The Beat

Now It Gets Dangerous for Democrats

posted by John Nichols on 03/05/2008 @ 12:06am

Here is what conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said about the prospect of a continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination on the eve of the Ohio primary and the Texas primacaucuses that have – with "good enough" finishes for Hillary Clinton -- assured the race will go on:

"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically."

Limbaugh explained to fellow right-wing gabber Laura Ingraham – yes, they are now interviewing each other -- that Obama has gotten this far in his race for the presidency with most of his popular appeal intact. As such, he would be hard to beat as the Democratic nominee in a race with Republican John McCain.

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It's fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses," Limbaugh argued, as he suggested that Republicans in primary states should cross party lines to vote for Clinton.

Only by keeping Clinton in the race, Limbaugh explained, will it be possible to "sustain the soap opera" that might ultimately diminish Obama sufficiently to secure an undeserved Republican win in November. Well, the soap opera has been sustained.

With her big Ohio and Rhode Island wins and a narrow victory in Texas, Clinton can do more than just carry on. She can say, credibly, that, "We're going strong and we're going all the way."

Tuesday night belonged to Clinton, and she owned it.

As Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" played, the senator claimed the victory she needed with the line: "Ohio has written a new chapter in the history of this campaign, and we're just getting started."

What is getting started is an edgier, rougher Democratic presidential race.

And don't think that the New York senator will pull any punches.

If the Clinton campaign has learned anything from the two-week campaign that preceded the Ohio and Texas votes, it is that Hillary Clinton will not win unless Barack Obama loses. The senator from Illinois must be damaged, badly, or so the theory goes, in order for the senator from New York to grab the Democratic nomination from his clutches.

Make no mistake: The candidate and her Clintonistas have sought to inflict that damage.

This campaign moves so fast that it is easy to forget everything that happens in a two-week timespan. But, since Clinton lost Wisconsin's February 19 primary, the hits really have kept coming. There was "Barack stole lines from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick" hit. There was the "Barack stole a page from Karl Rove when he sent out negative mailings" hit. There was the "Barack dresses like a Muslim" hit. There was the "Barack's campaign told the Canadians one thing about trade and Ohio another thing" hit. There was the "Barack's not the guy you want answering the phone in the White House" hit. There was even the "Barack's defiling the memory of Ann Richards because she would have wanted Hillary to have a clean shot at the nomination" hit. And always, always, always, there was the steady drumbeat from candidate Clinton that: ""I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech (against authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq) he made in 2002."

Now, the strategy has been sufficiently-if-not-completely validated.

So Clinton will go on, and chances are that she will go on rough. Will it be enough to secure her the nomination? Clinton and her aides think so. Their calculus goes like this: Obama is really just another Democratic presidential "flash-in-the-pan" who started strong but will ultimately wear thin– like Gary Hart in 1984, like Paul Tsongas in 1992, like Howard Dean in 2004 – and Clinton can slowly but surely take advantage of uncertainty about Obama until she "closes the deal" at a convention where she arrives with momentum from late primaries and caucuses, maybe even revote victories from Michigan and Florida, and a clear advantage among super delegates.

The scenario is not a likely one. More likely is a repeat 1972, when South Dakota Senator George McGovern seemed to have the nomination secured by early spring but former Vice President Hubert Humphrey's campaign kept "raising doubts" about McGovern to the very end. The Humphrey campaign and its allies pulled no punches. They suggested, with none-too-subtle encouragement from incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon's surrogates, that a McGovern candidacy – and, presumably, a McGovern presidency -- would be all about "acid, abortion and amnesty": legalizing drugs, attacking moral values and forgiving military deserters.

Democrats did not buy it; they gave McGovern more primary wins and the nomination. But McGovern and his campaign were done severe damage. A World War II hero with a stellar Senate record on serious issues like providing food aid to the world – so stellar that Bob Dole and George Bush would ultimately celebrate his work in this particular area -- was redefined as what Republicans and their amen corner in the media now refer to as a "McGovernite."

Clinton's campaign has been given a new lease on life.

It will continue.

But she and her supporters – as well as Democrats who may still be undecided about this contest -- need to think long and hard about the kind of campaign will now run against Barack Obama. If the Clinton camp runs the right campaign on legitimate issues, and if it does so with dignity, they will not harm Democratic prospects in November – no matter who the nominee turns out to be. On the other hand, if they run wrong, and seek to destroy Obama by any means necessary, they could be responsible for two defeats: Clinton's for the nomination and Obama's for the presidency in November.

Those are the stakes as the long campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination now enters its most dangerous stage.

Comments (200)

  1. It ain't over till the Fat Lady sings, in August! Makes those who hollared for Clinto to quit before today, look like the idiots they are!

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:19am

  2. ....conventional or nuclear strike against iran in the next few years.

    Posted by ZERO 03/05/2008 @ 12:24am

    Not by the U.S.! No matter who is POTUS! Iran is falling apart all by itself just fine....even better, it has truly alarmed the Sunni Arabs.

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:27am

  3. Whether HRC's tactics in recent weeks are kosher or not, something like this was/is what's needed when there is so little policy differences between them. And frankly, the MSM gave her no choice by not doing anything resembling objective political reporting!

    Lest some newbies think I am a Clintonite, I am a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and sworn enemy of the Clintons and I voted for Obama today in Houston!

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:33am

  4. El Paso, in Mountain Time Zone, will be the wrap on the vote counting in Texas...so the later it gets, the better Clinton's number SHOULD get:

    Clinton maintains commanding leading over Obama in El Paso

    By Gustavo Reveles Acosta / El Paso Times

    Article Launched: 03/04/2008 07:31:57 PM MST

    With nearly 50 precincts in El Paso counted, Sen. Hillary Clinton is maintaining a huge lead over Sen. Barack obama in the Democratic presidential primary. There are about 170 precincts in the county.

    Sixty-nine percent of the total votes counted so far have been for Clinton, while Obama has 29 percent. These figures are for El Paso County only.....

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:46am

  5. Comeback, in the style of Karl Rove.

    Racists won it for HillBillary in Ohio, plain and simple.

    MSNBC's exit polling revealed that more than 20% of Ohio Democratic voters actually admitted to a pollster (!) that race was a factor in their vote - and more than 80% of those racists voted for Clinton! Do the math - that was more than the margin of victory. Nice, progressive, enlightened state, there.

    Maybe it's OHIO's delegates that should be stripped of their seats at the convention, to show the nation and the world that Democrats will not accept racism. It's 2008, for goodness' sake!

    So Hil's vaunted "comeback" is based on fear-mongering and racism. That really reflects well on her and Mark Penn, doesn't it? Does the phrase, "Win at ANY cost" come to mind? She has so much more in common with Rove/Bush than she does with any actual Democrat. She makes me sick.

    Posted by sjduskin at 03/05/2008 @ 01:02am

  6. The term Pyrrhic victory keeps haunting me. I think if the pressure on her to give up had stepped up after Wisconsin when the mathematical probabilities favored Obama the Dems wouldn't be in this mess.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/05/2008 @ 01:02am

  7. i feel like i'm watching the detroit lions..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 01:08am

  8. i feel like i'm watching the detroit lions..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 01:08am

    Someone watches the Detroit Lions? I think the CFL gets higher draws than them!

    Posted by yutsano at 03/05/2008 @ 01:10am

  9. IT'S 1:00 AM

    YOU'RE SLEEPING.

    YOUR KIDS ARE SLEEPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SUDDENLY THE PHONE RINGS.

    YES, YOUR PHONE!

    THE KIDS WAKE UP!

    THE DOG BARKS,

    AND YOU WONDER,

    AM I SAFE!!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    bushclintonbushclinton '08

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 01:13am

  10. This is no longer about "legitimate issues" as Nichols describes, this election is now about entitlement. Posted by ZERO 03/05/2008 @ 12:16am

    Has been from its start in '00.

    What price for US their victory?

    Posted by sloper at 03/05/2008 @ 01:15am

  11. This really is not a comeback for Clinton as she LOST ground in the delegate total tonight, and really lost Texas since it was a "two-step" process of both a primary and caucus.

    The other networks followed Fox News' lead of calling Texas for Hillary because she only won the first step. This was a mistake, particularly since "all" networks were acknowledging before the contest that "two-steps" would determine the winner in Texas.

    And a pro-longeg contest not only unecessarily helps the Republicans by weakening the Democratic nominee, Hillary CAN'T win without overturning the popular vote and the candidate with the most delegates and most states: BETWEEN THE LINES Jonathan Alter Hillary's Math Problem

    Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose. Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

    Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

    I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

    So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

    Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi--where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary--she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

    Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania--and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

    Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

    So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 01:16am

  12. Obama, a black man runs against a white war hero and loses. That's pretty much it. You know it. At least she's white, and has Bill at her side. It should have been Edwards. Oh well.

    Posted by Dethtol at 03/05/2008 @ 01:35am

  13. One small solace for Obama supporters: Hillary needed to do a LOT better than she did tonight to get anything beyond the symbolism of victory. Granted she will seize the moment and run with it, and now that she has a tactic that she thinks will be successful, she will use it until to ceases to have its effectiveness. Obama can just hang tough and push things until the convention, or until he or she are out of money, one of the two. Considering the fortune Mark Penn charges her alone, I predict a bankruptcy for her first. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/05/2008 @ 01:37am

  14. i don't know.....

    i keep saying obama gets out of ohio with 43% and he'll squeak in........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 01:41am

  15. So when Obama loses, his supporters suddenly think the democratic process is DANGEROUS!. :)

    Posted by DeanOR at 03/05/2008 @ 01:43am

  16. leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead. Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 01:16am

    A razor-thin lead, alas, that can be swept away by the supers.

    And Billary will now get the $$$ to do it. Corporate US will see to it.

    Billary or McC, the corporates clean up, again.

    Posted by sloper at 03/05/2008 @ 01:44am

  17. Thought you might have gone with 'There Will Be Blood' as a title.

    Your blog doesn't consider one other possibility... that the smears of Obama are not just intended to influence primary & caucus voters -- but are also aimed at the superdelegates.

    Given that the Clinton campaign cannot win a pledged delegate majority, I've evolved to the opinion that their aim is to sufficiently bloody Obama that Hillary can win at least 2 of OH, TX & PA (done!) and then claim that their momentum and "big state" wins compels the superdelegates to make her the nominee. The damaging of Obama will aid in making their case.

    Hillary intends to be the nominee.

    Posted by plooger at 03/05/2008 @ 01:47am

  18. Billary or McC, the corporates clean up, again.

    Posted by SLOPER 03/05/2008 @ 01:44am

    this reminds me of the study where they give kids carrots in plain bags and mcdonald's bags.

    the kids consistently rated the ones in the mcdonald's bags as being better.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 01:56am

  19. RE: Now It Gets ...

    The most dangerous moment for Dems as well as for America is when the the Floridan dem vote was disfranchised. Wake the Nation edittors. Who are you with?

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 02:03am

  20. Good analogy with the Detroit Lions stuff above.

    I was born and raised in Michigan until a little over 6 months ago, until I moved to Ohio and voted today (for Obama). And you're right about a possibly Lions analogy. Ever notice how many games they could have a chance in or are close in, then they completely screw up and shoot themselves in the foot? Notice how this season they were doing good then shot themselves in the foot and blew it when things were finally going right? Seems a lot like this campaign and the stupid defiant insistance by some to continue wanting to shoot the party in the foot yet again by nominating Clinton. Isn't it crazy how this is the first time in so many years the Democrats have their greatest oppurtunity to finally begin the Republicans even further into the minority status they've deserved for so, so long, yet a bunch of people are STILL trying to nominate Clinton? A centrist at best, almost a Republican in Democrat's clothing who if in control would have any chance at a true liberal agenda finally at long last being implemented, completely cancelled out by the Republicans after 2008? It's a pathetic joke, and I can't believe how stupid a huge chunk of the party is by absolutely being hell-bent on yet again shooting itself in the foot. This kind of total bullshit couldn't possibly be coming at a worse time, in a race that looks to be a total Democrat majority after November being put in jeopardy by a chunk of people idiotically trying to live in the past, a past that wasn't so great, or even all that liberal whatsoever with Bill, in the first place. Pathetic.

    Posted by molotov at 03/05/2008 @ 02:08am

  21. RE: Clinton Comes Bakc ...

    Now we see the most dangerous forces in America is not Rove and GOP and all those right wing conspiracy. HRC was flatly wrong: who tried to kill them in 1992 - 2000. Not Scaifee melon and all that smalll guys. Rather, it's the centrifugal figures the likes of Moulitsas, Ted Kennedy, ObaMacaca, the Nation's edittors.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 02:09am

  22. HRC will do whatever to win. She wants to get to the convention. There the Democratic Status Quo will reward her. The status quo does not want to give up its power and the money.

    Posted by suez at 03/05/2008 @ 02:18am

  23. Call me crazy, but I don't see how an energized Democratic electorate is so bad for the Democratic Party or the country. Either candidate would be fine with me as nominee, but I really wasn't looking forward to the Republican attack machine having six months prior to the convention to grind at whatever weaknesses (perceived or otherwise) Barack Obama might have; with both Dems still competitive, that's not a concern. And this way, both Clinton and Obama can hammer John McCain pretty hard on the way to the nomination.

    Posted by klean2 at 03/05/2008 @ 02:27am

  24. Ms. Brunner's office issued an e-mail alert to clarify the rules to all election officials. The message instructed them that a letter signed by Mr. Obama's campaign director in Ohio authorizing the letter-bearer to serve as a legal poll monitor did not qualify and was "not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places."

    To be allowed access to a polling location, an observer must be duly appointed before the election as an official observer and have a certificate.

    from an article on MSNBC in Ohio ***************************************************************** Finally the press is actually reporting on some of instances of Obama's election teams illegal and reprehensible actions. These kinds of things have been happening at every state primary/caucaus. So why has it taken so long for reporters to start doing their jobs and reporting them to the public. Perhaps now that the Republicans are done and the news cycles slow down online, print, and television "journalists" will actually tell the public about this candidate called Obama and those who work for him.

    Posted by sara48909 at 03/05/2008 @ 02:27am

  25. RE: Clinton Comes Back ...

    Man, that's just amazing. In HRC we will have the best ever ever ever president. the other small guy should just concede. Enough is enough. What America needs is the majority of Americans need. I mean those of big states. America's could live without Ipwa and vermont, but not w/o Florida. Florida is America.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 02:29am

  26. Re: It's Dangerous ...

    Absolutely nothing is more dangerous to HRC and the progressive (not liberal (Americans than the likes of the Nation, Fox News and DrudgeReport. Hey Ari berman, you go to hell.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 02:32am

  27. The swift-boats are comin' there'll be dancing tonight...

    (to the tune of 'Shrimp Boats' as sung by Doris Day.)

    Posted by mikecope at 03/05/2008 @ 02:36am

  28. RE: Clinton Comes Back ...

    Wow, McCain and Hillary vs. Obamacaca and that little guy Hckabee. Big guys and girls win big states and small guys win small states.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 02:48am

  29. Who is one Mr. Obama. Of course, you ain't wondering about his exotic name and appearance in Muslim attire and religion and all that. However, let's say that my enemy's friend is CLEARLY not my friend. Read this.

    ------------

    Obama almost as big with GOP as McCain By Stephen Dinan March 4, 2008 Republicans like Sen. Barack Obama nearly as much as they like their own likely presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, according to a new Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll.

    The survey determined that a quarter of self-identified Republicans rated Mr. McCain most likable, but nearly as many -- 23 percent -- chose Mr. Obama as most likable. And among all adults surveyed, Mr. Obama was rated likable by more people than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. McCain combined, underscoring the Illinois senator's appeal to voters across the political spectrum.

    "There is something about Barack Obama that is hard to capture in polling and it's an enthusiasm, it's a freshness, it's an excitement he can generate that will certainly be a factor in the campaign," said pollster Scott Rasmussen.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 03:02am

  30. Can it be that we get the Congress and President that we, as a nation, deserve? I cannot believe that so many gullible/misinformed/ignorant voters could support the former director of Union Hostile Wal-Mart. I promise you one thing for sure: A vote for Hillary now is a vote for McCain in November. We cannot afford the Clintons any longer.

    Posted by NoPCZone at 03/05/2008 @ 03:12am

  31. I really have little complaint against rough campaigns. Comes with ambition. And it really is up to Senator Obama to respond effectively. As he failed to do over the claims made against him about Nafta. But what to do when as John Nichols mentions a campaign is willing to go so far it is what Rush Limbaugh and even Karl Rove might wish for?

    It appears Nichols does not expect Senator Clinton will win the nomination if she chooses to "run wrong" as he writes, seeking to damage Senator Obama with whatever means will work, and to the Muslim slurs I would add the antisemitism implicit in the references of connections of Obama to Farrakhan and the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright served up by Tim Russert during the last debate, which she let hang there.

    Do wonder though what would be the response of progressives to Clinton if she did manage to achieve the nomination using these tactics. Will she still be considered as the "moderate" candidate of choice? If how Senator Clinton seeks the nomination says anything at all about what we can expect if and when she governs, and what will Katrina vanden Heuvel's hopeful and correct reminder of FDR come to?

    Yes, this really is a dangerous time for Democrats, but more so, it is far worse for the US and who governs. Will progressives once again go along regardless as they have for as long as I can remember? Doubt AJ Muste or Paul Goodman would.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 03/05/2008 @ 03:19am

  32. RE: Clinton Comes Back ...

    Of course once in awhile we made mistakes 8 yrs ago instead of the superbly experienced Al Gore, America bet on Dubya. How wrong. Not now. I don't and will never believe in those small reporters Others did and still do.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 03:19am

  33. I'm a life-long Republican, but I enjoy reading The Nation for its well argued commentary that always challenges me to continually evaluate my personal political convictions. As a Republican, it is with great satisfaction that I consider the suicidal phase that the Democratic race is now entering - rather amazing to watch the spectacle of "women versus blacks versus latinos, etc." as the party of preferences is pitted against itself. It's ugly, but it may be healthy for many self-righteous Democrats to get a feel for the nasty way that moderate Republicans are treated by Democrats (we're racists, sexists, etc.)

    But as a patriot, it is also with great disappointment that I watch as the Democratic party potentially descends into its own destruction. Given the choice of the Republican Establishment versus the Democratic Establishment, I'll choose the Republican every time. But given the opportunity to "turn the page" on both corrupt Establishments, like many moderate Republicans I am seriously inclined to vote for Obama - who clearly represents the future, over McCain - who unquestionably represents the past.

    I recognize that Obama may be the most liberal senator in the Senate, and may hold views that are utterly contrary to many of mine, but I believe that he is respectful of people like me, and my dissatisfaction with the status quo is such that I'm willing to try something new.

    Hillary will re-fight the culture and class wars of the 1990s, and I'll join with my fellow Republicans in fighting her back - and we'll probably win again - despite the incompetence of the Bush administration. But there is no pleasure and no future in that. I would like to vote for the future. I hope the Democrats will keep that choice intact and not mortally wound it in the process.

    Posted by ColoradoCEO at 03/05/2008 @ 03:44am

  34. Re: Dangerous for Dems ... Who's dangerous for Dems? Look at secret channels Mr. Obamacaca's been using for his political gains. Isn't that the same as Rove-Cheney's? read this.

    -----------

    Obama's Troubles Mount -- Just in Time for the Latest Primaries! Obama, totally not saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Photo: Getty Images

    Barack Obama must be wondering how the worst press he's received practically all campaign season came down just before today's primaries -- his chance to close the deal. He can look inward for answers. The big story, of course, is the meeting an Obama advisor, Austin Goolsbee, had with a Canadian official about NAFTA. After Canadian TV reported that Goolsbee had assured the Canadian official that basically all Obama's tough talk on NAFTA was political maneuvering, the Obama campaign denied the meeting ever took place. Then, on cue, a Canadian memo surfaced confirming that the meeting did take place. The Obama campaign's evasive answers and qualified denials have failed to placate a press corps determined to prove they're holding Obama accountable. At the same time, a former Obama supporter, Antoin Rezko, begins his trial in Chicago for influence peddling. While nothing unethical or illegal has been proven about Obama's relationship with Rezko, the fact that new details are still emerging raises doubts about Obama's previous claims that he has divulged everything about their association. None of this meshes well with Obama's claim to be running on a new kind of politics, and, from looking at the polls showing a Clinton rebound, voters are taking notice.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 04:15am

  35. Can it be that we get the Congress and President that we, as a nation, deserve? I cannot believe that so many gullible/misinformed/ignorant voters could support the former director of Union Hostile Wal-Mart. I promise you one thing for sure: A vote for Hillary now is a vote for McCain in November. We cannot afford the Clintons any longer.

    Posted by NOPCZONE 03/05/2008 @ 03:12am

    This really is a problem of the Dems own making. Each candidate carries the handicap of a largely conservative electorate in which large sections, particularly the working class, will struggle to come to terms with the first women candidate or first black candidate. In contrast McCain will be perceived as being "safe" despite the obvious negatives such as his age and economic illiteracy.

    One would have expected Obama to do better in "working class" Ohio than he did, given that NAFTA is really a Clinton legacy. That he didn't indicates something more like fear of the unknown at play and Clinton's success being attributable to feeling safer with the known Clinton label. A corollary of that is Obama's message of change is likely to be a strong negative for many voters.

    In essence the wider electorate is less likely to be as analytical as many here are and will vote with its gut feeling and prejudices instead of its mind.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/05/2008 @ 05:17am

  36. Why should Billary campaign with dignity, when they've just had it reinforced that slime wins?

    Which makes it ever more likely that McC is our next emperor. And that reign will last one term.

    Obama in '12 ... provided martial law hasn't been declared & there is a real election in '12, sort of.

    Posted by sloper at 03/05/2008 @ 05:40am

  37. Hillary is Joe Lieberman in drag.

    Posted by habiba at 03/05/2008 @ 05:41am

  38. How sad it is to watch Nichols and Nation readers compete to bash Hillary Clinton and elevate Barack Obama to sainthood. Not sad because Clinton is good or liberal or the right person to be the next president. But sad because Obama is no better, at least not from the left perspective that used to be The Nation's point of view. And sad because Obama is no gentler in his attacks on Clinton. And sad because much of the criticism of Clinton comes from main stream media's propaganda instead of thoughtful analysis. To wit:

    Obama distributed leaflets that completely distorted in a disgusting way Clinton's health care plan, which is in fact a better plan than Obama's because it includes mandates.

    Obama has economic advisers who advocate for at least the partial privatization of social security.

    Obama has failed to produce a plan of action that would protect homeowners during this period of crisis.

    The Democrats at their best are Ted Kennedy, not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. It's tragic that in the wish for an end to the Bush tyranny, Nichols and his Nation readers have decided to foresake liberalism and settle for platitudes and propaganda.

    Posted by randcoop at 03/05/2008 @ 06:49am

  39. In America politics today, pundits and media reward politicians and say how smart they are when the politician uses Bully tactics and an "assualt-like" mentality when they tear their opponents down by smear, distortions and lies --"swift boating", throwing the kitchen sink. The news media and pundits like to Praise the unscrupulous Politician up instead of disavowing them. The pundits like to say how Brilliant they are; What a Victory they say; what a Comeback Kid; and justify their use of Negative Ads and reward the worst in us -- this low and base behavior which should be outgrown as a humanitarian society. How many good and decent men have gone down because they were unfairly swiftboated by their opponents, mischaracaterized by those who have no morals or ethics. Something is wrong with that picture.

    There is nothing brilliant about lies, distortions, peddling fear, swiftboating, and an assassination of one's character, it's not a physical killing but a killing just the same, an emotional theft and mental crime. It's slander and distortion of the worse kind and should not be rewarded or esteemed as characteristics we need to emulate within our society. Do we emulate the school yard bully? Or the thief who steals one's life's earnings? It's Dirty Politics and should be called what it is, a crime. If America is to ever become better than what she is, than we must disavow this kind of tactics because it has no place in Democracy's arms, no place in a sane and peaceful society.

    Running a country is serious business and it is not a game, it is not acting. It's the governing of people and their lives and should be taken as a solemn oath and duty. Dirty politics should not be looked up to as a virtue and politicians should not be allowed to swiftboat their opponent, for the sake of gain by any means at any cost.

    There is a Right way to Fight and a Wrong way to Fight. Victory based on lies and cheating should not be condoned. There should be campaign laws about this kind of unscrupulous politicking. It should not be rewarded with the highest office in the land. It should be called what it is a Crime.

    America is only as good as her politicians and leaders.

    Posted by bacalove at 03/05/2008 @ 07:09am

  40. Yeah, kind of figured....

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 07:10am

  41. i feel like i'm watching the detroit lions..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 01:08am

    Hey hey hey! be nice!

    --

    If Clinton wins, Nader gets more votes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

  42. Yep, brokered convention here we come-- with Al Gore there awaiting the tap on the shoulder as Billary poisons the well...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

  43. There is a danger for her winning this way and I hope continues to pound home her politics as usual divisive style. I cannot believe that 8 out of 10 Ohioans admit that race was a factor and voted for Hillary. They say racism is more prevalent in the South apparently not.

    I think at this point that Hillary is running for VP because if the superdelegates go against the people its going to split the party. Something that the numbers are not saying Hillary still failed miserably to make headway into Obama's base. She got 11% of AA vote I know people think that all you need is Latino vote that you can toss the AA vote aside but the difference in the AA vote it is overwhelmingly democratic not to mention AA having higher rates of turnout. There are also so many new voters that Obama has bought into the process and they are not going to vote for Hillary particularly if she continue running a negative campaign. But in all the celebration nobody cares that she is still NOT making inroads into his base and without that pool of voters I dont see how they are going to win. She may have 35 years experience but put that against McCain with his military background and she doesnt stand a chance when it comes to experience. She can't claim to be the change agent because its a new identity and there is nothing to suggest that they will be change in any way other than gender.

    Obama faces a two prong challenge. He has to focus on bringing his idealism into real concrete economic terms and on the other hand he has to keep that idealism because I suspect that is what is drawing a large part of the youth and AA that makes up his base. He needs to also focus more on his record for those who are afraid of taking a chance even though they overwhelming want change. He needs to also pound in the fact that he has more elected office in his 20 years than Hillary has in her 35. He is letting her get away with that crap about 35 years experience he needs to dissect it and show where her experience lies. It certainly does NOT lie in Foreign Policy.

    I find it interesting that Hillary's people said that since Obama has all that money he should have been able to win Texas and Ohio and that if he doesnt its some kind of buyers remorse. Is that what they call it? I can think of another explanation its called being an AA and having to work harder to prove yourself. You know kind of like what she said females had to do.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/05/2008 @ 07:34am

  44. Posted by RANDCOOP 03/05/2008 @ 06:49am

    did you catch the Nation tirade against the one true progressive in this race, Ralphy? It seems he has an ego, but Hill and O don't.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 07:37am

  45. So Hil's vaunted "comeback" is based on fear-mongering and racism. That really reflects well on her and Mark Penn, doesn't it? Does the phrase, "Win at ANY cost" come to mind? She has so much more in common with Rove/Bush than she does with any actual Democrat. She makes me sick.

    Posted by SJDUSKIN 03/05/2008 @ 01:02am

    That is why I don't understand the visceral hatred of Hillary by the cons. She is just what they want in a president.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 07:39am

  46. i have been listening to the main stream media, and reading the blogs. so what if rush says that conservatives should cross over and vote for hillary i'm sure some did, but so what. It seems to me that she won those primaries on her own merit. No matter what you think of her personally or her politics you have to admire her perseverance. she is tough and you have to be if you want to play washington politics isn't that what we want in a leader, someone that refuses to give up

    Posted by fmingram at 03/05/2008 @ 08:13am

  47. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 01:08am

    Detroit has a football team?

    Posted by CMSANDIA 03/05/2008 @ 03:19am

    The answer, either way, is you'll have disaffected voters. If either wins the nomination, they will get about about 1/3 of the other's base, 1/3 will go to another candidate (third party for Obama or McCain for Clinton) and 1/3 stay home.

    Even with that, Democrats will have the numbers, and once McCain gets the opportunity to show how scary he is - and put down the Bar-B-Que tongs, I don't think it is nearly as dire as people are starting to believe.

    And flip-side, a McCain Presidency has a number of positives. It will likely be short, and it won't enable Bush to claim everything was fine and the Democrats screwed it all up when they got into power. Cold comfort, but comfort none the less.

    Posted by COLORADOCEO 03/05/2008 @ 03:44am

    Couldn't agree with you more. I voted for Kucinich in the primary, and I could have said the same thing you said.

    I recognize that Obama may be the most liberal senator in the Senate [and he still isn't on the left, by any means], and may hold views that are utterly contrary to many of mine, but I believe that he is respectful of people like me, and my dissatisfaction with the status quo is such that I'm willing to try something new.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/05/2008 @ 05:17am

    Fear of the unknown? Or fear of a black planet?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/05/2008 @ 08:15am

  48. Posted by CRABWALK 03/05/2008 @ 07:39am

    Except, she isn't male nor does she spend a lot of time thumping the Bible.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/05/2008 @ 08:16am

  49. If Clinton wins, Nader gets more votes.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

    You left off part of that....."which helps McCain."

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 08:51am

  50. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

    See, I knew something good would come out of last night....

    HSUB has been re-energized for his "Al wins a brokered convention" fantasy!

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 08:53am

  51. With Clinton's desperate slash & burn tactics of sowing division, cynical dismissal of hope, casting suspicion, spreading deception, jealous mockery defined as humor, outright lying & finger-pointing, fear-mongering, race-baiting, hawkish triangulation and potential cheating, it is time for the Obama campaign to act boldly. Already Clinton has been given license to cede the debate on national security to the Republicans, equating militarism as strength instead of diplomacy as the credentials of experience--despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose the war and continued occupation. Because of Clinton's exploitation of the issue she has reinforced the Right's legitimate claim because it was the trump card she cultivated at the time she was constructing her own bid - but she can not win that hand against McCain. Since then the political winds have shifted and that needs to emphasized as part of the change in consensus. Obama should not let Clinton define the terms of the debate and her claim to experience is on shaky ground! Clinton is a liability to future Democratic hopes. Should she claw her way in, by any means necessary, she will alienate new energized voters and most assuredly, the African-American voting bloc. We will lose, but the Clintons will still have won because they denied anyone else--and maintained their grip on the assumed leadership of the party. Would they sacrifice the country, sabotage party chances, reaffirm the Right's talking points, hand the Right the candidate who most rallies their own base, just to destroy any perceived threat that would eclipse their own status? I have always heard that the Clintons despised Howard Dean for precisely the same reasons and look how the media served to destroy his credibility.

    Obama should be forewarned--and be forearmed. His organization is exceptional because the Clintons anticipated a coronation as their entitlement, but they are now manning the battle-stations, using the media to their advantage and framing the issues. Obama should be able to cut her to shreds on the NAFTA debate. How can she claim as experience, and bragging rights to, Clinton signature accomplishments unless they are inconvenient? Obama needs to pound her -it is mind-boggling that she was allowed to point the finger at the Obama campaign under the circumstances! That should NEVER happen!

    Time for Obama to get his face out there on the national level and raise his profile--befriend the media, line up the big guns, reframe the debate and expose the Clintons. Get his war room in gear (Tom Daschle may not have the grit, but John Kerry may have the ways and means--but also the fire to oppose the Clinton machine). Get his ducks in a row, do his opposition research and use surrogates to get the word out! Step it up and demonstrate that he is hungry for this--do not continually concur with or defer to Hillary when she states her positions--it looks like unsure "me too" naiveté. Put Clinton on the defense with the class, calm dignity and presidential grace that are assets to his campaign, but don't appear passive. Learn well. Time to act

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 09:03am

  52. I started out as an Edwards supporter, but slowly warmed to Obama- I loved (and still do) his "newness"- but all along I was ok with Hillary. That was until South Carolina, and it has only gotten worse. I can't stand looking at her and I see no way I could possibly volunteer for her campaign if she gets the nom. and geez I spent countless hours working for Kerry, ugh. If she steals the nomination I will go to the polls, hold my nose, and vote for her, only because I believe McCain will nominate overly conservative judges and enact right-wing policy- while quietly pulling America further away from progressive change. I would not expect many other Democrats, even loyalists, to do the same. If a backroom decides this race, imagine the glee on Karl Rove's face, counting all the millions of African American no-shows in November. And they won't even have to ask the Florida State Police for help. Thanks Hillary. You killed the party.

    Posted by phillymark at 03/05/2008 @ 09:05am

  53. Well, I was hoping that Obama was going to take a giant step towards finally ridding us of the Clinton Blight once and for all, but ..not yet. (Since this will probably be her only shot, if she doesn't make it then its probably the last we'll hear of either of them) One can only hope.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/05/2008 @ 09:10am

  54. All you have to do is change the noun and pronoun a bit....

    Kyle Reese: Listen and understand. Hillary is out there. She can't be bargained with, she can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and she absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until he is dead.

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 09:11am

  55. Finally the press is actually reporting on some of instances of Obama's election teams illegal and reprehensible actions. These kinds of things have been happening at every state primary/caucaus. So why has it taken so long for reporters to start doing their jobs and reporting them to the public. Perhaps now that the Republicans are done and the news cycles slow down online, print, and television "journalists" will actually tell the public about this candidate called Obama and those who work for him.

    Posted by SARA48909

    Sara, There is nothing new about pollwatchers. This isn't a tactic invented by the Obama campaign. Campaigns have been using pollwatchers for years to insure that there are no voting issues. I was a pollwatcher in SC and there is nothing illegal about it. I had a letter signed by the SC Attorney General stating the legality of being at the poll (the letter was necessary after NH when Hillary's campaign challanged the poll watchers. They were determined to be legal in NH, but it took a few hours). We were trained by the Obama campaign to do nothing but watch. We made sure the machines ran a zero count vote at the beginning. If there were any irregularities (and there were a couple, but they had nothing to do with either campaign) we had a number to call. We were to make sure that anyone who was in line at the time the polls closed got the chance to vote, etc. Nothing that would threaten democracy. At no point were we to talk with the voters. So, make no mistake, there is nothing illegal about what we did. Hillary's campaign can have pollwatchers too, and I am sure they do. If she doesn't, that's her problem not Obama's.

    What you refer to in Ohio was that an official from the Ohio Secretary of State sent a letter to the local precincts telling them not to accept a letter from the Obama campaign identifying them as a pollwatcher (we had a letter from the campaign along with the letter from the SC Attorney General). Apparently in Ohio a pollwatcher must be "duly appointed as an election observer" and must have an official observers certificate to be allowed entry. The letter doesn't say how a person is duly appointed or where that certificate comes from. I wish someone could tell me how having election observers is a threat to voting. So, the illegality you are talking about has nothing to do with whether or not pollwatcher are legal. It simply has to do with procedures.

    Posted by loria at 03/05/2008 @ 09:24am

  56. METTEYYA -

    Clinton still faces an uphill battle. But, she didn't LOSE ground in the delegate count -- she chipped away at Obama's lead. I fugured she would pick up a dozen or so, and it seems she did a bit better (30?)

    Even so, Wyoming and Mississippi should give Obama a few of those back this week.

    Obama needed a knockout like Clinton needed on Super Tuesday. Neither got it. So, it appears this is going to be decided by the supers and the wrangling over MI and FL.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 09:36am

  57. If Clinton wins, Nader gets more votes.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

    You left off part of that....."which helps McCain."

    Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 08:51am

    Clinton supporters had best think about that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 09:36am

  58. Gee, if the MI dems had not gotten greedy, MI would be playing an actual role.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 09:38am

  59. And I disagree with this notion that the continuing battle spells Doomsday for the Dems. Few people will carry this fight into the general. Rather, it will better prepare either candidate for the GOP onslaught to come. Also, it will force Clinton and Obama to continue to focus on the issues. Good for the process.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 09:39am

  60. "... find it interesting that Hillary's people said that since Obama has all that money he should have been able to win Texas and Ohio and that if he doesnt its some kind of buyers remorse."

    Posted by HARRISCRL3

    That blowhard bully, Joe Scarsboro (or whatever that lowbrow blockhead's name is) kept referring to all the money the Obama campaign spent as justification for his loss of momentum, and all I could think about was how Obama pulled himself up in the polls in such a short time--and how Hillary had all that free media including the saturation of the red phone ad--akin to the "Dean scream". Granted, part of this is Obama's fault because he was keeping his national profile low key while campaigning in a targeted manner and Clinton was dominating the MSM the week before the primaries framing the content. That was a serious error--because the MSM is constantly manufacturing the broad consensus. Obama's first no show was at the state of the Black Union discussion covered on CSPAN. Clinton was there. Obama should take NOTHING for granted. Clinton did learn her lesson about taking the nomination was granted. I hope Obama is a fast learner.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 09:41am

  61. Also, it will force Clinton and Obama to continue to focus on the issues. Good for the process.

    Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 09:39am

    you mean focus on the mud..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 09:42am

  62. HMAN23:

    Well the Republicans certainly think it is "good for the process". That should inform your opinion. If not, than it is useless.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 09:42am

  63. Posted by LIL 03/05/2008 @ 09:42am

    That is just GOP spin. Nothing more. What else do thay have to say, "Yippee, we nominated our fourth option! 100 more years of war in Iraq!!"

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 09:56am

  64. Actually, it was under-reported, but I watched McCain back off the 100 year war and suggested we should win it and get out soon. And since McCain actually acknowledges, unlike Clinton, when he needs to correct course, it will be Clinton without a case to make.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 10:01am

  65. Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 09:39am |

    HMAN, then why is JOHN NICHOLS calling it "dangerous"?

    And read your H.S. Thompson on the 1972 Campaign. With Obama playing the McGovern role, Hillary as a conglomeration of Humphrey and Muskie (down to the crying...heheh).

    A quagmire war?....a pro-war, but less than pure conservative Republican (remember Nixon went to China and gave us the EPA and OSHA)? And a Democratic Party who nominated a liberal that "the kids loved" and the Establishment Dems hated.

    Or try 1980 and if Hillary wins, she plays Carter; Obama plays Kennedy....gives a much better speech and the conventioneers say "Damn, we should have nominated him!" (Heard a guy on POTUS '08 make that case this morning.....right Mr Nichols?)

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 10:08am

  66. The other thing being missed here is that the mainstream media WANTS this contest to continue, as this has been a welcome boost to their ratings.

    This is why they favored talking about Obama's economic advisers rather than Clinton's economic advisers who were the "architects" of NAFTA, and favored Rezko stories over convicted felon and Hillary fundraiser, Norman Hsu.

    The Clinton camp has done an excellent job of getting the mainstream press to help them put Obama on the defensive. The question is whether the mainstream press will "ever" force Hillary to play defense in the same areas that she raises questions about Obama?

    What ever happened to her tax returns being released BEFORE the Ohio primary? Why hasn't the mainstream press pushed her on this issue? What about the donors to the Clinton library? These are legitimate issues, as it is suspected that Saudi donors are bankrolling the Clintons, which would put a big hole in her claim to want to be independent from foreign oil.

    What about pushing Hillary on "her actions not being consistent with her words"? She votes "for" No Child Left Behind, but says on the campaign trail that she is "against" it; she votes for the bankruptcy bill favored by credit card companies and banks, but claims she is against policies that abuse the poor; she claims she wants to end the war in Iraq, but was one of the enablers of the invasion - the list goes on and on, and it is time that voters consider whether voting for someone who "talks the talk" but doesn't "walk the walk" is what they want as president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 10:13am

  67. I dunno, I just don't think Clinton really cares about what's good for the Democratic party in November - unless, of course, she's the one on the ticket. I mean, I'm not crazy about Obama. I've got issues with his vagueness, his lukewarm (at best) opposition to the Iraq war, etc. But honestly, I fail to see how Hillary is a better option.

    Posted by gillian at 03/05/2008 @ 10:13am

  68. Has another presidential candidate in American history been allowed to lose 11 contests in a row and continue?

    as a matter of fact yes. or something similar. Humphrey did not enter ANY primaries, and yet he won the nomination.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 10:14am

  69. It seems he has an ego, but Hill and O don't.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/05/2008 @ 07:37am | ignore this person

    Hill and Barry have a chance of winning, Ralph does not. that's where the ego comes in. the other are in it for other people too, Ralph is only in it for himself.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 10:17am

  70. American history been allowed

    the Kaiser speaks, how dare that this is ALLOWED. if zero ran the world there wouldn't even be any women, or they would be very very discreet.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 10:18am

  71. Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 10:08am

    Oh, so on THIS one, you think Nichols is right on!! Maybe I should pull up MY archives!

    I think Nichols is exaggerating like others. Everything has to MEAN something for the pundits and journalists. Otherwise, they would be left with little else to say than "Whew! What a close race!"

    And while it's fun to play comparison games with '72 and '80 (like sports fans do with draft picks - "He's like a young Brett Favre!"), those same games could be played whether Obama would have wrapped this up last night or not (or Clinton on Super Tuesday for that matter).

    p.s. in '72 and '80 we had incumbents, which makes any correlation difficult.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 10:21am

  72. John Nichols is surely correct about the dangers of Democratic intramural bloodletting, but I am not convinced that Obama is the better candidate. Hillary Clinton is actually the Democrat best qualified and best positioned to defeat the Republicans and lead the country. Also, with all due respects to George McGovern, he was his own worst enemy in the 1972 campaign. Enamored by the support of the 1960's youth movement, he completely misread the election. I fear the Dems are setting themselves up for another defeat if they mistake youthful caucus goers' enthusiasm for Obama as a mandate from the broader public.

    Posted by Spengler47 at 03/05/2008 @ 10:22am

  73. you mean focus on the mud..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 09:42am | ignore this person

    in the 19th century the campaigns were far nastier. we could count our blessings.

    I think the constant biting among the dems is GOOD. the issues are tried out and lose some of their potency, should they be used by the repugs in turn.

    I don't think Hill is committing any crime to stay in the race for pres.

    she's got a lot more going for her than that fool Nader.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 10:22am

  74. The other thing being missed here is that the mainstream media WANTS this contest to continue, as this has been a welcome boost to their ratings.

    Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 10:13am |

    Please. ANOTHER media conspiracy???

    So why did the media marginalize Edwards? A three-way race would be better for ratings than a two-way race.

    And why did they write Rudy off so quickly? And Fred?

    You make it seem like Clinton should drop out because simply because she is behind. You didn;t feel like that when Obama was losing, di ya? And while one could see why Rudy, Fred and the rest dropped out - they weren't within 7% of the delegate lead like Clinton is?

    Look, I want Obama, but why should Clinton drop out any more so than Obama at this point?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 10:25am

  75. Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 10:21am

    Well, Mr Nichols could say "the sky is blue" and "the Earth is round"...and I'd probably give him the bennie....heheh.

    But I look at the factors-

    1. Hillary won on negative campaigning, so she'll continue that.

    2. Hillary gave NO indication of quitting last night.

    3. Obama has the delegate lead, but she still can force the Michigan/Florida thing and hold her supers.

    4. She has no "live and let live" in her...which means win or lose, she's going to see Obama CRUSHED for his insolence at denying her rightful throne!

    And you now have a Democratic Party SPLIT between the "youth vote" and folks who want change and African-Americans....and women, the Establishment, the DLC, and Latinos....and all of them on a Blogosphere threatening "I won't vote for him/her if my gal/guy doesn't win the nomination!"

    Don't forget...I'm worried about this. I don't want "100 years in Iraq" "Maverick John" to win either. And the portents and tea leaves don't look good!

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 10:36am

  76. There is a danger for her winning this way and I hope continues to pound home her politics as usual divisive style. I cannot believe that 8 out of 10 Ohioans admit that race was a factor and voted for Hillary. They say racism is more prevalent in the South apparently not.

    Carol

    Posted by HARRISCRL3 03/05/2008 @ 07:34am | ignore this person

    I apologize if someone else already corrected this and I missed it, but the numbers were that 2 of 10 Democratic voters admitted that race played a part in their vote, and of those 20%, 8 in 10 voted for Clinton. So, based on this exit poll, 16% of the Democratic electorate in Ohio voted for Clinton in part based on racial concerns.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/05/2008 @ 10:37am

  77. Clinton has one good night after appealing to the worst instincts in the voter--fear and ignorance, after string of wins by a candidate who attempts to appeal to the higher angels of our natures, and now Billary is floating a "dream ticket" of her as the Big cheese. Ah, the audacity of craveness. Billary know she will rent the base in 2--hoping for Obama to cave to her coronation to avoid her dirty tantrums if she can't have her way.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 10:37am

  78. Clinton can only win states like Ohio and Texas by lying and libeling Obama. It was clear a few weeks ago that not enough people want to buy the Clinton brand anymore, that she herself is a real snooze of a political figure, so the Clintons have to go dirty. They have to tell people that Obama's a Muslim and paint him as a very dark-skinned "other".

    Wouldn't it be great if senior party officials came out and condemned the Clintons for being so utterly creepy and contemptible?

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 10:37am

  79. it's a towel (i.e., not a rag nor a flag)

    most internet searches in the last week were about barack HUSSEIN obama (he is 1/2 black too though, don't forget it; that's spelled B L A C K), not about billary (nor about the dot com bubble of her hubby or the traumatized workers greenspan mused about in the years of "the great clinton-era good times"TM).

    specifically, most searches were about whether b-hussein o. is a muslim. swift boat veterans for billary? swift boat veterans for a more easily beatable opponent for mcain? swift boat veterans for the DLC mafia? one thing is sure, the swift boat veterans for obama are not behind this sudden surge in internet inquisitiveness by a (corporate-media-)educated citizenry.

    Posted by erplus at 03/05/2008 @ 10:40am

  80. 03/05/2008 @ 10:37am: Billary know she will rent the base in 2--hoping for Obama to cave to her coronation to avoid her dirty tantrums if she can't have her way.

    Yes, that's exactly right. A little bitch who threatens to harass, slander, sling mud, denigrate, and lie about Obama's record unless he capitulates to her demand to be put on the ticket.

    I hope that he REALLY takes the high road and tells her to **** herself.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 10:40am

  81. METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 10:13am : Great post and these goofballs flit right past it without addressing nary a point.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 10:42am

  82. 03/05/2008 @ 10:42am

    Some of us only see things only too clearly and don't need someone living in her own world to point them out for us.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 10:46am

  83. LIBSWARNEDU:

    Yes, of course, Clinton's plan has private insurance as its base. It's not the plan that would be best for the US, which is a national, government paid, single payer, health care plan.

    BUT, Clinton's plan is better than Obama's, which also is private insurance based. The difference is that Clinton would require people to be covered; those who could afford it would buy it, those who can't fully afford it would receive government supplements and pay what they could, and those who couldn't afford it would still receive Medicaid. But no one who could afford it would be allowed to say, no thanks, I don't want it; I'd rather save the money. Obama would permit such behavior.

    But Obama's plan fails on that point, because unless you require insurance for everyone, you end up with an adverse risk pool. People who need the insurance take it, those who don't don't. Then, when the don'ts find that they do need it, they buy in. The problem is that insurance companies must have a mixture of people who pay without getting benefit in order to support those who pay and get the benefit.

    As I said, private insurance is not the answer, but if you're going to have private insurance (which both Obama and Clinton insist on), then you've got to have mandates.

    Posted by randcoop at 03/05/2008 @ 10:47am

  84. "Wouldn't it be great if senior party officials came out and condemned the Clintons for being so utterly creepy and contemptible?

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS"

    I often wondered about that, but maybe there are none--maybe they are all held hostage in one way or another. Really, none have made a sustained and memorable stand in years. Guess they know where their bread is buttered and covering their own arses by staying out of the line of fire.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 10:50am

  85. 'What would the world be like if there were no men? No war and lots of fat, happy women' -- Gloria Steinem

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/05/2008 @ 10:52am

  86. Posted by LIL 03/05/2008 @ 10:50am

    No, that doesn't make sense.

    If you're a Congressman up for re-election and you have half a brain -- an assumption not easily made in 2008 -- then you should be able to look out at the landscape and see that Obama is drawing independents & Republicans en masse; that he's bringing young voters into the process like no one else has in the last 25 years; that he's won in the west, the east, the north, and the south, not to mention Alaska and Hawaii; in short, you see that if he's the top of the ticket, a LOT of people will vote straight party line in November.

    Contrast that to Clinton, whom half the electorate detests; whose voting record quite frankly sucks; whose most eager base of support are uneducated women over 60 and the lesbian wing of the national feminist movement -- think all these things through, and you see it WOULDN'T BE IN THE INTEREST of superdelegates to have Hillary Clinton as the party nominee in November.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 10:55am

  87. Much talk on NPR now (jumping the gun at this point, I think) about a Hilly/B.O. or B.O./Hilly ticket nec. to beat McCain. Perhaps, but if Obama wins Hilly won't do it. The Khatun of Washington won't play second fiddle again.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/05/2008 @ 10:56am

  88. 'What would the world be like if there were no men? No war and lots of fat, happy women' -- Gloria Steinem

    And plenty of women who would be preyed upon by the sapphic Ms. Steinem.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 10:56am

  89. Somehow I don't see the continuing democratic primary battle as bad. This is all very real and the American people are participating in numbers not seen in a long time. How can that not be a good thing?

    Hard for me to believe Hillary will really damage Obama all that much, mostly because I don't think there's any dirt to dig up. He can do much more damage to her, but he's above that, which is a big reason he's so popular.

    What I can't figure out is why he would consider a joint ticket with her. I think she only hurts him, and would give too many people a reason not to vote Democrat. There are just too many people who really don't like her. At the same time, I'm not sure I see a way out of this dead heat. The decision being made in the "smoke-filled room" scares me. Does it scare anyone else? I guess I think it's time for Howard Dean to step in and earn his money. The good thing is I trust him and his judgement.

    Posted by sbenasso at 03/05/2008 @ 10:58am

  90. Sen. Clinton won last night, in large part, due to Republicans following Rush's advice to insincerely vote for Sen. Clinton "because she will be easier to beat in November." Sen. Clinton got 10% of her vote Tuesday from Republicans, and while many of us right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him, I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are supporting Clinton.

    Within a ten-minute period on the Sean Hannity show last night (around 7:10pm ET), two out of three callers bragged about switching and voting for Clinton to help bring Obama down and thereby win the general election for Sen. McCain (one in Ohio, one in Texas). The third caller was debating it.

    Tiffany in Austin, after laughing at Democrats about it, went on to say that she was going to go out and caucus as well. She noted that her firefighter husband said he "couldn't bring himself to do it", for which I give him points for moral character.

    Even Sean Hannity spent a good bit of time voicing his discomfort with the idea. "Ask yourself how you would feel if the Democrats were doing that to our primary," he asked the undecided election subverter in Ohio.

    I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the antithesis of what core conservative political values are about. On the part of Sen. Clinton in supporting the action (and recommending McCain over Obama), the whole implication of turning on your party to serve your own ends is perhaps the lowest form of betrayal of trust.

    I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed.

    Posted by chrisblask at 03/05/2008 @ 11:04am

  91. SB: Somehow I don't see the continuing democratic primary battle as bad. This is all very real and the American people are participating in numbers not seen in a long time. How can that not be a good thing?

    You really must not be paying any attention at all.

    In the last 2 weeks Hillary Clinton lied about Obama's "plagiarism"; circulated photos of Obama in African garb; misled people into thinking that he may in fact be Muslim; lied about his NAFTA position in -- of all places -- Ohio; lied about his healthcare position; had a 527 "swift boat" committee run misleading and negative TV ads....no, this is not good for the party or the country.

    I hope, as an Obama supporter, that somebody takes millions of dollars and trashes Hillary Clinton in TV ads over the next month or two.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 11:04am

  92. ADSCITITIOUS: Yeah but she is the status quo and similar to the incumbent in terms of connections and levers of power. That is her REAL experience. It would take a wholesale abandonment of insiders to line up against her. This could even happen convertly and our only clue might be intentional leaks and a shift in media conventional wisdom....have to admit I wouldn't mind watching Billary being dragged through the mud--but Billary learned from the impeachment (which is never mentioned)never to cross and always to serve their masters. And that is why they are so dangerous to us.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 11:04am

  93. This is crazy. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, while the Republicans are gaining steam. The Republicans, with John McCain as their nominee, are coming across as the party of unity. That blows my mind.

    Posted by Dr.TadWinslow at 03/05/2008 @ 11:04am

  94. Posted by LIL 03/05/2008 @ 10:42am

    You cannot be serious. The press has not laid a glove on Obama for months. When Clinton raised it, she was portrayed as a crybaby. Now, METTEYYA does it and it's a "great post?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 11:06am

  95. Clinton is not only throwing the kitchen sink, she is playing identity politics.

    Clinton has explicitly played the identity politics of feminism her brand of which appeals disproportionately to the people whom we in our country call white women.

    Clinton has explicitly asked people to vote for her as she will inspire other woman. She ended her Ohio victory speech with such an appeal to women. All this benefits her because in Democratic primaries women outnumber men by seemingly ten percentage points!

    This is unfair because if Obama made a similar point a majority of voters would flee him.

    The brilliant Tina Fey disappointingly shouted out on Saturday Night Live that (a white woman) "bitch" is the "new black". Can you imagine an Obama supporter making such a hard appeal to identity?

    Clinton may eke out victories not in spite of sexism but because of white woman identity feminist politics.

    She has regained her support among so called white women. It seems to have slipped in WI

    Unfortunately such identity politics is enough to move a whole lot of voters to cast their ballots. The voters are really moved at this superficial level.

    And her campaign has come to the edge of a racist negative identity politics--the turban pictures, the "I don't think he is Muslim", the pictures of angelic white children at 3:00 am, the absurd charge that the civil libertarian Obama who has criticized the demonization of the Israeli Lobby is not hard enough on Farrakhan.

    she also used Robert Johnson to make Obama seem like he is a hard core drug user.

    And the laughable plagiarism charge made in the course of a debate in which her closing repeated one her husband's old speeches and the claim that she, unlike Obama, actually does hard legislative work (rather than just give speeches) resonate because most Americans already have racial suspicions about how intellectually substantive and hard working a black man can be. She can claim innocence to why such charges work for her, but it's a rather monstrous innocence.

    Against all this negative campaigning I don't see what Obama has done.

    The Clinton campaign is repulsive.

    And Clinton is the more bellicose candidate and the less committed to civil liberties for all. On civil liberties, see that the Gitmo lawyers have overwhelmingly supported Obama and see also the March 1 NYT editorial by Jeffrey Rosen. Very important.

    I really hate identity politics which is keeping her in the game of the liberal Democratic primary and should she win, it will also sink her in the general election.

    She got nothing done with health care--so why her experience works for her I just don't get.

    At any rate, this election will be determined at a very low level.

    The throwing of the kitchen sink at Obama by Clinton and press shows that all too painfully.

    Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/05/2008 @ 11:07am

  96. Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 10:36am

    I hear ya, but most Democrats will get behind the nominee after they get over it. Sure, some we know around here will sit it out or vote Nader if it is Clinton. And if it is Clinton, many in Obama's camp might too. But McCain has the same issues too. Not like he is energizing the base. Perhaps more if Clinton wins (which is one reason I want Obama).

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 11:09am

  97. Here we go.. snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Hillary is going to doom this election.She is unelectable in the general election.Her greatest support comes from women making less than 25K and old people.She will energize the right against her and alienate the independants.The Obama phenomenon will not automatically rush to her. The young will feel defeated, the crossover republicans will go right back and McCain will become our oldest , grumpiest, war mongering commander in chief.

    Posted by Gericault at 03/05/2008 @ 11:11am

  98. ADSCITITIOUS: "You really must not be paying any attention at all."

    Don't be such a jerk. I'm paying very close attention and what I see is an electorate more energized than I can ever remember. I happen to be supporting Obama and as far as I can tell, Clinton only damages herself with comments like the "xerox" one. I think she will only make the choice to move to Obama easier if she continues with that snipey crap. When she does that, all she accomplishes is the confirmation of why people don't like her.

    Posted by sbenasso at 03/05/2008 @ 11:14am

  99. great posts hman and emile. i agree.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 11:18am

  100. ADSCITITIOUS: "You really must not be paying any attention at all."

    Don't be such a jerk. I'm paying very close attention and what I see is an electorate more energized than I can ever remember. I happen to be supporting Obama and as far as I can tell, Clinton only damages herself with comments like the "xerox" one. I think she will only make the choice to move to Obama easier if she continues with that snipey crap. When she does that, all she accomplishes is the confirmation of why people don't like her.

    Posted by SBENASSO 03/05/2008 @ 11:14am

    Did you not follow the electoral contests last night? Did you know that the sleazy campaign tactics of the Clintons HAVE WORKED, AND THAT IT'S THE ONLY REASON CLINTON WON OHIO AND TEXAS LAST NIGHT? Did you know that?

    Seriously, you (and a lot of other people) need to take your head out of your ass.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 11:19am

  101. This is rich:

    "The press has not laid a glove on Obama for months"

    That is such a crock--Clinton was assumed heir apparent with her smug trite responses to the soft ball questions lobbed at her through the debates and the cushy press bleating over her "flawless" campaign and gushing over her ordained wins with every debate. I can recall the hour when her little fairy castle in the clouds tumbled to earth and Tim Russert pitched her a few fast ones and oh how Billary wailed about what a victim she was--those mean boys picking on her and sheding a tear, "it is so difficult" playing to all the over-the-hill women who stood by their man and a life of misery identifying vicariously through her. Poor widdle Hillary! If anything Obama held back and it was only until it became impossible to ignore what was happening, that anyone even noticed the momentum building. Ironically enough his rallying battle cry for change and a new kind of politics are becoming increasingly relevant instead of empty happy talk and hollow platitudes. Now it is time for him to take another leap. We will have to wait and see, but that you would refer to Hillary's negative campaign to smear Obama--and using the MSM as her bull horn to do it, after whining the press was not being fair to poor widdle Hillary for witholding her crown, and not properly dispensing with these pesky usurpers per her command, is just bullshit.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 11:26am

  102. HEY ADSCITITIOUS: BLOW ME.

    She won because she has a lot of support in the country. She'll lose because she's too negative and more of the same. Interestingly, so are you; you bore.

    Posted by sbenasso at 03/05/2008 @ 11:28am

  103. sbenasso, please don't feed that troll. the insidious assititious makes rio and lvliberty look enlightened. his venomous hatred of women has morphed him into an ugly little cockroach.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 11:30am

  104. It's still going to be very hard for her to get the nomination.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

    Posted by daniel.f at 03/05/2008 @ 11:31am

  105. HEY ADSCITITIOUS: BLOW ME.

    She won because she has a lot of support in the country. She'll lose because she's too negative and more of the same. Interestingly, so are you; you bore.

    Posted by SBENASSO 03/05/2008 @ 11:28am

    Another stupid post which reveals you haven't a clue about anything. Even your insults are lame.

    Clinton won in Ohio & Texas last night because she waged a dirty, rotten, lying campaign against Obama. It worked! The rubes in Ohio and Texas -- indeed, rubes like you -- believe the Clinton lies.

    She doesn't have "a lot of support in the country." She and her staff concluded 2 weeks ago that she DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT around the country, which is why they're trying very hard to take support away from Obama.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 11:33am

  106. sbenasso, please don't feed that troll. the insidious assititious makes rio and lvliberty look enlightened. his venomous hatred of women has morphed him into an ugly little cockroach.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 11:30am

    Oh, I remember you. You're the little dope who knows nothing about history, philosophy, or much of anything else. The kind who shows up mouthing politically correct misandrist slogans, and who gets teary-eyed when Little Hillary speaks. Really, you should go kill yourself.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 11:37am

  107. i agree that she's too negative sbenasso. i have stated multiple times here that i am voting for obama. the reason i am voting for obama is that i feel strongly against the iraq occupation. of all the candidates who could actually win, he seems to be the best choice.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 11:43am

  108. Hey LIL -

    If it is such a "crock," I am sure you can come up with numerous examples where the press unfairly attacked Obama. You sure didn't in your post. Only that Clinton was the assumed front-runner. True. But not a direct attack on Obama. SNL didn't write that skit on a lark.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 11:49am

  109. 03/05/2008 @ 11:26am: I can recall the hour when her little fairy castle in the clouds tumbled to earth and Tim Russert pitched her a few fast ones and oh how Billary wailed about what a victim she was--those mean boys picking on her and sheding a tear, "it is so difficult" playing to all the over-the-hill women who stood by their man and a life of misery identifying vicariously through her. Poor widdle Hillary!

    If only more voters (and Nation readers) thought the way you did...

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 11:50am

  110. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/05/2008 @ 07:33am

    See, I knew something good would come out of last night....

    HSUB has been re-energized for his "Al wins a brokered convention" fantasy!

    Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 08:53am

    Actually, it's a fantasy that you think it's a fantasy...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 11:53am

  111. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 03/05/2008 @ 11:50am

    Sure. And Obama's supporters like LIL aren't being babies right now about that mean, unfair press? Gimmie a break.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 11:54am

  112. "Clintonistas"? Seriously? I expected a little more decorum from The Nation, not Hillary-hater name-calling. This sort of poor-sport reaction is pretty low, on the order of "Obamamaniacs". Disclosure: I'd vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but am disgusted by the media bias against the former and appalled by the fawning around the latter!

    Posted by micropainter at 03/05/2008 @ 12:03pm

  113. Sure. And Obama's supporters like LIL aren't being babies right now about that mean, unfair press? Gimmie a break.

    Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 11:54am

    What people forget is that for literally 10 years the major media were touting Hillary Clinton at every turn. Here's what Jeff Cohen of FAIR wrote about Hillary & the press back in 1999:

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2583

    Do you think the major media will explain to their readers/listeners just how sleazy the Clintons have gotten in the last 2 weeks? Circulating pictures of Obama in African garb. Mass emailing people telling them that Obama is a Muslim. Running TV ads in which Obama's skin is about 100 times darker than it really is. And on and on.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:03pm

  114. "SNL didn't write that skit on a lark"

    Ain't your father's SNL. They would've never carried water for Billary. SNL, anyone watch it anymore other when they use Hillary to get some publicity?

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 12:03pm

  115. Surely Bill C's actions show he 'deep down' would really like Al Gore in office instead of his Hillary or Barack. Al getting it would be a bigger testament to Bill's legacy than it would get if either Hillary or Barack totally obscures it. No wonder Bill is being left off the stage...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 12:06pm

  116. I hear ya, but most Democrats will get behind the nominee after they get over it. Sure, some we know around here will sit it out or vote Nader if it is Clinton. And if it is Clinton, many in Obama's camp might too. But McCain has the same issues too. Not like he is energizing the base. Perhaps more if Clinton wins (which is one reason I want Obama).----Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 11:09am

    Still a lot of factors you fail to take into account, HMAN-

    McCain may not be perfect for the cons...but he's sounding the right notes, and a Hillary nomination GUARENTEES 47% of the country who have said in polls they will "never vote for her".

    But if Obama is "bloodied and battered" by Her Nibs in a long drawn out and DIRTY campaign until late spring-time...SURE the Dems will rally to him in August, but that's not who decides the election...it's the independents and moderates.

    And if his "new politics" sheen has been worn off, both by attacks from Clinton and negative counter-attacks from him, that could make him an even match-up to McCain (despite McCain running on "I'll give you 4 more years of Bushism").

    Plus, and often don't take ALL the "evil Hillary" stories at face value....if she can cost 2008 for Obama (as nominee), she's only 68 come 2012...and "Why didn't we nominate her?" spin will eat us up for the next 4 years!

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 12:08pm

  117. Micro: I expected a little more decorum from The Nation, not Hillary-hater name-calling.

    What do you call someone who runs negative TV ads showing Obama's skin color 100 times darker than it really is?

    What do you call someone who voted for the Iraq war because she was terrified that a negative vote might hurt her presidential aspirations later on?

    What do you call someone who praised NAFTA time and again and then accuses her opponent of not being a sincere NAFTA opponent?

    What do you think of someone who one minute says "It is an honor to be on the stage with Barack Obama" and then sets up a 527 (Swift Boat) group to spread lies about him?

    She and her hubby are as evil as they come.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:09pm

  118. Actually HMAN23, I have always been more anti-Billary than I have been an Obama supporter. The increasing repulsion of Billary is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Democratic party under the sway of the DLC Clintonista iron fist, that it actually drove me into the Obama camp. Betcha didn't see that one coming. Then again, you don't seem to see anything wrong with Hillary's gutter campaign. Bet you wouldn't notice anything wrong with the Bush administration if he had a D attached to his name. Conversely, would you notice it if Billary labeled herself more honestly as a R--after all, the Right couldn't have a greater ally in the process.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 12:11pm

  119. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/05/2008 @ 11:53am

    Noun

    Singular

    fantasy

    Plural---fantasies

    fantasy (plural fantasies)

    1. That which comes from one's imagination

    ----Seriously, HSUB...you losing it again? Why does Hillary surrender to Gore when she'll have Michigan/Florida and the supers? Why does Obama surrender to Gore when he'll have more delegates?

    Just overwhelmed by his angelic glory and unable to control their desire to bask in his magnificance?

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 12:13pm

  120. Hillary swept through rural Texas because the Latinos love our Evita. Every voting Latino who has been here for generations has a family member who has to cross the border back and forth in order to survive. It's their debt of gratitude for Bill's amnesty program. I suspect Hillary will do very well in California, contrary to McCain's hopes. She is a winner and it's the momentum, stupid!

    Posted by nursevic at 03/05/2008 @ 12:15pm

  121. YES, Hillary!!! YES, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison . . . and . . . even . . . John Locke!!!

    There are so many of us out here who support you, though - despite our, relatively speaking, 'professional incomes' (e.g., Registered Nurses, college educators, so forth) - have not thus far been able to financially contribute to your efforts. Hence, more than a few of us (the latter that is) opted to instead contribute on 'another plane.' This would include sending lots of profound and intense and utterly sincere 'spiritual energy' your way (no matter the affiliation, or - as in my own case, non-affiliation with any organized religion). More specifically, we out here have been lighting candles, burning incense, meditating on your success, and so forth. Hence - from my microcosmic perspective - not all is about money. Sometimes, there are other greater-than-human-forces (e.g., divine forces) at work . . . balancing the scales and exacting karma. Hence too - from my own microcosmic perspective - you DEFINITELY deserved blessings in the realm of karma. While I am in fact quite an egalitarian in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth, I must admit that the notion of a woman - ALAS!!! - being Commander-in-Chief of this 'potentially' great United States of America is analogous to an EPIPHANY! Being now 53 and being too with a Bachelors in History (despite having generated my income as a Registered Nurse for the past twenty-five years), I know all too well how very hard the struggle has been for women to get to this point. This ought in no way be construed to mean that the African-American struggle has had its own horrors and challenges. Nonetheless, after months of paying utmost attention to almost every single debate, I clearly have come to the conclusion that you - Hillary-Rodham Clinton – are the most qualified to restore those ideals and values which so many (Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, others) envisioned. May we realize their visions, which seem to be synchronous with your own visions. May you self-actualize as a being and may you realize those ideas/ideals set forth by our ancestors for the sake of ‘posterity' (a concept that the self-interests of the Bush Administration – per Madison's Federalist Number 10 and more) never could grasp). Finally, on a not so unimportant note . . . it is not at all that incomprehensible to me why you voted the way you did before Bush, Cheney, and all their dark/evil incarnate cronies propagandized us into the Iraq nightmare. Their actions at that time were PRECISELY what Jefferson, Madison, and John Locke feared the most. Ideally, one would like to trust the word of their 'leaders.' In reality, leaders lie and lose track of ‘higher' ideals. Only in retrospect is one able to differentiate. Again, I am UTTERLY DELIGHTED for your wins tonight. Subsequently, I am thinking that all those candles, all that incense, plus the deep meditation and focus on the spiritual plane ECLIPSED the money factor. May we all keep that in mind in the months to come. You are a strong, incredibly intelligent woman/person/being. I thank you for that; and my guess is that, were Cady-Stanton and Susan B. to rise from their graves, they indeed would thank you too!!!

    Sincerely, Diane Doumit d.doumit@comcast.net http://calendarsago.com/

    Posted by Diane Doumit at 03/05/2008 @ 12:23pm

  122. http://tinyurl.com/2ck8sh

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 12:23pm

  123. Hillary has shown her true colors, and they are not pretty. Securing the nomination, that she regards as her entitlement, trumps party and country. It is hard for me to comprehend how her own supporters can accept her praise of John McCain and its clear implication that McCain would be a better president than Barack Obama. This tactic is absolutely inexcusable, and should have been rejected by all who consider themselves true Democrats, including Clintonistas.

    What should be perfectly clear (and has been for quite some time) is that the DLC, and its standard bearers, Hillary and Bill Clinton, fear the progressive wing of their own party more than they fear the Republican Party. They are much closer in philosophy to McCain and other corporate Republicans than they are to the vast majority of Democrats. Obama offers the possibility of breaking away from this brand of politics. He may well disappoint in the end, but we don't know that he will. With Hillary Clinton as president, we know with certainty that she will give us more of what loathe in the political establishment.

    Posted by robgo2 at 03/05/2008 @ 12:23pm

  124. Posted by DIANE DOUMIT 03/05/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Sorry to burst your bubble, love:

    From Daily Kos:

    "Clinton got lucky in several districts, just barely meeting thresholds to gain an additional delegate. The vote totals will likely change enough to surrender some of those delegates back to Obama (especially in the Texas caucuses). But for now, the current results, before the Texas caucuses are fully tallied, are Clinton 191, Obama 178 -- a better showing than last night's single delegate lead.

    "So the stark reality remains -- even in this best-case scenario, Clinton only chipped Obama's pledged delegate lead from 159 to 148. Yet last night offered more than 1/3rd of remaining delegates, 370. Only about 560 remain in the contest.

    "If Obama can show he's not collapsing under the weight of Clinton's assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters (in both pledged delegates and the popular vote)."

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/10254/37195/375/469481

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:27pm

  125. And plenty of women who would be preyed upon by the sapphic Ms. Steinem.

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 03/05/2008 @ 10:56am | ignore this person

    preyed? homophobic AND misogynist.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 12:27pm

  126. It's Clinton for the presidency! She swept through rural Texas because all those voting Latinos who have been here for generations have family members crossing back and forth in order to survive. It's their debt of gratitude for Bill's amnesty program. Bill got them their"papeles". McCain does not have a chance in California againts our Evita!

    Posted by nursevic at 03/05/2008 @ 12:30pm

  127. So, DIANE DOUMIT, substite Condoleeza Rice everytime you gush rhapsodies over the Ms Hillary and would all things be equal?

    Are you fundamentally saying in it's very essence that a vagina is a vagina is a vagina?

    And btw, there were those who actually saw through their overlord "leaders" and paid the political price for standing on principle. Hillary excepted, being that she is a handmaiden to the patriarchy.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 12:31pm

  128. Why does Hillary surrender to Gore when she'll have Michigan/Florida and the supers? Why does Obama surrender to Gore when he'll have more delegates?

    Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 12:13pm

    Yep, just like a little kid not wanting to listen or see the realities of the situation unfolding.

    If 'both' Barack and Billary go negative, they weaken each other, not get more powerful. Two weakened knee-capped candidates won't make one strong one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 12:31pm

  129. preyed? homophobic AND misogynist.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/05/2008 @ 12:27pm

    Pithy AND stupid.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:34pm

  130. The continued "Obamamania" is amazing. Was Freud right? The human mind cannot bear very much reality?

    Posted by Spengler47 at 03/05/2008 @ 12:40pm

  131. emile, this man believes the domestic violence statistics actually show the reverse of reality. women, according to him, are sharon stoning men around the country as we type. he is, by far, the worst misogynist ever to visit the nation blogs. i think he is poseidon with a new name. he never made any sense as poseidon and he never makes any sense as assititious. you nailed him with three words and he calls that stupid. he is almost laughable. it's just difficult to get beyond the grotesque aspects to actually enjoy the humor.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 12:40pm

  132. Posted by SPENGLER47 03/05/2008 @ 12:40pm

    It was T.S. Eliot, not Freud, who uttered that line.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:42pm

  133. ....many of us right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him, I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are supporting Clinton.....I think the entire episode is sordid.....this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed.

    Posted by CHRISBLASK 03/05/2008 @ 11:04am

    While I question your support for a MYSTERY candidate about whom much remains shrouded and much more will be `unveiled' in the coming months, I want to try and ease your "soiled and disappointed" feeling for our party & Repubs (like) who voted in the Dem Primaries.

    First of all, I am among the very large majority who don't vote in Primaries....fact is, I don't think I have ever been interested nor involved enough to have voted this early. I suspect some of us did so in the Dem Primaries now, is out of sheer interest in what is a historic non-white-male-centric Election where the `action' is on the Dem side.

    Secondly, there are quite a few of us Repubs who, IF a Dem is a `cakewalk' to win this Nov. (as large majority of Dems believe), I don't want Hillary to be the POTUS. In that sense, my Primary vote for Obama is as real as your "actual support for him".

    Now that I've voted in a Primary out of my party, I think nationwide, everybody ought to be able to vote in whichever Party they choose based on the circumstances. Just as I weighed the prospect of a Clinton or Obama Presidency, there maybe many Dems who felt more strongly about denying a McCain or Huckabee, than choosing between Edwards, Obama or Clinton. In the strictest sense, isn't this what a pure Democracy ought to be?

    The Primaries in those states that are OPEN, were set up for solid reasons probably along exactly the lines I laid above. Sean Hannity and you are just wrong in taking this holier-than-thou attitude. Your line of reasoning is like the attacks on the Superdelegates....there were rationales to setting them up. My voting in the Dem Primary for Obama got cancelled out by some other Repub voting for Hillary....well, that's Democracy....irrespective of our individual reasons.....neither of us violated any rules, much less any laws....Hannity be damned!

    Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:43pm

  134. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 12:40pm

    This PC puppy can't comprehend that women in 2008 enjoy many advantages over men. Turn on the TV: how many young beautiful women are anchorladies? Pick up a popular magazine. How many beautiful women adorn the covers? How much money does a fashion model make each year? How much does a janitor make?

    Erica Jong bragged about "screwing" one of her editors to get a book published. Guess that doesn't count as an instance of female power-lording.

    Silly Loki doesn't have the intellect to work these contradictions out. Nor can she stand it when a male shows her up in debate.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:46pm

  135. It is such a cheap shot to fall back on the sexist charge in the absence of an argument. I happen to agree with ADSCITITIOUS and I am a female.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 12:47pm

  136. "sharon stoning men"...

    Silly Loki never understood that I was making a reference to the Sharon Stone character in "Basic Instinct."

    She's the kind who takes everything literally. Metaphor, irony, dry humor, parodic playfulness all escape her. Like so many other feminist simpletons, she lacks depth and a capacity for levity.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:49pm

  137. It is such a cheap shot to fall back on the sexist charge in the absence of an argument. I happen to agree with ADSCITITIOUS and I am a female.

    Posted by LIL 03/05/2008 @ 12:47pm

    Thank you, Lil.

    Let it be known that there a lot of feminist authors I like and read. They range from KVH and Naomi Klein to Barbara Ehrenreich and the late Susan Sontag.

    Let is also be known that I voted for a woman president! I pulled the lever for Lenora Fulani in 1992.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 12:51pm

  138. I don't believe the attacks mentioned in this article will produce much damage, but they do serve as a warning to candidates about being very careful of their personal conduct and the actions of their staff. I think the visit by a member of Obama's staff to the Canadian Consulate in Chicago saying his comments on NAFTA were just election rhetoric, would not help him win in Ohio that has seen job and industries lost because of NAFTA. Despite their rhetoric, I believe the the Democratic candidates and the Republican candidate are the three stooges of corporate "Free Trade" . McCain is , at least, honest about his allegiance to "Free Trade".

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/05/2008 @ 12:55pm

  139. please don't feed that troll. the insidious assititious makes rio and lvliberty look enlightened. his venomous hatred of women has morphed him into an ugly little cockroach.

    Thank you Loveloki. It's easy to get into it with idiots like that. (He's now on my "ignore" list.)

    Glad to hear you're supporting Obama. I couldn't agree more about the war. Hans Blix knew there were no WMD's. I knew there were no WMD's and I also knew Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld couldn't be trusted. Why didn't Hillary know any of that? I'm sorry, there's just no excuse for that kind of judgment.

    Posted by sbenasso at 03/05/2008 @ 12:58pm

  140. Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 12:08pm

    This is a different point from the "bloodied Democratic nomination"

    But one I agree with. Whihc is why I like Obama in the general more than Clinton

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 12:59pm

  141. Posted by LIL 03/05/2008 @ 12:11pm

    Wow. A lot of broad assumptions you make based on my response to a single contention you made about Obama and the press.

    It might suprise you that I voted for Obama in my primary and hope is the nominee.

    I just cannot agree with you that he is getting an unfair shake from the media.

    And you cannot seem to show otherwise.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 1:01pm

  142. The HRC campaign has bought itself a few more weeks of life support. But she will not be able to make the math work. She would need to win each and every race from here on out with a 60% margin or better --- and she failed to win *any* of her three states last night with such a margin.

    Also, with friends like these...why is she still even calling herself a Democrat?

    http://obamastraws.blogspot.com/2008/03/rogues-gallery.html

    She should ask McCain if she would be his VP. Her true colors are showing. Avert your eyes, everyone.

    Posted by drband36 at 03/05/2008 @ 1:02pm

  143. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 03/05/2008 @ 12:03pm

    C'mon. In 1999, should the national press have been writing stories about a progressive state rep from Illinois?

    I admitted Hillary was annointed the front-runner. Doesn't necessarily mean that Obama hasn't been treated fairly by the press. With a couple of exceptions, he has.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 1:03pm

  144. Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 1:03pm

    The important point is that for 10 years now the NATIONAL MEDIA have been doting all over Hillary Clinton. The fact that they used to always bring up her name as first a senatorial aspirant then a presidential aspirant means they gave her preferential treatment.

    Does being First Lady qualify her to high office? Should Laura Bush run for the presidency in 2012?

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 1:07pm

  145. Posted by SBENASSO 03/05/2008 @ 12:58pm

    Good riddance, and take your ignorant little girlfriend someplace far, far away.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 1:10pm

  146. Did anyone see Tim Russert on the Morning Joe show on MSNBC this morning on March 5 .Tim Russert showed the paper that was leaked to Bloomberg news by the Obama campaign after Super Tuesday in Feb that predicated all the primary results untill the end of the primary season and so far the only one they predicted wrong was they said they would lose Maine 49% to 51% to Clinton. They predicted they would lose Texas 47% to 51%, Ohio 45% to 55%, Rhode Island 40% to 555, and win Vermont 60% to 40%. They predicted they would win Wyoming and Miss., but lose Pennslyvania 47% to 51%. They predicted they would lose Kentucky, West Virginia,and Puerto Rico, but would win Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, and North Carolina. They predicted they would be ahead in delegates in the end. Either they have good researchers and pollsters or the election is already rigged for the results no matter what. Kinda makes you think we are being played as suckers in a election that is already determined by the powers that be which they already know who will be President come November 5.

    Posted by baydog at 03/05/2008 @ 1:13pm

  147. Hillary has shown her true colors, and they are not pretty. Securing the nomination, that she regards as her entitlement, trumps party and country. It is hard for me to comprehend how her own supporters can accept her praise of John McCain and its clear implication that McCain would be a better president than Barack Obama. This tactic is absolutely inexcusable, and should have been rejected by all who consider themselves true Democrats, including Clintonistas.

    What should be perfectly clear (and has been for quite some time) is that the DLC, and its standard bearers, Hillary and Bill Clinton, fear the progressive wing of their own party more than they fear the Republican Party. They are much closer in philosophy to McCain and other corporate Republicans than they are to the vast majority of Democrats. Obama offers the possibility of breaking away from this brand of politics. He may well disappoint in the end, but we don't know that he will. With Hillary Clinton as president, we know with certainty that she will give us more of what loathe in the political establishment.

    Posted by robgo2 at 03/05/2008 @ 1:14pm

  148. Interesting that you make such statements just as I was looking at this:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html

    Which indicates that Clinton was accused of the same contact as the Obama campaign, but chances are if you are not always vigilant you failed to notice--because the MSM sure kept quiet about it after initially mentioning both camapigns were accused. Interesting, isn't it, the way the media just made it go away allowing Clinton to launch her smear campaign without being held to the same standard.

    Posted by Lil at 03/05/2008 @ 1:17pm

  149. Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 12:59pm

    I think the risk is there. Especially if Her Majesty is half as duplicitious as rumored.

    Batter Obama until the Convention...he still wins it, but has so much negative stuff swirling around that McCain and the Repubs merely replay Hillary campaign ads from March 2008-May 2008...instead of ANY "Swift Boat" ads of their own.

    Then she makes a gracious speech, shakes Obama's hand, hugs Michelle, PROMISES to campaign for him (but spends MORE time campaigning for various Congressional candidates...building up markers to cash in ...later), and when Obama loses, goes on "Meet the Press" and says "Well, you know, Tim, Senator Obama ran a fine campaign, but I think some of the weaknesses that came out in the Primaries hurt him and the Republicans exploited that!"

    and then begins the 2012 Campaign.

    Now, as I said before, "no black guys" will run in 2012 (the spin will be "the country's still too racist"...from the LEFT,not Right)...no other women will run (they're all in her pocket)....and that'll leave HER and "some white guys". That's even MORE "inevitable" than this year was.

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:25pm

  150. That's even MORE "inevitable" than this year was.

    Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 1:25pm

    i'm moving to mars........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 1:43pm

  151. feel free to blame "canada".............

    OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper visited Chuck Cadman at his home just a day before damaging revelations in the Liberal sponsorship scandal were made public in 2005, says a soon-to-be-released book.

    Cadman's biographer, Tom Zytaruk, says Harper met with the Independent MP in early April 2005 for one hour, according to a leaked version of the manuscript of Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story.

    Zytaruk doesn't say what was discussed at that meeting.

    The prime minister's office said Tuesday that it was a personal visit to see how the ailing MP was doing. But it's also clear that Harper, as then-Opposition leader, knew Cadman's vote could be crucial in bringing down the governing Liberals over the sponsorship issue.

    Several weeks after the Harper meeting, two top party officials visited Cadman in an effort to convince him to rejoin the Conservatives - a visit that is now at the heart of a controversy over allegations that Cadman was offered a $1-million life insurance policy in exchange for his vote.

    karl rove is prime minister of canada............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 1:48pm

  152. i'm moving to mars........Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 1:43pm

    Well, it looks like a lovely little place [en.wikipedia.org]...

    but not sure how that helps?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 2:06pm

  153. "America is only as good as her politicians and leaders. Posted by BACALOVE 03/05/2008 @ 07:09am"

    Even truer, the opposite, especially in a democracy, more or less. We get the leadership we deserve.

    Posted by sloper at 03/05/2008 @ 2:10pm

  154. here i am not following my own advice, but insidious, you moron, i knew you were referring to basic instinct when you said it. believe it or not, there have been feminist writings on the male reaction to this character sharon stone played. you are such a hilarious dumbfuck, assititious.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 2:17pm

  155. And don't expect Obama to pull any punches regarding Hilary's finances and especially Bill Clintons shady and lucrative financial and business dealings. Obama had class not bringing this up before as to keep the party together but I wonder if he will now attack the Clintons on it. The Clintons need to be put away for good

    Posted by jimmydee at 03/05/2008 @ 2:35pm

  156. Posted by cka2nd at 03/05/2008 @ 2:42pm

  157. Posted by CKA2ND 03/05/2008 @ 2:42pm

    I completely agree!

    (heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 2:49pm

  158. BTW, anybody notice the "adjective" change from this version of Mr Nichols article...

    and the title on the main page of the website? ("dangerous" to "ugly")

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 2:52pm

  159. but not sure how that helps?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 2:06pm

    april 22.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 3:05pm

  160. TOTAL DELEGATES Delegate Definitions

    Barack Obama Pledged: 1321 Superdelegates: 199 Total: 1,520

    Hillary Clinton Pledged: 1186 Superdelegates: 238 Total: 1,424

    looks like a "SUPER"-SIZED dilemma for ms. clinton.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 3:08pm

  161. Posted by CKA2ND 03/05/2008 @ 2:42pm

    how can you be so apathetic when your country needs you most!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 3:09pm

  162. MASK 03/05/2008 @ 2:06pm

    go to hell. [hell2u.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 3:35pm

  163. here i am not following my own advice, but insidious, you moron, i knew you were referring to basic instinct when you said it. believe it or not, there have been feminist writings on the male reaction to this character sharon stone played. you are such a hilarious dumbfuck, assititious.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 2:17pm

    This is Little Loki's idea of constructing a good argument:

    "but insidious, you moron..." "you are such a hilarious dumbfuck, assititious."

    No ideas, no arguments, no insight, no reference for the claim that feminists have written about the male reaction to Sharon Stone -- just bile and ad hominem attacks.

    I can't say my expectations were high for her.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 3:37pm

  164. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 2:17pm: "here i am not following my own advice..."

    You mean proving that what you said earlier was untrue. Apparently you didn't have me on ignore!

    You're something.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 3:39pm

  165. i'm not going to do your research for ya, little eentsy beentsy insidious, but i'll give ya a hint, since you're obviously begging for a reference--susan faludi, for one.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 3:40pm

  166. i don't ignore anyone insidious. i never said i had you on ignore. i said, "don't feed that troll." what i am doing is not following my own advice.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2008 @ 3:45pm

  167. Posted by COLORADOCEO 03/05/2008 @ 03:44am

    This is the kind of post I would expect from a Republican - a real Republican.

    He's right. Obama is our only hope of the three possibles to lead us on a path away from corporate domination.

    Posted by jaded at 03/05/2008 @ 3:56pm

  168. Naw, the real scenario: Al Gore steps-in or is dragged-in, when it looks like either dem candidate damages the other enough to lose in the general election against McCave.

    Al is even already countering the religious right's sway to the repubs...:

    http://blog.algore.com/2008/03/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 3:59pm

  169. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 3:35pm

    I ain't skeered of Hell.....I've been in Florence, SC in July!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:00pm

  170. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/05/2008 @ 3:59pm

    HSUB, if you want me to talk to you, just say so...don't need to chum the thread with stuff nobody BUT me will respond to!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:02pm

  171. http://tinyurl.com/ynv5ah

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 4:07pm

  172. i'm not going to do your research for ya, little eentsy beentsy insidious, but i'll give ya a hint, since you're obviously begging for a reference--susan faludi, for one.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 3:40pm |

    Wow, Susan Faludi! How daunting!

    I remember only too well how I used the phrase "Sharon Stone." I said something like, "women have been sharon stoning men for a long time..."

    Now, if you remember Stone's character in "Basic Instinct" -- I'm not sure that you do -- she strung Michael Douglas and his colleagues in the PD along; she taunted and flouted them. She was in control; they were left guessing her next move.

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 4:09pm

  173. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2008 @ 3:45pm: i don't ignore anyone insidious. i never said i had you on ignore. i said, "don't feed that troll." what i am doing is not following my own advice.

    This is what you wrote,

    sbenasso, please don't feed that troll. the insidious assititious makes rio and lvliberty look enlightened. his venomous hatred of women has morphed him into an ugly little cockroach.

    Interesting that you would carry on in that (immature) vein, and yet NOT put me on ignore. Might it be that you were being just a little hyperbolic? I mean, why would such a self-respecting, strong-minded feminist like you continue to address a "venomous woman-hating little cockroach" like me?

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/05/2008 @ 4:16pm

  174. This is a duplicate of a post I made on another blog on the Nation today, but Clinton's comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain is so dreadful, it bears repeating.:

    No matter how much a person might like Clinton to begin with, her assertion that McCain would be better qualified than Obama is really playing into the hands of the Republicans. From now on, the McCain campaign can state that even Obama's Democratic rival has endorsed McCain as a better candidate to protect the country.

    What Clinton has done is unconscionable. I realize that her political positions are quite similar to Obama's, and perhaps it's a "six of one, half a dozen of another" proposition when it comes to policy. But I have to agree with those who are tired of an emerging aristocracy. It seems inherently wrong that, should Clinton be elected, an inordinately large percentage of Americans will have only known presidents with two different last names.

    It looks like it will be a long shot for Clinton to win the nomination, but win or lose, she has done a terrible disservice to the Democratic party and to the citizens of America.

    Some people say "we" have "elected" Bush twice (more or less), and "we" have rallied around the chant for war, but the truth is that there were many of "us" who were opposed to the appointment of Bush by the Supreme Court, who protested the war in a multitude of ways, and who have consistently stood up against the attacks on our freedoms. "We" don't deserve to have McCain elected because Hillary Clinton's ego allows her to disparage an opponent who has essentially the same vision for his country that she does.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 03/05/2008 @ 4:20pm

  175. Hey and didn't hsuB already endorse Billary as he preferred dem he'd like to see in the WH...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 4:28pm

  176. er, ...as the preferred dem in...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2008 @ 4:29pm

  177. Posted by LEEANNG 03/05/2008 @ 4:20pm

    All of which may be true, but presupposes something that isn't true...

    that she cares.

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:42pm

  178. LIL -

    Yeah very interesting indeed. Also interesting is the recent date on the NAFTA flap, and the fact that I wrote the press had not laid a glove on Obama for months, which is true. Welcome to being the front-runner. Truth is when Clinton was the front runner, the press was easy on Obama.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2008 @ 5:19pm

  179. Barrack Milhouse Obami must quit the race NOW before its too late......Hillary Rotten will have the long knives that have grown over the many years poised to stab the new Messiah and he and his "Proud to be an American....NOW" wife will be ripped to total shreads

    God Bless the USA

    Posted by Frankshitsz at 03/05/2008 @ 5:37pm

  180. Amen. The Clinton campaign is below anything that Atwater or Rove could have dreamed up.

    And no, FMINGRAM, what we want in a leader is not someone who will win at any cost. We've lived with that kind of leader for the past 8 years. If Clinton was tough, she would run on her own merits and her own record. But she has no record - only a husband with a questionable legacy and a campaign led by a man who would take the Blackwater security firm on as a client.

    Posted by lucie at 03/05/2008 @ 5:41pm

  181. Amen. The Clinton campaign is below anything that Atwater or Rove could have dreamed up.

    And no, FMINGRAM, what we want in a leader is not someone who will win at any cost. We've lived with that kind of leader for the past 8 years. If Clinton was tough, she would run on her own merits and her own record. But she has no record - only a husband with a questionable legacy and a campaign led by a man who would take the Blackwater security firm on as a client.

    Posted by lucie at 03/05/2008 @ 5:42pm

  182. LEEANNG: Thanks for calling attention to Clinton pandering to the McCain campaign. It was appalling - and all the more appalling because it was almost virtually ignored by the mainstream press. MSNBC (god help them) was the only major media source which responded, and one of their independent commentators, one who is usually pro-Clinton, said that it was a very good speech - if Clinton were seeking the Vice Presidency of the Republican Party.

    Posted by lucie at 03/05/2008 @ 5:52pm

  183. she's got a lot more going for her than that fool Nader.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/05/2008 @ 10:22am

    Except for her inability to push for true progressive solutions.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/05/2008 @ 6:42pm

  184. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

    Ralph has no ability to push through anything. face it, he's a self caricature now.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2008 @ 6:53pm

  185. Posted by SJDUSKIN 03/05/2008 @ 01:02am

    You might have a point about the racist voting.

    When you have 80% percent of an ethnicity voting for 1 candidate how can it be anything but racist!

    Just like the 80% of blacks that are voting for Balack Obama.

    Posted by Blome at 03/05/2008 @ 7:42pm

  186. I am a lifelong Democratic voter, and I am so disappointed with the divisiveness of this Democratic primary campaign, I will vote Republican for the first time.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2008 @ 9:53pm

  187. Posted by CRABWALK 03/05/2008 @ 6:42pm

    she's got a lot more going for her than that fool Nader.

    Ralph Nader is the only candidate willing to stick it to The Man. God bless him for running as third party candidate. I will vote for Ralph Nader, the only candidate willing to speak truth to power.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2008 @ 9:55pm

  188. For whom The Phone rings.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 10:07pm

  189. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/05/2008 @ 9:53pm

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/05/2008 @ 9:55pm

    Really, PONTI....satire just ain't your thing.

    In fact, humor in general not that strong a suit....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 10:12pm

  190. Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 10:12pm

    Hey, if it works for MSNBC, it can work for me too.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/06/2008 @ 06:08am

  191. Posted by LEEANNG 03/05/2008 @ 4:20pm: "What Clinton has done is unconscionable. I realize that her political positions are quite similar to Obama's, and perhaps it's a "six of one, half a dozen of another" proposition when it comes to policy."

    Their stated views are similar but Obama is more likely, based on his record, and his subtle differentiations, of being more reliably committed to changing the political landscape. And this is important: He is immensely more likeable as a politician and a person. He has a smooth elegant charm that is an asset in international relations--at a time when the world condemns us, is a gifted orator and seems to be driven more by high ideals and decency, while Clinton reveals herself to be a bottom-feeder. Clinton exploits perhaps, Obamas's unwillingness to stoop to her level, and as a gentleman, he feels conflicted about battling a woman--giving her an advantage. But she has no reservations about using any unethical tactic--race, religion, feminist exploitation--either pulling the victimization card, or rallying stupid women to bow at her genitalia for political cover. She has exposed herself for the world to see what a lack of integrity she has as a human being, because she has limited political appeal or advantage--Bush-like attacks are all she has. And in a world of bread and circuses, that turned a blind eye to the unrelenting crimes of the Bush years, don't expect any sustained condemnation of clinton's craven moves. The Clintons are small,common, petty, sordid people who appeal to the worst angels of human nature, while Obama asks for a better world. Clinton with her Nixonian ambition and dark jealousy, will cede the issues and hopes of the Democrats to the Right rather than lose. Obama must be cognizant--he must be on his watch, he must quiety develop a strategy to fend off her swiftboating efforts.

    Posted by Lil at 03/06/2008 @ 07:35am

  192. "Truth is when Clinton was the front runner, the press was easy on Obama."

    Posted by HMAN23 03/05/2008 @ 5:19pm

    As I said, a crock. Her coronation as the frontrunner was a given. She had the money, the endorsements, the connections, the machine, the corporate backing, the smug self-satisfaction, the empty filabustering platitudes. No one questioned the queen, until that nasty, impertinent Ted Russert had the audacity to step out of line and challenge her highness.

    Posted by Lil at 03/06/2008 @ 07:45am

  193. The Clintons are small,common, petty, sordid people who appeal to the worst angels of human nature, while Obama asks for a better world. Clinton with her Nixonian ambition and dark jealousy, will cede the issues and hopes of the Democrats to the Right rather than lose. Posted by LIL 03/06/2008 @ 07:35am

    I see things pretty much the same way.

    What strikes me about the Clintons is the ease with which they are able to strike a pose or adopt a stance depending on the circumstances, and then instantly renounce it days later if that's what the situation calls for. One moment it's an honor for Hillary Clinton to be standing on the same stage as Barack Obama; the next she is running TV commercials rendering him in a much darker skin tone and subtly suggesting that he's somebody we should all be afraid of. One moment HC is the everywoman who gets misty-eyed and shows emotionally just how hard it is to compete in a mean-old-man's-world; the next she is wearing dark-rimmed glasses in the middle of night advertising how tough, experienced, and ready she is for the job, unlike her dreamy and naive opponent. On the one hand she espouses a healthcare position that would force everyone to buy insurance, in effect subsidizing the insurance companies (who are, after all, the root of the healthcare problem); the next she's criticizing Obama for having a plan that "leaves 15 million people uninsured." One day she's the inevitable nominee, the other she's the underdog; one day she promises in a TV debate to do whatever's necessary to unify the party and help defeat John McCain in November, the next she's telling us that McCain would be a better president than Obama. One week she pledges not to campaign in Florida; the next she's in Florida campaigning.

    The Clintons are able to get away with such "shape-shifting" because the news cycle is forever updating itself and changing. Who can remember, who even cares, what was said in a debate three weeks ago? What difference does it make that HC is a conniving cynic if she can make statements & run ads suggesting that Obama is?

    Posted by Adscititious at 03/06/2008 @ 08:50am

  194. Tim

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2008 @ 12:37pm

  195. Since when do Democrats take advice from Right Wingers?

    Funny; where were the Democrats when all the righties were attacking Hillary during the Democratic Primary to try to influence the Democratic election, to bloody and drop her numbers, so they could have a weaker candidate to run against? There was hardly a day that the Republican candidates weren't talking about Hillary, or bringing up Hillary in every Republican debate.

    The righties were doing everything possible to influence the Democratic primary, to select who they wanted to run against. 9 Republican (male) Candidates jumping on Hillary and 7 (male) Democratic Candidates attacking Hillary. All the right wing talk radio and TV talking heads joining in on the fight. Even having Republican strategists Karl Rove offering advice to Obama, Robert Novak bating attacks and Republican Strategists (Frank Luntz) going on talk shows pushing Barack Obama. All because they know Hillary was the candidate they feared most. Hillary and a Clinton, so far the only Democrat who has consistently beat Republicans.

    We saw this the last time, too. In '04 when Governor Howard Dean was the stand up, back boned, principled and successful former Governor presidential candidate that stood the best chance and clearest difference to the Republican(candidate Dubya). He had to fight 9 other Democratic Presidential Candidates and the Republican machine. They were forming PAC's with the only goal of "taking out Howard Dean". Like the Conservative PAC, Club for Growth that was airing their Latte Drinking, Volvo Driving, Tax Hiking....TV ad. Or the group that left the Kerry Campaign, like Robert Gibbs (who went in '04 to and continues working on the Obama campaign), to form Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values PAC and ran those Osama/Dean ads to attack him on Security. The Republicans were successful that time, with the help of Democrats too. They "took out Dean", as they pledged.

    After Hillary's incredible win on Tuesday, in a wide diverse group of states, Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, I started seeing Obama supporters actually trying to claim now it was a bad thing that 8 percent of Republicans voted for Hillary. I thought we wanted to show we could draw in Republicans, and also, wasn't that Obama's argument, and he even used in his speeches; that he had Republicans for Obama. The key difference is, will you draw in those Republicans AND KEEP them (and expand) for standing proud on your principles, show backbone and show you fight for the people. Or did you get those votes temporarily because you pandered and talked about Republicans values like privatizing school or heralding and praising a Republican president that busted unions and started the nightmare of "trickle down economics", while putting down the only Democratic president in the past several decades. Or maybe they were even strategic. Even Howard Dean can tell you, even Evangelicals will go to the strong Democrat, because they believe in conviction and principle.

    I know from personal experience. Whether making calls in Ohio and talking with self described Republicans who responded that they "hope Hillary wins the Primary and look forward to voting for her in the General", to my sister's friend who voted for Bush twice (broke my heart) but told my sister that she liked Hillary and liked Bill Clinton and wants Hillary as President. So, I say, WELCOME Republicans for Hillary. Together we can take back our country. And maybe you’ll even convert to the Democrats.

    What I find more disturbing is supposed Progressive or Democratic outlets, that are joining the Corporate Media, in taking sides within the Democratic Party and attacking and smearing Hillary for their preferred candidate. Air America Radio has lost me forever, showing they are using the airwaves to put forth their own agenda. All while they attack Hillary for fighting back on Obama......I'm sorry, and their purpose is exactly what? I tell you, my days are alot more peaceful and calm.

    I leave you with a couple friendly reminders and comments Rush did say. Hillary’s numbers were up long before Rush’s magnanimous instruction for Republicans to vote for her and his strategy sure didn’t even work on Republicans for fellow Republicans when he instructed them not to vote for McCain. And lastly, "I want our party to win"-Rush Limbaugh. Truer words have never been said. Do you think Rush or Republican Strategists would be taking advice or cues from Governor Dean? RIIIIGHT!

    Posted by LindainSFNM at 03/06/2008 @ 1:53pm

  196. All the talk about Clintons comeback is hogwash. As of just over a month ago it was predicted that she would win Ohio and Texas by double digits, the fact that the races were as close as there were just suggest that Obama is still keeping his momentum. Just because she did not lose does not mean that she has made a comeback. Obama's camp is predicting that Hill one 4 more delegates than they did. That is not much considering he has about a 130 delegate lead.

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/06/2008 @ 4:52pm

  197. Now It Gets Dangerous for Democrats?

    Hell, now it dangerous for all of us!

    I do not fully subscribe to Nichols' analysis about the nature of the conflict being stirred-up between Clinton and Obama.

    In fact, I sense a darker and more malevolent hand in the stirring of this pot than merely Clinton and Obama's natural tendencies to compete with each other, by fair or tough tactics, for the nomination. I also see a comparison of campaign ‘08 more with ‘68 than with the 1972 campaign that Nichols references.

    Yes, a ruling elite ‘global corporatist Empire' hiding behind the facade of this ‘Vichy American' faux government is entirely unified, and any orchestrated conflict between these initially vetted candidates is purely to escalate their level of publicly guaranteed allegiance to the corporatist Empire's absolute sovereignty.

    By upping the ante on how loyal each of the remaining candidates will be in their respective pledges to the corporatist Empire's foreign (war) and domestic (economic) policies this allows the corporatist Empire to extract an accelerated spiral-downward of the "least of the worse" during the pre-election campaign --- in order to insure that the final choice of only two candidates (which the American people still think they have any control over through their wanning voting rights) will already be driven, by competition, to the lowest possible level before the election.

    Secondarily, this drive to "say and pledge anything" will also better insure that the corporatist Empire will never again find that they have an uncooperative president who has to be dealt with through extraordinary measures once actually in office -- like JFK or his brother.

    This "race to the bottom" seems to be going extremely well, as noted.

    Who knows? Perhaps Obama's role by the corporatist Empire, in this ‘three card monte' scam of ‘08 is nothing more than being the leftish stand-in for Nader --– while the real Nader exposes and attacks the real empire?

    Posted by amacd at 03/06/2008 @ 8:18pm

  198. Posted by AMACD 03/06/2008 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person

    conspiracy nut?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2008 @ 8:54pm

  199. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/06/2008 @ 8:54pm

    Naw, he's just from California.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/06/2008 @ 11:59pm

  200. I did not know much about Hillary before, but I used to think very highly of Bill. Not anymore. Both Hillary and Bill are great team together of self-serving with their sense of entitlement. They will destroy anything and anyone along the way in order to win. I am sure if Hillary wins the nomination, a lot of Democrats will vote for McCain. At least McCain has more integrity than the Clintons.

    Posted by david_3212 at 03/08/2008 @ 3:47pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
32 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
44 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
28 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
58 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman