Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Clinton campaign has been busy inventing new reasons for why Barack Obama keeps winning state after state. "One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories 'don't matter,'" Markos Moulitsas blogged this week.
Either the state has a caucus, or too many black people, or too many affluent people, or too many independent voters, or too many red staters. If only the Clintons had the perfect electoral map.
If only.
If only the Clintons had a coherent explanation for why Obama has so thoroughly out-organized and out-hussled them across the country in February. After all, there was no reason why Hillary Clinton, after spending eight years in the White House and amassing a hefty war chest of money and incumbency in the Senate, couldn't have won caucus states, or red states, or states with large African-American communities. The front-runner is supposed to win these places. If Obama had lost eight states in a row, his candidacy most certainly would have been toast.
Obama has opened up a small lead in pledged delegates, 1,078 to 969 according to MSNBC, but the race is still miraculously close. Clinton may very well win Ohio and Texas and capture the nomination as the third reincarnation of the Comeback Kid.
But step back for a minute. How did Clinton even get to the point where March 4 was do or die? Exactly what happened to all those states in between? Did the tide turn when Missouri flipped into Obama's column in the wee hours of Super Tuesday? After a draw was declared that Wednesday, her campaign has been mired in a seemingly endless draught.
The situation is more dire for Clinton than her supporters would have one believe. Her candidacy is on the verge of impending collapse. It goes beyond replacing one or two campaign managers. Obama is consolidating his base and bringing in new voters, while Clinton is hanging on by a mere thread.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- 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
- ZNet
RSS
"CLINTON CAN'T EXPLAIN OBAMA'S WINS"
i can......................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 09:22am
"draught"
yep. she's gonna need some beer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 09:29am
"Clinton is hanging on by a mere thread."
quick, get the scissors!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 09:30am
It's why FRANKGRITS has been in such a panic lately....his old excuses are collapsing and NONE of them can explain Virginia now.
Actually, the main spin from the Clintons failed weeks ago now. Remember how it was "She'll have it wrapped up by Super Tuesday"? And before that, FRANK was telling us that she'd win everything after Iowa (before that, he was saying she had it wrapped up INCLUDING Iowa).
And I noted yesterday that ANOTHER Clinton campaign guy quit (or was fired)...probably not so much failures as the fact they need to "cut the fat" and delete some of these high-paying jobs as the money starts to dry up.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 09:43am
BTW, I wonder if we'll see much of the "newbie one-timers who JUST HAPPEN to support Hillary" today?
Or if THAT budget is being cut back as well!?!!??
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 09:56am
This just in from Ari's 8th grade English teacher:
"…hefty war chest of money and incumbency in the Senate, couldn't of won caucus states,…" I think you mean "…couldn't have won…"
"If Obama had lost eight states in a row, his candidacy would most certainly of been toast." I think you mean "…most certainly have been toast"
"…her campaign has been mired in a seemingly endless draught." I think you mean drought.
"Her candidacy is on the verge of impending collapse." Don't you think being "on the verge" of something that is "impending" is redundant?
Otherwise interesting peace, I mean piece.
Posted by JerichoValley at 02/13/2008 @ 09:57am
JerichoValley,
thank you.
Posted by Rintrah at 02/13/2008 @ 10:02am
Nothing substantive to say, just a grammatical rant: it's "couldn't have won caucus states", not "couldn't of". And, "his candidacy most certainly would have been toast", not "certainly of been toast."
Sorry to interrupt the heady discussion, but that stuff just drives me nuts. Having ranted, I feel better now. Carry on.
Posted by rgoffeney at 02/13/2008 @ 10:05am
The top half 10
1. Billary didn't put as much of their money into organizing as good a ground game across the board as Barack.
2. Billary is no longer allowed to play the old new con game of divide and conqueur via race or religion and not get called on it big time.
3. Barack is charismatic and easy to get to know, which is totally messing up the 16+ years of Billary's name recognition advantage-- across the board.
4. The thought that Al Gore could step in at any time and especially now if Billary just breaks even into a brokered convention, has been driving the Billary campaign to madness.
5. Barack's name is not on this list: http://tinyurl.com/2ld6po
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 10:10am
er, conquer
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 10:15am
Explaination of Obama Wins.
Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton ...And . . .Hillary Rodham Goldwater Girl Clinton.
That's all folks.
"And may the wind always be at their backs."
Posted by bobc at 02/13/2008 @ 10:18am
Yes, I think hsubfools' comment number 3 is the most salient to the most voters. Obama is just plain more eloquent, seemingly (hopefully) genuine, and therefore much more persuasive/effectual.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/13/2008 @ 10:22am
Posted by JERICHOVALLEY 02/13/2008 @ 09:57am
Remember....live by the Spell-Checker, die by the Spell-Checker...
or the "Strunk & White's" in this case! "Eschew verbage!!!!"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 10:30am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/13/2008 @ 10:10am
Now, why is #4 not a surprise!
Yeah, I'm sure Hillary has just been terrified of Al Gore, more than Obama for weeks now!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 10:31am
Not only does she have all that baggage, DLC political strategy miscalculations and unethical campaign tactics--but truth be told:
Obama is a better politician and a talented orator.
Posted by Lil at 02/13/2008 @ 10:39am
Billary has monopolized the party--actually creating a log-jam, and assumed their inevitability with no contigency plan.
I guess we can be thankful for humble victories--like the impeding exit of the Clintons and their DLC triangulating legacy.
Posted by Lil at 02/13/2008 @ 10:47am
Both candidates would make great Presidents. I think Obama would be better. Give us a break on the vitriol and the irrational hatred. We have to win in November.
Posted by JFHill at 02/13/2008 @ 10:49am
#6 Obama comes across as sincere. Hillary seems to be pandering/calculating/triangulating every decision/postition/speech. The Electorate sees through this. People are desperate for a change in this country and Barack Obama is the only candidate working that angle, sincere or not (for the record I have come to believe he is sincere).
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/13/2008 @ 10:49am
Yup, Barack's got the skills. Billary's got the spills...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 10:49am
"couldn't of won"
You mean 'couldn't HAVE won'. That's grade school level grammar.
Posted by joseph530 at 02/13/2008 @ 11:01am
Clinton should graciously congratulate Barry on his wins. she will have to work with him for a long time.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2008 @ 11:09am
Impending collapse?
C'mon Super Delegates, give it that last push over the edge & end the circus.
So Dem resources can be aimed at W's GOP.
And Bill C can go back to pocketing tens of millions round the globe.
And we can start paying closer attention to what matters ... like the current failure of municipal bond auctions. Know what that means? Municipals. Sound as a ... dollar. When munis flop, the doodoo deepens exponentially.
And therein lies the real story for the real campaign.
Think we'll ever get to hear it?
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 11:19am
Something to think about:
Obama is at his best when he appeals to national unity and our better angels---he is inspirational. Well he slide back into the usual democrat class warfare mantra? If he does he will lose Independents and some of the republicans who have started to support him. When he talks about class warfare he sounds just like Hillary---in the long run this tactic is a loser for him.
Posted by Len Mosse at 02/13/2008 @ 11:25am
You grammar police overlooked "hussle."
Personally, I think Hillary made a mistake running on her "experience." Her record is hardly spotless, and she seems to have a ton of experience making shady deals and half-assed compromises. When I hear her touting her experience, I just picture her slipping back into all her and Bill's old habits and allegiances like a warm bath.
Aside from this, Obama is a better speaker and comes across as more genuine. Clinton doesn't just have a political attack machine, she seems like she is a political machine. Who's repeatedly voted in favor of the Iraq war.
Posted by habiba at 02/13/2008 @ 11:52am
Yup, Barack's got the skills. Billary's got the spills...
&&&&&
Get out the quills, take some pills, or head for the hills...
Either way, one's gatta feel
The appeal that's for real
And then peal
The frill
From the drill
Can't just chill
It's more up-hill.
Boom boom boom
Don't know why, my mind is fried
If my name were Billary
And I wouldn't head for the Hillery,
It's all been foolery
To pull the bullery
Leave the jewelry
Give me some purity
Its got the security.
Boom boom boom
Barack's got our back, but don't relax
Packs some rope to hope, and just scope us
We're removing our harness
We're reducing the carnage
We're reviewing our largesse
We're removing the dumbass
We're recruiting more substance
From our resistance, from consistence
We won't resist us.
Boom boom boom
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 12:21pm
Would somebody mind telling me what Obama is actually good at besides talking?
We've had seven years of a figurehead for someone else's agenda. Even if he's supposed to be on "our side", I for one will not vote for anyone who does not have proven administrative skill. Hillary has it. She's a lifer in this business, a true professional. I know that has a downside but I'll take that over a hot air bag any day of the week.
Of course, the thing she needs to administrate right now is her damned campaign. So we'll see real soon, won't we?
Posted by MyParadigm at 02/13/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/13/2008 @ 12:25pm
He's good at organizing (obviously). He's a good writer. As far as legislating, I don't think he or Hillary Clinton have distinguished themselves.
Posted by habiba at 02/13/2008 @ 12:29pm
Barack's got the judgement, Billary's got the punishment...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by JERICHOVALLEY 02/13/2008 @ 09:57am
hey, you must be a homophobe.
oops, homophone.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/13/2008 @ 12:25pm
I was wondering if we'd get ANY Hillary boosters today.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 12:43pm
I was wondering if we'd get ANY Hillary boosters today. Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 12:43pm
Oremus ... she's reelected to the senate in '12, riding Pres. Obama's lenghty coattails, & becomes senate majority leader.
Nuff?
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 12:54pm
Why are the Clintons losing?
Hillary is in Texas right now treating voters to a full dose of empty rhetoric and accomplished insincerity, "My husband is a White-Black man and I myself am half Mexican. We feel your pain."
Secondly, I think America is waking up to the fact the Clintons are a seamless continuation of the best non-representative government special interests money can buy.
Posted by x32792 at 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by SLOPER 02/13/2008 @ 12:54pm
Possibly, but you know the REAL POWER is in the Executive.
I'm wondering if she doesn't make a move in 2010 to muscle out Eliot Spitzer and try for Governor of New York...or some other state she can move to (heheh).
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm
The bottom line is voters want change from the status quo, and Hillary represents the status quo.
Hillary made a strategic error in attaching herself to her husband's administration to try to "appear" to be more experienced than Barack. Whatever gains she made in the minds of voters who now think she has experience are outweighed by those who now see her as part of the Washington establishment.
Hillary should have come clean and admitted that she doesn't have more experience than Barack and simply chart a new course for herself and "her" administration. This would have required Bill to stay in the background, and would have freed her up to define her candidacy anew.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, she can't go backwards and now claim that she is not tied to the Washington establishment of her husband.
This simply was a poor strategy, poor execution, and a gross under-appreciation of the desire of voters for change from the status quo.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 1:02pm
Mrs Clinton would have done better if she had divorced Bill and then told voters, "I have seen the evils of special interests fluffing, know how Washington really works and I can change things. My ex-husband is a symbol of status quo (establishment) and I am the hope for a new and better American future."
Posted by x32792 at 02/13/2008 @ 1:09pm
The question is, how much different is Obama from the status quo? His money comes from the same place as Hillary, and many repubs. He talks a big game, which is his draw, but will he be able to actually change anything.
I hope so.
The president should not be the power that the neo-cons say. He should be mostly a figure head, some one to rally around. someone to propose ideas, push the congress one way or another. He has very little real power, or should have very little real power.
But, now that the neo-cons have told us the President is All Powerful, we get to stand aside and watch them moan and cry about "abuse of office", after they allowed Chimpy do do whatever the hell he wants.
Gonna be fun.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:15pm
The republicans should be ecstatic that the "librool" media has not glommed onto the recent stories of one republican indicted for helping terrorists, and another arrested for soliciting sex from a fellow man.
but, of course, like Foley, it is all the fault of librools anyway.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:18pm
I'm wondering if she doesn't make a move in 2010 to muscle out Eliot Spitzer and try for Governor of New York...or some other state she can move to (heheh). Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm |
Please, pick another state, a more deserving state ... like ARK.
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by X32792 02/13/2008 @ 1:09pm
Buwahahaha.
right.
she is the evil of special interest fluffing.
give her a vote, and a poll number, and we can tell how she will vote.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:20pm
Wow. "...couldn't of won..." and "..his candidacy would most certainly of been toast." And even better, "Her candidacy is on the verge of impending collapse." I fear you're on the verge of impending sloppiness. Couldn't you of edited this thing?
Posted by GHeller at 02/13/2008 @ 1:21pm
I'm wondering if she doesn't make a move in 2010 to muscle out Eliot Spitzer and try for Governor of New York...or some other state she can move to (heheh). Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm |
Please, pick another state, a more deserving state ... like ARK.
Posted by SLOPER 02/13/2008 @ 1:20pm
Iraq?
Oh, wait, that will be Bush's state dept assignment when he leaves office. I am sure, as tough as Chimpy is, he will want to be on the ground making things work in Iraq. Not retired and living the easy life on his "ranch", getting appointed to some new boards and speaking (as only Chimpy can) at churches throughout the south and west.
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." ...Governor George W. Bush, JR., 9/15/95
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:24pm
"My husband is a White-Black man and I myself am half Mexican. We feel your pain."
Posted by X32792 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm
lol.
winter park, florida?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 1:00pm
ontario?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 1:27pm
and "out-hussled" should read "out-hustled", no?
Posted by scott ruplin at 02/13/2008 @ 1:28pm
Did Bush write this column?
Won't it be grand to have someone in office that knows their native tongue?
Not as much fun, mind you, but refreshing.
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." ...Governor George W. Bush, JR.
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." ...Governor George W. Bush, JR., 11/30/96
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:32pm
Prescient:
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." ...Governor George W. Bush, JR.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:34pm
"Clinton Can't Explain Obama's Wins"
That explains why she keeps losing.
Posted by usc1 at 02/13/2008 @ 1:35pm
USC, this belongs in the Climate Change column, but this is your side of the argument:
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." ...Governor George W. Bush, JR
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 1:41pm
Posted by USC1 02/13/2008 @ 1:35pm LOL! Dead-on.
I just read that the campaign manager for Clinton in '96(I think) is gonna endorse Obama. I wonder how Hillary will explain that? I saw it on the homepage for YAHOO!.
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2008 @ 1:52pm
Myparadigm,
Clinton has exactly zero years of experience as an administrator. She is married to someone who has lots of years of administrative experience. Maybe you are saying Hillary and thinking Bill. She has about 7 years of legistlative experience, which is less than Senator Obama by the way. You seem to be one of these people incapable of adding and subtracting who have fallen for this line that Clinton has more experience. I know she says she is more experienced and all but she has never been in a competitive campaign (except for a few months with Rudy before he dropped out), has never run anything but a Senate office, chairs no committees, and has spent more time as a corporate lawyer than anything else in her life. Unless you are counting being married to Bill a job, which you seem to be doing.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/13/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2008 @ 1:39pm
That's why I couldn't believe people reelected Bush's dumbass to the presidency. Shit, the conservatives could have(ya'll are not gonna get me) voted for me. I'm certainly not any dumber than he is. I made C's in college too. Damn, that's right. I'm not rich and neither is my family. Oh well. 2 outta 3 ain't bad. Of course if Bush had been born someone else, he would have been in and out of jail due to his past drug problems.
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2008 @ 1:59pm
Hooray to JERICHOVALLEY, the grammar sleuth. My faith in humanity is once again restored. I agree, the article was interesting.
Posted by PrattMandango at 02/13/2008 @ 2:11pm
Unless you are counting being married to Bill a job, which you seem to be doing. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 1:53pm
Well, it was no cakewalk. And look how well it paid!
LOL in these posts. Gallows humor?
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 2:25pm
I wait with bated breath for "I am a victim of a vast left/black-wing conspiracy."
Posted by felicity at 02/13/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by RINTRAH 02/13/2008 @ 10:02am
". . . roars and shakes his flames."
Nice avatar, dude. Hang around a bit and we'll watch the consolidation of error unfold together. (Enitharmon sends her love.)
Posted by goyadad at 02/13/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/13/2008 @ 1:27pm
You mean she'd have a shot in Canada?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 3:35pm
I think people dont give Obama credit for being an intelligent man and that too is part of why Billary is losing. They think he is merely an excellent orator. You could be the best speaker in the world if you are not saying the right things it wont do a hill beans. What Obama has effectively done is turn experience on its head and rather than Hillary being seen as the most qualified she is seen as part of the structure the Anti-change Anti-hope candidate.
I suspect they like many others continue to underestimate Obama. Look how far he has come and there is a tendency to think that he is not saying anything in his stump speeches that he is dodging specifics. He's all platitude and feeding people false hope and thinking that is going to bring us together. Its ironic that up until a week or so ago. Even conservative talk shows were focusing on Hillary as if it was a foregone conclusion that she was going to win the Primary. Why focus on Obama he is like Dr. Feelgood nobody is going to buy that. Today when I was listening in Rush actually defending Hillary saying that there is bias in the media that this guy isnt put under the scrutiny and that if he is put under such scruntiny his campaign would fall apart. There he goes again underestimating Obama. Thinking that once he is scrutinize it all collapses. It comes from the assumption that he is someone who is not of substance and that couldnt be further from the truth. So when they put him under scrutiny thinking the substance will be void they will be shocked again because the substance is there he just hasnt depended much cause he doesnt really need it at least not yet. This is why imo if Obama wins the primary it will be extremely hard to stop him from going all the way.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/13/2008 @ 3:49pm
Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/13/2008 @ 3:49pm
Limbaugh WANTS Hillary to win (despite FRANKGRITS' protestations).
If McCain, ol' Rush is "on the outs" in the Party and no longer a player.
If Obama, he has to walk on eggshells in attacking him, or else he slips up and pulls a "Don Imus".
Hillary?...that's money in the bank (or Oxycotin in the medicine cabinet) for Mr Limbaugh!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 4:00pm
"I think America is waking up to the fact the Clintons are a seamless continuation of the best non-representative government special interests money can buy."
Amen to that!
Posted by nicR at 02/13/2008 @ 4:09pm
"I suspect they like many others continue to underestimate Obama."
Underestimating the intelligence of a former president of the Harvard Law Revue is a gift from the gods for Obama the candidate.
May the GOP do the same.
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 4:25pm
Freudian typo ... Revue = Review.
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 4:47pm
Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 4:00pm
Wouldn't it be great to see Rush implode on air, ending his reign of error once and for all. Or would the ditto-heads just nod and go along with whatever nonsense he spews?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 5:15pm
I think we should just have a Gladiator match for the presidency.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 6:25pm
Just saw on CNN that Hillary is bringing someone back on the campaign trail. If it's between Chelsea or Bill, I pick Chelsea. She hasn't pissed anyone off.
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2008 @ 6:29pm
Well, it's Bill and the gloves are off!
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2008 @ 6:30pm
The GOP is already underestimating him they are not taking him seriously and now I notice that even they too are scrambling because he sought of slipped by. Rush said he is a socialist. I guess everyone who is a little to the left of center is a socialist rme. I guess thats all the republican machine can muster up to come at him with that, and no doubt the fear card. I notice too that they are misrpesenting him saying that he wants to hold hands with Aminidinijad and sing kumba ya. No he wants to look him the eye and tell him where America stands. As oppose to refusing to meet because apparently that makes you look tough. Whats the best way to handle a bully looking them in the eye and laying down where you stand or being miles away where they cant get you and then issuing threats. If you are going to come at someone at least get there position right.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/13/2008 @ 7:03pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2008 @ 5:15pm
Rush hurts when he has nothing to attack. As long as Dems hold SOMETHING (even just Congress), he'll have fodder....he would just have the mother-load if Hillary was in the Oval Office.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 7:37pm
McCave just lost the presidency:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/13/2008 @ 8:06pm
McCave just lost the presidency: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/ Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/13/2008 @ 8:06pm
Would that it were so simple, would that enough Americans cared about torture. Look how big a hit they've made 24.
Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 8:16pm
Posted by SLOPER 02/13/2008 @ 8:16pm
HSUB is spamming this on every thread....that plus the fact that HSUB is declaring McCain dead...
worries me that he'll win!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 8:43pm
Unless you are counting being married to Bill a job, which you seem to be doing.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 1:53pm
that's a job SHE certainly never blew...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:56pm
You mean she'd have a shot in Canada?!?!?!?
Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 3:35pm
oops,
i should have said alberta.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:56pm
I think we should just have a Gladiator match for the presidency.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 6:25pm
better,
celebrity death match............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:57pm
Look how big a hit they've made 24.
Posted by SLOPER 02/13/2008 @ 8:16pm
you know, i talk to people here. so many otherwise rational people are so afraid.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:59pm
McCave just lost the presidency: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/ Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/13/2008 @ 8:06pm
Would that it were so simple, would that enough Americans cared about torture. Look how big a hit they've made 24.
Posted by SLOPER 02/13/2008 @ 8:16pm
McCave has compromised on torture-- what won't he compromise of ours over to the new con MIC/big oil lobby!?!?
I can see the spot adds already:
McCave IS the establishment man-- "don't torture me bro... "
McCave will do whatever they tell him to do now-- "He WILL torture you bro... "
------WITH MCCAVE-- THERE IS 'NO HOPE'!?!?!------
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 01:49am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/13/2008 @ 10:27pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 01:59am
It was his 1992 campaign manager according to CNN.
Posted by yutsano at 02/14/2008 @ 02:54am
couldn't of won caucus states .... couldn't of won .... couldn't of .... oops.
Posted by Jno. at 02/14/2008 @ 07:40am
Grass Roots Term Limit Needed.
Bush is just one man. It took Congress to let him happen to America and the World.
In exchange for unlimited spending and Ear Marking (pet project funding), members of both Parties agreed to fund the invasion and occupation of the Middle East, winked at wire tapping, ignored torture and allowed lax regulation of our financial district which gave birth to subprime lending meltdown.
Congress can not print, borrow or spend money fast enough. They are responsible for the 50% devaluation of our currency and the fact our great-great grand children will be born into debt.
Congress has failed us and sold us out for money ....from anyone and everyone.
Incumbents in both Parties serve and protect themselves and the highest paying Special Interests (both Foreign and Domestic).
We need a Grass Roots Term Limit Program. Vote out all incumbents (including the Clintons).
Posted by x32792 at 02/14/2008 @ 08:05am
"After all, there was no reason why Hillary Clinton ... couldn't of ..."
This would read better if you had written couldn't have.
Posted by ocouha at 02/14/2008 @ 08:42am
Unless you are counting being married to Bill a job, which you seem to be doing.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 1:53pm
Point taken, and in fact that is part of my point. On the "behind every great man there's a woman" principle, that is. She has everything to do with his success. And when I use the term "administrate" I mean generally handling stuff in a hands-on way. The POTUS does not directly administrate much besides other administrators.
What made Bill Clinton's presidency a relative success is that he knew his way around policy. His underlings couldn't lie to him and get away with it. (Insert your comment about how he lied to them here.) All I'm saying here is that Hillary's cut from the same cloth, and we have yet to see what Obama is made of.
Again, we'll know soon enough. They have those two debates. If she gets a little rest she can kick the crap out of him on points. But only if she has the discipline to stay focused on policy details and resist the tempatation to insult him. If she does that, it won't matter how smart, experienced, or talented she it.
She'll be just another bitch.
Posted by MyParadigm at 02/14/2008 @ 09:00am
Christopher Hitchens Slate.com 14 January 2008
'...What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/14/2008 @ 09:17am
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/14/2008 @ 09:17am
can you write something of your own, even if it's just to say "hi"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:25am
They are already pouring on the heat on him. CNN said last night that Obama was voted the most Liberal Senator in Congress. This is interesting because this has been out since before Super Tuesday and NOW is when they are mentioning it. I dont know who they think they are fooling. The also pointed out that Hillary came in number 16 and McCain got a 82% Conservative rating. So much for him not being conservative enough. Its interesting because Obama doesnt hide the fact that he is progressive. In fact he said in a number of stump speeches he is a strong progressive. Its almost like he embraces it rather than hide from it. So if they think that saying he is the most liberal is going to have an impact come November they may be in for a shock. Americans may be more liberal than they think. Furthermore they are certain important aspects of Obama that are conservative like his support of the free market, Constitution and belief in the American Dream.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/14/2008 @ 09:36am
"Furthermore they are certain important aspects of Obama that are conservative like his support of the free market, Constitution and belief in the American Dream." Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/14/2008
Supporting the Constitution, in W&Co's US, disqualifies one as a true conservative. cf. Bush v. Gore USSC Dec '00, for starters. And hundreds of "signing statements" since. In today's US, a true Conservative only supports the Constitution when the Constitution supports him/her. Otherwise, don't pay any attention to the Constitution, don't even ignore it.
Posted by sloper at 02/14/2008 @ 10:08am
Let's hear from that other fantasyland, Clintonia:
1996-09-21 - Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law
Look for more of Bubba's fakery and Hil's enabling!
Posted by bagehot at 02/14/2008 @ 10:39am
his would read better if you had written couldn't have.
Posted by OCOUHA 02/14/2008 @ 08:42am
or what about 'could not've' or better yet 'couldn't've'!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/14/2008 @ 12:51pm
or cudnuh...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 12:53pm
I think that's actually-- 'cudnah'
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 1:15pm