So...you don't think Al Gore was (and still is, by a lot of morons) seen as a starry-eyed idealist who wants to save the planet? I'm still hearing that crap from some of my wingnut friends and relatives.

It wasn't idealism that got us into the current sad state of affairs -- or at least I don't see it that way. I see it as pragmatism that got us here. George W. Bush struck me as the most vapid possible candidate ever! Nothing idealistic there. So he knew a few good AA meetings he could take me to! That didn't and still does not impress me as a Presidential credential.

While I do see a lot of Hillary bashing going on here (and lots of other places), and also a lot of Obama bashing, I don't for a moment think it is rational of you or anyone else to define criticism of her or support of another sort of candidate who is not her as "bashing." I do not mean to "bash" Ms. Clinton, only to point out why I do not choose, as you do, to support her, and in the process try to compare and contrast her with her opponent.

Bashing is quite popular nowadays. After seven years of Bad Luck I guess the bad breeding is starting to wear off on everyone, which is really sad. We've all learned from the damned neocons to express what we are against, but never what we are for. So yes, there is a lot of bashing to go around. Kindly let me know if I seem to be doing that. Ever.

Meanwhile, I will continue to explain why I believe one candidate might work better than another in this coming election. I will continue to compare and contrast. I'm sorry you see that as "bashing."

See?

"if Obama wins. Preening narcissists shrieking slogans at us, then berating us when we don't fall in line. Worship for style and spectacle over substance. A cult of personality that replaces reasoned debate."

What is the difference that the Hillary robots offer? The "cult of personality" is the most apt description I have ever heard of the Hillary supporter.

I support Obama for several reasons. He's a good guy, his ideas are sound, and he's not a Clinton. We did the Clinton thing for 8 years. One time thru that little merry-go-round is enuff.

And the makeover is all wrong: too generic, from no specific region, with no particular persona, meaning no offense to anyone.

Costume! Think Susan Sarandon playing a law prof at a women's college in The South. Put the glasses back on and spike the hair up a bit.

Think spunky, sexy, liberal, aging, aloof...

Get Hillary out of that yellow strait-jacket.

Why does a woman auditioning for World Leader have to look like she's on the board at The Bank of America?

who loses big blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and crucial swing states like Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If Obama's vaunted momentum (catch the wave, dudes) doesn't net him Ohio on March 4 and/or Pennsylvania in April, he won't be the nominee, no matter how many delegates he picks up in the Virgin Islands.

Except he doesn't have to win Ohio or Texas. He just has to take her to a draw, delegate-wise, if the math of this month continues favoring him. There's no doubt Ohio and Texas have large numbers of delegates. But it is not winner take all, and really, the proportional nature of the race has been bleeding Hillary more than it has Obama, because it makes the big races, where her campaign has pinned alot of her hopes on, less important than winning large margins in lots of smaller states.

The absurd part about all these contortions is that Hillary could win if she really put the pedal to the mettle in the rest of the February contests, took Obama to a delegate draw, and then won in Texas and Ohio. Her campaign is by no means dead, so I don't really understand (other than for spin purposes) the underplaying of the rest of the months contests.

But it seems like, genuinely, that the Clinton camp is hardly bothering to make a play in these states. It might be because of money issues, or just a shift in strategy to wanting to do better in bigger states. But it certainly doesn't seem wise if the numbers we see yesterday, repeat throughout the whole month in almost all the contests. The only way she could recover from that is if she does extremely well (like Arkansas well) in Ohio and Texas. And maybe that will happen, but I doubt it.

"Superdelegates will never support a candidate

who loses big blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and crucial swing states like Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If Obama's vaunted momentum (catch the wave, dudes) doesn't net him Ohio on March 4 and/or Pennsylvania in April, he won't be the nominee, no matter how many delegates he picks up in the Virgin Islands."

Read my earlier post on this subject. Super Delegates DO NOT MATTER.

Mizmoon said...

She has fantastic chances of being elected against McCain. She does not deserve the vicious bashing she gets here. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Fantastic chances of being elected against McCain? Without the independent voters? With all the negative opinions that surround her? With ALL of the GOP united against her, and only some (most?) of the Democrats behind her? In the numbers game of elections, that looks like a loss, and if Clinton has to scuttle the Democratic Party to garner the nomination, an even worse defeat. If Clinton had a fantastic chance of beating McCain, she'd already have flattened Obama, instead of having the race of her political life hanging by a thread. (Obama, I would think even diehard Clintonites would admit, did not begin the race with even a shadow of the celebrity Clinton enjoyed, and yet he's only doing better and better, the more people see him, the better that they get to know him, while Clinton remains stagnant.)

Has HR Clinton really received a vicious bashing here? Near as I can tell, the majority of people here are having legitimate grievances with the conduct of the Clinton campaign, with the focus on well-heeled big donors and lobbyists in her campaign, their pathological secrecy, with Clinton's own political decisions over the years, and with the very real likelihood that she'll lose the general election, even if she wins the Democratic nomination.

If that's "vicious" to you, then you'll be apoplectic over what the GOP will launch against HR Clinton -- then again, maybe the "Win Through Pity" approach might come into play, like "Poor Hillary" getting dogpiled by the GOP, causing a massive defection of votes toward her. That seems like a terribly big gamble, banking on her weaknesses as a candidate, instead of relying on her strengths.

And, for that matter, why should we all be ashamed of ourselves? For having divergent opinions? For not chugging the Clinton Kool-Aid and asking for seconds? I see that whole "FOR SHAME!" finger-wagging from Clintonites (not just you, Mizmoon; it's popped up elsewhere), which I think is self-defeating as a defense of your candidate. Rather than looking at why people are unhappy with the candidate, the Clintonites howl "FOR SHAME!" as a way of stopping discussion of what they don't like. It's like complaining about the media coverage, or calling everybody who doesn't like Clinton a sexist -- maybe makes you feel vindicated for a moment, but doesn't really address anything, and isn't going to be worth squat against the GOP in the general election. The GOP leadership HAS no shame (on that, please, let us agree -- I except AJCalhoun from this, who I think is a straight shooter, probably that rarest of creatures: a liberal Republican, an endangered species) -- anyway, appealing to the GOP's sense of shame is a sick joke and a lost cause, so you might as well give up on the "FOR SHAME!!" line of debate-squelching, because it's truly not going to work on the GOP, nor will "Poor Hillary!"

It's never occurred to me to say that of Clintonites, even as they've gone off the deep end against Obama and in favor of Clinton, because I recognize that they've a right to their opinions, even if I disagree with them strongly, think they're misleading themselves about her chances for a win in the general election. Shame's got absolutely nothing to do with it.

And while we're talking about shame, what'll be a damned shame is if Clinton hijacks the nominating process by way of the DLC superdelegates, the Democrats In Name Only, who I'm sure are still in her pocket, and if she brashly goes for the MI and FL convention nuclear option, a case of bucking the DNC for pure partisan advantage. Only the politically shameless would try that as a tactic, like failing where it matters, at the polls, and relying on insider connections to try to take the nomination. My hope is that Obama sweeps the remaining states (a longshot, I know) so that the Clinton campaign won't be able to rely on those safeties, which is more a desire for Obama's strength to overcome Clinton's weakness in trying to game a win, rather than winning out of hand.

I know, I'm being Mizmoon-style "vicious" in pointing this out. Shame on me.