Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Superdelegates.
It's over.
There. That should be uncomplicated enough for you.
I didn't say he was leading overall. I said he won more delegates last night, which would go against the notion of a "big loss." She's got the lead when you include superdelegates, but unlike the state delegates, those aren't committed until the convention.
Mickey mouse states that hold caucuses instead of votes.
I read the Dick Morris baloney after Humanus' post. Hell, if Dick Morris said it, I would throw it in the trash.
My ears are drooping and my tail is between my legs for I have sinned.
I wish that some of the people who are saying that they think Obama is a better candidate, but they are voting for Clinton anyway because he can always run again in eight years would consider this:
One of the issues that concerns me most in this election is the role of the executive--Bush expanded his presidential power in dangerous ways for our Democracy. I see Obama as a constitutional law Professor--as a person with the knowledge, yes the experience, and the conscience to roll back this executive privilege that Bush has increased to the detriment of our democracy. Does anyone see the two Clintons once they are in office sticking to the constitution and rolling back some of their own executive privilege? I cannot personally imagine it.
Even IF Clinton won and made Obama her VP (not at all a certainty--I believe she's far more likely to choose Governor Richardson...) There is no reason to think that this would translate into an opportunity for him to run for President as a viable candidate in eight years if they win.
Al Gore did not get the traction he needed from the Clintons to take gain the White House--yes this might be because he distanced himself from Bill, but it also might be because Hillary and Bill were essentially a two-person team, and Al Gore came across as having the job once belonging to Dan Quayle....the Clintons never "needed" Al Gore. And they have seemed to make it more than clear in this election cycle that they don't "need" Obama (or even, perhaps, his supporters--as their vituperative campaign against him has made clear).
An article in the Atlantic Monthly referred to Obama as a two-and-a-half foot giant in the land of two foot politicians. Yes, I don't think that he is perfect. No, I don't worship him as a cult leader or think that he will create perfect racial harmony in this country or heal all past pyschic wounds. But he is the two-and-a-half foot giant in the race against a two-foot politician, Hillary Clinton. For his Congressional record is more impressive than hers is, his background in constitutional law is deeply important to the preservation of our democracy, and his ability to speak to those he does not agree respectfully may be an important way--the only way--to get past the bitter, stalemated legislature of Washington D.C. of the past fourteen years. Eight years from now for better or worse, Obama will not run as an "outsider" and his enemies--wherever they are--will have found more time to study his vulnerabilities for crippling attacks and belittling. This will be his "experience."
I also wish to point out that in 2000, one of the reasons Al Gore lost was that many Americans bought the argument that "the two candidates are the same." A similar argument crops up in the decision between Clinton and Obama.
The fact is that a close look reveals that they are not the same, and they do lead in two different directions for our nation--they have deep differences that aren't just about Republican versus Democrat.
The white house is a political football that typically gets passed back and forth between the parties every one to three terms. This year--even many Republicans agree--that it is the Democrats' "turn." But if, after two terms of another Clinton White House (assuming, of course, that they are elected), if you think that the Republicans will still be content to vote as "Obama Republicans," instead of passionately voting their own next Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh-approved ring-wing Jeb Bush guy into the White House, I think you're deeply missing something about the American political back-and-forth.
According to the polls, Al Gore could have won the nomination this year if he had decided to run again--but he did not. Maybe his experience--eight years as Vice President in a Clinton White House, and one major, bitter, presidential campaign--only contributed to making him wary of trusting American voters or the Presidential campaign mud machine one more time.
So for practical, as well as ideological reasons, I'm sticking proudly with my two-and-a-half foot giant. This is a ground-breaking year. It involves making important decisions with lasting repercussions. Those who study the issues and believe that Obama is a better candidate and would make a better president need vote for him now. Believing the same opportunity will occur again in eight years seems to me to be a "false hope."
Why follow logic when you can make bold, empty assertions? He's ahead in many of the states that are coming up in the next three weeks, has considerably more money, and seems to be on the rise. But since she won two populous states (that weren't winner-take-all), it's over. Hard to argue with such an astute follower of electoral politics.
The days of the naive, uplifting rhetoric are numbered.
Play nice? Surely you jest. The point is that a star has been awarded to someone who has plagiarized. Is it playing nice to avoid pointing out that this is so? If that is playing nice it is a craven sort of playing nice and I don't want any part of it.
This is not about Clinton and Obama. This is about what sort of dialogue you want to take place here at Salon. As a former English teacher, I flunked people like Jaben for plagiarizing. It is absolutely astonishing to me that Obama supporter would want Jaben's false and, moreover, stolen, claims to stand as representative of the Obama point of view here at Salon.
Don't tell me to play nice! Why don't you try playing ethically? Think about it. What does it say about your cause and your support of your candidate if you choose to ignore this when you should be loudly protesting the lie?
To me, it begins to speak to the fact that perhaps people posting here on behalf of Obama should get a lot more scrutiny concerning the information that they are posting.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
