Screw Hillary Clinton

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Screw Hillary Clinton

Postby Rspaight » Thu May 22, 2008 2:15 pm

You know, if somehow these ridiculous shenanigans pan out for her and she manages to steal the nomination, there's no way I can imagine voting for her. I'll just stay home. I know that's not much of a threat, but now that Lieberman is independent, Clinton is my new least favorite Democrat.

The best possible outcome at this point is if all the remaining uncommitted superdelegates come out en masse for Obama, which would lock it up and make the whole thing moot. I realize Obama and the supers are treading lightly for fear of angering the powerful Clinton wing of the party, but this behavior is beyond the pale. End this circus now.

Ickes: We want the Michigan uncommitted to stay uncommitted

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton Senior Adviser Harold Ickes clarified their position on Michigan -- they don't want the 55 "uncommitted" delegates to go to Obama (his name did not appear on the ballot in Michigan).

There have been reports that some of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan already selected are union supporters of Clinton. This solution, unsurprisingly, would make it much harder for Obama to clinch a pledged delegate majority.

Last week, the Clinton campaign was agnostic on the issue -- but they seem to ratcheting up the noise, or at least their negotiating position.

Ickes also mentions that the co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee -- which will rule on Florida and Michigan on May 31 -- have been holding "informal meetings" with leaders of both of the campaigns.

UPDATE: Wolfson says that most -- if not -- all of the uncommitted delegates would likely go for Obama.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Screw Hillary Clinton

Postby lukpac » Thu May 22, 2008 2:37 pm

Rspaight wrote:The best possible outcome at this point is if all the remaining uncommitted superdelegates come out en masse for Obama, which would lock it up and make the whole thing moot. I realize Obama and the supers are treading lightly for fear of angering the powerful Clinton wing of the party, but this behavior is beyond the pale. End this circus now.


Who knows if it will pan out, but Matt Taibbi has an interesting take:

The key to this year's smoke-filled room, it turns out, dates back to 1996, when all Democratic members of Congress were given automatic status as superdelegates. And members of Congress, by design, don't care about how the people of America vote — they care about how people in their districts vote. When it comes to picking a nominee, most congressmen have only one question, a calculation of undiluted self-interest: Which candidate is most likely to help me win re-election?

It's in this area that the math seems to be tilting toward Obama. "It's a question of who's most likely to help the Democrats in November down ticket," Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia said recently. "Obama generates more excitement than anyone since Bobby Kennedy." In 2006, the Democrats reseized the majority in Congress mainly by winning seats in traditionally Republican districts in red states. To preserve that majority, many congressional superdelegates from red states seem to be favoring Obama, whose demonstrated ability to turn out new voters and independents appears to be a determining factor. "Obama will bring new people into the process in Southern states, there's no doubt about it," said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip. "In these Southern states, he's bringing out more people, young people, African-Americans. They're being energized by him."

Obama's advantage in states carried by Bush in 2000 and 2004, like Idaho and Missouri, may end up carrying the subterranean superdelegate battle for him. So far, he's racked up 124 endorsements from superdelegates in red states, compared to 88 for Hillary. To confirm the math for worried House members, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has even begun poll testing to see how the choice of presidential nominee could affect various House races. Many in Congress fear that Hillary is simply too polarizing — especially to red-state residents whose votes will decide the composition of the House.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... rdelegates
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu May 22, 2008 3:36 pm

I swear that I didn't read this TBogg post before making the above post. And he's catching hell for it from the commenters, who are turning their back on him by the score:

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/05/21 ... alvinball/

Wow.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Thu May 22, 2008 10:46 pm

Even if Michigan and Florida were to be seated according to Hillary's wildest fantasy (with Obama getting zero delegates from Michigan), she'd still have trouble catching up to Obama.

See Scenario 5 here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... rs_21.html

My guess is if she were to succeed at cheating so blatantly she'd start to lose the superdelegates she has now.

More realistically, May 31 will bring a Michigan/Florida compromise that doesn't change the math significantly. I still expect this to be over shortly after the last contests on June 3.

But it may be a mistake to apply logic to this situation considering how illogical Hillary has been so far. I mean, honestly, how can she possibly think she still has a chance??

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 23, 2008 8:04 am

Thanks for that link -- very helpful summary.

The only path for Clinton to the nomination is a massive defection of superdelegates from Obama to Clinton and/or Scenario 5 + getting practically all the remaining supers.

I don't consider Scenario 5 very likely, and if it *did* happen the outcome would be as you describe -- the supers would finally lose patience and drift to Obama.

*Any* method by which she gets the nomination would be by definition a mulligan granted to Hillary because she's, well... Hillary and this was her year, dammit. (The only reason such a thing would be acceptable is if some new development made Obama unelectable, and Wrightgate clearly does not rise to that level.) That's the sort of out-of-control sense of entitlement I associate with George W. Bush, and I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone who exhibits that same sort of pathology.

So at this point can we call Operation Chaos a success, or is that too paranoid?
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Fri May 23, 2008 9:28 am

All this time, I've been hoping that there might be some kind of secret resolution...a "suboperation: order" to "operation: chaos" if you will. It's becoming increasing clear that this isn't the case.

I started this whole nomination battle a functional candidate agnostic. I preferred Obama, but not necessarily for reasons that I'd considered transcendentally substantive: I loved the idea of an African American candidate, I was a six-year Chicagoan at the time (one of us!) working for Senator Durbin, he did represent something new (and, more importantly, a departure from Clinton/Bush)...but none of these struck me as particularly important reasons, and I admitted as much. Hillary's recent actions, though, have been an astonishing look into her character, and the characters of her campaign managers.

Look, this is the freakin' Presidency of the United States, and I understand all too well that it's one of those prizes you pursue at all costs. But even all costs have a natural limit, and you don't burn the village in order to save it...not after the sort of administration we've just had. There are lots of things she could bargain for that wouldn't be this destructive. She might make a great AG, or a Secretary of State. Those are pretty fantastic jobs...other things that might be worth pursuing at all costs. But at this point, the math simply doesn't seem to favor her, and she's crossed from being tenacious to being...lord knows what, but not good.
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 23, 2008 9:47 am

Same here. I went into this whole thing as not a huge fan of either Obama or Clinton, but certainly willing to vote for either of them in the fall. (I had concerns about Clinton's high negatives and polarizing nature, but figured given the anti-Republican climate that wouldn't matter so much). I had warm and fuzzy memories of the 90s under Big Bill and figured we could do worse than to go back to similar policies.

Her actions aren't revolting to me because I'm a big Obama backer at this point. (I like him more than I did at the beginning of the year, but I've hardly become dazzled by his aura, either.) Like I said above, it's Bush-like narcissism, pure and simple. We don't need any more of that.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Fri May 23, 2008 11:05 am


User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 23, 2008 11:34 am

That goes a long way toward explaining the Clinton campaign's, um...., "audacity" yesterday. Explaining, but not in any way excusing.

This endgame is going to be a doozy. I've got to believe Obama is in the catbird seat, since the Clinton gang hasn't been able to shoot straight through the whole process.

Oh, and I remember watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC on 5/6 claiming that Clinton was going to go scorched-earth and no one (in the studio or in my living room) believed her. Chalk one up for Maddow.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Fri May 23, 2008 12:13 pm



That hurt my brain.

This was an interesting link from there:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... mpa-1.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Fri May 23, 2008 12:19 pm

I just can't stop myself from reading some of these comments:


VOTER “PHOTO ID” SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN ALL STATES.

OBAMA IS AFRAID TO DEBATE. HE CAN ONLY READ SPEECHES FROM A TELEPROMPTER — NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO BE OUR PRESIDENT!

WE HAVE 50 STATES — NOT 48! COUNT THEIR VOTES!

TODAY, THE DNC STRUCK A “MONEY DEAL” WITH OBAMA. THIS JUST MIGHT ASSURE HIM THE VOTES OF THE SUPER-DELEGATES. WE NEED TO GET RID OF DEAN, PELOSI, REID, KENNEDY AND KERRY.

HOW SAD FOR ALL AMERICANS. OUR VOTES DON’T MATTER — MONEY DOES!

THINK ABOUT TIES TO WRIGHT, AYERS, REZKO, FARRAKHAN, SINCLIAR, AMONG OTHERS!

WE NEED TO CLEAN OUT OUR WHITE HOUSE. WE NEED NEW REPRESENTATIVES FOR ALL 50 STATES! THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR SENATORS AND CONGRESS MEMBERS.

VOTE HILLARY 2008!
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 23, 2008 12:31 pm

The Clinton team was in favor of sanctioning MI and FL when it thought it was the inevitable winner. Then when they started losing, re-enfranchising MI and FL became a moral struggle on a par with the civil rights movement, abolition and universal suffrage.

So I suppose that if Clinton was alive at the time of the suffrage movement, she would have supported women's right to vote as long as they voted for her. And she'd calculate her opposition to slavery on the basis of her poll numbers among the slaves.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm

Apparently, the latest Clinton talking point is that she's staying in the race just in case someone kills Obama, like what happened to RFK in '68.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/ne ... 112232.htm

Come on, superdelegates. Finish this.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sat May 24, 2008 2:06 pm

lukpac wrote:I just can't stop myself from reading some of these comments:


I've tried to find rational arguments at pro-Hillary blogs, but at this point they all appear to be batshit insane.

For instance, the latest post on Hillary Is 44:

Stalinism is alive.

Because Obama is running for president we are not to recognize historical facts. Millions voted in Florida and Michigan, but they are to be wiped off the pages of history. Robert Kennedy was slaughtered on a June day. That historical fact too will be wiped off the pages of history. The Bush v. Gore battles and the stolen election of 2000 - never accepted by Big Media, will be wiped off the pages of history too. The importance of West Virginia and Kentucy will be wiped off the historical record too. Puerto Rico is to be wiped off the historical record as well.

DailyKooks and Arriana Huff n’ Puff and Talking Pimps Memo will all assist in the Stalinist “cleansing” of history.


Recent posts about Obama are filed under the "scum" category.

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sat May 24, 2008 3:43 pm

It's like being trapped in a bar with a bunch of rabid Patriot fans for the last two minutes of the last Super Bowl... for weeks and weeks.

No, scratch that, it isn't. The Patriot fans had a better sense of reality.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney