It's 3 a.m. And Hillary's Dreaming

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Someone posted this awesome Huffington Post article over at DU and I wanted to share it here.

Here is an excerpt (any bold or underline is from me BTW) from the article by Marc Cooper at Huffington Post. I decided to go with the second half instead of the first half because it's more important and I know some people are incredibly lazy and won't even click this link:


"...She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).

Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?

"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."

Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.

Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead.

If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed."
< What's up with Texas? | Clintonacracy >
 Display:
I did click on the little link and read your article. I dont know much about Huffington post and their leanings, but if I had to guess, I would say that this author is very Pro Obama and somewhat slanted toward him...

First of all, the MATH argument does not hold, because its not going to be decided by vote. This nomination is going to be decided by Superdelegates, and they dont have to follow anything the voters say...but that is for another thread of discussion. I understand that the MATH question is the Obama spin on yesterdays DEFEATS. thats OK, they are entitled to spin away...

What I found interesting was not so much the article itself, but the comment section after it... Many saying what I and Lord Foul and Spinny and even Ken TX have been saying all along. It is refreshing to know that not everyone watching this election is an Obamabot (I stole that from one of the comments, Spencer told me to find something new!)

Regardless of the whole VP/Ticket debate over on my thread, Obamabots better realize that just because the "majority of voters" picked him in these primaries (which actually isnt the case counting FL and MI) he isnt going to be guarenteed the nomination. Go thank your 1982 democrats for that little gem...

As always...:)

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 02:00:36 PM EST


He says in the article that it will have to come down to Superdelegates, but smartly adds that it shouldn't and that if it does, it could be disastrous if the trump the will of the people.

As for HuffPo, it's a mixed bag.  Joseph Wilson (yes, the one with the beautiful former CIA operative wife) is a huge Hillary fan and writes for them (as one of many pro-Hillary examples).

Finally, man, how I wish one of your preferred candidates had made it.  Just for fun (and it would be for fun, not for real) I would have to mock your posts and call you, say, a Biden-Bot, and throw in every absurd insult (in a joking way) that would come with that.

FYI, I don't think every Hillary supporter is a "Hill-Bot" and every McCain supporter is not a "McCain-Bot". It's one thing to resort to such phrases in the heat of an argument, but to use them regularly?

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 02:22:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Obama spin today is "that Hillary cannot numerically win the nomination..." As far as I know (and I might be wrong here) Obama would have to win every state at least 3-1 in order for him to get to 2025...Its not gonna happen, so it is going to be up to the Superdelegates anyway...regardless of who has how many on june 7th...

None of these fools were my preferred candidates...Maybe Biden or Edwards if I had to pick.... I wouldnt mind the name calling because Im not a liberal sissy who gets offended by names (I work at a junior High for Christ Sake, Im used to name calling...)
 
Im not the only one who refers to Obama supporters by some pet name. Being on the outside of the phenomenon, I can see the crazyness and idolatry that seems to permeate the Obama crowd, hence we must recognize them for what many (not all) of them are...robots, Kool Aid drinkers, cultish, moonies...whatever. Again, thats the whole "grow some balls" thing...we aren't at an academic seminar or professional meeting, we are on a blog for discussion and opinions...

If you cant take silly name calling, how are you gonna do with words like "N***er" "Towelhead" "Abba Dabba" or "Osama Yo Mamma"! You know thats coming next from the 527s, Republicans and ignorant middle America (not from me, I promise) These will be used, if not regularly, in everyday conversation, and not just by right wing nutbags...

Thanks again...

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 02:41:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not "offended" or "hurt". This isn't some "liberal weeny political correctness" issue, not at all.

It's about blog and chat etiquette (you can decide what that means to you, everyone has their own standards).

You're free to say what you want and I'm free to tell you if I think you're making an ass of yourself and not only not winning hearts and minds (which you claim you don't care about, I know) but losing them. I mean look, the fact is we wouldn't choose to write here (or anywhere online for that matter) unless we wanted to share our views with others. 

If we truly didn't care at all, we'd write in our Hello Kitty (or in my case, I Heart Obama) diaries before bed.  ;)

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 03:00:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just wondering...

No matter I suppose, but Hello Kitty? ...:)

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 03:13:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You live in some racist netherworld if you believe that "normal" Americans use terms like nigger and towel head on a regular basis. Those terms are the stuff of right wing blogs .

by Chinese Democracy on 03/05/2008 04:31:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did that not read as a joke to you?
But since you asked, are you a chick?  I've been wondering for awhile, cause that's the only thing could explain your retarded opinions.  And I'll bet you drive poorly too.  Am I right fellas?
And yes, that's a joke as well.  But seriously, what gender are you just out of curiousity?

by Spencer on 03/05/2008 05:31:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Notice how the media spins Clinton can't win the nomination without the super delegates, all the while failing to mention that neither can Obama

Notice the talk about the voters and delegates like they are the same thing. Clinton "wins" Texas and barely picks up any delegates but that's ok.


by LORD FOUL on 03/05/2008 06:06:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually, the media *has* said that neither candidate will reach 2025 (or whatever the magic number is) without the SD's. I've heard that from CNN, MSNBC and local news today.

But why pretend it's a 50/50 proposition?  It's not.  Obama will have more pledged delegates, barring a miracle (an awful miracle), and that's the bottom line difference.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 06:23:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that it doesnt matter who has more pledged delegates on June 7th. Under Democratic Party Rules (Much like our wonderful Electoral College) the Superdelegates will pick who they want, not who the general public wants.

Thats why this system is in place. They dont want the moderates/conservatives from certain states to sway their results... Hopefully, they would go along with the general public's wishes (presumably for Obama), but please do not think for a moment that they have to.

They wont be forced to do what they do not want to do, even if it means total party destruction.

If I have learned anything about Democrats old and young it is that they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...Its a damn shame, yes, but please dont be naive, Obama supporters...That pesky reality thing is comin round the mountain waiting to bite all of you in the ASS.

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 09:43:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I even said it in another post earlier today.  There's a difference between what the Superdelegates *can* do and what they *should* do in this case.


On that I think we agree.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 09:54:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All anyone here tends to know about your politics is that you don't like Obama.  OK, fine, we get it already.  Now that you've done this to death, what exactly do you stand for?  I'm just curious, because after all of your numerous posts I have no idea who you are for.  It would be a refreshing change if you actually posted who you think ought to win and why they are the better candidate rather than endlessly repeating the same monotonous arguments against Obama.

by bfaul on 03/05/2008 05:10:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont think anyone has ever asked me this before on this blog (not so specificaly, anyway...) Let me think...

What am I for...

I am for the Constitution.

I am for the right of people to exist freely in soceity

I am for choice

I am for closed borders and fair trade

I am for a country that doesnt start wars to protect oil interests

I am for people thinking for themselves, free expression and the rights that come with that.

I am for a place where families are able to be self sufficient without both the burdensome crush of taxes or corporatist greed.

I am for a candidate that represents my values and core beliefs

Too bad that this election cycle, really none of the candidates on either side of the aisle was acceptable in terms of the things listed above (and for many things that I didnt get into). If I had to choose one or two that would have maybe been acceptable, I would say Edwards or Biden. I would not have voted for Biden due to the fact that he is an asshole on camera, and Edwards was very plastic in his approach to issues...

Im sorry if this didnt answer your questions, bfaul. As I have explained in several previous postings, I view myself as one of the millions of disenfranchised voters this cycle who really doesnt have anyone that stands for a majority of issues that are most important to me...

No one is talking about (or saying what I as a voter want to hear about):

Immigration (get rid of illegals and their employers)
Education    (get rid of NCLB)
Tax Reform (tax the rich more, reduce burden of middle class)
Upholding the Constitution (undoing the harm Bush has done)
Monetary reform (upholding the dollar, stop messing with rates)
Job creation and protection (closing the borders, incentives for local manufacturing, killing NAFTA)

Obama is not my problem. Obama supporters are my problem. They do not think ahead, they do not realize how this system works, and they live in this dream world that says we can all get along, hold hands and sing Kumbaya and the world will live as one. Such stupidity pisses me off, and a lot of seemingly smart people (especially on this blog) have fallen into this mesmerizing trap. This level of dreamy want will not help our situation. I will not vote for Obama because he has no experience, he doesn't say much that I want to hear, and quite frankly I dont think hes ready. I tend not to believe or follow dreamers, because in the end they always let me down. I think Obama would be an excellent VP choice for anyone, though.

Clinton is a bitch, but I would rather have a bitch than a dreamer as President. Clinton has all of her cards on the table, we all know they are corrupt as Hell, but we also know what we are getting. I will not vote for her because I do not want my testicles locked in some box in a storeroom in Washington. I will move back to the woods and stockpile weapons if she becomes president. With Hillary, though, you have a bit more substance and you know she'll survive the rigors and opposition.

Grandpa Death McCain is a fucking nutbag who is not suitable for public life. He needs to be isolated from the general public, be placed in a veterans home, or simply crawl away and die. It makes me cringe to hear terms like "maverick" and "Hero" associated with Grandpa Death. I would remarry my ex wife, commit Harry Carey, and take several people with me before I would ever consider voting for such a sick bastard.

If it makes you guys happy, I will voluntarily tone down my attacks on the Obama people, but I will not stand idly by as they say and repeat things that are anti productive to the main point of this election in my opinion, which is to get rid of Bush and the Republicans.

I hope this clarifies my positions for you, bfaul. thanks for your time and support...

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 09:28:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So, am I to take it you're not voting?  If so, I would urge you to pick one that best fits your ideals and vote.   We both know if you wait for the perfect candidate you will be waiting a long, long time.

by bfaul on 03/06/2008 11:52:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I certainly know that no one candidate is perfect, but I cannot remember in my years when all of the choices have been shit. Voting this time is somewhat useless for people like me, because if I vote its going to be for people who do not support my views on many levels. This is a no win vote for me this time around...

I will never vote for Grandpa Death, be assured. But voting for the other 2 will leave a dent in my conscience and a bad taste in my mouth (after I vomit).

Thanks again for reading...

by bobo1 on 03/06/2008 12:29:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I took a look at the Slate delegate calculator Jonathan Alter wrote about and set every remaining contest to a 61/39 split in Clinton's favor and she still loses by 7 delegates.  And there's no way she's going to run the table at all, to say nothing of beating Obama by 20+ points in every one of them.

It's time for her to stick a fork in this campaign so Obama can get down to the business of pounding mccain.

 

by ynp7 on 03/05/2008 09:32:06 PM EST


 Display: