« "No Surprises" | Main | Dear Chris Matthews: Please Do Your Job »

February 19, 2008

Comments

Maybe going negative doesn't work all the time.

Listening to both Clinton's speech and Obama's, the crowd seems to me to be much more charged for Obama's. Of course I am biased.

Speaking of the Obamas and their connection to the Great Communist Conspiracy: Lisa Schiffren at the NRO Corner lays it all out for us

(Via John Cole)

Honestly: how can these people write this stuff with a straight face?

two words:

"whoo" and "hoo."

"Honestly: how can these people write this stuff with a straight face?"

Maybe they don't. :)

I am so profoundly relieved. I really was not looking forward to a Hillary McCain match up. The thought of her as our standard bearer makes my stomach clench.

He had me at "broadband" (sigh)....

I've never listened to Obama make a speech before. He's really good, isn't he?

Wisconsin

He had me before, but within the last minute or so I've heard both "locking down loose nuclear weapons" and "restore habeas corpus".

Rats, that last comment was meant to display this picture.

Talk about momentum!

Clinton was supposed to speak at 8:30 and Obama at 9:30, but she moved her speech to 9:15 -- and got cut off after a few minutes so that Obama's speech could be broadcast. Clinton played chicken with the networks and lost.

Commentary on Obama speech:

“I will end tax breaks on companies that ship jobs overseas.”

There is a tax on things produced overseas. It’s called a tariff. Tariffs averaged around 40% in the 1800s and dropped to 10% after WWII, and are now next to nothing. Tariffs have been replace with income taxes. The link below is to historic pre-NAFTA tariffs.

“Challenge the special interests in Washington.”

A very large percentage of the special interests in Washington are the one’s who get a higher rate of return on investment by taking advantage of $3/day labor in Guatemala to get around paying an American $20/hour.

“They will not run my White House.”

I’ll believe that the second that he proposes returning tariffs to reasonable levels that protect American workers. But, my prediction just came true as I type.

“We embrace Globalization.” (ching)

“You are going to have to work in exchange for the $4000 I will give each and every one of you.”

That, Barack, is called a draft. Creepiest moment of the speech.

“We are spending $9 billion dollars a month in Iraq.”

And we are making $300 billion dollars a month in unfunded promises.

“I will bring our troops home in 2009.”

Good. You’ve got my vote. And I’m going to stock up on some supplies.

http://brickoven.blogspot.com/2008/02/bill-becomes-protectionist.html

This will be very hard for Clinton to spin if she stays 10 or more points behind. According to the exit polls, about the only category Clinton won was over 60.

Of course, if the weather had been better maybe more of them would have been able to get out to vote.

Or, probably a bunch of people from Illinois crossed the border and illegally registered to vote under the same day voting system.

Or, it was all those Republicans who voted for Obama. (Interesting side note. Clinton won 1/3 of the Republican vote, which I think may be her highest percentage. Reading some of the newspaper accounts in WI, a lot of them voted because they wanted her to win, figuring McCain can beat her.)

Or, it was all Penn's fault. (Oops, I don't think they will use that one.)

Any more examples of why this won't really matter?

I've never listened to Obama make a speech before. He's really good, isn't he?

He's okay.

Bill: the $4k thing is: if you choose to do community service, you get the $4k. That's no more a draft than the present all-volunteer army is -- I mean, it gives you money if you want to do something too.

By what form of reasoning are McCain and Clinton using to claim that Obama is all rhetoric and no action?! Until one of these candidates is elected to the Presidency, there is no conceivable way to rightly say that Obama (or Clinton, or McCain) won't deliver on campaign promises. Of course, the record shows that politicians overall tend to promise a lot in comparison to what they accomplish in office. McCain and Clinton need to grow up and drop this childish argument and focus on the final elections in the primaries.

"That, Barack, is called a draft. Creepiest moment of the speech."

No, it is not, since it will be totally voluntary. If you want the $4,000 credit, you do something in return. But you don't have to accept the credit.

"It appears that the ‘Protectionists’ are getting a bad rap; customs duties were higher in the 19th Century that they were during the Depression."

Good thing the American economy in similar in structure today to what it was in the 1820s, so the effects would be the same.

Bill, there's opinion, and there's educated opinion (I don't mean in a formal sense; I mean in the "knowing what one is talking about" sense). Your opinions on economics aren't interesting, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How things "seem" to someone who lacks much knowledge of a subject isn't going to lend much genuine insight.

[...] “You are going to have to work in exchange for the $4000 I will give each and every one of you.”

That, Barack, is called a draft. Creepiest moment of the speech.

If you can link -- if you can ever learn to link -- to where he proposed people be compelled in any way, you might be right.

So all you have to do is do that.

There is a tax on things produced overseas. It’s called a tariff. Tariffs averaged around 40% in the 1800s and dropped to 10% after WWII, and are now next to nothing. Tariffs have been replace with income taxes. The link below is to historic pre-NAFTA tariffs.

Hey Bill, what's the going tariff on a line from an overseas call center? What's the income tax bracket for an outsourced tech support employee?

A very large percentage of the special interests in Washington are the one’s who get a higher rate of return on investment by taking advantage of $3/day labor in Guatemala to get around paying an American $20/hour.

Yeah, it's almost as if they don't have to pay their employees income taxes and they just pocket the difference.

And we are making $300 billion dollars a month in unfunded promises.

Yeah, if there's one thing we've learned from the subprime crunch, it's that liquidity is overrated. What's the going rate on an unfunded promise? How about in Euros?

Clinton is explaining how she'll "stand up for [me]" and "fight for [me]."

Where was she in 2003, 2004, and 2005, fighting against putting our troops into Iraq and keeping them there?

Where was she fighting for me when she effectively said "you're a videogamer? I want to censor your medium, and intimidate game producers"?

Etc., etc., etc.

Gamers don't vote.

"Gamers don't vote."

Oh I don't know. Figuratively speaking someone seems to have turned on the 'extra gibs' setting for these primaries.

I just gave a midterm this evening and there was a poster in the exam room that said "Don't Vote! It's unfair and a waste of your time." Admittedly, it was for a talk by... I think it was one of our feminist organizations, I didn't quite recognize the title, but still.

Oh I don't know. Figuratively speaking someone seems to have turned on the 'extra gibs' setting for these primaries.

I hear there are epic loots. Lewtz. Whatever. More dots!

personally, I love a candidate who admits that he can't make everything perfect for us without us doing a little something back.

that was the biggest applause line in SC when I saw him speak, too.

"Gamers don't vote."

Some people will laugh and think it ridiculous that I can mention that issue and the war in the same breath, but Clinton's argument, her line, is that I can "trust her to fight for me."

But she already said "screw you" to more than one of the interest groups I'm a member of, so I know for a a fact I can't trust her to fight for me, and I know for a fact that she will, at times, fight against my interests and those I believe in.

That may turn out to be true of Barack Obama at some point, to some degree, but it hasn't happened yet.

And for me, it's not an issue about video gaming, but an issue of how willing Clinton is to demagogue a clear free speech issue if she think it will give her political mileage. She was happy to toss video games under the bus, for the sake of a week or so's run on an issue, when the principle is absolutely identical to that of books, film, art, and all other forms of speech.

It's only on top of that, that my personal sense of irritation as a computer gamer is punched.

(Say, anyone ever want to play something with me on teh internets? CoD4, Star Wars Battlefront II, Total War:Somethingorother, or whatever we might have in common? E-mail me.)

I believe this is the most interesting political event every. I am a 25 year old computer specialist (no wife, no children) and honestly I never paid any attention to the anything "political" in previous events. I find myself following the trail of my favorite candidate everywhere I go. Here is the secret: With all the call in and vote reality shows on television today most of my generation glues themselves to their television for 30-60 minutes out of their leisure time, work time, family time, or will make time, then turn around and grab their internet enable cell phones, text their vote, cross their fingers, and hope their selection makes it to the next round. Similar practices are being entertained during this electoral event. These candidates gain the attention of the young and it’s Dancing with the Stars all over again. Record voter turn outs are a direct reflection of our call in/text in and vote culture that is quickly overtaking the world.
I, who can only speak for himself, understand that no matter which Presidential candidate actually makes it to the White House, gas prices will never fall below $2.00 a gallon, health care cost will continue to rise and the lottery is the only hope of a decent retirement for my generation. Be that what it may, I really enjoy watching the way the candidates manipulate, bend and twist, and flat out lie to get votes. Amazing how these candidates change focus based directly on who they are speaking to, quickly to change the direction of their focus depending on the direction of the wind. Thru basic (very basic) research of the former presidents there is key element to take the trophy, surprisingly these candidates with their millions of dollars and their highly educated staff just haven’t clued in on it yet . . . . “What a race, are you watching? No, channel 3. I can’t believe they said that! Call the store, order more wings, while the debate is under review, they will be here before half time. Sure, my house for Hawaii and Wisconsin, well watch on high def!”

Re Obama's having the restoration of Habeas Corpus in the stump speech, he's been doing that for at least a month now.

He did have a good line connected with it tonight, that was at least new to me. Going from memory, so probably a bit wrong, it was something like:

"You can have a President that has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will follow the Constitution"

On the gamer thing, that is admittedly one of the turnoffs about the HRC canidacy (censorship) but on a lighter note: The Paultards staged a march in WoW, seriously I almost re-upped just to watch that!

Via John Cole, this is funny:

"For his part, Mr. Obama seems to have moved past the controversy altogether, greeting his audience at a campaign rally in El Paso with his trademark welcome: “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash.”"

(Note: it's parody)

We all know it’s really hard to believe what we here since the world is so "action driven", I wish one candidate, just one, would just throw something out there that hits home. They all speak about the economy and there plans but just tell me that they are going to try to have the government pitch in on the cable bill or take care of the electric bill once a month if I pay it on time for six months, or I'll settle for just a free semester of class or can the working man get one of those grocery cards??? Is that just too much to ask for. True or false tell me something like that and you go my vote, at least lead me believe that you were thinking about the working man when you paid somebody to write the speech.

Jason B: On at least one of your expectations, you've been sold a lie, I'm afraid. Social Security will be safe in perpetuity, given only very minor adjustments, if we have presidents who take the obligation to protect it seriously. The only reason it's ever in trouble is because Republican administrations have lied about it, looted it, threatened to simply disregard government obligations in the form of bonds, and otherwise behaved like the amoral thugs they are. But nothing prohibits the rest of us from resuming the practice of voting for competent and honest administrations, and one reason to do that is so that you won't have to rely on the lottery in old age.

There are government programs at serious structural risk right now. Medicaid needs attention from those aforementioned honest and competent people. Right now Social Security needs nothing at all, and all it will ever need in the next fifty years or so is some raising of the threshold below which income is taxed for SS. (If the threshold were abolished and all income taxed for it, that would be best, but raising it some would solve the problem.)

Each year the Social Security folks prepare three sets of projections for the financial future and what it would mean for the fund. There's an optimistic projection (everything will be great, or at least never more than quite fine), a mid-range one, and a pessimistic one. Over the course of several decades, the mid-range one has consistently been the closest to accurate - generally within a fraction of a percentage of real developments. And if it keeps that up, as it has for longer than you've been alive :), the above all holds true. The only way to get to a crisis of the sort that SS abolishers talk about is for the pessimistic conditions to apply for decades on end. They haven't. There's no reason to believe they will. And even if they did, it would mean only that SS funding would become a more hotly debated priority - it would mean radical shrinking or worse only if (for instance) after decades of financial calamity worse than the Great Depression, the public decided that it was still more important to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. (In the optimistic case there's never a shortfall at all, but we haven't been there and don't seem likely to be.)

One way to check this kind of thing is to trace back the sources. Who tells you that Social Security is doomed? Who says it isn't? Who has a history of lying to you and the rest of us while grabbing wealth and power for themselves, and who doesn't? Who's shown they can handle money responsibly, and who keeps spending like drunken sailors and lying about it? And so on. The campaign to spread belief in Social Security's doom has been an unusually successful lie, but it's a lie nonetheless. And yes, I use the word evoking intent quite deliberately. The folks who started the story and who renew it from time to time know they're abusing the facts. We don't have to fall for it, however.

Re: Draft
Hilzoy/Gary-

I think I heard “each and every one of you” twice out of Obama on this; tonight was the second time.

Going over to his web-site, he uses the word ‘Universal’. Can I opt out of universal health care? It sounds to me like it really is his intention is to turn all college students into civil servants working in ideological programs.

Even if it is optional (it will have to be), and only 85% take him up on the money, do you think they will wear uniforms?

@Gary, regarding the videogames issue:

Sounds like a microtrend.

On a serious note, I do know a small number of people who have chosen to support Barry based exclusively on his liberal attitude toward internet neutrality and content regulation. Good for him, earning a non-trivial number of votes by standing up for a relatively unpopular (and definitely unsexy) issue. See Laurence Lessig's great YouTube endorsement of Obama for more details about specific policies.

Bill: joining the army is available to "each and every one of us" (well, OK, not people with disabling medical problems, or 100 extra pounds, but each and every one of us who meets certain conditions. But the "available" part means that no one will force us to accept the Army's offer to help us be all that we can be.

Honestly: it's a tax credit, not a corvee.

Bill, Obama's plan has no universal mandate. If he's elected, you be free to continue wasting your own money by paying more and getting less, and also free to continue feeling good about avoiding any contribution to the well-being of other citizens. What the appeal of being both wasteful and fundamentally un-American (the general welfare is, after all, one of our most basic shared goals) is, I couldn't really say, but you can keep hewing to it.

OT: Larry Lessig launches an exploratory site to decide whether to run for the CA-12 House seat open after Lantos's death. Not sure how I feel about it, but it would be interesting to have a major geek in Congress.

"It sounds to me like it really is his intention is to turn all college students into civil servants working in ideological programs."

Bill, I suggest that you'd make a great deal of progress in actually understanding people and issues if you'd subtract "it seems to me" from your conceptual toolbox of useful approaches to understanding any issue, since it isn't a useful approach.

Finding out what things actually are, or what people actually believe, on the other hand, rather than substituting our imagination and our impressions, is useful.

"Even if it is optional (it will have to be), and only 85% take him up on the money, do you think they will wear uniforms?"

No. How alarming do you find AmeriCorps?

Since you seem constitutionally unable, or unwilling, to link, I assume you're talking about this;

Barack Obama's Plan for Universal Voluntary Public Service
That's the single use of the word "universal" on that page. Which part of "voluntary" gave you trouble?

What the appeal of being both wasteful and fundamentally un-American (the general welfare is, after all, one of our most basic shared goals) is, I couldn't really say, but you can keep hewing to it.

Look, they're just going to waste it on survival. Why should we positively reinforce not being rich? Now that's un-American.

It is quite obvious that the Clintons are now weakened by Wisconsin result, also weary and fearful of power of speech. I can see an Obama and McCain contest for the white house but Hillary been dropped in the race. For Hillary to have lost to Obama by double digits (15%) in a state that could define her stake in this race means she needs to accept fate. She is better of leaving the stage when her ovation is not loudest but faintly loud rather than waiting for the boooh time.

It is quite obvious that the Clintons are now weakened by Wisconsin result, also weary and fearful of power of speech. I can see an Obama and McCain contest for the white house but Hillary been dropped in the race. For Hillary to have lost to Obama by double digits (15%) in a state that could define her stake in this race means she needs to accept fate. She is better of leaving the stage when her ovation is not loudest but faintly loud rather than waiting for the boooh time.

Geez, Adam, I was starting to nod off after a busy day of allergy problems, and your deadpan scared me awake again. Good work. :)

I really think that Hillary is looking at a big let down. She will never win and Im glad That woman makes me sick. The lies and the fake smile and the fake concern for the people is so sickening that I have to take a pill to get better. That is a crying shame. Hope all is well for those in the world because it is getting so bad out there and we need a good person to handel all of are trouble in this country as well as overseas. GOOD LUCK OBAMA!

Debra: I don't think she's our best candidate this year, and a few of the things she's done during the campaign have bothered me. That said, she's a good and hardworking legislator, smart as a whip, and has a lot of good policies. She is stronger than several people we have actually nominated (Kerry, Dukakis...).

KCinDC: Not sure how I feel about it, but it would be interesting to have a major geek [Lawrence Lessig] in Congress.

I saw him give his "Free Culture" presentation at Usenix 2002. He is a great speaker. It's not my district, alas. I would certainly vote for him.

To address the Michelle Obama comment about this year being the first time she was "really proud" to be an American. Maybe she "really" meant this was the first time she was proud to be an American...after all, she's a BLACK FEMALE. Through the space program, the ending of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall...while all these great things were happening, she was being discriminated against by racist bigots and male chauvinists. And today, we have a woman and a black man with a real shot at the Presidency. It seems pretty reasonable to me that this time in American history, could be her proudest moment. She's witnessing change in a way that's very profound in the collection of her life experiences; and in a way that too many of her critics are too myopic and hateful to appreciate. I mean, are they suggesting she's a closet communist? Get off her back and lets focus on policy issues, not non-issues!

I saw it at OSCon, ral. I guess that was 2002. My only concerns are that some people really like the Democratic candidate who's already in line and I'm not sure Congress is the best place for Lessig. I think I'll let the Democrats in that district make up their own minds.

the lottery is the only hope of a decent retirement for my generation.

Here is a tip, Jason B:

Why don't you make an effort to save or invest 10% or your annual income? Many employers offer 401K plans. An IRA may be initially harder to start, but if 401K is not available, you can try that. That money that you save, you will not miss now, and in a few years if your apply for a mortgage, you will find that your savings are included in your net worth. Over time, that money will grow. Sure, you might temporarily lose a lot if the stock or bond markets go bad. But hey, go long, diversify, and you are all good. And wouldn't it make you feel good that you have at least made an effort for your own future security?

" Maybe she "really" meant this was the first time she was proud to be an American...after all, she's a BLACK FEMALE. "

Or maybe the 'really' was just an intensifier, meaning 'very': this is the first time she's been *very* proud of her country.

Lay off the Duke. Dukakis has lots of upside, and he plays baseball with my kid. I like him a lot more than Hillary, though that is directly related to baseball playing with my kid, so she has real upside potential in the my feelings stakes.

David: sorry. I'm from MA, and was working in the State Legislature while Dukakis was governor. When he was running for the nomination, I thought: noooooooo! and worked my heart out for Bruce Babbitt.

going over some other blogs tonight, sometimes i think Obama will have to be two years into his second term before the HRC people will stop insisting his every massive blowout win isn't really all that meaningful.

If Michelle Obama'a husband is elected, she promises not to hate America or be ashamed of America anymore. Will she throw in a promise that her family would deign to wear little American flag lapel pins, as well? Hmm, that offer would be tempting, but for the haters and ashameders at large, I really don't think an Obama presidency would be enough to turn them. After all, there will always be that crowd for whom refusal to wear a flag lapel pin is the highest form of patriotism.

Thanks, Bruce; hope you can get to sleep in the face of my biting sarcasm. ;) I was actually aping a former professor:

"If you give money to poor people, they're going to squander it on food, clothing, and shelter. Then it's gone. Hear what I'm sayin'? Poor people are notorious for that. They need to eat, clothe themselves, get out of the weather... But if you give that money to a rich person, they'll squander it -- but only some of it. Hummingbird Tongue Paté!... you can only squander so much. They invest the rest. That feeds the machine."
(After the last few days I feel that I should assiduously cite my sources.) Anyway, that was always a pretty entertaining way to spend the morning. Certainly kept me awake -- the one quoted above in particular, until I realized (after some pondering) that he was just messing with us.

The Obama campaign has a program where they ask you to match the donation of someone donating for the first time. You can set it to any amount you want, $5, $10,. etc.

Anyway, I've done this twice so far, and both the times the matchee can opt to send the matcher an email.

The first time I did it($10), the first-time donor was from TEXAS.

The second time, tonight,($25), the donor came from OHIO.

I hope Hillary is building a new "firewall" primary right now. May I suggest Mars?

Holy crap, Obama thumped Hillary here. Holy crizzap.

So is Obama - the only candidate consistently against NAFTA going to make the USA all protectionist and withdraw it from regional economic agreements?

Hmmm, good luck with that as a long term strategy.

DaveC, I saw your response to Jason and thought it was nice that for once you'd actually posted a comment not motivated by anger at your neighbor or co-worker or whatever liberal has set you off this time. But I see now that that was just a momentary distraction from your true purpose, the usual venting.

I'll take the people who think refusing to wear a flag pin is the highest form of patriotism over the ones who think wearing one is is the highest form of patriotism any day.

The percentage of the Federal budget spent on social programs was 0% in 1930, hit 10% in 1947, is around 66% today, and is projected to be around 75% in 2112 (higher after tonight’s speech). The manufacturing tax base that supports this spending, is being sent overseas.

Sources: Jobs Reports and Federal Budgets

Moody’s has publicly warned the government of a downgrade of the credit rating unless something changes. I do not understand the argument that the current system is sustainable.

And, for the record, my first Presidential vote was for Dukakis. Maybe Adam and I had the same professors.

“But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.”

It is ironic that the Candidate who doesn’t wear a flag pin is the same candidate that will be deciding what color uniforms his various Corps will wear.

Yes, I know they won’t wear them all the time, just in the performance of their duties.

Oh come on KC, you know I'm right. There are always going to be people grousing about America, and they are not going to be marching to make China or Rwanda or Kosovo more integrated and multicultural, if that's the idea. Honest to goodness, if the Democrats rounded up all the evangelicals and put them in concentration camps, it still wouldn't keep most of the world from disliking or envying America. Somebody is always going to have a problem with US. Yes, dissenting is all the rage. What I'm saying is that there are lots of conservatives who have minority views that don't refuse to wear flag pins because most people will not agree that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Sure there are a few Fred Phelps types out there, but that doesn't apply to most social conservatives. I'm not being angry, I'm just harrumphing.

You know, Al Giordano at The Field is really good. Now he points out that Jan. fundraising numbers come out tomorrow, and points to this:

"The Obama campaign also tells NBC News that their January money total was actually $4 million more than they had previously claimed -- due to more money coming in at the end of the month than they'd anticipated. A spokesman says the actual total was $36 million -- not $32 million -- which in itself was a one-month record."

Of course there are always going to be people in the rest of the world who don't like the United States, DaveC. That doesn't mean the number is unchangeable. In fact, it's obvious changeable, because it's gone way up during the Bush administration. We are much more disliked than we used to be, and that hurts our national interest.

Hawaii report: the Honolulu Advertiser says that turnout in my state legislative district--one of 51--was well over half the previous record statewide turnout for a caucus. I didn't count, but there were a whole bunch of people there. This district is pretty good about getting out to vote so you can't extrapolate too much, but turnout statewide should be several times the previous record. That can't be bad for the local boy.

Wow. And thanks for the local report -- the CNN Hawai'i results page is maddeningly blank.

I wouldn't stay up for it. My caucus was a zoo and I'm hearing a lot of similar reports from elsewhere around the state. It's probably going to be a while.

Couple of thoughts, Was it me or did Hillary looked like a dickens character tonight, Please Sir may I have some more, who is advising her with this weak material.

Talk is a great motivation tool, great speakers get jobs, get people investing in other companies, and things get done.

So why should a great talker like Obama be blasted for just talking, for just talking, muslims, christians, jews get things done. So Im I right that another great talker Obama can get everyone going in the same direction, just like the biggest organizations in the world of religion ?. its only talk but look how it makes peoples lives better.

angus cooney Boston

The early Hawaii results at only 8% reporting, has Obama with 2,258 votes and 77% of the vote to Clinton's 666 votes -- hey, it's just a moment's results -- and 23%.

But 8% doesn't mean much. Oddly, at the same time, the county results has 0 results.

"Talk is a great motivation tool, great speakers get jobs, get people investing in other companies, and things get done."

It's like she's running against her husband.

With 68% reporting in Hawaii, it's Obama with 20,974 votes and 76% of the vote, Clinton 6,529 and 24%, and 44 votes for uncomitted.

But, you know, Asians will never vote in large numbers for Obama, because of racism.

But Hawaii doesn't count, because it's his home state. And Wisconsin doesn't count either, because of, umm, the cheese.

My personal favorite from another blog: Wisconsin doesn't count because it wears part of Michigan like a hat.

All I have to say to today's slayings is HA, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!

The "poor, poor" Clinton Machine is imploding. It is simply amazing how this one time can't miss front-runner is now grasping for straws as she hopes to somehow hang in the race. What a loser!

This goes to show everyone that you have to play the game. No one is guaranteed anything. It wasn't too long ago that all the political know-it-alls had Hillary getting her coronation to the throne. What a humbling smackdown Hillary got! It couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

Can we finally say "good-bye" to the losers from Arkansas. And I say Arkansas because she is not a true New Yorker. She is a phoney!!!

I wonder what spin all of these Hillary supporters are going to put on this clocking that she is getting.

Where are: Lany Davis, Alan Colmes and all the losers who said that she would trounce Obama. What pathetic losers they are. Finally, and I mean finally, America woke up and realized the disaster that Hillary is. I just hope that come March 4, Obama unleashes the final blow to knock her out once and for all.

The most enjoyable part of this amazing turn of events is that Hillary didn't see it coming! She had no clue that there would be someone else that could stand up to her and actually slap her down.

Man 'o man, life can be so humbling!!!

Why don't you make an effort to save or invest 10% or your annual income? Many employers offer 401K plans. An IRA may be initially harder to start, but if 401K is not available, you can try that. That money that you save, you will not miss now . . .

Mind if I ask you to explain just how you imagine you're in a position to know precisely, to the percentage, how much of a complete stranger's income will or will not be missed at home if he diverts it to retirement savings?

Rob! The donor in Ohio was me!!!!! And you inspired me to do that for someone else!

As for the flag pin baloney, I tend to agree with Roy Edroso on that topic.

JD,

Ask and thou shalt receive:

the real news tonight is the demonstration of how poorly caucus results reflect voter sentiment. The DC beauty contest, in which Clinton is going to wind up about 3-6 pts behind Obama (100% reporting means nothing—that’s the result of poll voting, but there are still over 350,000 “mail in ballots” (both parties combined) which is slightly less than 30% of the total votes cast. (and its not even 100% reporting, according to the Washington state site, King and Pierce counties are still out—and King is an Obama stronghold with 145,000 ballots still uncounted).

The really interesting stuff is happening on the Republican side, where delegates were at stake in both the caucuses (held feb 9), and the primaries. In the caucuses, McCain got 25.9%, Huckabee 23.5%, Paul 21.6%, Romney 15.4% and uncommitted 13.5%. In tonight’s primary, its McCain 48.7%, Huckabee 21.2%, Paul 7.3%, Romney 20.5% and other candidates splitting 2.1%.

These numbers should put to rest the idea that caucus results come anywhere close to reflecting the results one would get in a primary election.

I think, Phil, that your 6:41 is a smidge over-sensitive.

Kleiman has a fine http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/02/ceasefire.php>post up. I'm with him: Sen. Clinton will play an essential role in getting my guy elected in November, and in getting legislation through.

Bill's paranoia is showing again.

DaveC's misreading and misunderstanding of other people's feelings is happening again.

Rob!'s and femdem's enthusiasm is showing again.

Which of the three is preferable?

Something I never thought I would say in my entire life: I’m actually starting to feel sorry for HRC. Yes the schadenfruende has been great, but it’s like a food that is just too rich. Eat too much of it and after a while even though you know it’s something that tastes great and you really like - it starts to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

But I can visualize how she must have felt going to bed last night. Starting from a position of inevitability (and after the 2006 elections it wasn’t just that she was the inevitable D candidate, but the inevitable President), losing those first few contests (it’s just a flesh wound, really), waking up somewhere along the way and realizing it was actually a contest and she was going to have to actually work for it, changing tactics and staff and wondering why nothing was working, now to actual desperation… At this point some people must be whispering to her that she needs to start thinking about a graceful “exit strategy”. She’s gone from thinking about the new carpet for the oval office and how she was ever going to exorcise the place of W to wondering what she can do to win two lousy states.

It’s not going to change how I feel about her overall, but watching someone’s lifelong dreams shatter on the public stage like this – I’m almost ready to avert my eyes…

Pretty much as I predicted... except that Obama won. I think this is largely due to the number of votes cast.

Why don't you make an effort to save or invest 10% or your annual income?

You could invest in, say, mortgage-backed securities.

Gosh darn it OCSteve. You are a really nice guy. Not just a nice guy. I am really proud to participate on this site with you, not just proud.

Honest to goodness, if the Democrats rounded up all the evangelicals and put them in concentration camps, it still wouldn't keep most of the world from disliking or envying America.

My guess is that putting tens of millions of people into concentration camps would make people like us less.

Assuming the Wikipedia map is correct -- it seems to be, I'm just too lazy to reconfirm off the CNN election tracker -- Hillary won only 10 counties of 72 here in Wisconsin, losing not only Madison but also Milwaukee and Green Bay. In fact, I don't think she won a major city at all, which is kind of flabbergasting, and she at best split the north with Obama. That's... insane. Wow.

Thanks John. But I’ll probably feel some sympathy for McCain too when Obama cleans his clock in the general. ;)

Ignoring her campaign which I found, as a black person, offensive, I can't get past her cluster bomb vote, Iraq, K-L, stance against retroactive application of the USSC guidelines, her position on driver's licenses for the undocumented, and her desire to remove due process (in the immigration system) from immigrants who commit a crime. These are way to right-wingy for me and they hurt a lot of people who have little pull in the government.


If the situation was reversed and Obama had lost 10 (11) in a row and Clinton was eating into his base I can't see the party leaders sitting idly by while he went more and more negative trying to take her down. They'd come to him and say "Nice try. For the sake of the party and the GE go away". And they'd do it now before his "firewall states" which he'd have to win by trashing her.

I doubt we'll see that happen in this circumstance though. Whether it be out of fear or respect I think they'll let HRC damage the party and the Dems GE election chances by going super negative on Obama in the next couple of weeks.

BTW, the corrected link for Phil's 7:08am is here.

527 set up by Clinton backers specifically to attack Obama.

I'm curious whether, if Clinton performs poorly in Texas/Pennsylvania/Ohio, she'll withdraw gracefully or go down swinging. And whether Obama, feeling that he's got the nomination in hand, is going to start going after McCain. Could be interesting...

CharlieCarp, re: cease fire, that depends entirely on Clinton, doesn't it?

Obama is already going after McCain, by name, and McCain is already going after Obama, albeit obliquely.

I started out with no particular preferences in the primaries, then went to supporting Clinton, to supporting Obama, and then to *really* supporting Obama.

Though the past few weeks have seriously tarnished my opinion of Clinton, I never had any animus towards her. And I cannot imagine how she feels, after having devoted so much of her self to this race, to see Obama and McCain go after each other and all but ignore her.

Femdem: "Rob! The donor in Ohio was me!!!!! And you inspired me to do that for someone else!" -- Yay ObWi!

Also, yay OCSteve.

There are things I have a hard time getting past, though as I've said, I would have. But she is, as OCSteve said, a person. Moreover, she is a person who would have made a decent President. Personally, I think Obama will make a better one, possibly a great one, though that has yet to be seen, but still.

Back in the 1990s, I remember watching some of the stuff people were doing to the Clintons on the right, and thinking: I Will Not be like that, ever, at least I'll try not to. The point of saying that wasn't 'I will never be mean to the Clintons', but: I will not let myself get to the point where I can make jokes about someone's teenage daughter's looks without remembering that she is, after all, a teenager, or assume that if someone doesn't divorce her philandering husband, the only possible reason is blind ambition, as though the decision whether or not to get divorced wasn't necessarily very complicated for any actual human being, or in general forget that these are people we're talking about.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, a person who if I read this right, approached the campaign with more of a sense of entitlement than I like, a cautious and conventional approach to politics that turns out to have been all wrong for this year, and the wrong staff (which, of course, she hired.) But as OCSteve said, she's also someone whose ambitions are crumbling right about now, and that is never an easy thing, at all. Moreover, if I think about the people who might genuinely tempt me to schadenfreude -- Ann Coulter, say, whose entire life seems to be about venom -- then the idea of feeling it about someone who really has done good work, and will probably do a lot more of it once if she stops running for President -- just seems all wrong.

Obama started going against McCain after he won the Potomac primary. He's going to continue, because it not only helps him in the general, it boosts him in the primary. When Obama's criticizing McCain and Clinton is criticizing Obama, who are Democrats going to vote for?

Clinton website set up to argue for a change in the rules.

Things I devoutly hope are wrong:

"Over the past few days, her operation has begun to sharpen the “contrasts” between HRC and BHO. Rightly or wrongly, her people simply do not believe they can do much now to change her fundamental message on the positive side: that she’s readier than Obama to assume the presidency on day one; that she’s a fighter for kids and families and for the beleaguered middle class; that she’s someone with a deep knowledge of public policy and that she can deliver. Instead, her people see their main chance as driving home a series of negative messages about Obama: the accusations of rhetorical plagiarism, of his inconsistency between talk and action, of his vacuousness and hypocrisy. One way of looking at Wisconsin, where these messages failed to move the needle much, is that they fell flat. Another way to see things is that the Clintonites started hammering too late and too soft.

Trust me when I tell you that the latter is the view in Clintonland. That they have more arrows in their quiver to fire at Obama, charges they believe will cast doubt on the hopemonger, raising the specter (terrifying to many Democrats) that John McCain and the Republican machine will make mincemeat of him. Trust me when I tell you that you ain't seen nothing yet."

(I plan to maintain my anti-schadenfreude stance regardless. But no schadenfreude obviously doesn't mean no criticism.)

Trust me when I tell you that you ain't seen nothing yet.

Any one got any guesses? Put me down for a commercial that mentions the drug use and hints he was a dealer (and I bet Clinton brings it up in the next debate). Also, another commercial saying that he's a fabricator that made up his autobiography.

Okay, no schadenfreude; I am happy to be reminded that there is a high road and to be invited to stay on it.

But is it okay to hope that all the harm the Clinton campaign attempts to do to Obama by "you ain't seen nothing yet" (if that turns out to be where they go now) rebounds off him straight back at her? Maybe the high road is to hope that the nastiness just dissolves into the air and is blown away by the breeze. Short of that fanciful outcome, if her campaign's nastiness has to do harm somewhere, I don't feel the last bit out of line in hoping that it hurts her campaign instead of his.

Which I think is quite the likely outcome, with or without my hoping.

But then, I don't want to get too hopeful, do I?

I think I agree with Kos. It's good to have the contest go on a bit longer to build up infrastructure in more states that will be useful in the general. And if Clinton wants to demonstrate that Obama is able to stand up to smears, she'll be damaging her own reputation but it could help Obama for the general.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad