All Things Pro-Obama

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am really disappointed by that comment. It gives credibility to all the global warming deniers, tax-cuts-increase-revenue charlatans, and on and on. It was just awful.

Sorry, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by that. Probably because it's been a long weekend for me and I am bit tired.

I am assuming you mean you are disappointed because she basically said it doesnt matter what the "educated" people think, it's what the politicians and political polls think what matters?

[jackie hayes]

Sorry, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by that. Probably because it's been a long weekend for me and I am bit tired.

I am assuming you mean you are disappointed because she basically said it doesnt matter what the "educated" people think, it's what the politicians and political polls think what matters?

Sort of. I mean I am disappointed by her comment that equates expert opinion to 'elitism'. She was asked to name one economist who agreed with her argument that a gas tax suspension would be a boon for consumers. She basically said in reply that it doesn't matter what economists say -- they are part of "this incredible pushback" against something that would "give relief to the vast majority of Americans". She lumps this in with "elite opinion [which] is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans".

 

So, basically, economists are just elitists working to disadvantage Americans. Even when there's an academic CONSENSUS, it's just "elite opinion" that noone really should pay any mind to.

 

So Pres Clinton goes before Congress and argues that virtually all science supports global warming, and we need to start sacrificing now before the problem gets worse. But Mrs President, aren't those just elitists working to disadvantage Americans, like you said? Republicans argue that failing to extend the tax cuts will actually reduce revenue. Well, sure, every serious economist agrees that the idea is a joke, but remember, Mrs President, those are just elitists trying to f*** us over.

 

It's a terrible precedent, it's bulls***, and it shoots her own agenda in the foot. I've been more or less on the Obama-Clinton fence, and today is maybe the first time I've actually been angry at Clinton.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So Pres Clinton goes before Congress and argues that virtually all science supports global warming, and we need to start sacrificing now before the problem gets worse. But Mrs President, aren't those just elitists working to disadvantage Americans, like you said? Republicans argue that failing to extend the tax cuts will actually reduce revenue. Well, sure, every serious economist agrees that the idea is a joke, but remember, Mrs President, those are just elitists trying to f*** us over.

 

It's a terrible precedent, it's bulls***, and it shoots her own agenda in the foot. I've been more or less on the Obama-Clinton fence, and today is maybe the first time I've actually been angry at Clinton.

 

Oh, that's actually a very good way of extrapolating it out to a real world situation. well said!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Rumors a while back where that Hillary Clinton was a lesbian. Well, it seems she may be a man and James Carville seems to think she has 3 testicles:

"Hillary is the tougher of the two, the candidate you want on your side in a knife fight," a gender reversal that prompts Carville to indulge in some ribald humor: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

[NorthSideSox72]

Sort of. I mean I am disappointed by her comment that equates expert opinion to 'elitism'. She was asked to name one economist who agreed with her argument that a gas tax suspension would be a boon for consumers. She basically said in reply that it doesn't matter what economists say -- they are part of "this incredible pushback" against something that would "give relief to the vast majority of Americans". She lumps this in with "elite opinion [which] is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans".

 

So, basically, economists are just elitists working to disadvantage Americans. Even when there's an academic CONSENSUS, it's just "elite opinion" that noone really should pay any mind to.

 

So Pres Clinton goes before Congress and argues that virtually all science supports global warming, and we need to start sacrificing now before the problem gets worse. But Mrs President, aren't those just elitists working to disadvantage Americans, like you said? Republicans argue that failing to extend the tax cuts will actually reduce revenue. Well, sure, every serious economist agrees that the idea is a joke, but remember, Mrs President, those are just elitists trying to f*** us over.

 

It's a terrible precedent, it's bulls***, and it shoots her own agenda in the foot. I've been more or less on the Obama-Clinton fence, and today is maybe the first time I've actually been angry at Clinton.

Since day 1 of her campaign, HRC has been consistently speaking to the public as if they are all 12-year olds. Its one of the many, many things I can't stand about her. So it should be no surprise she's willing to throw anyone in the know under the bus. It also explains a lot about her strong spot - uneducated and undereducated people.

 

You know, I have spoken to a lot of women about her candidacy - friends, family alike. They all say almost the same thing... some variety of "I really wanted to like her, I tried, but I just can't. She's just the most dishonest/fake/pandering candidate of the bunch."

 

[jackie hayes]

Since day 1 of her campaign, HRC has been consistently speaking to the public as if they are all 12-year olds. Its one of the many, many things I can't stand about her. So it should be no surprise she's willing to throw anyone in the know under the bus. It also explains a lot about her strong spot - uneducated and undereducated people.

 

You know, I have spoken to a lot of women about her candidacy - friends, family alike. They all say almost the same thing... some variety of "I really wanted to like her, I tried, but I just can't. She's just the most dishonest/fake/pandering candidate of the bunch."

What angers me is not so much that she's pandering. Politics is politics, it involves some of that, and I can't say I find her much more disingenuous than the rest. What angers me is that she's endangering some of the most fundamental reforms that make me want a Democrat in the WH. You can't say things that will be thrown back in your face if you become president.

 

Krugman's made this point against Obama, saying that his rejection of health care mandates, his particular arguments against them, will undermine his ability to enact a strong health care plan. I agree with that criticism (although most in this thread probably won't). But rejecting expert opinion en masse, and casting it as elitist and anti-American, strikes me as a much more grievous example. So many Democratic policies are based on the fact that expert opinion is virtually unanimous on certain issues -- unsustainability of the current budget, global warming, evolution. Now you throw expert opinion under the bus completely, and ALL your moral authority on those issues goes with it. It's not that I feel pandered to, it's that I feel stabbed in the back. I can excuse personal ambition in a politician, but your glory comes AFTER MY CONCERNS. If you risk your ability to affect those, I'm done listening.

 

(Again, this is not to say that the gas tax thing isn't pandering. It obviously is.)

[lostfan]

I did vote in the Democrat Primary, actually. Since it was an open primary, a lot of people voted. Believe it or not, I do tend to vote both parties.

Heh, I coulda sworn you were a Republican, I guess I should've known better considering your neutral replies to some of the stuff I post here.

[kapkomet]

Heh, I coulda sworn you were a Republican, I guess I should've known better considering your neutral replies to some of the stuff I post here.

I tend to be very conservative on fiscal policy (stay the hell out of my life) and a little more "liberal" on social policy (stay the hell out of my life). For example, I think GWB is a flaming idiot to want the "gay marriage ban"... hell no, the FEDERAL government needs to stay out of that crap and let the local jurisdictions handle it.

 

I actually liked Ron Paul, if he didn't carry it too far. You have to have an infastructure for government re: defense, taxation, etc. but they don't need to legislate things as much as they do.

 

That puts me squarely liberatarian, but those people are a little too fanatical for my taste.

 

 

[lostfan]

I tend to be very conservative on fiscal policy (stay the hell out of my life) and a little more "liberal" on social policy (stay the hell out of my life). For example, I think GWB is a flaming idiot to want the "gay marriage ban"... hell no, the FEDERAL government needs to stay out of that crap and let the local jurisdictions handle it.

 

I actually liked Ron Paul, if he didn't carry it too far. You have to have an infastructure for government re: defense, taxation, etc. but they don't need to legislate things as much as they do.

 

That puts me squarely liberatarian, but those people are a little too fanatical for my taste.

Paul would've gone farther if he wasn't so radical (omg I don't like it let's just cut it yeahhhH!!!) and if he was a better public speaker.

[HuskyCaucasian]

More proof Hillary is in this for herself and not for the American people and the good of the democratic party...

 

Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option

Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.

 

With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives.

 

UPDATE | May 5, 11am ET : Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

More proof Hillary is in this for herself and not for the American people and the good of the democratic party...

 

Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option

And then they can say goodbye to a lot of moderate voters come November, not to mention lose the support of a lot of democratic supers for campaigning purposes. Which is why they aren't going that route.

 

[Steve9347]

And then they can say goodbye to a lot of moderate voters come November, not to mention lose the support of a lot of democratic supers for campaigning purposes. Which is why they aren't going that route.

I sure as s*** hope not, because it would be completely ridiculous and make this process even more of a joke.

[kapkomet]

And then they can say goodbye to a lot of moderate voters come November, not to mention lose the support of a lot of democratic supers for campaigning purposes. Which is why they aren't going that route.

Bring it on, Hilldog, bring it on.

 

If she does that, you know she's torpedoing everything so she can get another chance come 2012.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't think there is another chance for Hillary Clinton. It's now or never. That's why she's fighting Obama all the way and hoping that she can break him.

[StrangeSox]

Bring it on, Hilldog, bring it on.

 

If she does that, you know she's torpedoing everything so she can get another chance come 2012.

 

I don't think its anything but that.

 

The way I can see this potentially backfiring is the remaining supers seeing through her BS and deciding to vote for Obama en masse, ensuring him the nomination.

[southsider2k5]

More proof Hillary is in this for herself and not for the American people and the good of the democratic party...

 

Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option

 

I wonder if the Democrats are beginning to regret not voting guilty for impeachment of Clinton when they had the chance? Think about it. Then VP Gore would have had the luxuries of being in office for that period of time, and would have been able to run for President from the strength of the White House, instead of ducking the 800 pound gorilla in the room of Bill Clinton. If Clinton is found guilty there is no way that Hillary could run with that stigma on her head. Ah the law of unintended consequences.

 

[lostfan]

I wonder if the Democrats are beginning to regret not voting guilty for impeachment of Clinton when they had the chance? Think about it. Then VP Gore would have had the luxuries of being in office for that period of time, and would have been able to run for President from the strength of the White House, instead of ducking the 800 pound gorilla in the room of Bill Clinton. If Clinton is found guilty there is no way that Hillary could run with that stigma on her head. Ah the law of unintended consequences.

If Hillary doesn't have the stigma on her head now for that, and any of the other shadiness she's been into, then I can't see how her husband being removed from office would've made a difference. It's not like people don't know what happened.

 

The American public has a really short memory. If it happened more than 5 years ago it pretty much didn't happen. Unless it's something that they didn't know about before, they have to make their obligatory big deal about it (Ayers, etc.)

[HuskyCaucasian]

Clinton in 2005: I Agree With McCain On Long-Term Iraq Presence

"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."

[Balta1701]

Someone may have pointed to this over the weekend, but here's a good look at what exactly the "Woods fund", the evil organization through which terrorist sympathizer Barack Obama met terrorist Bill Ayers, actually does. Terrorist.

Lost in the media brouhaha are the facts about what the Woods Fund actually does, why it attracted someone like Obama and how Ayers came to be on its board. This story is less sexy than the current gotcha games, but the composition of the organization and its commitment to community organizing tell us a lot more about Obama than mischaracterizations of his association with Ayers. As Michelle Obama once put it, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change."

 

The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago's economically depressed South Side. Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd, and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago, Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals. (Obama also served on the board of the larger Joyce Foundation, which specialized in environmental conservation, welfare reform and education.) "Community organizing was a central priority of this foundation, so more and more we drew him in," says Rudd, who retired in 2000.

 

"The fact that we were one of the few foundations that funded grassroots community organizing appealed to him," says Deborah Harrington, a veteran of Illinois government who joined the fund in 1999 and took over as president in 2006. "Being on the board kept Obama grounded and gave him a pulse of what was happening at the grassroots level."

 

Established by Nebraska businessmen in 1941, with a current endowment of $68 million and annual grants totaling $3 million--a tiny figure in the foundation world--the Woods Fund has taken risks that larger foundations can't. It awards hundreds of small grants a year, usually no larger than $50,000, to activists, neighborhood groups, think tanks, and arts and culture projects in Chicago's most-forgotten and blighted communities. It has funded ex-offenders to lobby for the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences and unfair drug laws, organized senior citizens to advocate for affordable housing, pushed parents to get more involved in their children's crumbling schools. The fund has linked public policy groups with community organizers--wonks with activists--a particular interest of Obama's. "The grants are small, but the impact is significant," says Jesus Garcia, vice chair of the board and the first Mexican-American elected to the Illinois senate.

Read the whole thing.

[Balta1701]

It's always hard to correctly count these things, but I'm reading that today's Superdelegate count is something on the order of 6 for Obama, 0.5 for Clinton.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's always hard to correctly count these things, but I'm reading that today's Superdelegate count is something on the order of 6 for Obama, 0.5 for Clinton.

Like I said, by the time we hit WV next week, Obama will pass Clinton in supers. UNLESS, Clinton somehow wins both primaries tomorrow. That may make things even more complicated, if that were possible.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

We always assume Texas is a hard red state. But is it in play? two polls in Texas show McCain by 1 and 5.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Amazing. If you arent for them, you are against them. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton ran an ad showing all the "elitist" economists who supported his economic plan. Now that they dont support his wife... to hell with 'em!

[Balta1701]

Amazing. If you arent for them, you are against them. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton ran an ad showing all the "elitist" economists who supported his economic plan. Now that they dont support his wife... to hell with 'em!

Seriously, pulling an ad out from 16 years ago to prove that something a different person said under different circumstances about a different issue is supposed to convince me of what exactly?

 

There's plenty of reason to dislike Hillary, or to dislike these specific comments. There are more recent remarks by Hillary that do a better job. This is really just overkill, and it really isn't productive.

[BigSqwert]

Spot on blog on The Primary Day Ritual:

 

Today marks the 47th and 48th primaries or caucuses for the Democratic presidential nomination. More than 90 percent of the delegates will have been chosen by tonight. By now, we all ought to know the drill.

 

The day begins with the Clinton campaign "leaking" something to the Drudge Report to set expectations for the day. That then gets repeated on political blogs and cable news, where Clinton surrogate Terry McAuliffe elaborates. Today's "expectation": That the Clinton campaign expects a "15 point" defeat in North Carolina. Clinton's yapping puppies in the news media repeat the manufactured expectation all day long, in which the bar is supposedly now that if Clinton comes within 15 points in that state that she has somehow "won" with a 14 point (or 6 point) defeat.

 

Around 4 p.m. rumors of exit polls begin circulating on the Internet. Around 5:30 p.m. AP and other news organizations leak minor data from the exit polls that explains almost nothing of value. Sometime after 6 p.m. Drudge posts raw numbers from exit polls that - if past is prologue - show Obama doing an average of seven percentage points better than he actually does.

 

Obama supporters then get prematurely jubilant and after polls close (tonight at 7 p.m. ET in Indiana and 7:30 p.m. ET in North Carolina) the real results start to come in and reveal Clinton then doing "better than expected" (at least better than the new expectations promoted during the day).

 

The media talking heads then ask aloud why Obama can't "close the deal" (in Clinton's own words) and what is numerically a defeat for Clinton (because the results, even in her recent wins, bring her objectively farther from the nomination in the context of the smaller number of delegates then available) gets spun as a Clinton victory.

 

Clinton takes to the stage, claims "unexpected" victory, gives out her web site address and pleads for elder women on fixed incomes to send more money to the $109 millionaire. The following day they claim that $10 million rolled in, only to be disproved more than a month later when the actual FEC filing is due. Obama's FEC filing simultaneously reveals that he raised much, much more, from more small donors, and the Clinton campaign plays the victim card over being outspent.

 

The Chicken Littles among Obama supporters then proceed to agonize across the Internet for days on end, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their candidate has just moved closer to the nomination, and Clinton was pushed farther away from it.

 

Most undeclared superdelegates duck behind all the media-generated confusion to continue to keep quiet, although a few courageous ones a day come dribbling out, more for Obama than for Clinton, also moving Obama closer to the nomination and Clinton farther away.

 

Meanwhile, the media then looks to the next state - this time it will be West Virginia, the best state demographically for Clinton, who is 30 points ahead there - and proclaims that it's "do or die" and begin anew with the spin cycle about white Appalachian voters being the only voters that matter.

 

Around that point in the process, the Clinton campaign holds a conference call to move the goalposts again, as Keith Olbermann so masterfully explained last night.