Re: Soothe A Brother's Mind

1

Clinton still can't win.

So sayeth the (wrong before) superdelegate of my acquaintance.

Soothed?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
2

Obama's picking up another 5 superdelegates today. Prior to this week, Clinton needed about 2/3 of the delegates, in the past week they've been breaking 2/3 for Obama.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
3

Clinton can't win. But that's no reason to stop wishing she gets hit by a bus.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
4

Mass transit: objectively anti-HRC.


Posted by: ixnaythemetier | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
5

forsooth!


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
6

This might not do the trick, especially because it's filled with stuff we already know. Still, I always find Ezra soothing. Except when I find him infuriating.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
7

Reallly, though, the main point of Ezra's piece is pretty reassuring and also right: Clinton can only win if Obama gets hit by a bus (or another scandal crops up, rendering him unelectable). But Stras's right: that's no reason to stop hating Clinton. It really isn't. Sorry, PGD.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
8

Hillary's plans for victory have nothing to do with your puny superdelegate pledges. They depend on standing to the side while Obama collapses, then dancing on his corpse to the horror of Democrats everywhere until the delegates submit out of fear.

I give it even odds. Depends a lot on what happens tomorrow.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
9

Oh, she can't win. But she could take Obama and most of the party down with her.

Bus bus bus.


Posted by: elemund | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
10

8: except he isn't collapsing, and hasn't collapsed, hysterical news media to the contrary.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
11

Also you guys are just trying to start a fight with the bus construction. A bus... of public spirited good judgment!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
12

A bus... of public spirited good judgment!

I love that phrase. I'm worried that I'll never get a chance to use it.


Posted by: beamish | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
13

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the High Occupancy Vehicle lane.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
14

8: Yeah, where's the evidence of a collapse? The Wright story may have hurt Obama, as might have, to a much lesser extent, clinging bitters. But, it seems that both "scandals" only stopped his post-Super-Tuesday momentum. And that's the worst-case scenario based on a wholly unsatisfactory reading of tea leaves and polls that are hardly definitive.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
15

He won Guam by only 7 votes. What more evidence do you need?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
16

I can stop wishing that she'd just get hit by a bus trolley already.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
17

According to the rather well-connected insider I spoke to a couple weeks ago, the general consensus among well-connected insiders is that she can't win.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
18

The Wright story may have hurt Obama, as might have, to a much lesser extent, clinging bitters

I thought we all agreed that bitters make cocktails awesome.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
19

This gas tax holiday is all about keeping more cars and fewer buses on the road, isn't it?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
20

It seems fairly likely that the collapse isn't going to happen, but a couple months ago I mentally laid down the polling benchmarks that Clinton would need to see to have a decent shot at pulling off the corpse-dancing maneuver. It wasn't until the last week or two that I began seeing some hints of those benchmarks on the horizon, though, and I worry that if tomorrow doesn't go well, we'll begin to see them manifesting in a big way.

Pretty much all of the national polls that have come out recently have shown Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain. This may be largely meaningless, but it is a necessary precondition for the campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt which Clinton will need to wrest the nomination away. If this trend accelerates rather than bouncing back -- and if Obama underperforms tomorrow, I think it probably will -- we will see The Plan begin to fall into place.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
21

Clinton can't win: I made a spreadsheet edition.

Despite my inputs matching, my total is inexplicably one lower than DemConWatch's.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
22

Among NC votes cast so far, 40.6% were by blacks. (Don't ask me how they know this from an official state database- do you have to check "black" or "white" when you register?)


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
23

Pretty much all of the national polls that have come out recently have shown Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain.

And Obama was outperforming Clinton two weeks ago, and Clinton was outperforming Obama two weeks before that. And all by negligible margins, often within the margin of error. National polling doesn't mean shit.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
24

If Clinton gets hit by a bus, we'll spend the next three months hearing her supporters argue that, if the laws of physics were different, the bus would have sustained much more damage than she did.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
25

21: nice wd. Now how about a spreadsheet showing the work lost to unfogged?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
26

(Don't ask me how they know this from an official state database- do you have to check "black" or "white" when you register?)

It's North Carolina, man.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
27

I'd like to note that I personally don't want Clinton to get run over by a bus. I'd be quite satisfied to see her and her husband kicked to death by a sullen giraffe.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
28

21: I'm confused by the last two columns. What do they represent, exactly?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
29

Oh, never mind. I got it. So w/d, you're saying that even if she got all the unpledged supers, won every contest 100-0, and got all of Edwards's delegates, she'd still be short?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
30

Also your totals probably don't match because of rounding error on somebody's part. Do your significant digits all match?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
31

It's not that often that you can get 4 comments in a row in a thread.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
32

You have some denominator problem in the last two columns- if Clinton needed 102% of the remaining delegates to get a majority, then the race really would be mathematically over. I believe it should be 285 or 416 / (404+277), you did 285 or 416 / 404 (you used contest NYPs instead of contest + PLEO NYPs)


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
33

I'd be quite satisfied to see her and her husband kicked to death by a sullen giraffe.

From a consistent utilitarian perspective it would be even better if the giraffe were happy.


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
34

You're either on the bus or off the bus.


Posted by: Ken Kesey | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
35

What if, on one of the trolley tracks, the most qualified candidate for the Presidency of the United States, the one who has repeatedly demonstrated her fighting spirit, the one tempered by battle, has been tied by terrorists, and on the other trolley tracks, five average citizens are also tied up. Who should you save, you latte-swilling, bus-riding, urban elitists?


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
36

I wouldn't want to be elitist, so I'd save the five average citizens.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
37

You're either on the bus or off the bus.

Sometimes, you're the bus.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
38

w/d's spreadsheet indicates that if Clinton got 100% of all pledged delegates from now on, she'd still need some superdelegates to get to a majority. She needs 61.09% of all outstanding delegates, pledged and super, to get to a majority. This isn't counting Michigan and Florida, of course.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
39

Sometimes you're the bus, sometimes the bus gores you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:43 PM
horizontal rule
40

102% of the ones you can win in a contest is what she needs, the latter percentage is the one she needs of pledged and supers combined.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:43 PM
horizontal rule
41

Among NC votes cast so far, 40.6% were by blacks.

Ambinder's 390,000 figure is wrong. Those were the early votes cast as of Friday. When it closed on Saturday, the number of absentee/early votes was just under 492,000.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
42

I conclude that w/d's spreadsheet, while compelling, has usability problems.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
43

Of course, these simplistic models break down under the high-energy conditions under which the Hillary Victory particle is theorized to exist. For instance, it's hard to imagine her getting significantly over half of the remaining superdelegates without conditions also leading pledged Obama delegates to get a bit weak in the knees (which we all know is a common congenital defect in the common Democrat).


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
44

National polling doesn't mean shit.

Not what certain people were saying when Obama was leading them.

I rely most on the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, because they have a consistent methodology and sample (other polls can vary wildly because of different weighting techniques). In both of those, over the last month Obama has slumped from a significant lead in Democratic polling to a statistical tie, and clearly fallen behind Hillary in the matchup with McCain. But he hasn't collapsed -- if he's tied with Hillary in the polls, his delegate lead holds up, and McCain's lead on him is not that large. He seems to be reestablishing his leads in North Carolina and Oregon. And he may have weathered his worst month politically.

My worst case scenario: Obama barely ekes out the Democratic nomination based on caucuses won during February while being far behind in all polls. Shiny happy multiculti over-educated urban blogging yuppies cheer wildly, Dems go down in November, McCain invades Iran.

Other Unfogged commenters worst case scenario: Hillary takes nomination, wins election, institutes universal health care, is massively popular, wins second term, inescapable presence in public life for next eight years.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
45

Ambinder's number was Dems only, you seem to be reporting both Dem and Rep contests- don't count out the PaulBots!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
46

44.last is stupid and disingenuous even given your previous comments on the topic, PGD.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
47

Only one of your worst case scenarios is at all plausible.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
48

not to mention, only one of them is a `worst case'


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
49

45: Ah yes, you're correct; I read too quickly. Thanks.

Other Unfogged commenters worst case scenario: Hillary takes nomination, wins election,

...invades Iran.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
50

(Don't ask me how they know this from an official state database- do you have to check "black" or "white" when you register?)

It's an optional check-box, as is gender. State law specifies that it is not required and pollworkers are trained not to make assumptions, fill it in for them or anything else. I'd respond to 26 but I'm too busy enjoying delicious barbecue to care.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
51

...invades Iran.

...institutes carbon subsidies to really stick it to elitist economists, chortles as Bangladesh recedes under the waves. Also, bans GTA V as a bad influence.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
52

50: why are you in Texas?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
53

I'd respond to 26 but I'm too busy enjoying delicious barbecue to care.

Oddly enough, that's tactic 137-427AA.3 in the GOP `how to win elections' playbook.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
54

I'll reassure you that Clinton won't win if you'll stop demonizing her already.

Thank you.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
55

The biggest problem, as I see it, is the damage this does to Obama given Hillary's slim chances. If Clinton wins 51% in a number of the remaining states but still loses (a reasonable possibility), Obama comes out of the nomination limping heavily and with basically no momentum.

There'd still be time to recover by November, but it'll be hard to bring people back to the optimism of February.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
56

52: Everyone's in Texas, Sifu. Didn't you know?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
57

it'll be hard to bring people back to the optimism of February.

This is true, but probably a good thing. Makes the disappointment more manageable.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
58

50: but I'm too busy enjoying delicious barbecue to care.

Trying to suck up to Maureen Dowd? Don't think it's going to work.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
59

I'm sick of being disappointed...


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
60

59: maybe politics isn't something you should pay attention to, then?

One of these newspapers should suit you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
61

We could have had this conversation two months ago.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
62

Just figured out source of error: I'm an idiot and in calculating "simple majority" divided by 2 instead of dividing by 2 and then adding a half delegate.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
63

We could have had this conversation two months ago.

We did, didn't we?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
64

|

Poor ol' Saletan just just digs himself in deeper on the race-IQ question. Sumbitch shoulda been fired the first time; he certainly should be fired now.

||


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
65

It's all the same day, teo.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
66

63- Ah, point taken.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
67

60: I'd have to be significantly more optimistic than I am to ignore politics and just assume everything will work out.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
68

I'll reassure you that Clinton won't win if you'll stop demonizing her already.

We can still monsterize her though, right?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
69

62: ZOMG washerdreyer, this changes EVERYTHING!


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
70

I'll reassure you that Clinton won't win if you'll stop demonizing her already.

Get HRC and her husband to go first.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
71

I'll reassure you that Clinton won't win if you'll stop demonizing her already.

The Clintons don't need anyone to demonize them; they've done a pretty good job of it themselves.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
72

Mr Ogged, do you own or have access to a bus?


Posted by: Secret Service Dude | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
73

we should cyberneticize the Clintons

we have the technology


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
74

And, Mt Ogged, what might be your country of origin? Do you retain contacts there?


Posted by: Different Secret Service Dude | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
75

Some people think polls are useless, but I find them to be a very useful method of confirming my hopes.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
76

I didn't want to put this in the post, lest I be accused of the dreaded "trolling," but I have a hard time seeing how any Democrat could support Clinton at this point without being either racist, misandrist, or voting purely for her gender. She's employed so many of the tactics that we deplore American politics for. Hell, that she would deploy them was a selling point for her, but it's always uglier in the event. In a strange way, I think Obama is being penalized for living up to his rhetoric to run a basically clean campaign, because doing what you say gets much less attention than breaking from type.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
77

Mt Ogged is located in a Kurdish enclave of the Taurus mountains. Shoot first, ask questions later.


Posted by: Web Warrior | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
78

If nobody saw this, it's worth the half minute it takes to watch. Not my favorite of Stranhan's vids, but still funny, especially the Rev. Wright doll.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
79

76: So, if magic ponies carry her to the nomination, will you vote for her? Or are you saying, finally, "no."


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
80

"no"?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
81

The management doesn't answer hypotheticals, Ari.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
82

I have a hard time seeing how any Democrat could support Clinton at this point without being either racist, misandrist, or voting purely for her gender. She's employed so many of the tactics that we deplore American politics for.

Perhaps because those of us who hang out here (or anywhere online, for that matter) are not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
83


I have a hard time seeing how any Democrat could support Clinton at this point without being either racist, misandrist, or voting purely for her gender.

I am reluctant to state my disagreement with this, because I fear being accused of trolling.

I think Obama is being penalized for living up to his rhetoric to run a basically clean campaign, because doing what you say gets much less attention than breaking from type.

I try very hard to be cynical about this stuff, but I'm forced to agree that Obama has run a remarkably clean campaign. The gas tax thing is a very striking bit of non-pandering, if you ask me.

Furthermore, I don't think he's been penalized much at all for it. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I'm forced to admit that maybe it won't.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
84

That is to say, I don't know that your second sentence is globally shared across the party.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
85

Remember how TX and OH were teh Big Firewall? How she had to win big to remain viable? I'm pretty much convinced that all we're waiting for at this point is for Obama to score a definitive win--whether he manages to nab PA + NC tomorrow, or whether it comes some time later (though looking at the calendar, it kind of sucks that KY is opposite OR, maybe he can sweep NM and SD on 6/3?--so that he doesn't limp into the nomination per Doug's 55.

I can't explain or defend any of the idiotic/horrible campaign tactics of the last couple of weeks, though, or how people, including people I know and otherwise respect, can continue to support her.


Posted by: Mother's Younger Brother | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
86

That is to say, I don't know that your second sentence is globally shared across the party.

Maybe that's right. I really don't know. I figured the only people who think that stuff is cool are party operatives. Then again, maybe a lot of people don't see it for what it is. Because they're idiots. Don't you accuse me of hypocrisy.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
87

Low-information voters aren't particularly aware of her shenanigans, it seems, or consider her charges against Obama to have some merit.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
88

IL + NC, of course.


Posted by: MYB | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
89

Misandrist? How has her campaign been anti-man?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
90

IN + NC. Jesus. It's not even like I'm not hitting preview.


Posted by: MYB | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
91

How has her campaign been anti-man?

No one said it has.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
92

I think a lot of Democratic primary voters, in particular, are used to hearing bad things about their preferred candidate, so they tend to tune out anyone saying Clinton is pandering, Clinton is mudslinging, Clinton is lying, Clinton shot herself to win a Purple Heart. This means that, among these people, Obama doesn't get credit for staying above it and Clinton doesn't get hurt by fighting dirty.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
93

The sad thing, MYB, is that 88 gave me a fleeting panic attack -- "IL? But I thought I already voted in the primary! Am I mixed up??"


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
94

Then what did you mean?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
95

MYB: I think you're exactly right. While numerically Clinton needs to be winning with greater margins than she has been, winning with any margin gives her the "momentum" and leads to positive press.

A lot of these primaries are so close that it really matters where you are in the random walk of voter support, so that winning helps lead to move winning.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
96

So, what do people think of the phenomenon of various professional opinion-maker types speculating about giving Clinton the governorship of New York, or the Vice-Presidency, or a seat on the Supreme Court, as consolation for losing the nomination?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
97

B, I was talking about why someone would still support her.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
98

People are supporting her because they want the 90s economy back, because her hawkishness reads as "foreign policy experience" to them, and because they're willing to write off anything they hear about her doing shitty stuff in the campaign as "politics." It's not that complicated.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
99

97: I know, but I don't get it. Because they hate men??


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
100

Fair enough, I should have said "informed Democrats" instead of "Democrats."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
101

She's employed so many of the tactics that we deplore American politics for.

Which is just one reason (sorry ogged!) why she of course still has a chance to win. You can't count the Clintons out.* And she'd be a formidable general election candidate. I can see "pick a winner" Dems supporting her. Wouldn't be my selection, but it's understandable.

*I was going to say "until you've cut off their heads, stuffed the mouths with garlic, and buried the bodies at a crossroads" -- but that would be literal monsterizing. Consider this a humorous aside, BPhd!


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
102

96: I am not sure how one could give the governorship, and I think the longer the campaign drags on, the less likely it is that either pick the other as VP. SC, maybe, except I'm not sure she's a great candidate for it, and I'd rather see someone younger in there.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
103

96: New York has had lots of really bad governors, so whatever. A seat on the Supreme Court will never happen, so whatever. The veep slot is a non-starter, so whatever.

There, that's what I think.

Oh, you're forgetting Senate Majority Leader, which might not be such a bad idea (especially because I hate Reid). Having tension between a president and congress of the same party is probably not the worst thing in the world -- prevents overreach, I suppose -- so I could see that happening and working out okay. Plus, I like the idea of having women as both SotH and SML.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
104

Mt Ogged

Montana Ogged vs. Fontana Labs in a steel cage match! $29.95 buys you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
105

96: If Hillary's willing to play second-banana (and if Bill is, too) then Obama should offer her the VP slot. Or so I contend.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
106

96: Supreme Court seat would be interesting because a lifetime appointment would (arguably) reveal her genuine values, unsullied by the compulsion to pander. Much of my current objection to her is that her positions don't even seem to be her positions so much as to be the positions she believes are necessary to win.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
107

Or so I contend after having finished my nineteen-martini lunch.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
108

98: The working class white voters she's been getting aren't going to be especially eager to get the 90s economy back; they were getting fucked back in the 90s, too. A lot of Clinton loyalty comes down to low-information voters who are loyal Democrats and know that "Clinton" has meant "Democrat" for a lot longer than "Obama" has.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
109

Hell, that she would deploy them was a selling point for her

I think you answered your own question. I would not rush to assume racism or stupidity of such people. Whether or not I agree with them, it's not difficult for me to imagine a person who thinks if Clinton is willing to campaign like this against a Democrat then they can't wait to see her take on a Republican. Likewise, there are almost certainly people who see her tactics as just another confirmation that she knows how to play the game and will play it to the advantage of policies they advocate or who believe that such tactics are inescapable in politics. There are almost certainly people who believe pretty much everything.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
110

If Hillary's willing to play second-banana (and if Bill is, too)

Wouldn't that make Bill a sort of third banana, as it were?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
111

but I have a hard time seeing how any Democrat could support Clinton at this point without being either racist, misandrist, or voting purely for her gender.

I think that the last is a good reason to vote for her, and that there are probably a few other reasons as well--you supported and/or support the war, for example, or you genuinely believe that the country won't vote for a black guy but will for a white woman (the HRC campaign's present position, as I understand it)--but you've described basically where I find myself. I don't particularly object to her campaign using whatever tricks are necessary--nature of the biz-- but seeing her supporters diligently look the other way when they've previously bitched incessantly about such things makes me want to retch.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
112

a lifetime appointment would (arguably) reveal her genuine values, unsullied by the compulsion to pander

Precisely my fear, yes.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
113

108: Stras, why are you ignoring racism. A lot of Clinton loyalty comes down to low-information voters who are loyal Democrats and know that "Clinton" has meant "Democrat" for a lot longer than "Obama" has and also because many Democrats are deeply racist and fear that Barack Hussein Madrassa Farrakhan Osama Obama will rape their daughters.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
114

The working class white voters she's been getting aren't going to be especially eager to get the 90s economy back

Betcha you're wrong.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
115

Given that the context is the United States of the last couple of decades, I just don't grasp how the Clintons got some kind of special reputation for ruthlessness. You might as well call Margaret Thatcher a socialist because she supported universal heathcare - in some sense, this is accurate, but it strips the situtaion of all context.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
116

I would not rush to assume racism or stupidity of such people.

You don't have to assume any such thing. For the former there's ample data and ancedate to support such a conclusion. For the latter, well, I'll leave that alone.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
117

how the Clintons got some kind of special reputation for ruthlessness

From all the opponent-murdering and cocaine trafficking, of course.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
118

going to be especially eager to get the 90s economy back

In all likelihood, it won't be long before the vast majority of the population will be wistful for the 90s econonomy --- even if it shut down their mill/plant/whatever and shipped it elsewhere.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
119

101: Remember back in the 90s, when Bill and Hillary passed that awesome health care plan? Man, everybody thought that thing was totally dead, because the Clintons had made so many boneheaded tactical and strategic blunders, but you can never count the Clintons out, which is why we have universal health care today! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the pharmacy to pick up my free prescription drugs... riding my magical flying dinosaur!


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
120

it's not difficult for me to imagine a person who thinks if Clinton is willing to campaign like this against a Democrat then they can't wait to see her take on a Republican

I increasingly doubt the existence of these people. I'd want to see evidence that her voters are sweating Republicans more than most, or even that they weren't Bush voters just four years ago. I don't even being to believe it, to be honest.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
121

117: Right. I can't remember, was Hillary having an affair with Vince Foster, or is she a lesbian?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
122

Given that the context is the United States of the last couple of decades, I just don't grasp how the Clintons got some kind of special reputation for ruthlessness.

Look, you're talking to people who assume that Republicans are repugnant scum who run horrible campaigns, but the Clintons are supposed to be our people, and above that kind of shit. I consider myself a Democrat, and I don't want to be associated with that crap, and I don't want to spend four or eight years defending it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
123

Betcha you're wrong

I'll take that bet. The 90s is when a lot of those voters started losing their jobs.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
124

109: Honestly, I think it's just name recognition. Even if you're a low-information voter, you know the 90s were overall pretty good for most people, and you know the president's name was Clinton.

And if you're at all hawkish, Obama doesn't come across as all that attractive. I don't doubt that race is a factor (well, not me, my neighbor, you see, would Obama win in the general with that kerazy pastor), but if you thought Iraq was the right idea-but-badly-executed, you might me inclined to the candidate that's saying that.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
125

Iraq was the right idea-but-badly-executed

How lively is this particular brand of stupid, these days?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
126

I increasingly doubt the existence of these people.

There certainly are people (of both parties) who think Hilary is more likely to win in November. That doesn't seem like a crazy reason to support her.

And just to clarify. You can never count the Clintons out when the competition is advancing or maintaining their political advantage. On enacting policy, they have to take their lumps like any executive.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
127

if you thought Iraq was the right idea-but-badly-executed

Hell, this is me, and yet....


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
128

123: That's an argument about why they shouldn't want it back, not that they don't.

Honestly, I think it's just name recognition

Obama's coalition looks different than HRC's. I think it's a mistake to assume that these people are just confused.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
129

127 -> 125


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
130

There certainly are people (of both parties) who think Hilary is more likely to win in November.

Mmm. But I haven't seen anyone in that game say that it's because she's tougher/rougher/etc. It's because she doesn't have a Wright, or Obama's black, or people remember WJC fondly, etc.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
131

127: Yeah, but YOU were looking at it from Ahmadinejad's point of view. Only a few glitches, really.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
132

123: Sure, but if they lived in cities, particularly in the urbanized Rust Belt, things were much better then than now. Not to mention, their kids, or their friends' kids, weren't getting killed in one of two poorly executed wars of choice.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
133

if you thought Iraq was the right idea-but-badly-executed, you might me inclined to the candidate that's saying that.

How many people outside of Washington actually believe this? Most polls I've seen show a pretty solid majority saying America never should've invaded Iraq in the first place. Clinton's position, like Kerry's position before it, seems like a nuance too far to actually play well in America.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
134

How lively is this particular brand of stupid, these days?

Personally, I'd say it's about 85% of opposition to the war. Americans like war; we're just not okay with losing wars.

128: I didn't say confused.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
135

Most polls I've seen show a pretty solid majority saying America never should've invaded Iraq in the first place

They say that now. Hard to know what they actually believe, or believed at the time.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
136

you can never count the Clintons out, which is why we have universal health carethe Clintons today!


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
137

We can still monsterize her though, right?

find her a job via Monster?
yes, let's.


Posted by: cleek | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
138

I haven't seen anyone in that game say that it's because she's tougher/rougher/etc.

I agree with that.

Americans like war; we're just not okay with losing wars.

Bingo.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
139

But I haven't seen anyone in that game say that it's because she's tougher/rougher/etc.

There've always been idiots around making this claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure this idea seemed compelling to a few people around here up until not that long ago.

It goes without saying that I think Clinton would be toast in the general - but that's besides the point, since she's not going to get the nomination.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
140

Personally, I'd say it's about 85% of opposition to the war. Americans like war; we're just not okay with losing wars.

Depressing, but probably true. Objectively support even stupid wars, so long as (can at least pretend) winning.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
141

103: Durbin would be a better majority leader & is next in line.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
142

141: He is? Holy crap, that's awesome.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
143

Personally, I'd say it's about 85% of opposition to the war. Americans like war; we're just not okay with losing wars.

Yeah, but no one outside the offices of TNR is actually that explicit about it. Polls indicate that not only do most Americans insist that the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq in the first place, but they also show that a much larger percentage of the population claims to have opposed the war since the beginning than actually did. People's beliefs about the basic rightness of the war - and about their own beliefs about the war - have changed as the war has progressed. This means a lot of Americans are self-deluded hypocrites, but it doesn't mean they're the kind of self-deluded hypocrites that are likely to find Clinton's stance on the war compelling.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
144

Katherine, why is Reid the majority leader anyway? It can't be seniority.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
145

but the Clintons are supposed to be our people, and above that kind of shit.

My "our people" is: People who support universal healthcare and seek a way out of Iraq. And a lot of other things.

Somewhere down my list of desired attributes is "runs an honest, issues-oriented campaign" but it's not a big issue for me. Heck, somewhere on that list is " being a woman." But above both of those things is "winning the damn election."

I don't share much of the dominant Unfogged critique of Bill and Hillary, but certainly the Unfogged emphasis is in the right place: Selling your constituents down the river is the real crime. Pandering for votes is (as Tim suggests) just business.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
146

144- They don't call it magic underwear for nothing.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
147

143: How so? The question here is whether Clinton comes off as the sort of person who would have voted for the Iraq war, but run it properly, so it resulted in hearts & flowers & cheap gas. If that's what people are thinking, then she looks better.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
148

143 strasmangelo gets it right.

If Clinton's stance is "If only you could travel back to 2002 with me, America, we'd invade Iraq all over again, but this time I'll be in charge so it would have been a success", it will not win people over.

People do not know what "a success" could possibly look like in this context.

Except for those people who think it already was a success because we got rid of Saddam and his potential for destroying us with weapons. And those are the people who think Bush is a liberal wuss for wasting our "blood and treasure" on ungrateful foreigners. And those people are not going to vote for any Democrat anyway.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
149

103: You misheard me. I didn't mean, "What do you think about the notion of giving Clinton one of these other various prestigious positions?" I meant, "What do you think about the phenomenon of all these liberal pundits trying to come up with various other prestigious positions to give Hillary Clinton?"

Here's what I'd give Clinton after this: a primary challenger. I'd run her out of office and do everything I could to kill her career. In a just world, every single senator who voted for the war would be, at best, broke and unemployed. The fact that liberals are so housebroken by the right wing of the Democratic Party that they've instinctively started to wonder about what to give this monster to perk up her spirits if she doesn't get the White House is simply disgusting.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
150

that they've instinctively started to wonder about what to give this monster to perk up her spirits if she doesn't get the White House is simply disgusting

This is unfair and I support it completely.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
151

This oil pandering has gotten me madder than anything this whole campaign. If Hillary swipes the nomination on the back of her promise to permanently lower gas prices, I think I'll finally shed the illusion that the Democratic party is any sort of engine of good policy.

Panders like this are exactly why the Democrats can never get away with doing the right thing. "We won't raise your taxes" becomes "in order to achieve universal health care, we require you to purchase health insurance." "We're going to find and kill the terrorists" becomes "we'll refuse accused terrorists access to the courts." "We'll make gas cheaper" is going to become "we'll never address global warming," mark my words.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
152

149 IS SEXIST

BECAUSE OF THE USE OF THE WORD "PERK"

I SUPPORT THE REST OF IT TOHUGH


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
153

So, what do people think of the phenomenon of various professional opinion-maker types speculating about giving Clinton the governorship of New York, or the Vice-Presidency, or a seat on the Supreme Court, as consolation for losing the nomination?

Yes, gross.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
154

The question here is whether Clinton comes off as the sort of person who would have voted for the Iraq war, but run it properly, so it resulted in hearts & flowers & cheap gas.

Because I don't think people think like that. Once Iraq has been successfully moved into the "mistake" column, people don't want to hear someone who voted for the war talk about how the war would've been awesome if they'd only been in charge. It sounds like a combination of excuse-making and braggadocio.

But of course, we're talking about low-information voters anyway, and low-information voters seem to think Clinton opposed the war, so this argument would be largely academic.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
155

The Dem. caucus votes on leadership positions. When a Dem. leader steps down, they tend to just promote the person with the next-highest leadership position to replace him, though of course there's no rule requiring this--it just tends to happen that way, at least it has in the last few leadership changes I remember: Senate Dem Whip becomes Senate Dem Leader, etc. Sometimes this is contested, sometimes not.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
156

151 is so, so right.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
157

How awesome would it be if the gas tax stuff caused Al Gore to swoop in in feat of good-spirited rage and campaign with Obama at every stop?


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
158

I think the historical evidence is that Americans don't like war, but can be stampeded into them temporarily. The only major war Americans didn't turn against, win or lose, was World War 2.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
159

158: I think Americans like war plenty. The most depressing thing about Iraq war polling is that you can go back and see how polling on support for the war tracked with polling on belief in the existence of WMDs, and it becomes clear that support for the war is relatively unconnected to any revelations (or lack thereof) about weapons of mass destruction. The Kay Report came and went, and then the Duelfer Report, and it didn't make much of a difference. Support for the war didn't drop when people realized the war was pointless; support for the war started to drop when they realized they weren't going to win.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
160

157: I've been stunned (and quite saddened) that this hasn't happened already. My only solace is that Gore may be keeping his powder dry to mitigate whatever atrocity is coming next in the primary. Still, I really thought we'd see him say something today. I suppose he could be worried that he'd do more harm than good by campaigning for/endorsing Obama.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
161

This oil pandering has gotten me madder than anything this whole campaign.

Seconded. I've tried my best not to hate HRC through this primary season, but this gas tax stupidity has finally made me give up. If our Democratic candidate is just as irrational, opportunistic, irresponsible and anti-scientific as the Republican mainstream -- well, screw it. I'm not saying I won't vote for her in November, if she's the nominee, but I'll have a hard time of it.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
162

Anecdata for the anxious & grasping at straws & everyone who already had their primary fun and feels left out: I see Obama yard signs all over the place around here (including chez nous). I have yet to see a Clinton sign.

(This has been installment #1426 of our regular series, Why Portland Rules.)


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
163

141: I agree entirely. I was just trying to answer what I thought was Stras's question by spinning out the possible promotions that some observers have suggested for Clinton after she fails at yet another huge task.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
164

I suppose he could be worried that he'd do more harm than good by campaigning for/endorsing Obama.

I've heard that one before from various horserace-types.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
165

Like Barbaro.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
166

I've been stunned (and quite saddened) that this hasn't happened already. My only solace is that Gore may be keeping his powder dry to mitigate whatever atrocity is coming next in the primary. Still, I really thought we'd see him say something today.

Why today?


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
167

I don't know what the rules or criterion are for Senate Majority leader, but "getting along with others" seems like one. My guess is that Clinton is a little too liberal, public, confrontational, disliked by Republicans to get the job from her peers. Durbin also unlikely. SML ain't a merit job.

PS:I love making innocuous, reasonable comments in a thread like this. Surrounded by a penumbra of batshit insane like Pigpen from Peanuts, I really feel I can troll this thread merely by thinking my wicked, wicked thoughts.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
168

I've tried my best not to hate HRC through this primary season,

I have always been essentially sympathetic to Hillary's candidacy. My last-straw moment was when she set herself and McCain apart as being more qualified on national security issues.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
169

164: I seem to remember hearing it attributed, via an anonymous source, to Gore. But I can't find a link. Maybe it was Halperin, who I won't read any more.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
170

Oh, and BTW:

Soothe A Brother's Mind

So deeply honky.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
171

If Sen. Obama offering Sen. Clinton the next available Supreme Court seat would persuade her to end her campaign I would certainly support it.

Here's what I'd give Clinton after this: a primary challenger.

A plausible primary challenger would almost certainly be a fantastic waste of resources, given how much money she has, how much it costs to campaign in New York, and that her network of fundraisers will certainly survive the campaign in part. On the other hand, if Obama wants to, while making the above offer, note that if she doesn't accept it and he wins he will personally spearhead the search for a bored lefty millionaire to oppose her and then campaign for that person, that'd be awesome.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
172

166: Because it's Monday, top of the news cycle, and the weekend brought us endless stories trashing the tax holiday and an equal number of other stories featuring Clinton defending its genius and deprecating experts. Gore, if nothing else, really is a wonk. So I thought he might respond.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
173

On the other hand, if Obama wants to, while making the above offer, note that if she doesn't accept it and he wins he will personally spearhead the search for a bored lefty millionaire to oppose her and then campaign for that person, that'd be awesome.

Senator George Soros!

Rush Limbaugh would invite HRC on his show every day to campaign against that guy.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
174

In fact, I'm pretty sure this idea seemed compelling to a few people around here up until not that long ago.

When I was still an Edwards guy and his campaign was imploding badly, I assumed that it would be Clinton's race to win. This was one of my consolations. I'd like to think that I'm consistant and that my objection isn't so much her trying to ratfuck Obama, it's the way she's going about it — it's not working, and she's introduced racial tensions in the primary that are going to be goddamned hard to erase in the general. But maybe it's just that I really don't like her.

Supreme Court seat would be interesting because a lifetime appointment would (arguably) reveal her genuine values...

And even if I liked her, this is a horrible idea. She's 61 years old. By all means, we should continue the pattern of letting Republicans nominate wingnuts in their late forties and having Democrats nominate moderates in their sixties, if we are goddamned stupid.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
175

So deeply honky.

That was irony, megahonky.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
176

Gore and Edwards apprehend the true real rational reality, being focused centered balanced healthy types. Of course they haven't endorsed.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
177

176: I wasn't expecting an endorsement; I was hoping for a response to the insanity that is the tax holiday.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
178

Clarence Thomas is younger than Clinton and has already spent sixteen years as an Associate Justice. The only way this would make sense is if you could guarantee that Tony Scalia would get the heart attack — if not the universal opprobrium and grave-pissing — he so richly deserves, so fire up Ogged's bus Sifu's Baconator.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
179

megahonky

Whatever. I'm technically white, you know.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
180

178: Please, please don't forget Emerson's hogs; they're very hungry and, I'm guessing, easily offended.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
181

178: Fire up what? What?!

Theory: The only reason the "conservative" establishment refused to allow Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court was that she was too old.


Posted by: CN | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
182

177:Jesus, it's just fucking politics. I honestly don't hold Obama's three Illinois votes for gas holidays against him, or give him that much credit for his Damascus moment on gas taxes. Whatever. I am not going to hate Obama for his dedicated ethanol support, which is a really stupid policy that may actually be killing people. I have other reasons enough to hate Obama.

Lighten up or get serously depressed. Presidents aren't that powerful; Democratic Presidents less so; and lib Dem Pres the very least powerful. If you really believe a candidates personal flaws or corruptions or bad character will have a direct negative impact on probable policy, and this isn't a rationalization of personal distaste, then so be it.

But I lived thru both LBJ and Jimmy Carter, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to vote for that crude charisma-challenged corrupt Texas sonofabitch over the Georgia saint.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
183

So, what do people think of the phenomenon of various professional opinion-maker types speculating about giving Clinton the governorship of New York, or the Vice-Presidency, or a seat on the Supreme Court, as consolation for losing the nomination?

That those professional opinion-maker types are pulling stuff out of their ass, particularly the first and second. Clinton will never go state-level or be anyone's VP.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
184

183- me.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
185

Clinton will never go state-level or be anyone's VP.

How bout Secretary of Defense with a guarantee of non-interference from the White House? We need to get away from the mistakes and corruptions of the Cheney years.

Ok, bad joke. I'm gone.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
186

I'm gone.

Wait, 182 is the mcmanus comment which I found most congenial to my views in recent memory (non-film category).


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
187

I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to vote for that crude charisma-challenged corrupt Texas sonofabitch over the Georgia saint.

But the Texas guy is dead, right?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
188

187- me.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
189

187:Draft zombie Lyndon!

"Amurrican pipple, now ah rilly know how to luzz ah wah."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
190

I was hoping for a response to the insanity that is the tax holiday.

Channeling my inner bob, I'll say that this is obviously because nobody has seriously proposed it and nobody is going to actually enact it. This is the classic situation where a Gore figure wants to keep his powder dry rather than screaming at everybody who even talks about bad policy.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
191

178: Fire up what? What?!

The BBQ grill, I guess, since Sifu's Baconator has been eliminated.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
192

Here's some political Ju jitsu- Hitch claims Michelle Obama is the second coming of Hillary's co- Presidency, this time with wacky black liberation rhetoric as a feature, not a bug!

http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/?from=rss


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
193

190: Right, I agree that's likely the case (as noted in 160). But that doesn't stop me from being annoyed. Because, like Stras, I see the climate change issue as central in this election.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
194

Obama is running as if he will want Clinton's endorsement. And not look like an idiot making her the keynote speaker at the Convention. Clinton is running as if complete destruction of Obama and those who supported him (especially the Judas types) is not only fine, but good. People who don't want to be demonized ought not engage in destructive politics.

Once Sen. Clinton accepts that it's not a personal test of 'grit' or 'determination' she can realize that she'll do much more good for people in 3 upcoming Senate terms, untethered from Presidential ambition (and the need to worry about flag burning etc).

She will be the keynote speaker. Still.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
195

Also, bans GTA V as a bad influence.

Scotland invades because of unfair restriction of trade ...


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 5:29 PM
horizontal rule
196

My guess is that Clinton is a little too liberal....disliked by Republicans

Well, your guess would be. She's pretty clearly not too liberal, and she spent eight years reaching out to Republicans. With her in the Leadership, maybe we can get an amendment to prevent flag burning.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
197

HRC unfortunately is in the position of being thought to be flag-burning, baby-killing, granola-crunching, tree-hugging, dope-smoking Liberalism Incarnate while actually being center-right. Not a happy place.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
198

197: She got a lot of positive "working with" quotations from Republicans early in her career (and a lot of positive policy quotations from the same of late), and I think once you've brought Scaife to the light, no one else is going to be very hard to convince.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
199

You two are talking about different things. Republican congresspeople know she is a centrist who co-sponsors things with Republicans. However, Republican voters think she is the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad liberal.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
200

Hillary-hatred is intensely personally and is mostly motivated by gender-role issues and not political issues. Many men but also many women hate successful career women, especially the bossy kind. She also gets a lot of spillover Bill hatred. Hillary-hatred is so deep-rooted that I've never been able to talk about it to anyone who suffers from it.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
201

That is to say, her attempts to become palatable to Republican voters by opposing flag-burning and video game violence (and any more substantive instances of bipartisanship) have not worked.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
202

200 gets it exactly right.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
203

Hillary-hatred is intensely personally and is mostly motivated by gender-role issues and not political issues.

I'm willing to buy this, sort of. But boy, my own Hillary hate feels extremely reminiscent of my Lieberman hate.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:44 PM
horizontal rule
204

200: What about those of us who came into the race liking her quite a lot, defended her for the first several months of the campaign, and only began to loathe her in light of her embrace of Republican talking points and win-at-all-costs tactics? I'm not being snide, mind you, I'm serious: what of it? Have I now tapped into some latent vein of misogyny that has always lurked just beneath the surface. I suppose that's possible. But it sure seems like she's just revealed herself as a self-serving candidate focused on one thing only: her electoral interests.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
205

In particular, I've heard irrational Hillary hatred from people who are otherwise proudly indifferent to politics. I can't find any explanation for that besides sexism.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
206

RFTS, I laugh at your so-called Hillary-hatred. In the Hillary-hating world you'd be lucky if they'd let you fold towels after the big game. Your nickname would be "Hillary", and the other Hillary haters would steal your shoes off your feet and set them on fire. You really have no idea.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
207

Hillary-hatred is so deep-rooted that I've never been able to talk about it to anyone who suffers from it.

True. And it's annoying. Not just being unable to talk to anyone about their Hillary-hatred, but being unable to talk to them about her at all, unless it's Hillary-bashing. Their negative readings of even her mild, defensible, reasonable policy proposals are over the top.

I'm not willing, though, to assume that it's due to misogyny. Just as I'm not willing to assume that those (usually low-information) voters who support Hillary over Obama are racist.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
208

You guys are talking about different things. Hillary-hatred among conservatives stems from her status as a bossy career woman, a representative of revolutionary socialism, and a peacenik. Hillary-hatred among liberals stems from her status as a hawk, a representative of the corporatist status quo, and a utilizer of Republican campaign tactics.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
209

Ardent reader just doesn't believe in samesaying, is what it comes down to.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
210

I'm a Bill-hater, and Hillary comes with, but I've tried to stay cool on my beggars can't be choosers principle. The only times this campaign I went ballistic on Hillary were went she sucked up to Scaife and when Catville did something disgusting. I'm a super Carville-hater, but only since he married Matalin. Carville would be a great operative in the right hands, but he has "ideas" about issues and strategies, too.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
211

I've encountered intense forms of the sexist, personal Hillary-hatred from non-conservative non-Republicans.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
212

204: Yeah, I'm going to say it's tapping into latent misogyny, Ari. Sorry. There's disliking a politician, there's objecting to how a campaign's run, there's thinking x, y, or z action or proposal or statement is irritating or stupid or racist or whatever, and then there's the visceral hatred thing that involves stuff like refusing to use her name, or referring to "the Clintons" in response to statements about Hillary Clinton, specifically, or seriously considering staying home if she ends up being the Democratic candidate. That shit is more than just opposing or disliking a candidate, or objecting to her or his candidacy.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
213

I think that the "bossy woman" thing is at the root of it.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
214

200 may be true generally, but the people I talk to know and dislike her based on her right-center policy positions and on specific things she's done in the campaign (comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain being the most egregious), and they're people who would otherwise be favorably inclined to her. Granted, I live where I live and associate with outliers.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
215

Your nickname would be "Hillary", and the other Hillary haters would steal your shoes off your feet and set them on fire.

Hee hee! Okay, point taken.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
216

208 to 214.

211 surprises me. Who are these people? But I guess sexism is not simply a subset of conservativism.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
217

Jesus is without sin, but unrealistic.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
218

I think that the "bossy woman" thing is at the root of it.

A (gay) friend summed up this point of view as we were listening to her speech after one of the early caucuses: "Men are going to hear that voice and think, 'nag, nag, nag.'"


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
219

know and dislike her based on her right-center policy positions

Not the same thing as "I hate her."


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
220

217 sounds like the Islamic position on Our Lord.


Posted by: Golem | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
221

218: Exactly.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
222

203 gets it exactly right. I hate a lot of people in Washington. She's not special in that regard.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
223

Jesus is a nice guy and shit, but the people who crucified him had their point. I say, let's keep out of it.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
224

That why I stay in Portland. People don't mind me so much here.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
225

There certainly are a lot of Mormon churches in Portland.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
226

225: Kind of odd, that. There are loads of Mormons in Oregon (Gordon Smith is one), but the number of LDS churches seems out of proportion to the apparent population in Portland. Maybe they're just laying low amongst the alcohol- and coffee-friendly hordes until they figure it's time to strike.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
227

Not the same thing as "I hate her."

Add "conservative policy positions" to "unending ascension within the nation's sole viable nominal liberal party, accompanied by a host of right-wing associates" and you'll get plenty of hatred, especially when those conservative policy positions produce a lot of dead people.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
228

Huh. My Mormon relatives in Oregon are Smiths. No direct relation to Gordon Smith, I don't think.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
229

Hillary-hatred is intensely personally and is mostly motivated by gender-role issues and not political issues.

You're best situated to understand your own views of women and how they interact with your views of HRC, Emerson. RTFS's reference to Lieberman seems like a pretty good one to me. Frankly, you don't have to look very hard to see the same sort of disdain for everyone from the DLC but HRC prior to the presidential campaign. Some people were just against the war, and against tonguing Republican ass. That goes a long way towards explaining the antipathy of some of the rest of us.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
230

Sure, Stras, but the people I'm talking about don't care a bit about any of that.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
231

I was positively disposed towards Hillary until---against my politest advice!---she voted for that damn war authorisation bill. She's recently managed to distinguish herself in loathesomeness, though.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
232

231: Sure, Emerson, but the people you're talking about ("people whose hatred of Clinton is motivated mostly or entirely by gender issues") tautologically excludes anyone who might hate her for any other reason. So, whoop-de-do.

I suggest that the set of liberals and leftists who hate Hillary Clinton is substantially larger than the set of liberals who hate other, more liberal female Democratic pols (Pelosi, Boxer, etc.), and that greater media exposure is not enough to account for this. What accounts for this is the fact that those liberals who recognize a fake reject that fake, and harshly. See also: Joe Lieberman.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
233

Stras, I'm not accusing you of anything. You can hate Hillary for your own reasons, and I won't call you sexist. RFST can continue with her pitiful excuse for Hillary-hating, too, if she wants to.

The Hillary-hating I was talking about


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
234

Stras, I'm not accusing you of anything. You can hate Hillary for your own reasons, and I won't call you sexist. RFST can continue with her pitiful excuse for Hillary-hating, too, if she wants to.

The Hillary-hating I was talking about in 200 is mostly among Republicans, and I was putting it forward as a reason why I don't expect her overtures to Republicans to be very successful. But I also did mention that I've also encountered this same kind of Hillary-hatred from non-Republicans, independents, apolitical people, and non-conservatives, and is (in my opinion) rooted in resentment of bossy women.

I have never liked Hillary or Bill but I've frequently been astonished by the intensity of the hatred they receive.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
235

The Lieberman analogy is a good one, but that just makes you all anti-semitic. I don't even know why you play this game.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
236

Ok, tell ya what.

Y'all mad at Clinton campaign tactics would please to come up with criticisms or attacks on Obama she could use that are fair, accurate, not Republican talking points or destructive for November, and considering the fate of the free world is at stake, very effective. Campaign slogans for Clinton against Obama that would be effective and might win her the nomination, or would have if it weren't now lost. C'mon, y'all can do it. Obama isn't perfect, is he?

An inability to come up with say 5 would be proof of whirly eyes.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
237

I mean, I am always told the people here are rational and deliberate, so I assume you like created two columns:a) Reasons Obama should be President, and b) Reasons Obama should not be President and filled the page on either side and used your fingers and toes to do the math and it was 17-11 or something.

So give me 5 reasons Obama would be a bad President.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
238

I assumed on first reading that 208 was a sublimely clever piece of irony, what with people despising Hillary for substantive reasons that are diametrically opposed, yet somehow unrelated to sexism.

Apparently it was intended seriously.

Anyway, stras's reasons for despising Hillary are clear and directly tied to substantive policy positions. Emerson's barely repressed dislike for Hillary fits in the same category.

But Tim, you're clearly a different case - surely you see this. You've explained at length why Hillary's policy positions make her a rotten human, but you've also explained at length your visceral loathing for her - how she is objectively unlikable.

Emerson says this: I think that the "bossy woman" thing is at the root of it.

Tim, leaving aside the policy disagreements and concentrating on your visceral feelings, are you saying this isn't at the root of it? Then what is?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
239

A (gay) friend summed up this point of view as we were listening to her speech after one of the early caucuses: "Men are going to hear that voice and think, 'nag, nag, nag.'"

If Clinton wins the nomination somehow, you know some Republican operative is going to phrase this as "nagger, nagger, nagger."


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
240

As a native and citizen of Soviet Canuckistan, allow me, if you will, to say that I think youse is all basically f***ed.

That said: While there are obviously plenty of reasons to not love Bill and Hillary, much (if not most) of the Hillary hatred that I have witnessed on the blogs these past few months strikes me as nothing more, and nothing better, than pure 100 proof (50 percent by volume) misogyny. She's so power-hungry! Yeah, unlike those men who run for the highest office, not only in the land but probably also in the whole world. Those guys are so beta! Oh yes, to be sure. It's only Hillary pretending to be an alpha that we need to throw sticks at.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
241

The Lieberman analogy is a good one, but that just makes you all anti-semitic.

Why don't you just call us all "politically correct" and be done with it? Isn't that the standard bludgeon for people who worry about things like this?

The idea that Hillary is the functional equivalent of Lieberman doesn't bear close scrutiny.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
242

I assumed on first reading that 208 was a sublimely clever piece of irony, what with people despising Hillary for substantive reasons that are diametrically opposed, yet somehow unrelated to sexism.

Apparently it was intended seriously.

The part about conservative Hillary-hatred was supposed to be ironic, indicating that conservative Hillary-hatred is delusional and based on sexism while liberal Hillary-hatred is based on actual facts.

Also by saying "Hillary-hatred stems from her status as a bossy career woman", I am in fact saying it is related to sexism.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
243

There's always the possibility that ogged was making a joke.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
244

No, I was serious. This game of telling people why they think what they think makes everyone stupid and angry.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
245

This game of telling people why they think what they think makes everyone stupid and angry.

Are you suggesting that people would rather not be told that their opinions are sexist? I haven't seen much evidence for that around here.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
246

Unrelated: for reasons I won't bother to get into, I'm having to type this on a mac, and Jesus Hydroponic Christ do I realize now that I really hate macs.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
247

I guess bob gave up on trying to troll the thread with just his own thoughts. Too bad.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
248

but you've also explained at length your visceral loathing for her - how she is objectively unlikable.

I think I've said that, like Gore and Kerry, she's not that likable. I can't remember any other instances. Once, I think. Do you have a link?

Tim, leaving aside the policy disagreements and concentrating on your visceral feelings, are you saying this isn't at the root of it? Then what is?

I'm not sure, but in the absence of a link, I'm going to guess your active imagination.

much (if not most) of the Hillary hatred that I have witnessed on the blogs these past few months strikes me as nothing more, and nothing better, than pure 100 proof (50 percent by volume) misogyny.

You might stop reading those blogs; I've basically stopped reading digby for mental health reasons.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
249

I'd like Hillary a lot better if she came out of the closet.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
250

236, 237: Bob, I know that I'm Teh Worst Commenter Evar and all, but I've bashed Obama quite a bit over the past few months, on issues including but not limited to foreign policy and American exceptionalism, energy and the environment, and civil liberties. I voted for him, though, because on every one of those policy areas Clinton is significantly worse. And for the most part, this seems to be the impression I get of most Obama backers here. There aren't any whirly eyes here; they're entirely in your head.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
251

248: Tim, you seem to be saying that I wouldn't be able to find you saying this more than a couple of times, therefore it's not true.

Which, though it may sound illogical, I accept. I won't stand by everything I've written here, and I won't ask you to.

The question is: Are you saying now that you don't viscerally dislike Hillary for reasons unrelated to policy? I ask again (and I'm asking, not rhetorical questioning), if the bossy woman thing isn't at the root of it, then what is?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
252

based on her right-center policy positions

Hillary has been right of center on the Iraq war, and that's about it. Even then, it's extremely difficult to tell what she actually feels vs. what she backed into out of fear or triangulation. The Clintonian propensity for triangulation is behind some of the left-wing hatred of the Clintons. I knew many people on the left who detested the Clintons in the 1990s, because they imagined them in possession of a freedom of action that they did not have.

It would be good for the party to have a new start, free of Clintonism, because this moment of potential realignment is quite different than the 90s. But I'm still exasperated about Obama-worship, because it could potentially prevent the party from rejecting Obama if he truly craters in the national polls now that people know him better. It doesn't matter why a candidate is a clear losing candidate -- racism or some other reason -- if he is a loser, you should get clear so long as the second choice is better than the opposing candidate. Which Hillary clearly is. She doesn't offer the kind of exciting possibilities Obama does, but she's a decent candidate who would make a decent President. She's campaigned by pointing out Obama's obvious electoral weaknesses, and I don't blame her for that.

But although Obama is wobbling, he hasn't collapsed as yet, even under the pressure of the Wright thing. He has greater natural political gifts than Hillary. We'll see over the next couple of weeks. Early June is a good time for this thing to end.

People who feel politically alienated from their society -- on the far left or far right -- are generally pretty good haters. Now that unreasoning hatred is turning on Hillary, and it's a sad thing to see. Just another little bit of fallout from the tragic events of 2000. If Gore had won, this country would look very different today, and so would Clintonism.

On the other hand, there's a certain justice to the fact that Hillary is suffering now because of her refusal, for years, to turn away from her Iraq war vote. Her situation now is karmic retribution for that decision, which was prolonged for years and called her basic judgement into question. If she had emerged as a clear opponent of the Iraq war by 2004 or even 2005 I think she probably would have won the nomination.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
253

What's wrong with hating a bossy woman, anyway? Who likes bossy people? The fact that GW Clinton can't negotiate being "strong" without seeming "bossy" just is her unlikability. That particular negotiation is gendered, but noticing that she fails it and reacting to that failure aren't misogynistic. She'll fail in female ways, and Obama will fail in male ways. That latter fact is at the root of her attempt to "emasculate" him, after all.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
254

There aren't any whirly eyes here

Jackmormon wears fake whirly contact lenses.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
255

Hillary has been right of center on the Iraq war, and that's about it

Stop Fucking Trolling.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
256

But I'm still exasperated about Obama-worship, because it could potentially prevent the party from rejecting Obama if he truly craters in the national polls now that people know him better.

Screw that. Obama can crater in the polls but it's pretty much impossible for him to do so for substantive reasons. If the Democrats deny a substantively superior candidate with a plurality of the delgates, they'll be fucked and they'll deserve to be fucked.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
257

The fact that GW Clinton can't negotiate being "strong" without seeming "bossy" just is her unlikability. That particular negotiation is gendered, but noticing that she fails it and reacting to that failure aren't misogynistic.

The trouble is that due to misogyny + an idea of what characteristics a President can embody, that there aren't a lot of ways she could succeed. There's no room for her to look diplomatic and friendly and inviting without it getting coded as weak. I'm not sure how she would negotiate "strong" without "bossy."

I am not sure the 'bossy woman' problem is at the root of most of it, but I do think that some of her policy positioning has been shaped by the fact that it's going to be hard for a woman running in 2008 for President not to have to look tough.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
258

Tim, you seem to be saying that I wouldn't be able to find you saying this more than a couple of times, therefore it's not true.

I'm trying to say something stronger: it's not true.

I won't stand by everything I've written here, and I won't ask you to.

I think I'd be happy to stand by anything I've said about HRC. If you have a question about a specific comment, I'd be happy to address it, if you have a link. But, again, I think you're imagining things.

Are you saying now that you don't viscerally dislike Hillary for reasons unrelated to policy? I ask again (and I'm asking, not rhetorical questioning), if the bossy woman thing isn't at the root of it, then what is?

I think all of my complaints about HRC have been related to either policy or to the way in which she has run. And on the latter--as above--I've occassionally waffled. You may be misremembering complaints about her supporters--mcmanus, in particular--as complaints about her. But those are two (and possibly three) different things.

Again, if you have a specific comment you're wondering about, I'm happy to clarify/rethink/explain it.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
259

Please. They're kaleidoscope lenses.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
260

What's wrong with hating a bossy woman, anyway?

I think it's probably true that people will forgive men their pushiness in a way that they won't forgive women. But that doesn't mean that there aren't pushy women and that they aren't annoying. And I don't think all women in power are automatically called pushy -- it's just a bigger problem for them when they are.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
261

Hillary has been right of center on the Iraq war, and that's about it

And on civil liberties, and on government transparency, and on trade, and on torture (because of the ticking bomb!), and on prisoner's rights, and on energy (where she's recently taken to talking about the glories of coal), and on Israel ("undivided Jerusalem"), and on Iran (Kyl-Lieberman, "obliteration", etc.), and on taxation (where taxing income over a hundred grand is now "a multi-billion dollar tax hike on the middle class"), and on worker's rights (where her clutch of nineties-era advisers, including union-buster Mark Penn, continue to see labor as the enemy), and on health care (where her much-lauded plan consists of forcing people to buy from private insurers). But if you ignore all that, yeah, it's just the war.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
262

The polls are close at this point, and it's nuts to suggest that polls would normally overturn the delegate and superdelegate count except that all of these whirly-eyed people are preventing that from happening. Why even have the primaries?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
263

Thank you, Stras. There's also the apostropher's list.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
264

I'm trying to say something stronger: it's not true.

Okay. Like I said, even if I could dig up a seemingly contradictory quote, I wouldn't privilege that over what you say now - I'm asking how you feel, and the only evidence I could ever produce for how you feel is what you say about that.

So your loathing of Hillary is substantially unrelated to her personal affect, and, as a practical matter, entirely the result of her policy choices. Got it.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
265

For my part, I am annoyed with Clinton for two reasons unrelated to her lame campaign-style: 1) I am holding a grudge about that war vote, oh yes I am, and 2) I dislike very much the legacy aspect of her run. We've talked around and around in circles about whether a spouse counts in the nepotism derby; my position remains that it is unseemly, for a Republic, for a couple of families to pass power between themselves for so damned long. I'm ready for some novel psycho-dramatic personae.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
266

256: I think in the end politics is a little more about effectiveness than substantiveness, whatever the latter means when it's not effective.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
267

People who feel politically alienated from their society -- on the far left or far right -- are generally pretty good haters.

I'd be astonished if many of the people here coded as far left. Though we may have different understandings of "left."


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
268

Only two more cycles and Chelsea can run!


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
269

If we skip to calling the new president First Citizen, I will don a toga.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
270

First Among Equals.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
271

as a practical matter, entirely the result of her policy choices.

No, as I said above, the campaign she's run figures in a fair bit. Relatedly, I don't like the coalition she's trying to put together as much as I like Obama's, because I don't like trying to eat in to Southern Conservative votes by giving in to them. That, I suppose, relates to both the policies and the politics, as manifested in her campaign.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
272

But Cala, the only women who wore togas were prostitutes (for real).

||
I will bear Juan Diego Florez's babies. Oh holy moly.
|>


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
273

269.---Hmm. The Empire-Waist trend of the last hot season seems to have mostly faded from the runways. Maybe the hopes for an Obama-led civic renaissance are also fading. I know I'm starting to feel a bit Frodo-and-Samwise-trudging-across-the-plains-of-Mordor at this point.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
274

256: I think in the end politics is a little more about effectiveness than substantiveness, whatever the latter means when it's not effective.

I'm all about effectiveness, you bet. I just think you're really reaching to suppose there's a plausible scenario in which Hillary could a.) get the nomination and b.) be a more effective candidate than Obama.

To be clear, I think there are plenty of circumstances under which Hillary could be a more effective candidate, but most of them have been foreclosed by events.

Sure, Obama might get shot dead. He might get caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl. But under those circumstances, he'd drop out. It's almost impossible to come up with a superdelegate sovereignty scenario in which the Democrats would be better off with Hillary.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
275

I am holding a grudge about that war vote, oh yes I am

And I'd like to note that this is perfectly and utterly rational. As voters we're supposed to reward and punish office-holders based on the actions they take in office; for a Democratic senator to enable the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory and follow it up by getting promoted to the presidency sends a very clear, and very destructive, signal - that the most politically savvy foreign policy is always the one that sheds the most blood.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
276

Juan Diego Florez is hott and has a beautiful, glorious voice, but he's really, really short.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
277

I'd be astonished if many of the people here coded as far left.

I'm not sure what left even means in a 21st-century US. I'm basically a democratic socialist, but with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul's foreign policy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
278

No, as I said above, the campaign she's run figures in a fair bit.

Right. Got it. Sorry for being incomplete. Hillary's personal affect is close-to-meaningless in your loathing for her. I get it.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
279

Samwise is trudging across Indiana right now, in fact.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
280

but he's really, really short.

but, JM?


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
281

276: We will have tiny, beautiful babies.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
282

You didn't have to tell us that you're short, Jesus. I used to really enjoy your comments.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
283

What, Jesus? I like 'em skinny and tallish: gracile!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
284

281 is a great pick-up line to deliver with a swarthily foreign accent.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
285

Hey, that's a real word. Never heard it before.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
286

273: So, like, we get to dress as Riders of Rohan?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
287

Hillary's personal affect is close-to-meaningless in your loathing for her.

That's probably true. Thinking about it, I don't actually see or hear her much. I don't really see or hear any of candidates much, on consideration. I don't watch the news (thx Internet!), and I'm not sure--save campaign ads--where else I'd see or hear them.

Which is a bit weird, actually. I can't remember if it was the same in '00 or '04.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
288

285: What, swarthily?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
289

Gracile


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
290

I've heard every variation on "swarthy," thanks.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
291

Oh, but Juan Diego. I just watched him deliver how many high Cs in a row? And then do it again? I have never seen an NYC audience go that apeshit. He had to break character and take bows.
I want to twirl his lovely curls around my fingers.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
292

Gracilis, gracile. 3d declension adjective.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
293

287: You don't watch YouTubes of the speeches or Fox appearances or whatever else? I ask because I've (re)given up the news. But I do still see a fair amount of hott candidate stumping action on the YouTubes.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
294

291.---I heard an interview with the Met Director (whose name suddenly escapes me), in which he pretty much admitted that he encouraged Juan Diego Florez to break the hundred-year-old ban on encores because he wants audiences to go apeshit---and buy more opera tickets. I think it's awesome.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
295

285: What, swarthily?

This reminds me: there's a parlor game, the actual name of which I do not know, where people take turns going out of the room while the rest of the players choose an adverb ending in ly. Then the person comes back and goes around asking people to do various things, such as singing a song or shaking his hand. They do it in the chosen way and the person who's It tries to guess what the word is. We call this game "What, crazily?" because of a time when a group tried to play, and in the first round a visiting student, asked to perform his action, demonstrated a certain failure to grasp the point of the game by saying, in his very Oxbridge accent, "What, CRAZILY?"

What, swarthily? would do almost as well.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
296

Also: TPM tv.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
297

296 further to 293.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
298

I think I liked Hillary much more when I had access to a TV. The bright pantsuits and the swoopy hair and the careful makeup and the confident half-smile---seriously, they catch me right in the vulnerable spot: she reminds me very much of the super-competant professor in, sadly, a different field, who mentored most of my grad student friends through successful dissertations.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
299

He had to break character and take bows.

This used to be a common occurrence, you know.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
300

282: I could just be sticking up for short people, out of magnanimity.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
301

298: I agree. The more I watch her, the more I like her. Even the O'Reilly interview, to be honest. Thought it was hard to take, she was masterful, I thought.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
302

I liked both Clintons briefly in the mid-90s, before I started paying attention.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
303

It's a fun game.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
304

We still love you, Short Jesus!


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
305

That does sound like a fun game. It makes me wish I had lots of friends again, so I could play it with them.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
306

299: Oh sure. But truthfully, it wasn't quite bows. More like clutching his hands over his heart while nodding earnestly.

I want to bite him.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
307

Oh, but Juan Diego. I just watched him deliver how many high Cs in a row?

I'd like to see a nude opera, because when they hit those high notes I bet you can really see it in those genitals.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
308

I also really like the goofy scarves she wears almost as though they were starched collars. She's always preferred the way, way buttoned-up look, and the scarf thing is working much better for her than the mandarin-collar thing.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
309

Her speaking style is very traditionalistic and past-oriented. People who like it are older than me. But they vote.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
310

You don't watch YouTubes of the speeches or Fox appearances or whatever else? I ask because I've (re)given up the news. But I do still see a fair amount of hott candidate stumping action on the YouTubes.

Not really. Maybe if someone links with "!!!!" or there's a live issue relating to a specific appearance. I find it faster and less irritating to read the transcripts.

Anytime I go to youtube, I get stuck watching old MTV vids, NBA clips, movie clips, or trailers.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
311

She comes across very poorly on radio.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
312

307 just induced a wave of deja vu. Either Emerson's expressed the desire to see naked opera before, or I've got an Emerson-at-the-naked-opera circuit firing on repeat in my brain.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
313

because when they hit those high notes I bet you can really see it in those genitals

Choir directors and voice coaches sometimes exhort singers to clench their butts to help bring up their pitch. It's mostly a mental thing, but it seems to work.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
314

Her speaking style is very traditionalistic and past-oriented

McCain's cadence, pauses, and intonations make me think of the famous "I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth" speech. Except McCain's just saying some boring BS.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
315

McCain's cadence, pauses, and intonations make me think that he's a shitload of tranquillizers and lying his pants off. "Let me tell you ... my friends ... that ... the people in Washington don't know ... that ... Mack ... heh ... is back ... my friends." It's really disturbing, like he's about either to fall asleep or snap entirely and tear off your arms.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
316

Plagiarized verbatim from Jack Handey.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
317

or snap entirely and tear off your arms

For a very old man, he does give the impression of a coiled spring. And as with Gene Hackman, I feel pretty certain that McCain could kick my ass.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
318

I feel pretty certain that McCain could kick my ass

Are you made of balsa wood, Ari? He's 111 years old, 5-1/2 feet tall, and can't lift his arms above his nipples.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
319

261: on the two issues I know a lot about, the tax issue on $100-$200 K (which must be the SS earnings cap raise, since they agree on preserving the Bush tax cuts in this income range), and also health care mandates, you're radically simplifying -- I would argue that Hillary is slightly more progressive on both. (Although Hillary supporters like Kruman have exaggerated this, just as Obama supporters exaggerate how right-wing Hillary is). On Iran, even flirting with the Kyl-Lieberman crap is very bad and a good reason to vote against Hillary, but Obama has been very cautious as well, just a shade to the left of Hillary (see his Iran divestment bill and his badmouthing of Iran in other contexts). I don't know enough about the other issues to argue on them, but in general I've found when you look closely, Obama and Hillary are pretty close in their substantive positions.

267, 277: No, you're both right on the "far left" thing. The point is really about political alienation. A lot of people, including me, have become pretty alienated from their government over the past six years, and you build up a powerful head of hostility when that happens. Hillary's taking the brunt of that as the designated collaborator in the Democratic race. Obama hasn't been a collaborator, but that's in part because of when he appeared on the scene. He hasn't been a particularly strong opponent either. He's a cautious guy.

274: I have to think about that. I see what you're saying about foreclosed by events. You're saying the internal divisions within the party are such that turning away from Obama cripples Hillary as well. It might be that my own frank disbelief that America could elect a guy with Obama's name and background is playing a role in my fear of his unelectability here. Maybe my country will surprise me.

255: I'm not actually trolling, I believe what I'm saying. But it would be better if I was. Trolls are under an obligation to be funny and/or outrageous, and I've if anything been the opposite -- more earnest and heavy handed than normal (see: length of comments). If there's a central Unfogged rule, it's that the more you disagree with the majority the funnier you should be. Which is fair enough. Since Ogged is the past master of the light touch, it stands to reason he would entirely lose his cool over that. So I pre-emptively ban myself from all political threads on the Democratic primary until at least June 15th. On or after June 15th, if things look the same for Obama as they do now and Hillary is still fighting it, I promise to make a reappearance viciously criticizing her.

In the meantime, I plan to double my number of sexist postings in sex and relationship threads, until I am banned from those as well.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
320

I am, in fact, made entirely of balsa wood. Except those parts that have long since snapped off, which I've replaced with poorly fired clay. Having said that, I have the sense that even balsa/clay Ari could kick the crap out of Obama.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
321

I'm afraid that McCain will turn all shouty and spittle-beflecked. And then will try to bite my nose off. And then he'll have an aneurysm and I'll feel horrible, horrible. These may not be entirely rational fears.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
322

320: In a physical fight between Obama and McCain, my money would be on Obama. As much as I could come up with.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
323

Oh no, they are. Ration, that is. Still, he could kick my ass.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
324

"Rational." Fucking balsa wood fingers. Except the pointer on my left hand, which is clay.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
325

323 to 321. Duh.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
326

I dunno, Ari. He took Psycho T to the rack.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:04 PM
horizontal rule
327

You're not banned, dude, just stop playing crude truth-teller to the Obamabots, or whatever it is you think you're doing. I actually appreciate, in a grudging way, having people here who will defend Clinton, but you need to be smart about it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:04 PM
horizontal rule
328

326: Yeah, but Tyler's white. Where's the sport in taking a white dude to hole?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
329

Hillary (a) has taken bad policy positions when it mattered most (b) treats voters--who include me!--like we're fucking morons. Her substantive liberal positions on foreign policy, the environment, & civil liberties during the primary--such as they are--are, based on everything I can tell, as likely as not to be either fake or low priorities.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
330

Hillary

Sexist. Obviously.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
331

Duet for McCain and Hillary that would only make sense (and not really then) if she were the presumptive nominee and an entirely different person, but once I got the image stuck in my head I could only relieve the pressure by actually posting it.

MCCAIN:
She is sixty going on seventy
Voters, it's time to think
Better beware, be canny and careful
People, we're on the brink

Totally unprepared is she to face a world of men
Timid and shy and scared is she
Of things beyond her ken

We'll need someone older and wiser
Telling us what to do,
I am seventy going on eighty
I'll take care of you!

HILLARY:
I am sixty going on seventy
Innocent as a rose
Bachelor dandies, drinkers of brandies
What do I know of those?

Totally unprepared am I to face a world of men
Timid and shy and scared am I
Of things beyond my ken

We need someone older and wiser
Telling us what to do,
You are seventy going on eighty
We'll depend on you!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:15 PM
horizontal rule
332

on the two issues I know a lot about, the tax issue on $100-$200 K (which must be the SS earnings cap raise, since they agree on preserving the Bush tax cuts in this income range) ... you're radically simplifying -- I would argue that Hillary is slightly more progressive on both

How is Clinton's position on this more progressive?


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:17 PM
horizontal rule
333

200, 202: I didn't hate Hillary until a month ago, for fuck's sake! How long has she had a vagina?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
334

It's obviously pretty hard for the soft-on-Hillary-ites to be funny while bleating their various calumnies about whirly-eyes, Obamabots, and misogyny. I like Hillary Clinton; the couple of times I've spoken with her have been perfectly delightful. I would have been happy to see her run a positive campaign -- and thought, after Iowa, when I heard a speech of hers from NH that she was going to try to win the thing with better substance. However, when it wasn't working -- and when it became apparent that her campaign strategists had utterly failed her, by letting thought of inevitability cloud their judgment about contesting all the early states -- she went negative and ugly. If she wins the nomination, it'll be a triumph of Rovism. And, as Harry Truman would say, give people the choice between the fake Rovist and the real Rovist, and they'll take the real one every time.

Beyond that, though, even if she can win the general, her application of mid-90s triangulation will have so destroyed the brand that I think we head right back into darkness.

And the generational aspect of the primary voting breakdown ought to be sharing the shit out of young supers. She can win the nomination only by alienating our future base.

Is Obama electable with an enthusiastic Clinton (both of them) endorsement? And Gore too? In 2008, this is more than possible. It's also possible, though, to give it away.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
335

I dunno, Ari. He took Psycho T to the rack.

Missed, though.

Great video. The shots of him randomly talking with Ol' Roy and the players are great. The video of him playing...less so. It make me doubt him. Why is he wearing sweat pants? What does he have to hide?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
336

335: You want shorts? You got shorts.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
337

332: Well, since Ogged gave permission...basically because Obama is saying there is an issue with SS that requires an immediate tax raise, while Hillary is saying that SS requires no immediate action (although she has called for appointing a bipartisan commission, which I'm not happy with, but that's often a way to bury an issue).

It's true that raising the earnings cap would be one of the more progressive ways to handle the SS "crisis", but then again there is no crisis. SS is in better fiscal shape then the rest of the government, so until you fix the rest of the budget (which has been wrecked by tax cuts, defense spending, and growth in health care costs) you shouldn't be asking for more $$ from the SS system. Hillary gets this, although one wonders if she might overemphasize getting to actual surplus as happened in the late 90s (which would probably be a mistake in the current economy).

Krugman was pissed about this, because Obama was implicitly buying into the SS crisis rhetorical frame to defend what is after all a substantial tax increase. Krugman is a bit of an anti-Obama fanatic, but I think one can argue Obama made a rookie-type mistake with this. Jeffrey Liebman, one of the "responsible" SS plan guys, is one of his advisors. On the other hand, I suppose it's somewhat possible this is a devious excuse to raise taxes and then raid the SS trust fund for progressive programs, as Bush raided it for Iraq.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
338

the couple of times I've spoken with her have been perfectly delightful

How the hell?

Are you Bill O'Reilly?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
339

337 -- I don't believe that the differences articulated by the candidates on SS are of any importance whatever. It's not like Obama has made this a signature issue, such that he'd claim a mandate if elected. It's not like Clinton and the others who held the line last year will have gone away. There isn't going to be a substantial SS restructure proposal in 2009 -- too many other things will come first, and that's just with the events we already know about.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
340

334: good comment, except for the "bleating calumnies" part. One of those words is more than enough for a sentence. Anyway, calumnies are traditionally mouthed, not bleated.

With polls and circumstances as they currently are, both candidates do look electable.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
341

338 -- I am not Bill O'Reilly. I suppose I am a member of the same species, though . . .


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
342

338 was me, and I didn't mean it in the sense that only Bill O'Reilly would find Mrs. Clinton delightful to speak with. I'm sure that I'd even have a lot of interesting things to talk about with her. It's more a commentary on how no one, ever, really gets to speak with the presidents or anyone in that kind of realm of power.

I kind of did a double take when I ran into Rod Blagovich on the street. He was just in jogging clothes with a buddy. I probably could have gotten a quick kick in the balls then run away, but I was just leaving our shared barber, so he probably could have tracked me down.

My point being, even in the pretty small Chicago political community who all live near each other, go to the same gyms, and know the same money people, it's still fucking hard to see a major political figure. So how'd you do it?


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
343

340 -- They're both electable now. One has to make the other unelectable to get in, though. (The other doesn't). I've never understood why you don't see the problem with this. One airline doesn't advertise how the other airline crashes a lot.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:54 PM
horizontal rule
344

Ummm, I suspect he gave some money. This is a tried and true way to meet political figures.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
345

342: Now there's a guy who could have some real problems with the Rezko trial.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
346

I suspect he gave some money. This is a tried and true way to meet get a half-second photo op with political figures.

Napi said that he's actually spoken with her, I assume for a long enough period to even have the slightest clue as to whether she's pleasant or not. To get that kind of access through donations alone, it seems like you either have to know half the people on a coast or at least be able to buy and sell them.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
347

342 -- The most recent time was a few years ago. Typical small town kind of thing: she was a guest at the PTA fundraiser, and ended up chatting with a small group of folks (including the host, a fellow senator whose grandaughter was a classmate of my son).


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
348

It's not that


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
349

And I'm not saying that Napi doesn't know half the people on a coast, or isn't able to buy and sell their worthless lives. I'm just saying that, if that's the case, I've got this hedge fund for him to invest in...


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
350

...hard to meet a major politician. It helps to run in circles of people who are able and inclined to max out their contributions, and if you get enough of those people together in one place, the politicians will come to you.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:08 PM
horizontal rule
351

Typical small town kind of thing

One of these adjectives is very very wrong.

But that's cool, I'd love to get the chance to pick the brains of a few of those leaders for a while.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
352

I've never given money to HRC. Nor to EMK, the host noted in 347. I did donate to the campaign of an old friend who ran unsuccessfully for Gov of Montana back in 2000, and went to a fundraiser at a DC townhouse featuring WJC. Short conversation with him, no magic. Great speech, though. And I got to hang with Pat Williams, a better man than any of them. (His wife was my friend's running mate, and his daughter a White House intern/minion. The wife is now the state Senate Majority Leader.)


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
353

350: But that's the thing. I do know some of those people as family friends. I'm also friends with a fair number of people who do local political work, have staffed for these campaigns (current roomie is an Obama staffer, he'll be here through November with a little luck). Friends of my family vaguely know Obama through the East Bank Club and the such. As a donor myself, I get invitations to the occasional more intimate event, which means I cram into a room with 300 other people and Obama shows up for 15 minutes to give a speech and shakes the hands of the first 3 rows. Maybe a photo op. Still not seeing where several minutes of conversation can be had.

And this is something I really would love to figure out, because I'd damn near give a kidney to be able to find out what these people are actually thinking, how much thought they have actually put into some of these policies at a deeper level than the shoddy debates or question sessions will ever touch upon, and just general-interest questions to find out a little about what they're actually like.

At this point, I would love for Obama to take the presidency not just because he'd be the better president, but because then he'd likely retire to Chicago and I could wait out the couple decades until demands on his time cool off enough that I might be able to meet him through connections. If he stays an eternal senator, it just feels like that political class is unreachable unless you knew them before or are super-high-profile enough that everyone considers you to be worth a decent chunk of their time.

Them's the breaks of living in a country of 300 million.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:20 PM
horizontal rule
354

the politicians will come to you

Like locusts to a field of wheat.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:20 PM
horizontal rule
355

And as PGD can attest, Washington is a small town -- a series of slightly overlapping small towns -- and it's no surprise to be in the presence of the various functionaries of our company town. In my own household, I'm the less well connected one. My wife is known by several former cabinet officers, here and from her home country, and a former president, by her first name.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:21 PM
horizontal rule
356

I'd love to get the chance to pick the brains of a few of those leaders

Alert the Secret Service; PMP is making threats again.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:22 PM
horizontal rule
357

I'd damn near give a kidney to be able to find out what these people are actually thinking, how much thought they have actually put into some of these policies at a deeper level than the shoddy debates or question sessions will ever touch upon, and just general-interest questions to find out a little about what they're actually like

From brief meetings I've had with people at the Senate/Governor level (very brief), and from people who've had other interactions, my impression is that they're very polished and impressive in those settings. It's not as if you'd get to pierce the veil; they're still "on" and working.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:23 PM
horizontal rule
358

I actually think TV is a better way to get a sense of what they're "really" like, because you're not in their force-field.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:27 PM
horizontal rule
359

Jeez, is Obama dumbing down his speeches lately? This is, like, fine, as speeches go, but I'm not feeling it. Is this Obama getting into the swing of talking to morons who haven't made up their minds yet? Or have I just been getting all turned on by this kind of stuff, where he's talking brilliantly to an audience he knows has a fucking clue what he's saying? Is he tired?

That is to say, I'd be damn tired of saying the same shit all the time. But it would be really really handy if he would close this game down so I don't have to think about Clinton ever again.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:28 PM
horizontal rule
360

359 should say, I get really sublime thrummings from long, rhetorically dense sentences and references to 18th-century writers, so maybe his Indiana speech is a brilliant political move. But I know he's just going through the motions.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
361

I would argue that Hillary is slightly more progressive on both.

This is really, really untrue. I've bickered about health care mandates at length here before, and all I'll say about them now is that a couple years ago the conventional wisdom in liberal policy circles was that mandates were a right-wing idea, an attempt to turn health care reform into a corporate-friendly giveaway. If we were having this conversation three years ago, Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein would be telling us, with just as much certainty as they currently plug mandates, that mandates were a bad idea. All I'm saying is they were right the first time. I don't think Obama's plan is much better than Clinton's, but it is better than Clinton's, because it's not designed to punish people who can't afford health insurance, which is exactly what any mandate worthy of the name will do.

As for lifting the payroll tax cap, this, again, used to be universally considered the preferred center-left response to Social Security skeptics - and as I've said here at least half a dozen times, it was the preferred policy of Paul Krugman during the SS fight of 2005, and of John Edwards during this very election. When Clinton first attacked Obama over the payroll tax, it was very clearly an attack from the right, painting Obama as a tax-hiker - and this was well before Obama started using whatever "crisis" rhetoric that made the liberal blogs all go apeshit.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:35 PM
horizontal rule
362

357: Almost certainly true. I wouldn't actually expect some insight into their character while they're running for office. That'd be more like something I'd hope to glean years or decades after the fact, meeting them in a leisured retirement.

But it would still be interesting to hear about what their major policy concerns actually are, what sort of rankings they would give, and what kind of details they were actually interested in that, as I said, would never make it to the debates or media Q&A sessions.

Mostly I've been interested in what actually drives the policies that are fleshed out by politicians. How some areas of potential policy are so wonkily detailed while others just have a vague nod toward a suggested policy, or even worse a "mission statement" style bit of empty sloganeering (which is pretty much all McCain seems to have thus far). I mean, if the politician just wanted to appear prepared, I doubt it would be too hard to come up with an orthodox list of experts in nearly every policy area who could draft or pull together detailed policy papers from their area. Probably wouldn't cost more than a couple hundred thousand in consultancy fees, chump change for an illusion of competence and policy depth.

So why isn't that done? Why are so many areas of policy left relatively untouched, even as opponents come out with fairly detailed plans? Clearly there's something behind it, and I bet at least some of the impetus comes from the candidate. It would be interesting to find out what those basic policy passions and priorities are, and how deep they go, which I bet could be found even in a fairly veiled conversation unless the politician just plain bails.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
363

Heh.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:44 PM
horizontal rule
364

You know you've lost, when you've lost the island paradise vote.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:50 PM
horizontal rule
365

357, 362: At my first job, I spent a lot of time with the University's president, who had been a very powerful US senator. We talked regularlarly, often in private, about this and that. The upshot? I learned next to nothing that I wouldn't have gleaned from a major policy address. It seemed, as time passed, that this man never took off his public mask. Very possibly this was because I wasn't considered a confidant. At the same time, though, I wasn't a threat. It was an odd and powerful lesson about the costs of high-stakes politics. Either that or he just didn't like me very much.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:50 PM
horizontal rule
366

363: Everyone who's anyone knows that she's totally sexist.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:51 PM
horizontal rule
367

"Barack Obama is the most radical candidate ever to stand at the precipice of acquiring his party's presidential nomination and the American presidency. It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement which hopes to use the United Nations as a vehicle to shake down U.S. taxpayers for trillions of dollars in slavery reparations. One group, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission, is demanding an astronomical $777 trillion."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-08 11:58 PM
horizontal rule
368

The fine people at Acuracy in Media were the first to bring us the Obama's a secret communist story.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 12:06 AM
horizontal rule
369

You know what? All I have to threaten Hillary with is my vote. I'm done. If she wins the nomination with this crap, I'm not voting for her in the general. If she's so fucking electable she can get elected without my vote.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 12:07 AM
horizontal rule
370

369 is why I've been trying to soft-pedal the Hillary bashing. The difference between Obama and Hillary isn't worth electing McCain for.

If Hillary is elected I'll be very gloomy, because of her military and foreign policy instincts and principles, but not as gloomy as I will be if McCain is elected. Hillary's election will mean that the Democratic Party will have been half tranformed -- a more effective, non-DLC campaign supporting the same old DLC policies. And knowing what I do of the Clintons, they'll treat the people who made Hillary's election possible as enemies, and the people who put so much energy into transforming the party will be revealed as suckers.

Could happen with Obama, too, of course.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 5:33 AM
horizontal rule
371

Could happen with Obama, too, of course.

Sure, but (a) his base is newer and less cohesive, and (b) his enemies are probably our enemies. He probably shouldn't witchhunt the DLC, but it would make me laugh.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
372

He has to neutralize the DLC within the DNC, and blackball a bunch of key people (Carville, Penn, I don't know all their names.) Once he's neutralized them, he can let some of them come crawling back on his terms.

Carville an Penn go to the pig farm, though.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
373

In my own household, I'm the less well connected one. My wife is known by several former cabinet officers, here and from her home country, and a former president,

Man, talk about low hanging fruit!

I once met a U.S. Senator in a corner store and had a brief discussion about policy with him. He was tired and and a little disheveled (it was late at night, and he'd been working hard). He commented on the fact that my purchases were less healthy than his own. We talked a little about left-wing politics (he's a pretty liberal guy), and he mentioned Fred Hiatt's parents were old left activists, and they were constantly nagging their son about his Iraq war coverage. Not that it did any good.

I also once met Dennis Kucinich in line at a middle eastern takeout place. He was very smooth and assured, more so than the senator.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
374

This became an interesting thread.

I am acquainted with a member of the state house of representatives. The mother of a high school friend. As I recall from back then, she was incredibly high-strung and faux-friendly. She seems to have won office with her major theme being "Reduce school property taxes". Presumably because the majority of people in her district are either too old to have children in school or too rich to care about public schools. But she probably would have won anyway because of being the Republican candidate. How did she become the Republican candidate? Presumably through being able to pay for the campaign herself.

Also, I knew three nephews of D/n Sherw/od in high school. My verdict: enwhitled and oblivious to the problems of the world, though only 1 of 3 was a jerk.


Posted by: CN | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
375

Reading the twitters of Indiana Republican activists is very dismaying. I now have no doubt that Republicans are coordinated to cast votes for Hillary today.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
376

The difference between Obama and Hillary isn't worth electing McCain for.

First, the odds of my withheld vote flipping the election are exceedingly small, so don't accuse me of electing McCain.

Second, I believe that principles matter -- in fact, a president's principles might matter to me more than their policies. That, in fact, is why I'm so angry at Clinton right now; she's shown a staggering lack of principles when in the clutch.

Obama is running as if his principles matter more than victory. How can I do any less?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
377

Politicians don't have principles. Neither does Obama. Principles voters often seem to be blithering idiots.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
378

rock on, John.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
379

377: If it's true that politicians and Obama don't have principles, then they're all going to waterboard detainees, n'est ce pas?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
380

Carville an Penn go to the pig farm, though.

Unsurprisingly, Obama doesn't seem to care for Carville, either.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
381

These two statements strike me as contradictory:

First, the odds of my withheld vote flipping the election are exceedingly small, so don't accuse me of electing McCain.

And

Second, I believe that principles matter

If your vote doesn't matter, then why should you care who you vote for at all? What's at stake? The only answer I can think of is "Principles matter." Do you have another answer?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
382

380: Although this is perilously close to the old standard of "can't come out and call him a pigfucker, but we can make him deny it". Except these days you can just come out and say that he has one ball and make him deny it. Better comeback would be a mocking "tough stuff from someone who has been serially cuckolded by Dick Cheney."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
383

Man, talk about low hanging fruit!

The only photgraph on our mantle including people to whom we are not related is one of my wife flanked by GHWB and Helmut Kohl. Both behaved as advertised.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
384

381: My first point doesn't say exactly what I want it to say, but where's the contradiction? That my not voting for Clinton on principle is only meaningful if it gets McCain elected?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
385

flanked by GHWB and Helmut Kohl. Both behaved as advertised

Kohl ate her?


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05- 6-08 3:46 PM
horizontal rule