I would pray it didnt come to that, VP is such an ineffectual position. If by some disaster it did, I would hope he would take it, and I even expect he would for the sake of the party. But given the numbers right now its hard for me to imagine a scenario in which she could win without pulling the most diabolically undemocratic bullshit that he could even allow himself to be complicit afterwards.
NO VP for Obama! That would kill his political career as a Clinton administration falls into chaos. Personally this whole VP thing the Clinton's are doing feels like another subtle 'BOY, get on to the back of the bus!!' moment.
I would also be strongly against Barack offering Clinton the VP position.
Obama would never be Hillary's VP in a million years, and he has no reason to. He'd simply be a third wheel behind Bill... Just ask Al Gore how effective he was as the #3 person behind Hillary for eight years.
Assuming Obama clinches the nomination (a sure bet at this point, unless he's found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy between now and the convention), Hillary is the one who will be begging to be Obama's Veep. And he'll rightfully tell her to fuck off and die.
Obama's "bad" week
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:03:28 AM PDT
So CW is that last week was the "week from hell" for Obama, and given that he could've closed this thing out and didn't, we can stipulate that it could've been better.
But let's see just how horrible the week was:
Per Obama's count (if Clinton had a similar count, I'll happily link to it), Obama started last week with 1,203 delegates, Clinton with 1,043. Since then:
Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5
Total 189 193
So that's a four-delegate gain for Clinton.
But that wasn't all. Obama also picked up three more super delegates last Tuesday -- Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair Roy Laverne Brooks, DNC member Mary Long of Georgia and South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler.
That pegs things at 192-193 for the week.
And then on Saturday, Obama provided material help in Bill Foster's dramatic upset victory in IL-14, filming an ad and sending hundreds of volunteers into the district. The Republicans had John McCain campaign for the Republican candidate, yet still lost proving that Obama 1) is more focused on party building and down-ballot races than the Clinton campaign (where was she?), 2) that he could out-battle McCain in the first proxy battle of the season, and 3) that he's got some serious coattails.
Oh, and Bill Foster is now a super delegate and repaid Obama's largesse by promising him his vote.
So yes, Obama has some serious message issues to deal with and a shaken campaign to right. But where it matters -- in the delegate race -- Obama ended his week from hell TIED with Clinton.
Furthermore, there's an "unpledged" Wyoming delegate still to be decided. He or she will be selected at Wyoming's state convention, and is selected by the elected delegates from Saturday's caucus. In other words, it's going to be another Obama delegate. So unofficially, Obama actually won the delegate race last week.
As Clinton gears up her efforts for coup by super delegate, threatening civil war within the party, it bears noting that in her best week of the campaign since her New Hampshire victory, she actually lost ground in the race.
The fact that Bill Foster won the seat in the Il. 4th, a district seemingly transported out of rural Texas Bible belt and planted down in Illinois far western Chicago suburbs is truely epic. This is an area that is the right wing conservative headquarters of the state. The former speaker of the House has ruled this land for 20 years. It shows influence and Obama's campaign better use it - their really starting to look like wimpy Carter - like democrats. They dont brag, dont attack even though Hillary has plenty to attack on.
allot of people who only know violence as their tool to achieve stuff will have a real hard time wrapping their mind around and adapting to non violent solutions.
I really don't see what the fuss is if the primary gets decided at the convention. I understand oe's comment about the "deathblow" to a generation, and a Clinton nomination would disillusion a group of voters who have just gotten excited about participating. But deciding on a candidate at the convention has a long history, and has not led to "party sucide" that I know of.
Before primaries, conventions were routinely brokered. At the 1960 Democratic convention, Kennedy received two challanges from Johnson and Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy probably defused Johnson by offering him the vice-presidency, picking up Southern votes in the process.
At the 1976 Republican "the convention nominated incumbent Gerald Ford for President, but only after narrowly defeating a strong challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan. The convention also nominated Kansas Senator Robert J. Dole for Vice President, replacing the incumbent V.P., former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller." (wikipedia) Ford had the majority of delegates, as well as the popular vote, but Reagan still made a run at him. And, as we know, it did not cause the collapse of the Republican party, just delayed its successful era by a few years to the 80s, with Reagan at the helm.
Now, I agree that in this case, if Clinton gets the nomination and the popular vote is ignored, there will be a disinfranchisement of a large number of voters: plus, delaying the Democratic choice until the convention just plays into the Republican head start. But "party suicide" might be a little strong: it's political maneuvering with a long precedent.
The democratic party has a long history of suicide. I fing this very amusing as a person who usualy votes republican for president but is supporting Obama this time. The republican party has handed this election to the Dems, the republicans have completely imploded due to the internal takeover by the nut job right winger faction. The republican party is radicaly reshifting it's focus and leadership right now. And while this is happening, the Dems are about to be nuked from with in by their very own royal family. By November the new and improved moderate republicans may be looking pretty appealing to America especially if we have more Clintons, attorney's arguing over the most mundane laws and vocabulary definitions.
"nuked from within"? That's your take on this: I see it as USA politics as they have happened for a long time. Again, a convention fight is not "party suicide", not necessarily, if the two contenders are perceived by the country to both be good choices, which is the case here (and the voters have said as much, no matter how much demolishing of Clinton goes on in this forum, otherwise it wouldn't be such a close race.)
Well in none of those cases did that kind of inner turmoil do any favors for the party in question, and I dont think its hard to project this case would be worse than any of them. The key difference is that in none of those examples did the decision made by the actual voters get usurped by the nepotism of party elders. I have a reserved level of faith that they wouldnt be so stupid this time, but then again the democrats do have a long proud history of sawing our foot off before the race. I think it should trouble even people voting for her that thats really the plan shes running on.
Then again, if we do decide wed like to saw off our foot again this election, maybe after 4 years watching McCain bash his head against a wall enough people will find that profound intolerable loathing for both parties necessary for a respectable third party to get its foot in the door in 12'.
If Obama were to lose, he could take solace from Reagan's example, though. Had Reagan won the nomination in 76 he probably would have lost to a popular, reformist Carter. Carter turned out to be a bust, allowing Reagan to come back strong in a decade much more responsive to his conservative stance. Obama is very young: he could be back a few more times and easily win (I think he will win this time, though).
Emilio - the 3 recent brokered conventions were disasters in retrospect:
1960 - Kenedy won, by the slimest margin in history among allegations that votes for Nixon were destroyed in Chicago, Detroit to put Kenedy over the top
1968 - 'nuff said
1976 - Republicans implode and lead to Carter stagnation
Yama yama yama. This is now and youre out of your mind if you think the black community and young people and this tidal wave of fresh energy that Obama has brought into the process are going to like being stabbed in the back in august. A better analogy would be if Bobby won the election only to be ousted by his own party at the convention.
All that said. I do think Obama needs to get tougher on her. I completely respect his position, he knows hes winning and he has at least enough sense not to destroy the party by going loonie-bin like Hill has, but this has gone on long enough. The time has come to put her to bed. There are certainly ways of just stating the obvious about Clintons behavior during this race that are indicative of the reasons her past political failures. She isnt polarizing because shes the victim of some vast shadowy republican boogieman, shes polarizing because shes a vicious partisan reactionary. She cant be reasonable or compromise, she doesnt have the personal integrity to tell the truth, shes doesnt even show the basic human decency to abstain from using racism and bigotry as political tools, and it pisses people off. Go fucking figure! I mean look at her votes for the Iraq war and the Iran resolution, I mean anyone with any sense of moral integrity should have been able to reason their way through that. Obama wasnt clairvoyant, you didnt have to be able to astroproject to see that Rummy was cooking the Intelligence reports, that Iraq had fucking nothing to do with 911, couldnt even project military power beyond its own borders and that invading was going to be the biggest military/political fucking quagmire in a generation. She didnt even bother to read the intelligence report because her decision had nothing to do with what made real moral sense, it was a move of pure political expedience. She didnt care about what actually happened in Iraq, all that mattered was how her perceived public image would affect her future political prospects.
And lo, nothings changed. Weve seen nothing from this campaign that suggests anything like the vast managerial experience she claims, in fact its been exactly the kind of back-biting fucking disaster youd expect. They dont even bother to try and win half these states because who cares whats happening in reality!? We'll just create this phantasm of political tenacity and maintain this illusory image of an experienced political champion, gerrymander the superdelegates at the end and call it a fucking day! Its just fucking misery. The day the democratic party can cure themselves of this mental illness is the day we can all fucking move on with our lives and try to actually do what theyve been bullshitting us with since the early 90's.
Well, I'll post this here too, from the other thread in response to Elim, cause then I'm through with this.
"Eli, I'm NOT making Clinton talking points, I couldn't give less of a fuck about defending her, and I've already stated that I think Obama will probably win this thing (and that I'll gladly vote for him). Ok, you hate Clinton, she has no morals, she's a scumbag, whatever, revile her for that, fine. But you have no understanding of USA politics if you characterize some, not all, of her moves as trying to make "a soviet election".
She didn't make up super-delegates and how they might or might not cast their vote, and other weird quirks of how the Democratic party elects its candidate (just like she didn't make up the rule that the Electoral College decides who becomes president, not the popular vote...hell, I don't like that set up either, but that's how it is).
All she's doing is trying to turn these "rules" to her advantage, and she SHOULD be doing that, and that's exactly what Obama should be doing too: making a convincing case to the super-delegates that they should go with him - and since he has the lead in those delegates, I guess he is making that case. But you can't fault Clinton for trying to sway them. All she is doing is playing the quirks of the system to gain advantage. Any "game" or "contest" is played that way (shit, I hate when teams in football call a time out just as the kicker is kicking the ball for a field goal: he makes the field goal but it's annulled because of the time out: it's a crap move, but IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, so if I was a coach I would use it too and not give a crap about what someone thinks.)
What gets me is the turning of these tactics into some kind of unheard of and iimmoral power play on her part...BULLSHIT...all she's doing is running a tough campaign and taking advantage of the system, even the fucked-up rules of the system, as is her right to, and she's got buttloads of precedent to do so...and if you can't see that then there's really no reasonable dialogue here and I'm done."
And one more point about people "not liking" outcomes...TOUGH SHIT...I didn't like the fact that a Supreme Court justice decided against the man who actually won the popular vote, but I swallowed it. A lot of women will not like it if the first woman candidate ever loses. Take your pill and move on...or better yet, grow the fuck up.
Update on Obama's "bad week"
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM PDT
Earlier I wrote about Obama's delegate victory this past week despite Clinton's wins last Tuesday. My list was incomplete.
A reader passed on a full list of all the super delegates who announced the last six days their endorsements:
Obama
DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08
Clinton
Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08
So that's an 8-delegate advantage for Obama.
As for the elections:
Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5
Total 189 193
That gives Obama a four-delegate victory since last Tuesday. Add the four delegate gain out of California after that state's vote was certified, and we're up to 8 delegates for Obama. Throw in the four delegates Clinton lost in California, and that's 12 delegates for Obama. Today we had DNC member and super delegate Everett Sanders of Mississippi endorsing Obama, so make that 13 delegates for Obama.
So officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him.
As that reader noted in his email to me:
In the bigger picture, HRC lead in super delegates stood at 97 one month ago today. Today her lead is only 32. HRC has gained 18 Super delegates in the past month while Senator Obama has gained 83. a month ago nearly 2 out of 3 declared super delegates were Clinton supporters now it is just over one half.
A few more "bad" weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up.
(Delegate information from the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog.)
"And one more point about people "not liking" outcomes...TOUGH SHIT...I didn't like the fact that a Supreme Court justice decided against the man who actually won the popular vote, but I swallowed it. A lot of women will not like it if the first woman candidate ever loses. Take your pill and move on...or better yet, grow the fuck up."
This is such a sad attitude. I feel like 2000 is a perfect example of just how damaging this kind of defeatism and complacency in an electorate can be. Real democracy matters, not just the bullshit procedural crap, but as a principal. The more sidestepping and loopholing politicians use to get to the top the more disaffection people have toward the process, the less involved they become and the more the country falters as a cogent and meaningful entity. There are real and significant consequences for that kind of apathy, we are witnessing them now.
I have no doubt if Hillary were to win the pledge delegates and popular vote Obama would concede, and I wouldnt want him to do otherwise. He actually cares about these principals, he actually cares if his methods destroy the credibility of the party and politics in general. Hillary clearly does not, and if she does in fact care more about her own political ambition than she does for the strength of the party as a whole I think that should cast into doubt whether she cares that the actual issues themselves are addressed at all. If that really doesnt bother you I just dont know what to say to you.
hillary got more votes than obama in texas, and he won more delegates. no one is crying about it on hillary's side. i don't know how this thing will turn out; my guess is probably that obama will win the nomination, but if i hear any crying from either side (which is already happening from the obama camp despite having a huge lead - rolls eyes), i'm not going to hear it.
hillary got more votes than obama in texas, and he won more delegates. no one is crying about it on hillary's side
Actually it's more insidious than crying although she likes to play the victim card. Clinton's wonks are saying that they won Texas and the news media isn't challenging it. Obama won it by 5 delegates. Furthermore, the Clinton folks are trying to have it both ways about many things. She cannot catch up but she offers Obama the vice presidency. She goes on 60 Minutes and gives elusive Bill Clinton-style answers to whether she thinks Obama is a Muslim. And she won't go down with class. Her superdelegate lead has been cut from 87 to 32.
We already have a president that denies reality, do we really want another president like that?
Please, oe, just please. You turn everything I or anyone else says even not slightly in favor of Obama into an anti-Clinton rant. All that statment says is "your side can't always win", and if it doesn't, then move one. The poor disaffected new voters you keep talking about will have another chance, cause you know Obama will run again. You take a simple statement like that and attach all kinds of spin to make it sound like "poor Obama, wah, wah, that bad Clinton".
Again, "sidestepping and loopholing" is what you call it: I call it fighting a campaign. And I already told you a bunch of times I don't agree with statements like:
"He actually cares about these principals, he actually cares if his methods destroy the credibility of the party and politics in general. Hillary clearly does not, and if she does in fact care more about her own political ambition than she does for the strength of the party as a whole I think that should cast into doubt whether she cares that the actual issues themselves are addressed at all",
I actually think that statement is poppycock, and if that makes you sad, so be it. I mean, you're talking about apathy concerning two politicians who are getting people out to vote and are fighting a "to the end" battle, and we're arguing about vigorously here at Archinect: just how the fuck is that apathy?
And I'll say it one final time: the campaing Hillary is running against Obama is roses compared to what he'll get from the Reps. Quit whining.
Obama should say that we have had enough of Clinton speaking out of both sides of her mouth, enough with the answers she gave on 60 Minutes that echoed her adulterous husband's lying to the federal prosecutor and come down from a high moral ground that we have had of politicians who deny reality and distort the truth for their own personal gain. We had Bush who lied to the American people about Iraq. Do we want Bush-lite who lies about her opponents records with racial and religious innuendo?
And so it would seem that, for the six weeks from mid-March to late April, the Democratic presidential contest stands a good chance of devolving into a daily insult-fest over Hillary Clinton's taxretums and Barack Obama's real estate savvy - neither of which matters a lick to voters whipsawed by crumbling mortgages and the dread of the April 15 tax deadline.
Looking for a better brand of politics?
Good luck finding it in Pennsylvania, home of the April 22 primary that could be the decisive moment in the Democratic race. Six weeks in one state could breed not only farniliarity with the one state's inner workings, but also the prospect of genuine contempt between the Clinton and Obama camps.
That is, unless someone steps in and tries to steer the discourse in Pennsylvania in a different - dare I say, more adult - direction.
Here's one such proposal.
This fall marks the sesquicentennial anniversary of the fabled Lincoln-Douglas debates - a series of seven one-on-one encounters across the state of Illinois which, for two months in 1858, settled not only a very contentious Senate contest but also catapulted Abraham Lincoln into the subsequent presidential race of 1860. Why not do the same for the Pennsylvania primary and get Clinton and Barack to stop fussing and feuding and instead talk about real issues?
There is symmetry to this idea that goes beyond the mere coincidence of 150 years between elections. Lincoln and his counterpart, the incumbent Sen. Stephen Douglas, agreed to debates in seven of Illinois' then-nine congressional districts (they'd already met in two districts). lt just so happens that Pennsylvania consists of seven media markets: the northwest corner of the state (Erie), the northeast (Scranton), Lehigh Valley (Allentown), greater Philadelphia, Susquehanna Valley (Harrisburg), central Pennsylvania (Johnstown and Altoona) and greater Pittsburgh. Obama and Clinton could easily hold debates in each of those markets during the 40 days they will solely devote to winning Pennsylvania. After all, Lincoln and Douglas met as frequently as every three days in different parts of Illinois.
But about those debates ... The Lincoln-Douglas "joint appearances," as they were called in the 19th century, centered on the topic of slavery. That was the over-arching concern in a nation fast approaching a civil war. The American voters in 2008 have two principal concerns: the economy and the war in Iraq. After that, it's a hodgepodge: health care, illegal immigration, education, crime.
The suggestion here: Because there is no one single issue that should be debated seven separate times, instead craft debates unique to each of those seven Pennsylvania markets. The greater Philadelphia debate, for example, could focus on race issues. In Pittsburgh, home of a once mighty steel industry, talk could center on trade and economic revitalization. In the more socially conservative, "Deer Hunter" country that is central Pennsylvania, let's try a family-values agenda.
I'd add one more caveat to this debate format: Keep the national media off the stage and let local reporters ask the questions. In this election cycle, Fox News, CNN and NBC all suffer from questions of candidate favoritism (NBC, for being too pro-Obama; for years, conservatives have suggested that CNN stands for "Clinton News Network). Take the national media out of the picture and it gives both campaigns one less reason to cnmplain.
Of course, the smaller detaIls would have to be worked out. In 1858, the debate format called for one candidate to speak for an hour, the other candidate to then go for 90 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of rejoinder by the opening speaker. Our short-attention society being what it is, that simply won't work in this day and age.
The irony is hard to ignore. Hillary Clinton was raised in Illinois; Barack Obama's life odyssey brought him to her home state. Yet the Illinois model and the standard that it set 150 years that once again could come to the nation's rescueby elevating our political discourse, and saving the Democrats from a civil war of their own.
But wait -- there's more ! (Is this better than listening to each other bitch ?)
It's been a rough week for Sen. Barack Obama, and an even rougher week for his supporters. He took his eye off the ball for a minute to attack Sen. John McCain - and Sen. Hillary Clinton pounced, throwing the kitchen sink at him. Meanwhile, the thin-skinned media, falling prey to her campaign's whining about how much "tougher" they've been on her than on him, allowed her to set the tone for the entire news cycle during the last week before the elections in Ohio and Texas. (You can fill my in-box all you want, Clinton fans, but the media has been sweeter to Clinton than you know. There's been scant mention of Monica, Whitewater, Marc Rich, cattle futures ... oh, did I just say all that?)
Those of us who admire the senator, meanwhile, are feeling wrung out and exhausted. Obama's got to bounce back. I think that he will - but he'll have to do it smartly, because for him, the race has entered its most precarious phase. If he attacks the Clintons using gutter politics, he'll lose - those are the tactics that they excel at, and he can't beat them at their own game. More importantly, he risks losing his message and his base by stooping to their level. Here's my advice for him and his supporters.
* Ignore John McCain for now. The split results in Ohio and Texas offered Obama one advantage - it confused his eventual opponent, John McCain. McCain had started to attack Obama, but now he's got to sit tight and watch how this plays out. Putting the Republican nominee on the sidelines right now probably isn't the best thing for the Democrats in the fall - the Republican National Committee has taken advantage of the calm to outraise the Democratic National Committee by tens of millions of dollars so far - but we'll have to deal with that later. For now, Obama can - and must - focus on the battle in front of him. If he wants to mention how much stronger a president he'll be than McCain, that's cool, but only after he's reminded voters how much stronger he'll be than Clinton .
* Be an iron fist in a velvet glove.
There's no need to be impolite to Clinton. Unlike some observers, I don't think it was weak at all for him to accept Samantha Power's resignation after she called Clinton a "monster." It showed that Obama keeps his staff on a tight leash - unlike Clinton - and emphasizes positivity in every aspect of his campaign.
Besides, after the Clinton campaign has impugned Obama's patriotism, tossed out racial and religious smears, and said that John McCain would make a better president than Obama would, they're expecting Obama to go ballistic. Kill the Clintons with kindness - and, since Hillary Clinton is running on the false pretense that she was also president during Bill's years in the White House, offer calm reminders of how there were a lot of things about the 1990s that weren't so great after all.
Remember losing control of Congress in the 1990s, Democrats? Remember losing Democratic control of governorships across the country? Remember all the useless psychodramas, remember losing all chance to further any kind of political agenda for the last two years of Bill Clinton's last term because of his personal problems? Say it like that, and the voters will remember. Even if they don't want to.
* Let your surrogates be nastier than you are - up to a point. Really, there's so much to be nasty about with this couple that it's important to remind voters only of the issues that are germane to the race. Obama should have a couple of his supporters who worked in the Clinton White House remind people that Hillary Clinton has no experience with foreign-policy crises, no experience with economic policy, and that her one experience with health care was a disaster from start to finish. Pound Clinton on the "experience" meme, and it will quickly become apparent how thin her resume really is.
* Get on the bus. Town hall meetings in endless succession. Photo ops with his sleeves rolled up while in conference with working-class voters about their fears and wishes. Walk door -to-door talking to people about their health care and explain to them why he's the best person to actually get it done. You get the picture: Obama's got to show the skittish undecideds that he works as hard as Clinton does.
"And I already told you a bunch of times I don't agree"
Well you havent offered any sensible counterarguments for that opinion. You say you recognize its not democratic and then say you dont care. You concede hillary is running on bigotry and deception and then say thats fine with you cause the republicans will do worse. I think it takes personal fucking integrity to be president and right now Hillary is the only one not showing it. If you cant connect the dots there isnt much more I can do for you.
VOTE OBAMA
I would pray it didnt come to that, VP is such an ineffectual position. If by some disaster it did, I would hope he would take it, and I even expect he would for the sake of the party. But given the numbers right now its hard for me to imagine a scenario in which she could win without pulling the most diabolically undemocratic bullshit that he could even allow himself to be complicit afterwards.
NO VP for Obama! That would kill his political career as a Clinton administration falls into chaos. Personally this whole VP thing the Clinton's are doing feels like another subtle 'BOY, get on to the back of the bus!!' moment.
I would also be strongly against Barack offering Clinton the VP position.
why does McCain advertise on this thread?
New York Times article.
Obama would never be Hillary's VP in a million years, and he has no reason to. He'd simply be a third wheel behind Bill... Just ask Al Gore how effective he was as the #3 person behind Hillary for eight years.
Assuming Obama clinches the nomination (a sure bet at this point, unless he's found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy between now and the convention), Hillary is the one who will be begging to be Obama's Veep. And he'll rightfully tell her to fuck off and die.
As much as I generally like the New York Times, their credibility in this election hasn't exactly been stellar.
Couple of nice Andrew Sullivan pieces:
The Clintons, a horror film that never ends
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece
As The Smoke Clears
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/as-the-smoke-cl.html
Did you get all the way through that first piece, lig ? It ended on an up note. I imagine it's a truthful story; why would they try to bust him now ?
Obama's "bad" week
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:03:28 AM PDT
So CW is that last week was the "week from hell" for Obama, and given that he could've closed this thing out and didn't, we can stipulate that it could've been better.
But let's see just how horrible the week was:
Per Obama's count (if Clinton had a similar count, I'll happily link to it), Obama started last week with 1,203 delegates, Clinton with 1,043. Since then:
Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5
Total 189 193
So that's a four-delegate gain for Clinton.
But that wasn't all. Obama also picked up three more super delegates last Tuesday -- Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair Roy Laverne Brooks, DNC member Mary Long of Georgia and South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler.
That pegs things at 192-193 for the week.
And then on Saturday, Obama provided material help in Bill Foster's dramatic upset victory in IL-14, filming an ad and sending hundreds of volunteers into the district. The Republicans had John McCain campaign for the Republican candidate, yet still lost proving that Obama 1) is more focused on party building and down-ballot races than the Clinton campaign (where was she?), 2) that he could out-battle McCain in the first proxy battle of the season, and 3) that he's got some serious coattails.
Oh, and Bill Foster is now a super delegate and repaid Obama's largesse by promising him his vote.
So yes, Obama has some serious message issues to deal with and a shaken campaign to right. But where it matters -- in the delegate race -- Obama ended his week from hell TIED with Clinton.
Furthermore, there's an "unpledged" Wyoming delegate still to be decided. He or she will be selected at Wyoming's state convention, and is selected by the elected delegates from Saturday's caucus. In other words, it's going to be another Obama delegate. So unofficially, Obama actually won the delegate race last week.
As Clinton gears up her efforts for coup by super delegate, threatening civil war within the party, it bears noting that in her best week of the campaign since her New Hampshire victory, she actually lost ground in the race.
Race tracker wiki: IL-14
The fact that Bill Foster won the seat in the Il. 4th, a district seemingly transported out of rural Texas Bible belt and planted down in Illinois far western Chicago suburbs is truely epic. This is an area that is the right wing conservative headquarters of the state. The former speaker of the House has ruled this land for 20 years. It shows influence and Obama's campaign better use it - their really starting to look like wimpy Carter - like democrats. They dont brag, dont attack even though Hillary has plenty to attack on.
14th -
when the hell is Obama going to get tough?
don't say you weren't warned, evilp.
yeah, that whole foster oberweis race is pretty crazy... there was a lot of money thrown into that thing...
the cow commercial was among my fav... nooooooooooooo...
and to think that seat is up again in 11 months.
allot of people who only know violence as their tool to achieve stuff will have a real hard time wrapping their mind around and adapting to non violent solutions.
I really don't see what the fuss is if the primary gets decided at the convention. I understand oe's comment about the "deathblow" to a generation, and a Clinton nomination would disillusion a group of voters who have just gotten excited about participating. But deciding on a candidate at the convention has a long history, and has not led to "party sucide" that I know of.
Before primaries, conventions were routinely brokered. At the 1960 Democratic convention, Kennedy received two challanges from Johnson and Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy probably defused Johnson by offering him the vice-presidency, picking up Southern votes in the process.
At the 1976 Republican "the convention nominated incumbent Gerald Ford for President, but only after narrowly defeating a strong challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan. The convention also nominated Kansas Senator Robert J. Dole for Vice President, replacing the incumbent V.P., former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller." (wikipedia) Ford had the majority of delegates, as well as the popular vote, but Reagan still made a run at him. And, as we know, it did not cause the collapse of the Republican party, just delayed its successful era by a few years to the 80s, with Reagan at the helm.
Now, I agree that in this case, if Clinton gets the nomination and the popular vote is ignored, there will be a disinfranchisement of a large number of voters: plus, delaying the Democratic choice until the convention just plays into the Republican head start. But "party suicide" might be a little strong: it's political maneuvering with a long precedent.
The democratic party has a long history of suicide. I fing this very amusing as a person who usualy votes republican for president but is supporting Obama this time. The republican party has handed this election to the Dems, the republicans have completely imploded due to the internal takeover by the nut job right winger faction. The republican party is radicaly reshifting it's focus and leadership right now. And while this is happening, the Dems are about to be nuked from with in by their very own royal family. By November the new and improved moderate republicans may be looking pretty appealing to America especially if we have more Clintons, attorney's arguing over the most mundane laws and vocabulary definitions.
"nuked from within"? That's your take on this: I see it as USA politics as they have happened for a long time. Again, a convention fight is not "party suicide", not necessarily, if the two contenders are perceived by the country to both be good choices, which is the case here (and the voters have said as much, no matter how much demolishing of Clinton goes on in this forum, otherwise it wouldn't be such a close race.)
“If I am not ready, why do you think I would be such a great vice president?”
Well in none of those cases did that kind of inner turmoil do any favors for the party in question, and I dont think its hard to project this case would be worse than any of them. The key difference is that in none of those examples did the decision made by the actual voters get usurped by the nepotism of party elders. I have a reserved level of faith that they wouldnt be so stupid this time, but then again the democrats do have a long proud history of sawing our foot off before the race. I think it should trouble even people voting for her that thats really the plan shes running on.
Then again, if we do decide wed like to saw off our foot again this election, maybe after 4 years watching McCain bash his head against a wall enough people will find that profound intolerable loathing for both parties necessary for a respectable third party to get its foot in the door in 12'.
If Obama were to lose, he could take solace from Reagan's example, though. Had Reagan won the nomination in 76 he probably would have lost to a popular, reformist Carter. Carter turned out to be a bust, allowing Reagan to come back strong in a decade much more responsive to his conservative stance. Obama is very young: he could be back a few more times and easily win (I think he will win this time, though).
Emilio - the 3 recent brokered conventions were disasters in retrospect:
1960 - Kenedy won, by the slimest margin in history among allegations that votes for Nixon were destroyed in Chicago, Detroit to put Kenedy over the top
1968 - 'nuff said
1976 - Republicans implode and lead to Carter stagnation
1976 - and to Reagan's triumphant return and dominance in the 80s.
and Republican victories till Clinton.
1968 - yea, and look how bad Nixon did later...
'till Watergate, that is.
and Nixon would have never beaten Bobby Kennedy had he not been killed, not in a million years.
A lot of folks would disagree
Yama yama yama. This is now and youre out of your mind if you think the black community and young people and this tidal wave of fresh energy that Obama has brought into the process are going to like being stabbed in the back in august. A better analogy would be if Bobby won the election only to be ousted by his own party at the convention.
All that said. I do think Obama needs to get tougher on her. I completely respect his position, he knows hes winning and he has at least enough sense not to destroy the party by going loonie-bin like Hill has, but this has gone on long enough. The time has come to put her to bed. There are certainly ways of just stating the obvious about Clintons behavior during this race that are indicative of the reasons her past political failures. She isnt polarizing because shes the victim of some vast shadowy republican boogieman, shes polarizing because shes a vicious partisan reactionary. She cant be reasonable or compromise, she doesnt have the personal integrity to tell the truth, shes doesnt even show the basic human decency to abstain from using racism and bigotry as political tools, and it pisses people off. Go fucking figure! I mean look at her votes for the Iraq war and the Iran resolution, I mean anyone with any sense of moral integrity should have been able to reason their way through that. Obama wasnt clairvoyant, you didnt have to be able to astroproject to see that Rummy was cooking the Intelligence reports, that Iraq had fucking nothing to do with 911, couldnt even project military power beyond its own borders and that invading was going to be the biggest military/political fucking quagmire in a generation. She didnt even bother to read the intelligence report because her decision had nothing to do with what made real moral sense, it was a move of pure political expedience. She didnt care about what actually happened in Iraq, all that mattered was how her perceived public image would affect her future political prospects.
And lo, nothings changed. Weve seen nothing from this campaign that suggests anything like the vast managerial experience she claims, in fact its been exactly the kind of back-biting fucking disaster youd expect. They dont even bother to try and win half these states because who cares whats happening in reality!? We'll just create this phantasm of political tenacity and maintain this illusory image of an experienced political champion, gerrymander the superdelegates at the end and call it a fucking day! Its just fucking misery. The day the democratic party can cure themselves of this mental illness is the day we can all fucking move on with our lives and try to actually do what theyve been bullshitting us with since the early 90's.
Well, I'll post this here too, from the other thread in response to Elim, cause then I'm through with this.
"Eli, I'm NOT making Clinton talking points, I couldn't give less of a fuck about defending her, and I've already stated that I think Obama will probably win this thing (and that I'll gladly vote for him). Ok, you hate Clinton, she has no morals, she's a scumbag, whatever, revile her for that, fine. But you have no understanding of USA politics if you characterize some, not all, of her moves as trying to make "a soviet election".
She didn't make up super-delegates and how they might or might not cast their vote, and other weird quirks of how the Democratic party elects its candidate (just like she didn't make up the rule that the Electoral College decides who becomes president, not the popular vote...hell, I don't like that set up either, but that's how it is).
All she's doing is trying to turn these "rules" to her advantage, and she SHOULD be doing that, and that's exactly what Obama should be doing too: making a convincing case to the super-delegates that they should go with him - and since he has the lead in those delegates, I guess he is making that case. But you can't fault Clinton for trying to sway them. All she is doing is playing the quirks of the system to gain advantage. Any "game" or "contest" is played that way (shit, I hate when teams in football call a time out just as the kicker is kicking the ball for a field goal: he makes the field goal but it's annulled because of the time out: it's a crap move, but IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, so if I was a coach I would use it too and not give a crap about what someone thinks.)
What gets me is the turning of these tactics into some kind of unheard of and iimmoral power play on her part...BULLSHIT...all she's doing is running a tough campaign and taking advantage of the system, even the fucked-up rules of the system, as is her right to, and she's got buttloads of precedent to do so...and if you can't see that then there's really no reasonable dialogue here and I'm done."
And one more point about people "not liking" outcomes...TOUGH SHIT...I didn't like the fact that a Supreme Court justice decided against the man who actually won the popular vote, but I swallowed it. A lot of women will not like it if the first woman candidate ever loses. Take your pill and move on...or better yet, grow the fuck up.
Update on Obama's "bad week"
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM PDT
Earlier I wrote about Obama's delegate victory this past week despite Clinton's wins last Tuesday. My list was incomplete.
A reader passed on a full list of all the super delegates who announced the last six days their endorsements:
Obama
DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08
Clinton
Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08
So that's an 8-delegate advantage for Obama.
As for the elections:
Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5
Total 189 193
That gives Obama a four-delegate victory since last Tuesday. Add the four delegate gain out of California after that state's vote was certified, and we're up to 8 delegates for Obama. Throw in the four delegates Clinton lost in California, and that's 12 delegates for Obama. Today we had DNC member and super delegate Everett Sanders of Mississippi endorsing Obama, so make that 13 delegates for Obama.
So officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him.
As that reader noted in his email to me:
In the bigger picture, HRC lead in super delegates stood at 97 one month ago today. Today her lead is only 32. HRC has gained 18 Super delegates in the past month while Senator Obama has gained 83. a month ago nearly 2 out of 3 declared super delegates were Clinton supporters now it is just over one half.
A few more "bad" weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up.
(Delegate information from the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog.)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/151122/998/240/473676
So Obama comes out 4 delegates ahead of Clinton in his "bad week." WTF is with the news media?
"And one more point about people "not liking" outcomes...TOUGH SHIT...I didn't like the fact that a Supreme Court justice decided against the man who actually won the popular vote, but I swallowed it. A lot of women will not like it if the first woman candidate ever loses. Take your pill and move on...or better yet, grow the fuck up."
This is such a sad attitude. I feel like 2000 is a perfect example of just how damaging this kind of defeatism and complacency in an electorate can be. Real democracy matters, not just the bullshit procedural crap, but as a principal. The more sidestepping and loopholing politicians use to get to the top the more disaffection people have toward the process, the less involved they become and the more the country falters as a cogent and meaningful entity. There are real and significant consequences for that kind of apathy, we are witnessing them now.
I have no doubt if Hillary were to win the pledge delegates and popular vote Obama would concede, and I wouldnt want him to do otherwise. He actually cares about these principals, he actually cares if his methods destroy the credibility of the party and politics in general. Hillary clearly does not, and if she does in fact care more about her own political ambition than she does for the strength of the party as a whole I think that should cast into doubt whether she cares that the actual issues themselves are addressed at all. If that really doesnt bother you I just dont know what to say to you.
hillary got more votes than obama in texas, and he won more delegates. no one is crying about it on hillary's side. i don't know how this thing will turn out; my guess is probably that obama will win the nomination, but if i hear any crying from either side (which is already happening from the obama camp despite having a huge lead - rolls eyes), i'm not going to hear it.
Actually it's more insidious than crying although she likes to play the victim card. Clinton's wonks are saying that they won Texas and the news media isn't challenging it. Obama won it by 5 delegates. Furthermore, the Clinton folks are trying to have it both ways about many things. She cannot catch up but she offers Obama the vice presidency. She goes on 60 Minutes and gives elusive Bill Clinton-style answers to whether she thinks Obama is a Muslim. And she won't go down with class. Her superdelegate lead has been cut from 87 to 32.
We already have a president that denies reality, do we really want another president like that?
Please, oe, just please. You turn everything I or anyone else says even not slightly in favor of Obama into an anti-Clinton rant. All that statment says is "your side can't always win", and if it doesn't, then move one. The poor disaffected new voters you keep talking about will have another chance, cause you know Obama will run again. You take a simple statement like that and attach all kinds of spin to make it sound like "poor Obama, wah, wah, that bad Clinton".
Again, "sidestepping and loopholing" is what you call it: I call it fighting a campaign. And I already told you a bunch of times I don't agree with statements like:
"He actually cares about these principals, he actually cares if his methods destroy the credibility of the party and politics in general. Hillary clearly does not, and if she does in fact care more about her own political ambition than she does for the strength of the party as a whole I think that should cast into doubt whether she cares that the actual issues themselves are addressed at all",
I actually think that statement is poppycock, and if that makes you sad, so be it. I mean, you're talking about apathy concerning two politicians who are getting people out to vote and are fighting a "to the end" battle, and we're arguing about vigorously here at Archinect: just how the fuck is that apathy?
And I'll say it one final time: the campaing Hillary is running against Obama is roses compared to what he'll get from the Reps. Quit whining.
Obama should say that we have had enough of Clinton speaking out of both sides of her mouth, enough with the answers she gave on 60 Minutes that echoed her adulterous husband's lying to the federal prosecutor and come down from a high moral ground that we have had of politicians who deny reality and distort the truth for their own personal gain. We had Bush who lied to the American people about Iraq. Do we want Bush-lite who lies about her opponents records with racial and religious innuendo?
Something long those lines.
I agree and it's not that difficult to take Clinton down with her BS.
I'd like to see Obama do it in a clever way where he keeps the high moral ground.
Wah, wah, everyone is picking on wittle Obama and ruining our victory party!!
Do y'all realize that now you're double posting the same stuff in multiple political threads?
A plan for the Pennsylvania Primary
By Bill Whalen
And so it would seem that, for the six weeks from mid-March to late April, the Democratic presidential contest stands a good chance of devolving into a daily insult-fest over Hillary Clinton's taxretums and Barack Obama's real estate savvy - neither of which matters a lick to voters whipsawed by crumbling mortgages and the dread of the April 15 tax deadline.
Looking for a better brand of politics?
Good luck finding it in Pennsylvania, home of the April 22 primary that could be the decisive moment in the Democratic race. Six weeks in one state could breed not only farniliarity with the one state's inner workings, but also the prospect of genuine contempt between the Clinton and Obama camps.
That is, unless someone steps in and tries to steer the discourse in Pennsylvania in a different - dare I say, more adult - direction.
Here's one such proposal.
This fall marks the sesquicentennial anniversary of the fabled Lincoln-Douglas debates - a series of seven one-on-one encounters across the state of Illinois which, for two months in 1858, settled not only a very contentious Senate contest but also catapulted Abraham Lincoln into the subsequent presidential race of 1860. Why not do the same for the Pennsylvania primary and get Clinton and Barack to stop fussing and feuding and instead talk about real issues?
There is symmetry to this idea that goes beyond the mere coincidence of 150 years between elections. Lincoln and his counterpart, the incumbent Sen. Stephen Douglas, agreed to debates in seven of Illinois' then-nine congressional districts (they'd already met in two districts). lt just so happens that Pennsylvania consists of seven media markets: the northwest corner of the state (Erie), the northeast (Scranton), Lehigh Valley (Allentown), greater Philadelphia, Susquehanna Valley (Harrisburg), central Pennsylvania (Johnstown and Altoona) and greater Pittsburgh. Obama and Clinton could easily hold debates in each of those markets during the 40 days they will solely devote to winning Pennsylvania. After all, Lincoln and Douglas met as frequently as every three days in different parts of Illinois.
But about those debates ... The Lincoln-Douglas "joint appearances," as they were called in the 19th century, centered on the topic of slavery. That was the over-arching concern in a nation fast approaching a civil war. The American voters in 2008 have two principal concerns: the economy and the war in Iraq. After that, it's a hodgepodge: health care, illegal immigration, education, crime.
The suggestion here: Because there is no one single issue that should be debated seven separate times, instead craft debates unique to each of those seven Pennsylvania markets. The greater Philadelphia debate, for example, could focus on race issues. In Pittsburgh, home of a once mighty steel industry, talk could center on trade and economic revitalization. In the more socially conservative, "Deer Hunter" country that is central Pennsylvania, let's try a family-values agenda.
I'd add one more caveat to this debate format: Keep the national media off the stage and let local reporters ask the questions. In this election cycle, Fox News, CNN and NBC all suffer from questions of candidate favoritism (NBC, for being too pro-Obama; for years, conservatives have suggested that CNN stands for "Clinton News Network). Take the national media out of the picture and it gives both campaigns one less reason to cnmplain.
Of course, the smaller detaIls would have to be worked out. In 1858, the debate format called for one candidate to speak for an hour, the other candidate to then go for 90 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of rejoinder by the opening speaker. Our short-attention society being what it is, that simply won't work in this day and age.
The irony is hard to ignore. Hillary Clinton was raised in Illinois; Barack Obama's life odyssey brought him to her home state. Yet the Illinois model and the standard that it set 150 years that once again could come to the nation's rescueby elevating our political discourse, and saving the Democrats from a civil war of their own.
But wait -- there's more ! (Is this better than listening to each other bitch ?)
It's been a rough week for Sen. Barack Obama, and an even rougher week for his supporters. He took his eye off the ball for a minute to attack Sen. John McCain - and Sen. Hillary Clinton pounced, throwing the kitchen sink at him. Meanwhile, the thin-skinned media, falling prey to her campaign's whining about how much "tougher" they've been on her than on him, allowed her to set the tone for the entire news cycle during the last week before the elections in Ohio and Texas. (You can fill my in-box all you want, Clinton fans, but the media has been sweeter to Clinton than you know. There's been scant mention of Monica, Whitewater, Marc Rich, cattle futures ... oh, did I just say all that?)
Those of us who admire the senator, meanwhile, are feeling wrung out and exhausted. Obama's got to bounce back. I think that he will - but he'll have to do it smartly, because for him, the race has entered its most precarious phase. If he attacks the Clintons using gutter politics, he'll lose - those are the tactics that they excel at, and he can't beat them at their own game. More importantly, he risks losing his message and his base by stooping to their level. Here's my advice for him and his supporters.
* Ignore John McCain for now. The split results in Ohio and Texas offered Obama one advantage - it confused his eventual opponent, John McCain. McCain had started to attack Obama, but now he's got to sit tight and watch how this plays out. Putting the Republican nominee on the sidelines right now probably isn't the best thing for the Democrats in the fall - the Republican National Committee has taken advantage of the calm to outraise the Democratic National Committee by tens of millions of dollars so far - but we'll have to deal with that later. For now, Obama can - and must - focus on the battle in front of him. If he wants to mention how much stronger a president he'll be than McCain, that's cool, but only after he's reminded voters how much stronger he'll be than Clinton .
* Be an iron fist in a velvet glove.
There's no need to be impolite to Clinton. Unlike some observers, I don't think it was weak at all for him to accept Samantha Power's resignation after she called Clinton a "monster." It showed that Obama keeps his staff on a tight leash - unlike Clinton - and emphasizes positivity in every aspect of his campaign.
Besides, after the Clinton campaign has impugned Obama's patriotism, tossed out racial and religious smears, and said that John McCain would make a better president than Obama would, they're expecting Obama to go ballistic. Kill the Clintons with kindness - and, since Hillary Clinton is running on the false pretense that she was also president during Bill's years in the White House, offer calm reminders of how there were a lot of things about the 1990s that weren't so great after all.
Remember losing control of Congress in the 1990s, Democrats? Remember losing Democratic control of governorships across the country? Remember all the useless psychodramas, remember losing all chance to further any kind of political agenda for the last two years of Bill Clinton's last term because of his personal problems? Say it like that, and the voters will remember. Even if they don't want to.
* Let your surrogates be nastier than you are - up to a point. Really, there's so much to be nasty about with this couple that it's important to remind voters only of the issues that are germane to the race. Obama should have a couple of his supporters who worked in the Clinton White House remind people that Hillary Clinton has no experience with foreign-policy crises, no experience with economic policy, and that her one experience with health care was a disaster from start to finish. Pound Clinton on the "experience" meme, and it will quickly become apparent how thin her resume really is.
* Get on the bus. Town hall meetings in endless succession. Photo ops with his sleeves rolled up while in conference with working-class voters about their fears and wishes. Walk door -to-door talking to people about their health care and explain to them why he's the best person to actually get it done. You get the picture: Obama's got to show the skittish undecideds that he works as hard as Clinton does.
Caille Millner is a Chronicle editorial writer. You can e-mail her at cmillner@sfchronicle.com
Interesting idea, SDR... I'd love to see it played out.
(about the seven debates in PA)
Yeah. Unfortunately, these columns (and ideas) are a dime a dozen, now -- will anyone notice or remember ?
Should I send it to the campaign ?
Seriously can we call a moratorium on calling Hillary a bitch? Thats really fucking offensive and has nothing to do with whats happening right now.
^^*sorry, misread something above, and still feeling way uncomfortable with evilp's comments in other threads...
"And I already told you a bunch of times I don't agree"
Well you havent offered any sensible counterarguments for that opinion. You say you recognize its not democratic and then say you dont care. You concede hillary is running on bigotry and deception and then say thats fine with you cause the republicans will do worse. I think it takes personal fucking integrity to be president and right now Hillary is the only one not showing it. If you cant connect the dots there isnt much more I can do for you.
Forget the other threads -- THIS is the place to be ! (I'm here, after all. . .)
(where's my eye-rolling emoticon ?)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.