Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCheck out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up " is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. This is a man who has trampled on his spouse's voice every time, in this campaign, that she's found it.
The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"?
Hillary Clinton started this race last year as the one to beat--she had the money, the machine and the name recognition that assured her of quasi-incumbent status. And, indeed, she ran as a quasi-incumbent, an establishment candidate in a change- year election. Yes, there were the Chris Matthews and the Tucker Carlsons and the Mike Barnicles and the Rush Limbaughs and the women who were working out their Clinton hatred through Hillary's candidacy.
Betsy Reed's superb May 19th cover story, "Race to the Bottom: How Hillary Clinton's Campaign Has Divided the Feminist Movement," documents those sexist remarks--and explains how Clinton's campaign has divided the feminist movement. But Clinton's losses cannot be attributed solely or largely to a sexism that still runs deep in our political culture.
Clinton made the mistake of running a top-down campaign in a rules-changing year, and acceding to a sexism within her campaign that advised her not to apologize for her disastrous vote supporting Bush's war resolution. Yes, she was in charge. She could have rejected the guys' advice. But Clinton appears to have bought into the idea that a Commander-in-Chief has to play by "men's rules"--and be tougher than the toughest. If she'd been smart and right, not strong and wrong, how in her right mind would she not have said, I made a mistake when I accepted the word of a man who, it is now widely accepted (except in FoxLand), lied us into a war that has gravely undermined the US's security? John Edwards managed to issue an apology--and he was dueling with a media that had pegged him as "the Breck Girl." Could it be that macho boys like Mark Penn and Bill Clinton counseled Hillary that if she issued honest regret she wouldn't be macho enough to be treated as a serious Commander-in-Chief?
If Clinton had listened to alternative voices --if there'd be some "woman- commen-sense" over in her campaign--they might have suggested that she reframe what a commander-in-chief for the 21st century means. That what's needed to deal with the challenges of this world is not more militarism amd macho swagger, but a commitment to smart, principled use of non-military tools. After all, how does military might address genocidal conflicts? Or the worst pandemic in world history (AIDS)? Or staggering and destabilizing global ineqality? Or, for that matter, the spread of weapons of mass destruction?
Hillary might even have given a speech about what it would mean to elect the first women President. She might have given a superb gender speech--one that people, generations to come, might be talking about just as they will be talking about Barack Obama's magnificent speech on race. But she chose not to. Instead, Clinton chose a different route. And while, on some level, I like Clinton's "I'm fighting for you" persona, and her fighter instinct, that stance came too late in the campaign and needed an anchor in a larger fight than the fate and future of her campaign.
So, opportunities lost, squandered. So, it is with sadness that one watches these last days of what began as an energizing and historic campaign.
The last 72 hours of this campaign, I believe, have given renewed meaning to the term "move on." Ironically, that's a term that first gripped the national imagination at a very different moment in the Clintons' political history. It was in 1998, as rightwing forces converged on Bill Clinton, salivating about the possibility of impeaching a President for improprieties that, while grotesque, never rose to an impeachable offense, that the rules-changing internet operation MoveOn emerged on our national landscape.
It is now time to move on, again. That is not to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't have every right to campaign through the last primaries on June 3. After all, it's been a long time since millions of citizens were participants-- not simply spectators--in our mess of an election process. And that is exciting--as is the record-breaking turnout, the grassroots mobilization and registration of new and once-alienated voters in this campaign.
But when the polls close on June 3, superdelegates should move, expeditiously, to make their decision so that this campaign can refocus on what is at stake in this defining election. And their decision should follow the will of the people--that is, the pledged delegates who are the backbone of a party that --under Howard Dean has crafted a spirited fifty-state strategy seeking to connect with ordinary Americans in every part of this country. That decision, to follow the will of the pledged delegates is in sync with a party that should see its future linked to throwing off the establishment mantle that is truly elitist. After all, as The Nation's Ari Berman has reminded us in his close reporting on the delegate race this charged season, those supers were created as a firewall to protect the party establishment.
And at the end of the day, while Hillary Clinton has the grit, she ain't got the numbers. And the longer her fight drags on--with outlandish attempts to equate the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations with the fraudulent Zimbabwean elections or with the fraudulent Florida recount of 2000--the greater the disservice to the party, the people and the country.
Bill Clinton liked to say-and let me paraphrase-- we are a country in which people who play by the rules should get ahead.
The rules were the rules when the DNC laid them down to all the campaigns. At the time, the Clinton team, like all the others, agreed to abide by them. The rules are rules. Yet, in these last days, with Bill Clinton out there crying "coverup," it's as if Team Clinton has moved the goalposts so often, they're not even in the ballpark--they're somewhere out in the parking lot.
We have big issues and big differences to thrash out in this election. On June 4, I hope Hillary Clinton exits this historic race, gracefully, with dignity. That exit should win her the respect due her from all those in the Democratic party, whether they are Hillary or Barack supporters. It is an exit that is in the interest of the party and the nation. And she must know that how she exits will define the winner in November 2008.
It is time to for this election to turn to the defining issues.
I hope. Yet, somehow I doubt it very much. Still, I hope.
Posted by pastorhorace at 05/26/2008 @ 10:28pm
The interests of the party, the nation, and The Nation are not what is at stake here for the Clintons. A greatly diminished brand, with attendant plummeting revenues, is the Clintons' concern. An historic loss plus the limelight of Dem party leadership firmly on someone else, someone very attractive, for the next 9 years perhaps, these factors will sideline the Clintons. Now how can they possibly blame themselves for that result? This may be too much to demand.
The Clintons' tin ear has been deceiving them for a long time in this campaign. They have displayed little evidence that this liability will soon disappear, quite the contrary. Dignified behavior, particularly offstage, may prove impossible, alas. The team Obama is building are no suckers, they appear well aware of this lurking threat.
Posted by sloper at 05/26/2008 @ 10:47pm
I really, really deeply hate the equation of masculinity ("macho", as KVH puts it, apparently the only Spanish word she knows) with everything bad in our world in KVH's writing today, and I really find it pathetic that she has to apologize for Hillary Clinton's incompetent, hubristic, and failed campaign this year by blaming it all on sexist Bill Clinton and sexist Mark Penn. Can KVH and her sisterhood perceive the world of women outside of some colossal victimhood complex?
HRC was in charge. She failed. If women want to perceive a woman running on an equal playing field with the men in the world of presidential campaigns then the buck has to stop with the woman when she fails.
HRC needs to get out of the race, and she has needed to do so for months. Instead, she has pursued a low-class, slimeball campaign ultimately based in her petulance, spite, and Royalist sense of entitlement, using surrogates for crappy race and Muslim baiting, and in general demonstrating that she has no class or integrity whatsoever.
EOS.
Posted by Zero at 05/26/2008 @ 11:13pm
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attempted to ascribe her failure to a defeat of Feminism.
There is no doubt that she was baited with sexist remarks and commentary; but every kid on the playground knows that when you cry in response, the taunting will continue.
When I was in Basic Training in 1965, one of the blokes kept referring to me with a remark relating to a facial feature.
One day I had enough. I went over to him, in he barracks in front of all the others, and stuck out my jaw. "Put it right there," I said.
The other guy backed down.
Hillary didn't take them on; nor did Hillary ignore them. Hillary cried. Bill cried. The campaign cried.
Golda Meir would not have cried. Margaret Thatcher would not have cried. Benazir Bhutto would not have cried (and it was she who was assassinated).
Hillary Clinton's failure is her own. She started at the top, and slid to the bottom; but Feminism, as a force in American politics, is alive and well. It is, in fact, now stronger than ever.
We will have a female President in our lifetimes--just not Hillary.
Posted by Logan_of_Ohio at 05/26/2008 @ 11:36pm
Sen. Kennedy, this means you need to switch to Clinton!
Posted by HAPPY3
happy, you're becoming abundantly obnoxious.
a while back, you were on the verge of civility,
but recently, sheesh, it seems as if you've got fibreglass in your briefs.
Monday, May 26, 2008 11:50:52 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/26/2008 @ 11:51pm
that's right.
you can't blame bill.
she's the boss on this one.
did anybody blame mrs. kerry?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/26/2008 @ 11:57pm
First of all welcome back Zero. :)
Second, Susan Estrich (who I agree with about 60% of the time but is about the only saving grace on Foxnews.com) suggested that the absence of Ted Kennedy from the Senate may have given Hillary a possible way of saving face by becoming the grand dame of the Senate. This is unfortunate happenstance but also an opportunity for her to take on a greater role in the Democratic leadership. So now that she has somewhere to go maybe she can exit gracefully. Or Clinton ego rules over all and it turns into a bloody mess.
Posted by yutsano at 05/26/2008 @ 11:58pm
OFF TOPIC ALERT!
uh, oh.........
'May 25, 2008 Sunday
AL-SISTANI NOT TO ALLOW US-IRAQ AGREEMENT "AS LONG AS HE IS ALIVE" - AL-ALAM TV
LENGTH: 271 words
Text of report by state-run Iranian Arabic-language television news channel Al-Alam on 25 May
[Presenter] There have been further reactions to the security agreement, which the US occupation and the Iraqi government intend to sign. A source close to the [Shi'i] religious figure Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has said that Al-Sistani told Prime Minister Al-Maliki, during their meeting in the holy city of Al-Najaf, that he totally rejects the agreement.
He [Al-Sistani] said he would not allow the signing of the agreement as long as he is alive. However, at the same time, he voiced support to the Iraqi government and to efforts by Iraqi officials and people to establish security and stability in the country.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:13:50 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:13am
Happy, take ONE look at Grandpa, look at his flip-flops, his maverick but sucking up to Bush, the situation in this country, then tell me an American populace is going to say that's better than Obama. And I don't mean through your Rush-colored glasses.
Face it, conservatism is collapsing under its own hubris. 30 years of demonizing the government and trying to re-make the US into a Randian paradise has turned into abject failure under the gross incompetence of George the lesser. And if he wasn't conservative enough, it is your fault for not holding his feet to the fire and alolowing him to run up ungodly deficits, huge expansions of the federal government, and groos erosions of civil liberties even WITH a Rerpublican Congress for six years. All of this to keep us "safe". Right now what the American public needs to be safe from is neo-con rule.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:18am
foxsnooze reaches new low!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&feature=related&fmt=18&fmt=18
' "And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh Obama. Well, both, if we could." She laughed. '
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:18am
"Unfortunately, Governor Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore."
John Mccain, February 28, 2000
<i>so much for predictions........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:26am
Is this news or psycho analysis without a theory at its foundation. When was last time that any of the bloggers at the Nation's megazine supported Hillary, no matter what the circumstances. And when was last time, this megazine questioned anything about Obama's candidacy or his qualifications to be President. Although I think it would be great for non-caucasian to be the U.S. but whether it would do anything for race relations in this country is an open questions. It may prove to be a setback for blacks and other non-whites in this country as one can always point to Obama to even deny the existence of racism.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008 @ 12:40am
That was the most unclever non-answer I've seen in a long time. I guess that took care of ever taking you seriously Happy. Buh-bye.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:53am
hey happy,
been looking for $320,800,000
ask this guy:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080522103311.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 12:56am
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008
H.T.O.T.D.
And I'm trying to find your point, honestly. Following Hillary no matter the circumstances is called blind devotion, and I honestly see it more in Hillary supporters than Obama ones. Your so-called point about race is nonsense, nowhere has Obama suggested that we ignore racism. Plus if a half-African-American can't move us beyond the racism of our past, what would?
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 12:57am
Let's get serious. Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/08
Serious about what? Voting for McCain? Sell your snake oil somewhere else.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/27/2008 @ 01:18am
Hillary had every conceivable advantage in the book going into these primaries. Name recognition, money, establishment backing. All the candidates knew the rules of the Democratic primaries (yes, caucuses count) and could develop their strategies accordingly. Hillary had all the media attention prior to January but it shifted when it turned out that Obama had run a smart, strategic and disciplined campaign that got him more wins and delegates. The media likes winners, that's why they were fawning over Hillary when she was "inevitable" and that's why they're now more charitable to Obama. But to say that there is some sort of inherent bias that cost her the election is simply preposterous. Take a long hard look in the mirror, Hillary. Whatever happened to "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?" I guess that only applies when your opponent is getting peppered with silliness about pastors and bittergate. But for Bill and her to now whine about everything from sexism to undemocratic Florida and Michigan is just the height of chutzpah and proves exactly why no self respecting and forward thinking superdelegate interested in having a real democratic party and not a semi aristocracy will break for her. It's over and we'll all be better off not hearing the name Clinton again on a daily basis. I had forgotten all about Clinton fatigue during these horrific last seven years, but we're all getting a taste of it again, and it tastes bitter, excuse the pun.
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:32am
well, but the dems DON'T run their primaries like republicans, and both candidates knew the rules, so you can't use that as an argument because if it were a winner take all primary Obama would have campaigned very differently, putting a lot more resources into states like California. It's like saying field goals count 6 points and touchdowns 3 points AFTER the game has been played. Stop moving the goal posts!
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:46am
oh great, blame it on moveon and caucus stampedes. I'd like to see some links to prove that point. How about Rush Limbaugh's chaos troops? Unless you can prove that there was any foul play it's not a valid point, on either side. But you're right, the superdelegates will look at who can win the GE and create the best down ticket momentum, and I think it'll be Obama. Don't take my word for it, let's meet here a week from tomorrow and see who's got the better psychic abilities.
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 01:56am
Frank is a slavish devotee to Her Majesty who most progressives have given up trying to reason with Yell. She can do no wrong and in his eyes is entitled to the nomination no matter what rules bending has to be done to get her there. His reasonsings are inconsitent and often contradictory. It always amazes me to see someone lose themselves into such cult-like delusion over someone they see as a leader.
I have a suggestion Frank. Going by the fiscal examples given by the two final primary candidates in the Democratic race, who do you think has run the superior campaign?
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 01:59am
Thanks yutsano. I guess we'll just have to wait it out for another week before we can "move on."
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:07am
I think a successful Obama Presidency would go a long way in easing the taboo of race relations in politics. If he has an unsuccessful Presidency, I think that it will be the last black candidate that would be taken seriously that you'll see on the Presidential level until the next century.
posted by frankgrits
So here's my question...what black Presidential candidate COULDN'T you make this same argument about? If your logic holds, any first black President (and indeed, any first female President) would be held under precisely the same microscope. If your logic holds, therefore, it seems that we have good reason to reject any black or female President because of the massive scrutiny that would be brought to bear. Since I don't think either of us actually believes that conclusion, it seems pretty clear that your argumentation (from which that conclusion unambiguously flows) is flawed.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/27/2008 @ 02:14am
you make all kinds of foregone conclusions that you cannot back up. How do you know that all Hispanics/Latinos will go for McCain? Do you have a crystal ball? Your whole argument is based on a static electoral map, but this is not 2004. From my perspective there's a whole new generation of voters that doesn't fit into the old red state / blue state mold. Just an opinion, but it's no less valid than yours. In my opinion, both Hillary and Obama would beat McCain, though Obama can compete in a lot more states. New winds are blowing and the ship has already set sail.
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:25am
good idea, have a good night Frank. Sweet dreams!
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008 @ 02:47am
"But to say that there is some sort of inherent bias that cost her the election is simply preposterous."
As of 6/26 that bias is now officially known as a media "cover-up," according to hubby Bill.
Thrash, thrash.
Remember what happens when rats are cornered. Dignity? Shmignity. Watch for behind the curtains action akin to the behavior of the Clintons' self-chosen TV role models, Tony & Carmela Soprano. The Clintons' TV ad (staring both parties) was no accident. Talk about a Freudian slip that was a whopper as big ... say, as assassination, yet another Soprano tactic.
Alas, there won't be much genuine dignity on display. Clintonian public performance is shaping up more along the lines of their "I regret if anyone ..." denials.
Posted by sloper at 05/27/2008 @ 03:37am
by frankgrits at 05/27/2008
"--Why would you want to gamble with an inexperienced black canidate? It's suicide.--"
Oh, my... Frankgrits is back with his 'no holds barred' Hillary shillery...
Mr. Grits... why would you want to gamble with the wife of a somewhat discredited former president? I mean, sure... compared with Bush's legacy... Bill looks good, and therefore, so does his wife.
But we can do a lot better... and we will.
Obama is much more likely to turn this country around than Clinton, and he is WAY more experienced than she is at organizing, working with and listening to others, and leading with integrity and honesty.
BTW... That slippery slope of Limbaughian alliance... the one that has given Hillary the chance to cling to a steadily diminishing thread of legitimacy in this primary... will not be easily reclimbed. She allowed it, and hoped to win because of it... and she would lose the general election when part of her 'voter base' reregisters as republicans.
Has she ever mentioned this? Have you, Frank?
Posted by ttr at 05/27/2008 @ 03:49am
Happy3, you don't know if Hillary would be the nominees under different rules like the winner take all Republican Primary. Barack Obama's skillful team probably would have employed a completely different strategy under different rules. If MI and CA voted last in the Primary, which has been the norm and viewed by both Dems and Pubs as fair - Obama would be the likely winner based on today's CA polls. Both sides can play the what if game.
Obama's campaign went into this primary understanding the rules. It was a delegate game. Obama won because Clinton's team seemed to forget the objective of the contest.
Hillary Clinton blew off the caucus states. A decision I can only presume was due to bad advice. Bill Clinton would not have won the nomination and the presidency without the Democratic caucus. Like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton was an unknown. Also, it is important to note that the caucus rules were written by Hilary Clinton's top surrogate, Harold Icke. It is disingenuous for Hillary Clinton to disregard the caucus states as undemocratic. Her disrespect for the rules is a tremendous disservice to the process, the Party, and our presumptive nominee.
Clinton's defiance to accept defeat and her constant reinvented matrix to win misleads her supporters and conveys the wrong message. Winning is not more important than the integrity of the process. She is treading on a dangerous precedent. Tyrants and despots rig elections, not presidential candidates.
Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 04:23am
The SD have been steadily flowing to Obama. He has picked up 17 over the past few days. My guess is the SDs are being respectful of Hillary Clinton and probably afraid of being viewed as a traitor by the Clintons. This contests is as much about controlling the Party as it is about being President.
There is no way Clinton will win this nomination and she knows it, so I am starting to view her as a spoiler. I am not sure what she wants out of this or why she is misleading her supporters. If Hillary takes this to the convention, it doesn't matter who secures the nomination. S/he will lose to McCain. Three months is not enough time to organize and wage a national campaign. Moreover, I see no signs of Hillary moving her campaign towards the general election. What purpose would Hillary have to assure a Democratic defeat? Her own defeat? Nope, she is too smart. If Hillary does go to the convention, I doubt it will be to actually secure the nomination.
Staying in the race through the summer will prevent Obama's campaign from accessing DNC funds. What would be her motive for hurting the likely nominee?
I hope she considers the Party and her country. Hillary should do the right thing not what she believes is her right. Someone close needs to talk to her, not Bill Clinton. He is on a mission to destroy his legacy.
Posted by SandyFeet at 05/27/2008 @ 05:05am
Very well stated, KVH!
Let's Move On!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 05:34am
>>>Check out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up " is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. <<<
Bill Clinton sounds like a VERY desperate man. Is he and his wife so addicted to power that they will say and do absolutely anything to get it?
FACT CHECK:
Contrary to Bill's statement, if Hillary wins Puerto Rico and Montana (Obama leads in latest Montana poll 52-35), she STILL trails in the popular vote! Bill's popular vote math FAILS TO INCLUDE all of the caucus states, which is dubious proposition for Camp Clinton that "claims" they want every vote to count. Their math also includes NO POPULAR VOTES for Obama in Michigan where his name was not on the ballot!
This "cover-up" nonsense is all about EARLY polls that have been historically inaccurate when compared to November results. Why doesn't Bill take all of the May poll numbers from previous presidential contests and compare them with November results? Why is Bill COVERING UP this factual information?
That plain fact is that his candidate lost! So get over it Bill, and MOVE ON, just like KVH has very eloquently described in this article.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 05:55am
"Wouldn't it be wiser to let the convention decide what it will decide..."----Posted by amiiss at 05/27/2008
Actually the primaries have already decided.
Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 06:05am
FRANK -
How on earth can you think it fair or just to seat the delegates from MI of FL after both candidates pledged to honor the decision of the DNC and NOT to campaign there??????
Would you be so wedded to "count every vote" if it was 60-40 Obama?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 06:08am
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008
AND have him explain why a "Soviet-style" ballot (with ONLY Hillary's name on it) NOT being counted is...
"un-democratic"?
Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 06:11am
Sorry, Katrina. You are just not giving us the full facts! I know that OBAMYOPIA stops you from seeing that Sen. Obama is not even close to winning this nomination. No superdelegates no. reached, and NO POPULAR VOTE--check out more polls...Then examine your motives.
Why don't the MEDIA MISOGYNISTs [sorry, Katrina, but you sound like one of them or at the very least you're rather journalistically naif buying uncritically into the Obamania phenomenon] stop insisting that a strong comprehensive vote-getter of a democratic candidate who happens to be female (and, yes, with a bit of history and yes, with some Feminist spunk in her that hasn't been lost nor faded the last couple of decades, like Katrina's!) step "gracefully"--really?!-- down the podium and hand over the pulpit holding the Top Job spot to...The Bro. from Hawaii...You know, like them ignominious "Obama T-shirts" selling like hot cakes thanks to Barack's totally sexist, semi-camouflaged woman-bashing of a Campaign--printed on them:
'BROS BEFORE HOES' Yup! that's why they want her to step down for The Man of Hope to walk over and grab the top job. Yup, but did you know this same Obama fellow deviously knocked off the ballots in Chicago his benefactor and mentor, AA SENATOR ALICE PALMER, who is still recuperating from the shock of her life when the young Barack, her protege, forced his gang of legal thugs down her throat...to get the nomination and rub her off the Chicago political map?! Yup!
Sen. Alice Palmer is now supporting...you guessed it girl... Sen. Clinton! Wonder why, Katrina?! Do some fact checkin' there, girl! Before you force the Obamyopic views of yours on the rest of the women of this country who won't be BULLIED or gang-mugged into worshipping this CHANCEY THE GARDENER empty suit(Being There with Pete Sellers was prophetic in the '70s when Barack was still running around in diapers)...
And, hold it there Katrina, before you have any further crypto-misogynist propagandist assertions to expound, do me a favor and read L.A.Times/watch YouTube's Misogynist Show of the Ages attesting to Barack's huge performing arts talents:
"OBAMA GIVES F*NGER TO HILLARY"--now that's why women voters should prefer this arrogant, immature frat-boy over Sen. Clinton? Or McCain, even? At least McCain did say to Russert in Baghdad in '05 "I am sure Sen. Clinton will be a great President" It's called RESPECT, Katrina! And your man just doesn't have it in Him!...
Barack went on stage in N.C. the day after his pathetically inept Debate performance in Pa., and 'flip-offed' Hillary, pausing, SMIRKING and waiting for his followers to wildly conspire with his huge disrespect for his fellow (female)Senator, on stage and in full view of thousands! Watch it, ole gal!! You might learn a thing or two that the OBAMYOPICS ain't lettin' ya see through!...Then you may think twice about offering the top Exec job to a junior high grad....THINK, GIRL, THINK, before you FOLLOW!...
Now, I ask you Katrina, would you give the keys to your brand new SUV to your hormonally-challenged teenager out on his first date? Well, cause that's what you're asking women voters to do by preferring the anorexic resume of this arrogant neophyte to that of the Woman with the tested years of public service, commitment and wrinkles to prove it....The one who got more votes than Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry and the whole boys' gang...and shone in N.Y. State where her Office is praised as the MOST EFFICIENTLY RUN office at the Senate or anywhere in that godforsaken political hotdog stand...
Shame, really, Katrina....I expected better from you in this column of yours....But you can always clear your political lenses and see through the clouds of OBAMYOPIA. Start by sending Hillary a small donation and urge her to keep on fighting--for our daughters' sake and for Democracy. And tell her loud and clear:
"GO, HILLARY, and GIVE THEM HEALTH"!
Posted by sakel at 05/27/2008 @ 06:17am
>>>I see Hillary as taking the fight all the way to Denver. Why should she accept the VP slot when the nomination is within reach.
Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008<<<
FRANKGRITS,
Are you on crack?
Still win? Under what scenario, besides the "assassination scenario" that Hillary foolishly put out there recently?
Immediately after June 3rd, at least 50 more supers will put Obama over the top, and MI and FL will not help Hillary, as these delegates will be apportioned equally as a proper penalty for breaking the DNC rules.
Case closed!
As for Hillary's voters. Hillary just KILLED her chances of becoming VP with her assassination remark. Can you really imagine Hillary being a "heartbeat" away from being president when she fantasizes out-loud about an Obama assassination? And given the LARGE number of "mysterious deaths" of people associated with the Clintons over the years, including Vince Foster who had the goods on Hillary in the File-gate episode, Obama would have to be stone crazy to put Hillary on his ticket.
Besides, there are many other talented female VP candidates that don't have all of the Clinton baggage, like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.
WE may not get you, FRANKGRITS, but we will eventually get the vast majority of Clinton's supporters WITHOUT Hillary being on the ticket!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 06:30am
Claiming that sexism is the reason that Hillary isn't winning is just another desperate attempt by Clinton supporters to excuse her losing.She would have easily won if it weren't for the fact that Obama has charisma and if he had not run which negates their claim of sexism.Hillary has little experience and has wrinkles because she is getting older and not because of years of public service.Hillary is in service to Hillary and not the public.I would not vote for any of these three,but Clinton supporters need to stop whining and making up lame excuses for her failures.Not everyones candidate wins,but only Hillary supporters whine about it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 06:46am
Ms. vanden Heuvel I am breaking my own rule by responding to a headline and a quick skim before I actually read the article with attempted objectivity.
When did it become the role of journalists to tell a candidate when to leave the race and how to do so?
Forgive me if I'm mistaken but over the many years I have been involved with elections I seem to remember that journalists reported and perhaps analyzed events rather than make decisions for the voters and the candidates by offering advice and demanding that the advice be taken.
It seems something is amiss.
If you Katrina would like to run for office I believe you, being a smart and strong woman would know when the time was right to exit. I'm quite sure you would be taken aback, and rightly so if reporters, rather than reporting demanded you do as they say.
There is another point to make as well. If Senator Clinton were a male candidate would you make these demands? More importantly: If the situation were reversed would you dare to demand the same of Senator Obama and risk being labeled a racist? While we can of course never know what you would do, only what you say you would do I think we can surmise the answer that the vast majority of Obama supporters (or Hillary Haters) would say.
Now, I will go back to reading the article and try to maintain a composed objectivity in the hopes I will not find the column as pompous disrespectful and filled with unjustified self righteous conclusions as my initial skim led me to believe.
Before I do let me make one quick observation on a comment that caught my eye as I was skimming. I don't want to forget this. You mentioned that "women at the nation were the first to deplore" the sexism and misogyny (I added that) that has occurred throughout this campaign? Seriously? I see you didn't cite your protestations and I certainly never noticed them. Perhaps you, as a professional woman if not a Clinton supporter should have been far more vocal in your outrage. Deploring in private or with a carefully crafted column showing how reasonable and well modulated you are about the whole unsightly thing is not the same as being outraged. Sometimes Katrina, loud and vociferous outrage is the only genuine expression.
Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 @ 07:01am
Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008
It's an op-ed.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:08am
Again, I wonder why none of these Hillary supporters (or GOP posers, which I think also likely)....
can explain how "sexism" forced her to run a shoddy campaign...
hire a lobbyist for a position she supposedly opposed...
made her spend like crazy, so much that it drove her into the hole when things go tough... (What happened to "fiscally responsible" Hillary?!??!?)
forced her to LIE about coming under sniper fire (with a video available to disprove it)...
and had her not only vote for the war, but uptil it became a political liability in 2007...still support it....
And why it's somehow "impossible" for a woman to LOSE...without it being about her gender?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 07:11am
When did it become the role of journalists to tell a candidate when to leave the race and how to do so?
Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 |
What planet do you live on? What right does Clinton have to urge Obama to leave the race because she is more "electable."
Clinton fan club search software skimming for blog headlines to post their automated responses is irresponsible. KVH is entitled to her opinion.
May I suggest Hillary Toilet Paper to wipe the feces from your clouded spectacles? Get real.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 07:18am
The desparation of the Obamamaniacs to get Hillary out of the race grows lounder and lounder the more primary's she wins and the more Obama loses. Hillary has won, and will end, the primary season with the most popular votes cast, and yet the elitist in the party of "count all the votes" is trying to lock Obama into the nomination by suppressing the votes of MI & FL. Obama, who never saw a nut case dictator trying to get nuclear weapons that he didn't want to chat up! Obama the Elitist who has no respect for working class people.....is a 35 to 50 state disaster in November. Hillary needs to ignore this sexist..get the woman back into the kitchen claptrap..and fight to save the party.....all the way to Denver!!!!!!!!
Posted by valwayne at 05/27/2008 @ 07:19am
Posted by valwayne at 05/27/2008
Suppress the votes? You mean the votes in the primaries that Clinton at one time agreed to not take part in? The one where she was the only name on the ballot? Please articulate how that would be fair or just. She knew the rules. Now she wants to change them. If Obama had been the only name on the ballot, would you be saying the same thing?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:24am
This is insane. The only conceivable way Clinton can "win" is if the MI and FL get unfairly seated in proportion to her "votes" (based on an after-the-fact rewrite of the DNC's decision) or if a landslide of the superdelegate's go against the popular vote?
Is this really a receipe for bringing the party together? And for winning the general?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:26am
Yeah, again with the old posts.... So take my old posts and wipe your sorry ass with them.
Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
My...my.....Frank.
Mask is nailing you right and left on your inconsistency and shifting foundation for support for your gal and this is what you come up with? Shame on you.
Voters are not buying into Clinton's attempt to recreate herself constantly from the closet Republican she is. Her inconsistency on the issues of this campaign and her voting record are big reasons for her demise. You are a splendid example of why not to vote for Clinton.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 07:30am
Hopefully this country won't be an Obami-nation after Nov 2008!!!!
Posted by tomli72 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:31am
"Relentless" might be another word for "tenacious," and despite your attempts to make it a negative, it is actually an admirable quality. I would think that writers for the Nation would on principle be for counting all votes, especially in Florida. I would also think that the Nation wouldn't be so pro-delegates. This smacks of paternalism: have daddy come in and save us -- oh, from the frightening woman. The fact is that Hillary and Barack are tied. The other fact is that Hillary represents a huge coalition of supporters. Why should she be asked to bow out gracefully, as it were, precisely when she has been gaining on him and whatever momentum he has had is gone? No, Hillary owes it to her supporters, in Florida and Michigan as well as elsewhere, to stay in. Those who want her to bow out gracefully do not believe in the rough-and-tumble of democracy that has never been a neat and orderly process.
Posted by benne at 05/27/2008 @ 07:32am
"GO, HILLARY, and GIVE THEM HEALTH"! Posted by sakel at 05/27/2008 |
Right, the way she gave us health the last time the Clintons controlled the White House.
Spare us, please, that Clinton kind of health has proven so distinctly bad for our health.
Time to move on, time for change.
Posted by sloper at 05/27/2008 @ 07:40am
Hillary supporters,
I can understand you all beingupset that the campaign has not gone Mrs. Clinton's way.
That is no reason to attack Obama or his supporters.
Better for her and you to become introspective and look for the reasons she lost and what she and you could do better in future (if there are any for her) elections.
Trying to change the rules after the fact is disingenous and lowers Mrs. Clinton's legacy and your credibility.
The nomination is about gaining delegates. Senator Obama and his campaign have done it better than Mrs. Clinton and hers.
Get over it.
Posted by McKSluggo at 05/27/2008 @ 07:41am
Hillary should STAY IN!! The media has created an Opium of the masses with Obama that will cause nothing but regrets in the end we need the experience the comes with Hillary!!!
Posted by mauijk at 05/27/2008 @ 08:02am
No votes have been suppressed in Florida or Michigan and all this nonsense about those two states is getting old.The democrats have ignorant rules when it comes to their primaries,but the rules are what they are and everyone agreed to go by them and that is all there is to that story.Clinton supporters need to blame their queen for accepting the rules rather than blame Obama for the fact that Hillary accepted the rules.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 08:02am
I was really annoyed in the 2004 election, that the election was decided before I could vote. I don't particularly care for Clinton, but the voters should get a chance to vote for their choice. I would like to see a national primary or caucus where everyone votes on the same day, with all the candidates who are running for President in their party.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 05/27/2008 @ 08:07am
Just as Clinton is not a polarizing person, those who to choose polarization in reaction to her are polarizing and have some responsibility in their choice of a myriad array of reactions and expressions so to is Hillary Clinton's campaign what has divided the feminist movement. The feminists who choose to work out their hatred of her are. Making a choice to phrase it in this manner reveals again the subtle (and not so subtle) way of blaming Clinton for all that happens in this primary.
Posted by ohmercy at 05/27/2008 @ 08:12am
It was clear that it was time for her to go when she tried to hit Obama for having exploted her use of the word "assassination." The fact of the matter is that he gave her a pass, but she latched on to his use of the word "bitter" like a hungry dog with a pork chop. There has been a double standard. It seems that it is fine for her to use Obama's verbal mistakes, while he gets the blame for hers. It is clear that she just misspoke AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Posted by gls60 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:28am
Lots of candidates for H.T.O.T.D. yet they all seem to possess this extreme irrationality. Let me make this clear: SHE LOST!!!!! There is no grandiose comeback scenario, no miracle final backroom maneuver. Florida and Michigan can and should not count as the punishment has been meted out by the DNC. There is no disenfranchisement of voters, no one said you couldn't vote, if you're from FL and MI you KNEW going into that ballot box that your vote would have zero impact on the final outcome. I totally understand why you would vote in Florida, and I could ALMOST allow that to count as a half vote except for on small detail: Hillary herself agreed to not participate in either contest. If she had said publically from Iowa that those votes should be allowed then I'd give her more credit. She's the ultimate political opportunist, and I can't stomach that in a man or a woman.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 08:32am
I respectfully disagree with Ms. van den Heuvel. In my opinion, Ms. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign up until the convention if she so desires. She is not my candidate of choice, but that is her right, as it is the right of every other candidate. I think it might be better for everyone if we stopped telling each other what we think they should or shouldn't do, and concentrated on being as ethical ourselves as we can. You can count on nothing but change in this volatile and mobile world - none of us knows what's going to happen in the next 3 minutes, let alone longer. Why don't we stop nitpicking at each other and mind our OWN ps and qs? I suspect each and every one of us has a plateful of those requiring attention. God knows I do.
Posted by Gail Moore at 05/27/2008 @ 08:37am
It is clear that she just misspoke AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Posted by gls60 at 05/27/2008
Ah,,,,you need to read a little more. Clinton "misspoke" about the assassination several other times, including her most recent gaffe. Kind of like the Bosnian sniper fire "misspoke" eh?
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 08:37am
Hillary's about 1% behind and will probably win the popolar vote, but you want her to drop out?
These repeated calls by Obama supporters and surrogates are just making me hate your side of the party.
If Obama gets the nomination, I'm voting McCain.
Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:39am
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/27/2008
Hillary can stand the heat. That's why she'll fight until she wins. ******If she can stand the heat, why is she crying all the time, accusing people of picking on her.
Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008 @ 08:44am
Gotta love these supposed Democrats who would vote against their own self-interest just for spite. There is NO WAY Michigan can count under any reasonable interpretation of democratic rules, so totally dismiss whatever her vote was from the final count period. If it is included then I'm camping out on Frosty's lawn until the revolution.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 08:44am
Posted by Gail Moore at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Golly, I thought Clinton promised during the debates to support The Party and to support Obama? She can run till eternity in a straightjacket for we care. Point is....nobody is going to paying attention next month, and she is going to be looking pretty creepy. I think Katrina is trying to save some face for someone she once respected.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 08:45am
Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
RQty...Hellary is losing, and she has no chance of catching up. Why are people like you so racist that you can't even phantom a Black person being president of this nation. Blacks are citizens of this great nation also. Is white hate this strong in America? Hellary has run a dirty racist campaign, injected with racism and sexism. ON the othe other hand, Obama has run a clean campaign and kept race an sexism out of it.
Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008 @ 08:50am
HAPPY -
Nothing "illegal" about it. And nobody was forced to take their names off the ballot. I will give Clinton that much. However, she did sign a pledge that she would not campaign or "participate" in the primary. So, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "participate" is, huh?
HAPPY - you are not that dense. I say claiming delegates is participating. You don't? And Clinton tried to hedge her bets, relying on the fact that her name recoginition gave her a decided advantage.
When you have a situation with NO campaigning and, in one state, no other names on the ballot, how on earth can you claim that the "results" should be valid, reliable, indicative?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:56am
Funny how all the conservative posters here all of a sudden JUST LOVE Hillary Clinton.
Five months ago she was the Anti-Christ.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 08:57am
ON the othe other hand, Obama has run a clean campaign and kept race an sexism out of it.
Posted by US voter at 05/27/2008
And it is working. Dirty politics is what Clinton knows and is part of the machine politics that was once a part of her support. Voters want to change that. Obama has taken the high road and stuck to it. He could have nailed Clinton on all her baggage but refused. Clinton is a sad charade whose chapter is coming to a close.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 09:01am
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008
Amen. I used to have a certain amount of respect for her, even if I did not support her candidacy.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:03am
Who are you, KvH, to tell her to exit the race?
I'm a voter too, and I want her to stay in. You're just hiding behind your own sexism, pseudo-intellectualism and need for approval from your mostly white male writers.
All of the candidates have had embarrassing moments. You're not willing to dismiss what you see as as dirty campaigning, and I'm not willing to dismiss Obama's very telling use of "sweety" in addressing adult women. Not a big deal to you, maybe because you were swooning for him like the rest of the media, but unmistakable to me. Slick and flirtatious is hardly substance. By the way, any "dirty politics" HRC has engaged in is unremarkable and laughable compared to Republicans.
Why can't Obama get a landslide, despite the media love affair? Maybe some voters see through him.
Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008 @ 09:05am
Five months ago she was the Anti-Christ.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
The longer that they can keep the energizer bunny going the better it is for McCain. Clinton is damaging the Party and she will pay heavily for her conduct through loss of her senate seat. There will be no leadership roles for Clinton. She and Bill in their twilight years can write more fiction about their political careers and admire the White House furnishings they made off with at taxpayer expense at the end of Bill Clinton's sexcapade in the Whilte House.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 09:08am
It is sheer nonsense for Hillary and Bill to conflate disqualification of Florida's and Michigan's delegates as "disenfranchising" voters in those states. The Democratic Party is a private corporation, and it sets its own rules for nominating presidential candidates. It is under no obligation to make sure that voters are "represented" in states that don't follow those rules.
Both Hillary and Bill suffer from the delusion that she is "entitled" to be president. Barack Obama upset their apple cart. If he wins the general election in '08, Hillary will be 69 years old in November 2016 -- almost as old as John McSame is now. You can bet that she and Bill will do everything in their power to ensure that Democratic nominee Obama doesn't make it to the White House in 2009.
Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008 @ 09:09am
Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008
Well, quack quack quackity quack
sorry Ibble.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:12am
"Well, quack quack quackity quack."
Is this your idea of an intelligent response?
Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008 @ 09:19am
Rednecks in swing states like Ohio, Penn, Indy, Virginia are not Obama's problem. They're America's problem.
They tilted the scales in 2000 and 2004.
They're a huge swath of the bell curve. Guns, God, Gays... just simply echos of their upbringing, itself an echo of Jim Crow, slavery, and that huge shadow of pain.
Most don't so much as hate blacks as they lack life experience.
They haven't had a true black friend or significant other, haven't had a true Muslim friend or significant other, haven't known or been inspired by an articulate, smart non-white, etc.
A problem for America = an opportunity for Hillary
Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 09:19am
Posted by frankgrits at 05/27/2008
I knew after he showed up yesterday, FG would HAVE to make an appearance on this thread.
BTW, next time he or any of the Hillary cultists blame "the Media" or "the Obama camp" or (as I've seen on other threads) "Dean and the DNC" for Hillary having her Precious stolen from her...
ask them this...
Which of them "made" Hillary vote for the war?
Which of them "forced" her to hire Mark Penn?
Which of them "strong-armed" her into lying about "Bosnian sniper fire"?
Which of them got her campaign staff to spend like drunken sailors so that she went into the hole and had to loan herself money....TWICE?
And was it "the Media", "the Obama camp", or "Howard Dean" who made Hillary and her bunch so over-confident that they had NO PLAN WHATSOEVER past Super Tuesday if they didn't have it wrapped up???
Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 09:20am
Did you hear that?
That's the media's silence on America's giant rouge problem.
West Virginia's everywhere.
Posted by winyahn at 05/27/2008 @ 09:24am
Posted by jjwinders at 05/27/2008
More intelligent than your stating the painfully obvious.
tshirttt's post of feigned offense at the most trivial level deserves a response of equal stupidity.
Your need to have it explained reveals your depth as well.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:34am
Posted by tshirttt at 05/27/2008
I'd say Hillary got plenty of media love. What other candidate could lose 11 or so primaries in a row, yet not have to have the talking heads write her off? What other candidate could get fewer delegates in a state (TX) and still be declared the big winner? Remember John Edwards, the guy who lost the first three? What did the media think of his chances back in February? They wrote him off. At least the media let Clinton hang around as long as she has.
Clinton got all the media help she needed back in January, February, and March. And she still could not win it when she needed to.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:34am
Excuse me? I can't believe what I am reading!
Clinton also won "redneck states" like New York and California.
If Obama were white, would 92% of black voters be supporting him? Hell, no. Racism cuts both ways. Is it worse for white voters to support a white candidate than it is for black voters to support a black candidate?
winyahn, do you think that it is a problem that inner city African American populations, who say in exit polls that race played an important factor in their decision, are being just as racist as some of the "rednecks" that you cited in determining their vote?
Ironically, Obama has depended on the racism of African American voters to put him over the top in many of the states that he's won. I know this isn't politically correct, but it's the truth.
A lot of progressives, like myself, have never been inspired by Obama. We don't like his advisers and are scared by the idea of them working in the White House. And, quite frankly, since Obama does not support making my vote count in the primary (I live in Florida) he will NEVER get it in the general.
I am a loyal Democrat who will be working to elect Democrats this fall. But I do not want Obama to be president. I love my country more than I love my party, and I cannot in good conscience support Obama. He has not demonstrated the type of experience I think a president should have, and his past judgment does not give me hope that he is anything that I would want in a president.
Obama will never win the general election. He will never win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. This nomination should not be about the math, it should be about the electoral map.
Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008 @ 09:43am
Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008
As a "progressive," which Clinton advisors are you so eager to see in the White House?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:46am
>>>This nomination should not be about the math, it should be about the electoral map.<<<
Not Bill Clinton's "Voodoo Math" that EXCLUDES the popular vote in all caucus states, and FAILS TO COUNT any popular votes in Michigan where Obama's name was not on the ballot!
And not YESTERDAY'S electoral map that was all about swing states in Ohio and Florida. Obama is REDEFINING the electoral map, putting states like Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa in play for the Democrats for the very first time.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 09:50am
>>>HEY VAN DUMB EVIL,
WHEN IS YOUR NEXT MARXIST CRUISE WITH ITS MASSIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT?????
Posted by libzsuck at 05/27/2008<<<
Hey LIBZ,
I hear Shanghai, China is MUCH MORE CAPITALIST than the USA!
Maybe you should check into immigrating there after Obama WINS in November!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 09:57am
Obama will never win the general election. He will never win Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008
Not sure how you can say that. The polls are all over the place - especially in Ohio, Michigan and Pennslyvania. One the Clinton supporters get over their anger, and once the voters get to see more of Obama vs. McCain, those numbers will shift even more.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:58am
Ms. vanden Heuvel, after watching your appearances on TV during this primary, it is obvious to me that you support Senator Obama. Consequently, I never should have bothered to read this article as I knew in advance what angle you would take.
You wrote, " So, it is with sadness that one watches these last days of what began as an energizing and historic campaign." Please, spare me your false sadness - I imagine you writing with gleefulness.
Posted by PNolan at 05/27/2008 @ 09:59am
Posted by iankeywest at 05/27/2008
When is Hillary going to stop listening to her pollsters and Karl Rovian strategists and GET REAL!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:01am
Pledged delegates reflect the will of the people? Are you kidding? Let me tell you about pledged delegates. I stood for Hillary at my Carson City caucus site for 3 hours with 65 other Hillary supporters. Across the hall were 90 Obama supporters -- party activists with T-shirts and posters and balloons and buttons galore, several with their children on their shoulders so they could no doubt "witness history." The children were counted, too, and at the end of it, Barack got 4 delegates and Hillary got only 2. I went home to discover Hillary won the statewide popular vote by 6 points -- 51% to 46% -- but the delegate "math" awarded Obama with 25% more delegates anyway.
Obama netted 13 "pledged delegates" with his 13,000 vote margin in Idaho, which has 4 Electoral College votes he won't get in November. But Hillary netted only 13 "pledged delegates" with her 200,000 vote margin in PENNSYLVANIA, which has 21 Electoral College votes she might get and Obama probably won't in November.
Obama's claim to the nomination by "pledged delegates reflecting the will of the people" doesn't hold any water with me.
One of the many reasons superdelegates were created in the first place was to balance out all these party activists. It's no surprise the party activists want to negate them. Should Kennedy reflect the will of Massachusetts? Should Casey reflect the will of Pennsylvania?
This party is absurd on its face. It's addicted to losing.
And this article is nothing but a plea to ignore the process rules that hurt your case.
The popular vote should count for something; it's the metric I trust the most.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:05am
Yes, Hillary will always be polarizing to some people, because she symbolizes the powerful woman who steps out of traditional roles, as Doris Kearns Goodwin has pointed out.
Barack & Michelle exploit this factor to their own advantage by both trying to don the "uniter not divider" cloak while dividing when they see political advantage.
Michelle: "I'd have to examine her tone and approach" before deciding to support her as the nominee.
Barack: "I have no doubt I could get her votes, the question is, could she get mine?"
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:09am
>>>I'm not saying the media distorted it because of sexism, but they did distort it terribly.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/27/2008<<<
I don't know if it was that much of a distortion.
She mentioned the RFK assassination in the context of explaining her rationale for staying in the race, so it is reasonable to assume that "part" of this rationale was her belief in the possibility of an Obama assassination in June....just like RFK.
It was perhaps her biggest blunder in the campaign, along with her" sniper fire" bold face lie. It portrays her as she really is - a selfish lying destructive force that is addicted to power; and like most addicts, she will say and do anything to get her fix. If she only wants power for power's sake, how could she possibly compare favorably to someone who really wants to move this country forward?
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:11am
I see that the Hillary troll with all the ids is still blaming Obama for the fact that Hillary agreed to the rules that covered Florida and Michigan.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 10:14am
The Hillary troll sure is busy getting new ids.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 10:15am
>>>I went home to discover Hillary won the statewide popular vote by 6 points -- 51% to 46% -- but the delegate "math" awarded Obama with 25% more delegates anyway.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008<<<
Sorry TAHOE,
But Hillary LOST Nevada because her stupid over-paid strategists didn't take the time to study the caucus RULES!
If they had read the rules they would have discovered that Nevada tries to balance out the influence of the populated centers like Vegas by giving more weight to RURAL AREAS in their delegate count. Obama WON these rural areas, which are full of the same BLUE COLLAR voters that Hillary claims Obama can't win!
The truth is Obama won blue collar voters all over the country, from rural Nevada, to Eastern Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Oregon. He doesn't have a problem with blue collar voters, he only has a problem with RACIST white blue collar voters!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:22am
People trust John McCain.
frankgrits.
you mean like his first two wives?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 10:28am
The trolls are amazing, as is the sheer vitriol coming out of them. I notice a common theme however Nob. NONE of them talk about how good Hillary is (beyond vague cheerleading) but they rip into Obama with dittohead talking points or sheer media distortions. Give me three reasons why Hillary Clinton will be a better presdent than Barack Obama. I've asked for this many times and have YET to get an answer.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 10:29am
Metteyya,
So Obama can win contests in which some people count more than others. Did you have a point besides noting out how well he has gamed the system?
One reason Hillary will be a better president than Obama, c/o Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter: She gets it.
And yes, that means Obama doesn't.
"Iran isn't a serious threat" "Iran is a grave threat" "Maybe I'll just vote present.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:36am
The syntax in this headline is the same as that of the sky-written message in The Wizard of Oz:
Dorothy Go Home.
Why are those in the party who don't favor Clinton so threatened by her candidacy? Does she, like Dorothy, have power that Obama supporters would like to suppress?
Posted by tennisgrl at 05/27/2008 @ 10:39am
>>> Give me three reasons why Hillary Clinton will be a better presdent than Barack Obama. I've asked for this many times and have YET to get an answer.
Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 <<<
The "official line" is that she has (1) more experience (which is actually not true), (2) she would be a better Commander-in-Chief (I think "better" means more warlike), and (3) her healthcare plan covers more people (but does nothing to make it affordable).
The "unofficial line" is that she is WHITE.
Both the official and unofficial line are complete garbage, which partially explains why she lost this race. The other part, is that they really don't have a "change" candidate with Hillary in a "change" year, and with all of the fancy high-paid consultants on Hillary's staff, they should have realized this early on and gone with a very different branding strategy with Bill on the sidelines.
They could have easily run a "Better than Bill" campaign, highlighting how Hillary would be an IMPROVEMENT over Bill Clinton instead of a Clinton third term. This was a fatal strategic error on their part, and they paid the price for it.
The polling may have shown that Democrats thought well of the Clinton years, but the Clinton polling didn't capture how voters preferred positive change from "those" years, as well as the Bush years, over just more of the same.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:42am
"The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"? "
Glad you restricted your assertion to "women of THE NATION," i.e., women on your staff.
Why don't you point out to all the women who do hold high places in the Country. How about Pelosi, Feinstein, Rice, etc.? You think they hold their positions without the support of men?
Clinton is losing not because she is a woman but because she is Hillary Clinton. Sexism is so remote as a cause of her loss that it is not even worthy of mention. Your own article acknowledges this. I understand you must pander to the angry feminists who are a dying breed. They, like Clinton, will soon fade into history thank goodness. They are a product of a by-gone era.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 10:45am
Many in the party have been so turned against her because the Obama campaign has exploited her divisive reputation and inflamed anything she says as racist. But he's a uniter. Wright.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c2 68b304
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:46am
>>>"Iran isn't a serious threat" "Iran is a grave threat" "Maybe I'll just vote present.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008<<<
TRANSLATION:
"Iran isn't a serious threat" - I can stand up to AIPAC
"Iran is a grave threat" - AIPAC is more powerful than I thought
"Maybe I will just vote present (actually skip the Kyl-Lieberman vote)" - AIPAC is indeed powerful, but I can show "some" independence from them and still get elected.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 10:47am
Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:48am
Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:49am
Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:49am
The site told me the page I was looking for "does not exist." I'll take that as a sign to flush Katrina's insincerity. ArrivederLa.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 @ 10:51am
well,
they sure had (have, i might add) a right to be angry.
but in clinton's case, it is as you say.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 10:55am
Dear Katrina,
Why are you on a "Negative Campaign" towards Hillary?
Why are you so intimidated by Hillary continuing in the race?
Why are you so politically immature that you do not realize that Hillary has every right to stay in this race? Hillary won the "Mega States", the states we will be watching on election night in November. Obama did not win those states, and those who are politically mature know you need to look beyond the surface in this campaign.
I admire Hillary, and I think she has done a terrific job for America in this campaign. Others are beginning to pattern themselves after her. Last week, Senator Kennedy says he want his wife to take his seat if needed. Two weeks ago, we saw Laura Bush and her daughter, start appearing on television and writing books. Before Hillary launched her campaign, these women sat in the shadows of their husbands.
In Chicago, Jesse Jackson Jr. has already hinted he wants his wife to run for congress. This list can go on and on, because Hillary paved the way for many WOMEN and MEN to love their dream. I am very inspired by Hillary, and I do not want to hear her constantly put down. Then later, everyone runs and COPIES after her. Hillary is a LEADER and she will be a GOOD PRESIDENT.
If your choice of Obama is so right for the country, then why are you letting Hillary bother you?
Can you just "Give us some intelligence" and "Respect" for Hillary. You should not be so negative.
You never know how things can turn around for Hillary, even though you doubt it.
If you cannot say something good, do not say anything at all. Stop putting Hillary down
Posted by politicalWatcher at 05/27/2008 @ 11:02am
>>>Thanks, Metteyya. I hope you'll be there to translate every thing he has to stay from now till Election Day.
Posted by Tahoe Editor at 05/27/2008 <<<
I am just an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer. If you want the "official" Obama line, I suggest you go to the Obama website - although I don't think you will find any "translations" there.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:03am
Hillary Clinton hasn't been hurt by sexism. She has survived thanks to a reverse sexism that has allowed her to stay in the race when every other candidate would have been forced to drop out, thanks to media that have given her pass on her tears, her numerous lies (the latest being that her husband was still campaigning in June during her RFK gaffe), fact-challenged spin about her chances and Obama's qualifications, and her campaign's broad hints (aka blackmail) that she wants Obama to pay off her campaign debt and/or be forced to take her on as vice-president despite all the dirty tricks and lying. And now we have to listen to all her supporters mimicking her narcissistic behavior, saying that they are going to take their ball and not play nice in November - that should guarantee a setback for abortion rights but do these REALLY care about poor women's right to choose or are they closer in values to the Republican free choicers who always knew they could afford to go elsewhere if denied that choice at home? Katrina here, too, is way to easy on someone who would be pegged as just a tool of big business -- if not for the fact that she is a woman. Now THAT is the big cover-up going on here.
Posted by Steve1us at 05/27/2008 @ 11:05am
Obama and his supporters need to lose in November to learn how to play fair during a primary.
If Obama gets the nomination, I'm voting McCain. I will not tolerate voter suppression in my own party. The only way the party is going to fix these problems is if a loss forces it to.
Hillary in 08! If not Hillary, then McCain.
Posted by RQty53 at 05/27/2008 @ 11:10am
>>>That Obamites mastered the Caucus rules better, both in NV and my TX, where HRC also won the Pop votes, automatically mean he's the better candidate for all 300 million of us Americans. Check!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008 <<<
What this means is Hillary doesn't bother with people or places "she" deems not important. That is not a very good trait for a person who needs to be president of ALL of America. It also shows that she is not capable of mastering all of the details necessary to reach her goals, and as president this could be disastrous for this country!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:11am
well,
they sure had (have, i might add) a right to be angry.
but in clinton's case, it is as you say.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 |
I'll agree to the 'had' but not to the 'have.'
Done any small business government contracting lately? Read the affirmative action preferences that still permeate. Love the women contractor's who get the contract because they are women and then hire all men because they prefer to work with men. Feminism today is used more for political gain (the selling of anger) than it is for eliminating sexism. Feminists are Reverend Wrights of gender discrimination. Can't argue with the past, but can with the present (as to degree) and the future (as to where we are heading).
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 11:13am
Exactly, what does it mean to exit gracefully. She should see it to the end. People who are asking her to exit gracefully never wanted her in the race to begin with. She has come too far to quit. It also makes Obama stronger who has been embraced by the left without any questions.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/27/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by Steve1us at 05/27/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Great point. Feminists Clinton supporters who support because she is a woman are every bit as guilty of sexism as men who won't vote for her because she is woman. I would say that Clinton has more sexist support by a considerable margin than the reverse.
Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 11:19am
It's funny how so many people blame the media whenever their candidate loses.Hillary supporters want everyone to forget that the media played the Wright clip over and over again and that many in the media want her to stay in because their ratings are up,but it's more fun to blame the media for your candidate losing than to blame the candidate..It is interesting,however,that we have Frankgrits admitting that Hillary supporters are finding Bush/McCain to be an acceptable alternative to Hillary.Didn't Frank refer to the GOP,on numerous occasions,as the fascist party?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/27/2008 @ 11:19am
Happy3 -
The simple fact of the matter is that Obama and his staff out-organized and out-strategized Hillary and hers. Those are actually attributes you do want in a President.
Posted by libraridan at 05/27/2008 @ 11:20am
>>>That Obamites mastered the Caucus rules better, both in NV and my TX, where HRC also won the Pop votes, automatically mean he's the better candidate for all 300 million of us Americans. Check!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008 <<<
Actually Happy, let me inform you that Texas violated the "Voting Rights Act" by allowing a double vote. The LAW says you cannot vote twice.
Secondly, Texas violated the "Voting Rights Act" by DISENFRANCHING many, many voters. The law again says that everyone must be given a chance to vote.
Texas required that everyone MUST BE PRESENT at the CAUCUS in order to participate. You were not allowed to vote early or anything for the CAUCUS. Many senior citizens, handicapped, and people who work evenings were not able to get to the caucus. Therefore, there should have been provisions to get their second vote cast if there was a second vote.
Finally, Texas started many caucuses LATE and they FORCED the packages out of the hands of Hillary's voters. You have not heard much on this, but there is talk about the DOJ looking into these violations.
Posted by politicalWatcher at 05/27/2008 @ 11:21am
>>>All of us when faced with multiple problems and a deadline (say tests in college or more fittingly, in the workplace or home), will try to solve as many `easy' problems as we can and then tackle the big, hairy and perhaps, non-solvable problems. FL is a piece of cake, no?
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008<<<
And if the RULE is you get an F if you turn in your A essay late, how is it fair to the other students (i.e., other states) if we give you an A after breaking the rules that everyone else followed?
The answer is we can't give you an A and have the rules mean anything at all. The most we can do is give you a D, a passing grade, and hope this teaches you a lesson about getting your essay in on time!
We will have CHAOS next time around if there is no penalty for Florida or Michigan. EVERY state will move up next time if they realize there is no penalty for violating the rules. And penalty means the DNC gets to decide how to seat their delegations, not HRC, and it also means they will get something LESS than the outcome of the flawed election result.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/27/2008 @ 11:24am
<i>If the undecideds wanted Obama, they'd have made their move by now. Hillary still has the chance to convince the supers that she WILL win the general while Obama only MAY win.</i>
Ridiculous, you are assuming that they would move en bloc when they have shown no propensity to do so heretofore. The pick-up over the April-May period so far has been 90 SD endorsement for Obama and 24 for Clinton (plus a few who have switched from Clinton to Obama). I would love to hear how you expect that to suddenly reverse itself in Clinton's favor.
<i>Florida and Michigan will be seated and that will automatically move the required delegates to 2200 something. I see Hillary as taking the fight all the way to Denver.</i>
If they are seated, it's going to be in a manner that won't give a net advantage to anyone (likely an even split of the delegates). As a reminder, Clinton had NO problem with enforcing the no-delegate sanctions against those two states until she suddenly needed them.
<i>Hillary's supporters are mad as hell at the media and at the Obama camp. There is nothing that Hillary can say that will get them to vote for Obama. McCain is an acceptable alternative to them.</i>
You are assuming that they all are as juvenile as you are and will remain that way in November.
<i>Do they give the nomination to Obama and pray that the Hillary people will forgive them</i>
They have done nothing that requires forgiveness. Further, Clinton is where she is because of her own mistakes, including assuming that she'd have this wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She is also there because Obama has brought in new voters and new donors. She is also where she is because she assumed, as you obviously do, that she is entitled to the nomination.
<i>On the other hand, A Hillary Clinton Presidency, with the council of an ex-President always present or a McCain Presidency that leaves nothing to chance would be a safe alternative.</i>
Absolute nonsense. Continuing the Iraq war and possibly starting things up with Iran is a safe alternative? A do-nothing position on the sub-prime collapse is a safe alternative?
<i> The Iraq war will go on until success. Neither Hillary nor Obama will want to be known as the President who surrendered to Al Qaeda. McCain will see the war through to it's successful conclusion.</i>
Well now you've truly become a total hypocrite. You were against the war until your son was out of the army but now you're for it. The idea that pulling out is surrendering to al-Qaida is neo-con nonsense. al-Qaida in Iraq overplayed its hand and provoked a Sunni reaction that's crippling it.
<i>Halthcare will have a better chance under Hillary than either Obama or McCain</i>
Right, because she did such a good job with it the last time.
<i> It goes to the convention where Hillary cleans Obama's clock. Bet on it.</i>
Let's see; you predicted that she'd put it away on Super Tuesday, you predicted that she'd put it away by winning in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc., etc.
Posted by brunowe at 05/27/2008 @ 11:25am
the republican'ts!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 11:27am
Here is what would be new and innovative...if Hillary doesn't drop out of the race and goes up against the party that is acting like a bunch of irresponsible, impulsive kids 'high' on the newest drug, Barack Obama. Hillary has just as many backers as BO, they are supporting her because she is real not a fantasy, seasoned not green, brilliant not Kool and will be able to win the GE, which BO cannot. She gets it; the party and BO don't. How about a politician who isn't thinking about tomorrow, but what's Wright for the party. I's call that EGGS which is true dignity. What you suggest is she walk away with her tail between her legs.
Halli Casser-Jayne http://thecjpoliticalreport.com
Posted by PolitiHAL at 05/27/2008 @ 11:30am
"So enough with the childish accusations. Let's get serious."
So, you want to get serious? OK. Let's get serious.
CLINTON LOST. IN FEBRUARY. GET OVER IT.
Posted by trippin at 05/27/2008 @ 11:34am
Posted by brunowe at 05/27/2008
FRANK either was never that much of a liberal....or he's honest-to-gosh in a state of "cult-like" (as in Stalin cult of personality) hysteria about Hillary.
So much so that he's coming up with rationalizations for voting for McCain...when what it's REALLY about is...."revenge against Obama for stealing HER nomination".
Otherwise I can't see how a guy who once posted...
What part of this sentence don't you understand?: The war in Iraq is a mistake.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2007 @ 12:10am
FORGET THE WAR, HOUSE GOP WANTS TO CENSURE MOVEON...Posted by John Nichols at 09/10/2007 @ 11:34pm
What is the reason for our being in Iraq again? I say we pull out starting right now.
Any comments, wingnuts?----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:19pm
McCain hitched his wagon to a losing policy proffered by people who really don't know what they're doing. His shortsightedness in this major blunder shows his courage of his convictions but also his lack of vision for the bigger picture. Someone with his military background should know better.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/10/2007 @ 5:35pm
MCCAIN FACES EXTINCTION...Posted by Ari Berman at 07/10/2007 @ 12:13pm
"At least John Kerry and John Edwards had the balls to admit it was a mistake. What the hell is holding someone as intelligent as McCain back. He's the last person who should be selling his soul and condemning more kids to die just because of his political ambitions."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/17/2006 @ 6:31pm
BLOG | Posted 11/17/2006 @ 4:45pm McCain's Misguided Policy by Ari Berman
Is now saying what he's saying about the war and McCain!?!???
Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 11:34am
I hear you, loud and clear Katrina, and you are in the league with rest of the media in promoting Obama's theme that he is the nominee.
So be it! However Clinton made a commitment to to the voters and the voters wanted to see this through.( as in 64%)
None of the media, including you, is looking beyond, the delegate lead Obama has, which is so small, less than 9%, that there is hardly a mandate for his nomination, except from the media and Barrack himself.
So I am with the media, Obama is the nominee, and Clinton should finish her commitment to the voters, and support Obama. After all he is super qualified to be commander in chief, has great judgement, (" a bone headed mistake), knows his foreign relations ,and the states of the union, associates with great people (Ayers, Rezko, Wright, to name a few), has the endorsement of Hamas, and most recently wears the flag pin and puts his hand over his heart.
And everyone of course knows this guy very well...right?
We are losing a potential great president in Clinton all because of emotion, and that I find very sad indeed.
Posted by sailcovershot at 05/27/2008 @ 11:43am
>>>What you suggest is she walk away with her tail between her legs.
Halli Casser-Jayne http://thecjpoliticalreport.com
Posted by PolitiHAL at 05/27/2008<<<
No, we are only suggesting that she walk away - what she decides to do with her tail is her own business.
We prefer a wagging tail, as this will be better for the party than a tucked one, but we are smart enough to be able to beat McCain without Hillary Clinton.
Posted by Metteyya a