Letters to the Editor
-
WES
"Oh yeah, you must mean that 2000 George Bush style democracy.........Obama loses the popular vote in Texas and gets more delegates."
The electoral college is winner take all, not proportional. Had it been proportional like the D primaries, Gore would have won, so what's your point exactly?
Also, Obama still has several hundred thousand vote advantage in th epopular vote. Again, you're trying to say what?
-
And Yes
The Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio comparison is how they both stack up against McCain.
-
seriously though,
WES is just making shit up as he goes along.
-
"demagogue"?
Awwww...innit that cute? Wes is starting to use that "word of the day" calendar his mum bought him for Christmas!
Have you come up to "obtuse" yet?
;)
-
A series of miscalculations
The Hillary campaign made so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin. After her win in Pennsylvania it seemed to me Hillary had finally found a populist personna that connected with voters. And just when I thought she'd gotten smart ... Hillary throws Obama a life preserver with the gas tax pander, effectively removing the Rev. Wright from the news cycle and cementing her reputation as someone who will do or say anything for a vote. Sheesh.
Overall, I get the sense that the Clintons simply haven't changed with the times. Back in '92 maybe you could get by with the Bosnia story, or the plagiarism charges, or constantly shifting the goalposts for securing a win, etc. But in 2008, there is such constant media coverage and so many well-established online news sources and blogs, in a matter of seconds anyone with access to the Interwebs can pull up whole track records of public statements dating back years. It seems to me the Clintons have made a habit of saying whatever they want, no matter how preposterous, and expecting the public and the media to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Bill in particular seems almost indignant that his wife isn't getting the same pass he did ten years ago.
Also, give credit where it's due: Obama is an exceptionally skilled politician. He's managed to amplify the image of Hillary as a craven, serial liar without even dirtying his own hands. For anyone who thinks BO isn't tough enough for the general election, bare in mind that he's had to handle Hillary more or less with kid gloves since he'll need a fair share of her supporters this fall. When it comes to John Mccain I expect the gloves will come off. Obama's got some steel beneath the smooth exterior.
-
@WES
I don't get your continued mention of Michigan, where there was no real election. I suppose if you're an old-skool soviet aparatchik, it might have some appeal, but unless the actual candidates are on a ballot, you have no election, just a coronation. Niether Michigan nor Hillary can be rewarded for such a travesty. Do it right the first time, do it over, or deal with the results. MI screwed the pooch, not Hillary or Obama or the DNC. The results of a non-election cannot be counted.
No one is suggesting MI not be seated. But to seat anything other than a 50/50 split without a do-over is a bad joke on MI and the nation. I suspect they'll wind up seating a half-sized delegation along the lines of the split Hillary's suggesting (60/40 for Clinton) as a compromise, since it will have little effect on the outcome. It will still be the wrong thing to do, but meaningless pandering for effect has been Hillary's entire campaign to date, so no surprise she's holding out for the Soviet Solution.
And thats the crazy thing about your arguments, WES: even with FL and MI, Hillary's a loser. She's behind in the popular vote, states won and delegates. There is no measure by which Hillary leads or will lead when the dust settles. Game over. And yet you (and Hillary) keep whining over meaningless non-problems she created by her basic incompetence and poor management, claiming imaginary wins with phony numbers and false ideas.
Get real: California or New York aren't going to John McCain regardless of who runs. OH, PA and FL are battlegrounds for sure, but unless you seriously believe the election hinges on over-60 white voters, Obama should fare well once Hillary is out of the picture. The really scary thing is that Hillary might never LEAVE the picture, and fight through 1/21/09!
-
electro robot
"That was a primary not a general election. A primary. Turnout was a record breaking, I mean that literally, the greatest turnout ever, of 36%. Without running against the GOP. Sorry to burst your bubble but NC is not going to turn blue this year."
You know, I could NOT care less about your predictions. You've not been right about one thing since I've seen you post. So let's break it down and get honest:
Are you voting D in November no matter what? Are you going to get your friends to vote D? Are you going to participate in GOTV efforts? Are you going to try to support a D candidate or are you going to sulk in the corner because you think it's a lost cause?
See, there you can tell the real Obama supporter from the real Hillary supporter. Energy, excitement, and dare I say, the audacity of hope. Some people have it. Other people are electro robot.
-
@davedavis
Over at TPM they mention that the Clinton camp has turned down a proposal that would give Clinton 10 more delegates (instead ot the 18 she would've garnered against "uncommitted")
I'm not sure what I want to say about that...I'll leave it up to you.
cheers
-
Michigan 69-59
And she turns it down?
Wow.
Her name was the only one on the ballot! WTF!? OK so she'll fuss about the extra 8 delegates. Hopefully Obama will say "Just give it to her...sheesh". He'd make it up almost immediately in Supers.
-
One old one, but a big one
She assumed that the Iraq war would be a big flag waving victory and she wanted to avoid the fate of the isolationists post WW II, and voted for the war. Her political calculus was that this was the safe vote ... it was not. Indeed, since 2004 Hillary has misjudge the likely scenario in 2008, for example flipping to support the "bankruptcy reform" the Credit Card issuers wanted, etc.
The difficulty with Koppelman's analysis is that it assumed that the mistakes, the bad choices, the poorly run campaign are the fault of Mark Penn. I see that as a simply sexist analysis -- the little woman cannot make her own mistakes.
A politicians senior campaign staff are chosen by that politician, to effectuate the campaign that politician chooses to run. George H.W. Bush started a tactic with Lee Atwater of trying to pretend that it was the staff that were responsible for the "dog whistle" racial tactics that got him elected to the Presidency. But in fact, in every major election he ran in, starting in Texas, Bush senior as chairman of the Harris County Republicans played the race card.
Mark Penn is not quite as sleazy as Atwater or Rove, but the tactics he deploys and the attitudes that undermined the campaign, as well as the conduct and competence of the rest of Hillary's staff reflect Hillary the person and the candidate. Moreover, a president is not a superhero -- but relies on a staff and a cabinet to get things done ... what does the performance of the Hillary campaign team say about how she would perform as president; nothing good.