« Ummm... | Main | Clinton's Dangerous Liaisons »

May 31, 2008

Comments

This may be a silly question, but what does it mean to "take this to the credentials committee"? Second, how does a primary with out all of the major candidates in anyway represent a 'fair reflection' of the voters?

There IS a way to defuse this. It requires supers to move en masse, and has to include a number of Hillary's switching sides.

I suspect that after Tuesday, you'll see Carter and Gore endorse, see the bulk of the remaining supers endorse, and probably see a significant number of Hillary's people moving across.

Enough that even a 100% seating of Michigan and Florida, even if Obama gets NO Michigan delegates, wouldn't change the outcome.

Hillary Clinton may not be ready for this to be over, but I suspect a lot of her more...politically sensitive....superdelegate supporters are.

Sigh. Prior to this primary, I've been fairly pro-Clinton--and more pro-Hillary than pro-Bill.

But now I'm glad that I'm moving (from Michigan) to a state that won't be anywhere close to in play, so that if Clinton *is* the nominee, I don't have to vote for her.

Classless to the end. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

Numbers below reprinted from The GOS . Hopefully they'll line up (in the comment, that is): but it shows that Sen. Obama needs just 41 more committed delegates to get a majority. Which is WELL within reach after next Tuesday's primaries - the Clintonites' rantings about Michigan notwithstanding. I agree with Morat20 above: if the 6/3 results put Obama "over the top", it's hard to see where the remaining supers can creditably stand on the sidelines.


Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed

Obama 1,660.5 323.5 1,984 41
Clinton 1,499.5 281.5 1,781 244
Remaining 86 191 277

(2,025 delegates needed for victory)

Well... I guess I was right. I was hoping to be proved wrong. That was just embarrassing.

In all seriousness, what might the odds be on our reading headlines about lawsuits related to this decision during the general?

I think what's important is that more than a third of Clinton's supporters on the committee backed the compromise. Starting Tuesday, Clinton superdelegates are going to start abandoning her in droves. Obama will very quickly have enough delegates to win even if the Michigan delegation was seated as she wanted it to be. Hell, the difference between the two positions is minimal - Clinton nets 5 delegates instead of 9. That's 4 delegates. Is Clinton really going to take this to the Convention in order to net 4 extra delegates? Does anyone think this thing is going to come down to 4 delegates?

By conceding half votes to Florida, they've already conceded 28 net pledged delegates (and a few net superdelegates as well, I think), in that it's hard to object to half-votes for Michigan once you've conceded it for Florida. It was unlikely that those 28 delegates would make the difference, but it's ludicrous to think that 4 will. I think that by a week from today, Obama will be the presumptive nominee, and Clinton will either have conceded or be very close to doing so.

I believe 2025 doesn't count the added MI and FL 1/2-votes. From a comment following Jay C's link to DailyKos:

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.


it's hard to object to half-votes for Michigan once you've conceded it for Florida.

That was a very interesting dynamic. I was thinking that if they'd done Michigan first and Florida second things might have gone very, very differently.

Thanks, JanieM: I missed the delegate-count revision. Still: with the "magic numbers" at:

Clinton: 240.5
Obama: 66.0

It still looks like Tuesday could be a clincher for Sen. Obama.

Jay C -- I sure hope so.

Best. Dem. Primary. Ever.

Hell, the difference between the two positions is minimal - Clinton nets 5 delegates instead of 9.

I don't think thats right. What Ickes was arguing on Clinton's behalf was that no delegates should be awarded to Obama from Michigan. In fact, his argument was that the Committee did not have the right to assign any delegates to someone who didn't get any votes and that the delegates should remain uncommitted. If he had won that argument Clinton would have netted more like 30 delegates and perhaps more depending upon what happened with the uncommitted delegates at the convention. Seems like a pretty extreme position to take on a scenario that was never gonna happen but here we are.

"What Ickes was arguing on Clinton's behalf was that no delegates should be awarded to Obama from Michigan. "

Of course, they both once argued that no delegates should be seated from Michigan.

It makes no sense for any super-delegates to be undecided at this point. They would have crossed over to the Obama camp by now to unify the party in a rational world. Unless they know something that we don’t.

My bet is that somebody’s got Michelle on tape. Either that or somebody has successfully planted a rumor that Michelle is on tape.

Pure speculation.

You’ve got to hand it to Hillary. She is a fighter.

Senator Clinton is indeed a fighter. Why does anyone think that her husband had to get his fellatio elsewhere?

At this point--in fact ever since she suggested that Senator McCain would be preferable to Senator Obama as commander-in-chief--Hillary Clinton is a damned quisling.

I hope at this point, someone tells Hillary that if she makes any comment other than to congratulate Obama and start working like crazy to get him elected, she'll be stripped of ALL her Senate seats. That's a point I think even she can understand.

If not, shove her into the cold where she belongs.

The NYT is apparently reporting that Hillary's resigned to losing, according to PoliticalWire:

she continues to assert, with what one associate described as subdued resignation, that the Democrats are making a mistake in sending Mr. Obama up against Sen. John McCain
Howard Dean no doubt feels boatloads of sympathy for her.

Pure speculation

Pure slime, you mean.

Hillary is indeed a fighter. The only question is, in what cause?

My worry about Obama, originally, was that he was NOT a fighter. Now that Obama has demonstrated his joyful willingness to rhetorically kick McCain's lightly freckled ass, Hillary's doggedness is superfluous. It serves no purpose other than her own personal glory.

I would be leading the charge for Hillary if I thought Obama could not beat McCain. But he can -- and Hillary is smart enough to KNOW he can. Her main fear, now, is that her die-hard supporters might be smart enough to figure it out, too.

-- TP

I would like to see the super-delegates move en masse to Obama. The Clinton supporters, if they are sane, would see this as a move to strengthen the party for November.

Is this too much to hope for? Maybe, but remember, these people have Congressional and Senate campaigns to fight. They don't want energy, and money, going to another few months of Clinton tantrums.

Bernard -- thanks for that thought. It's the first I've seen about why the super-delegates might finally do something definitive that doesn't sound like wishful thinking.

There are days when I wonder what it might like to have a head so full of filth and vileness that everyone and everything in the surrounding landscape looks vile and filthy except after deliberate effort, when one is prepared to reel off lists of filth and charges of vileness at the slightest trigger. Then there are days I'm glad I don't know.

"Harold Ickes just answered the question -- no. He didn't just disagree with the proposed Michigan solution. He used inflammatory language like 'hijacking' and all but accused the committee of acting illegally. There were a few cuss words thrown in too for good measure."

Um, did a link fall out of this? Where did you read this? Can you share with the rest of the class? :-)

Hmm, I'm seeing a possible source for the quotes in the "Update."

Now that I'm not able to check ObWi at most times, I note with more attention that it's useful, I find, to put dates and times on updates, so readers have a clue whether they were added a minute later, an hour later, a day, a week, a month, etc. It can save a lot of confusion to include that simple info, if I might suggest?

JanieM,

You're welcome.

I also think that if you're in a swing state, and trying to figure out how to carry it in Nov, the last thing you want is a prolonged nomination fight. Why give ammo to the Republicans?

Maybe the party will come to its collective senses and put an end to the farce.

"Sigh. Prior to this primary, I've been fairly pro-Clinton--and more pro-Hillary than pro-Bill."

Prior to which primary? Kentucky? Oregon?
Puerto Rico?

Seelye and Zeleny's main story on the settlement is here, incidentally.

"It makes no sense for any super-delegates to be undecided at this point."

As usual, you're wrong, of course. It makes perfect sense for those who have pledged to remain neutral until the last primary/caucus to keep their word.

And on June 4th, most of the rest of the superdelegates will be able to keep that word.

Gary, I think publius pretty much posted that in realtime; I was watching it on CNN's live feed. I doubt there'll be a transcript for a while.

I'd recommend watching it if you get a chance, if only to see the disgraceful way the crowd acted, even to Hillary supporters. Huffman, Fowler, Pasquill, and Gearmond were all on the verge of tears -- tons of people shouted at Huffman even while she was talking about how she wasn't happy with the solution. It was pretty tasteless.

And what publius said is basically correct -- Ickes started three sentences in a row with "You bet your ass it was a flawed election," etc., and then something to the effect of "Hell no." It was crass, and he was lying through his teeth about the rules, but at the same time, I admit I giggled.

There is nothing slimy about speculating on underlying reasons for irrational behavior. Michelle is fair game because Barack is parading her on the campaign trail.

It might not be Michelle, but, to me, the only reason that this race isn’t already over is that the super-delegates believe that another shoe will drop on Obama. I don’t think Hillary has it, or it would already be out there. Or it could be a Hillary rumor. Otherwise they would have already done what Morat20 suggested.

If the Republicans have it, they would hold their fire until Hillary was dispatched.

Making predictions, and writing them down (so you can’t cheat), is good exercise. It is not slimy.

In all seriousness, what might the odds be on our reading headlines about lawsuits related to this decision during the general?

it's a guarantee.

if there's an avenue that looks promising, as regards her getting the nomination, she'll take it. anything else is irrelevant.

Brick:

You keep dreaming, man. The reason this isn't already over is because the supers feel they owe the Clintons some space to come to peace with losing, and because up until darn recently it wasn't really hurting the party.

They'll wait until Wednesday and they'll finish it, although I suspect Obama will get enough supers between now and Monday night to make darn sure he crosses 2118 with delegates earned Tuesday.

But you keep on dreaming. You keep on hoping that there's a critical mass of super delegates just WAITING for that last straw to hand it all to Hillary.

I figure if you try hard, you can hold out that hope until January at least.

"Prior to which primary? Kentucky? Oregon?
Puerto Rico?"

Gary,

I was using "primary" as short hand for "primary season." I started losing interest in/respect for Clinton when she began suggesting that the Michigan and Florida primaries should count. (I'm a Michigan resident and didn't vote in the straw poll; although I had a favorable opinion of all the Democrat candidates at that point, my preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot.)

So… popcorn. How quickly could I get a brand to market?

OCSteve, with modern printing technology? Pretty fast, I'd think. :)

gary - yes, adam was right. i was watching it in real time when they came back from their marathon backdoor session. and providing a time on teh update is a good idea - i'll try to do that going forward

“I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”
-From the greatest speech in the history of Western man, several months ago

Unless, of course, you find yourself with a “a cultural and a stylistic gap.” Then you disown the whole congregation.

Unfortunately, Obama can’t disown Michelle, she’d probably beat him up.

I agree with OCSteve. Bring on the popcorn.

I disagree with Morat20, I think this is just getting interesting.

"she continues to assert, with what one associate described as subdued resignation, that the Democrats are making a mistake in sending Mr. Obama up against Sen. John McCain"

Yeah, because if it's Obama and not Clinton or McCain, Haim Saban won't get his nasty little war against Iran.

“Hey, Ritter!” Mr. Richardson said. “After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he’ll remember you.”

On the other end of the line, Mr. Ritter demurred, saying he had pledged to remain neutral until the primary season ends.

Ritter is on the inside. He knows something.

While I agree somewhat with Ickes--the awarding of delegates that Clinton won to Obama is bogus--I'm really not worried about their taking it to the convention, because it's a difference of 4 delegates with a half vote each. It's 2 votes total. If Obama's not ahead by more than 2 votes come convention time, there are bigger problems to deal with than a problem with Michigan.

Yeah, because if it's Obama and not Clinton or McCain, Haim Saban won't get his nasty little war against Iran.

Here's hoping you're right. Obama is less overtly blood-thirsty than McCain, but he believes in keeping the US Empire going, and if he feel he has to, he'll pull the trigger.

B.O.B.--
So the fact that the superdelegates have been moving steadily to Obama means nothing? And that some remain undeclared couldn't be because they don't want to piss off the Clintons? Oh, no--better to believe a story that Crazy Larry Johnson made up. Hell, why don't you double down and go with Larry Sinclair, too? It really wouldn't be beneath you at this point.

if there's an avenue that looks promising, as regards her getting the nomination, she'll take it. anything else is irrelevant.

Ive been avoiding the thought, but Im starting to come around to the idea that this extended tantrum is about 2012- it's more than clear that she's lost this round of the game. But an Obama victory will freeze Clinton out until 2016, at which point the landscape may be very different (eg Obama's veep might be a shoe-in for the nomination).
If she can drag Obama down, then she'll still have an excellent shot. Whether or not this poisoning of the well alienates too many Dems to succeed- well, it's her best chance, and we've seen already that she'll take her best chance, whatever it might be ('shes a fighter' right?). She'll keep the issue alive and keep undermining, but try to stay on the good side of the majority of Dems.

I actually had a pretty good opinion of Hillary about 6 months ago. That seems weird to me now.

BOB- If many (ie enough to sway the nomination) Dem supers knew that there was very damaging info about Obama ready to surface, they would probably ask him privately to step aside (I dunno, maybe fake a serious illness), and likely make it public if he didnt. Dozens of supers couldnt know a secret without it being very likely to leak into the media at some point.
Remember, these are people who want a Democratic President. What possible motivation could they have as a large group to hide a secret very likely to torpedo the party's chances in November, or damage his presidency thereafter? When they could act on it and keep that bad thing from happening?

As scenarios go, it's right up there with the crack pipes on the Christmas tree.

It still looks like Tuesday could be a clincher for Sen. Obama.


It doesn't matter. She will still go to the convention and the credentials committee. It doesn't matter what the rules are, she is going to fight this until Obama actually wins a vote at the convention.

Michelle on Tape?

15:1 against.

Im starting to come around to the idea that this extended tantrum is about 2012

Its not just about 2012. Its about being the powerbroker within the Democratic party.

Pure speculation.

Because it would be irresponsible not to speculate, right BOB?

Do the posting rules permit me to speculate that Brick Oven Bill is an incompetent rumormonger?

Somebody please convince me that this "compromise" solution isn't a tactical (or is it strategic?) error as well as being, well, frankly *wrong*. I don't think the Obama camp should have ever expressed openness to a compromise, nor should the rules committee have accepted one.

The rules were set up in 2006, long before the current battle lines were drawn. The committee, rightly or wrongly, chose to preserve the disproportionate influence of New Hampshire, Iowa, and two others. Howard Dean warned Florida and Michigan of sanctions. Clinton and Obama both agreed to it. Then, immediately after Super Tuesday, when Clinton realized she was in trouble, suddenly the sanctions became an affront to voters' rights.

The Clinton campaign's sudden switch was a blatant power grab. The DNC should have said "Absolutely no way" then and there. They should have said "no representation" today. I don't care much what arguments can be made now about the original rules being unfair. Everybody agreed to play by them; and you don't change rules after the contest to appease the loser.

I truly don't see how Clinton supporters could claim any "hijacking" or "stealing" or conspiracy there.

But, once the committee agreed to accept a compromise, it's admitting that the sanctions constituted some kind of injustice toward Clinton and the voters in those states -- which opens the door for complaint and resentment about the extent and nature of the compromise.

Seriously: doesn't this give Clinton supporters a stronger case? Doesn't it validate ongoing resentment?

AndyK,

No, it doesn't. I agree with you: as a matter of principle and justice, there should have been no compromise. But I'd rather compromise now than lose in November. By cutting a deal now, Obama gets the state parties on his side: he can make the case that he was pushing for their proposed resolution. That helps him in the general: a lot of state and local politicians have backed themselves into corners with their rhetoric about honoring the vote. By cutting a deal, Obama has pulled them out of Clinton's camp and placed them into his own. That will matter in FL for general election.

But, once the committee agreed to accept a compromise, it's admitting that the sanctions constituted some kind of injustice toward Clinton and the voters in those states -- which opens the door for complaint and resentment about the extent and nature of the compromise.

The committee is admitting nothing. What matters is how voters perceive the committee's behavior and the truth is: almost no voters will bother to learn more than "the dems counted our votes". That will cut down on resentment among people who are not completely rabid, and -- here's the critical bit -- sticking with the rules would only enrage people. Most voters are not going to care about pointless details like what percentage they're getting: if they were that well informed, they wouldn't be pissed of with the DNC for enforcing its rules in the first place. Like it or not, lots of FL voters are convinced that the DNC stole their vote and wronged them. There is no way to reach this mass of people and educate them before the general election; they have us all over the barrel, but that's OK. Their votes don't change the outcome, so let them have their votes in order to grease the skids come November.

Seriously: doesn't this give Clinton supporters a stronger case? Doesn't it validate ongoing resentment?

For the most rabid supporters, it does precisely nothing. Their rage will continue unabated no matter what anyone else does or says. For most Clinton supporters, I don't think this does much. Clinton's core constituency is low information voters, precisely the people who aren't going to get any message beyond "the dems are counting our votes -- we won". Beyond that, nothing succeeds like success and Obama has effectively won.

Clinton and her rabid supporters are going to cost the Dems the election this fall.

Wait and see. It'll be close enough to DIEBOLD again.

McSame 51/Obama 49

You're just pissed 'cause Clinton is running against Obama using the general election play book. If she'd won the nomination, and a preexisting election law got in the way of her beating McCain, you wouldn't blink at her trying to get it overturned in court, you'd expect it of her.

I do have to say that, in hindsight, Obama's decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan is a big mistake. If had had 40% of the vote there, he could of immediately agreed to seat their delegates in full and Clinton would be sent packing on Tuesday. Now, she's got an excuse to "keep fighting" until Denver.

And Harold Ickes can suck on this.

What now?!?

New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack’s headaches are only starting.

I really can’t believe it, but McCain is going to win this thing.

It's worth reading the Walter Shapiro piece on the compromise, one of the few good articles on the Democratic race from Salon.com all primary season.

Apparently during lunch the RCB polled its members on the Michigan question and there was a one-vote majority, 14-to-13, in favor of the Obama campaigns proposal: give Michigan half its votes and evenly divide the delegation between Clinton and Obama (effectively ignoring the sham primary entirely).

This was the ground on which the compromise was forged. Obama supporters realized that a one-vote victory in favor of this proposal would look terrible. And Clinton supporters realized that the best they could hope for was the Michigan state party's proposal that was eventually passed.

As has been noted upthread, a good number of Clinton supporters, including Alice Huffman, voted in favor of the Michigan compromise. And while I don't doubt that Clinton told Ickes that she reserved the right to appeal this to the Credentials Committee, it's not clear to me that his decision to reject the Michigan compromise was more "official" than was the decision of Huffman and the other Clinton "yes" voters to go along with it. Knowing the Clinton campaign, they're probably happy to be able to have it both ways: wrest a few more delegates out of the process by voting for the compromise and complain bitterly about the proposal.

The Credentials Committee threat is also largely empty:

But, in reality, a formal challenge of Saturday's decision can only be brought by a Michigan convention delegate, not by the Clinton campaign itself. The odds are prodigious that -- under almost any scenario -- the four votes that Clinton theoretically lost in the rules committee will not matter by Denver.

So I feel about all this exactly as I did at the time of publius's last post on this matter: of course Clinton will concede nothing and will drag this out until the bitter end. That's in her nature. Luckily for Obama and the Democratic Party this scorpion has long since lost its sting. By the time this thing ends, much of Clinton's support among party leaders will have drifted away. And nobody will much care about her campaigns' final few political temper tantrums and Calvinball Hail Marys.

OCSteve - don't you think Drudge would have gotten his hands on that and posted it already?

OCSteve, No Quarter has been teasing people about that video for days. Johnson and his crew have gone completely bat guano over there. I'll believe a tape exists that is an incredibly devastating as he claims if and when I actually see it.

Notice that he's not promising that the tape will be available Monday, just that he'll have news about it. Ooooh -- NEWS! What do you bet that he'll string this out all summer?

New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack’s headaches are only starting.

no offence intended OCSteve, but how is this different from:

I have a piece of paper in my pocket with the names of 200 known Communists working in the State Department (A Senator from Wisconsin gave it to me).

SSDD (Same Fertilizer, Different Decade), IMHO.


Hi publius,

did the DNC have to do more yesterday than address the question of how to punish Florida and Michigan? Which they did by cutting the value of their votes in half.

It seems to me that a good committee would have punted the question in whose camp to seat the delegate until after Tuesday.

depending on the results of Tuesday, i.e. if Obama doesn't hit the minus Florida/Michigan mark, Florida and Michigan can re-vote with the reduced value per vote.

yes, I know that such a decision could have theoretically given a deciding voice in choosing the nominee. but seriously, what state in the future is going to count on a replay?

And in fact, it's not too late to denounce that aspect of yesterday's vote and revote if necessary.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I want him to win with all the force he can.

Angry Clinton supporters rally to march on Denver. Donations of Oxygen tanks, grape kool aid packets and sensible shoes will be collected at the Angry Wench Tavern, in Salem, MA.

Folks like Otto demonstrate part of why Clinton supporters have an entirely justified grievance. It's much less likely that someone would so casually refer to a gathering of Obama supporters wanting donations of fried chicken, watermelons, and batteries for their ghetto blasters. But this stuff is just as stereotypical, and just as offensive.

I'm still waiting for those pictures of Kitty Dukakis burning the American flag.

Let's get something straight here. Hillary "won" ZERO delegates in Michigan, because there was no valid primary election in Michigan. The law moving the primary to January was actually declared unconstitutional by a Federal judge last March. At the time, the Clinton campaign even seized on this as a talking point in calling for a revote. But as always with them, that was then and this is now.

It's much less likely that someone would so casually refer to a gathering of Obama supporters wanting donations of fried chicken, watermelons, and batteries for their ghetto blasters

just because i was curious... Google: 'obama "fried chicken" watermelon' = 15,000 hits.

hillary is playing a dangerous game and she doesnt care.At this point if she cant win shell make sure obama wont.The hillary people really believe all the stupid rumors{obama is a muslim,ect.seeming to forget all the vicious rumors about bill when he was in office.Its disgusting and sad and its the clintons game plan,2012!

Yesterday, Obama proved why he should be the nominee and why she shouldn't. He came to the table ready to negotiate, knowing exactly what he needed to take away and what he needed to give. He told his supporters not to attend and not to engage the Clintonistas.

She came to the table, full of huff and rhetoric. She lined up the rabblerousers to make a big show of it. Even her allies on the committee were visibly annoyed.

Her offer for Michigan was an insult, not a negotiating point. Who really thinks he deserves NOTHING in MI?

When it got past rhetoric to votes, the Florida compromise passed 27-0, taking it off the table. Obama had 15 votes to take 64-64 split of delegates, but he opted for 69-59 (halved) to get 19 votes. Instead of a narrow win, he got 70% of the committee to agree to a compromise. This makes it extremely difficult for her to challenge on any logic, other than the emotional impact of her losing.

So, when you talk about Iraq, healthcare or Congressional relations, which candidate looks better prepared from Day 1?

You want drama and emotion, vote Clinton. You want long-term strategy and cool efficiency, vote Obama.

Otto Focus,

I am no fan of the HRC campaign to put it mildly, and I enjoy and indulge in snarky humor as much as the next person if not more so, but Bruce Baugh is right - that 12:22 comment of yours was offensive, counterproductive, not in keeping with the general tone of this particular venue, and wasn't even particularly funny.

IMHO as always, and looking forward to something better from you, as we all (myself included) have high and low points.

Here's a question I don't see anybody addressing. The Michigan compromise was not only accepted by that state's party organization and delegation but was actually their proposal in the first place. They're happy- they got what they want. So on behalf of whom, exactly, could Clinton petition to the Credentials Committee? What standing does she have?

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think they're going to lasso this primary to a halt next week, they're sorely mistaken. The Clinton's aren't going down with out a fight ... www.nickragone.com

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think they're going to lasso this primary to a halt next week, they're sorely mistaken. The Clinton's aren't going down with out a fight ... www.nickragone.com

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think they're going to lasso this primary to a halt next week, they're sorely mistaken. The Clinton's aren't going down with out a fight ... www.nickragone.com

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think they're going to lasso this primary to a halt next week, they're sorely mistaken. The Clinton's aren't going down with out a fight ... www.nickragone.com

Clearly, whatever is stupid enough to be said once is stupid enough to be said four times.

Thanks Douche. My son hijacked the computer.

Gary, I think publius pretty much posted that in realtime; I was watching it on CNN's live feed. I doubt there'll be a transcript for a while.

I'd recommend watching it if you get a chance, if only to see the disgraceful way the crowd acted, even to Hillary supporters.

Watching what? What link?

"It might not be Michelle, but, to me, the only reason that this race isn’t already over is that the super-delegates believe that another shoe will drop on Obama."

It might be helpful, Bill, to understand the distinction between facts, and your imagination.

If the above is a fact, give a cite. If it isn't a fact, well, I have lots of theories about things, too. Who cares, unless I can support them?

"I was using 'primary' as short hand for "primary season."

Oh. It seems like a few people seem to be doing that all of a sudden. It's weird; I've never seen that usage before the past couple of months, ever, though, of course, I'm sure it's been used somewhere; but in all the political coverage in all the years up to the past few months, I've never seen it.

It's pretty confusing to invent a new usage for a term, when the term is being used the same old way. But, what the hey, if enough people start calling the race for the nomination "the primary," I suppose it will become the new usage. But, then, we'd better find a new terms for the actual primaries, or there really will be constant usage confusion.

I'm always fine with new usages that lend clarity. I'm always not fine with new usages that blur and destroy clarity. But that's me.

"I started losing interest in/respect for Clinton when she began suggesting that the Michigan and Florida primaries should count."

Ditto. That's when she crossed into completely dishonest/Rove territory, and I'll never be able to trust her again.

It didn't have to be that way. I think it's tragic.

"i was watching it in real time when they came back from their marathon backdoor session. and providing a time on teh update is a good idea - i'll try to do that going forward"

Thanks, that would be great: I think it can lend a lot of clarity to include the time of posting, as it saves a lot of potential arguments about Why Didn't You Refer To X When You Posted, if it's clear that X occurred after the posting time, rather than before.

cleanup on aisle 5!

You’ve got to hand it to Hillary. She is a fighter.

I don't have to hand anything to her. She's not a 'fighter'; she's a flailer, and a mind-bogglingly cynical one at that. There is no rational argument for what HRC is doing, other than vis a vis a prospective run in 2012. If this isn't over by tuesday, I'm going to just stop following this crap for a while - too disgusting. I'm reading Nixonland right now - excellent so far - and while HRC and RN are, of course, quite different in many ways, they are more similar, psychologically, than I ever would've guessed; as with McCain, I used to think HRC was alright, and even, in her case, admirable, before I really got to know about her. Dump Hillary, Democrats, and do it post haste. She has turned out to be a toxic politician.

Funny you should mention Nixon, jonnybutter, because for months now, my gut reaction to Hillary Clinton has been similar to only two presidential candidates in the 48 years I've been old enough to pay attention (from 1960 til now): Richard Nixon and GWB. The gut reaction is: these people are creepy. I wouldn't trust them to carry out my trash, much less vote for them.

You (the general 'you') can pile reasons on top of reasons on top of reasons -- and certainly I am a believer in applying rational thought process as well as gut reactions to my decision-making -- but the only way I would ever have voted for her is if someone even creepier had been the only alternative. The Supreme Court might still make me pause if it were Hillary vs. McCain, but even in that scenario I'm not sure but what I would abstain from the presidential vote and hope for an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to get us through til 2012.

Shorter me: my gut reaction about who's creepy and who isn't has been unerring so far. ;)

And I see no reason to stop trusting it now, especially given that she has done nothing but reinforce it for the past few months.

"I really can’t believe it, but McCain is going to win this thing."

Steve, I was going to ask you why do you keep believing everything you read, but in this case you've provided a link to a post with literally 0% content. WTF? Now you're in a tizzy because some bozo says there will be something you should clutch your panties over? WTF?

Why on earth are you excited about something that doesn't exist?

I don't get it.

But I do have a bridge for sale: it's huge, and used by millions of people. If you purchase it from me, you are guaranteed to make your money back from tolls within 3 months!

I'll send you the deed for only $5000, because I really need the money. You don't want to miss out on this deal! People who have seen the bridge, and the deed, say they're stunning!

Send me the money tomorrow, and I shall promptly send you the deed to your new bridge: you'll love it!

"depending on the results of Tuesday, i.e. if Obama doesn't hit the minus Florida/Michigan mark, Florida and Michigan can re-vote with the reduced value per vote."

What?

"But this stuff is just as stereotypical, and just as offensive."

Unfortunately, since TypePad/ObWi switched to stripping out email addresses from under names, there's no clue as to whether that commenter is a complete troll, or what. That switch was highly destructive to maintaining community, and productive discourse, here.

The Supreme Court might still make me pause if it were Hillary vs. McCain, but even in that scenario I'm not sure but what I would abstain from the presidential vote and hope for an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to get us through til 2012.

I would hold my nose and vote for Clinton if the choice were between her and McCain. I wouldn't enjoy it, but the stakes are just too high. Everybody knows - most especially including the cynicos in the HRC campaign - that this is the dem's pres. election to lose, and I just don't see it as an option to lose it. But, yes, she is Nixonish.

Left Turn: I have a piece of paper in my pocket with the names of 200 known Communists working in the State Department (A Senator from Wisconsin gave it to me).

I have so been looking for that! Dude – share!

OCSteve, enclosed find a bill for two paper towels used to wipe up the water I spewed upon reading yours of 8:18 pm.

Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack’s headaches are only starting.

Booman

How you'd write it:

Why did Bush cut folks off medicaid?
Why did Bush let New Orleans drown?
Why did Bush do nothing about Jena?
Why did Bush put us in Iraq for no reason?

How you'd say it:

Why'd he cut folks off medicaid?
Why'd he let New Orleans drown?
Why'd he do nothing about Jena?
Why'd he put us in Iraq for no reason?

How Larry Johnson wants you to hear it:

Whitie cut folks off medicaid?
Whitie let New Orleans drown?
Whitie do nothing about Jena?
Whitie put us in Iraq for no reason?

--

shocking!

Jim Geraghty at NRO jumps on it.

Looks like a stunning opportunity for a lot of bloggers to make themselves look like idiots.

Heading to the store for some of OCSteve's POPular VoteTM

Looks like a stunning opportunity for a lot of bloggers to make themselves look like idiots.

anyone who puts any faith in any Larry Johnson has to say about anything deserves to look like an idiot.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad