Tuesday’s Mini-Report

January 29, 2008

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Have I mentioned lately that Bush’s approach to signing statements is sheer madness? “President Bush yesterday signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act after initially rejecting Congress’s first version because it would have allegedly opened the Iraqi government to ‘expensive lawsuits.’ Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush’s signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law ‘could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.'”

* I don’t expect smooth sailing in the Senate, but the House passed the stimulus bill easily: “The House approved a $146 billion economic stimulus package Tuesday afternoon by a wide, bipartisan margin, but the package had an uncertain future in the Senate. The vote was 385-35, with one representative voting present.”

* Speaking of the House, news from the floor about an hour ago: “Just now, the House changed the bill to make it a 15-day extension instead of 30-day one, and the bill passed by voice vote. It all happened rather quickly. So it seems as if there really wasn’t much disagreement on this at all. Now it’s back over to the Senate….”

* On a related note, it looks like Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) is an outside-the-box thinker. In this climate, that’s a good thing: “[Holt] took to the floor this afternoon to urge others to vote against any extension to the Protect America Act. His reasoning: 1) the administration’s bill was bad law in the first place and brought home the lesson to never pass legislation under ‘duress brought on by propaganda, misinformation, and fear mongering,’ 2) surveillance authorized under the PAA would continue even if the law lapsed, and 3) it wouldn’t improve the Dems’ negotiating position.” Give that man a prize.

* Is the war in Iraq undermining the U.S. economy? Two of my favorite progressive voices disagree — Russ Feingold argued the war is “eviscerating our economy,” while Paul Krugman wrote today, “One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war is responsible for our economic difficulties. The answer (with slight qualifications) is no.”

* This ought to be all manner of fun: “House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have invited Ohio’s controversial former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R) for a chat about voting irregularities in the 2004 election.”

* Usually, Bush administration officials dodge the waterboarding question. John Negroponte apparently didn’t get the memo.

* Raise your hand if you saw this one coming, Part I: “The government agency that enforces one of the principal laws aimed at keeping politics out of the civil service has accused the Justice Department of blocking its investigation into alleged politicizing of the department under former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.”

* Raise your hand if you saw this one coming, Part II: “We knew it was bad, but even so, the latest report on an American contractor’s failures in the rebuilding of Iraq is shocking. The report, by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, looks at the work of the Parsons Corp. What the I.G. found was dispiriting at best: Out of the 11 major job orders the I.G. examined, eight were terminated by the U.S. before they were completed. The New York Times says the reasons for the terminations included ‘weak contract oversight, unrealistic schedules, a failure to report problems in a timely fashion and poor supervision by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which managed the contracts.'”

* Townhall.com’s Mary Katharine Ham went on CNN this week to argue that Bill Clinton, while he was president, “was not subjected to quite as much scrutiny, and I think he got a lot of passes, and now he’s mad he’s not getting them anymore.” She did not appear to be kidding.

* I know it’s the silly season, but this had to be one of the weaker campaign controversies I’ve seen lately: “The question swirling around Barack Obama Tuesday: did he, or didn’t he, deliberately snub presidential rival Hillary Clinton at the State of the Union speech? Speaking to reporters Tuesday, the Illinois senator said all the talk swirling around the moment the two crossed paths Monday night is much ado about nothing. ‘I was surprised by sort of the reports this morning,’ Obama told reporters. ‘You know there was the photograph in the Times about, sort of, me turning away. I was turning away because [Sen.] Claire [McCaskill] asked me a question as Sen. [Ted] Kennedy was reaching for her. Sen. Clinton and I have very cordial relations off the floor and on the floor. I waved at her as we were coming into the Senate chamber before we walked over last night,’ he continued. I think that there’s just a lot more tea leaf reading going on here than I think people are suggesting.'” Can we move on now?

* Is McCain attacking Romney witha gay-baiting robocall? The McCain campaign must have been at least somewhat concerned about appearances; they pulled the ad.

* My friend Blue Girl, a friend of the blog, could use a hand.

* Speaking of McCain, I wonder what it’s like to have a full-time media personality on MSNBC who isn’t too proud to blow you kisses on the air?

* On a related note, Fox News has apparently settled on a Rudy Giuliani nickname.

* And finally, I wanted to close out State of the Union coverage with my favorite quote of the speech: “All of us were sent to Washington to carry out the people’s business. That is the purpose of this body. It is the meaning of our oath. And it remains our charge to keep.” Yes, there’s that phrase again.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

I liked how Bush said that letting his beloved tax cuts expire would cost Americans an average of $1800.

Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure.

Hey Bush, why’d you support tax cuts that weren’t permanent?

  • Copied and pasted in it’s entirety from the New Hampshire Union Leader (specifically UnionLeader.com) —

    Hillary’s word: It’s worth nothing

    16 hours, 52 minutes ago

    COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

    Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

    “I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida,” Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

    Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

    She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

    New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

    http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510

  • “did he, or didn’t he, deliberately snub presidential rival Hillary Clinton at the State of the Union speech”

    You know I’ve seen everywhere that this question got asked of Obama, but not of Clinton. Has anyone ever asked HER if she was snubbed?

    “tempest in a teapot” is a charitable description of this latest absurdity.

  • As much as I admire Paul Krugman, I think he’s missing one important point. Aside from the billions of dollars that have been legitimately paid for U.S.-made goods, there are also untold billions that have just vanished without a trace or gone into the coffers of defense contractors far in excess of their actual costs in producing the goods plus a reasonable profit. Thus a huge amount of liquidity has been taken out of economic circulation that might otherwise have helped keep us out of at least some of the mess we’re in, or helped overcome our problems without going further into debt. The corporations sure aren’t going to give any of their massive gains back, and as far as all the boodle that disappeared in the desert sands without a trace, none of that is coming back either.

    And for that we have no one to thank but the fool in the White House and the horrific war he spawned from nothing more than his own stupidity. I’m no economist but it just makes sense to me that when you take such a mind-boggling amount of cash out of circulation you’re just asking for trouble sooner or later.

    Of course, we could always print more but that would just fuel more inflation and we don’t even want to think about that, do we?

  • Hillary’s Spanish-language campaign ad where the narrator emphasizes the word “our” throughout the playful TV spot — “our voice,” “our community,” “our friend.”

    “Our voice and our vote will elect the next President of the great country. Our candidate is Hillary Clinton because she respects our culture and understands the problems that affect our community.

    Millions of Hispanic families live with the fear of not having health insurance. The economic crisis and the cost of living are of concern to all of us.

    Hillary is our friend and will help us. Let’s vote for Hillary on February 5th and we will have a better life.”

  • Chris (#2). Good call on putting that up.

    Once again with the Clintons, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    Ah yes, after 8 years of Bush lies, let’s get another 4 years of Clinton lies, on top of the 8 before.

  • Chris @ 2:
    The prohibition on campaigning in Florida was for public events. Hillary did not hold public events but specifically private ones where the press was not allowed. They made this loophole so that candidates could still do their fundraising in the state and not ignore the state completely. I’m sure you are equally appalled by the fact that Obama has television ads that are running in FLA which makes him a liar as he also signed the agreement not to campaign in that state.

    BTW, it seems as though this was another dirty Republican trick to get the Dems to ignore voters in Florida. Of course we fell for it. Democrats in the state had no say in when the primary would be held so Rethugs moved it up to a date that they knew would make the Dems punish FLA by not allowing their delegates to count. Hmmm….this type of dirty trick sure seems like it could easily be countered if Obama had just gone done and asked the Rethugs not to move up the primary, why didn’t he do that? (SNARK).

    BTW2, doesn’t it seem odd that the Dems agreed to punish two large, delegate rich, electorial college rich, diverse states for stepping on two small, ethnically homogeneous states? Apparently we can’t stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

  • This ought to be all manner of fun: “House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have invited Ohio’s controversial former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R) for a chat about voting irregularities in the 2004 election.

    Uh, that’s awesome, y’all — but shouldn’t this have been done in late 2004 or early 2005? Jeez.

  • Pet Peeve: I’m not talking about CB, but Blogs who have articles that are supposed to be humour but read just like a true story. Mark the humour pieces please. I hate reading something that is so dry and “lifelike” that you can’t be sure if it’s meant to be funny or not.

  • Uh, that’s awesome, y’all — but shouldn’t this have been done in late 2004 or early 2005?

    You really think that the GOP controlled congress was going to put Blackwell on the hot seat?

    “Uhh…excuse me Mr. Chairman, but you were one of the people who told me to disenfranchise voters. i’ve got copies of the emails right here…”

  • Re: Krugman vs Feingold – I don’t understand why Krugman repeats the oil company “supply and demand” argument. He says, “Mainly high-priced oil is the result of rising demand from China and other emerging economies, colliding with sluggish supply as the world gradually runs out of the stuff.” I don’t doubt it’s a factor, but gas at the nearest gas station to me was 1.47 on election day 2000. It’s 3.09 now. The emerging economies have not doubled the amount of oil use, and even at the peak, there has never been a shortage. Nor have Americans apparently reduced their driving in any significant way. But the weak dollar surely plays a role. The profits of the oil companies? Unrest in the Middle East? The New York Mercantile Exchange? And not to change the subject, but remember when Bush was asked in 2000 what he would do to lower the price of gas? He said he would “tell” OPEC to open the spigots.

    Krugman does have one point though. “The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand.” I guess it’s a good thing that we don’t outsource our missile manufacturing operations.

  • g8grl,

    I’m sure that I’m not equally appalled that Obama has ads running in Florida. You know the reason that he has ads running there as well as I do. For reasons that we all know, he broke the letter of the pledge, but not the spirit of it.

    On the other hand, Clinton may be complying with the letter of the pledge, but she has and continues to break the spirit of it. The fact that Clinton reversed her stated position on seating Michigan and Florida delegates when she saw that doing so could be to her advantage is clear (otherwise she wouldn’t have taken this pledge in the first place).

    BTW, if you want to blame somebody for “ignoring” Florida voters, blame Howard Dean, the National Democratic Party, Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I’m as suspicious of the Republicans as anybody, but you’re implying that the Republicans somehow “tricked” these people. I give Dean and the others a little more credit than you do.

    BTW2, the national party punished FL and MI for stepping on two ethnically heterogeneous states (Nevada and South Carolina) whose caucuses/primaries were specifically timed to add diversity to the influence of the ethnically homogeneous states of Iowa and New Hampshire in the super Tuesday primaries. Giving attention to Michigan and Florida would have defeated that goal.

    For more information, read the following from CB’s archives:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14366.html

    Or read where Ezra writes that this decision from Clinton “has the potential to tear the party apart.”
    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=clinton_tries_to_reinstate_mic#104007

    Sadly, Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about the Party. She only cares about Hillary Clinton.

  • I’m getting tired of all these breathless damnations of Hillary. There are plenty of conservative and Republican a-holes to take care of demonizing her. And when we introspect do we notice that our (over)reactions may have been conditioned by 16 years of wingnut hysteria? Sure she’s not perfect, but she’s not one iota as bad as the Republicants.

  • Crissa,

    I might have missed your point, but to be clear, Senator Clinton’s Spanish-language ads are running in Arizona, California, Connecticut and New York…not Florida.

  • “And when we introspect do we notice that our (over)reactions may have been conditioned by 16 years of wingnut hysteria?”

    No.

    Since Iowa, Hillary Clinton is demonized, not by us, but by her own behavior. Despite her appeals to the contrary, she’s no victim. She’s the perpetrator of all this drama, and the Florida/Michigan issue is just another in a long line of seemingly endless insults to our trust and intelligence.

  • Can’t we all just get along? Does every nuance require a tazer?

    Hatred like many irrational emotions closes the ears down tight. Because someone disagrees with you, don’t spit on them or call them names. We can’t be enemies if we expect to win the election in 2008.

    (Thank you, Dale.)

  • Uh, for the people demonizing Obama for not pulling his TV ads in Florida, please keep in mind that those ads are bought for national airtime, not local, so if he pulled them in Florida, he’d pull them in the rest of the U.S. as well. CB already covered this I think when this “controversy” started.

    That said, the whole “snubbing” thing is a crock of BS and is entirely unworthy of whoever thought it up. Even if was true, it isn’t a deal of any kind at all, let alone a big one.

  • breathless damnations

    She la la.
    CJ is making a cogent argument.
    His tone is reasonable. His argument measured.
    There is not so much as a dang, durn, or dog-gone-it in his prose.

    (Speaking of dogs… Where’s Bubba?
    Did they give him a cigar and send him to get a massage in a spa or something?)

    Interesting that CB steered clear of Hillary’s Florida hijinks.
    Right now, I too am having trouble figuring out the Clintons’ machinations.
    Nevertheless, who’d want the job of having to put a good spin on her behavior?
    It is slimy and snaky now matter how you shake it.
    Maybe a job for Super Dale?

    Lastly:
    She’ll go to Florida to thank her supporters?
    But she’ll fly out of South Carolina without so much as a hiss goodbye?

    Guess her supporters in S. Carolina fell on the wrong side of the hypotenuse…
    Ah well, they deserved it…
    I suppose.

  • Did the DLC think this FL/MI thing through? At all? I understand their predicament but did they really intend to make the penalty stick — and blow off the voters of two big states — or were they kicking the can down the road, figuring a nominee would emerge before the convention, at which time they’d graciously seat the FL and MI delegates — rendering the penalties moot.

    If Clinton’s lead in Feb 5 voting holds as suggested by the polls, what happens in MI and FL may not matter. But if the nomination ends up hinging on FL and MI, you’ve got an absolute nightmare.

  • Feingold is spot on and Krugman is off the mark. Just because the US military is spending money on US goods and services doesn’t mean it’s really helping the economy, especially when you consider other more beneficial uses for all the cash dumped on Iraq.

    I’d rather use those dollars to help sick Americans get healthy and productive than send healthy Americans overseas, blow their arms and legs off then give them healthcare in the US. Feingold said wisely that the billions spent every month in Iraq could be better spent improving infrastructure here or put to other public benefits. Paying a US contractor to build expensive bombs and then blow stuff up somewhere else and then pledging to rebuild the stuff you just blew up can’t be looked at as wise investment in America no matter how you look at it.

    And speaking of blowing, kisses aren’t the only thing Tweety appears to blowing. Gross, but accurate,

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO said:
    Maybe a job for Super Dale?

    I guess it’s just my charge to keep. 🙂

    thanks for your words, Jen.

  • “We can’t be enemies if we expect to win the election in 2008.”

    Honestly, if Clinton is the nominee, I don’t expect Democrats to win the election in 2008.

  • Btw, my “breathless damnation” thought was triggered not by CJ’s post but by the first post in which someone quotes an entire opinion piece as if it proves, PROVES, that Hillary’s word is worth nothing. Wow, really?

    CJ’s post was actually nuanced and i agreed somewhat with his spirit vs letter of the FLA/Mi oath. But after 16 years of the Republicans respecting neither the spirit or the letter of anything including the constitution, I don’t want our candidate to be snookered by Republican calls to honor the spirit of anything they propose especially bipartisanship.

    Hillary didn’t take some Obamic pledge of purity in this contest. She’s playing the game the way she has learned it and thinks it has to be played. I’d actually like to see Obama win in his own way, but if he wins based on sensitivities that Dems have about hardball politics that cause them to damn Hillary in ways that are suspiciously similar to the way Republicans have damned the Clintons for 16 years then it might be a problem. Those sensitivities apply to Dems more than they will to the Republicans and IINO’s in the election.

  • Did the DLC think this FL/MI thing through? . . .
    were they kicking the can down the road, figuring a nominee would emerge before the convention, at which time they’d graciously seat the FL and MI delegates

    yes, and yes. i’m sure they were hoping for the latter, but they really had little choice. it wasn’t just about protecting the 4 states they had chosen for regional balance to be the first 4: there were two other, bigger problems.

    1) Had the DNC not acted swiftly and harshly re Florida and Michigan, others were set to follow suit – you’d had everyone rushing to the front. The DNC had to send a message that it would not do any good or everyone was going to do it; and

    2) It isn’t like the “front 4” were just going to take it lying down. Iowa and NH had already started discussing whether they would have to move into December, at which time Florida or Mich might have decided to move to November 07. Again, swift, significant penalties were the only way to stop the out-of-control spiral.

    Yes, it is about the DNC making its rules stick, but I think the bigger issue were how totally irrelevant the rules were about to become and how uncontrollably messy it was going to get. Florida and Michigan left the DNC no choice; if their voters hold it against the Dems in the general it is the party leaders in Florida, and Carl Levin (who I normally like) who bear the blame for putting the party in a truly untenable position.

    Frankly, I appreciate that Dean didn’t let himself get pushed around, that he held his ground.

  • Hell of a turnout for the Democrats in Florida, especially since they couldn’t campaign and the delegates were revoked. More good news for Democrats in November.

  • “More good news for Democrats in November”

    Perhaps, but it very much looks like the Dems will be facing McCain who tends to poll quite well with the indy’s, moderates and Lieberman Dems.

  • Thanks, zeitgeist. I’d forgotten how out of control the rush to be among the early states was. Seems like years ago.

  • JRS Jr,

    I actually do agree with you and think that McCain would be the most difficult Republican for a Democrat to beat. I also happen to think that, because of the same appeal to independents and moderates that Obama makes a better competitor.

  • Mc Cain and Clinton win in Florida, as expected. Can we say “bye-bye” to all Repub candidates (other than, perhaps, Robomitt) now? Thank goodness that 9iu11iani has kept his day job as America’s Mayor… 🙂

  • doubtful, we are in agreement. I also think McCain will set a solid tone for the election, no matter if running vs. Barak or Hils which will make this election fun to watch. But then again, perhaps my expections are getting too positive.

  • whether McCain is hard to beat or easy to beat depends entirely on whether the media ever decides to cover him honestly or not. On the one hand, they do like to tear down those they have built up (see Dean, Howard). On the other hand, they have ignored years worth of screw ups by McCain and aided and abetting in covering them up.

    there is plenty wrong with McCain, dozens of ways to discredit him wholly-fabricated image, but they work a lot better if the media doesn’t play defense for him and better still if the media covers him honestly.

    unfortunately this particular dynamic is largely beyond our control.

  • I can’t wait until the Sean Hannities and the Rushes of the world start getting down on their knees for McCain as they realize he is their party’s only hope

  • yep. as i said, they love to build ’em up, break ’em down, and – in McCain’s case – build him back up. makes them feel quite powerful, i suspect. the problem for the rest of us is that the MSM wont share with us the timing of their little cycles.

  • Dale wrote, “Hillary didn’t take some Obamic pledge of purity in this contest. She’s playing the game the way she has learned it and thinks it has to be played. I’d actually like to see Obama win in his own way, but if he wins based on sensitivities that Dems have about hardball politics that cause them to damn Hillary in ways that are suspiciously similar to the way Republicans have damned the Clintons for 16 years then it might be a problem. Those sensitivities apply to Dems more than they will to the Republicans and IINO’s in the election.”

    Somebody wrote this in an earlier post: “Honesty is a progressive value.”

    I’m a progressive first and a Democrat second. If the ultimate Democratic nominee is perceived by fellow progressives to be dishonest, then many of us might hold our noses and vote for Clinton…but we won’t give money, we won’t tell our friends, we won’t put out signs, we won’t campaign, we won’t show up at rallies, and we won’t stand up for her when she needs help. In essence, should she win the nomination, she’ll cripple the Party and she’ll continue to divide the country in precisely the same way that she’s dividing people on this blog.

    Clinton’s “hardball politics” might get her to the nomination, but she will have shrunk the Democratic base (not to be confused with the progressive base) in the process.

  • as politicians go, you’ll be hard pressed to point to a lot of flip-flops she’s done in this campaign on significant issues. not only is McCain pretty well second only to Mitt in flip-flopping, he is the only one who claims to be on the Straight Talk Express, the worst misnomer in memory among politicians.

  • I don’t see a scenario where Fla/Mi delegates have to be counted. That agreement binds the DNC as much as it does the candidates. They’re just out. Period.

  • “you’ll be hard pressed to point to a lot of flip-flops she’s done in this campaign”

    lol, that’s because she never takes an issue straight on!

  • the same way that she’s dividing people on this blog

    must be the new Obamalogic. there is a group of people. some support Obama, some support Clinton. so obviously, Clinton is dividing the party. huh?

    how is it not Obama dividing the party? or maybe Edwards?
    when Dean, Kerry, Gephardt et al were running, the party was divided among them, but we didn’t get this “dividing the party” rhetorical tactic (and Kerry and Gephardt did slimier things to Dean than Clinton has even dreamed of so far this cycle).

    contested elections divide people up. thats how they function.
    one gets the idea that Obama supporters real issue is they dont think this should be contested.

    and the Obama supporters say Clinton has a sense of entitlement!
    Pot, Kettle.

  • Nice spin Zeit, almost as good as Hils does! The fact is the Clintons took the party down the dark road of racial divides and lies about Obama’s past views on the war.

    Now Hils is trying to assign meaning to the non-delegate states and spinning them as wins. I love it.

  • So jr, you’re weighing in on this progressive blog so which Democrat are you leaning toward voting for?

  • Is it just me or does anyone else think the “Stimulus Bill” is a joke?

    American consumers are BROKE. Giving them enough money to pay half a house payment (or half the rent) is like trying to put your burning house out by pissing on it. Dropping the Fed interest rate to entice them to borrow even more is like throwing gas on the burning house. This will fix nothing, but maybe just prolong the real pain and agony until Bush is gone and the Repubs can blame the imploding economy on the Dem President.

    Americans need good jobs. America companies need universal health care.

    And the $hitheads that bent the banking and SEC laws and passed those crap loans off as good on the stock market need to be in jail.

  • Funny how the Dems are voting for a rebate to spark the economy… isn’t that just like a tax cut? I thought tax cuts were supposed to be harmful for the economy???

  • Danp at #15,
    Re the increase in the cost of crude oil: demand does not have to double for the price to double. Suppose you are stuck in a Katrina-New Orleans situation, with money, but with only limited supplies of bottled water coming in. As long as bottled water is even modestly in excess of demand, prices remain reasonable. As soon as any scarcity threatened, prices might rise dramatically – sellers could start asking more, because they smell windfall profits; people could start thinking about hoarding (which unnecessarily limits availability), and customers could start bidding wars out of fear that they may not get enough. It’s not exactly similar to the situation with crude oil: production is levelling off, rather than dropping fast; transport and delivery are not problematic; and there’s no pressing crisis. Nonetheless, it is a vital commodity, and supply is starting to get a bit tight, which amps up the price.

  • “Clinton is dividing the party. huh? how is it not Obama dividing the party? or maybe Edwards?”

    I’ve read comment after comment after comment over the past few weeks where progressives and/or Democrats said they will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee. I also observed it at my county party meetings and events this month (so my comment speculating that these angry progressives would actually vote for her is relatively optimistic).

    And of course, I’m speaking for myself as well. I’ve been voting in Democratic primaries since 1988, and I have never seen (or experienced) anger at any top candidate like that generated by Hillary Clinton. In 1992, I supported Tsongas, but happily supported Clinton in the general. In 2000, I supported Bradley, but happily supported Gore in the general. In 2004, I supported and Dean and then Edwards when Dean slipped away, but happily supported Kerry in the general. (’88 doesn’t apply to me since I supported Dukakis from the beginning).

    In contrast to zeitgeist’s assertion, Hillary Clinton’s behavior is NOT standard operating procedure, and this anger is not coming from 16 year Clinton haters or angry supporters of other candidates? To the contrary. Prior to Iowa, these people (myself included) held both Clintons in high regard, and many were undecided until recently.

    The evidence is overwhelming. Party leaders are asking Bill Clinton to calm down because he’s dividing the party. In slap to her own party and to her own pledge, Hillary is claiming victory in states where her top opponents removed their names from one ballot and didn’t campaign in the other to comply with an agreement that she signed on to. Of course, this stuff is the tip of the iceburg since Iowa.

    Again, contrary to zeitgeist’s assertions, this is not to do with one group of supporters vs. another. This is to do with progressives who value fairness and honesty who are disgusted with a host of seriously dishonest tactics, previously employed primarily by those on the right.

  • To complicate the dialogue on whether McCain would beat Clinton in the general, Hillary received 837,860 votes so far in FL’s primary, McCain received 679,437 … and Florida’s Democratic primary doesn’t even count. Regardless of the prognostications found on this site (I’m plenty guilty too) there are plenty of other factors swirling about that will affect the outcome.

  • Seems to me that Hillary could also have run national ads and claimed that they couldn’t exclude Florida as well. Funny that she didn’t have national ads running in FLA. I guess Obama is taking the high road and complying with the spirit and not the letter. Funny how he gets to advertise in FLA and everyone thinks he’s taking the high road.

    RE: the snub. Anyone who thinks Obama didn’t snub Hillary is an Obama supporter. If you look at the pix, it is clear. Obama did not turn to speak to anyone, he didn’t lean in to hear someone talking, he just turned away. But of course Obama couldn’t really have snubbed Hillary, that would make him a petty child, not the amazing, inspiring, high minded icon he obviously is.

    Hillary has her faults but at least she doesn’t backtrack on everything she does and claim it was taken out of context. Has anyone else noticed how often Obama has to explain what he really meant. Obama is a politician just like them all. My problem with him is that he’s pretending not to play the game and all his followers are, like him, holier than thou.

  • @55

    Well, uh, duh, he is one. He also happens to be a skidge more honest in comparison to Hillary, and the whole ad thing has already been talked about. Besides which, I’d much rather hear him explain himself than turn around and blame it on his competitors trying to sling mud. It’s what honest people usually do when they make a mistake or find themselves in a sticky situation for both them and the people who support them.

    Obama isn’t really innocent in this I think, he may have certainly overlooked the problems MI and FL presented when setting up his national ads, or he may have done it knowingly. I think what says it is the former is the fact that he’s done nothing like Hillary has in FL, and that’s why I believe him. You can believe whatever you want to of course, that’s your prerogative.

    As for the snub, well, does it really matter? Honestly? If you’re going to blow something that insignificant into a vast indictment against Obama, you’ve got more bias problems than I do. Making the “snub” into a big deal is the sort of sophomoric nonsense I associate with high school, not adults discussing politics. Then again, I suppose you could make the argument that politics is childish to begin with…

  • Wow! Quite a few people here need to take a deep breath and count to ten. If FL had been breaking for Obama, he would have made some sort of call for delegate recognition too. That’s how the game is played. It wouldn’t have been “dishonest” on his part either. It’s a flipping election. They are supposed to be fighting. I’m not surprised if he did turn away from her at the SOTU, either. I imagine they are both pretty hot at this point. It’s fine. It’s not a problem.

    I would like to point out that the Clintons’ “corruption” is a meme created by the same people who gave us the meme “Al Gore is a lying braggart who claimed he created the internet” and “John Kerry faked his purple hearts”. In other words the supposed Clintonian honesty problem is an invention of the GOP and need I remind you that the GOP lies? Damn it, Uncle Bill’s “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” was clearly a sarcastic comments. The Clintons have never been corrupt (I seem to remember a $70M investigation into every aspect of their lives that uncovered the fact that a 50 year old man sometimes exhibits poor judgement when aggresively pursued by a 23 year old woman), Al Gore is as honest as anyone could possibly be, and John Kerry really was a damn war hero.

    I voted for Obama tonight (California, early voting), but if Hillary wins the nomination, I’ll be perfectly happy to support her, too.

  • thank you, J Bean. It’s refreshing to have differences pointed out without demonizing the opponent.

  • Krugman may be right that the economic meltdown wasn’t caused by Iraq, but wouldn’t there be hundreds of billions more available to fix our problems if we weren’t flushing a trillion bucks down the rat hole of the Middle East? The way to defeat McCainus, the oldest Roman of them all, is to point out that he’d like to keep flushing America’s future away for the next 100 years! Also, ask your Republican friends why the GOP in Congress is fine with setting fire to that trillion dollars, but regards it as a mortal sin to spend any money to help Americans. The next time McCainus rails about cutting spending, SOMEBODY PLEASE point out that Iraqis and defense contractors like Halliburton are getting a blank check while the rest of us (who supplied the tax dollars to begin with) go begging.

    • Comments are closed.