The psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Pay attention to me, Hillary cries:
- Despite the daylong talk that she might concede, Clinton, in her speech, said she had not decided what to do. She thanked the voters for hanging in "even when the pundits and the naysayers proclaimed week after week that this race was over" -- ignoring the fact that the selfsame pundits had just declared it over for good. And they seemed puzzled afterward by what MSNBC's Chris Matthews called the "surreal" moment. By then, Fox had agreed that Obama had wrapped it up.
- The cable talkers were consumed by reports that Clinton had told New York lawmakers she would consider the No. 2 slot, although campaign spokesman Jay Carson says she merely offered to do whatever it takes to help the party. But the door was clearly left ajar. "Why do it today?" asked Fox News anchor Shepard Smith. "Why, on Barack Obama's day, steal his thunder?"
Because Obama is not allowed to have thunder, pure and simple. If Hillary can't have it, no one can.
Obama is an extremely weak nominee. I can't remember any other nominee that has managed to lose his way to victory the way Obama has*. What did Hillary win, 4 of the last 5 races and about 7 of the last 10? A lot of Democrats are suffering from buyer's remorse.
In fact, Obama is probably the weakest possible nominee the Dems could have picked, given that all they have to do is avoid screwing up and they will have Republican heads rightly handed to them in the fall. But his inexperience, his radical friends, and his loudmouth wife all provide plenty of opportunities for Obama to toss the White House to back to the GOP. Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, boring as they are predictable, would have nearly guaranteed a Democratic sweep in the fall. No one would have been excited about them, but they would have voted for them.
Which brings us back to Hillary. By fighting on even after the numbers said she couldn't win, she weakens Obama. By fighting to change the rules in regards to Florida and Michigan delegates, she weakens Obama. By leaking that she would accept the VP slot, she weakens Obama, who must now either publicly spurn her** or take the bait and settle into his new job as Assistant to the Vice President. Despite all the noise about doing what is right by the party, Hillary will do what is in Hillary's best interest, and she will do so with a shockingly blatant audacity.
We should not be surprised that Hillary is further weakening her own party's nominee, purposely and methodically. In fact, based on the Clinton history we should expect it. But it is kind of funny to see press professionals who have covered the Clintons for two decades genuinely confused by it.
*Maybe Walter Mondale did on his way to losing 49 states in 1984.
**thus alienating the Termagant Brigade he so desperately needs for the fall.
Lawrence.com blogs are collections of short, frequently updated posts by members of the Lawrence community. Blog writers, and comment posters, are solely responsible for what they say. (Please take the time to read our full policy.)
If you're interested in writing a blog on lawrence.com, send us a couple of sample entries.
Presidential Debate Watch Party :: This, the second of three debates will be town hall format. This, the second of three watch parties will be beer-drinking format—that is to say, Joe Six Packs are welcome. ... More info
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy
Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on June 4, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Erp. You actually stole it from somebody else at the site. But thanks for your honesty!
Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on June 4, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First time I've ever been called an *honest* thief, I have to admit...
Don't worry, I won't let it go to my head*.
* And yes, I stole this line from Joel.
Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on June 5, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just lost a bet that she would call it quits by tonight. Though it is over by anyone's standards, she just couldn't do it, could she. And what does this get her? If she'd done the stand-up thing and called it quits, I might have considered voting for her in 4-8 years (if, by some miracle of science, she had a trustworthiness implanted into her heart, mind and mannerisms).
Also, I really don't think "inexperience, radical friends, and loudmouth wife" are going to matter as much as some other deeper issues some Americans may have. No one's fully prepared to be President (case-in-point, current Prez). The preacher thing is already blowing over. And, sadly enough, I seem to not have been paying attention enough to even know what Mrs. Obama said, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Not sure if McCain's got enough of a fight in him to use any of that to full effect. He certainly didn't use his "headstart" wisely. Not that I think it's a done deal, far from it. But you get a lot of Americans (some I'm related to) in a voting booth, alone, with no one to judge them, and maybe it won't even be about who's the best candidate, y'know.
Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on June 5, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jill:
You just *think* the preacher thing is blowing over.
Trust me on this: The "independent" political groups sometime soon -- maybe in the next few weeks -- will start running ads of Jeremiah Wright shouting "God damn America" every 30 seconds or so until November. It will drive liberals crazy. And it will be effective, which will drive liberals even crazier.
I'm not endorsing this. It's just that if you can count on one thing during a presidential election, it's that the Democratic candidate -- Kerry (elitist traitor), Gore (arrogant and crazy), Clinton (pot-smoking skirt-chaser) (ok, maybe that wasn't ENTIRELY wrong) and Dukakis (hee hee! lookit him in that tank!) -- is *always* portrayed as being NOT LIKE US, the real Americans. It's no coincidence that the two Dems to win election in the last 40 years -- Carter and Clinton -- were both Southerners. Harder to hang the "elitist" label on somebody with*that* accent. (Although, as Gore proved, it's not impossible.)
With Barack Obama -- a black man with a funny name who attended a black liberation theology church for 20 years -- the ground is really, really fertile for these kinds of attacks.
Let's face it: 10 percent of the voters think that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I'm not making that up. I will grant you that those folks are either willfully dishonest or willfully delusional, but that doesn't change the fact: 10 percent. Shockingly, that number includes about 8 percent of *Democrats.* (I'm working from memory here.) I don't think that bodes well for an Obama candidacy, frankly...
All I'm saying is: Be prepared. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on June 5, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And yes, I read "Nixonland" recently. Two thumbs up!
Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, I've got this analogy in my head, but I'm not quite able to pull it all together.
You know how when you make a bet you're sure you'll win and you add something to it "just to make it interesting"? That's how I see the the Democrats this year. You know "Oh, we'll beat you. As a matter of fact, let's see, we'll beat you with "a black man with a funny name who attended a black liberation theology church for 20 years"
What happened Bill? You were predicting that Obama would beat McCain "like a hippie with a hand drum" (an illustration I love and have repeated SO many times.) What's changed?
Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on June 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I still think Obama will win, most likely, but only because McCain is himself simply an awful candidate. Every time I watch the guy speak it's like I'm watching really bad "creepshow" fan fiction. Even his helpers are awful:
http://elborak.blogspot.com/2008/04/this...
That's why Biden or Dodd would have clobbered him.
Joel is correct that we haven't seen the end of Rev. Wright, and I'm pretty sure we've only seen a few of the other self-inflicted wounds that will come from Obama's supporters. This thing is Obama's to lose. He's not strong enough to truly finish off Hillary (which is why he's making a smart move by ignoring her); hopefully for him the Dem party structure will do that. But he is probably strong enough to beat McCain, so long as he can keep a tight leash on the Michael Pflegers of the world.
Posted by MyName (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The bottom line is that McCain is too old to be president (and yes, this is from someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be president by reason of age). He's remarkably fit (for his age), but all you need is to catch him on a bad day and people will start to wonder whether we should trust this guy with the safety of the free world. Eight years ago he would have been just fine; now he's not.
John McCain is the Bob Dole of 2008.
Posted by matt (Matt Armstrong) on June 5, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why can't the news just let me be happy for a few blessed hours?
Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on June 5, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"John McCain is the Bob Dole of 2008."
Indeed. It is interesting to note the difference in how the GOP and Dems select their candidates. For the GOP, there's a lot of "It's his turn." Reagan's turn came in 80 after losing in 76, GHWBush's turn came in 88 after losing in 80 and doing his time as Reagan's VP. Nixon had been Ike's VP, Ford Nixon's VP. Dole in 96 had done his time (and lost in 76 as Ford's VP). Bush is the son of Bush, but is still the first Republican to come out of relatively nowhere since Wendell Willke or something. McCain got the nod because it's his turn.
The Dems do things the opposite. Long-timers tend to get short shrift in favor of someone who catches the eye of its fickle electorate. McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, most were young and all were relatively unknown to the public when they became the Dem candidate. Mondale, of course, was chosen (just barely) in the GOP fashion, and he was slaughtered.
That means more likely than not, the GOP will be presenting, in any given election, a known quantity (read: a Bob Dole) vs. the Dem's unknown quantity. That plays into Joel's complaint above; it's a lot easier to swiftboat John Kerry than John McCain.
And if there are surprises, they are likely to be on the Dem side. the GOP doesn't like surprises, the Dems, because they like political nobodies, can't seem to avoid them.
Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More on the Dole - McCain comparison is the presentation problem. You know what I remember about Bob Dole? He fell off stage from behind a podium. They played that clip over and over. In the same way, McCain's awkward image is getting in the way of his message. From the green background to the copycat tagline (Leadership We Can Believe In) and the lack luster speeches, to the freakishly discombobulated crowd with their cheers and jeers. Dole wasn't well put together and neither is McCain.
Nobody wants to vote based on image, but in this day and age, visuals and neatness matter.
Posted by DonQuipunch (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Psycho ex-girlfriend."
Awesome.
Posted by booyalab (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see a (typical) lack of consistency in the way the Dems are treating Hillary. If it was ok for Gore to steal Bush's thunder because he won the popular vote, isn't it ok for Hillary? Or are we only respecting the rules because Obama won?
Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on June 5, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Leaving aside, for the moment, how well "the rules" were actually applied in 2000...
... the Clinton campaign's claim of winning the popular vote rests on a rather narrow reading of things. Basically, it doesn't include states where caucuses were held but no actual votes were counted. Which incidentally includes Kansas, I believe. If you add all the people who caucused for Obama into the "vote" total, Sen. Clinton might not even have that thin reed.
And if Sen. Clinton hadn't competed, alone, in two states -- Mich and Fla -- that were supposed to be off-limits, she *certainly* wouldn't have the popular vote claim.
Basically, then, her popular vote claim rests on A)kinda-almost-lying about the facts and B)kinda-almost-cheating to get the results she wanted.
Lest anybody forget, this is part of why Ralph Nader was able to play spoiler in 2000. There were a lot of disgusted Dems and liberals after the first Clinton presidency, but that's been largely forgotten by folks on the left in their even-greater anger at the Bush Presidency.
Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on June 5, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alm77, I really, *really* like your analogy/whatever. "Oh, yeah? Think I can't jump my bike over that creek? I'll do it with NO HANDS!!!!!"
Stupid boys.
Posted by ForgotAboutTodd (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You all are way too pessimistic about Obama. He's the perfect candidate for the Democrats right now for a variety of reasons.
First, the Republicans are going to demonize anyone the Democrats sent in there. Remember when the biggest reason to vote for Kerry in the primary was because he was the most "electable"? Running from the Republicans is a failed strategy.
Kerry failed to hit back hard when the Swift Boating began but Obama has already shown that he can weather a storm. During the Wright ordeal his poll numbers took a slight dip but then bounced back.
The Democrats have won three straight congressional special elections in heavily Republican districts. The last two were in Louisiana and Mississippi and the major Republican strategy was to tie the Democratic candidates to Obama and his crazy pastors but it had little to no effect at all. If that stuff won't work in those two states will it work anywhere? The African-American turnout has the potential to be the highest ever putting some states into play that haven't been before and will offset any "racist" effects.
Finally, the results of the primaries and polling data indicate that Obama has a much more positive effect on down ticket races than Hillary would. Her negative were just too high among many, especially in the West which has been trending bluer.
I have no illusions about the race and know it will be a tough, nasty campaign but I think Obama's positives outweight any negatives.
Posted by ladylaw (Terry Bush) on June 6, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am waiting to see if this guy is right http://politicalpartypoop.com/2008/06/04... He seems to think that while NONE of this year's candidate crop are worthy of the office, unless HB gets the VP job, all of her supporters will simply not show up to vote, which means the good ole boy voters will go with what they know.
Posted by OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) on June 10, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ForgetAboutTodd,
What does it matter that his numbers bounced back after the Rev. thing, if they hit him again and again and again and harder (which they will) his numbers will dip again. And when the election is held the Tuesday after that dip, you lose.
I'm w/ you though, I'm pretty positive about his chances, but it's going to be so effing ugly.
Post a comment
(Requires free lawrence.com registration.)