Forget Super Tuesday; what happens next?

February 6, 2008

After waiting with bated breath for the massive, historic, 22-state Super Tuesday, it seems a little silly to turn around, 12 hours later, and ask, “OK, forget all of that; what’s next?”

But it’s actually the natural response to what turned out to be largely a tie. Super Tuesday was supposed to show us who the Democratic nominee would be. Since it ended up muddling the picture even more, it only makes sense to look at the landscape going forward.

As it turns out, there’s no rest for the weary. There’s a series of important contests coming up over the next month:

Saturday, February 9 — Louisiana primary (67 delegates), Nebraska caucus (31 delegates), Washington state caucus (97 delegates), and the Virgin Islands (9 delegates)

Sunday, February 10 — Maine caucus (34 delegates)

Tuesday, February 12 — District of Columbia primary (37 delegates), Maryland primary (99 delegates), and Virginia primary (101 delegates)

Tuesday, February 19 — Hawaii caucus (29 delegates) and Wisconsin primary (92 delegates)

Tuesday, March 4 — Ohio primary (161 delegates), Rhode Island primary (32 delegates), Texas primary (228 delegates), and Vermont primary (23 delegates)

At least in theory, these contests should go a long way in determining the nominee, and right now, this landscape seems to play to Obama’s advantage.

Yesterday, long before Super Tuesday results were available, the WaPo’s Dan Balz pondered who was better positioned over the next month.

Obama may have the edge on this. His $32 million fundraising record in January shows that he will have more money than Clinton to wage a long campaign. He will also have more time to become better known in upcoming states than he did in the 22 states in which he is competing today.

The next round of primaries and caucuses this month tends to look better for him than for Clinton. Her strategists are pessimistic about her chances in Washington, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Maryland, as well as in the District. But they see Ohio and Texas on March 4 as critical states in which she has a foundation of support and could add to her delegate strength.

That sounds about right to me. Indeed, it’s hardly unreasonable to think Obama can win most, if not all, of the contests over the next two weeks. Half of Louisiana Dems are African American; Nebraska is another Plains State caucus, in which Obama seems to excel; Obama seems to have a stronger organization in Maine; the “Chesapeake Primary” on the 12th certainly leans in Obama’s direction; and Obama was born in Hawaii and remains popular there.

I’d probably give Clinton a slight edge in Washington state, while Wisconsin is a toss-up.

Still, that’s 10 contests in two weeks, of which Obama is favored to win at least eight, and possibly more. (Noam Scheiber and Harold Meyerson both raise the specter of Obama “running the table.”)

Clinton appears to be in a fairly good position on the two big contests on March 4 — Texas and Ohio — but the trick is to get there without letting Obama generate too much momentum. “She’s going to have to sustain losses on four different days in February, over two weeks,” said senior Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand. “That’s not easy, whatever happens on Feb. 5.”

A Clinton adviser conceded this week, “We could be looking at what is a tough month for us.”

And what about Ohio and Texas? I think the smart money, at least for now, is on Clinton winning both, but Scheiber notes that, unlike yesterday’s contests, Obama will have two weeks to campaign pretty aggressively in these two states. If history is any guide, Obama will at least narrow the gap by having the time for retail politics.

And then what? After March 4, it looks like the landscape tilts back in Clinton’s favor, with a huge Pennsylvania primary looming on April 22. (Meyerson concluded, “February is a wine track month, but March, April and May look good for beer track candidates. Obama has to win more working-class whites to do well enough in the closing primaries to go to the convention with a fighting chance.”)

In other words, we may be exhausted, but we’re also just getting started.

I have a hard time seeing Wisconsin going that differently from Minnesota, where Obama crushed Clinton.

  • So who won American Samoa on Super Tuesday?

    How can we move on without knowing the outcome of the night’s BIG prize?

  • I hate this wine track/beer track shit almost as much as I hate the fact that low-information, less-educated Democratic voters seem to gravitate toward The Clintons in the same default way that, on a road trip, they’d stop to eat at Arby’s rather than try the local place.

    Meanwhile, every time I start feeling better about Clinton as the nominee, one of her smarmy asshole staff people get on my TV and sneeringly dismiss Obama as a fraud or a lightweight–as if he hasn’t done more with his life than any of their prep-school/Ivy League/lobbyist asses, and as if his capacity to inspire and unite is a sign of insufficient partisan bloodlust rather than something that could get us past the endless pissing contest of the Bush/Clinton/Bush era.

  • And then there’s CNN’s take on the situation. Says Kiran Chetry this morning: “There was a lot of confusion at some of the polling places in VA yesterday. The state board of elections said it received about 400 calls from voters who wanted to know why their polling places were closed. Well, the problem is the state’s presidential primaries are still a week away. Officials say the early arrivals could mean that they’ll be in for a heavy turnout for next Tuesday’s primary.”

    Early arrivals? Does she think they are going to camp out for a week? I’m afraid people are going to miss Fox.

  • I’d say Wisconsin leans towards Obama — since he overwhelmingly won Minnesota.

    February is looking good for him, and looking at the popular vote yesterday confirms what the polls are saying — nationally he and Clinton are now tied. That puts him in a great position to continue the momentum, so he may be able to do well in the Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

  • In other words, we may be exhausted, but we’re also just getting started.

    WE’re exhausted? I’m worried about Obama. His greatest strength is personal appearances.. he shot up 11% in Delaware after his appearance Sunday here. He’s been running around the country doing almost nothing but. The man must be on the edge of death by now, and it’s still going.

    Personal appearances by Hillary are not nearly as important. Her charisma is pretty poor and “inspiration” is rarely the reason people go to her side. So she can at least afford to get a good night’s sleep.

  • “…the fact that low-information, less-educated Democratic voters seem to gravitate toward The Clintons in the same default way that, on a road trip, they’d stop to eat at Arby’s rather than try the local place.”

    Right, dajafi, those of us who prefer Senator Clinton to Senator Obama are just too stupid/ignorant to recognize the Glory that is Barack. I was an Edwards supporter who has moved into the Clinton camp. One of the reasons I did so was because I just couldn’t stand the smarmy, self-righteous, yuppie jerks that make up such a big part of Obama’s supporters.

    It’s funny, I have never heard a Clinton supporter display toward Obama the kind of hatred and venom that I regularly hear from the Obamabots when they comment on Clinton. Sure, they criticize his lack of credentials, but I don’t hear them using words like “slimy, sleazy, Hitlery, etc.”, phrases that one encounters with regularity from the Obama supporters in the comment sections of DKos and other liberal blogs.

  • A little nugget: The Obama campaign sent Paul Tewes to camp out in Ohio earlier this week. Tewes was their man in Iowa. Clinton has strong organization and an advantage in Ohio, but that should signal how seriously the Obama campaign is taking the Buckeye state.

  • Danp, I sympathize. Our primary (Florida) was last week, yet in this morning’s paper some election officials said that they received hundreds of calls from people wanting to know why their precincts weren’t open for the big day.

  • the fact that low-information, less-educated Democratic voters seem to gravitate toward The Clintons

    You mean the people that the Democratic party allegedly represents, but whom I often see being put down on this “progressive” blog? When Clinton wins among the least wealthy, the least edjucated and it becomes “smart people prefer Obama,” I know I get all warm and fuzzy knowing that at least after the limosine liberals win they may still try and help “the little people.”

    I’m proud that Clinton wins handily among those who most need a champion: the less fortunate, the unskilled workers, the elderly on fixed incomes. That is who we allegedly are here for as a party.

  • I’m proud that Clinton wins handily among those who most need a champion: the less fortunate, the unskilled workers, the elderly on fixed incomes. That is who we allegedly are here for as a party.

    Yep, Clinton I’s NAFTA and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (“Welfare Reform”) worked out real for them.

  • CB…

    No where does your analysis consider the Hispanic populations of the various states.
    It seems to me that this is fast becoming a major sub theme.

  • Ok, I am about to sound like a broken record. Anyone have numbers that turned out yesterday, dems vs. goopers? I’m hankering to see a 2-1 or 3-1 turnout ratio.

    Can anyone help me out? 🙂

  • In his Sunday column in the WaPo, Harold Meyerson wondered if sending Obama to the smaller states over the weekend was a good idea.

    It was.

    15,000 show up at the Boise rally and he takes Idaho; 20,000 show up at the Wilmington rally and he takes Delaware; 25,000 show up at the St. Louis rally and he takes Missouri.

    Looking at the list of coming primaries, with Obama raising another $30+ million this month on top of $32 million last month, and the wind is definitely from his quarter.

  • Tamalak @ 6

    I agree. And your post is a great argument for why the Barack camp would be smart not to sign on for any more debates.
    He has got to run the court, not walk it up and pass the ball around while the clock runs down.

  • orogeny (#7) said: I don’t hear them using words like “slimy, sleazy, Hitlery, etc.”, phrases that one encounters with regularity from the Obama supporters in the comment sections of DKos and other liberal blogs.

    That’s because there isn’t a 15 year record of Obama doing all the things the Clintons regularly do (most recently, how did Bill get $31 million for his foundation from a Canadian slimeball?). Nobody has said of Obama – as David Geffen did of the Clintons – “they lie compulsively.” And Geffen knows about lying regularly, so he would know it when he sees it.

    As far as the less-knowledgeable meme is concerned, I think (unfortunately) it is true. I have converted several “Hillarybots” to Obama supporters, just by pointing out the facts to them – facts they were unaware of before. Party machines have always depended on the default-support of the less-informed.

  • I’m proud that Clinton wins handily among those who most need a champion…

    The lobbyists?

    This is a crock and you know it. The Clintons are corporatists. Obama was a community organizer; that might not mean much to you, but if you work in poverty issues, as I do, it’s pretty significant. He’s lived these issues; she sees them as soundbite material and a way to sway the gullible.

    The idea that the Beltway candidate is a populist champion, and that we who support Obama are snobs who don’t care about the poor, is as absurd as the First Narcissist’s contention that he opposed the war from the beginning. Perhaps I should have put “white” in my post, if only because that might have slowed down the rush to self-righteousness on the part of the Clinton apologists here.

  • I can’t disagree with the analysis, except for this: “Obama was born in Hawaii and remains popular there.”

    Oh, I remember Obama! Such a cute kid! Did he ever learn to walk?

    Nautilator: “I’d say Wisconsin leans towards Obama — since he overwhelmingly won Minnesota.”

    By the same token, I’m surprised the Packers made the playoffs since the Vikings stunk.

  • The Clintons are corporatists

    No, BushCo are corporatists. There is a big difference. By any reasonable measure, Clinton did more for the working class and the lowest income groups – by far – than any President in the past 40 years.

    Perhaps I should have put “white” in my post

    Wow, those who favor Clinton are both unintelligent and racist. Sweet.

  • I’ll acknowledge that Clinton is part of the democratic establishment and that’s a large part of the reason why I voted for Obama in the California primary yesterday. But goodness sake, the Hillary Hate is out in full force, isn’t it? To you fellow Obama supporters of mine, I’d suspect that if you took a clearer look around, you’d find quite a share of poorly educated and ignorant democrats squarely in our camp.

    You see, believe it or not, most people don’t get political news and analysis on the internet. They go by what they see in the newspapers and on the tv. That’s just as true for democrats and republicans. So this elitist idea you have that only ignorant and stupid people support Clinton is basically the same kind of blithe arrogance that infects the beltway pundits we hold in such contempt.

    Get off the computer and look at the real world once in a while.

    As for me, yes I believe in Obama’s message of change and I’m not swayed by Clinton’s message of experience. But you know what? If she wins I’ll still be able to proudly vote for her in the general election. No matter what you Hillary Haters like to think, she’s still head, shoulders, and waist above the GOPers. She’s articulate, intelligent, and more liberal than they are.

  • You may be interested to know that Washington State (my state) is very much in the Obama bucket…by a very wide margin, according to all reports I’ve heard. It could turn out to be another Idaho…very lopsided in his favor.

  • Not unintelligent. Just low-information. They know more about Arby’s than the local restaurant. They’ve had decent meals at Arby’s. They go with what they know.

    Racist… well, if you don’t think that figures into it–and that power-brokering reptiles like Mark Penn aren’t trying to play that up–you’re a lot more naive than I’d thought.

    zeitgeist, you’re imputing a moral judgment I’m not making: people can vote on whatever grounds they choose (including racist and sexist grounds). Would I prefer that everyone had reached an informed opinion about their candidate–as you have, even though I disagree with it? Of course. But that’s not the way the world works. And it plays to the advantage of the better-branded candidate, particularly when the alternative is named “Obama.”

  • And FWIW, I’m not a “Hillary hater.” In fact–and this would have been clear to anyone who read my post at #3 rather than leap to the Default Dem Grievance Position–I like her a hell of a lot better than the dirtbags she hires, or her self-righteous crook of a husband.

    Were she Hillary Jones, I’d happily enough vote for her in the general; even as-is, I might.

  • ***”I hate the fact that low-information, less-educated Democratic voters seem to gravitate toward The Clintons in the same default way that…”***

    …they gravitated toward the current occupant of the WH? Sorry, dajafi, but you did set yourself up for that one.

    December, 2007 (and all points prior to)…Clintonistas predict a blowout on Super Tuesday.

    January, 2008…same thing.

    February 6, 2008…Clintonistas spin what looks, in the best of optimistic lights, like a tie as some sort of gargantuan victory. The truth, however, is that the big, bad political machine is being rejected by huge numbers of people today, just as the machines of Tammany Hall and Richard Daley were once rejected.

    Fortress Clinton, whether they want to admit it or not, took some serious damage yesterday. Methinks I hear a wall or two starting to tumble….

  • Tom Cleaver,

    Since 1991, there has been a concentrated effort on the part of the right wing slime machine, funded by billionaires like Dick Scaife, to make the public believe exactly the line that you are spouting. Whitewater, filegate, the travel office, the trashing of the White House offices, ad infinitum…a well-funded right-wing PR machine has spent the last 15+ years throwing everything it can at the Clintons, hoping that something would stick.

    Are the Clintons pure as the driven snow? Certainly not, no one get to the highest office in the land without doing a few things that, if presented in the right way, appear to be unethical. Give the right a few years and $50 million or so spent on negative PR and Obama will look pretty tarnished as well. The problem I have with a lot of Obama supporters is that they have bought into this smear lock, stock and barrel…Bill and Hillary are the worst people on the face of the earth, unmatched in their evil, corrupt machinations.

    I like Obama, in spite of the people he attracts. I’ll support him if he wins the nomination. But, Hillary and Bill Clinton are not the monsters that you make them out to be. I’m 55 years old and the 8 years under Bill Clinton were the best years of my life, at least in terms of how my life was effected by the government. I made more money, felt more secure, had more hope for the future, and saw that that rest of the world felt good about the US. Maybe Obama can create the same climate, I don’t know. But, I look forward to 8 years of Senator Clinton’s administration if it looks anything like the previous Clinton years.

  • Thanks Shade Tail. From what I can see around me and from other anecdotes, those not spending a lot of like on blogs like us have a different takes on the two Dem candidates. People seem to like both and are enthusiastic that a change is going to happen, but they just aren’t sure if that change will take the form of a black president or a female president.

    After 8 years of Bush, the public seems beyond a “throw the bums out” mood, the public seems be saying “if you don’t think the public can still flex its political muscle, just wait and see who we elect to be the next president.” The unitary executive seems to have met its match in a pissed-off unitary public.

  • Before we all swoon over Obama’s bank account, take a note of Romney’s relative success (or Guiliani’s one $40m delegate?).

    Tamalak opined: ” Personal appearances by Hillary are not nearly as important. Her charisma is pretty poor and “inspiration” is rarely the reason people go to her side. So she can at least afford to get a good night’s sleep.”

    Have you listened to the woman talk recently. You don’t get a horse voice like that from a good night’s sleep. I’d say she’s working pretty hard.

  • orogeny wrote, “I look forward to 8 years of Senator Clinton’s administration if it looks anything like the previous Clinton years.”

    After the authorization vote, but during the run-up to the war in Iraq, President Clinton argued on 60 minutes for giving Hans Blix and his inspection team more time (he did support the original authorization). Senator Clinton, on the other hand did not want to give the inspectors more time, and even months after the war, continued to argue that she made the right vote on the authorization

    Here’s the thing. President Clinton’s term in office is no more a predictor of how Hillary Clinton would perform than George H.W. Bush’s terms was a predictor of how George W. Bush would perform. Hillary is the one who would make the decisions, Hillary is the one who would deliver the State of the Union speeches, and Hillary is the one who must be able to use the bully pulpit effectively.

    Anybody who is assuming that a vote for Hillary is a vote to re-elect Bill is, in my opinion, making a mistake.

  • No where does your analysis consider the Hispanic populations of the various states.
    It seems to me that this is fast becoming a major sub theme.

    100% agree. If Obama truly makes an effort to put Texas in play, this will be a major test of his potential appeal to a key democratic constituency. No, I don’t think Texas will go blue in November, but as a test of appeal to Hispanic Democrats there isn’t a better place left on the calendar.

  • “Anybody who is assuming that a vote for Hillary is a vote to re-elect Bill is, in my opinion, making a mistake.”

    Or, to put it another way, “rolling the dice”.

  • Chris,

    Senator Clinton, on the other hand did not want to give the inspectors more time, and even months after the war, continued to argue that she made the right vote on the authorization

    Incorrect.

  • dajafi: I wasn’t writing to you specifically, but since you bring it up….

    Yes, I’ve read your post at #3. The first paragraph seems to contradict your claim that you aren’t really a Hillary Hater. In fact, most of what you’ve said about Clinton supporters has been very blatantly elitist generalizations. Just because someone disagrees with us about not voting for Clinton doesn’t make them ignorant or stupid.

    But, as I said, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. This is a very common problem that I’ve been seeing all over the ‘net, particularly after the polls began closing last night. My post at #20 is very similar to one I’ve posted on a couple different blogs over the past few hours.

    Your seeming Hillary Hate has been very minor compared to some of the nonsense I’ve been seeing. People are saying that Hillary is just another Neo-con, that she’s utterly corrupted and really quite vicious, that she is guaranteed to lose against any Republican (particularly McCain), and so on and so on. It’s all right out of the GOP playbook. I keep expecting some of these Democrats to start talking about the Vince Foster “murder”.

    It’s all utter nonsense. Worse, it is counter-productive. The Republicans are splintering in exactly that same way, with all the factions trying to savage McCain to name just one example. Let’s not be making the same mistake, huh?

  • Both Hillary and Barack would be good for our nation, and the world in general. Don’t go and get your panties all bunched up in regard to these two and their differences. Focus on their similarities, and support the pathway that will get us a far away from the nightmare years of the Bush WH as fast as possible – in ’08, support the Democratic ticket, even if it is not completely representative of your immediate perspective as you find yourself trying to survive under the big tent we call a free and fair America. -Kevo

  • By the same token, I’m surprised the Packers made the playoffs since the Vikings stunk. — Grumpy

    What the hell?

    Based on Obama’s overwhelming victory in Minnesota (and Iowa for that matter, and other midwest areas), it’s reasonable to assume Obama has an edge in Wisconsin, given how close the two states are demographically.

    It’s the same reasoning we use to suggest Obama has advantages among large black populations (Georgia, South Carolina) while Clinton has advantages among large hispanic populations (Nevada, California).

  • orogeny’s link to Senator Clinton’s speech made prior to the authorization does not prove or disprove Hillary’s actions and statements after the authorization, on the eve of war and in the months subsequent to shock-and-awe.

    Bill Clinton — The Daily Telegraph — March 13, 2003:
    “Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor…Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm.”

    Hillary Clinton — March 17, 2003 (the night before shock-and-awe):
    “Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

    For a reminder of Senator Clinton’s actions and statements during the leadup to war and after the war, here’s a link to a detailed summary from “Foreign Policy in Focus: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

    orogeny and Edo — Why force others to substantiate what is already common knowledge? We were all there. We all remember.

    Again, believing that a vote for Hillary is a vote to re-elect Bill is, in my opinion, a risky assumption.

  • orogeny wrote, “You’re drinking the Obama-flavored koolaid.”

    If you’re unable or are too lazy to argue your case using facts and logic, just pull out the old “kool-aid” accusation. Nicely done.

  • Woohoo! They said Texas! I can finally have a say of some sort in a presidential election! What, with this being so Republican and with our primary so late, my presidential vote has always been symbolic in the past.

    Finally I can be important too!

  • Hillary Clinton: “Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

    Hussein did act accordingly. He ran like hell. Because he knew that no matter what, Bush (with Senator Clinton’s support) was going to invade.

  • Question: Why do Ohio and Texas seem to favor Clinton at this point? That’s not asked out of skepticism, but genuine curiosity. I read this all the time, but can’t infer the underlying basis for it, especially since Ohio and Texas have pretty different demographics, no?

  • Julie,

    If you read my post immediately after the one you quoted, you’ll realize that I intended to include the link to Senator Clinton’s speech about the vote and her reasoning behind it, in which she called for more inspections under UN supervision.

    I apologize for the Koolaid remark, it was a bit too snarky, I guess. But, I was attempting to use facts and logic to rebut the previous statement about her position on inspections.

    Just curious, did you miss my next post with the link, or were you just too “lazy” to follow it?

  • “…did you miss my next post with the link, or were you just too “lazy” to follow it?

    Nope, saw the link. As previously pointed out, it was irrelevant to the point you were responding to.

  • Admittedly, after hearing so many Obama supporters say that Hillary “voted for the war” when she voted for the authorization, I missed the “after the authorization vote” in the original post. I agree that there was a time when Clinton (wrongly in my opinion) either bought into the invasion or went along with the groundswell of militarism that Bush fomented, along with Kerry, Shumer, Edwards and many others. But I don’t think my post reflected my being “unable or … too lazy to argue [my] case using facts and logic, just pull out the old “kool-aid” accusation.”

  • Hey, can’t we all just get along?

    This is the only blog I read on a daily basis (because, CB, it’s the best), so I am obviously missing most of the Hillary hate that is apparently flying around out there. At CBR I sense much more animosity coming from Clinton supporters than the other way around. I mean, Obamabots, really? It’s not exactly a kiss on the cheek, orogeny.

    Like many commenters who are also Obama supporters, I don’t hate Hillary. Far from it. I think she is an intelligent, articulate woman and if she becomes the nominee I’ll vote for her with a smile on my face. IMO she has everything necessary to be a good, maybe even great, president that we can all be proud of.

    Bill Clinton’s presidency represented some of my best years as well. It was comforting not to have to worry about our democracy being sold to the highest bidder or that our constitution was going to be shredded in the middle of the night behind closed doors. I didn’t agree with everything his administration did, but I do think he was the best president of my lifetime (I’m 49).

    I was happy with the entire slate of Democratic candidates (okay, maybe not Gravel), but as the field narrowed and the race tightened I found myself leaning towards Edwards and Obama – mostly due to the electability factor. (Also, HRC’s tactics and strategy in South Carolina really left a bad taste in my mouth. I agree with dajafi that often her own staff is her worst enemy.) For reasons I can’t logically explain or understand, Hillary has the abilty to polarize people. My sister, an evangelical Christian, has a fit of apoplexy at the mere mention of her name. I’m afraid that if she is the nominee it will unite Republicans like nothing else could this year. With Hillary at the top of the ticket this race is destined to get way ugly way fast, which could depress voter turnout on our side. And if she should win we run the risk of repeating the witch hunts of fifteen years ago, which will cripple her attempts to get anything substantive done, and which will no doubt lead citizens to conclude that not much has changed in Washington. I’m not saying any of this is right or fair or her fault — but I think it’s a mistake to ignore it.

    As for Obama, two other sisters worked on his Illinois senate campaign, have met him, and believe he is not just smoke and mirrors and great oration. Not that there’s anything wrong with great oration. I do want to be inspired. I do want to be energized. I do want to think that my country can be great again, that REAL change is REALLY possible. I think Obama has more than enough intelligence and wisdom to answer the experience question. The fact that he hasn’t spent most of his life in Washington is exactly why he appeals to so many people who don’t usually care much about politics. It’s also why he’ll be better able to work with both sides (not to mention other heads of state) to get things done. Experience is wonderful, but experience also = baggage; it can be a double-edged sword.

    I know I’m an idealist, but I think we should focus on the fact that we have two great candidates running on our side and save all the venom for the slimy, sleazy nightmare that is the Republican party.

  • orogeny – Having read that link, the question is: Why did Hillary agree to give Bush the ability to attack Iraq, even if Saddam submitted to inspections; which is not only what happened, but was a very predictable situation that many of us worried about? Reading that speech, it’s obvious that Hillary knew we’d have problems if Bush did what he eventually did. But I see no justification for why she approved of a bill that gave Bush the unilateral ability to declare war. That was the one problem with that authorization, and it was the one that screwed us all.

    To quote from the end of her speech
    “So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.”

    Huh. I wonder how that turned out. And here was her mistake:
    “If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated.”

    It’s my guess that she assumed that Saddam would reject the inspectors and she could wash her hands of the whole mess. That’s the only other option she mentioned, as if it hadn’t occurred to her that the inspectors might be let in but not find anything. And there can be no doubt that they only had until March to find anything. As with the Bushies, Hillary was either being deceitful or stupid when it came to this vote. There are no other alternatives.

  • The “Obamabots” line was a response to a poster who suggested that Clinton supporters were “low-information, less-educated Democratic voters,” and was referring to the rabid, anti-Hillary commenters that you find at DKos, Americablog and some other left-leaning blogs. You get into the habit of arguing with them on their terms and sometimes it carries over to other threads. If you want to get an idea of the anti-Clinton stuff on other blogs, go to DKos and search for phrases like “Hitlery”, “Clinton + slimy” , etc.

  • As a “gooper” (nice nickname, thanks) reading this blog trying to “read the tea leaves”, I was just gonna’ lurk and not comment. But orogeny changed all that… he says “I had the best 8 years of my life under Clinton” nah, that’s not so, you had the best 8 years because Bill Gates brought the silicon revolution to fruition, American productivity skyrocketed as well as a huge influx of foreign investment, because when America is working the world (including China) parks their money with us…

    Those of your who think GOP moderates will vote for Obama, may be correct. Those of you who realize that GOP moderates as well as hardliners will do whatever to stop HillBilly, are definitely correct.

    One more thought for the moron who thought Whitewater was blown out of proportion – watch the PBS special, or better, come to Arkansas and learn firsthand why the Clintons went to NY after he was out of office…

    Flame away all you haters!!!! I voted for Dubya twice and I still have the bumper stickers!!!!

  • OK, orogeny, I understand. Didn’t mean to jump down your throat or anything. And I will check out those other blogs and tongue lash where appropriate (snark!) Thanks for the information and explanation. Let’s be friends! ; )

  • Dr. Biobrain,

    If that’s the way you want to interpret her vote, it is a subjective decision on your part and I can’t argue with it. Equally subjectively, I believe that she honestly expected that Bush would use the authorization to bring about Saddam’s disarmament and would not simply blow off the world and go to war.

    Saddam didn’t “reject the inspectors,” he was grudgingly letting them do their job until Bush pulled them out. At that point, Clinton, along with a lot of other Dems that I respect, went along with him. They were wrong, they allowed themselves to be bullied into supporting the war, but I just don’t believe that their intentions were evil. And I don’t believe that their actions at that time necessarily reflect any real bloodthirstiness on their part. In my opinion, 9/11 created a unique moment in time where a group of warmongers like the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Neocon alliance were able to bring about the invasion of Iraq.

  • Gypsy moth,

    I must admit…this a much more pleasant group to debate with than one finds at a lot of blogs. I’ll try to be on my best behavior. 😉

  • As a Gay American, I know what freedom is because I have to fight for it every day of my life. The fight gets easier with Hillary Clinton in the White House. I know I have her support. If Hillary invited David Duke to appear at one of her campaign events, there would be hell-to-pay from those super-intellects in the Obama camp. I guess I’m just a stupid Clinton supporter who understands that if you invite a bigot like Donnie McCulkan who attacks Gays as “child molesters” (which Obama did) then you cannot claim to be Pro-Freedom for Gay Americans. Unless, of course, you feel you can say one thing and then do the opposite, which Obama has done.

    By the way, has Oprah ever done a show on Gay rights in the 20 years or so she’s been on TV? Just wondering…..

  • The Clintons are scum. We’ve already had to deal with them for the 90’s. We have a good track record of Clintons putting their personal interests over the people’s. We know that they are dishonest, and we know that they are dirtbags (even Chelsea).

  • I know I’m an idealist, but I think we should focus on the fact that we have two great candidates running on our side and save all the venom for the slimy, sleazy nightmare that is the Republican party.

    100% agree.

  • Equally subjectively, I believe that she honestly expected that Bush would use the authorization to bring about Saddam’s disarmament and would not simply blow off the world and go to war.

    Ok, orogeny. Going with the “Hillary was naive” line? That’s fine. I don’t see how that helps, but it’s your choice. I honestly think she’s smarter than that and was at least as intelligent as I was at the time. I mean, all the liberals I hung out with at the time were convinced that this was just a sham vote sending us to a war that neo-cons had been demanding for years, but perhaps Hillary just wasn’t paying attention. I don’t know. But in any case, I don’t see how it helps her.

    Again, we had to go to war in the spring, or we’d have to wait another year. So we knew the inspectors only had a very limited time to find what they were looking for. Either Hillary seriously over-estimated the inspectors’ abilities, or she was just trying to cover her ass by approving what she thought would be a popular war while insisting it would be a last resort. I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt by thinking it was a CYA deception, but I guess you’d rather assume she was gullible.

    Again, in that speech, she left out the part of what might happen if the inspectors were let in but didn’t find anything. It was predictable, but somehow Hillary failed to predict it.

  • Panic – You’re not helping. If anything, could you please wait until after she gets the nomination before insulting her? Or possibly to hold it forever? You’re persuading no one.

    But then again, perhaps that’s your game.

  • I don’t think anyone, even W’s dad, thought that W would do what he has done to this country. Giving the president the benefit of the doubt certainly looks naive in retrospect, but most presidents, even the ones I oppose, do not actively try to destroy the country with the consistency of W. Maybe it was predictable. But most of us are not conspiracy theorists. At least we weren’t before W.

  • Terry Turner–was wondering what you thought of Bill Clinton’s advice to John Kerry in the waning days of the ’04 race: that he should endorse the state-level bigotry initiatives in hopes of not losing because of Americans’ homophobia. Maybe that was good tactics–but it was morally despicable, and the fact that Kerry declined to do so is the one biggest reason I remain proud to have voted for him.

    The “Obamabots” line was a response to a poster who suggested that Clinton supporters were “low-information, less-educated Democratic voters,”

    That was me, I think–but you mischaracterize my statement. I see it the other way: low-information, less-educated Democratic voters tend to go with Clinton Brand loyalty. Much as some of the Clinton supporters here (and elsewhere) aggravate me at times, I readily grant they’re at least as well informed as I am.

    It’s their motivations that concern me. zeitgeist (whom I like and respect) wants to punish the Republican professional slimers by sticking Hillary Clinton in their face. The problem is that they want the same thing. What does that tell you?

    The best revenge is a liberal realignment. Whatever her virtues (and I concede them: great smarts, a profound understanding of power, astonishing mastery of policy), she’ll never do that–and I think she’s too timid even to try. So the choice is in part between continuing the Bush/Clinton/Bush trench warfare by sticking another Clinton on the end, or trying something admittedly less known but potentially much better.

  • Giving the president the benefit of the doubt certainly looks naive in retrospect, but most presidents, even the ones I oppose, do not actively try to destroy the country with the consistency of W. Maybe it was predictable. But most of us are not conspiracy theorists. At least we weren’t before W.

    Conspiracy theorists?? I’m again struck with the idea that Hillary’s supporters have found themselves in the unenviable position of having to rewrite history to make her candidacy look better. While there were Democrats who thought we should give the President the benefit of the doubt, they were usually denounced by people who considered themselves liberal. My recollection was that it was the rare liberal who didn’t think Bush was up to no good with this war of his.

    It’s not just in retrospect that this all looked bad. A CNN Poll from November 2002, a month after the authorization passed, 58% of people polled said they thought Bush had already made his decision to invade Iraq, while only 38% thought he hadn’t. You’re telling us that Hillary was in that 38%?

    Also bad for Hillary is that a CNN/Time Poll from November 2002 showed that 88% of people thought Saddam wouldn’t allow the inspectors in and 76% thought the inspections wouldn’t eliminate the threat that Iraq would using WMD’s against us. So we’re supposed to feel better that Hillary was in the 8% who thought Saddam would allow inspectors in and 19% who thought it’d make us safer?

    But again, this is all nonsense. Hillary wasn’t dumb. She knew giving Bush the authority for war meant we were going to war. And it’s not hindsight that tells us this. Polls showed that people knew this stuff at the time, and that’s exactly how I remember it. It’s only the embarrassed Hillary supporters who now insist that allowing Bush to do this was a good idea, and I strongly suspect that many of them weren’t saying this at the time.

  • Honestly, are their any Hillary supporters that find her approval of the war authorization to be an undefendable mistake, but support her all the same? It just seems that the only people willing to support her are the ones who are in denial about her mistakes and liablities. Am I wrong about that?

  • Anybody can make a mistake once. The key is whether or not they’d make the same mistake going forward. I don’t have the confidence that the Clintons could ever stomach the political risks they’d perceive in a decision *not* to use force when a large chunk of the punditariat–especially those on the right–was calling for them to do so.

    That’s real political courage and toughness. Paul Wellstone showed it, with his political career on the line, that fall. Clinton was far from the only one to make the mistake, as the vote showed. But most of the other Democrats have acknowledged the mistake as such. Our current president doesn’t think he’s ever screwed up either; that kind of certitude doesn’t serve the country very well.

  • Doctor Biobrain said: “Honestly, are [there] any Hillary supporters that find her approval of the war authorization to be an undefendable mistake, but support her all the same? It just seems that the only people willing to support her are the ones who are in denial about her mistakes and liabilities. Am I wrong about that?”

    How exactly can I defend my williness to support Hillary without you claiming I’m in denial?

    How’s this. Hillary knew Boy George II was a pissant little warmonger aching to avenge the supposed assassination attempt on his dad, mom, brothers and wife. She also knew that the AUMF was going to pass. She also knew she wasn’t going to be president if she voted against it (candidate Feingold, paging candidate Feingold). So she voted for it and gave a speech saying that her vote was for sending inspectors into Iraq, not for preemptive war.

    And now she’s NOT going to apologize to you for her vote. After all, if you hadn’t failed Al Gore in 2000 we wouldn’t be in this position, would we? She’s NOT going to give the Republican’ts another thing to run against her with just to make you happy.

    And I’m fine with that.

  • She also knew she wasn’t going to be president if she voted against it

    You really think? Obama opposed the war and presumably would have voted against it; he might not be president anyway, but I’m pretty certain that won’t be why he falls short, if he does.

    In a larger sense, though, this is exactly why I don’t trust Clinton: that calculation, her political viability over the lives of those thrown into the meat grinder, is horrible.

  • How exactly can I defend my williness to support Hillary without you claiming I’m in denial?

    You misunderstood what I was asking. I just wanted to see a Hillary supporter admit that it was an undefendable mistake. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they seem to be suggesting that it was only in hindsight that this was a mistake; as if this wasn’t the standard liberal position at the time. I don’t expect Hillary to denounce her mistake, though I’d like it. But I just can’t stand when her supporters defend this vote by rewriting history and pretend as if she’s not trying to trick us about it now. And for me, the problem isn’t that she made this one vote; but what this says about her abilties as a decision maker.

    Why do you sound angry about this? It was an honest question. And I won’t hold it against her any more than I held Kerry’s dumb vote against him. I was just getting tired of the seeming self-deception by her supporters.

  • Doctor Biobrain and dajafi, as a Clinton supporter I wish she would simply pull and Edwards and admit it was a mistake. I understand, her having attacked for everything from her name to her feelings about baking cookies, that she is loathe to give anyone a “flip flop” after seeing how they used those against Kerry – but I think even at a political level her calculation is off. She would gain more than she loses by admitting the error.

    What I will say in her defense is that the mistake must have been a reasonable one for those sitting in the Senate, being briefed by Powell (who was then respected) – because a lot of good liberals (Harkin, Edwards etc) made the same mistake. I think there is a principled, non-naive position that was perhaps too nuanced for the President they were dealing with: that approving the AUMF might actually head off the war Bush wanted by sending a strong enough message to Hussein that he would lay down and quit yanking Bush’s chain. I think HRC has made a similar argument, and I don’t find it that hard to believe.

  • Lets try part of that again:

    I wish she would simply pull and Edwards and admit it was a mistake. I understand, her having been attacked for everything

  • I think there is a principled, non-naive position that was perhaps too nuanced for the President they were dealing with: that approving the AUMF might actually head off the war Bush wanted by sending a strong enough message to Hussein that he would lay down and quit yanking

    Zeit – I love you, but you’re a sucker. As I posted @ 60, 58% of the country believed that Bush had already decided for war. And huge majorities believed that Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in, and that they wouldn’t be effective. Yet we’re supposed to imagine that Hillary and these others somehow missed the memo?

    And guess what, we did send a strong enough message to Saddam and it didn’t make a damn bit of difference because he didn’t have any weapons. Yet Hillary and these other saps hadn’t taken it into account that the inspectors might not work? Again, you shouldn’t take this personally, but you really need to get a little detachment from Hillary. She’s using you and you deserve better. This was pure politics and Hillary took the wrong bet.

  • zeitgeist, I just have trouble with any of these justifications or explanations when comparing Hillary’s decision to Sen. Bob Graham’s.

    Graham, you’ll recall, also was planning to run for president in 2004. (Turns out it didn’t go real well.) He was a southerner, so it probably was an even worse bet for him politically, in terms of his prospects, not to cheer on the war.

    Yet he read the NIE–as Clinton did not–and voted his conscience. His decision was both informed and principled. Hers was neither.

    I’ve written before that I think the Clintons have a predisposition toward violence and war as always good politics, probably stemming from their being traumatized by the “Democrats hate soldiers” smear of the ’70s and ’80s. While this too was probably smart tactical politics, until it’s their lives or Chelsea’s on the line, I can’t help but conclude it’s absolutely deplorable.

  • Again, you shouldn’t take this personally, but you really need to get a little detachment from Hillary.

    Then apparently I need detachment from the majority of the Democratic party – everyone who takes me to task on this focuses solely on Hillary without explaining how she could have been in such good company. If you’re a Senator deciding whether or not to trust the Commander in Chief, and you look around and see not just a majority of your own party but one of the Democrat’s foreign policy experts, Biden, is voting “yes,” and decorated vet Kerry votes “yes,” as does Max Cleland, and good liberals like Edwards and Harkin are voting “yes”. . . how is this so clearly wrong? I also suspect that, for Clinton and Schumer, being from NY, the politics were a little different. Most of the country lost its critical thinking for a while after 9/11; I suspect this was felt most acutely by some of their constituents.

    Yeah, it was a mistake. I’m sure political calculations played a part. But I find it hard to say it was unforgivably naive when plenty of people here think Chris Dodd is wonderful — and he, too, voted “yes” and no one seems to hold it against him. Apparently people who like Dodd also have been played?

  • Doctor Biobrain said: “You misunderstood what I was asking. I just wanted to see a Hillary supporter admit that [the vote for the AUMF] was an undefendable mistake.”

    Well, to quote the masked man, get used to disappointment.

    Because I consider it perfectly defenseable.

    • Comments are closed.