i wonder if "bittergate" is going to damage HRC instead for BO (4.00 / 1)

it seems to me she has overplayed her hand. This reminds me of the "meet with enemies" bruhaha.... everyone thought it would sink BO, HRC jumped on it an so did the rethugs and slowly the media, HRC, rethugs found that most regular people actually agreed with what BO had said it took days/weeks for that to be clear. HRC and the rethugs thought they'd use that to sink BO didn't work.

Some if a few found BO's bittergate remarks offensive but many think he's actually spot on even though his words were a bit in-artful with Penn 22nd closed to only dems how many will feel HRC overplayed her hand and choose to vote as dems first? in fear that HRC is damaging the party as a whole?

HRC should have let the media run with this, she instead took it and fanned the flames, now more media elites and bloggers are coming to BO's defense on HRC's tactics, in essence HRC has given BO and out on this issue by overplaying her hand.

this weeks debate will be interesting that's for sure.

---

by: jaxmax @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM CDT

After watching (0.00 / 0)

the News Hour the other night where they had a panel of local Pennsylvania editors and reporters who have been talking to the public it appears that some people were not offended while others were. The response around the country is probably the same.

For those who were not offended it is neither a net loss or net gain for Obama. But for those who were offended it is a net loss for him.

It's safe to say that his remarks didn't bring him any new support so overall it is a net loss for him.

And he did spend 5 days so far defending himself and the ripple effect in say places like Indiana are still to be determined.

From TPM: Today "roughly 100 mayors from all over Pennsylvania will be endorsing her today at noon -- and a bunch of them will hit Obama over the "small town" comments".

To try to spin that this has not adversely affected him to to ignore reality. Of course it adversely affect him. And it will continue to all the way through the General along with Wright and NAFTA and a host of other goofs he has made. And that is not to count future mistakes this neophyte of a candidate will make. Obama 'peaked' already. There is only one direction for him to go and that is down. Things are going to get worse for him not better.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Neophyte of a candidate? (0.00 / 0)

Compared to whom?

---

by: BlueLake @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:37:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Compared to (0.00 / 0)

a lot of people. Certainly compared to Clinton who has been on the world stage longer. May as well throw McCain in there too given that he is our opponent.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"neophyte" is beating Hillary (4.00 / 3)

What does it say about the political talent of the "neophyte" that he is beating the candidate once widely considered inevitable? And what does it say about Hillary?

I hate to break this to you, but to a lot of voters, Hillary's recent "I love guns and God so much, and Obama doesn't" pander fest is enough to make one throw up a little bit in one's mouth, while Obama's relative honesty and respect for voters' intelligence is like rain in the desert.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 15:21:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton is a neophyte candidate as well... (0.00 / 0)

Just to let ya know. Hillary Clinton hasn't run for President before this, and it shows. McCain an experienced candidate? Sure. But that also means we get to call him a flip-flopper. Sweet goodness...

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That 100 mayors thing is meaningless .. (4.00 / 1)

85% of them won't even be there .. heck .. Hillary won't even be there .. it's just a photo-op for her campaign ..  and as I read your comment again .. I see you are an Obama hater .... figures

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:04:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Hate No One (0.00 / 0)

I just want to win the WH and see Obama as the weaker of the two candidates in both winning and with the inexperience to govern and get us out of the multiple messes we are in.

I don't buy 'Hope' as a solution. Hope is like 'I hope to win the lottery'. Hope is not a strategy to govern.

And I don't buy 'I didn't vote for war' when he was in no position to not have to vote for it or against it. A lot of people were against the war too that doesn't qualify them for President any more than it does him.

Besides he didn't have the courage to vote against funding the war like a lot of others did. Where is 'change you can believe in' there? Where is Hope there? The man is a charade if he runs as being against the war but his actions showed no courage to vote against funding it. The two just don't add up. They are polar opposites. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and I an amazed that you and others aren't savvy enough to see that. I like to know what I am buying. With him as has been chronicled on the front pages of this blog we really don't know what we will get. Screw that.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:31:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"weaker of two candidates"? (4.00 / 1)

Obama has won more states, more delegates, and more popular votes. Go figure.

Once the Party is united, Obama's candidacy will be a steamroller.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:46:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Primarys (0.00 / 0)

and most of the voters who participate in primaries are nowhere near what the General is like. Ask Kerry, he had a united Party behind him and it was far from a steam roller.

And if you look at national polls over at Realclear Politics you will see that Clinton runs about a point behind Obama in a McCain matchup. one point being statistically insignificant. And in 'key' state matchups she actually fares better that Obama in those states. So yes give that those key swing states are the difference between winning and losing Obama is the weaker candidate.

As for 'more states' - sorry I don't see caucus states as representative of the General Electorate and neither should you. Caucus states are dominated by a virtual handful of activists and as such are not democratic and not representative of the general population.

We have a better chance of taking the WH with Clinton for a lot of reasons.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:04:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

''The Primarys and most of the voters who participate in primaries are nowhere near what the General is like. '' (0.00 / 0)

I agree. That is why it is nonsense to suggest the winner in the primary somehow has an advantage in the general. And even without taking a single caucus into account, lets say for the sake of argument that ''They don't matter'', he has actually won more primaries than she has.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:16:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Primaries (0.00 / 0)

in Red states and in small states. Take out the Red state victories that we won't win in the General anyway and your argument quickly evaporates.

She has won the Key states. Remember no Dem has ever won the General without winning Ohio. Hillary won Ohio. California too. She does better against McCain in Florida. Get the picture?

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:22:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now you are in ditohead mode (4.00 / 2)

There is no reason to assume a correlation between a primary victory and a general election victory.  

For example, we know Clinton does better in the deep south in the general election despite the fact Obama does better in the primary.  As polls show Obama and Clinton roughly the same against McCain both overall and electorally, he is obviously making up that ground somewhere else.

So all you are doing is throwing around talking points that sound good (to some, at least) but have no grounding in reality.

For a check on reality, look at the state by state polling against McCain.  Both can win, both win slightly differently.  But Obama puts more states in play and has fewer to defend, which makes up for losing extra big in the south.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:29:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More States In play? (0.00 / 0)

Versus doing better in the traditional swing states for Clinton.

You may want to stake the outcome on new and unproven dynamics but I don't. Good luck.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:26:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's right (0.00 / 0)

Cause picking the second place finisher in the primary season is the tested, proven way to win. Good point, really.

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah, I see another goalpost change! (0.00 / 0)

Next I suppose you will say that Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin don't count either.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:30:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scrub Minnesota from that list (0.00 / 0)

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:31:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You got my point (0.00 / 0)

Which is why you can't respond to it.

Talk about moving the goal posts! Or in you case they call it changing the subject.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:28:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the contrary (0.00 / 0)

Your original argument was to dismiss the fact that Obama has won more contests by saying they were in caucuses. So I pointed out that even in primaries he has more wins 14-11, 14-13 including MI and FL. So you said they were just red states that are unwinnable in November. So I pointed out the several blue and swing states where he won primaries. Looks to me like you're the one changing the subject. Let me preempt your next argument. Let me guess...he has only won states with high numbers of African-Americans? Well that would be like me saying Hillary has only won in states with large numbers of female voters!

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, and the famous stat is that no Republican has ever won without Ohio (0.00 / 0)

JFK lost to Nixon. FDR lost it to Dewey in 1944.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:40:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do your homework (0.00 / 0)

I thought no explanation was necessary and that people were informed here.

The Ohio reference was regrading the well know fact that no candidate in recent history has won the White House without winning the Ohio "primary". Again Clinton won Ohio.

In other words if you can't even carry Ohio in your own primary history says you won't win the General.

Dewey? Come on!

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

A genuine misunderstanding. What about 2000 then? Gore won and Bush lost the NH primary. Bush won and Gore lost in November.

In 1992 Bill Clinton lost contests to fellow Dems in IA, NH, ME, MD, MN, CO, MT, VT, WA, DE, MA, CT, NV, and RI before going on to win them that November. He won ID, KS, NE, OK, TX, FL, MS, AL, SC, NC, VA and IN but lost all these to Bush in the general.

1988? Dukakis won Dem contests in CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, NM, CO, AZ, NE, KS, ND, MN, WI, IN, OH, PA, WV, FL, MD, NJ, NY, RI, CT, NH, ME and DE. He lost Iowa but won there in November.

In the 1976 Dem primary Jimmy Carter lost in MA and MD but won them in the general. Carter won primaries in VA, ME, VT, CT, IN, and MI but went on to lose them to Ford that November. In 1980 he won RI after losing there to Kennedy in the primaries.

And of course McGovern and Mondale won lots of states in primaries and caucuses but lost many more to Nixon and Reagan.

As you can see I have done my homework. Point is there is no correlation between primary and caucus results and general election results. Not that much of this matters since Hillary is unlikely to get the chance to prove me right by losing AZ, NH, TX, TN, OK, NM, NV, MI, FL and AK to McCain. She is kinda like Dewey - thought she had won when she really hadn't didn't you!    

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lots of google work (0.00 / 0)

on your part but all irreverent to the major point of the important swing state of Ohio.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The major point is that winning the important swing state of Ohio in the primary... (0.00 / 0)

...is irrelevant to what happens in the general. My ''google work'' proves that. Otherwise Gore would have won NH in the 2000 general etc. I am sorry you don't or won't understand that.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Your google work does not change history. Your google work does not mention Ohio. So it proves nothing about Ohio.

You are being so typical of Obama supporters. If were were talking about rotting apples you would bring up fresh oranges and fresh grapefruits as proof that there are no rotting apples.

Quit wasting your time making irrelevant arguments and just accept the facts.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 14:56:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You want to talk about Ohio? (0.00 / 0)

Ok let us look within that particular state shall we. Clinton won the rural areas right? Obama the urban correct? Well then if we follow your logic if Clinton is the nominee she will defeat McCain in the rural areas and will lose to him in the urban areas. Do you really believe that is likely? It is you who is comparing apples (primary elections) to oranges (general elections). Different candidates, different elections. It is your whole premise that is irrelevant.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 15:16:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't want to (0.00 / 0)

parse history with you or parse districts. It's obvious that you are going to try to dissect things until you win and this conversation is not about winning - it is about what I first said regarding Ohio primaries and winning the presidency. What I said is true, you know that now. Enough.  

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 15:30:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look in the final analysis I think Hillary could win Ohio (0.00 / 0)

I think Barack can win Ohio. I think she could win Missouri and Iowa which he won. I just don't think it matters who won the primary that is all I'm saying. We will just have to agree to disagree on that. And anyway why the fixation on Ohio? I know it was THE swing state last time but the whole point is both Dems have different strengths and weaknesses and both pull from different pools of voters. In other words they both could win the general just in completely different ways.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 15:41:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice non-sensical tirade. (0.00 / 0)

I can understand such a rant coming from a Kucinich supporter, but from a Clinton supporter? Are you high? I'm sorry, I guess I missed the vote where Hillary voted to defund the war. I do remember when she voted to authorize it. I also remember the rhetorical gymnastics she attempted while trying to avoid admitting that vote was an error in judgement.

As for Obama, try to comprehend this distinction: There is a difference between opposing a war before it starts and subsequent calculations about whether to engage Bush in a game of chicken over funding of troops who are already deployed.

Wake up! Kucinich is not in the race! You have two choices: one candidate who opposed the war before it started but then failed to defund it; the other who also failed to defund it, but helped get us into it in the first place. For me, the answer is clear.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 15:39:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually I have one choice (0.00 / 1)

Clinton explained her vote at the time she voted and it was not to go to war and you know it. That you try to ignore that is as bad as lying. And Obama is lying to every time he ignores her floor speech and other people floor speeches. And you buy into his lie with full knowledge of the truth. And you expect people to respect him and you for that? I don't know what you values system is but if ignoring/lying about the truth is part of that then shame on you. And shame on you for supporting someone who would be our President who is also a liar by ignoring the truth.

And it still stands that Obama did not have the courage or conviction to back up his cheap no consequences rhetoric and not fund the war - LIKE OTHERS DID.

The old saying that 'Talk is cheap' certainly applies to Obama in this case.

Oh and congratulations for the ad hominem. That is right up there with Obama putting people down for their value systems.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:49:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton is the liar. (4.00 / 1)

If she didn't understand that her vote was enabling Bush to go to war, she is an idiot. My guess is that she knew what she was doing, which makes her a liar.


miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:43:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And you have never (0.00 / 0)

read the speech which make your opinion worthless. One cannot intelligently comment on something if they never even researched it.

And again I will say that Obama showed no courage in backing up his non-consequential empty anti-war rhetoric when he opted to fund the war when many others did not. That is something you can't deny but yet you still support him. His action are not Hope. His actions are not Change. He is no different than any other politician other than he has fooled a lot of fools.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:59:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton's speech (0.00 / 0)

No, I didn't read her speech. I would bet that less than 1/10th of 1% of Americans have heard or read her speech. But you know what a lot of Americans did hear? They heard that the House and Senate voted to approve the authorization for Bush to use force in Iraq. The vote gave Bush the cover he needed. If Clinton didn't understand this, she is a moron. I don't give a fuck what she said in a speech that nobody heard. She tried to play the same game Kerry did (which is why he lost.) She planned to tout her pro-war vote if the war went well; she planned to point to her speech if the war went badly. She played politics with the lives of our soldiers and the lives of Iraqis, with our security and standing in the world. She blew it.

Also, please explain to me why you think Obama's failure to vote to defund the war is a disqualifier for him, but it's not for Clinton. This double standard is mystifying to me.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 21:59:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need more of an explanation? (0.00 / 0)

What Clinton votes on has noting to do with what Obama does.

Does Clinton voting to fund make it OK to you for Obama to vote to fund?

Sorry but almost his entire campaign is based on his non-vote opposition to the war. But how can he be against it if he funds it. Again others did not vote to fund it but Obama did. He did not have the courage to back his empty rhetoric it is as simple as that. If you don't get that it is either because you don't want to get it or you are not as smart as you think.

As a candidate don't tell me about Hope and Change when you don't have the courage to back up your words. The guy is a sham in that respect.

See ya - done with ya.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:49:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Incorrect. (0.00 / 0)

One's opinion is NOT worthless in such a discussion as this just because they do not know their source material in and out. That does not invalidate their opinion.

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 13:03:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If she didn't think she was authorizing war (0.00 / 0)

by voting to authorize a war.

Then all her "experience" does not amount to a hill o' beans.

"Clinton explained her vote at the time she voted and it was not to go to war and you know it."

Her vote was a poltical calculation based on the public support at the time - later, when the war becaome unpopular - she tried (unsuccessfully, for many) to explain it away without looking like she put her political career ahead of issues of war and peace.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:21:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, wrong (0.00 / 0)

Hillary voted for a resolution that SAID it was authorizing use of military force. IT WAS IN THE TITLE! If your argument is true, that could only mean Sen. Clinton did not read the resolution. If so, that's a horrible indictment of her competence as a senator and her potential competence as a president.

For someone who, without proof, called a sitting US Senator a liar multiple times and to use that as reason not to support that senator and to then turn around and act offended about someone else's ad hominem, well, that my friends is called rank hypocrisy. Can you say "rank hypocrisy"?

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama (0.00 / 0)

continually voted to fund the war. Chew on that. He says he was against the war but funds it. What is it you don't get about that? That is a lack of courage on his part and renders his easy non-vote rhetoric meaningless.

As for Clinton and others they voted for military action ONLY IF Saddam did not comply with inspectors. Read their speeches. Saddam did comply. Bush is the one who didn't let the inspections continue by lying to the world and Clinton and many others called him on his lie AND STILL DO.

You see in your post you left out the part of the required inspections in Clinton's speech which is as good as a lie on your part. You bend and then try to hide the whole truth to make a false point. That is not respectable. Sorry but it isn't.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get over yourself (0.00 / 0)

Your seeming inclination to call comments "not respectable" and a "lie" when others omit things you feel prove you right is arrogant and needlessly demeaning.

I know Obama funds the occupation. I have never said he was  a strong anti-war critic at all. I have criticized him for that before. I also know that his speech against the war was not as easy as you make it out to be. I know that Sen. Obama was preparing to run for U.S. Senate and that the rally around the flaq momentum for the President and his GOP allies was still going strong at that time. I know that meant it could come back to bite him in the ass the way a vote for a war with a country we'd ALREADY BEATEN ONCE BEFORE might not bite Hillary.

Think about it -- if somehow the war didn't turn into this horrible sinkhole that it did, Obama would've eaten a monkey's assload of crow and Hillary Clinton would be a sure-fire, easy-win presidential candidate and her vote would've made her look serious, exactly what she wanted. Hillary had more to lose, but she also had more to gain. The war just didn't come through for her.

Oh and I also know Sen. Hillary Clinton said this...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Now, understand, if she said that she wanted inspectors to continue, which she supported in that same speech (I do read, you know) it would be and IS hypocritical. How can she say she wants unlimited inspections to help prove an "undisputed" fact?! That sort of contradiction shows to me that Sen. Clinton was more on the side of as she put it, "bipartisan support" for the war than she was in the inspections she talked about in her speech.

And, when she said this,

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

She put the nail in the coffin. With all her pleas and cries that she wasn't voting for war, she was at last telling us the perspective from which she voted, the perspective of the Senator from NY, angry and frustrated and weary and scared from 9/11, and thusly unable to differentiate a vote for war from a vote for diplomacy. She may have thought she was voting for diplomacy or she may have told herself that, but that's not what happened and I've yet to hear or read ANY REASON to think that's what was going to happen.

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 13:33:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh Brother! (0.00 / 0)

"How can she say she wants unlimited inspections to help prove an "undisputed" fact?!"

Go back to reading to find your answer.

From your question I assume you were either very young or not paying attention when in the '90 UN inspectors went to Iraq and dismantled and destroyed Saddam's WMD (read her speech). That is what inspectors do. That was their mission in 2003. To either verify that there was or was not WMD and if there was to dismantle and destroy it like they did before.

Why do I bother with you? You make arguments that you don't have all the facts about as is evidenced in your questions as the one above. What you can take away from this is that you are making a decision on who should be President on the basis of not having all the facts.

Like the old saying goes:

1. We know what we know
2. We know what we don't know
3. We don't know what we don't know.

You are 1, 2, AND 3

I highly suggest you read Clinton's speech once again very slowly with an open mid because there is some very important  points and history there that you are missing. In doing so you will see that she was not for immediate war like some people were or how some people try to say she was. She was not and she explicitly said that in the speech. But all the the misinformed people who take what they read on the blogs as the truth from the liars don't know what they are talking about because they are too lazy to verify as true or not true what they read. You fall in that category.

Again you are basing who should be our President on a gross lack of knowledge about important things.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 15:27:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're missing the point I'm making (0.00 / 0)

Which is part of the frustrating thing about talking with you--you don't actually respond to what others are saying to you. You take part of the comment and go off on a tangent and the point the person was making is taken as (apparently) irrelevant. You then get the opportunity to deride and demean and insult your target while dancing around the edges so that you don't have to address them head-on. It's pretty maddening.

Maybe I shouldn't have used "unlimited inspections" and instead said "more inspections". That would make more sense and is more accurate.

Still, the point I made, that Sen. Clinton was much more in favor of the war, such that she felt it necessary to vest in the President the power to use military force in Iraq, than she was in favor of more inspections and diplomacy, does not seem to have been disproven.

You might think this means I'm pigheaded or naive or stupid or lazy, like you said of me previous to this, but I disagree. I know what the 2003 inspections were for, but Sen. Clinton's actions in that same timeframe deny her more cautious words about such inspections. I understand the need for tough talk and to look resilient in tense situations (as Sen. Clinton refers to) but her vote was a poor time to exercise such judgment. I am aware of the sort of intelligence we got at the time, but the question remains, why was Obama anti-Iraq War, then, and Clinton was not? I want the answers to that, but I know deep down that there is not likely to be a pleasing answer to that question.

---

by: BlueLake @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 20:41:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

???? (0.00 / 0)

"Which is part of the frustrating thing about talking with you--you don't actually respond to what others are saying to you."

Really! If you look at my post again I actually "quoted" you and responded to that. So I how you can say I didn't actually respond to you is ludicrous.

And if you at your post that I responded to, look how you started it - "Get over yourself"!!!!

And you are lecturing me? Hypocrite.

Look the fact is that you cherry picked few paragraphs out of context with the entire speech. And then you asked a dumb question which I quoted and explained why it was dumb. If you think you can cover that up by attacking me you are doing it to the wrong guy. I don't fall for that common internet tactic and I don't appreciate you bending what was said here when it was you who said unprompted "Get over yourself"!!!!

I think we are done. Have a good life and try reading more before you stick you foot in your mouth again.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 22:22:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Talk about cherry picking (0.00 / 0)

1. How someone who takes some parts of Sen. Hillary Clinton's AUMF speech to mean more than other parts of that same speech calls another a hypocrite for doing the same thing (without having criticized the original offender for it) is beyond me.

2. My title of "Get Over Yourself" referred, correctly, to your still-prevalent arrogance and blind self-assurance. "Unprompted" in your eyes as it may be, it's not criticizing something that isn't there. Read this quote by YOU that prompted that title.

You see in your post you left out the part of the required inspections in Clinton's speech which is as good as a lie on your part. You bend and then try to hide the whole truth to make a false point. That is not respectable. Sorry but it isn't.

Calling someone a liar for not including the parts of a speech that you want them to IS arrogant and demeaning. That's descriptively accurate.

3. Your response to the offending comment (titled Oh Brother!) was, like this comment and others I've seen from you to other posters at OL, condescending, arrogant, and dismissive of the poster and their actual point. I asked why an undisputed fact would need more investigation. Why would Sen. Clinton accept the RW framing but try to add language to her AUMF vote speech to spin her pro-AUMF vote as pro-diplomacy? Your response was to look down on me, imply idiocy on my part and then not actually give a reason to connect the seemingly contradictory tacks Sen. Clinton took in her 2002 AUMF speech. I do not see how it's me without facts to support my claims, as you suggest.

4. It is very clear from your usage of terms like "cherry picking" and "common internet tactic" that you are not interested in any sort of serious dialogue with someone like me. You use these and other terms not to uplift but to denigrate and dismiss. It's a disdainful way of discussing issues with someone else, really. That said, I do not want to end this discussion here. I really do believe that my points are valid and logical and I have seen little response to them but to dance around the points I make, when you do actually respond, or to use ad hominem attacks to impugn me. I'm either young or stupid or lazy or a shameless liar, or all of the above. In any case, we're only done if you want to be done.

---

by: BlueLake @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 16:41:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mayors' endorsements not meaningless (4.00 / 1)

That 100 mayors thing is meaningless..

How can you say that 100 mayors endorsing Clinton is meaningless?  If you are an Obama supporter, it's surprising to hear such a thing from you, after all the fuss the Obama camp has made over Clinton saying that certain states "don't matter."

Every endorsement means something.  Each has relative value, and some endorsements can even have negative effects, but they all mean something to somebody.

Also, I do remember hearing someone saying that in a metro area, the mayor's opinion is a better indicator than the governor's, for example.  I don't remember where I heard this, but it was in some analysis I read.

This article suggests that big name endorsements don't matter that much but endorsements from people in closer circles do.

But certain endorsements -- the ones that don't always merit big national headlines -- do carry with them perks essential to running winning campaigns in early states. And, as different as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are, so are those endorsements that matter in each state.

...

A Congressman, whose endorsement may merit a prominent story in a local paper, may in fact be less valuable than a sheriff in South Carolina, a volunteer with a bus load of friends in Iowa, or a state senator in New Hampshire who must keep their organization sharp in order to win re-election every two years. Their names don't mean much to the national media, but they're a lot more familiar to a crowd of primary voters or caucus-goers than others give them credit for.

---

by: joanneleon @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:39:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meaningless in the sense .. (0.00 / 0)

that it won't really increase the amount by which Hillary wins(if she does) PA ... is she gonna win by an extra five points in PA just because some mayors endorse her?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:21:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Undecideds (4.00 / 1)

It could sway some undecideds, so in that sense, could make a difference in the point spread.

---

by: joanneleon @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 17:17:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

events like that mean nothing even if they do create a story you are responding to.

I mean it is not like Obama ever had surrogates stand up for him is it?

OH Wait! It's OK if you are Obama but if it is Clinton then it is meaningless. LOL!!!

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:52:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As opposed to a "gaffe-less" Clinton? (4.00 / 2)

"And it will continue to all the way through the General along with Wright and NAFTA and a host of other goofs he has made. And that is not to count future mistakes this neophyte of a candidate will make."

Yeah, and Clinton wouldn't have her own set of problems, like, say, constant jokes about sniper fire for the next 6.5 months. Or perhaps you think Clinton wouldn't be called a 100-millionaire elitist by the Republican machine for 6 straight months.

Please, everyone always makes a big deal out of stupid comments here and there, and they're not what win/lose elections.  The crap right now is the exact same tripe we see every time, and it's all BS.  The problem we had before was that we didn't have a candidate seemingly willing to fight back hard against it, but Obama doesn't appear to have that problem.

Whoever our candidate was going to be, they'd be running into this same ol' BS. The only reason it's even more annoying now is because more than half of the fire has been directed against Obama from his own party, but given his rise in the national polls since the "gaffe" and the apparent lack of change in PA, people don't seem to care.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:54:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagreee (0.00 / 0)

Clinton has taken her flack for years and in this election cycle. There isn't much more the other side can say that is new.

I doubt that McCain brings up sniper fire after his stroll though the Iraq neighborhood in a flack jacket and surrounded by the army - lol.

Obama on the other hand has been on a MSM honeymoon until as of late just as I predicted. He peaked. He has no other direction to go but down in the General. Wright is going to come back and kill him with a lot of swing white voters. To say other wise is to stick your head in the sand.

We know which side the Corporate MSM lines up on. We know what side the lobbyies line up on and it is on the Dem side. With Obama as our candidate they will tear him to shreds sufficiently enough for us to lose. Ask Kerry.

Clinton has thicker skin and has been though this and keeps on ticking.

You discount stupid comments. Did you even pay attention to 2004? Did you even vote? Ask Kerry about stupid comments in the General.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:13:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Already said... (4.00 / 1)

Stupid comments didn't sink Kerry or Gore, and yes, I voted in both elections.  I'd argue that Swift-boating (and the lack of immediate strong responses) and an unbelievably stupid convention strategy ("Don't say Bush!") did more to doom Kerry's candidacy than anything he said.

Gore won, but if you want to go into why it got close enough that it was able to be stolen from him, I'd say the debates actually did the most damage to him, particularly the first one where he was generally thought of as cold and wooden while Bush seemed genuine.

Yeah, lots of noise gets thrown out there like "flip flopper" or "serial exaggerator" (which, btw, is exactly what we'd see in a campaign against Clinton), but that has more to do with just framing than any particular "dumb" comment.

And if you honestly think that there's nothing more to come out or to be made an issue of against Clinton yet, I'm sorry to say that I'm not the one with his head stuck in the sand.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:34:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bosnia was new (4.00 / 2)

Annie Oakley is new.

She will continue to supply her own quota of gaffes for as long as she stays in the race.

Plus there's no doubt stuff about her and Bill's finances and other things that Obama hasn't gotten into.  She has been under relatively little scrutiny since 2000.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 15:19:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Annie Oakley!!! (0.00 / 0)

That is a Obama invention in a speech. Isn't he so cute with the name calling? What a standup guy you know. Real classy.

Funny how he keeps shooting himself in the foot. How many women were taught to shoot guns by their fathers? In rural America a lot were. So in essence he is saying they are all Annie Oakleys. What a pompous ass.

If she is Annie Oakley who is he - Elmer Fudd? Or more like Wile E. Coyote driving himself off a cliff when he opens his mouth?

I mean really!! How does he not see by calling Clinton Annie Oakley that by extension he is calling other women the same thing. DUH!

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But according to the polls it's a wash (4.00 / 1)

which was sort of the point of Chris' post and sort of destroys your argument (until otherwise corraborating evidence is made available.)

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:50:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say it was not a wash (0.00 / 0)

But you miss the point I was making about him winning among Dems over her but not being able to carry that over to the General.

I'd explain it to you again but if it didn't sink in the first time why bother again?

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no don't bother saying it again. (4.00 / 1)

I can read.

Here's what you said:

For those who were not offended it is neither a net loss or net gain for Obama. But for those who were offended it is a net loss for him.

It's safe to say that his remarks didn't bring him any new support so overall it is a net loss for him.

If this were true, we should see net losses in the polls, which we haven't.

As for the long run/GE, we'll see. Of course this will be a big Republican talking point in the fall but whether or not it hurts Obama remains to be seen.

One thing is for sure -- we're going to find out because it's all over but the shouting for the nomination.

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:20:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, what is next on the list? (4.00 / 6)

1. Closet Muslim. Didn't work.
2. Bad Church Picker. Didn't Work.
3. Has idiot staff who write/say stupid things. Worked to  a point.
4. Ordered Orange Juice. Didn't work.
5. Bad bowler. Didn't work.
6. Told the truth about economic frustrations. Didn't work.
7. Must be a Marxist. Ha Ha
8. Snores?

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM CDT

You have to ask? (4.00 / 1)

Skin color, my man.  Get ready!

---

by: TValley @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If its not one thing it must be another (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget plagiarizing! Yeah that one really had legs.

For a few months now it's been clear that Obama will win the nomination unless he self destructs somehow. The Clinton campaign strategy is to poke and poke trying to find that lever, and if they can't find it they'll just invent it and hammer on it until it becomes operative. So they hope.

But all the tut-tutting from the campaigns and the pundits is all about image, language and word choices. Almost never about real misdeeds. Stuff the pundit class lives and dies on but stuff most people don't care about maybe except for some fleeting amusement.  

---

by: T Maysle @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:41:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

calling the pundits (0.00 / 0)

When is a politican, or any other guest on one of these shows, going to call these pundits on their out-of-touchness with "small-town America?"

I can't wait for the day when Bill "Buffalo, New York" Russert or Chris "working stiff from Philly" Matthews or Lou "get those illegals out of MY country" Dobbs is confronted with a guest that cries bullsh!t and points out how much they make, where they live, what they drive, then the last time they regularly ate a dinner/went bowling/hunting/to church etc.

That's an instant YouTube moment on par with Jon Stewart's take down of Crossfire that is just waiting to happen.

Truth over balance, progress over ideology

---

by: Oldenburg @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:32:22 PM CDT

It's gonna take a lot of stones ... (4.00 / 3)

because 99.9% of people just want to get called back ..  they'd never jeopardize their chances to appear on Hardball .. or any of those other shows in the future

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:05:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

alternatives (4.00 / 2)

I turned on Morning Joe for half a second, long enough to hear the word "bitter," then changed to CNN and heard it again, then turned off the TV and switched on WCBS radio, which was teasing an upcoming report on bittergate.

So, I put on some music: WFUV FM, the Fordham University radio station. Best way to get through the primary season, IMHO.  And you can listen online!

TV and radio news will soon be obsolete, unless they come up with a new model -- like true facts that matter to people's lives. But that won't happen anytime soon.   From now until November, the MSM will be campaigning for John McCain. Most people, I bet, have already tuned out.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:45:10 PM CDT

Which brings up another possibility: (0.00 / 0)

Maybe some people were offended by Obama's comment the other day and some weren't, but nobody really cares except the media. Maybe even the people who were offended view it as just one comment. Maybe the reason why this isn't moving poll numbers isn't either that people agree with Obama or that they don't view Clinton as in a credible position to denounce Obama-- but just because it's boring.

...On the other hand, let's say that's exactly what's happening and everyone really has "tuned out". Maybe that counts as a win for Clinton. Obama has cut down Clinton's lead, but he still has ground to make up. If everyone gets so bored by the media controversy that they just tune the political news out for the next week, it's maybe going to be difficult for Obama to do that. This trumped up controversy might not be specifically helping Clinton in the polls, but at least with the news flooded with this nonsense this prevents anything substantive from being discussed and maybe moving poll numbers in the other direction...

Meh.

---

by: mcc @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:07:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did the exact same thing with (0.00 / 0)

Morning Joe today.

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:53:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The whole thing is so contrived... (0.00 / 0)

...it's painful...  and to think that a Wellsley and Yale graduate who makes over $10 million per annum and hasn't held a real job more than 20 years would call someone else elitist is beyond laughable...  and then she goes on a drinking binge and talking about duck hunting on her NES game system, making her sound about as ridiculous as Mitt Romney shooting squirrels, only this time, she was trying not to throw up!

The sad thing is, if Hillary wasn't making the case along with John McCain, this story would barely make it out of Hannity and Colmes.  Remember the "proud" statement by Michelle Obama?  It only made news in right wing circles and quickly disappeared...  The ONLY reason that this is still being talked about is that the Clintons (who themselves have been called elitist) are keeping it in the news.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:15:10 PM CDT

Bowling (4.00 / 2)

[Reuters Washington correspondent Jon Decker]: They do. And let's not forget Barack Obama bowling. You know, this cuts to "is this person real? Do they connect with me as a voter?" You know, for someone who's in a bowling league in northeast central Pennsylvania, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, they can't identify with someone getting a 37 over seven frames.

Sorry to quote your quote here, I but I keep seeing this "37 over seven frames" repeated and can't help think that pundits have no clue how to bowl.  Obama ended on a spare, which is shown as a slash and is worth at least ten more points.  So Obama had 47 of 7 frams with the chance of gaining up to 10 more points over the same 7 frames.

I know it is a small point, but it seems if the press is going to focus on trivial and insignificant detail they could at least get it correct.  

Your press core: trivial and wrong.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:29:08 PM CDT

This Is Actually A Serious Posting (4.00 / 2)

I grew up in a bowling family. My father created the National Bowling Hall of Fame and Museum. In any case, whether it was a 37 or (potentially) a 47, we can agree that it was a rotten score.

That's the bad news. The good news is that bowling isn't exactly rocket science. Spend a few hours at it, and you'd be hard put to shoot less than 150. Not only that, but there was a bowling alley in the White House when Nixon was there. I don't know what it was replaced with, but if Obama gets elected he could always reinstate it.

Bowling has declined a great deal in popularity over the past 25 years, but there are still about 4.5 million league bowlers last I heard. Obama, if you practiced your game and came back in the general election shooting in the mid-100s and making a point of visit a bunch of alleys, I think you'd get a hell of a lot more working class street cred than you'd believe.

The National Bowling Association was once "The National Negro Bowling Association" during the days when the American Bowling Congress, my father's former employer, was a whites-only organization. That sad state of affairs ended before my father's time there, through the intercession of the United Auto Workers.

The black organization survives now under the new name, and now (like the U.S. Bowling Congress, successor organization to the American Bowling Congress and Womens International Bowling Congress) welcomes everyone. If Obama were to join both organizations, get a little coaching, and campaign this fall as a presidential candidate AND aspiring champion bowler, I think he'd do well in all kinds of ways. He'd humanize himself, he's reinvigorate bowling, and pick up a bunch of votes.

Senator, if you do this, make sure to wear a fun bowling shirt. Oh, and use a black-and-white speckled ball. Great symbolism. Bowling's a lot of fun, and it's a great way for a future commander-in-chief to unwind.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:17:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

150 (4.00 / 1)

Clearly, you are too close to bowling if you think 150 is a trivial score.  I used to be a casual bowler (once a month or so, no league play) and 150 would be just fine.  160 would be easily win most games and I only broke 180 once in my life.

By the way, it wasn't potentially 47, it was potentially 57.  Reporters weren't even giving Obama the first 10 for the spare, they were just reading the last number posted, 37, and didn't know what the slash in the next box meant.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 22:22:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Answer (0.00 / 0)

I haven't bowled for years, and in spite of my family connection I was never anything more than a casual bowler. We had bowling lanes at our high school, and I recall our PhyEd classes using them. I was small for my age, so I couldn't throw the ball with any force. A 150 score was no great feat.

As for his potential score, I didn't see the scoresheet, so I was going on what I read. Anything under 100 is rotten. Please trust me, I don't even begin to hold that against Obama, and all of that is tangential to the point I was trying to make.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 14:04:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry I haven't posted about "bittergate' (4.00 / 4)

We have been too busy selling our house in the small, rural town we live in - after it was on the market for 1 1/2 years and multiple offers from people who couldn't get financed.  (one of the worst experienses of my life, we took a hit but still have enough to start over).

Next my husband will be starting his going out of business sale for his hardware store he has owned for 9 years in the same small town.

And I am constantly busy trying to fill in and minimize the horrendous education my daughter is receiving at our small town school.

Excuse for not giving a shit what the media thinks about Obama's bitter comment.  

We are too busy trying to survive and get the hell out of rural America........hmmmm, perhaps I am a bit bitter.

---

by: sisterfish @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:42:47 PM CDT

Hit the nail on the head (0.00 / 0)

I'm quite certain people find it offensive that there are a bunch of DC cocktail weenie enthusiasts who think "small-town folk" are such rubes that they'd vote for a candidate based on their bowling handicap or preference for orange juice over coffee.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:57:30 PM CDT

Some of those wealthy media types (0.00 / 0)

are only one generation removed from the rural Pennsylvanian types and may have grown up in that environment.  Pat Buchanan, for example, was on MSNBC the other night and he said that he had come from a small PA town.  Now, he's clearly not there anymore and it seems pretty clear that people can quickly lose touch with their roots when the "make it big."  But I don't think it's such a stretch to think that people like Buchanan take statements like Obama's personally, even though they have long ago left their small town roots.  So basically I'm saying that we shouldn't paint all the media types with a broad brush, and sometimes, they just might be remembering where they came from, and they might even be hearing from their relatives back in rural PA when they speak of such things.

Gad, I hate to defend Pat Buchanan, but it did strike me that way when I heard him the other night.

---

by: joanneleon @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:17:33 PM CDT

Offense (4.00 / 1)

I forget where I read it, but someone out on the blogosphere made a really good point about this.  You can't tell people they are voting for stupid reasons.  How many  Obama supporters switched to Hillary after they realized they were just in a cult?  Somewhere in the neighborhood of zero, right?

You can't tell people they are stupid for voting culture over  all else, you'll only alienate people that way.  The irony, is Obama has been great on this front for most of the campaign and he is doing a good job (to my elite ears) on the counter attack.  

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:23:11 PM CDT

He never said it was stupid. (0.00 / 0)

In a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose (link on TPM) he did a much better job of explaining the same point. His point was not that it was stupid, but rather that it was understandable. If Democrats fail to fight for good paying jobs and economic security for working class voters, it is perfectly reasonable for voters to vote based on the cultural factors that give them a sense of stability in the face of their diminishing economic stability.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 15:53:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, but it was close (0.00 / 0)

I agree that is only one interpretation, but I do suspect that is partially what he thinks.  Hell, I'll go further, I think it is partially correct!  (I don't really mean stupid, but misguided.)  But it is a poor well to sell yourself.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:10:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rumour has it that LA Times/Bloomberg has polling due tonight... (0.00 / 0)

...that supports Quinnipiac in PA while showing Obama up by 5 in Indiana.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:26:47 PM CDT

Obama up by 5? (0.00 / 0)

Huh. How would that work? Didn't we have Indiana polls like just yesterday showing Clinton up by 15?

---

by: mcc @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:50:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indeed (0.00 / 0)

But that is the rumour.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:58:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And CQ has an analysis .. (0.00 / 0)

and they think that Clinton will win the delegate battle in PA 53-50 ... which means that she didn't win much of anything .. see here  .. http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 16:22:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You were right (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: mcc @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's Apologists... (0.00 / 0)

never cease to amaze me.

So many of them seem to be just as out of touch, ignorant, small-minded, and intellectually- empathically-challenged as their right-wing nemeses.

Buying into Barack Obama as POTUS is just the latest example of what has been transpiring for at least 30 years. Yet they never seem to learn. This time around there were several workable candidates, winnowed to two. Only one of them has her feet planted anywhere near the ground. But because of the left's allergy to working- and middle-class "ism", as well as their stealth and not-so-stealth misogyny - she is hacked to death by members of her own party as well as the right-wing.

Barack Obama is not ready for POTUS. Whether the polls show anything at the moment is really beside the point, since it often takes a week for effects to kick in.

The real issue here is the attitude behind the comments in SF. If there weren't so many stars in their eyes, perhaps the left would establish some pragmatic parameters for victory instead of their over-the-rainbow fantasy about "transformational politics" (now there's a blue-collar yearning if ever there was one).

That they don't even get this dismays and frustrates those of us "pragmatists" no end. Apparently they would rather lose an election on language and image than win one on bread and butter substance.

Way to go. Again. Have I said this before?

---

by: mabelle55 @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 20:13:45 PM CDT

You may be right, but (4.00 / 1)

I haven't seen a single thing that makes me think Hillary Clinton is ready to be POTUS, either.  On "Day One", or any other day for that matter.

Your comment does nothing to convince me of her qualifications - all you ever manage to do is try and tear Obama down - never do you build Clinton up - never do you point to any reason why she is your choice - other than not wanting Obama.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:36:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]