• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    jmac on Arrows Up
    jmac on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    jmac on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Kansas Nope
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Kansas Nope
    Propertius on I Think That There Are Democra…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • History
      "To sit in those classrooms where my teachers obfuscated the true reasons for the Civil War and what the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts meant was to feel alone in America," @GayleCaleb writes:https://t.co/e6TlaUUgDj — The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 7, 2022
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022 by Tony Wikrent   Restoring balance to the economy Becoming the Workers’ Party Again Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), August 5, 2022 [The American Prospect] …A toxic combination of shareholder capitalism and pliant politicians gutted our middle class, hollowed out our towns, and dried up opportunity for people […]
  • Top Posts

Excuse me, Ms. Brazile?

Who the f%^& appointed her Goddess?

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. “In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever.”…

Some superdelegates are bracing themselves to intervene on Obama’s behalf if necessary.

“If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”

So, superdelegates are just going to award it to Obama, putting aside all strategic advantages and ignoring the will of the biggest electoral college states? I don’t *think* so, Donna. That may be YOUR strategy but overall, it ain’t gonna fly.

Isn’t this the same $%^& we’ve heard from media pundits and Kossacks (aka the New Lefty Freepers)? Hillary is never supposed to go negative and for the most part, she hasn’t. If a person was looking for a transformative political campaign that goes beyond the negativity, you couldn’t get a better example of one than Clinton’s because the moment she tries to even *compare* herself to Obama, we have Brazile type referees throwing flags and blowing whistles.

So, if she wins the nomination, will she have to continue in this mode or will she be allowed to compare herself to John McCain on economic policy or national security. I mean, how much of a handicap does Obama need? He’s gotten every break in the book and now they’re roughly even. But why does Obama need so much help and why is Brazile, a DNC insider, pulling so many strings to award it to him?

Jeez, she’s not even subtle.

Update:   Ladydawn points us to this article in The Hill, Clinton Says, Be Careful What You Wish For, that also cites the significance of the states that Hillary has won in the upcoming general election.  Those states include, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico and New Jersey and a few others.  I urge the DNC to not be passive about New Jersey.  They tend to take this state for granted but it would be a big mistake.  We are perfectly capable of voting for a moderate Republican like McCain.  Our Congressional delegation is nearly evenly split and our governors have fluctuated between Republicans and Democrats very easily.  PLUS, there are a lot of people in this state who are going pay higher taxes under a Democratic administration and in this cash strapped state that is $34 Billion in debt, that’s not going to be a happy prospect.  So, if I were Donna Brazile, I would “zip it”.  Zip it good.

31 Responses

  1. Exactly how I feel about Donna.

    I’ve been let DOWN by her and the other traitor pundits like Keith O as he walks side by side in disgust of Hillary with his counterpart slush monkey Chris Matthews.

    I heard Mica with Joe this morning and SHE was just beyond bummed out and they were ALL crying sour grapes from the MOMENT she won Ohio!

    They will GET OVER it! Or switch sides and become like Lush Rimjob! Not much difference between them. They all think their poop doesn’t stink!!

    PeU! 😉

  2. If the primary states had been winner take all, what would the delegate cont be?

  3. If we did it like a general election “electoral” map Hillary would be way ahead.

    Here’s a clip from an article regarding the IMPORTANT states for DEMS to win. (she has them)

    “In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory — particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey,” the two strategists wrote in the memo.

    this comes from an article found here
    http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-rush-2008-03-05.html

  4. Based on the articles about how Obama won in the past, it was by clearing the primary decks, and, luckily for him, clearing out the strong Repub US senate candidate (Ryan) when his divorce papers were ordered released. Amazingly, the strong Dem primary opponent had the same thing happen: His divorce papers were ordered released and his campaign went cowpie. Essentially, he ran unoposed for the US Senate (the ReThugs put up an out-of-stater) and he was completely unopposed for the IL senate (all primary opponents were disqualified and the Dem primary winner was the ipso facto winner).

    The only time he lost, he was unable to clear out the primary opponents.

  5. The democratic party has a real problem. If Clinton gets superdelegates to push her ahead when she is behind in pledged delegates (and she will be); the general election will be lost. I guarantee it.

    This won’t happen becuase base party democrats (who probably can’t beat the GOP/Indy combination of McCain) will be any less energized. The sad fact is Obama’s new voters just won’t come to her in my opinion. Without them she’ll lose.

    if Clinton is the nominee, I predict Obama gets way more write in votes than Nader pulls away; even if she picks him as VEEP. Forget about CO, MO, IA, NV and VA which will all go blue with Obama as the nominee. Thus the electoral map will fail again because FL will be won by McCain (and maybe even Oregon sad to say.)

    I sure hope that doesn’t happen but having familiarized myself with a lot of Obama voters I can tell you a tipping portion of them are voting for him come hell , high water, or write in. Remember you heard it here first.

    It really should come as no surprise because a large portion of them never voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. A fair amount of them did vote for Perot and Dean/Nader based on my anecdotal eveidence of the non youth portion of his support.

    Clinton can help tear nominee Obama down weakening him for the general or she can get superdelegates to assure the DEMS lose in November.

    Ms. Brazille may be making too much noise on what people should do; but I’m telling you what will happen if it keeps on going. While I respect her right to do so be it negative or not, I think she is playing a dangerouus and losing game for the party.

    Too bad…the DEMS would have won.

  6. jawbone – sounds likie they’re trying to do the same thing to this primary opponent.

    If Dean goes along with Brazile, then they can go Cheney themselves.

    And I think I speak for a lot of people besides me! (At least, I hope I do – ah, the audacity of that statement!!)

  7. Forget about CO, MO, IA, NV and VA which will all go blue with Obama as the nominee.

    and probably WI too.

    Obama would win NY NJ CA PA MA just like Clinton it’s a straw woman argument. Kerry won them too. They are not at risk and they are not enough.

    Kerry barely lost the states Obama won and would win. CO, IA and MO. WI was razor thin for Kerry and Clinton will probably lose it.

    Clinton loses to Mccain in polling in all of these “winner take all” states and generally loses electorally compared to Obama versus McCain.

  8. I can not wait for the campaign to get to Pennsylvania! Between myself, my mom, my sisters, sister-in-laws, nieces and friends we will total about 14 totally stoked volunteers for Hillary. We are absolutely over the top about last nights results and can’t wait to get started. As for the threat of a bought off block of super-delegate coming out enmass for Obama they should know that we will be taking names of each and everyone of them that decided to disenfranchise us. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”!

  9. (I just got this off another blog as well) Seems the Obamabots have a reason to worry!
    ——————————————

    What are considered the swing areas that the Democrats need to win for election?

    (1) Upper midwest (especially Ohio, but also Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.) — all looking strong for Hillary

    (2) Upper South/Appalachia (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) — all looking strong for Hillary

    (3) Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) — all looking strong for Hillary

    (4) Florida — a great state for Hillary

    Obama’s victories largely occurred in small plains states that Democrats never win anyway, and in deep South states that Democrats never win anyway (with his pledged delegate lead due to big margins among small number of voters in caucuses in small red states)

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/9312/67590#commenttop

    (there’s a pretty cool map there as well)

  10. Toni C: Young and fanatic Obama supporters may sit it out, but when I hear my mother, a two time Bush voter say that she’s voting for Hillary in the fall, I’m pretty sure that Clinton will do better than expected. As for the young, Clinton has proposed a very reasonable alternative that I think most Democratic voters would be happy with. Obama can join her ticket as VP candidate. I’m sure he’s not her first choice, nor mine either for that matter. But experience *will* be a contributing factor in the minds of most voters. He’s a young pup next to her and it shows in every debate. So, they can sit it out if they want. It would be nice to win with overwhelming numbers but I think she will do well without them.

  11. http://hominidviews.com/?p=1360

    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1359

    interesting to refer to as new polls arrive but it shows how bogus the big state argument is already.

  12. After hearing Hillary make the big state argument I just found by a little research it does not actually hold water. What matters in the general is how independents break. They do not vote for Clinton and that is the problem vs McCain (who they will vote for).. But more pronounced is that they break for Obama instead of McCain.

    http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/2008/02/polls-show-obama-beating-mccain-in.html

    Pennsylvania: Obam wins/ Clinton Loses

    Obama: 49%
    McCain: 39%

    McCain: 44%
    Clinton: 42%

    Oregon: Obama wins/ Clinton Loses

    Obama: 49%
    McCain: 40%

    McCain: 45%
    Clinton: 42%

    Colorado: Obama wins/ Clinton Loses

    Obama: 46%
    McCain: 39%

    McCain: 49%
    Clinton: 35%

    Nevada: Obama wins/ Clinton loses

    Obama: 50%
    McCain: 38%

    McCain: 49%
    Clinton: 40%

    These are the states that matter and they paint a very bad picture for our girl. Not NY NJ IL and CA.etc Those are safe for either. I know about early polls and all but losing poll after poll in swing states Obama wins is a scary thing to me and should be to anyone to wants to make sure a DEM wins in November.

    PA is telling as a poll. Clinton will beat Obama there but Obama would beat McCain there. The argument Clinotn makes is false though I understand why she is making it being behind in delegates.

    Good luck but we’d be better off with Hillary as the tough Senate Majority leader than as a defeated DEM nominee.

    Just my sincere opinion. I just want the DEMS to take the white house more than I want a woman in the white house. Either Clinton or Obama will do fine but not McCain which is where we are heading with Hillary as the nominee.

  13. Toni C: The Democratic Party will be divided even if Obama is the nominee. Many Clinton supporters will sit it out as well or just vote for McCain. Obama gets a lot of the young and anti-war progressives who will never vote Republican. Maybe they will go over to Nader but never to McCain. Clinton voters will go to McCain. Voters in OH, PA, TX…they will easily go to McCain. I personally will write in Hillary so Obamabots aren’t the only stubborn ones who can make threats about not voting. Anyway, Clinton carries much more of the core Democratic voters, white voters, women, Asians, and Hispanics. There is more to lose if Clinton loses. Obama carries blacks and youth voters who have historically not been very reliable to turn out in large numbers to the polls.
    The only solution to this is a Clinton/Obama ticket. Obama will also lose to McCain and it will be a combination of factors including losing core Democrats to the Republican party. This will affect the Democratic Party for years to come long after this year’s election.

  14. My sister-in-law is a life-long Repub like her parents. She just changed her registration to Dem so she can vote for Clinton in the primary.
    Yes..Yes..Yes..
    We are out here by the millions.

  15. As a totally committed Obama campaign surrogate, Brazile should be kicked off CNN — just like Carville and Begala were for being friends of Bill and Hillary.

    I’ll be preoccupied again most of the day, but yeah …
    neener, neener, neener.

    Are there big orange heads exploding elsewhere in the blogosphere?

  16. Toni C: The Democratic Party will be divided even if Obama is the nominee. Many Clinton supporters will sit it out as well or just vote for McCain. Obama gets a lot of the young and anti-war progressives who will never vote Republican. Maybe they will go over to Nader but never to McCain. Clinton voters will go to McCain. Voters in OH, PA, TX…they will easily go to McCain>>>

    In principle but that is not what all these polls are saying. They are saying most Clinton votes will go to Obama and too many Obama votes will go to McCain.

    At least in large enough numbers to decide critical states such as PA, NV, CO, etc for McCain. The fact that Obama would win these is a problem for the superdelegates.

    It makes sense because Clinton votes are true blue DEMS more than Obamas. The party wants them and does not know if they will get them unless he is the nominee.

    This is why its probably moot becasue the superdelegates won’t give it to her as she”ll need because of these ominous polls and the makeup of all these new voters needed to actually win.

    Maybe the Clinton/Obama ticket could save it but I have serious doubts with these poor poll comparisons.

  17. Toni C:

    For (most) Obama supporters to go to McCain in the general, the only explanation would be spite. The gap between McCain and either of the Democrats is just too huge. On DKos, the Obama supporters argue that their candidate is the most progressive — how could such progressive voters end up with McCain? Repeat after me: McCain is not a moderate. The fact that he is slghtly less conservative than the Bushie base does not a moderate make.

    I started out this race liking Obama but preferring Clinton. I am beginning to like Obama less, just because he is beginning to display that same petulance you hear from some of his supporters. If Obama is the nominee, I am totally behind him. If Obama is not the nominee, his ability to carry his supporters with him to support Clinton, rather than to taking their balls and going home, will show whether he is also a leader. And frankly, the same goes for Hillary.

    The simple fact is that neither candidate can win the presidency without the support of ALL Democrats. Clinton supporters are not the dispensable voters that some Obama supporters like to think, and Obama supporters have to believe in the fairness of the process.

    Just my 2 cents.

  18. Litigatormom: Hear! Hear! Excellent rebuttal. megadittos

  19. litigatormom,

    I agree with you that Obama supporters need to get behind the nominee. Why this is not reflected in state after state poll is disturbing though and ignoring it is not my approach to analyzing it. I suppose he can fix that support if/when she pegs him as VEEP but it may not ever come to that becasue of superdelegates being essentially required to make that possible.

    I vote DEM typically my husband is more maverick. He voted for Perot in Clinton I. He held his nose on Kerry because of how bad Bush was. His attraction to Obama came because he railed on Bush marketing WMD.

    “Saddam is a ruthless dictator but I hope Bush is smart enough to bring some WMD to plant because he will not find what he is selling the people into”

    I admire his precscience as much as he appreciates Obama’s early position on the war.

    My guy will not vote for Clinton because he claims her vote for the war was inconsistent with her alleged principles and explanation but simply consistent with her presidential ambitions. For him its a 95% deal breaker right now on character. Gratefully he warmed to her recent admission that the war vote was her biggest mistake. He thinks that is why she did better with men by the way. Or more precisely he feels that was refreshingly un-Clintonian and scored her points because it scored with him.

    He also is too libertarian to believe in the health care mandate though that is not a deal breaker. It is interesting though that when he started his own business he did not have full heatlh care for himself though his handful of employees had it. He had a catastropic only insurance arrangement so he would pay for anything that did not threaten his life. e.g. out of pocket for a broken arm or a non threatening ER visit, or antibiotic. I don’t think he ever went to the doctor for 6 years but now he/we have full coverage and he’s torn up his knee. Go figure.

    To his credit for years he invested the difference which I am extremely pleased with today. I cannot really argue with his committed and logical libertarian view that the governement should not force him to have had bought insurance when he was willing to pay for his health care expenses. Though such a view theorectically hurts getting to universal coverage, if someone is willing to pay for their health I see his point as a liberty issue though that it s just an intersting tidbit I thought I’d share.

    I argue that Obama had the easy antiwar position as he did not have to vote. But he argues Clinton’s argument that Obama knew he would run for President so that makes it impressive to have opposed a popular (at the time) war. At least he’s logical and convicted tthough I disagree with him.

    He’s not going to vote for McCain so I’m working on him to vote for Hillary if she gets it. He may hold his nose again as he views “there will be more wars my friend” McCain as a disasterous alternative just as you suggest. At least I hope he gets the chance though it will take winning many more states not flipping superdelegates to get it done in my opinion.

    I think I could get him to vote for Hillary though. I have my ways sometimes too.

  20. Obama was absolutely reputiated by core Democratic demographics yesterday in Ohio. Pennsylvania will be more of the same, only harsher. What is going unaddressed is the cold hard fact that if Obama is the Democratic nominee these same groups will not march in lock step with the party. His appeal is to the “well-to-do” and the “yet -to- pay- taxes” not the blue collar core of the Democratic party.

  21. Hi All-
    I’m looking for VOLUNTEERS for HILLARY and we need you desperately. We are making sure Hillary is represented in online comment (you’d be surprised how many people read them!) in local papers in upcoming primary states. It’s a fairly big job –started (too late) in WI when we realized Obama supporters from DC were cutting and pasting into local WI papers–But did great in TX and OH –with 89 people saying “I’ve changed my mind I’m voting for Hill”.
    Anyway, if interested, please reply!
    WE NEED HELP!
    spega

  22. Obama was absolutely reputiated by core Democratic demographics yesterday in Ohio. Pennsylvania will be more of the same, only harsher.>>

    This is true but that same core can;t seem to get a DEM elected in November. In fact most of the new DEM seats are anything but core type dem demographics electing them.

    Obama has yet to really win your definition of the core dem outside his healthy black turnout which is certainly part of the core and why the big blue argument is nonsense. THe only place Obama score the core happened in Wisc. Still he has never trailed in delegates and its a race for delegates.

    We need more than “the core-blacks” and ceding Wyoming and everything form Missouri to Minnesota across the plains to the northwwest is not getting it done.

    Can Hillary win outside the core is now a harsh delegate reality or its a reliance on the superdelegates.

    With

    Pennsylvania: Obam wins/ Clinton Loses

    Obama: 49%
    McCain: 39%

    McCain: 44%
    Clinton: 42%

    it’s just not going to happen that way.

    demfromphilly she needs to get this head to head nightmare turned around. Hillary will win PA now but she has a lot of work to do to convince superdelegates she can do the same in November. Ironically they think he can and she needs these SDs.

  23. Toni C:

    One point where I would disagree is that while Obama knew in 2002 he was running for the Senate in 2004, he didn’t know that he would be running for president in 2008. So i’m not sure how courageous it was for him to speak out against the war, Still, he was right.

    One of the factors influencing Clinton that goes beyond mere political ambition, I think, is that she represents NY. Even in liberal NYC, opposition to the war was curiously muted, and some people were supportive of it. When the drums of war started beating, it was barely a year after 9/11, and i can”t overemphasis how traumatized NYC still was. I think she may have felt somewhat influenced by her constituency.

    Still, she was wrong. I was glad when she said last week that her vote on the war was the one vote she wished she could have back. I wish she’d said it earlier. The war vote wasn’t a deal breaker for me, but it has been for a lot of people, and it’s made them ignore many of the qualities that overall make her a better candidate and better potential president.

  24. Litigatormom: The IWR was almost a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t believe she’d done it. It just made no sense. The only thing that makes sense is that as a senator from NY, she couldn’t say no. No matter how stupid and it doesn’t matter that she didn’t read the NIE. *I* didn’t read the NIE and I knew there was a problem with the intelligence. It didn’t add up at all. So, I have to assume she knew it too. I think she went into it knowing full well it was all lies but also thinking that Bush wouldn’t be irresponsible enough to screw it up this badly. We were all wrong about that one.

  25. One point where I would disagree is that while Obama knew in 2002 he was running for the Senate in 2004, he didn’t know that he would be running for president in 2008. >>

    I agree he didn’t really know he would run despite what he may have said in kindergarten.

    I can tell you my husband was very suspicious of the selling of the war. In fact I thought he was a bit nuts calling WMD talk “marketing” and “selling war” but he opened my eyes to a lot of the issues regarding the war before it happened.

    I remember early on when he quizzingly said to me “whats WMD?” I wasn’t paying nearly so much attention to it then but said “weapons of mass destruction”. He said “mission accomplished!”.

    Given where he was, I think the war is just too much of what he believes about this election for anything else to matter.

    He insisted to me that 9/11 simply provided the window of opportunity to get Iraq done with WMD marketing. I confess I have never been that cynical so I listened but thought surely this can’t be the case.

    It’s history now. But McCain is another story. On meet the press he said that even if he knew Saddam had no WMD he would have toppled him. My jaw dropped but either Clinton or Obama should be able to use that.

    This is the why my husband calls McCain dangerous. He really thinks McCain did know it which is why he is being honest and dangerous at the same time. No WMD sell job required …”lets just go get the guy whether he is a threat to us or not”.

    Powell doubted it and wanted to at least have verification of all the flimsy stuff through the CIA (recall forcing Tenet to appear behind him at the U.n..)

    Personally I agree with Obama when he talks about changing the mindset that allowed judgment to be abandoned. Congress effectively declared war for the President BEFORE the President told them the poin t of exhaustion was reached. So anyone that didn;t go and say “exhuast it first and come back” failed us regardless of where they are from.

    None of that means Obama is necessarily POTUS material. But I too am glad Clinton finally admitted what I beleive as well about that vote.

    I remember when we were watching the state of the union and Bush mentioned the mushroom cloud and the evidence of the nuclear program. My husband said “that’s it …it’s sold now regardless of whether it’s true”.

    Incredibly that is the infamous passage now known to be false and the result of the Scooter Libby/Plame etc scandal. My husband did not beleive it but said that based on what Bush said in the State of the Union he probably would have ceded too. It’s Bush’s fault as Hillary says but the Congress failed us too I think.

    Keep in mind that the aspirations to topple saddam preceded 9/11. The shame of it all is that everyone knew it and nobody would say it. Very few believed any such relationship existed between 9/11, AlQueda and Saddam. Why was it sold so hard and used to box in the votes in COngress? My answer now is …Duh!! which is why I now pay more attention to these kind of issues than ever before.

    9/11 politically boxed in a lot of people. But not all. I wish she had voted for the Levin amendment which would have made further diplomacy efforts a requirement. In the end it looks like its costing her a job she is more qualified to have.

  26. Toni C — re “if the general election were held today” polls — take ’em with a grain of salt. Both McCain and Obama are soft targets who figure to erode over the course of a real campaign.

    McCain is well-identified but not well-known. For instance, only about half of his supporters know where he stands on reproductive choice.

    Likewise, Obama is fanatically well-liked, but not at all well-known. Lots and lots of issues where his “positions” are crafted to sound good to both/all sides. That won’t hold up in a competitive general election. (I’ve had candidates like that, who are extremely well-liked out of the gate, but wouldn’t be liked at all by those who like ’em if some of their positions came into focus.)

    Hillary has most of her negatives out in front of her, and when people are exposed to the real Hillary they have trouble remembering why they didn’t like her.

    The party is badly split, either way, and that could disqualify both candidates … but it’s too early to make that call.

  27. ronkseattle— re “if the general election were held today” polls — take ‘em with a grain of salt. Both McCain and Obama are soft targets who figure to erode over the course of a real campaign.>

    True but they are all the superdelegates will have to make decisions on if the delegate math stays like it looks it going to stay..

    the problem for Hillary is this is a real campaign and soft target Obama has not eroded enough for the nomination to get to her.

    The negatives/positives have certainly played both ways for Hillary with both the ceiling and the floor being diffcult to really budge. In red state land though the negatives are killing her chances to get the prize.

  28. Toni C., sorry, but I don’t see it. Mccain isn’t Bush. Wrongly, people do not see him as dangerous( I personally have brought up “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” only to be met with “Even Bush isn’t crazy enough to screw with Pakistan”).

    Obama does not do that well among Democrats already, most of his support comes from Republicans and Independents, most of whom are not going to vote for him in the general. Blue state voters are comfortable with mcCain, and there are tons of Democrats who are torn between voting in Clinton or voting for McCain if Obama’s the nominee. We are nuts if we take Blus states for granted, especially as from what I can see Obama does not have a very good ground game. Most of the traditional door knockers, phone bankers, etc. are Clinton supporters many of whom have come to dislike and distrust Obama. This is a primary, every primary year some Democrat wins the red states, that says nothing about the general.

    However, inability to win teh blue states in teh primary does say a lot about the lack of enthusiasm among voters on the ground. And this is the top for him. After the media turns on him (as they did with Kerry once they got rid of Dean) and the Republicans finish swiftboating him, he’ll be lucky to win Illinois. No offense, but remember President Dukakis? Polls taken in March are meaningless, and Obama has lost many states to Clinton after being up in the polls, they haven’t exactly been accurate even when taken the day before, forget 8 months before.

    And McCain isn’t stupid, if Obama tries to be the anti-war candidate, all he’d have to do would be play the clips of Obama admitting he doesn’t know how he would have voted if he’d actually been in that position, saying his position is no different from Bush’s, torpedoing the kerry Amendment when he had a chance to do something concrete to oppose the war but he refused to step up. Obama talking about how Afghanistan is the problem and then admitting he can’t be bothered to do his job as a Senator would also be a slamdunk. Even without the swiftboating, Obama will not be able to stand up against McCain. The more people see of him, the less they tend to like or trust him, while the opposite is true with clinton.

    “In principle but that is not what all these polls are saying. They are saying most Clinton votes will go to Obama and too many Obama votes will go to McCain.”

    Actually,no. obama loses between twice and three times as many of clinton’s voters as she does his, already. and that’s only going to get worse as his negatives climb and climb and climb.

    no offense again, but the superdelegate thing is nonsense. if we had a winner take all system, she’d already have enough pledged delegates to take it outright even with the overrepresentation of small states in the delegate process. superdelegates exist ebcause of open primaries, to prevent republicans from crossing over and selecting the easiest nominee for tehm to beat, which is exactly what’s happening right now.

  29. Also, you’re talking about what happened in 2004 and 2000 and how Dems can’t deliver. What 2004 showed us is that we need to increase turnout/percentages among women, Latnos and Catholics. The three most important sectors. Clinton can deliver those, can Obama?

  30. superdelegates exist ebcause of open primaries, to prevent republicans from crossing over and selecting the easiest nominee for tehm to beat, which is exactly what’s happening right now.>>

    Is that why Rush Limbaugh urged texans to go vote for Clinton? No offense but I thought you were making a case to support Clinton not pointing out why superdelagates should discount the larger than ever Republican vote Clinton got in texas.

    We don’t have a winner take all system and she is coming up too short to steal the nomination (as it WILL be viewed) and keep the party intact.

    No offense remember Mondale.

    until she can at least take a lead in the popular vote she just will not get the nod. Maybe Obama will get high negatives but she already has them. Discounting this is denying why he is beating her. Perhaps a strategy to make him just as dislikable as she is can work.

    The argument that Obama is only getting progressives and young people cannot explain away why he consistently gets more than half the MEN. THe simpler reality is the Dem party has way more % women than the general election does. and that is true in every state.

    If Hillary wants to win she has to win North Carolina and Oregon. I agree the thing could be setting up for a defeat of Obama (or Clinton) in November. But she is also helping to make that the case. Depsite her efforts, the red staes effect, the caucuses etc it’s just not going to end up getting her the nomination without chaos.

    So the coalitions are split (working poor, white women, hispanics vs. youth, progressives, blacks, affluents, and clinton negative men). THe problem is one of Obamas coalition is the most loyal voting block in the party. And it ain’t hispanics.

    “We are nuts if we take Blus states for granted” unfortunately the same is true for the most loyal dems out there the black vote. Like it or not if he has the most delegates and the most votes and the black vote views it as taken away we won;t be talking about a single loss… the DEM party will be destroyed for a long time.. This GOP couldn’t dream up a better result.

    While I don;t agree with Brazille’s arm twisting comments I beleive she knows this. I’m afraid I know it too and many in the party I know, know it too. The vote of the people (whether you like it or not) will have to be honored or else the weeping and moaning over Florida will look like the good old days compared to the weeping and moaning from the most loyal of the loyal in the base of the party.

    If anything close to that happens you can forget about Ohio (cleveland), Missouri (st Loius) and Wisconsin (milwaukee) just to name 3. Probably PA too (philly). Like it or not this is the danger and Brazille knows it and doesn’t want to see it happen. A rift like that would take a long time to unwind as Blacks assess the party and what it really stands for when their voices are highly counted in the general but not even respected in the actual vote and delegate count of their own party process.

    Can Obama as VEEP on the ticket cure it, I don;t know but I doubt it. These are the cards dealt and no amount of explaining away the actual totals will change the train wreck of a superdelagte reversal for Clinton in my opinion. But this is why Hillary is already hinting at Obama for the VEEP… to quiet superdelegate fear of the inevitable backlash of rightrous indignation from the loyal black vote needed in November.

    I like collge basketball, so with march here, heres an analogy. Its not a take your ball and go home situation. It’s a “we won the conference tournament game but lost the trophy and the automatic bid so why go to the tournament situation”. We’ll be lucky if they don;t leave the conference next year.

    The fact that both are history making as gender and race nominees has created a best of times worst of times situation. But beleive me it can get a lot worse if the actual vote and voted delegate result is not honored.

    As the rolling stones said “you can;t always get what you want” and the math is making that clear. Like it or not its time for us to look at getting what we need.

  31. It seems Ms Brazile has canceled her email account.
    WOW , we must be making an imact

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: