Obama scoffs at VP talk, accuses Clinton of ‘bamboozling’ voters

The AP, reporting on Barack Obama’s comments in Mississippi this morning, said the senator “did not absolutely close the door to a second spot on the ticket, but it was his most pointed signal that he is not interested.”

I think that’s putting it mildly. Greg Sargent offered this transcript of the relevant part of Obama’s speech.

With all due respect, with all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I’ve won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place. [Long applause.] …

“But there’s a second point. This is an interesting point — I want you guys to follow me on this. You know Pres. Bill Clinton, back in 1992, when he was being asked about his selection for vice president, he said, ‘The only criteria, the most important criteria for vice president, is that that person is ready, if I fell out in the first week, that he or she would be ready to be the commander-in-chief.’ That was his criteria.

“Now, they have been spending the last two, three weeks — you remember that advertisement with the phone call, telling everybody, getting all the generals to say well we’re not sure he’s ready, ‘I’m ready on day one, he may not be ready yet.’ But I don’t understand. If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?

“See, I was trying to explain to someone the ‘okey-doke.’ Y’all know the okey-doke? It’s when someone’s trying to bamboozle you, when they’re trying to hoodwink you. They are trying to hoodwink you. You can’t say that he’s not ready on day one, unless he’s willing to be your vice president and then he’s ready on day one.

“I want everybody to be absolutely clear — I’m not running for vice president, I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running to be commander-in-chief. And the reason I’m running to be commander-in-chief is because I believe that the most important thing when you answer that phone call at 3 in the morning is: what kind of judgment you have?”

I suppose some cynics might suggest that likely VP candidates are supposed to feign disinterest in the job, and that Obama might just be playing the game, but it sounds to me like he really doesn’t want the gig.

Moreover, the Clinton campaign has, with varying degrees of subtlety, been arguing that the best way to get the so-called “dream ticket” is to vote for Clinton (because she’s more likely to tap him as a running mate than the other way around).

Clinton hinted at this argument on Friday…

“I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”

…while longtime Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe floated the same idea a month ago.

Obama touched on this point today as well: “Maybe I can get both.” Don’t think that way. You have to make a choice in this election. Are you gonna go along with the past, or are you gonna go towards the future? Are you gonna do the same old thing, or are you gonna try something new?”

I think all of this is important for a variety of reasons:

1. Obama doesn’t sound like he’d even consider the VP job;

2. Obama is fairly explicitly accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to con people, which is a more aggressive message than he’s been using of late;

3. and Obama is getting back to the frame that seemed to work for him effectively in January (past vs. future, old vs. new).

Mississippi probably won’t be the most effective test — Obama is already favored to win by double digits — but expect to hear more of this message in the coming weeks.

‘Bout.

Fucking.

Time.

  • The Clinton pitch is similar to the resort time share pitch — you have just won a new Mercedes Benz … but you need to do a weekend tour of Bill and Hill’s condo resorts to claim your chance of winning the new Mercedes Benz.

    Welcome to the Bill and Hill Grift Mill. Don’t they beat all?

  • 2. Obama is fairly explicitly accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to con people, which is a more aggressive message than he’s been using of late;

    The accusation is not only aggressive its true.

  • OT, but NYT is reporting that Eliot Spitzer was tied to a prostitution ring, with a statement from the Gov expected shortly. I wonder if HRC will denounce, or denounce and reject? Or will the WH claim it’s just another example of the liberal press out to smear a high-profile Democrat?

    Sorry, back to regular programming.

  • The tactical stupidity of Clinton’s “he’s not ready” gambit is something to behold. It falls apart on multiple levels if you think about it for more than a few minutes. But I’m sure it sounded like a good idea at the time.

  • This also says, without having to spell it out, that she’s not going to be his VP either.

    Also, this sentence confused me “I suppose some cynics might suggest that likely VP candidates are supposed to feign interest in the job, and that Obama might just be playing the game…” did you mean something else?

  • John Richard’s comment should become the B.O. campaign’s new mantra. Obama needs to do even more to deflate the overinflated balloon of ambition and sheer conceit that is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s actions over the past few months clearly say this election is all about her (and Bill), while Obama knows it is, and has to be, all about us. The last thing we need for the next four to eight years is Barb Bush, aka Hillary Clinton.

  • If Senator Obama believes, as you do, that the Clinton campaign is only using this idea of a ‘Dream Ticket’ to pull votes away from him in upcoming contests, then he has to stand strong against the idea of Senator Clinton making him VP.

    On the other hand, if they aren’t both on the ticket, it’s going to screw over the party, and quite likely the country.

    So just maybe we need to think about this clearly.

  • Of course Obama doesn’t want the gig (as somebody pointed out some time ago, I don’t believe anyone says “gig” anymore unless they’re referring to the small boat on a sailing man o’ war reserved for the Captain’s use, but never mind), and someone in this kind of race would only indicate interest in the No. 2 spot if they had reason to believe that’s the best they were going to achieve.

    The president as Commander in Chief does not personally take American forces to war, regardless what time the call comes in. That’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff are for. It’s nice if the president has a military background, because it helps to keep him or her from asking stupid questions, but it’s not really necessary – Hillary Clinton, I’m sure everyone has noticed, has a law background with not a day’s national service. A huge part of judgment is knowing when you are stepping out of your field of expertise, and when you should listen to the pros. By this definition, George W. Bush and judgment are all the way across town from each other. I believe Hillary Clinton would lead the same way – not from some amorphous sense of prediction, but from her own statements.

  • being VP for Chillary would be the #3 position. #2 goes to the “co-president….”

  • Game.

    Set.

    Match.

    That, my friends (thanks McSame!), is how you attack from the high road.

  • And of course now the Clinton team will accuse Obama of being a con artist, because if he wasn’t he wouldn’t know what “the okey doke” means.

    Mark my words, I predict that soon, as her LOSS in Texas is finally acknowledged, we will see a Clinton overture to make her the VP, with them pointing to how gracious she will be for trying to “heal the party” by letting Obama be the head of the ticket. In the interest of fairness, they will say, she should be the VP, and that refusing her offer would be RUDE. They will let everyone know that unless Hillary gets to be VP they will continue to tear the party apart.

    I hope Barak has the sense to say Hell No.

  • And Obama falls into Clinton’s trap. The choice for Presidency is going to be decided by the superdelegates. What Obama needed to say is that he will do what it best for the Democratic party, and what is best for the Democratic party is for him to be their Presidential candidate. What the Clintons are saying is that an Clinton-Obama (or Obama-Clinton) ticket is what would be best for the Democratic party. With the party split almost 50/50, that is a strong argument. Now, Obama seems to be moving towards a position of “if I don’t get what I want, then I am taking my ball home”. That’s an attitude that is sure to turn off some superdelegates.

  • Can you blame him for not wanting to team up with the Clintons? Look what happened to Al Gore. It would tarnish his political career forever.

  • Obama may be a little slow on the draw, but he can’t miss with the big target he has… Hillary is just Bush in drag. What a drag…

    Do you want Hillary milking your cows at 3 AM? Check out the interesting article and more interesting comments at huffingtonpost today, something about how Obama can’t milk the Iraq war cow (?). Political discourse is becoming more surreal each day… The mind boggles… Hiillary and Company are grasping at straws and are now trying to milk cows…I’ll have a malted Monster-shake to go, please…

  • What Obama needed to say is that he will do what it best for the Democratic party… -Dennis_D

    He is doing what’s best for the Democratic party by keeping Clinton out of the White House.

    Now it’s her turn to do her part and drop out.

  • “I want everybody to be absolutely clear — I’m not running for vice president, I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running to be commander-in-chief. And the reason I’m running to be commander-in-chief is because I believe that the most important thing when you answer that phone call at 3 in the morning is: what kind of judgment you have?”

    And we all know the kind of “judgement” the Second Assistant Co-President has.

    She blew it on Wal-Mart when she took up space on their board of directors, she blew it on health care with her “I know best” imperial attitude, she blew it on AUMF with her “what do I need to do to look like a tough candidate” vote, she blew it on Bankruptcy “Reform” representing her constituents on Wall Street over the people who voted for her.

    35 years’ experience as a fuckwit who married the right bozo.

  • Dennis D – if you took the next 3 days you could not come up with the name of another person who has done nearly so much as Barack Obama for the future of the Democratic Party. By affirming that he is still running for President and not angling for the lesser position he continues to do what is best for himself, his party and his country. I don’t know you well enough to call you a concern troll, but your words sound like the words of one.

  • When are we going to stop all this Commander in Chief nonsense? One of the many duties of a President is to ensure civilian control of the military, hence the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy title. The most important duties of a President are to make strategic decisions on national policy and see that the laws are faithfully executed. His sword and white horse were retired long ago.

  • Let’s see now. Hillary Clinton has said “I KNOW that I’m going to be the Democratic nominee and I would certainly entertain the thought of Obama as my VP choice’. Did she say that? What did she say and what was the question? Bill Clinton remarked how a ticket with both would be unstoppable. Anybody doubt that? I don’t think either have been so presumptive as many are making the Clintons out to be.

  • Can you blame him for not wanting to team up with the Clintons?

    My answers is the same as yours: Certainly not.

    The Clintons have a closet full of scandals just waiting to come out†, like a boogy man at 3 am, and haunt the country to death. Only someone at a career dead-end would take that job. And not even a Level-4 biohazard suit will save that poor soul from contamination.

    † Bill Bradley recently:

    I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband’s unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important — you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

    http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/bradley_goes_there.php

  • Of course he is going to deny that he is interested in the VP job, if not then nobody would take him seriously going forward as an actual candidate.. but I’m sure he has considered it privately.

    He has to know that a combined ticket is the best chance for Democrats to win in November, and he also has to know that Clinton would not likely accept VP on this combined ticket, so the reality is that he is being forced to decide whether to accept his place as VP behind Clinton, or risk losing the election in November.

    If I might say so, this does not seem to be aimed at changing too many peoples minds in the upcoming primaries/caucuses, I would guess this is the argument being used to sway uncommitted super-delegates.

    Like her or not, you have to see the brilliance of this strategy, and if you want to see a democratic president in ’08, this is probably the best route.

  • Clinton: Obama doesn’t have any experience.

    Obama: I’m not even qualified to be Vice-President.

    doh!

    btw, Clinton forced Walmart to improve their policies while she was on the board.

  • ‘Waaah! I’m winning! Waaaah!’ -Crissa

    I think you’ve misquoted him slightly. It’s more along the lines of:

    I’ve won.

    Geez. How ungraceful. -Crissa

    Touche.

  • The Monster!

    Of course, if this fails to work, the next step is to game the chances that Obama will be assasinated in office and see if it is worth it for her to accept the VP position. I am sure someone is working on the math right now.

  • beep52 @5: Why? What bigotry, coercion, or corruption was involved? What connection to Clinton?

    @1,2,3,4: Did you have anything, I dunno, concrete to add?

    @19: Can the misogyny, jerk. Say something, I dunno, specific, aside from the fact that you can’t stand women or Clinton.

    @17,18: What positions have Obama acted (as opposed to spoken) differently on than Clinton? (The answer is very, very few. I doubt you even know what they are.)

    @20: There’s another person running who’s done more, over more years. Her name is Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry, but elders tend to have more time to do things. How about a point that actually makes Obama look better? Try helping his position, not just pretending he’s the only person ever.

    @23: Why is it more important to know the donors for Clinton’s library than Reagan, Bush, Bush? Where’s the federal prosecutor investigating them for having private donors? Hold people to the same standard, please. Also… Skeletons? New ones? Where? This is an issue from 2001.

  • doubtful @27: One ‘wins’ after the votes are counted, not before.

    I rather like the 50-state primary. Somewhat refreshing after not a single presidential primary made it through a third of the states before being decided.

  • @1,2,3,4: Did you have anything, I dunno, concrete to add? -Crissa

    Yeah, please keep your comments enlightening, like Crissa. Use her comment at #26 as an example.

    I rather like the 50-state primary. -Crissa

    So does Obama, especially since he’s won more than half of them.*

    *When you include his win in Texas.

    Also… Skeletons? New ones? Where? -Crissa

    Hidden in her tax returns, methinks.

  • Us [Crissa’s] comment at #26 as an example. -doubtful

    Apologies, Just Me, I meant Crissa’s comment at #24. D’oh.

  • doubtful @ 32

    Obama did not win Texas, the winner is the one who received the majority of the popular vote in the Primary, the Texas caucus simply proves the point that caucuses in general are not truly representative of what the people want.

  • Cripsa: ‘Waaah! I’m winning! Waaaah!’

    No you are losing, which I suspects explains the wailing.
    But don’t worry it. That attitude reflects perfectly upon yourself and your candidate.

    Greg: The Obamaniacs claim that she can’t do math is not true, it isn’t just a simple math problem, this article explains a lot.

    Good for you. Glad you found yourself some self-affirming data. May I suggest you go “all in” for the Clintons. I believe the max is $2300. Think of how good you will feel when she, and you, prove that 2+2=5.

  • Obama did not win Texas, the winner is the one who received the majority of the popular vote in the Primary… -Greg

    Just like in the general election, where the winner of the popular vote wins the whole thing, not matter what the electoral college says.

    No. I think whoever wins the most delegates wins, and that was Obama.

    And if you want to start arguing about the popular vote, who has more of that? Obama.

    Clinton is losing in every way measurable.

  • Does anyone else wish they could just sleep until June 4th?

    I guess I would miss out on a lot of the fun… my project for this month will be to create a new dictionary that chronicles all of the different ways Clinton and Obama folk have defined the word “win”

    To Crissa:

    Clinton’s gotten a worse rap than she should have on a lot of levels, but instead of simply playing the “high road” card, she basically said “I’m going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Obama, and try to tear him down as much as possible.” Then she went ahead and played the “high road card” anyways. Her apparent need to rely on these diversionary double-talk tactics doesn’t speak well of her, her candidacy, or her campaign.

    Not saying Obama’s perfect in this respect either, but this sort of stuff does sour a lot of people on politics.

  • Here’s a tally the Clintonistas are sure to love, courtesy of dailykos…

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/10/11748/6707/563/473353

    Clinton’s super-successful throw-everything-at-Obama-and-hope-something-sticks campaign afforded her 4 more delegate wins than Obama last Tuesday, 193-189. Boo-hoo for Obama.

    But on Tuesday, three more superdelegates endorsed Obama, so he’s down one for the week.

    Then, Bill Foster wins the special election with some help from Obama, and has promised his supedelegate vote to Barack.

    And since then, the final California tally gave Obama FOUR more delegates, and he got 3 more superdelegate endorsements. So instead of ending the week with his delegate lead diminished by 4 votes, it INCREASED by 7.

    So, by all means, keep cheering Hillary. After all if she keeps shrinking Obama’s delegate lead by 4, only to then INCREASE Obama’s delegate lead by 7, she’ll be Preznit lickety-split.

  • doubtful @ 37

    What about Missouri, Delaware, and Alabama? They tied in delegates in each of these states, shoudln’t they be called a draw instead of wins for Obama?

  • Now, Obama seems to be moving towards a position of “if I don’t get what I want, then I am taking my ball home”. That’s an attitude that is sure to turn off some superdelegates.

    Pulease. HRC who consistently floats trial balloons designed to convince people that what is good for her is good for the Democratic Party. If anything should “turn off” super delegates, perhaps it is a candidate who announces publicly that their current front-runner is not as competent on national security as the nominee for the opposition. THAT was the tipping point for me. THAT told me that Hillary Clinton thinks there is no price too high for the Dems and their supporters to pay as long as she winds up on top.

    Barack Obama has nothing to gain and MUCH to lose by signing on to any ticket that includes Dos Clintons. And any Hillary ticket comes appended to the Big Dog. As President, Obama would always be battling Dos Clintons for relevance. As VP he would not get even a scrap of relevance. Gee, how can he possibly pass up such lovely opportunities, especially when it is oh so clear that any “Dream Ticket” broached by Dos Clintons means him stepping aside. Hillary may think she is so much more qualified than any one else that she literally weeps at the notion of someone else being elected POTUS in 2008. But, her behavior and that of her 2 ton gorilla spouse in recent weeks has convinced me that her interests are always paramount and always will be.

  • They tied in delegates in each of these states, shoudln’t they be called a draw instead of wins for Obama? -Greg

    In the case of a delegate tie (and I’m not going to fact check you), then you consider popular vote.

    There is no such thing as a draw in politics.

  • doubtful, I’m sorry, I was using your reasoning to make my point.. was it flawed?

    BTW, I just added up the delegates for all of the CLOSED primaries & caucuses, this should come as no surprise, but Clinton is beating Obama 405 to 285 when outside interference is eliminated in this manner.

  • Greg,

    The NRO article you cite makes perfect sense only if you assume that Obama is both stupid and craven, but mainly stupid. In this, it bears as much resemblance to reality as the average NRO post… so no real surprise.

    What does surprise me is that anyone not affiliated with NRO could buy any of it. All of this nonsense that he will come to the conclusion that the only way to unite the party is to accept the #2 slot is really incredibly poorly thought out and assumes many facts that are simply not in evidence.

  • the winner is the one who received the majority of the popular vote

    Like Obama is the winner right now because he leads in votes, delegates and states.

    Or does “winning” only count if your last name is Clinton, Greg?

  • ..I was using your reasoning to make my point.. was it flawed?

    Are you daft? I just explained it to you.

    Slowly again, for the special students:

    The winner is the one with the most delegates.

    In the case of a delegate tie, popular vote will determine the winner.

    BTW, I just added up the delegates for all of the CLOSED primaries & caucuses, this should come as no surprise, but Clinton is beating Obama 405 to 285 when outside interference is eliminated in this manner. -Greg

    SHOCKING!

    BTW, I just held a national Presidential election with only Democrats…Oh wait, that DOESN’T HAPPEN.

    Maybe you enjoy being a quadrennial loser. I don’t.

  • BTW, I just added up the delegates for all of the CLOSED primaries & caucuses, this should come as no surprise, but Clinton is beating Obama 405 to 285 when outside interference is eliminated in this manner.

    “Outside Interference” being the independents that the nominee will need to actually win the general election?

    Surely you do realize that the nominee can’t win with registered Democrats alone? Because the choices expressed my moderate non-Dems are actually crucially important and shouldn’t be ignored until after we have a nominee…

    And, of course, we can assume you didn’t count any of the Texas results for Clinton, since Republicans voted for her en masse at the behest of Rush, right?

  • Shorter Clinton supporters: “alright Barack, so you have more of the popular vote, won twice as many states, have more pledged delegates…maybe we’ll let you be VP, if you play your cards right.” Your memberships in the reality-based community have been hereby revoked.

    BTW, for all the talk about the superdelegates, they continue to roll in for Barack, who’s nearly eliminated Clinton’s lead on this metric. Obama has more Governors, Senators, and I believe as of today (the info in that link does not included today’s endorsements) tied in Reps. Clinton, not surprisingly, owes her entire lead to party insiders, and the trend is not with her. What was once nearly 100 super-d lead is now in the mid-high 30’s. In the span of a month.

    What Greg (and others) are missing is that the best way to convince the super-d’s is to simply keep on winning, to keep on expanding the pledged delegate lead and keep on expanding the popular vote lead. He does that, and he’ll win them over without a problem. And of course, Hillary’s problem is that if the dynamics of the race don’t change at all, his coalition is bigger than hers and that’s precisely what will happen. There are more people and delegates in Indiana and North Carolina than there are in Pennsylvania, and Obama is likely to get more out of those than Clinton will out of PA should she win there. And Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, etc…more than enough for Obama to temper any damage he’d take in, say, Kentucky. This is Hillary’s problem, whether her supporters recognize it or not. She has to do something to change the dynamic of hte rae, and as Wyoming showed us yesterday, her kitchen-sink assault on Obama may have gotten her a couple points in TX, enough to squeak out a popular vote win, but it wasn’t enough to fundamentally alter the coalitions each of them has built. Hillary’s gonna have to do more, and it’s not obvious she can.

  • Am I off in thinking these terms, okey-doke, bamboozle, and hoodwink have their origins in race ? These are not every day terms and for some reason warning bells were going off when I read them.. I can’t find anything definitive out there, but I remember them playing with the meaning in the film ‘Bamboozled’ by Spike Lee.

    Anyone know for sure ??

    I like Barrack and I really hope his plan isn’t going down or even near this road.

  • The winner is the one with 2025 delegate votes at the convention.

    Right now, Senator Obama is NOT going to have 2025 delegate votes at the convention without the support of currently uncommitted Super delegates.

    The currently uncommitted super delegates are under NO obligation to vote for Obama, no matter how many states, pledged delegates or popular votes he gets.

    Therefore there is no reason for Senator Clinton not to think she can win this nomination.

    And no validity in the claim that Obama has already won it.

    And the currently declared super delegates for Obama don’t have to stay that way (same for Clinton of course).

    And the pledged delegates (sad to say) don’t have to vote they way they pledged. Certainly not after the first ballot.

    Them’s the rules!

    While Obama should avoid giving the impression that he’s going to let Clinton steal votes…

    … he should also remember that what he is saying is going to piss off the super delegates.

    And add the fact that his mouthpiece Bill Bradley (lost the nomination in 2000) on the News Hour THREATENED super delegates that if they don’t vote for Obama, his organization will challenge them in primaries in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, etc..

    Why does Senator Obama start to feel like another Carter administration?

  • Wait…isn’t the standard Clinton line against caucuses that they exclude too many people to be democratic (in actuality, they’re just a measure of which campaign is better organized and enjoys more enthusiastic support, but that’s neither here nor there)? If so, what’s the rationale for only looking at closed primaries? Is the logic that closing people out of the voting process is only good insofar as it results in good outcomes for your preferred candidate?

    Now, of course, I know that’s the not the explicit logic…but I’d like to hear you make an affirmative case that accounts for both positions that doesn’t boil down to the self-serving bull I just mentioned above.

    BTW, to the extent caucuses “disenfranchise” anyone, it’d most likely be Obama supporters, who are more likely to take a vacation (socio-economically), be overseas (he won Dems abroad), or be young parents (has been winning the under-40 and under-50 votes for quite a bit now). In fact, it wasn’t but 2-3 months ago that Howard Wolfson was smirking that all of the energy for Obama was nice and all, but it was Hillary’s supporter profile in Iowa that was likely to come out and caucus, it was Hillary’s supporters who were the reliable voters, and it was Obama’s supporters who wouldn’t show up. Since when are young people a reliable voting bloc? And remember the whole “Obama needs a huge turn-out, because if only the regulars show up he won’t win” meme?

    Please. It’s insulting at this point.

  • I like Barrack and I really hope his plan isn’t going down or even near this road.

    What road are you talking about? Assuming that they have “their origins in race,” what would the implications of their use mean to you? I guess what I am asking is, what does having “origins in race” even mean exactly? That just seems very awkwardly phrased to me.

  • Am I off in thinking these terms, okey-doke, bamboozle, and hoodwink have their origins in race ? These are not every day terms and for some reason warning bells were going off when I read them.. I can’t find anything definitive out there, but I remember them playing with the meaning in the film ‘Bamboozled’ by Spike Lee.

    Anyone know for sure ??

    Oh please. Thanks for your “concern”. Do you think all the white working class folks in the certified wild American shrimp commercial are race-baiting too? Here’s the text to that:

    The fishermen featured in the ad say, “You’ve been bamboozled. Snooked. Hoodwinked. Suffice it to say, you’ve been somewhat misinformed. The shrimp that you’ve been eating don’t come from us. It’s pond-raised. Overseas …

    Josh Marshall at TPM has been using the word “bamboozled” with regularity for years. Is he secretly race-baiting?

    But I guess, some famous black guy said it in a movie once, and Obama is black too and saying it, so it must be racial.

    Ugh.

    You can watch the shrimp commercial here. All white. Oh my!

  • Crissa said: Did you have anything, I dunno, concrete to add?

    Yes. You’re one of the worst trolls I’ve ever seen.

  • Also, one last note: Obama’s spreadsheet estimates he’ll pick up 303 more pledged delegates. Thus far, they’ve underestimated how many delegates he’d pick up 7 times, and over-estimated how many he’d pick up…once. They’ve been right on the money the other 15 times.

    If he picks up that many pledged delegates, + those he already has, + super delegates he already has, that’s a grand total of ~1902 delegates. Chances are, that number will be smaller. There are also a bunch of “at large” delegates…assume Obama splits those (unlikely…he’ll probably win them), that’s another ~35. That means you’re looking at him most likely needing less than 100 more super delegates. An Edwards endorsement (and the 26 pledged delegates that comes with) makes that number even small…more like 60 or so. Tom Brokaw is saying that Obama already has 50 supers he hasn’t even rolled out yet…and he keeps picking up more and more of them. He got two more today.

    Basically, absent some enormous, earth shattering event that completely re-aligns the coalitions and causes supers to abandon Obama, yes, Obama has it won. The sooner you come to grips with this the better for us all. Because “it might turn out he’s a pedophile” or some such nonsense is not a valid reason to stay in this race

  • But I don’t understand. If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?

    When Obama said this, I couldn’t help laughing. The situation is ridiculous. Clinton slams Obama for being inexperienced, not capable of being commander-in-chief but says she’s willing to consider for him VP. Of course, she’s running behind Obama in delegates and votes, but that’s a minor consideration. I’ve already decided she’s evil, but I also wonder if she’s nuts, or if the people advising her are nuts.

  • Barrack Obama said:
    Hello all the sucker…I mean my supporters out there. I wanted to personally thank you for your votes and continual blind faith in my campaign that has no substance. I am happy you all have forgotten about my blatant ties with Revko and my campaign contributions from special interest even though I am against it. I will continue to run a campaign built on absolutely no substance and will fight for my dream of a communist regime here in America(I spit on that name). Thanks to you and Allah—I mean god.

    How old are you, 14?

  • I have to give Obama a great deal of credit, the man is a great speaker and a good candidate. However, this speech made was poor judgement in my opinion. What the Obama supporters do not realize is the democrats can not win unless a good portion of the Clinton supporters vote for Obama if and when he is the nominee(and vice versa). His best response was made in an interview when he said “It was too early to tell…I am not running for president not vice” and maybe mention that in his next speech. Instead he slams her down, which she probably deserve, to get a reaction from the crowd. Why? The man doesn’t need more applause, he needs to get off this back and forth and concentrate on what he does best, campaign on the real issues. All this does is make his camp appear no better than his camp and it makes Clinton supports despise Obama to the point they will vote for McCain come November.

    Sorry, but this was the worst move he has made.

  • Say, Lance, how much is the Clinton campaign paying you to troll this site? Not more than a dollar, I hope, based on the canned Bush-think you’ve offered so far. What’s the difference between HR Clinton and Bush? One hates Boxer, one likes briefs.

  • He’s not a likely vp candidate when he’s winning.

    I don’t know why you’re acting as if the suggestions that the Clinton camp are making that he should be vp are somehow “objective” and not simply part of a Clinton strategy to win, despite not being in the lead. To treat their suggestion as anything other than a new effort to bring Obama down is incorrect. And I don’t mean that as some kind of slander to Hillary — every thing that the Clinton camp says is meant to make sure that their camp wins. They’re not suggesting the vp thing just now out of some kind of beneficent feeling.

    I remember when Clark was just about to jump in the ring, and the Dean campaign began talking about him as vice president. It’s meant to be a smear. To make a candidate not look presidential. To make it seem as if the one person should be president, and the other person should not.

    Thanks for giving Obama’s response, but it doesn’t sound as if you have quite registered the politics of the move.

  • Michael.
    My inquiry was genuine. That is why I worded it so cautiously. For fucks sake, I can’t even ask a question without some clown acting like a jackass.

    The implication is glaringly obvious. Is Obama using race terms to imply that Hillary is trying to pull something over on the ‘dumb negros’. Now that I am home, and have access to uncensored internet, I would say without a doubt.

    I Googled Obama with each term, nothing but the present speech. He just picked those terms out of thin air. Ya, OK. It was a really stupid move.

    I have noticed that this is really getting traction by the Obama haters. I suspect these terms are going to haunt him for a while.

  • Yes, Hope is *so* boring.

    Let’s all just vote for Clinton so our country will continue to be run by the SAME TWO FAMILIES for yet another 4-8 years. Let’s see…4 of Bush #1, 8 of Clinton, 8 of tiny bush… Wow, only TWENTY DAMNED YEARS?! That’s hardly enough! Let’s make it a QUARTER OF A CENTURY!

    “Vote For Hillary – LACK of Change *You* CAN BELIEVE IN!”

  • ScottW and Scottw714, @ 50 & 66,

    According to my Oxford Concise, the origins of the word “bamboozle” go back to 17th century England (probably cant, they think). “Hoodwink” has its origins in hunting while using raptor birds (kestrels, peregrines, etc). Ie, it’s probably even earlier than “bamboozle” — Middle Ages, Renaissance at the latest — and associated with aristocracy and royalty (think Henry VIII). Hardly modern US “black culture”. “OK” and the subsequent “okey dokey” *is* an American term and, as such, much younger. But, still… invented by whites and used by them as much as by blacks.

    So, no; he is NOT “using race terms to imply that Hillary is trying to pull something over on the ‘dumb negros’ ” He’s simply using standard English in all its richness. Why is it that I, a foreigner, know your language better than you do?

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO @36:

    …What the hell at you talking about? I have two candidates in the ring still. I’m a Democrat. I really can’t lose here.

    You, on the other hand, aren’t. You lie, misrepresent, and then skedaddle when it gets too tough.

    Just here to throw mud.

  • Hey Greg @ 40

    Sorry, Obama won Delaware 9 delegates to 6 and he won Alabama 27 delegates to 25 delegates.

  • J. Hart said: “Say, Lance, how much is the Clinton campaign paying you to troll this site?”

    Admittedly I’ve been away a lot recently, but anyone whose posted here for a couple of years can inform you that I’m not a troll.

    And what exactly do you dispute of what I said.

    Nothing? Not surprising.

  • libra asked: “Why is it that I, a foreigner, know your language better than you do?”

    The inferiority of a Capitalist/Christian Public School/Private School system.

  • Hillary will do anything, say anything and sleep next to anyone to get elected. She’s still married to Bill. She’s a very intellegent woman who went off track years ago and the country needs to be rid of her. She is a successful train wreck. HRC can’t be trusted and God help us if she gets her hands on the White House. If you look at her and don’t see the evil you need to have your moral compass examined. I don’t know if Obama is the answer but he’s not her so I’m willing to give him my vote in PA.

  • related fake news

    SUB-ROSA NEWS

    MCCAIN REFUSES TO TAKE VP OFFER

    From his front porch in Sedona, Arizona, Senator McCain held a brief press conference to deny any interest in being the vice presidential candidate on a ticket headed by Senator Clinton. Showing traces of his well known hot temper, the Senator berated the Clintons for spreading rumors of such a bipartisan ticket. (off the record, he used the word “monster”)

    He disposed of the thought of any meeting with Senator Clinton, saying that any such meeting would be secret and ” how the ___ could a meeting be secret if I talked about it?”.

    The conference concluded with the Senator noting that he was already the candidate in first place and asking ” Can’t those _____ Democrat candidates ever find a worthy Democrat?”

    homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

  • Comments are closed.