Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCheck out this graph from Pollster.com. It shows Obama's numbers declining in absolute terms over the last few days in TX. This is the first time in the entire campaign that this has happened. The "kitchen sink" strategy seems to be working.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Told ya....got this feeling that She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.....STILL Must-Be-Obeyed.
In the end, JOHN MAASCH JOMAMMA may still turn out to be right!
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 12:25pm
It shows Obama's numbers declining in absolute terms over the last few days in TX. This is the first time in the entire campaign that this has happened. The "kitchen sink" strategy seems to be working.
I think this poll is of likely "Voters", not "likely Democrats", but in Texas both independents and Republicans can vote. There has been a push in recent days by conservatives to vote in the Texas primary for Hillary to try to extend the Democratic contest through the convention. A convention fight will dramatically weaken the Democratic nominee and conservative Republicans are clearly aware of this.
Fox News is "openly" rooting for Hillary!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 12:40pm
The math is still the math, and it won't be enough for Hillary Clinton to win BOTH Texas & Ohio. She'll have to win those and just about every other primary with margins over 57%. Won't happen.
Posted by Adscititious at 03/04/2008 @ 12:40pm
I "feel" like it is working too, you just get a sense of things based on media coverage and whatnot. Though I wonder if there might be a California effect, where many of those early voters voted for Obama this time instead of Clinton. Regardless, Obama was quick to react to the red phone ad, but has done little to drum up more coverage in the wake of Hillary's SNL and Daily Show "humanizing" appearances.
Posted by Tzimisce at 03/04/2008 @ 12:48pm
Won't happen.----Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 03/04/2008 @ 12:40pm
IF present trends hold...but what if Obama starts losing primaries after tomorrow and the margin of loss increases until, by the time you reach Pennsylvania, Her Majesty is winning them by 15-20%.
Especially if MORE stories like the "Canada/NAFTA" thing start coming out?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 12:49pm
IF present trends hold...but what if Obama starts losing primaries after tomorrow and the margin of loss increases until, by the time you reach Pennsylvania, Her Majesty is winning them by 15-20%.
Especially if MORE stories like the "Canada/NAFTA" thing start coming out?
Posted by MASK 03/04/2008 @ 12:49pm
What if, what if, what if.
Clinton slime and dirt can be combatted with more Obama TV commercials, with Oprah coming out and telling voters what the Clintons are up to, with the Obama campaign setting up its own 527 Swift Boat ads savaging Hillary Clinton.
At the end of tonight, win or lose, Obama will still retain a 3-digit lead in overall delegates.
Posted by Adscititious at 03/04/2008 @ 12:54pm
The Republican's New Agenda is to Stop Obama, they want to run against Hillary. They have so much dirt in their Arsenal on the Clintons just waiting to be Unleashed (movies, scandals, lawsuits, books) -- that is why Rush Limbaugh is Begging, Begging his listeners to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh declared: "I want the funeral music to play at some point to the Clintons, but not this early." America, if Hillary becomes the nominee, we haven't seen nothing yet!
Who released the Canadian Memo and distorted its contents--, where did that come from and who called Goolsbee to a meeting and conveniently set him up? Who pushed up Rezko's trial which, was to start much later this year? Why did the Somali picture come out, along with Farrakahn endoresement and a radio jock mocking of Obama's middle name? Which was allowed to be played over and over again by the Main-stream media. We have to ask these things? Who wants to Kill unity and hope? Was this part of the Kitchen Sink or may be the Basement (Swiftboating)? I do know its dirty politics and until we reject this kind of politicking in America we will be a pawn in their hands, the people of power, and never find our true Independence and Voice which Obama is offering. The Evil Ones are just getting started, warmed up. Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out, however. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!
Posted by bacalove at 03/04/2008 @ 12:58pm
She better hope she wins big because from what I hear after today's results superdelegates are going to publicly start endorsing Obama.
Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/04/2008 @ 1:00pm
Mask-My guess is that by the end of today it will be obvious that the Clintons can't win the majority of elected delegates,but they will stay in until the end so that they can try and help McCain get elected so they can run again in 2012.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 1:04pm
jomamma-It is the GOP that has hurt the economy and it's quite lame of you to come on here and claim otherwise.You Republicans are out of control children with a credit card with no spending limit.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 1:13pm
could be too little too late.....
BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama's Fundraising and other current happenings on the campaign. I haven't seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM. Check out the article "Follow the Money" on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, "Bush's Twin and the G.O.P." http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and "Barack Obama's Apotasy" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their "Political Analysis" section for other striking perspectives on both parties.
Posted by elsylee at 03/04/2008 @ 1:18pm
What benefit will it be to you if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?
The cost of insuring no one else wins to maintain control of the party means that if it takes destroying the party's strength, unity, chances--no sacrifice is too great if it means continual control in power or out of power.
Who will boot Billary out the door?
Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 1:21pm
I haven't been on for a while. But this seems a reasonable place to say that Obama has finally gotten me to the point that I don't care who wins this. The Scahill story and the NAFTA story sort of broke my lukewarm support for Obama. Obama was preferable only because he looked genuinely anti-war and seemed like he had to be better on trade than the DLC. Looks increasingly like I was wrong on both counts. So let the best triangulator win.
I am changing my party affiliation. I anticipate being more disapointed by the candidate to come than I was about Kerry, mainly because of the lost opportunity these campaigns represent. Sure, that 'skilled candidate' Obama will probably win the generals if nominated. But so the fuck what? He has run a campaign whose organizing theme is timidity on the issues. That he is building grassroots infrastructure along the way (with all the secondary benefits that brings with it) can only make up for so much cowardice. Maybe he finds courage enough to fulfill the hopes of those who are rallying so effectively behind him if he is president. Happens sometimes I suppose. But I won't be a Democrat if he does.
Posted by dentedpat at 03/04/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by LIL 03/04/2008 @ 1:21pm
Well since Edwards has written his political obit by not endorsing anyone and having a good worry in NC, the only way to redeem would be to be an all out "party elder" blitz to end this race. Gore, Edwards, etc... coming out for the winner of tonight in the next few days.
Though it won't happen, this is assuming that Edwards has political instincts, which I am 100% convinced he does not.
Posted by Tzimisce at 03/04/2008 @ 1:27pm
MASK -
A lot obviously depends on today, but unless Clinton pulls a major victory by more than 10 points, she faces a math problem as someone else indicated. If the current polls hold true for today, Clinton chips 12 delegates off Obama's lead. If she does 5 points better in each state, its 50. So, even in a "landslide", she is still over 100 delegates behind, with many states to go that are firmly in Obama's wheelhouse - big win today for Clinton or not.
I see a slim delegate victory for Clinton today - with a split b/w VT (Obama) and RI (Clinton). A virtual split in TX and a small win for Clinton in OH.
150 delegates to make up in the remaining states mean close victories are not going to cut it. It might throw the supers and FL/MI into play though. If Obama comes out with more pledged delegates today, even if only 10 or so, it SHOULD be over for Clinton.
ints, she faces a math problem. If the current polls hold true for today, Clinton chips 12 delegates off Obama's lead. If she does 5 points better in each state, its 50. So, even in a "landslide", she is still over 100 deleagtes behind, with many states to go that are firmly in Obama's wheelhouse - big win today for Clinton or not.
I see a slim delegate victory for Clinton today - with a split b/w VT and RI. A virtual split in TX and a small win for Clinton in OH.
150 delegates to make up in the remaining states mean close victories are not going to cut it. It might throw the supers and FL/MI into play though. If Obama comes out with more pledged delegates today, it SHOULD be over for Clinton.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/04/2008 @ 1:31pm
Yeah, looks like everything Edwards claimed is a sham. Poster above you is evidence of Hillary's desperate but effective Rovian strategy to erode Obama momentum. Typical of Clintonian triangulation strategy, short gain at the expense of future loss.
She is politically tone deaf but irrationally ambitious. Nixon in a pantsuit.
Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 1:35pm
I have heard reports of precinct problems in both Ohio and Texas already. After all that we have witnessed thus far, would anyone really be surprised at the lengths the Clintons would stoop to, the strings they would pull, the deals they would broker to retain their grip?
Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 1:38pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/04/2008 @ 1:08pm
Democrats aren't "far left", and given Republican management of the economy - much less the Iraq spending, the corruption, the sex scandals, etc., I have a hard time understanding how you can even float this argument. Or is it that all those guys aren't "true conservatives"? Do you people even believe your own line of bullshit?
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 1:45pm
The kitchen sink is splattering all over the media. Jon Stewart's saccharine interview of Clinton last night and McCain's spa treatment and barbecue for reporters demonstrates how far the fourth estate corrupts and is corrupted. If the kitchen sink attack works, and it seems to be doing so, the success will be a Pyrrhic victory come November. The Republicans are so much better at this game.
Posted by washoe03 at 03/04/2008 @ 1:52pm
jomamma-Brilliant response.Of course,you couldn't respond with facts because you don't have any.It's common knowledge that the economy is not good and it's common knowledge that the modern GOP is a borrow and spend like the rapture is going to happen any day now bunch.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 1:53pm
The one good thing about Hillary is that she sleeps in a pantsuit,with jewelry on,and her hair brushed just in case she gets a three a.m. call.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 1:54pm
"IF present trends hold...but what if Obama starts losing primaries after tomorrow and the margin of loss increases until, by the time you reach Pennsylvania, Her Majesty is winning them by 15-20%."
Mask, I don't think there are any more primaries before Pennsylvania. After that, the only primary she can win with numbers like that (barring some major catastrophe for Obama) is Puerto Rico (ho!).
I hope Obama pulls out Texas. If not, then this will be a messy fight to the finish. Hillary can't catch Barack, but she will stay in nonetheless. The question begs asking, how does she foresee her winning the nomination? She can't do it through the math. So it must be that she is hoping for shady deals at the convention.
Posted by rasalula at 03/04/2008 @ 1:57pm
jomama-Modern Republicans know nothing about the economy.Just ask McCain.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 2:01pm
Posted by RASALULA 03/04/2008 @ 1:57pm
Obama is expected to sweep Oregon, Mississippi and North Carolina. So even if he comes up short today, he can look forward to gaining many more delegates.
Posted by Adscititious at 03/04/2008 @ 2:11pm
It's actually in the Clintons' interest to take it to the convention, even if they lose or are behind by a significant # of delegates. A messy, ugly, dirty, resentment-filled fight is just what they want.
If they can weaken Obama, make him look like just another lying politician, then maybe he'll falter in November, and 'lil Hill can come back 4 years from now and start all over again (i.e., when she's 64 rather than 68).
For the Clintons, this is just not a race. It's about retaining star power, being seeing as the titular heads of the Dem Party, remaining in the center of political gravity. Obama constitutes a mortal threat to them, which is why, as they see it, he must not be merely defeated but destroyed.
Posted by Adscititious at 03/04/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/04/2008 @ 1:54pm
Pantsuit. Another word that should removed from the dictionary - along with homeland, Islamo-fascist, and other annoying made up pseudo-phrases that are either demeaning, redundant or stupid.
If you insist on doing this, why not start commenting on Obama's shirtsuit? Or all the problems we are having in awayland? Or Judeo-Christo-fascism?
Or maybe we should just use suit, nation, fascism or the actual name of the country - maybe just foreign for awayland? We have perfectly good words and people insist on using abortions. Just Say No.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 2:16pm
Mask-My guess is that by the end of today it will be obvious that the Clintons can't win the majority of elected delegates,but they will stay in until the end so that they can try and help McCain get elected so they can run again in 2012.
Sad to say, it is beginning to appear that Hillary would rather see McCain elected than Obama. But this is entirely consistent with the overall stance of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC), that fears the progressive wing of the Democratic Party more than it fears the Republican Party. If the progressives manage to gain the upper hand, the old school corporate Democrats will find themselves irrelevant and in search of new employment.
If Hillary continues in the race and persists in her "kitchen sink" approach, it will become increasingly clear that she is, in reality, Joe Lieberman in drag.
Posted by robgo2 at 03/04/2008 @ 2:26pm
SRJenkins-I'm not the person who decided to name that particular outwear a pantsuit and I find it bizarre,to say the least,that anyone finds it offensive and I'm really sick and tired of people telling others what they can or can't say.Maybe you should just lighten up and allow people to speak freely rather than lecture me about something as irrelevant as writing pantsuit.I'm sorry that we all don't speak as you believe we should,but life is like that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 2:34pm
Posted by DENTEDPAT 03/04/2008 @ 1:26pm
DENTEDPAT,
If you really don't see a difference between 15-year corporate lawyer, former Walmart boardmember, and union buster, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, we really have to question whether you were just a phony progressive like your hero John Edwards.
You certainly never seemed that bothered by Edwards' DLC voting record or investments in oil, defense and subprime stocks.
Hillary has taken a page out of Edwards' book and is now "talking like a populist". Like Edwards, she believes the voters are too dumb to look up her voting record and personal background to know that she is pulling their leg with all of this progressive "talk"!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 2:36pm
ADSCITITIOUS --No doubt about it. For those same reasons the Clintons despise Dean. The Democratic party has become their own personal vehicle to power--and by doing so they actually hold the party hostage. Billary will spew more venom towards anyone who threatens their perch than they would actually target the Right with. It is evident that can and will fight--down and dirty with the best of them, for themselves.
Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/04/2008 @ 2:01pm
Windfall profits is the nice way of saying taxes on price gouging. See my 2:16pm post about word abortions, used left and right.
You and I both know that universal health care that mandates that people in the U.S. buy coverage from insurance companies isn't universal health care. I have my doubts whether even this sorry measure will make it out of Congress.
...we already pay 50% of incomes in some sort of tax or fees now...
And half of our income tax goes to pay for current "defense" or debt from previous wars or military actions. Ronald Reagan style cold war spending on "Star Wars", terrorism, tactical nuclear weapons, and so forth and so on is bad for business - and you know what, neither party is addressing this issue.
And for a business person, you don't have a good understanding economics. Government infrastructure spending fuels jobs and expands the economy, just as it does when a business invests in a new factory, machines or what have you.
I sympathize with your argument about taxes and unresponsive government. But where I stop sympathizing is when you focus piecemeal on the pieces of government you don't like and leave others, such as so called "defense", untouched. I also take exception to your whole argument that I'll move my operations elsewhere - where they don't have those pesky safety, environmental and other standards.
Oddly, your whole argument really amonts to a complaint that you'd like to make more by shifting burdens onto workers and to the state. No unions, then you can fire at will when you institute the 12 hour work day. Why not start hiring children? I hear there is a good profit to be made by forcing people to shop at the company store.
And you may say that, "I wouldn't go that far." But your competition will and offer it cheaper and make more of a profit. That's the problem of capitalism unrestrained by standards - and it is ultimately, what you are arguing for.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by LIL 03/04/2008 @ 2:43pm
The thing that always baffles me is why more people don't see through scum like Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's not like trying to grasp the subatomic properties of quarks. Her lies, her dirty tactics are so obvious!
I read today that Howard Dean is going to staff the Rules Committee with friends of his from Vermont. Don't know if that report is true, but if so, it means Hillary may not get a kind ruling on the question of whether to seat FL & MI delegates at the election.
Posted by Adscititious at 03/04/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/04/2008 @ 2:34pm
Pantsuit is simply a form of mild sexism along the lines of using gender exclusive language. My comment wasn't directed at you specifically, but I do have the sense that pantsuit is being used in a demeaning fashion - probably in most cases without much awareness.
Now, perhaps I should just lighten up. Are these really important distinctions or are they irrelevant, as you say? I'm inclined to believe that the way we use language says a great deal about us - and we not even be aware of much of it.
On the other hand, most people would rather not be criticized. Certainly not by some nameless asshole posting on the Internet. And your point, there, is well taken.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 3:03pm
thanks for the good news.
Posted by s-interns at 03/04/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/04/2008 @ 2:58pm
I think the mail service isn't a good example for you. If anything, the postal service in combination with FedEx and UPS shows the strength of a combined system. You are assuming in this example that universal health care would eliminate fee for service healthcare, and I don't think that necessarily has to be the case - as it isn't with FEDEX, et al.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 3:08pm
Well, you are right. I do mean pantsuit in a un-nice manner. I don't care for the Billaries of this world. OTOH, if I was impressed or fond of MS Billary I may make a flattering remark about her pantsuit. I generally do not frame remarks regarding Bush in an admiring tone either.
For crying out loud.
Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 3:08pm
"Clinton did not make a prediction about the outcome of Tuesday's races, but her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, was not so guarded Tuesday morning. He predicted Clinton wins in both Texas and Ohio."
Well that seals it, Obama will win both Ohio and Texas. McAuliffe might be one of the most inept party officials of either party. He is one giant reason why i cant vote for Hillary.
Posted by Tzimisce at 03/04/2008 @ 3:11pm
I am not getting the charges against Obama.
Is there any evidence at all that Obama did a favor for Rezko? The press should be hard on Obama on this but if there is no evidence of any political favor, then there is nothing here.
I think Clinton is taking advantage of the press' unfortunate ignorance of trade politics in making this charge of duplicity.
Obama is completely correct that the transcript of Goolsbee's comments do not contradict his public statements.
Obama is openly and in general principle against protectionism which usually means tariffs, abuse of anti dumping laws, 'voluntary' export restrictions forced upon our trading partners, and hidden subsidies to our manufacturers. He seems only to have spoken in favor of tariffs as a retaliatory measure in response for example to exchange rate manipulation.
But he is loudly and in general against protectionism and for open trade. So I don't see how he could be accused of distancing himself from protectionism in private. He has done it in public.
There is nothing contradictory about his economic team clarifying that they are playing to but won't give in to the protectionist sentiment.
What he has said that he is for are social clauses around labor standards and environmental protection in our trade agreements. Some people consider this hidden protectionism, but it is not protectionism proper. And it is what Obama advocates. So there is nothing duplicituous about his saying that he is against protectionism. He is not saying it secretly or behind closed doors.
He has always said that. He is for social clauses. That is what he will build into NAFTA, not protectionism.
The New York Times writes:
'According to The A.P., the memorandum reads, "On Nafta Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core' principles of the agreement."'
It is astonishing to me that Goolsbee could be accused of having said anything which contradicts Obama's stated position. Obama is against protectionism; he is not against trade but for it; he wants social clauses around labor rights and environmental protection in our trade agreement.
How can Clinton and the press in good conscience accuse Obama's team of duplicity? Goolsbee only said in private what Obama says in public, yet the press actually takes Clinton's desperate attacks at face value.
The press has a duty not to propagate but challenge the willfull distortions of a political campaign.
I do not see why the press is accepting at face value Clinton's charge of Obama's duplicity. She is making false charges. Indeed she has throw the kitchen sink at Obama and the press has helped her.
Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/04/2008 @ 3:15pm
How can Clinton and the press in good conscience accuse Obama's team of duplicity? Goolsbee only said in private what Obama says in public, yet the press actually takes Clinton's desperate attacks at face value. Posted by A.L. HARTAL 03/04/2008 @ 3:15pm
The same way we were marched to war without actually weighing any evidence. Many "journalists" like Brent Hume, argue that we debated and debated Iraq. Maybe, maybe there were many words exchanged as to the idea of invading Iraq. But did journalists do any digging into the claims made by the Bush administration?
This goes to another beef i have of late, why did Drudge get a total pass on the outing of Prince Harry? The networks seemed to be happy that the silence was broken, and that it wasnt them. The simple fact is that journalists are neither liberal nor conservative, just a) lazy and b) sensational.
Posted by Tzimisce at 03/04/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/04/2008 @ 1:54pm
"The only good thing about Hillary is..."
Can you elaborate on how I should be encouraged by this?
Posted by gloryoski at 03/04/2008 @ 3:25pm
"How can Clinton and the press in good conscience...." Posted by A.L. HARTAL 03/04/2008
Man was this a brilliant point up to this point. Think about the three terms you put together in the same sentence there.
Posted by gloryoski at 03/04/2008 @ 3:32pm
I just posted this at Peter's "Decision Day" thread!
===========================================================
Yes, it is! I cast my vote here in Houston, and here's how it went:
I live in a heavily GOP part of town and my usual voting place was where I went...but, NOOOOOO, I had to go 4 miles away to another location where several precincts' worth of Dems are directed to go....guess to make the Dem poll workers' time worthwhile. Fine, I understand Dems are a minority in MY area!
Since this was close to mid-day, it may explain the turnout ratio of 2~3 women for every man....or it could be Hillary voters (nearly all white) out in numbers. The lines weren't long and I was done in about 10 minutes. I voted for just the top of the ticket......and, I voted for Barack Hussein Obama.
While I did what I said I'd do since weeks ago, I did NOT cast my vote with as much `Hope' for his being a much, much better person as I did before....yeah, the Rezko shenanigan and NAFTAgate is taking the shine off!
Posted by HAPPY 03/04/2008 @ 3:32pm
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2008 @ 3:34pm
"This goes to another beef i have of late, why did Drudge get a total pass on the outing of Prince Harry?"
Because the prime movers in the process were the UK govt & some senior members of the Royal Family. Harry's deteriorating brand, prior to deployment, was in the loo & damaging the Royals. This was an expedient lifesaver, in more ways than one. Note the many hours of video & thousands of photos snapped of useful Harry by a pool journos while his presence was supposedly secret. It has been & will be continue to be a grand PR stunt, not of po' benighted Harry's doing, but to polish the Royal brand & distract from UK disastrous policies in Afghanistan & Iraq ... a very long historical British tradition in both places.
Posted by sloper at 03/04/2008 @ 3:36pm
shaftagate.
bushclintonbushclinton
the circle will be unbroken.
now, i gonna wash my hands (spots and all)
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 3:55pm
SRJenkins-Using gender specific language when referring to a woman named Hillary seems appropriate to me particularly since Hillary is playing on the fact that she is a woman.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/04/2008 @ 4:06pm
Clinton is not only throwing the kitchen sink, she is playing identity politics.
Clinton has explicitly played the identity politics of feminism her brand of which appeals disproportionately to the people whom we call in our country white women.
Clinton has explicitly asked people to vote for her as she will inspire other woman.
Have two daughters myself--see the point.
But it's also unfair because if Obama made a similar point a majority of voters would flee him.
The brilliant Tina Fey disappointingly shouted out on Saturday Night Live that (a white woman) "bitch" is the "new black". Can you imagine an Obama supporter making such a hard appeal to identity?
Clinton may eke out victories not in spite of sexism but because of white woman identity feminist politics.
She will have regained her support among so called white women.
Unfortunately I think such identity politics is enough to move a whole lot of voters to cast their ballots. i think the voters are really moved at this superficial level.
And her campaign has come to the edge of a racist negative identity politics--the turban pictures, the "I don't think he is Muslim", the pictures of angelic white children at 3:00 am, the absurd charge that the civil libertarian Obama who has criticized the demonization of the Israeli Lobby is not hard enough on Farrakhan.
she also used Robert Johnson to make Obama seem like he is a hard core drug user.
I don't see what he has done.
And Clinton is the more bellicose candidate and the less committed to civil liberties for all.
I really hate identity politics, but it will keep her in the game of the liberal Democratic primary and should she win, it will also sink her in the general election.
She got nothing done with health care--so why her experience works for her I just don't get.
At any rate, this election will be determined at a very low level.
The throwing of the kitchen sink at Obama by Clinton and press yesterday shows that all too painfully.
Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/04/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by RASALULA 03/04/2008 @ 1:57pm
Stand corrected on Pennsylvania....should have said "the later primaries of April and May".
I think at this point, the Clintons (yes, it's a team) may play out to the Convention even if they know they will eventually lose.
Then roll the dice (maybe not sabotage per se) that Obama loses to McCain....SHE is the logical front-runner for 2012 AND can claim "If they had chosen me...we would have won!" (truly or falsely) and spend the next 4 years filibustering everything "bad" that McCain proposes and building up her support in the base again.
2012 rolls around and "no more black guys" will run (with the Obama loss taint surrounding that. Might even dissuade Richardson or some Latino). No other women Dems will run...and that means it's just "Hillary and the white boys" and she easily wins the nomination in 2012.
By then, McCain will be knee deep in mucking the stalls (i.e. trying to clean up Bush's mess) and will look like the Crypt-Keeper from the strain. He won't even be able to use Reagan's "youth and inexperience" line against Hillary.
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by SLOPER 03/04/2008 @ 3:36pm
"Royal Family"?!?!?!?.....LaRoucher?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/04/2008 @ 4:06pm
I agree. Just as it is appropriate to refer to her as Hillary because that is how she has positioned herself - even though some people view calling her by her first name and the other candidates by their last name as a form of sexism they have seen elsewhere. I think it is fair game.
On the other hand, not making distinctions and using only "he" when you mean "he and/or she" or making arbitrary gender distinctions based on attire - which pantsuit does - I think is worth giving some thought to what it means when we use language in this way.
I think Lil acknowledges that pantsuit is being used as a disparaging comment, but then argues, so what? And there is something to that. PC word watching is annoying, but then again, there are so many good things to attack Clinton on that to use pantsuit in a kind of left-handed gender jab, I think gives some credence to the people arguing that people not supporting Hillary are sexist and enables her (and her supporters) to duck some of the real issues.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2008 @ 5:21pm
Maasch -
Running out the US Post Office is such a tired cliche. And inaccurate. I use the USPO for plenty of express and priority deliveries. Never had a problem. Bet you haven't either (if you are being honest).
Posted by Hman23 at 03/04/2008 @ 5:51pm
A.L. Hartal,
You've managed to sum up my feelings today quite eloquently - thank you.
Posted by nicR at 03/04/2008 @ 5:51pm
ACCORDING TO EXIT POLLS, OBAMA WINS VERMONT - TX, OH, AND RI DEADLOCKED!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 6:31pm
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGER
March 4, 2008
The theme of change continues to resonate in Ohio and Texas, but not by as wide a margin as in most previous primaries. The ability to "bring needed change" beats "experience" as the most important quality in a candidate by about a 20-point margin in Ohio and by about 15 points in Texas, according to preliminary exit poll results.
That compares, for example, with the Wisconsin primary, where change beat experience by 32 points.
Preliminary exit poll results also suggest a healthy turnout by Latinos in the Texas Democratic primary, where early results indicate they're accounting for just over three in 10 voters. If that holds, it'll be a record.
Blacks account for about two in 10 Texas Democratic voters, closer to their customary share of the electorate. In this early data blacks also account for two in 10 in Ohio, which if it holds would be up from 2004.
Turnout among women looks to be up in both states in these preliminary results -- they account for about six in 10 voters in Ohio, and not quite as many in Texas, compared with 52 percent in Ohio and 53 percent in Texas in 2004.
The economy is the top issue in Texas and Ohio alike, and most strikingly so in Ohio, where nearly six in 10 Democrats rank it as the single most important issue. If that holds in later data, Ohio would be second only to Michigan in the importance of the economy to Democratic primary voters.
Almost eight in 10 in Ohio are worried about their family's finances, and about four in 10 are "very" worried about it. And voters there almost unanimously say the national economy is in bad shape. Somewhat fewer in Texas are "very" worried about their own finances, around three in 10 in these preliminary results.
The early exit poll data suggest a smaller-than-previous turnout by union voters in Ohio. At the same time it also finds broad anti-trade sentiment: About eight in 10 believe that trade with other countries takes more jobs from Ohio than it creates. Anti-trade sentiment is lower in Texas, with about six in 10 there saying trade takes jobs.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 6:34pm
Nafta-gate proves what I suspected all along: Obama will try to sell all of us down the river. I hope la reina Hillary beats him to a bloody pulp!
Posted by nursevic at 03/04/2008 @ 6:52pm
Here is why Hillary should drop out:
BETWEEN THE LINES Jonathan Alter Hillary's Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose. Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.
I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.
So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.
Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi--where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary--she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.
Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania--and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.
Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.
So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 6:56pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/04/2008 @ 6:31pm
No news...wait for later.
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 7:09pm
* This polemical Houdini, who never entered a church until he started on a political career, now is a life time Christian who prays twice a day.
Nice smear there. Do you have actual proof of that or more of those nice little emails floating around?
* As a social activist he supported the Palestinians. As a presidential campaigner, he supports Israel.
Can you not do both? Actually if you wanted a two state solution, wouldnt it be wise to be generous to both sides? I didnt know the two were mutally exclusive
* He refused to play along with the Iraq war when outside the Senate. Once inside, he played along, voting again and again, to pay for the war.
Supporting the troops with funding DOES NOT equal voting to invade, they are two totally different issues. L2logic
* Yesterday he shunned fat-cat donors. Today his racketeering friend is indicted and Obama must return huge sums.
Again nice smear. Rezco's money is not in the Obama presidential campaign, I also like the picture of Rezco with Hillary...
* Publicly he solemly promises to change NAFTA. Privately he asks his anti-NAFTA talk be taken with a grain of salt.
Reports on the actual result of this are, at best unclear.
* He has a duty to inform the electorate, where he stands. He supplies uplifting orations designed to obscure where he stands.
I think one could safely say on a number of issues where he "stands." If you want VERY specific plans, then you are ignorant of the legislative process, whereby anything proposed will not come out exactly as you planned. It would be better to have a pragmatic president, then one that has a history of my way or the highway legislation (hillarycare?)
* His message is hope and change. Euphoric followers chants, "Yes, we can." Can what? What hope, exactly, will he satisfy? What change, exactly, does he promise?
The idea that politics, like the ones you clearly espouse, as we know it will end. Where Democrats have a 50 state strategy. Where we can actually find consensus. Where I can cordially disagree with others, instead of shouting.
His reliance on advertising slogans, his omission of specifics, his juggling of lies and half truths, his plucking on people's emotions. It is the performance of a con man, a huckster a demagogue.
-To "huckster", "con man" and "demagogue" I say: Troll elsewhere, maybe under a bridge to nowhere.
Posted by Tzimisce at 03/04/2008 @ 8:20pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/04/2008 @ 7:10pm
No. I do not want postal workers running my health care. But, I don't want my health care provider to deliver my mail either!
Posted by Hman23 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:57pm
and I throw awauy my junk mail,
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/04/2008 @ 11:32pm
here, there is a "no-call" list for addressed junk mail.
maybe you can find something similar.
we also just need to put a "no ad-mail" note on the mailbox et voila.
if not recycle it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 11:40pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/04/2008 @ 2:36pm
1. Elections are not about competing biographies, or they shouldn't be. You are working with the E True Hollywood special conception of political engagement. Have fun with that.
2. It is simply a lie to say that I had no problem with Edwards' voting record. I said on many occasions it was a problem and that there was no defense of some of the votes. You know that because most of the time I was saying it in response to you. I say again, you are lying.
3. Is Obama leaving tens of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq after regular troops pull out? If he is then his anti-war credentials are shot. I am not saying he is worse on the war than Clinton (though at this point Obama's policy positions are worse almost across the board than Clinton's. Almost). Clinton talks a better game but there is no reason to believe her. What has changed is Obama's credibility on the issue. There is a difference between voting for funding when there is no way Bush is going to take troops out anyway and Obama saying that he will leave mercenaries in. This is just imperialism. Unless Obama renounces this position mapped out by his advisors then Obama is just a war-mongering imperialist. So the same as Clinton.
That personality worshiping fools like you populate the democratic is one of the reasons I don't feel like identifying myself with them anymore.
Posted by dentedpat at 03/04/2008 @ 11:44pm
Had I found this post a few days ago, I would have said, "yes, I believe it is working." Now... "Yes, it worked."
Ohio, especially, has been played.
Posted by plooger at 03/05/2008 @ 02:11am