behind in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Because of this, it seems to me her chances for the nomination become slim to none. She would have lost the important narrative she could argue to super delegates, that Obama has not shown an ability to win contested big states and that a slim lead among pledged delegates and a virtual tie in the popular vote signals a tie. (Yes, I understand Texas will not be a battleground in November.)

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

More . . .

One argument for continuing for Clinton would be to continue to challenge Obama on the issue which provides the sharpest contrast between the candidates - health care. If Clinton were to make her campaign primarily about universal health care after a loss in Texas, I think she would do the Democratic Party a great service.

I admit to deep ignorance on the issue. But I know it is important. It would be good if Clinton challenged Obama from the Left on a number of issues irrespective of the horserace. She did so at the last debate on health care. She should do so again tonight.

If she does, that could be the most important aspect of tonight's debate. Perhaps then the debate analysis can go beyond discussing how interesting it is that the candidates had a real debate about a substantive difference (as opposed to the the typical Media focus on gaffes and punches.) This exchange between Olbermann and Gene Robinson is illustrative:

OLBERMANN: Do you think perhaps when that moment where it got away from the moderators and that it was essentially, the two of them just talking to each other and damn the commercials and damn the topics, we’re going to talk about— . . . we’re going to finish off this differences in healthcare, stuff.

ROBINSON: . . . You know, the other episode in the debate that I found really interesting was that debate on healthcare when they just completely ignored the moderators and talk about mandate versus no mandate, and it was almost like a dorm room discussion. It was like they were trying to convince each other and, you know, no, Barack, you’re wrong. Well, Hillary, you know, you can’t make people do this and that. It was an interesting moment, too. It was a debate, an actual debate.

OLBERMANN: Right, like a debate caste or a debate club or debates that we’ve hear of previously. They’ve gotten this thing down after 19...

ROBINSON: As if they were actually trying to convince each other of their position, which I thought is very unusual for a presidential debate.

OLBERMANN: And again, illustrative and also valuable to hear policy being discussed on national television in such nuanced form and at such length. A rarity these days.

ROBINSON: Who’d have thunk it?

Maybe Keith could have Paul Krugman and say, Brad Delong (who agrees with Obama on healthcare) to discuss the substance after tonight's debate. Nah, that would make too much sense.

< New Texas SUSA Poll: Obama Up Four Points | The Rules Are What They Are: That Does Not Make Them Right >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Important Is Tonight's Debate? | 225 comments (225 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'd like to see her hang in there (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:37:26 AM EST
    until the end.  Why?  Because I think that between early June and the convention at the end of August there is a better-than-average chance that there will be enough negative information out about Obama to give a lot of people second thoughts about his chances - and even though people are currently screaming about how the superdelegates should follow the popular vote (well, actually the screaming is selective, as I have yet to hear Obama agree that the Massachusetts superdelegates should vote for Clinton, for example) - I expect that by the convention many of those people will be begging for the superdelegates to save them from themselves and the votes they cast in primaries and caucuses.  I think at that point, people will begin to appreciate the true function and purpose of superdelegates - which is not to just blindly jump on the bandwagon.

    I don't understand why people are in such a hurry to make Clinton irrelevant - there simply is nothing to be gained by reducing the voice of the party to a solo this many months before the convention.  The more we can keep the debate going, the more of a role we, the people, actually play in this thing, and the more opportunity we have to shape the platform and the issues.

    Resist the call of the media and the pundits - and appreciate that their interest in shoving Clinton to the side may not be in our best interest when all is said and done.

    What's wrong with (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    allowing voters to have their say? Does anyone think, seriously, that just by having Hillary step down that the Democratic Party is going to all just get together again? There have been wounds created, rhetoric spewed and insults hurled that will take a far better "uniter" than Obama to heal.

    Obama may not be responsible for the nastiness of many of his supporters and surrogates. Bush wasn't responsible for the cretins that launched the smear campaign against John McCain in 2000 either. But once they take advantage of it, without condemning it, they are a part of it.

    I also think that if Clinton does step aside, you are going to have a lot of seriously outraged female voters. Beat her at the polls. Then we'll see. Tell her to step aside before every last voter has had a chance to voice their opinion and it is not fair, right or ultimately democratic.

    Parent

    People (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    like Jonathan Alter want Hillary to step aside so they can be assured of having what they want.  It's as simple as that.  They don't want Obama to have to compete.  IMO, all those naysayers are really people who are not interested in the good of this country and our society as a whole. They are people who are after power themselves and they go with the candidate who they perceive offers them the best chance at gaining the power they want.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#169)
    by myed2x on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:12:53 AM EST
    you could take the tact that the earlier the nomination happens the more time to heal, rebuild bridges and regroup.....would you rather have 10 months to do that or 1 month....suppose it depends on what your priorities are.

    Parent
    What if she chooses (none / 0) (#180)
    by independent voter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    to step aside and throws her support behind Obama? Will her supporters still feel shortchanged, and refuse to support him?

    Parent
    It's not about feeling short-changed (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    It's what I perceive are the PERSONAL insults he's hurled at me and other women, other people who held beliefs different than his.

    It's how he's thrown my issues under the bus (universal healthcare) to "win" people he's not going to win in November.

    It's his BS "Hillary's supporter WILL vote for me" arrogance.  Feels like Bush to me.

    It's the awful televangelical-like campaign he's run.

    It's the attempt at complete destruction of the Clinton Presidency, a presidency I felt was generally GOOD for the country and for international relations.  If the Clintons campaign for him after that, I'll feel they're MUCH bigger human beings than he is (of course I already think so).

    It has nothing to do with sour grapes, and everything to do with the fact that Obama has turned himself into a candidate I find impossible to vote for.

    And to deflect the "you aren't a good Democrat!" comebacks, I'll say, "you're right! I'm not a Democrat at all.  Thought I was, but if being a good Democrat means voting for someone I find highly objectionable, then nope, not a Democrat!"

    And BTW, I was a Dean supporter and voted for Kerry.  I don't get hung up in sour grapes

    Parent

    So does this mean (none / 0) (#196)
    by independent voter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    you will not vote at all in November if Obama is the nominee?

    Parent
    So eloquent (none / 0) (#205)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    This is exactly how I feel (though I was a Clark supporter til the bitter end in 2004). I voted for Kerry with a song in my heart, because the party hadn't betrayed me.

    This is a totally different situation now. The sexism in the media is echoed by the sexism in the Democratic party, and I cannot and will not support it anymore.

    Parent

    No Obama Vote for Me! Meanwhile, help Hillary win! (none / 0) (#239)
    by kathlee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM EST
    I agree with TeresaInSnow (might that be VT snow?). I will not cast a vote for Obama should he get the nomination.

    Meanwhile, I just got off a shift at Hillary's campaign headquarters in Burlington. Made lots of calls and let me tell you there are still a lot of undecideds out there. For those of you with passion, get over to HillaryClinton.com and volunteer to make calls! I truly feel that in talking to these people you can make a difference! I spoke to many people who still weren't sure. I asked them about their issues to and made my own case for Hillary. Most of these calls ended very positively. One thing to note, the Clinton Campaign does not sanction any negative politicking....was chastised a bit for something I said....but at the same time applauded for my passion.

    By the way, they give you some talking points to get started...Give it a try... Even if you have already had your primary, you can help this way. We had neighboring states volunteers calling headquarters....This is the first time I have ever volunteered because I had to Do Something!!!!

    Parent

    Ten primaries to go yet (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:56:01 AM EST
    after March 4th.  I would like to see this go all the way down to the wire.  What's the rush plus you will disenfranchise many Hilary voters in those states that have not had their primary or caucus.  You make them mad now they won't vote in the general.  Plus that would be contradictory  to Obama's rhetoric  who wants every vote to count.  If you do not let the people speak for their guy or girl by letting them vote in their primary or caucus, not matter what the percentages are, then that would be politics as usual which is also contradictory to Obamas beliefs.

    Re: Ten primaries to get yet (none / 0) (#25)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:07:39 AM EST
    You apparently do not know what the word "disenfranchise" means.  You are guaranteed the right to vote; you are not guaranteed that your vote will matter.  Vagaries of timing, geography, districting, candidacy and so on may make your vote crucial; they may also render it meaningless.

    As to "You make them mad now they won't vote in the general", this is completely unsupported by the available evidence.  We have seen record or near-record turnout across the country, often (as in NV and ME) overwhelming turnout.  There is no reason whatsoever to expect that this will change.  Voters are very, very angry -- and with good reason.  All that is necessary is to ensure they remain angry (which the current administration is doing gratis) and to focus that anger on the Republican party.

    Parent

    I have to disagree with this (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    I was for Edwards but he dropped out. I then had to make a choice. It was very easy to see he could not go further. I have choosen now and don't want to be told for the good of the party, etc.

    If this was a blow out, I would agree with Obama's supporters. But, it is not a blow out. It was going to be a blow out 6 months ago. Maybe Obama should have dropped out then. That would have saved us from this fight. And if the roles were reversed right now would Hillary's supporters be encouraging him to drop out? Bet they would. But, would the Obama supporter like that anymore than I want Hillary to continue on.
     

    Parent

    On the issue of health care mandates, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    Obama is simply being dishonest. He pretends in public and in his fliers to be firmly against mandates because they "force" people to do something they might not otherwise want to do.

    Yet even his own health care adviser simply admits that, under conditions that any honest person can see are a near certainty to occur, they are necessary. He says, in answer to a direct question on this point, "If there are free riders, Obama is open to mandates." Yet how much insight or empirical study does it take to realize that millions of young and healthy people, who certainly could afford health care insurance, will choose to become free riders if they have no immediate, pressing obligation to join up?

    Obama's entire argument against mandates is, in short, simply dishonest. It is a cynical use of a Republican talking point in the full knowledge that its basic premise is false.

    And of course it does not seem to bother Obama that if elected he will have his own words thrown back in his face when the occasion arises to correct the gaping hole in his plan - or any plan based on his that gets through the Congress.

    But what progressive really cares about universal health care anymore? I guess when you are the change you've been waiting for, universal health care is not a change you really need.

    I have never thought there was no mandate (none / 0) (#27)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    for coverage of children under Obama's plan or seen anything that implied it.  He has only hinted that penalties would apply to those who didn't partcipate but it's obvious that's what would have to happen.  

    Hillary's plan extends the mandate to everyone and she refuses to say how it's enforced, but again it's pretty obvious that would be penalties in the form of garnished wages.  Or maybe the sky will open and money will fall into everyone's heath care coffers.

    Parent

    you don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    Look, his precise argument against Hillary's approach is that it "forces" people to take on coverage -- the Republican talking point gist.

    Yes, his plan does force parents to buy health care insurance for their children, but that is simply inconsistent with his own argument that mandates are an evil because they force people to do things.

    Likewise, the admission of his health care adviser that mandates will be necessary (again, under conditions that are a near certainty to occur) is likewise simply inconsistent with his argument that mandates are an evil because they force people to do things.

    I know you want to pretend that your guy isn't being dishonest about this, but you've hardly come up with an honest argument yourself for that point.

    Obama's blatant inconsistency is hardly an argument he's honest -- it's as direct an argument as possible that he's dishonest instead.

    Parent

    Actually the point was they are both dishonest (none / 0) (#56)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:47:46 AM EST
    Or rather Obama misleads and Hillary just refuses to address.  I've stated earlier that I believe neither even has a health care plan.  Until you state exactly how your mandate is enforced you don't have a plan, you have a incomplete idea.  That goes for both of them.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:09:24 AM EST
    Not only incomplete, but unvoted upon.

    Remember, H. Clinton had a healthcare plan in 1992. This is not Greek mythology where things leap fully formed out of the heads of the gods.

    I think that the zeitgeist is a lot different now for healthcare, but it will have to pass through Congress. That means neither Clinton's nor Obama's plans will pass into law unexamined or unscathed.

    As much as people argue about healthcare plans the truth is that whoever doesn't get the nomination will be sitting in the Senate negotiating healthcare. Myself, I don't think either plan is enough, and the first plan to pass will probably be less than what either now offers. How progressive a health plan we get depends more on how many Dems are elected to Congress with a Dem President than which Dem President.

    Parent

    How progressive a plan also depends on (none / 0) (#160)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    your starting point.  I'd rather start from Hillary's plan than Obama's.

    Parent
    Hillary's problems (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    There are lots of issues to point to, but the media coverage has been key to her demise. It has also made me sick to read other sites like Huff demonize her. I have found comfort the past few years reading liberal blogs; it gave me some relief that I wasn't crazy while watching Bush and Co. destroy our country. However, now I find myself not checking out what some blogs have to say. While they are quick to point out that Hillary undermines the Democratic party, they seem not to care that they are undermining the Democratic party with their relentless attacks of her.  I voted for her, but if Obama wins, so be it, I just want a winner in November. I have heard many Hillary folks say the same (in my world). I haven't heard that same loyalty from Obama fans, and I think most blogs have contributed to this problem. God forbid she wins now, how will those blogs turn it around for her?  I think some folks should have been a little more objective and let the process play out without undermining the Clintons. Thank God TalkLeft gave me a place to go.

    If Clinton loses Texas (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    she needs to think long and hard about staying in the race.

    There are only 2 primaries/caucus between March 4th and the PA primary, nearly 2 months later, on April 22nd.  Those states are Wyoming and Mississippi both likely Obama wins.  

    2 months of McCain building his warchest and beating up on Obama while Obama continues to campaign against Hillary AND McCain.  

    The post-PA states look really bad for Hillary except for Puerto Rico and perhaps Kentucky.   Polls for NC already have Obama up, Indiana is a neighbor state to Obama, Oregon is probably a slight favorite for Obama.  

    What is the end game for Clinton if she loses Texas?  How does she plan to even get within 100 delegates of Obama?  If she can't do that then she   can't win.

    If Tuesday is a wash for her that means she will need to win over 60% of the remaining delegates just to get within 100 of Obama nearly 70% to tie him.  That simply isn't going to happen.  

    I am not convinced of anything (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:20:32 AM EST
    beyond your first statement.

    Hillary will be as swiftboated as much as Obama. There is no guarantee it will stick v. Obama either.

    The fact is Obama has proven himself to be a tough competitor, whether you believe the media is "totally in the tank" or not.

    I think BTD's original criticisms are as valid today as in the beginning- Obama isn't partisan enough. The (elected) GOP will not compromise on anything. Fuzzing the differences will not create a mandate.

    The only way change is going to happen with either is to elect more and better Democrats to congress. IF those numbers don't change, the GOP is just going to block everything they can.

    There really is a difference (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:44:20 AM EST
    Between a candidate who has not been "defined" yet in the public eye, and one that has. Ask Michael Dukakis.

    Really, you'd have to argue that what Hillary has thrown at Obama seriously compares with what the Republicans would throw at him. Do you really think you could make out that argument? Do you really think that Hillary isn't perfectly aware that there are far, far more binding constraints on her ability to attack Obama than the Republicans would feel?

    Hillary knows full well that every time she launches any kind of attack on Obama, that the very first thing she has to worry about is backlash, because she is attacking a fellow Democrat -- and no Democrat has been protected the way Obama has been.

    Be real, why don't you?

    From my point of view, the very protection that has been extended to Obama in the Democratic primaries will come back to haunt him in the general.

    Consider, for example, the entire issue of racism. There is nothing more certain than that Obama and his followers will accuse the Republicans of racism when they criticize Obama, on however flimsy the ground may be.

    But the Republicans now have a perfect inoculating response: "Well of course they attack us as being racists. They attack every critic as being racist, including fellow Democrats. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton. One day, he's the first black President. The next day, when it suits their convenience, he's a terrible racist, based on nothing. I tell you, they'll say it about anybody. They have no shame in using that smear."

    In short, the Obama campaign, having cried wolf again and again in the Democratic campaign, will make it very hard to do so effectively in the general election.

    Parent

    Actually, you can expect the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:00:39 AM EST
    to accuse Obama and his campaign of being racist.
    Look at the kind of things Jesse Jackson JR has been saying, and imagine Republicans having that material to work with.
    They'll tie that to Obama's church which does not allow whites (or so they will say), and Farrakhan, and pretty soon, Willie Horton will look like a better candidate than Obama.

    Parent
    WTF? (none / 0) (#58)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    Since when does Obama's church not allow whites?

    Parent
    Tell that to Howard Dean (none / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    who is also a congregationalist!

    WTF indeed!

    Obama is not a member of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam group

    Parent

    Obama's paster has praised (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM EST
    Farrakhan. Guilt by association is the tie-in.
    That particular game is already being played.

    Parent
    And Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan and have never been directly associated with him.

    Anyone who buys this linkage was never voting for Obama in the first place.

    Parent

    So you say. But how much do the (none / 0) (#134)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    Independents and Republicans who voted for Obama because they hate Hillary really know about him?
    Of course some of them will be swayed by this.

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:49:14 AM EST
    and neither do you.  

    I doubt that McCain is going to want to make this about religion.  Reminding his base that he isn't very religious is probably not the path to victory.

    Parent

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#173)
    by litigatormom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    --and I cannot vouch for this information--Obama's pastor has said that his church is intended to promote African-American interests.  Rethugs have suggested that this makes Obama a black nationalist. Not saying its true, just saying what I've read from Rethugs.

    Hey, John "Am I Constipated" McLaughlin asked during his panel this past Sunday whether, on the strength of her "first time proud" statement, Michelle Obama was a "black militant."  Yes, he actually said those words.  I thought Michelle's statement was poorly expressed and needed clarification (which she gave) but the notion that she is a black militant for saying it was both ludicrous and offensive.

    Look for the "black militant" theme to come to the fore.  "It's not that they're black, it's that they black militants.

    Parent

    L-mom. What you said in the first (none / 0) (#218)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    sentence is definitely true.
    I don't have a problem with it, but others might.
    Obviously Obama---like any politician---joined his parish with political considerations in mind.
    Whatever message his church preaches can be a part of the process of evaluating him---a very small part, unless there is something really outrageous.

    Parent
    did you not notice the (none / 0) (#73)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    (or so they will say)?

    Parent
    i don't care... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    I expect better of people on this site.

    Don't spread blatant lies.  It is that simple.

    Parent

    I expect better reader comprehension (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    It was clear to me that she was saying this will be an attack, not that it would be valid.  

    Parent
    MarkL said it and would appear to be a he (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    as long as we are talking about reader comprehension.

    It (NOI) is a foolish attack and easily refuted.

    I was an Edwards supporter and am not heavily invested in either HRC or Obama. I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee.

    I like Hillary. A lot. I cringed after Iowa (the media glee) I applauded NH.

    The only real question is can she get enough delegates to overcome Obama's lead in an apportioned system. A winner take all approach would give her a shot, but she is not running in a winner take all system.

    You can argue (perhaps) about getting real about Obama's chances in the GE (I think "the woe is me , if Obama is the nominee" is overblown) but there is no argument about the need to get real about HRC uphill battle.

    Parent

    sorry about the sex change, Mark (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    but I still stand by the statement and I think that folks who believe the church thing is easily refuted are forgetting what the republicans are capable of.  These are the same folks who took Max Cleland, a man who has ONE ARM left after Vietnam, and turned him into an ineffective idiot, basically blaming him for his own injury.

    Don't expect logic and don't expect fair play.

    Parent

    I think it probably does; however, (none / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:35:17 AM EST
    I have read accusations that it does not.

    Parent
    Can I quote you on that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:02:09 AM EST
    But the Republicans now have a perfect inoculating response: "Well of course they attack us as being racists. They attack every critic as being racist, including fellow Democrats. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton. One day, he's the first black President. The next day, when it suits their convenience, he's a terrible racist, based on nothing. I tell you, they'll say it about anybody. They have no shame in using that smear."

    In short, the Obama campaign, having cried wolf again and again in the Democratic campaign, will make it very hard to do so effectively in the general election.

    That was excellent (and I really would like to quote you on that).

    Parent

    Quote me by all means if you want (none / 0) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:31:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Isn't it obvious (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    that in a McCain/Obama ticket, the republicans aren't really going to be worried about racism?  Not that they'll be overt (and I agree they have a perfect rebuttle) but they know they are not going to get the aa or the latte dem vote, so what is there to lose?

    Let me state, however, that I don't think it'll come from McCain.  I may have a lot of problems with his beliefs, but I think after what his poor daughter was put through, he'll be sensitive to those sorts of things.  Probably, the PACs will play off that--release something awful, to which McCain will publicly protest...win/win.

    Parent

    mccain sensitive? no, he won't. (none / 0) (#74)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    mccain has shown that he is immune to shame over pandering. never fear, he'll pander as much as needed. that is exactly what he has done for the past two years. remember the bush hug? uggg!

    Parent
    I am well aware the GOP is poll testing attacks (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    trying to figure out how to beat Obama. I will be short here. If Hillary Clinton cannot beat Obama, John McCain cannot.

    She is smarter and more talented than McCain. She is a better speaker than McCain.

    Finally the Rove attack method- find your opponents strength and attack- works well with McCain with the recent news. As TPM said, the affair evidence may be thin, but his friends are all lobbyists.

    Parent

    Take just one obvious example (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    In the recent Kristol column in the NYTimes, he outlined a clear line of attack on Obama, based on his perceived lack of patriotism.

    Now, it's perfectly obvious that Hillary has, at the very most, only hinted at issues having to do with Obama's patriotism -- I'd say it's fairer to say that she really hasn't attacked him at all on this point. And she can't do so because she knows absolutely that it would backfire on her, running for the Democratic nomination.

    But, suffice it to say, such attacks are about the most common and effective of attacks by the Republicans on Democratic nominees throughout recent history.

    Saying that Obama has "stood up" to Hillary's attacks, and she is a better campaigner than McCain, entirely misses the point of the nature of the sorts of attacks Hillary can launch versus what the Republicans can engage.

    There will be a very rude awakening here for Obama supporters if he becomes the nominee. They will think they've seen the worst of it, and they will soon find out otherwise.

    Parent

    Already neatly parried (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    Senator Obama appears to have taken a different approach than we saw four years ago with Senator Kerry; his response:

    "A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

    That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."


    Glenn Greenwald discusses this approach here (Salon).  I believe it's the appropriate tactic for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton  -- and that it, by and large work on anyone who grasp on reality hasn't gotten all sweaty.


    Parent
    Oh please... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    If you really think that that will constitute an effective response, maybe politics isn't your game.

    Hint: whenever a politician says, "That is a debate I am very happy to have", it means, in fact, "That is a debate I will try everything in my power to avoid."

    Parent

    Re: Oh please... (none / 0) (#149)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    I assure you, having worked on and lived through many campaigns, I have an ample supply of cynicism.  I also have considerable first-hand experience with tactical and strategic thinking -- much of it gained, like most valuable experience, through failure.  It's my assessment that Senator Obama is not bluffing here -- and given the opportunity to address those issues one-on-one against McCain, he'd shred him like my dog would a goose-down pillow.

    Now, I'll grant you that this won't convince the loony right -- but then again, since they're immune to rational political discourse, nothing will convince the loony right.

    Parent

    Please don't try to impress me (none / 0) (#176)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    with your "experience", and "realism". Try to make an actual argument if you can.

    Look, the way the appeal to patriotism works is simple. Ordinary voters are looking to determine the basic values that a would-be President possesses. They are not going to be impressed with what will look like quite arguable details as to whether enough body armor was provided, etc. (And of course the concept that Obama could win on the patriotism argument by talking about not using wiretaps - which McCain will turn as its head as an argument that Obama doesn't want to protect our nation from terrorists -- is simply bizarre).

    What voters are looking for is an indication of: how much do you really love our country? What are you willing to do to show your dedication to our country? How much pride do you have in our country? In short, do you have the same feelings about our country that I have?

    For these sorts of questions, symbolism has always been the key factor in persuading people. You can pretend that there's some magic way to make other wonkish sounding things seem more important to people, but there is no such magic. Obama can't win that argument with the sort of approach he has used. That approach, which countless Democrats have employed, has never worked effectively -- never.

    And the problem for Obama is that on the point of symbolism he just loses across the board to John McCain when it comes to patriotism.

    If you were realistic indeed, you'd simply know that.

    Parent

    Re: please don't try to impress me (none / 0) (#203)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    I'll be happy not to.  Please don't try to insult me with "...maybe politics is not your game" or by suggesting that I'm not "realistic".  Your argument is strong enough to stand on its own without denigrating my intelligence and experience.

    And your point about symbolism is valid -- but not across the entire electorate, and not, perhaps, as much as it once was.  Portions of the public seem to be slowly coming to the realization that faux patriotism (typified by Mr. Mission Accomplished in a flight suit) is a cheap political trick.  Granted, this dawning comprehension has yet to propagate as far as perhaps we might hope it would -- but it's making inroads.

    But let's put that aside and presume you're right: that superior policy arguments will be ineffective in the face of flag-waving and other symbolism.  There's no reason why Democrats can't own that symbolism.

    For instance, consider the symbolism of presenting  the stories of inadequately-treated and homeless veterans -- a particular concern of mine -- and pointing out that this has gone on for eight years on the Republicans' watch.  How "patriotic" can it be to allow our brave soldiers to languish like this?  Alternatively, how about the symbolism of "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" against the backdrop of a still-struggling New Orleans? The point being to hang the appalling failures of the current administration around McCain's neck like a lead albatross -- to ceaselessly connect him with W, to hammer home the point that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third Bush term.

    Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have shown the ability to use symbolism effectively, although I would give the edge there to the latter.  I would hope that whichever one ends up running would be fully willing to utilize the talents and strengths of the other to win both at both the policy and symbolism levels.

    Parent

    Shorter anti-McCain theme (4.00 / 2) (#178)
    by litigatormom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    "John Bush McCain is in bed with lobbyists regardless of whether he's actually having sex with them."

    Parent
    Obama flip flopped on K Street lobbyists (none / 0) (#191)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    for his presidential run. Previously, he accepted their donations, even while he was passing the Ethics reform bill and new "rules" for lobbyists.

    Parent
    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:45:54 AM EST
    But the Republicans now have a perfect inoculating response: "Well of course they attack us as being racists. They attack every critic as being racist, including fellow Democrats. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton. One day, he's the first black President. The next day, when it suits their convenience, he's a terrible racist, based on nothing. I tell you, they'll say it about anybody. They have no shame in using that smear."

    This is exactly what they will do.  And I think you've even got the wording almost exactly right.

    They might even have some fun with what Obama partisans saw as Clinton's most racist statement:  "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88."

    This will give them a double whammy.  

    First making fun of a fact being racist. Then poke at Obama's fear that somehow equating him with Jesse Jackson is a bad thing.

    Parent

    and to "innoculate" themselves further (none / 0) (#194)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    Yesterday the RNC (I think) released a statement that they would not make racial or sexist comments about the Dem nominee.
    So - that should relieve us! ;>


    Parent
    What (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:20:55 AM EST
    you are not appreciating is that Hillary Clinton has already been Swiftboated as much as possible.  That's why the Repubicans want Obama, he's fresh fodder.  CLinton has a huge following even after being maligned for almost 20 years.  There's really nothing more to tell.  The Republicans don't want to campaign against a Clinton.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#61)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    Hillary hasn't been attacked since 1998.  The Republicans will drag up all the old stuff as well as Bill's recent business deals and lobbyists.  Expect every aspect of the Clintons' personal finances to be scrutinized heavily, especially since Hillary is helping to finance her campaign.

    Parent
    Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    has been attacked this entire campaign season, to the point where Bill Clinton's presidency has been transformed from a strength for the Democratic party into an ignominous failure.

    I'd call that a below-the-belt attack in 2008. And she STILL has roughly split the popular vote with Obama, despite these distortions...

    Parent

    Hardly (none / 0) (#198)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:12 AM EST
    Clinton has not been attacked with any substantial vigor or dirty tricks.  Obama hasn't brought up any of the old stuff, nor has he brought up Bill's Kazahkstan mining deal.  McCain or his proxies will undoubtedly resurrect stuff like Whitewater, and do a lot of digging into everything that's happend in the last 8 years.  The talking point that Hillary's had everything thrown at her already just doesn't hold up.

    Parent
    Nonsense backatcha (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    Clinton is being attacked daily. And of course, the attacks will continue on either candidate. The point is (ugh) Lakoffian -- the framing. She has been defined, so the attacks are old stuff and won't grab a new group, won't shift polls much. Obama has not been defined yet, nor do we know quite how they will do so . . . but we're beginning to see, and it's not going to be good. You think he is ready to retaliate effectively, but that is another unknown. I like to go with those known knowns.

    Parent
    Hillary hasn't been attacked since 1998? (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by litigatormom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    How about Trent Lott publicly stating in 2000 when she was running for the Senate (in response to a question about how he would work with the wife of the person he tried to throw out of the White House) that "maybe she'll get struck by lightening" before she got to the Senate.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#201)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    A random negative comment is not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about potential scandals like Rezko, Whitewater redux, etc.

    Parent
    Even Obama agrees with you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    And I hope Clinton reminds him of it.

    "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." - Barack Obama (November 8, 2004)

    Film at Taylor Marsh.

    Parent

    Re: I am not convinced of anything (none / 0) (#15)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:52:31 AM EST
    Your last paragraph holds the key.  It's not enough to merely win back the White House in November, that win must be accomplished with margins large enough to generate a coattail effect, and sweep into office  "more and better Democrats", just as you say.

    Because if that doesn't happen, then the ongoing debate about, say, the fine points of Senator Clinton's or Senator Obama's health plans will be moot.  Neither will stand a chance in Congress.  And the same can be said about any number of other initiatives -- the GOP will do everything they possibly can to engender failure, and then will of course lay that at the foot of the President.

    I regard it as imperative that the Democratic Party nominate that candidate who can accomplish this -- and of course, considerable debate flourishes over who that might be, fueled by things like CBS/NYT national via Pollster.   I'm not too concerned about whoever isn't the nominee -- it's not likely they'll be shut out of the process, rather it's far more likely they'll be a key ally.

    I'm content to wait another week and see what happens -- but after next Tuesday, a serious self-assessment needs to take place -- in everyone's camp.  (Except Nader's.  Nader is clearly far too intoxicated by his own bloated, festering ego to engage in sober reflection.)

    Parent

    Yep, and that's why I worry (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    based on the state I know best, mine -- where the results argue against a good coattail effect for the winner, Obama. The crossover confounds figuring out whether Clinton would give a substantial effect, either, unfortunately. I think we may have blown it but big this year, unless the party leadership has a better handle on this. The DNC has not done anything, anything that would suggest so.

    Parent
    I'll ONLY help BETTER Dems, more (none / 0) (#23)
    by seabos84 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:05:49 AM EST
    blue dogs and bush dogs and dlc'ers ??

    for what?

    WHAT have they done, other than give cover to fascist lies since ...

    RayGun and Tip were buddy buddy at the scotch bar after 6, while all us peeeeee-ons were getting shafted from the latest 'bipartisan' b.s.?

    RayGun, like Bush II, had a mandate cuz he announced he had a mandate, acted like he had a mandate, AND

    all the bush / blue / dlc dogs of the day rolled on their backs and peee'd the floor

    allowing the fascist ba$$ards to then have a mandate.

    more dogs is a waste of time, especially for how small the netroots currently is

    rmm.

    Parent

    Rally Cry for Feminists (2.00 / 5) (#12)
    by bison on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:42:53 AM EST
    I copied this from Jack and Jill politics.  It suggest that Senator Clinton's recent outrage is a rallying cry for feminists:

    The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums over the weekend.

    I'm not kidding. They're spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey's sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, "bi*ch." You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

    Now, I won't deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. The media is doing nothing but excusing her behavior.

    Guess what, that "double standard" theory doesn't fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she's not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success?

    Why doesn't the media focus it's attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won't acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, "cheap," and his hope, "false." The list goes on and on.

    I don't care if she's a woman, man or whatever . . . when you're wrong, you're wrong.

    "Shame on you Barack Obama"?!?!?! Who the hell is she to talk to him like he's some 4 year old? This ain't pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast.

    Senator Obama is a grown a*s man. He's just as accomplished as she is, yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie??? She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had.

    It's never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it's still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it's NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 20,000 but it's NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states (24 to 11), have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it's still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!

    No. We still have to hear the media talk about a Clinton comeback, even when the MATH says it's highly unlikely.

    She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that (beleive it or not) this brotha is just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.

    Her stunts are going to backfire on her. It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don't like negative politics . . . it's as simple as that.

    You know, I'd love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I'd love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the "angry black man."

    This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I'm not saying that they're better or worse, just different. I'm just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can't forget those double standards, right?

    Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to FEAR black men.

    Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she's done over the weekend??? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the "white man," the way Hillary talks about the "boys club?"

    Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he "invaded her personal space." If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama's black a*s the second he steps out of line.

    Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her "Scarlett O'Hara" routine. It's a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it.

    You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004. He knows he can't do or say certain things because he can't afford to make white folk uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.

    Trust me, we all know the routine. Smile . . . show your teeth . . . get that base out of your voice . . . don't look them straight in the eye . . . don't show emotion . . . make them comfortable and they might call you one of "those good black people," and throw you a few crumbs.

    Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it.

    But I also know that there are many "oppressed" white women who would never trade places with my black a*s. That same "oppressed" white woman has been quick to clutch her purse and call the cops when she sees me in her neighborhood after 8:00pm. Hillary reminds me of one of those types of people.

    All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest.

    So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don't make excuses for Hillary's poor and divisive behavior. And don't pretend like Obama doesn't walk a tight rope everyday as well.

    Obama caught hell just for saying, "you're likeable, enough" because people didn't like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the "snub" because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn't looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!

    I can't make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the "black candidate." It's the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace "girl power" in ways Obama could NEVER embrace "black power." Now you've got Tina Fey saying "Bi*ch is the new black." WTF does that mean?

    Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown a*s woman who knows exactly what she's doing. She conveniently plays off of gender oppression and white privelege every chance she gets.

    Some of us don't see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. And she can't stand the fact that this uppity negroe didn't wait his turn in line.

    But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to "POOR HILLARY"

    When considering the exit polls in Wisconsin, the more Senator Clinton convinces voters that Senator Obama is attacking her unfairly, the better she will do in the elections on March 4th .   This strategy might work out for her.

    Sorry, wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:56:46 AM EST

    Guess what, that "double standard" theory doesn't fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her

    I stopped reading after that, because it's obvious that you have missed every single article on TalkLeft for the last couple of weeks.  BTD and Jeralyn were quite adept at pointing out the very REAL double standard and the sexism from the media and Obama, and if you don't want to see it, then you won't see it.

    Parent

    We share a different view (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by bison on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:42:28 AM EST

    We share a differt view.  As a black man, he must walk a tightrope. Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she has done over the weekend  What would happen if he raised his voice to a white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the "white man," the way Hillary talks about the "boys club?"

    Remember Obama caught hell just for saying, "you're likeable, enough" because people didn't like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the "snub"... a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. He was being disrespectful because he wasn't looking at her when she talked.

    Sexism and racism are realities in the Campaign 2008.  Hillary gets to embrace "girl power" but  both campaigns have to be mindful of how these two isms are wedge issues.


    Parent

    AS respectful (none / 0) (#30)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    as he can toward her?LOL!

    Parent
    Hold On (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:18:16 AM EST
    Okay, a lot of your comments are a bit of a stretch.

    First, the Obama campaign has adeptly argued the race issue on a number of occasions. Look at the memo that came out during the South Carolina election instructing surrogates to play up the supposed racism of Bill Clinton's remarks at every opportunity. Review the pressure they have placed on John Lewis and others to change their vote in order not to prevent a black president from being elected.  Examine how anytime someone comes close to criticizing him it becomes a racial attack (e.g. the firestorm over yesterday's picture, which he shouldn't have even acknowledged if it bothered him so much).

    Second, the Tina Fey remark -albeit clumsy- refers to fashion. Each year the line - which has become a joke - becomes this trend is the "new black." Why? Designers want folks to quit wearing black because it means emptying our wardrobes and selling more garbage.

    Third, if you and other Obama campaign supporters don't like the gender card being thrown look inside first. Review the screeds that populate many websites about her supporters being old ladies , "ugly betty's, and other unprintable insults. Note the viciousness of media commentators; few of whom - at least not yet - have ever said anything remotely close on race (outside of BOR's lynching remark). For someone who claims such tight control over his campaign and message - as proof of his executive competence - he has been strangely quiet on this issue.

    There are any number of ways that the Obama campaign could have played the last couple of weeks. It could have been gracious in victory and accommodating toward Hillary's and JRE's supporters. Instead it often choose the most immature and offensive responses imaginable. That leaves not only bitterness but also strong reservations about his competence to lead. (We already have someone like that in the White House.)

    Let me tell you something. If Obama goes on to lose this or the general - and I believe he will - it will be his perceived immaturity and inexperience that finishes him rather than his race. Many democrats within the primary campaign have bitten off their tongues rather than say anything for fear of being - or because they have been -labeled a racist. That reticence will not hold when the campaign hits the general.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    What a hateful rant.

    Parent
    Re: wow (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:27:40 AM EST
    I don't agree that it's "hateful".  "Angry", yes, but that's not a bad thing.

    (This should not be taken as implicit concurrence with what the poster has said.  I agree in part, disagree in part.  But I think it's well worth reading in its entirety, and considering carefully.)

    Parent

    No, it is hateful (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:37:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Established commenters on this site (none / 0) (#158)
    by AF on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    regularly express far more anger, condescension, and disrespect toward Obama than bison expressed toward Hillary.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#174)
    by myed2x on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    but remember when BTD says it something, then just agree...b/c he'll just keep replying with subject line posts saying 'Yes it is' or 'No its not' with nothing to back it up until pushed on it, then he says it's my opinion or similar, by then his wurlitzer has done it's job though and/or a couple of other rabid posters have also jumped to his defense with wholly unsubstantiated claims, fact free arguments and circular logic.

    It's really been a study in 'downward spiral' from when I first began frequenting this site back when it was still the old web design before this one.

    Parent

    Not Hateful, just a black woman! (none / 0) (#64)
    by bison on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    I'm not a Hillary hater.  I see feminism thorough a black lens, because race does matter.  I have been discriminated because of my race and gender.   I understand white privilege and I constantly struggle against the  Cult of True Womanhood.  "Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well."  We have to fight racism as vigorously as we fight sexism.  Obama  walks a tight rope everyday, but black supporters can't come out vehemently for him.  It would make him a ghetto candidate.   I argue for a radical paradigm of humanism.

    Parent
    There is no need to denigrate feminism (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM EST
    to demonstrate your concern for racism. I like to think that I can be aware and concerned about the racism involved while still highlighting the sexism involved.

    They are not mutually exclusive concerns.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    That is a remarkable comment and speaks volumes.

    Parent
    She didn't denigrate feminism (none / 0) (#93)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    In fact she endorsed it.  She just pointed out the large blind spot for white privilege among many in the pro-Hillary camp.  She also pointed out that Clinton is adept at using her gender to her advantage in a way that Obama has not been able to use his race.  It wasn't the Obama camp that put out a video called "This One's for the Girls".

    Parent
    i also point out there is a blind spot also (none / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:25:55 AM EST
    on the african american side as well. if all white voters went exclusively for clinton based on race, the african american community would say racism and rightly so. but on the other hand if african americans vote race, that is ok? please think about it. i can guarantee a number of voters are doing that. it is one of the reasons many of us feared obama becoming the "black" candidate.

    Parent
    She did indeed denigrate it (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    as you now have.

    Parent
    Assertions are not arguments (none / 0) (#192)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    I made an argument why I disagree with your assessment.  You've responded by repeating yourself.  Florid language like "denigrate" and "hateful" makes a poor substitute for an argument.

    Parent
    yeah, hateful! (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Appealing to shame (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:14:01 AM EST
    is an an apprpriate expression when you are disappointed with someone.  The Obama campaign reused the concept just yesterday (incorecctly and unfairly IMO).  In the debate tonight she needs to devote some time to the following issues.

    What are the specifics of how Obama plans to unite the nation for change?  He says we need new people in DC yet most of the cast will be holdovers.

    She needs to hold Obama accountable for some of the unfair attacks by his campaign.  He has promised a new politics but the record so far doesn't match the words.

    She needs to have the same discussion on trade that they had on health care.  Obama has been very opportunistic here.  He has also talked favorably about NAFTA and isn't in favor of repealing it.

    Parent

    I too ended with, same, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    he is not as accomplished; in fact other than participation in normal legislative activity he has no accomplishments certainly nothing extraordinary in his Public Service.   And as blacks have rallied around a candidate that looks like they do, it would as well be beneficial for the largest demographic in the electorate, women, to like wise do the same they have the power to determine who the President will be above any other group if they move together.  220 Years is too long to wait to have a female as President and another one with this level of name recognition and talent will no come along soon.  So if it where are rally cry she is late, Senator Obama called blacks to him using historic group grievances the same used by Gov Patrick during his Mass Gov campaign and he started the day after Senator Clintons NH win, it is time she stoop to his level and stop fighting like a girl.

    Parent
    Accomplished or not? (none / 0) (#99)
    by bison on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    Why isn't he is accomplished?  he is the only black United States Senator.  He has served as an elected official for about the same amount of time as Hillary.  He has organize and run an effective  national campaign.  He had to do it for scrap.  He did not have the advantage of having a spouse as a former President. To be sure, he has not climb to the mountain top, but neither has she.  She does have "a level of name recognition and talent," but she is not the most accomplished, female United States Senator. Her name recognition comes from her husband's accomplishments. Both of Hillary and Obama have room for growth, but it is growth that can only come from actually holding the office.  
    On the point of time line, how long have black men waited to have a real chance at becoming President?  Both have waited much too long!

    Parent
    NO way (none / 0) (#170)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    You choose to and parse spin words to compare similar BIG difference between being one of two representing of a State like NY attacked on 911 and being a State Representative with a vague record and patronage and also choose to dismiss her unpaid gigs as First I would refer you to her first lady answer during the Calif debate if you are interested in facts.  You may believe their records as similar; I would disagree and also suggest that Believers quota is probably full and in the minority.

    Parent
    Just silly (none / 0) (#219)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    it is We the People of this Country who enabled Bush no one else We are the power We are the dependent as we are the government of this country, if we did not want Iraq to be invaded it would not have happened stop dumping your failure of Clinton.  And it appears that at least the We part that are Dems may be on course to display that poor judgment again.

    Parent
    if a Dem will sit in the White House next Jan (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    Embedded in this propaganda piece is also the rationale of why Obama will not be able to rally women to him as the Dem nominee.  This is not a sustainable rational defense of a Presidential Candidate who is credentialed, but rather it is a defense of a Personality by afflicted followers who perceive offense as slight, victims, and I would suggest most women of this temperament are not Democrats.  

    Personally, I believe tonight's debate to be very important, Senator Clinton needs to make her case regardless of the perils of in party group grudges that are strangling her ability to contrast Obama's national inexperience, his non existent experience on foreign and national security issues, his boneheaded ethical dilemma, his politically convenient lack of a clear voting record, and the limited finite expanse of his cult of personality and liberal influence, if nothing changes tonight to move Tx back into her column, the debate will then end up determining if a Democratic will sit in the White House next Jan.


    Parent

    bull! (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:13:05 AM EST


    Parent
    She needs to bow out gracefully (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilybart on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:23:03 AM EST
    We need Clinton to become Senate Majority leader, and to do that, and to keep her Senate seat, she needs to see the writing on the wall.

    If she concedes very soon, saying that she cannot stand in the way of history and that she will do all she can to elect Obama, she is golden.

    I'm SO sick of that. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:42:24 AM EST

    If she concedes very soon, saying that she cannot stand in the way of history...

    I'm really, really sick of that cr@p.  Her nomination would be every bit as historic as his would, so for the love of G-d, please get off of this "standing in the way of history" garbage.  And no one was telling Obama to concede when he was behind, so why should she when they're practically neck and neck (this is no McCain/Huckabee situation here, folks).

    Parent

    I'll second that! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:05:48 AM EST
    The woman, of course must stand aside from the top prize like a good little girl and try to be content with a consolation prize like Majority Leader.  

    Once again women are supposed to play second fiddle in the all boys band. Isn't that sweet!

    Parent

    I think that Clinton should (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:59:54 AM EST
    I think that Clinton should continue until the end. That way she and all of her advisors will have alienated themselves completely from the rest of the Democratic Party. I for one hope that that fascist Richard Holbrooke never whispers in the ear of another Democratic President for the rest of his life.

    If H. Clinton is to march to the end, let her. This is the end of her national career. Let her take down as much with her as she can.

    Parent

    I hope she continues (none / 0) (#154)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    til the end too, but for very different reasons...

    As I tell so many Obama supporters here, your comments are ensured to turn off HRC voters from voting for Obama, should he win the nomination.

    I for one have read one too many comments like yours and have resolved not to be on the same side of the table as people like you when the ge comes...

    I.e. you may think you're advocating for Obama, but you're actually driving people far, far away from your candidate.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#200)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    the sexist factors in this race have driven me, for the first time, away from the Democratic party.

    And I've voted Democrat for 22 years. In every election. And donated tons of $$.

    But it's time for me to protest having a candidate stuffed down my throat by the media and overzealous supporters and a DNC that no longer cares about its base.

    Parent

    Agree with the standing in the way of history (none / 0) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:11:50 AM EST
    but have to point out, when he was behind it was still mathematically possible for him to win. She will have to win by 15 points to get the delegates.

    Screw standing in the way of history- she need only be concerned with her future and her legacy.

    Parent

    She is Golden? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    To Obamabots, maybe.  They only like her if she's not threatening their candidate.  Past history shows that if she caves into the opposition, it would end her whole political career, especially after the way the Party has treated her.  What the Democrat Party and the far Left want is to get rid of the Clintons all together because the Clintons are strong leaders who don't need to be propped up by career politicians and journalistic would-be advisers.

    Parent
    If HRC does not get the nomination (none / 0) (#124)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    she will continue to be the US Senator from NY until 2012, having just been re-elected in 2006, so I would hardly say that her political career is over - far from it.

    What is so ironic - and troubling - is that if she loses the nomination, she will campaign as hard to get Obama elected as she did for herself.  She will raise money, she will encourage her supporters to support him.  I do not get the sense that Obama is as willing to do that for her if she were to get the nomination.  He will be bitter - she will be gracious.

    And I suppose that is what makes me sense that the two of them are in this race for entirely different reasons, and coming to that realization is what moved me to her side when Edwards dropped out - that the more I hear Obama speaking in non-campaign rally formats, the more I feel that he is in this for Barack Obama - not for the party, and not for the country.  It may not be fair, but the snide "you're likeable enough" comment in the debate right before New Hampshire revealed something about Obama that was a complete turn-off for me.

    HRC's career does not end if she does not get the nomination, not by a long shot.

    Parent

    I believe you're right (none / 0) (#161)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    HRC WILL campaign for Obama. Obama has shown himself to have a very thin veneer though, and if he loses the nomination, I'm not sure he would be up to being graceful about anything.

    And I can't stand him for the very reasons you set forth (add to that the vindictive behavior of his supporters, and the despicable behavior of the DNC in allowing pervasive sexism to go unchecked... and I think I've just gotten pushed out of the Democratic party to boot).

    Parent

    standing in the way of history? (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    i guess you mean obama going to the general election to most probably lose. yup, that will be history all right.

    Parent
    You guys will say anything (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    to hype up your candidate won't you?

    Barring some unforeseen scandal a Democrat will certainly win in November.  If they can't win this November then it is time to disband the Democratic Party and create something that be a legitimate counter to the Republicans.  

    McCain is not nearly as strong a candidate as people think.  He turns off his base and is a very poor debater.  He also is easily rattled.  

    Parent

    mccain is very strong. the repubs will (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    come together and work for him in the end. they will swiftboat obama if he is the candidate. it is really very simple and a real shame too.

    Parent
    Then we're all doomed (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    The problem with your reasoning is that it applies to ALL Democrats.  

    You don't think the Republicans will come together if Hillary is the nominee?  You don't think they will swiftboat her?  

    So what's the point in even caring if you think the game is already rigged and the Democrats can't win?  

    Parent

    it sure sounds like you don't read (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    many of the posts by disgruntled clinton supporters. no and many others don't think that a number of democrats will get in line to vote for obama. that includes reagan democrats.

    sure i think the repubs will attack clinton just the same if she is the nominee. the difference with her is that she isn't naive about the repubs. she knows they hate her and that they oppose most democratic policies. whereas obama seems to think that repubs will love him. either that or he says it for political reasons. both are very naive in my opinion.

    is the game rigged? yeah i think so. take a look at the media. do you honestly think the love affair with obama will continue? it will a pleasant surprise if it does. go read other posts on here. many think the bloom is already off the rose for obama with the media.

    Parent

    And the bigger issue (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    is the Country knows Clinton and she has a record that can be referenced as argument, McCain cant define her as a politicians with ties to radicals, boneheaded ethical blunders complimentary of a federal trial in a notorious corrupt Dem State, a spouse who had no pride in a Country and on and on with no record that will counter their definition and McCain male and a Press personality also with no economic background.

    Parent
    Well it is certainly true (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    that the country knows Hillary better.  And they either love her or hate her.  

    So your argument is that only Obama has points that McCain can effectively attack?  That is an extremely naive view and counter-factual to boot.  

    Believe it or not but there are vast seas of attack points that McCain can use against Hillary that Obama can't.  

    Parent

    Oh Please (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    what dirty trick has not been played from that Axelrod play book what's nastier than Racist, your husband got a blower part II no one cares.  look try to dicuss your guys record.

    Parent
    You do realize (none / 0) (#225)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    that Hillary actually apologized for her husband's comments, right?  

    I like how you want to change from smear attacks to record when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Parent

    beaten on the issues? naw! (none / 0) (#235)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    cult of personlity and fawning suckup media!

    Parent
    You are projecting (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    First off don't let the blogosphere cloud your view.  The blogosphere is a bunch of hyper-involved political junkies that have far more skin in the game than the vast majority of voters.  

    The Reagan democrats left the party 20 years ago.  I guess you didn't get the memo.

    I have absolutely no idea why you think you know what Hillary or Obama think about the Republicans.  Obama's rhetoric regarding George Bush and John McCain certainly doesn't suggest that he is looking for a love-in.

    I don't think the "love affair" with Obama will continue per se.  Then again I think many of you Hillary supporters have a wildly overstated view of this love affair.  Obama has done a very good job of managing his public image and press relations.  IMO, Hillary has not.  She has never had good relations with the press.

    To sum up, the press will be as fickle as Obama and his campaign allow them to be.

    Parent

    You hope (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    Remember it's not the people on your screen and behind the typewriters who decide where the MSM goes it's the people who pay their checks.  Think about who they are and how much power they have gained in the last 7 years.

    Parent
    Media (none / 0) (#195)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    is not a monolithic entity.

    Parent
    It's as close as you can get to being (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    one without being one.  6 conglomerates own about 90% of the media.

    Parent
    Conglomerates (none / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    have very little operational oversight of their subsidiaries.

    Those conglomerates only care about making money.

    Parent

    Obviously and if you don't think (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    that the editors and administrators are not making decisions according to the what those owners want then you have not been following the history of Fox the NY Post etc.  Look Tweety is still in MSNBC because he is doing what they want and allow him to do.  They only vow to pressure if their advertisers pull out.  They won't turn on Obama on his color they will turn on his record (real or not) they will make hay of his inconsistencies etc. etc.  I grew up in the Radio TV and Newspaper world and believe when it comes to being allowed to continue to own more and more of the media the conglomerates do get involved.

    Parent
    Tweety (none / 0) (#227)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    will continue to be on NBC and MSNBC as long as he generates ratings.  It is as simple as that.

    Fox News has a business model to cater to Conservatives. If Rupert Murdoch thought that Fox News would make more money by being left of Air America he would hire Janine Garafola tomorrow.

    Parent

    And it is Rupert Murdoch who would (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    make the decision not someone at Fox.

    Parent
    For the first time, a president (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    who is from the majority of Americans, women, would not be historic? Really, research the census data and try thinking it through all on your own there.

    Parent
    Wrong again (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    If she dose not win the nomination she will be vindicated when McCain is elected President in Nov. stepping down early if she dose not win Ohio and Tx just puts more of a spotlight on Obama from a Press with no one to pick on. Unless we are talking about maybe Dems drafting someone ...huh.... And lots of nastiness is coming up for an Obama front runner McCain can shut him down give free access to the Press core and he can attack in areas Clinton could not...and we all now what they are.

    Parent
    Another day, another debate (1.00 / 2) (#68)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    Senator Dodd announced he's endorsing Obama. Clinton's likability is at 50%.
    Obama leads by 16 points nationally.
    Clinton mocks instead of talks.
    Obama leads in a head-to-head match-up with McCain.
    Grand dame steps into the debate in Ohio.
    Which Hilary will appear at the debate?
    Outraged, to tearful, to assured campaigner to condescending to desperate?

    save your sarcasm for kos! (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    we have a number of well informed thoughful obama supporters on here who add to the discussion. i can't say that for the attacks i see on clinton coming from you. please stick to the issues.

    Parent
    Faint hope..... (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    There is faint hope for Senator Clinton.

    Talk Left has chosen to run their site with a tilt toward Clinton. When Clinton withdraws, I'm curious if the site managers will go after McCain. Better hold a staff meeting soon because time is running out.

    My hope is that this site will set their sights on defeating the Republican candidate for president.

    Parent

    your sarcasm doesn't add to the (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    discussion.

    Parent
    What if she barely wins Texas (none / 0) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:05:42 AM EST
    and he takes the AA districts which have been rewarded with more delegates due past performance (Texas apparently awards extra delegates to districts which had higher turnouts in previous elections)?

    Putting it another way, if she wins Texas by  just a handful of delegates- then what? What if Texas doesn't significantly alter the delegate count? Is that a win or a loss?

    if she wins texas by one popular vote (none / 0) (#10)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:40:35 AM EST
    giving her three of the four march 4 states, her campaign continues, and should be rejuvenated. if she loses texas by one popular vote, she's done.

    Parent
    I still think so (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:49:05 AM EST
    come on Texas, make my vote count in April!

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:18:38 AM EST
    see why she loses her big state argument over TX.  She's won a bunch of big states and if Obama wins TX, it will be his first.  As she mentioned, Bill didn't sew up the nomination until June, but he did get it.  I want to see her stay in and do as well as she can because she's the best candidate and because if she loses, it's the last campaign I'll follow.

    Parent
    Numbers (none / 0) (#83)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:12:39 AM EST
    Its numbers. I don't care at all about the big state v. small state, its reaching the point of numbers. Its not winner take all.  

    Can she mathematically win? She needs to win a lot of delegates. If they essentially tie in delegate count from here on out, she loses.

    She cannot afford 1 point wins. She need 15 to 20 point wins.

    Parent

    Yes, she can mathematically win (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    as much as he can. Neither can clinch it. So, your next point following from that would be . . . ?

    Parent
    He is ahead in delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    My next point would be a football analogy. God knows as an alum of a SEC football factory, I have had it drilled in my head.

    Its under two minutes, Obama has the ball.  HRC has no time outs left and is two touchdowns behind.  Her defense is exhausted because the offense has been playing so poorly that they haven't had gained ten yards in any possession since the first quarter.

    What does the Obama team do?  They take long counts. They run out the time.

    Putting it another way, Obama merely has to keep it close and at the end, he has more delegates. HRC has to win by 15 to 20 points to make up the delegate difference. If he wins Texas, then he gains delegates and she is that much further behind making the need to blow out Ohio and PA even stronger and no more likely.

    I can't explain it to you better than that.

    Unless this helps. If he is ahead by 50 delegates and he only loses a delegate or two each contest, she doesn't catch up, even if she wins every contest left.  Fair or no, that is the situation. I don't think the super delegates will deliver it to HRC if she doesn't have a majority of regular delegates.

    I don't see her blowing Obama out in any of the remaining contests. do you? Where do you think that will happen and how many times do you think that will happen?

    Ohio will tighten after Texas. Every contest has.  Why will Ohio be different? And that doesn't help Hill.

    I like Hillary. I wish it were different. I'd be a bad lawyer if I told my client anything other than the truth about their situation. HRC's situation is- its an uphill battle and a long shot. I truly wish it were different. I feel bad for her. But it is, what it is.  

    Parent

    Re: He is ahead in delegate count (none / 0) (#210)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    Excellent analysis.  In response to your question, the only state that I believe Senator Clinton may achieve a blowout win is RI, but that will be balanced by a likely blowout win in VT for Senator Obama.  Neither seems likely to result in a significant delegate count shift as compared to TX and OH.

    Parent
    Yes, he 's ahead in pledged delegate NOW, but ... (none / 0) (#233)
    by plf1953 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    Its very likely he can't get to 2025 (or 2208 with FL and MI) pledged delegates from this point .. nor can Hillary for that matter.

    So, you will have the situation where the superdelegates have to decide who to put over the top.

    I truly hope they decide based on what's best 1) for the country and 2) for the democratic party, in that order.  But they will probably ignore (1) and go with what's best for the Dems.

    If this is the goal, its really hard to say who will get the nomination.

    Do the superDs go with the pledged delegate count, allocating themselves proportionately to each candidate?  Perhaps, but not likely, as this would seem to defeat the whole purpose of having SuperDs in the first place.

    Do they go with the overall popular vote count as the best measure of "electability?  Perhaps, but not likely, as this would include millions of non-Dem voters who really aren't committed to the ideals of the Democratic party.

    Or do they go with the popular vote of the self described members of the Democratic party ... the faithful who contribute to and vote for Dems election in and out? I think this is most likely.

    And since Hillary leads in this vote count by 300,000 to 600,000 votes, depending on whether or not you include FL or MI, this gives her an advantage as of today.  

    Will she lead in this metric after its all over?  Who knows.  

    But if she does - and here's the important point: she can do this even if Barrack ties in TX or wins many if not all the  primaries from here on out - she still has a good shot.

    Will SuperDs make this fateful decision on this basis?

    Who knows, but the  possibility of this outcome keeps the nomination in play for both of them probably up to and including the convention in Denver.

    I think a brokered convention is very likely.

    Parent

    So the NY Giants (none / 0) (#214)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
    ought to have just given up before the last game -- before even the last seconds of the last game. Don't let BTD hear you say that.

    Parent
    And he is only ahead 5 delegates (none / 0) (#216)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    now in the NY Times delegate count. The counts are all over the place. What is your source? And is it more reliable than ye olde NY Times? I don't know. But I want to know how you and others know that you and your sources for the delegate count do better than the NY Times at this.

    Parent
    I am using Jerome Armstrong's count (none / 0) (#222)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    I believe he includes Florida and MI.

    I haven't seen the NYT account. Give me a link and I will look at it when I can. Now someone please remind me that I have work to do and paying clients to please.

    Parent

    Link to the NYT delegate count analysis (none / 0) (#232)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    It's here...but don't you have a brief that needs to be filed later today? ;-)

    Parent
    Thanks -- that one differs (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    from the one on the frontpage of the NYT politics section (online), and yours looks more accurate.  Still a closer margin than many.  This all is so confusing, and I begin to think we are not supposed to know what it is to think what to do.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#238)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    No briefs. Had to review four title objection letters, and respond. Then explain to a group of homeowners what they had to do to obtain title to a "preserve". Such is the life of a dirt lawyer.

    Parent
    Big States (none / 0) (#237)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    Wait, VA, LA, IL, and WA aren't big states? What only Clinton states count as big?

    Parent
    I noted Robinson's comments as well (none / 0) (#3)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:16:53 AM EST
    In fact, I wrote to him at the Washington Post, expressing strong agreement with his opinion on this point.  It really was the best moment out of all the debates, in fact, the best one I can recall out of the debates in any recent campaigns.  It's a sad reflection on media coverage that this exchange, on an issue of critical importance, got very little attention -- while utter nonsense like lapel pins and who-quoted-who-where-when-how-many-times were subjected to ridiculous amounts of vapid analysis.

    So -- although I probably won't get my wish -- my hope is that tonight's debate expands that moment to the entire debate.  We are fortunate to have two very smart candidates and I believe they're quite capable of having a rational policy discussion that not only promotes their own viewpoints, but raises the level of political discourse in this country.  I certainly hope the moderators recognize this and focus the discussion accordingly.

    And this may be their last opportunity to do in a debate setting: I believe that RI/VT will split, as you point out, and that Senator Clinton will win OH, while Senator Obama will win TX.  Of course, everyone's math varies on this as well as on the implications, but my own calculations suggest that Senator Clinton needs to win both OH and TX by 15-20 points, and that does not seem likely.  (I've looked ahead to PA and NC, but since neither campaign has focused its resources on either to a significant degree yet, I don't believe those numbers indicate what will happen on election day in those states.)

    in general robinson has been (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    an embarrassment along with keith when appearing on countdown.

    Parent
    I agree with this comment. (none / 0) (#4)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:18:34 AM EST
    I've been saying all along that this race is close.  It will continue to stay close.  And so long as she keeps it close (even if she technically "loses" Texas, the delegates probably end up being split quite closely), she has no reason to drop out/suspend.

    Hope it doesn't happen (none / 0) (#5)
    by glennmcgahee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:19:53 AM EST
    Hillary has shown that she's better prepared to fight for what the Democrats want and need. This is all a media ride. Look at the headlines, look at the stupid questions being repeated at the debates. It took Hillary ignoring the questioners at the last debate to be able to provide distance between what she wants to do as opposed to Obama. Experts say she is right. I liked when she said, "lets get the science back in helping government solve our problems". There was never any mention of that again. In Texas, even if she is close, its scary how Republican voters can participate in our democratic primary. It skews the results. Like you said, Tx will not be in play for us in the General Election. I wish more people understood these facts. Don't look for them from the media or alot of so-called progressive netroots.

    And that is the rub (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:36:12 AM EST
    Because of the manipulative open primaries, which we have discussed at length, until we are getting the results from closed states, we really do not know the will of the people. The Democrats. In Pennsylvania, it is a closed primary. That will be a good example of a large state also. To be this close and give up would not show leadership. The party will be fine. And this takes away the press time for McCain and shows the top people are the important ones in this race. As long as the MSM is talking about this race,they can not be talking about the GOP. They can attack but it does not stick. Why is everyone in such a rush? This is major and you know it. 4 years at least.

    Parent
    Influence... (none / 0) (#43)
    by solon on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:33:46 AM EST
    Your opening statement states that independent voters and republican voters are influencing the democratic primaries? I am curious about the evidence for this claim.

    What is your evidence of this: data from the actual vote or from exit polls?

    Is the vote enough to tilt the election of states or just with the overall delegate count?

    Parent

    We did it and they are doing it too (none / 0) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    DK encouraged Dems in Michigan to vote Romney to keep McCain from winning. It worked there. BTW, it was wrong IMO to do this. Like we can torture but you can't. With Republicans, I have many as friends. No matter how much they hate Bush, they would not cross the aisle to vote for a Democrat for President. They would not vote or they would close their eyes and vote. Eventually we will find out whether it is theory or manipulation. I suspect that with the Independent wote, it will be 50/50. If this was just theory, you would not have Democrat for a Day going on.  

    Parent
    I suggest (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    I suggest that DK had as much influence in the Michigan voting as I did. Romney has a family history in Michigan.

    Parent
    That is true enough (none / 0) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:59:18 AM EST
    But, it got the Dems to the polls to vote against McCain.

    Parent
    Influence of Non-Dems (none / 0) (#215)
    by plf1953 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    Paul Lukaisiak recently summarized the primary season, breaking out Dem votes from non-Dem (Indy and Repubs) votes.

    In that analysis, Paul showed that Hillary was winning the Dems (self-identified from exits, which is the only available data on this) handily by 340,000 votes NOT including FL or MI.  Include those states and she leads by roughly 700,000 dem votes.

    When you add in Wisconsin (the only primary state not included in Lukasiak's analysis as it hadn't yet occured) the numbers drop slightly to 285,000 (without FL and MI) and 630,000 (with FL and MI), in favor of Hillary.

    One other piece of info for the record: so far, 22 million votes have been cast in democratic primaries.  Of those, 17.5 million (77%) have been self-identified Dems, while 4.5 million (21%) have been independents and republicans.

    And of that 4.5 million non-Dems, Hillary and Barack split those  40% / 60% ... which gives him a 1 million vote lead among Indies and Repubs.

    Since pledged delegates are awarded in a nonsensical fashion somewhat disconnected from the popular vote count, its hard to say how these 4.5 million Indies and Pepubs actually effect this (the delegate count), but its safe to say that that extra 1 million non-Dems for Barack (i.e., his advantage in this demographic) probably did produce a sizeable amont of the current pledged delegate vote differential that is currently in his favor.


    Parent

    i am very disgusted with the democratic (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    party. yes, i know between the two choices they are the better choice. but it used to be they were a much better choice.

    they seem to shoot themselves in the foot so often these days. this primary has been disheartening to me. not only do we have a unprofessional media, but the dnc has made such lousy choices in setting the primaries up. the level of venom i see today even among democrats doesn't help.

    Parent

    Just curious (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    But could you tell us when we had much better choices on the Democratic side?

    I've been voting in Presidential elections for 20 years and I can't think of a single instance in which there were 2 very strong Democratic candidates.  Gary Hart and Dukakis?  Kennedy and Carter?  I don't see it.

    Parent

    did you read what i wrote? (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    it doesn't sound like it. i was saying that the democratic party has a very poor primary system and it has caused a lot of trouble. i also said that the democratic party was once more in tune with the needs and welfare of the american people. today they are better choice that the repubs but they used to be a much clearer and better choice than today.

    Parent
    Boy that wigglin miller play (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    Those were the days, huh?

    You didn't actually say anything other than it used to be better.  Yet you can't actually say when it was better and how specifically it was better.  

    The only difference today is that, because of the Internet and the blogosphere, we get to see the man behind the curtain far more frequently.  

    Why don't you take a gander at the 1968 Democratic primary and tell me how that was better.  

    Parent

    all you want to do is argue! (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    go do your own research on 1968.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM EST
    You aren't saying anything.  You are making vague assertions and trying to claim that they are true, even though you aren't saying anything.

    I don't need to do research on 1968.  I'm not the one talking about the good ol days.

    Parent

    actually i would highly recommend that (none / 0) (#212)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    you go and do exactly that ie research the good old days. that was the period when the democratic party enacted the civil rights laws. it was the days of the kennedys and robert kennedy. take a look at what is happening today and what the dem response is.

    so yeah, it was better! so please take the argument somewhere else. thanks for your cooperation.

    Parent

    Nice moving of the goalposts (4.00 / 1) (#229)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    So much better to do that than explain yourself, isn't it?

    Parent
    i explained myself. i suggest you listen. (none / 0) (#234)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:33:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Think NY Giants in the SuperBowl (none / 0) (#16)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:52:43 AM EST
    Remember the Alito fight for SCOTUS?

    The Supreme Court ruling on Gore? What was the hurry to stop the recount? Harmony in the US? Yeah, how did that work out.

    If it was 2 months before the Presidential election and McCain was losing badly, would you think that he should quit and save the taxpayers and voters from any more inconvenience? I bet the GOP would say no.

    Would I want a President who could say, oh, let the Russians have control and we will look gracious?

     This does not have to be a bloody fight to last man standing, but it is close enough to continue the fight beyond Texas which we already know is skewed.


    Nice reminder (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    Of the ridiculous argument about stopping the recount in Florida so that we could be all harmonious. As if the foundations of the Republic might crumble if we didn't have a winner declared post-haste--no matter whether the declared winner actually had the most votes.

    The Democratic Party is strong enough to stand through a primary fight.

    Parent

    funny how (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    no one calls for their candidate to step down for party unity--only the other guy. (Or gal, as the case may be)

    Parent
    If... (none / 0) (#90)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST
    ... Obama was trailing by a similar margin, and lost both Ohio and Texas, or even one of them, I would say that Obama should consider dropping out.

    Obama has not been a position in which he should have considered dropping out yet.  

    That is a big difference.

    Parent

    so, if he loses Texas and Ohio (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    then you will call for him to drop out?

    Parent
    You keep trying (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    to equate the 2 situations.  Obama is up 160 delegates.  Unless he gets absolutely trounced on Tuesday, he will still be up by over 100 delegates.  

    Your argument is akin to saying that if a team is down by 20 but scores a TD on a hail mary, the winning team should concede defeat.

    Parent

    did you .... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    ... read anything that I wrote?

    It is two very different situations.

    Obama is in a VERy different situation than Clinton, and could very well be leading even if he loses Texas and Ohio.  Clinton cannot say the same thing.

    Parent

    Honestly. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:08:48 AM EST
    I don't think this debate is as important as so many others do.  

    This is debate number twenty.  In the previous nineteen, there haven't been any 'knock out punches' or tide turning comments or positions.  Lots of people say 'Oh, the candidate I support really won that one,' but polling data and primary results haven't shown that to be a huge factor.  No momentum has been lost, or gained, through any of the debates, and I don't think it's going to be any different.

    She's got to stop hoping for gaffes, and stop hoping that an attack is going to cause Obama to slip up, because it won't.  She's got to focus on why she's the best candidate, not why Obama isn't.  The semantics may be subtle, but it's important.

    It iw possible that Texas could be in play (none / 0) (#42)
    by Baal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:33:43 AM EST
    in November if Obama wins.  

    No (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    It isn't.

    Parent
    In fact it isn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    but Hillary appears to be stronger in that regard:

    Poll #13401 taken in Texas for All SurveyUSA clients in Texas
    Q: If the only two names on the ballot for President of the United States were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

    A: McCain 49% Clinton 43% Undecided 7%

    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

    A: McCain 49% Obama 41% Undecided 10%




    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    sorry--polls only matter when they favor Obama.

    Parent
    come on... (none / 0) (#96)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    ... it goes both ways.

    I have seen, on this site, many instances of Clinton supporters grabbing onto the one poll that favors Clinton while ignoring the polls that support Obama.

    To be honest... I watch polls (too much).  But I think that they tell us very, very little, especially those polls looking at the General Election.

    Parent

    Not by Jeralyn or I (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:33:20 AM EST


    Parent
    not that I speak for the site (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    but I freely admit that I only want to believe the polls that support my candidate (Clinton, in case you were wondering).

    In general, it seems that the so-called left blogosphere plays by the rules I mentioned above: polls only matter when they favor Obama.

    Parent

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#133)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:40:44 AM EST
    ... didn't mean that it was by your or Jeralyn.

    But I have definitely seen it from many of those commenting.

    Parent

    Re: in fact it isn't (none / 0) (#95)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    First, let's note that the margin-of-error associated with those numbers is reported as 2.4%, so that means the results are statistically indistinguishable.  Second, if you're a fan of the Keith Number, it's 9.5%/12.5% -- greater than the gap between the candidates in both cases.  And third, neither Senator Clinton's or Senator Obama's campaign has gone on the offensive against McCain in Texas yet.  Given several months to do so, they might well erode that margin.  (Especially, I'll observe, if it's Senator Obama's campaign, which has demonstrated tactical superiority everywhere it's been deployed.  As I said yesterday, should Senator Clinton win the nomination, her first step should be to dismiss her obviously-incompetent staff, which has served her quite poorly, and to hire Senator Obama's.)

    Parent
    Excuse me, (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    Both Obama and HIllary have, for the past 10 days or so, lit up Texas like a Christmas tree with TV and radio. If McCain has spent a 10th of what they have, I'd be shocked. McCain nevertheless STILL has a lead over both.

    If you think any Democrat is spending money on Texas in a general election, you're deluded.

    Parent

    A mere 10 days? (none / 0) (#110)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM EST
    And while they're still focused on the nomination?

    That's a skirmish, not a battle.  Imagine what damage they could inflict on McCain if -- instead of competing with each other -- they were standing side-by-side, with Edwards and Dodd and Richardson and Pelosi and others with them.

    Parent

    You seem not to understand my point (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    with no negative Republican  attacks, neither Democrat can beat McCain. If Texas were the only state in the union, and "must win," these numbers would suggest that the Democrat might have a shot.

    But it is not, and there is friendlier territory to fight over.

    Parent

    Perhaps; perhaps not (none / 0) (#139)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    I think I do understand the point, that Texas is a perceived and real Republican stronghold, and that at this juncture, it seems unlikely that a Democrat could win it.

    But I don't agree.  I think nearly every state is in play for November, and that a strategy which focuses too tightly on selected states is a bad idea.  I believe we're already seeing ample evidence of that, in results-to-date, in turnout, in voter interest, and so on.  Moreover: just contesting these races, rather than giving up on them, will force the Republican nominee to expend resources defending them.  So not only do I think Democrats should fight for Texas -- I think they should fight for Florida.

    The resources are there.  The enthusiasm is there.    The blueprint is there.  This is the year to take the fight to them.

    Parent

    That is just foolish (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:44:14 AM EST
    Is there an Obama supporter who will admit this is a foolish comment?

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#171)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    Texas will not be in play for either Clinton or Obama.

    Just like CA and NY will vote Democrat even though Obama lost to Hillary in both of those states.

    Parent

    And IL would vote for a dead Dem (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    too. After all, dead Dems vote there -- early and often.

    Parent
    Not TX (none / 0) (#193)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    but if Obama is the nominee VA is in play.  Maybe even GA.  They will at least have do more work to win these states.

    Parent
    Uh huh (none / 0) (#159)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST


    Parent
    The Keith number is absurd (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    It makes no actual sense. He should drop it.

    But you really can not stand by your initial point which andgarden obliterated, to wit ONLY Obama would have a chance in Texas.

    Retract that statement and we can all gain some respect for you.

    I believe NEITHER has chance myself.


    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    that was Baal's point.

    Still, the idea that people can massage polls to mean anything they   want, as with the keith number, is more than a little silly. The poll says what it says.

    Parent

    Re: The Keith number is absurd (none / 0) (#152)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    Really?  Would you care to provide the mathematical reasoning behind that statement?

    Parent
    Right because running a good campaign (none / 0) (#50)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    Is the test for a presidency. As it has been said over and over (just like your comment is repeated over and over) George W Bush ran a great campaign.

    OT: Dodd Endorses Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:46:53 AM EST


    Certainly (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    winning the nomination is a precondition for becoming President.

    And it does make an argument for who is the better candidate.

    But surely it is not the whole story.

    Part of what I see as a problem in the (none / 0) (#89)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:17:15 AM EST
    race to the nomination is how easily the so called progressives have joined the Republicans in attacking Bill Clinton.  Another problem is the fact that not to many voters are taking the time to really study their candidates history.  This I am going to vote for Hillary because its a woman's turn or I am going to vote for Obama because its a black's turn are not valid reasons for choosing a presidential candidate.  Presidents should be chosen for their qualities as planners, organizers, leaders, etc.

    Having said that,  I invite as I have said before  followers of both candidates to research both candidate's advisors.  Where do they work, what have they written, what are their position on health, trade, foreign affairs, social issues, gay rights, equal opportunity, distribution of wealth, etc.  remember that advisors have a lot to do on how presidents act.

    Also look at your candidate's past actions and positions not just your candidate's opponents.

    Bob (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    Attacking supporters of either candidate is not allowed here anymore.

    Accordingly, your comment is being deleted.

    Big (none / 0) (#128)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    are you talking to me?

    Must be, because it seems like some of my posts are missing. To analyze how Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign have failed is off-limits? That's too much criticism for TalkLeft.

    "Obamabots" is okay, though?

    I think I'm beginning to understand the range of acceptable commentary here. This is the kind of closed-mindedness that has gotten you where you are today.

     

    Parent

    "gotten you where you are today" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM EST
    as a respected commentator whose opinion is valued?

    I just don't understand folks who come here and complain and complain about how this place is run.  Do you go to the Gap and tell them how they should fold shirts?  Do you tell your UPS driver he should get out left foot first instead of right?  Do you tell the police that they should change the speed limit?

    I mean, come on.  If you are so miserable with the way things are run here, why do you stay?  I'm not by any means asking or telling you to leave, I'm just asking why you keep whining about the rules when every time you post something, you agree with the terms that "any comment may be deleted by a site admin."

    It just defies logic.

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#217)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    I've been posting at TalkLeft since 2006. I don't care if you respect me. I post what I see is right. TL used to allow diverse opinions, although when Jeralyn has imposed censorship rules in the past they have often been baffling. It appears that Big Tent is censoring me. He seems to be saying that. And yes, when a supposedly leftist website censors opinions, I don't like it. I would like a clarification of why a comment fails his censorship test while namecalling is allowed.

    When I was a union officer I made sure that every member's opinion could be presented in our union paper, even to my personal detriment. I've always opposed censorship.

    From Big's post, I apparently violated a rule. Apparently, it is okay to call Obama supporters names but not make criticisms of Clinton supporters' tactics and views.

    So be it. For any movement or group to insulate itself from dialogue with others is ultimately self-defeating.

    Parent

    Hillary cannot (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    suspend her campaign until after Pennsylvania, if then.  It would undermine the entire argument for seating Florida delegates and 'letting every vote count.'

    It's a looooong way to August.  She needs to stay in fighting condition for whatever may come.

    I don't understand your logic (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    So she could keep fighting on in hopes that she can change the rules?   And, even then, she still is down in delegates, which is likely, does she try to get the SD to save her bacon?

    Anything to win?  Even if it takes sacrificing November?

    Parent

    There's more Rezko knews coming out (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    and it raises  a LOT of questions for Obama.
    By August he may be under pressure to withdraw.

    Parent
    *news*.. knead more coffee (none / 0) (#144)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST


    Parent
    haha... (none / 0) (#172)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    First of all... there has been ZERO evidence that Obama did anything wrong in the Rezko situation.

    Second... if you really think that he will be pressured to withdraw by August, I am not really sure what to tell you.  It isn't going to happen.

    Parent

    Rezko? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    It seems to me that the judge, with her "the truth will come out" is not worried about stepping on toes.  From my reading, it sounds as if she made them name Obama as the "elected official" in the statement.

    I know BTD and Jeralyn think this is a non-issue, but I keep hearing things that make me think it's going to explode mid-March.  This is not a Hsu situation--Rezko was Obama's friend for 20 years and worked closely on his campaign.  Obama made constant visits to Rezko.  Obama's district included housing projects ruined by Rezko.

    Parent

    And Obama was on the pensions (none / 0) (#213)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    commission exactly when Rezko was screwing the state out of pension money---this happened during the three months he was on the commission, according to SusanHu

    Parent
    Only seated delegates can (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    vote to change the rules...so, no...'she' can't change the rules.

    Re 'anything to win'....whatever the Hell that means in this context.  Do we want 'fighting Dems' or don't we?  Do we want them to stick it out and fight to the end because no one knows what may happen...or not?

    And say...whatever happened to those noisy 'backbone' people with their traveling road show?  Noticeably absent when it counts in this campaign.

    Sacrificing November?  Threats and the blame game are useless to the half of the Democrats in this campaign who are currently NOT supporting Obama.  You would do well to find another more thoughtful and conciliatory argument to keep us in the party...much less get us into the Obama camp now that 'the one' is inevitable.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#120)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    suspending her campaign would allow both states to seat their delegates with bitter fighting.

    Parent
    For a workday morning, (none / 0) (#116)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    there sure are a lot of comments going and a mixure of support.  

    Oh yeah, work... (none / 0) (#127)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    better get back to that.

    Parent
    Amusing (none / 0) (#147)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    Blaming the media to defend Clinton? How about considering her campign's media relations. There are several posts up today across many blogs discussing Clinton's Howard Wolfson and Clinton's Mr.Singer  sour press relations. Clinton's campaign coordinators are the cause of poor press relations, not Mrs. Clinton. When the post mortum report comes in on the failure of the Clinton campaign it will reveal her manager's ineptitude.

    Yes, there is a lot of time b/w (none / 0) (#156)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    3/4 and then next primaries--but more time could be good for Clinton as the media may actually start doing their job and vet BO.  It gives more time for buyer's remorse to settle in (which has already started on a small scale).

    Also, the Clintons have been investigated since 1998, like when she ran for senate--and as evidenced  by the 2006 story about BC and another women in the NYT and the recent hit job just before 2/7.  

    And remember, with the Clintons, it's like old dirt--it doesn't stick.  New dirt (i.e. on BO) does.    

     

    Health Care Industry Contrib's (none / 0) (#208)
    by myed2x on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    new dirt on HRC is all over the place - be realistic rather than delusional in your fervor...let's check her health care industry contributions now vs her early days? There's quite a difference, she is one of the leading contribution recipients from health industry  in the dem party.....thats just for starters, and that casts a shadow on her universal health care plans doesn't it, think the repubs will leave that alone like OB has?!?!

    Parent
    Obama will be taken out by the Republicans (none / 0) (#157)
    by Danielle on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    I agree with many people on this site that have stated once Hillary is out.  The Republicans are going to eat Obama alive.  Why? Because do you Obama supporters honestly believe they won't pound into the american people the following things:

    1. Endorsement by Louis Farrakhan
    2. Picture of Obama in Relgious garb
    3. His weak record on voting
    4. His support of partial birth abortion
    5. His ties to the corrupt Chicago Political Machine.
    These are just a few items that they will attack him with.  Also, according to recent polls Obama has a less favorable rating than McCain. Obama is 52% and Mccain is 56%.  And Obama has a higher unfavorable rating than Mccain as well. Obama is 46% and Mccain is 42%

    Here's a good example (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    of something else that will be used by Republicans...Obama's OWN words:

    "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." - Barack Obama (November 8, 2004)

    Video of this over at TaylorMarsh


    Parent

    Read todays Time The Page On what McCain (none / 0) (#163)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    will do to a Barack nominee ....
    HALPERIN'S TAKE: Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot

    She should still try....

    Breaking: Rasmussen Ohio poll (none / 0) (#166)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:07:36 AM EST
    Senator Clinton, 48%; Senator Obama 43%.
    The write-up is here.

    Here's my take: (none / 0) (#183)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:43 AM EST
    If she can win Ohio by at least 10 points (blowout) and also Rhode Island, she might be able to spin away a close Texas loss (less than 5 points) as long as that margin can be blamed on those crossover Republican voters looking to end the Clintons.

    But the most important barometer of all would be whether she cuts into Obama's delegate lead by the end of the night.

    But these hypotheticals put Hillary at the mercy of the media and spin and the superdelegates holding steady, etc... it could be a painful mess for her.

    So the best thing she can do is pull out all the stops, give it her best shot, call in all the favors, and MAKE SURE TO WIN both Texas and Ohio.

    If she does that the media cannot possibly continue telling her she should quit and the superdelegates would have no excuse to desert her.

    Personally, after watching Hillary's (none / 0) (#186)
    by jen on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    foreign policy speech last night on C-Span, I think it would be to her great benefit if we could hear them debate their FP views. She was brilliant.

    Hillary should stick it out at least thru (none / 0) (#223)
    by Joike on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    Pennsylvania.

    Admittedly, if she loses both Ohio and Texas that would be tough to do since Obama will have done the one thing that, in her opinion, has been his weakness:  win big states.

    Pennsylvania (April 22) is a long way to go under those conditions since she might have trouble raising money at that point.

    On the other hand, they'll both be able to focus on essentially one big state for about a month giving both the opportunity to build ground forces in a state that will be key to winning in the GE so a net plus for the eventual nominee.

    March 4 probably can't come soon enough for Clinton.  Obama does seem to be making gains in both states.

    The problem for Clinton is that her campaign has put a lot of rhetoric into winning both states.  It looks like Texas will difficult for her to win either in the popular vote or the delegate total.

    If Obama gets a decent win out of Texas (7 to 10 percentage points), a Clinton win in Ohio (unless it is similarly impressive) seems less like a win and more like a reprieve.

    We'll have another scene like Super Tuesday with both candidates championing their respective victories.

    Obama will win Vermont probably by a 2-1 margin and Clinton is still leading in Rhode Island.  I have no idea if Chris Dodd's endorsement helps him there.

    Looking beyond the 4th, I can't find any Wyoming or Mississppi polls, the only battles before Pennsylvania.

    Still winning Ohio should be an emotional boost (getting a win) for Clinton.  She can then focus her efforts on Pennsylvania and try to get another win and set up the battle for the Super-Delegates who will then most likely have to decide the nominee.

    Not the scenario most Dems want to see.

    Tonight's debate is inconsequential (none / 0) (#226)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    If Obama shows up and speaks in complete sentences, the talking heads (esp. the idiots at MisNBC like Matthews, Olbermann) will spin it as an Obama win, that Hillary was shrill.

    She'll lose TX by a small percentage and a very narrow delegate loss -- but a loss is a loss! She'll win Ohio and likely Penn, along with all the MAJOR dem states that she's already won, but who cares!

    And there'll be screams to give it up for the good of the country.  And she will.

    The moment she concedes, the Repubicans will start the smear campaigns.  Buchannan predicted it would take two weeks to turn Obama into McGovern...I give them a good three weeks.

    The script is already written.  It just needs to be played out.

    The only unpredictable part is how much Bill will campaign for a guy who set out to ruin his presidential record.  If I were Bill, I'd develop another "heart condition" and bow out.

    Comments are now closed (none / 0) (#228)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST


    How Important Is Tonight's Debate? | 225 comments (225 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment