Wednesday’s campaign round-up

January 30, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Hillary Clinton got a little help in California yesterday: “California Rep. Maxine Waters, a powerful member of the Congressional Black Caucus, announced in a conference call with reporters she has decided to back Clinton’s White House bid. Waters said Clinton ‘understands the daily challenges that people are facing and she will fight for them every day she is in the White House.'”

* Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina appears to be paying dividends: “Obama’s campaign has raised more than $4 million online over the past couple of days, said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe in a campaign memo released on Monday. ‘Our strong donor base provides us sustainability, allowing us to be financially competitive — if not superior — heading into the rest of February and March,’ he wrote in the memo. ‘In the last two and a half days, we have raised over $4 million online alone.'”

* Joe Lieberman told the AP yesterday that if John McCain asked him to be his running mate, he’d say, “Thanks, John, I’ve been there, I’ve done that. You can find much better.” He added, however, that he may attend the Republican convention if McCain wins the GOP nomination. “I’d probably be more welcome there,” he said.

* Former President Jimmy Carter has said he will not offer a formal endorsement in the Democratic primaries, but he had some kind words for Obama yesterday. “Obama’s campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family,” Carter told the Wall Street Journal. He added that Obama “will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government.”

* It looks like those waiting for Al Gore to make an endorsement will have to wait quite a bit longer: “An adviser said that Mr. Gore had long ago decided to lay low once the Democratic delegate selection contests began so as not to interfere in the race. Last night, a close adviser said ‘nothing has changed’ with regard to Mr. Gore’s decision to keep mum about an endorsement.”

* Obama picked up an endorsement in Arizona yesterday from Rep. Raul Grijalva (D), who had originally backed Edwards in May. In the statement explaining his switch to Obama, Grijalva said it “was not a repudiation of Senator Edwards, rather the understanding that Senator Barack Obama is the future.” The announcement was made before Edwards’ announced withdrawal.

* Ralph Nader is launching an exploratory website. This makes me unhappy.

* Yet another House Republican incumbent heads for the exit: “Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.) abruptly withdrew his name to run for re-election Tuesday, only minutes before the filing deadline, setting off a late scramble for a replacement…. Lewis chief of staff Daniel London went to the secretary of state’s office to withdraw his boss’ name – and file his own papers to run for the seat, according to state Board of Elections executive director Sarah Ball Johnson.”

* At 8 p.m. (eastern), the four remaining Republican candidates will gather at the Reagan Presidential Library for another debate, the last before the Feb. 5 primaries. The event is co-sponsored by CNN, the LAT, and the Politico.

I will vote for Nader – or Bloomberg – over Clinton.

  • Good thing we got rid of the weasely Gonzales as AG, so we could get a new weasly AG named Mukasey:

    “Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday he will refuse to publicly say whether the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is illegal, digging in against critics who want the Bush administration to define it as torture.”

    “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

    The letter does not elaborate on what the other circumstances are.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/29/mukasey-still-refuses-to-_n_83946.html

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. Some circumstances (which I will not say) could make illegal acts legal.

  • Who said Lieberman is totally out of touch with reality? He realizes the Republican convention would be nicer to him than the Democratic. On this, he is absolutely correct.

  • Following up on Doug’s comment — I won’t commit, but if Clinton is the nominee, I’ll definitely look at other options (including not voting at all if McCain is the other name on the ballot).

  • MoDo is one of those who confuse hate with wit. The adage for politicians is “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For pundits, it should be that the longer they write, the emptier their brains become.

  • There’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Hillary and McCain?

    That sounds familiar. Where have I hear that before?

  • Name calling is so adult. MoDo enjoys doing it for a living.

    I don’t always agree with RacerX but he/she has good arguments.

  • I appreciate Nader’s past work and his views, but he knows at this point that he would only be a spoiler. I think because of that, it negatively impacts his message even among those who might otherwise agree with him. If he was serious about making change, he would run for an office where he might have a shot, like a congressional seat (or some other office if he lives in DC). Build up some experience and credentials outside to complement the consumer activism and show he can actually get some things done as an elected official, then run for the big job.

  • I went to the Nader site and followed the link to contact them. I told him that I support his effort to get 1000 people together in each congressional district. BUT for the purpose of pushing back against incumbents who do not support a progressive agenda.

    I told him that I will not support his bid for another wasted Presidential run.

    To Doug above… Pretty sad on your part that you’d rather waste your vote on Nader to make a point, and risk having McCain in office. Just keep on ranting about how bad it is with the Bush administration. You’re naive if you think that by voting for Nader or Bloomberg, would change anything.

    Nader can use his influence to further his agenda much better by engaging the candidates instead of running for President. The same goes for Bloomberg.

    The point of this coming election is to put an end to Republican misdeeds, not to be idealistic and expect nothing less than perfection in the Democratic candidates. Living in America under a Democratic administration will be so much better than what we have lived through the last 7 years. Sure it won’t be perfect, but I’ll take that any day.

    Do I have issues with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards? You bet I do, but that is not making me throw my vote away for an idealist who has absolutely no chance to be elected.

  • He added, however, that he may attend the Republican convention if McCain wins the GOP nomination. “I’d probably be more welcome there,” he said.

    Nice to see Joe Lie’s not a compleat idiot. Don’t let the door hit your whiny ass on the way out, bozo.

    This latest Republican surrender means there are now twenty-three Republican congressmen who have “retired.” There has never been such a number of incumbents withdrawing in any election before in American history. We could take all 23 and have a veto-proof House. This is on top of the 9 Republican Senators who have retired, 7 of which are good Democratic pickups, and not counting the other 4 who have yet to retire who are on “the endangered species list.” A filibuster-proof Senate is possible.

    Of course, if we have to keep being distracted by the “shiny object” named Clinton, there’s a good chance that Freedom’s Watch might be able to spend their $250 million successfully to prevent both the filibuster-proof Senate and veto-proof House, even if they are still the minority. And if McCain beats Clinton as the polls show he could, we’d better hope we spent time on winning the important races.

  • Re: Dowd — has there been an editorial board more harmful to the Democrats than the NYT’s? Even take the WP’s abismal neo-con fantisists, and you can’t find a fabrication on the order of Dowd’s Gore wankery, or Rich’s Clinton hatred, or Kristof’s Broder-like concern for strong opinions by non-Republicans, or Friedman’s mainstreaming of Bush deification and his dumb war?

    Even Krugman, the best and only columnist in the US, after the death of Ivans, that doesn’t play according to the DC narrative.

    At least at the WSJ, you know it’s wankery. That wankery is useless without the “liberals” of the NYTs to give it flight.

  • Re #4 and #11– RacerX and jen flowers adroitly employ the tactics as Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. If they don’t want people to hear the an opinion different than their own…forget about the message, just kill the messenger (or his or her reputation).

    People can read Maureen Dowd’s editorials if they want, and decide for themselves what they think about her opinions…without any help from others.

  • Chris,

    This whole campaign has been riddled with perceived slights being blown out of proportion by the media and the ‘snub’ at the State of the Union is just one of many in that long list.

    Dowd is doing us all a disservice by wasting so much column space on a non-issue.

  • “Re: Dowd — has there been an editorial board more harmful to the Democrats than the NYT’s?”

    No. Not even a close contest.

  • MoDo:

    Their relations have been frosty and fraught ever since the young Chicago prince challenged Queen Hillary’s royal proclamation that it was her turn to rule. Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off. It bothered him, and he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary.

    It is easy to believe. I stopped liking Hillary during Barack’s keynote at the 2004 Dem convention.
    The camera settled on her in the balcony several times. The crowd was afire. She sat there cold and calculating.
    Could hardly be bothered to clap…
    Tried to feign ennui…
    Couldn’t be bothered to put on a smile.
    She was ugly.
    And that was the moment that sprung me clear of her forever.

    No, Maureen Dowd, as usual, is spot on:

    Hillary has gone from the halls of Wellesley to the Governor’s marbled mansion in Little Rock. She has gone from the Corporate of Board of Wallmart to the paneled interior of the White House. She is the epitome of privilege.
    And yes: she believes we all owe her a living in the White House.

    No thanks.
    And you can do more than count me out.
    You can count me actively against. Forever.

  • I hear ya doubtful. But the article wasn’t so much about the snub as it was about character. For me, in this primary, character isn’t a non-issue.

  • Tom Cleaver at 14: “We could take all 23 and have a veto-proof House.” and “A filibuster-proof Senate is possible.”

    True, but with the strategy Emanuel and Shumer have used to get Dem’s in Congress makes it unlikely that there will be rapid progressive change. Many of these people are quite conservative except for the Iraq war. Still, at least there wouldn’t be absurd filibusters like the one on minimum wage or the attempted one on extending PAA 30 days.

  • Lieberman “may attend the Republican convention if McCain wins the GOP nomination. “I’d probably be more welcome there,” he said.”

  • For me, in this primary, character isn’t a non-issue. -Chris

    On that point we are in total agreement.

  • OkieFromMuskogee #10,

    What’s the difference between McCain and Clinton? As far as I can tell, they’re both pro-war, pro-unfair trade, centrists who tack right or left (as applicable) to win their party’s nomination. For every course reversal McCain has made to appeal to the right, Clinton has reversed course to appeal to the left.

    I watch what they do, not what they say. Based on their votes and behavior, I’m not seeing much difference.

  • “I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that.”

    – Joe Loserman 2006

    Of course you’d be “more welcome” in the GOP, you lying backstabber!

    Well there you go, idiots of Connecticut. Look what you’ve done – you’ve created a Zell Miller clone.

  • @Danp

    However, it’s probably incredibly unrealistic to think progressive or left Dems would ever be elected in those seats. I’m from up-state New York, which means you better run as a down-to-Earth Moynihan Dem if you expect to be elected. However, I do think this calls into question the efficacy of running Hillary. Not only will she be instantly polarizing, but I can easily see her hurting the chances of moderate Dems in those districts.

    I fear that if Hillary wins it’ll be a narrow victory with no real mandate, combined with no real change in the balance of power in the House and Senate. In other words, a perfect opportunity for Republicans to spend the next four years holding Democrats hostage (especially since Hillary is likely to promise the moon in the general election).

  • I agree with Searcy, and with memekiller. Maureen Dowd is nothing more than a glorified gossip columnist whose contrived one-liners point only toward self-satisfaction. Her presence at the NYT serves as an insult to women, writers, and those who lean left on the political spectrum (and I am all three, so, count me as insulted!)

  • And, speaking of insults and embarrassments to swaths of the population . . . Joe Lieberman is such a shandas. His whiny, sanctimonious backstabbing serves as an insult to Jewish citizens (of which I am also one . . . so, count me insulted again!)

  • I find it interesting to read that some people don’t like Clinton because she: “has gone from the halls of Wellesley to the Governor’s marbled mansion in Little Rock. She has gone from the Corporate Board of Wall mart to the paneled interior of the White House. She is the epitome of privilege.”

    Don’t we have Bush who pretty much followed the same ‘epitome of privilege”?

    With one big exception: Bush pretty much screwed up every endeavor he was involved in, while in the private sector. He had to be bailed out to save face at every turn. Clinton on the other hand, has no such bad experiences, just a successful career. The only bad experiences in her life have been the hounding by the Republican party for being a woman and being the wife of Bill Clinton.

    It’s pretty sad that the country cut Bush a brake, because at least he was “one of us” as in used drugs, was an alcoholic, went AWOL, was a C-student, screwed up several business ventures, etc… It seems that a plurality of the population in America can relate to one of the above pitfalls.

    Because Hillary doesn’t have those kind of blemishes on her record there HAS to be something hidden, so hideous that we can’t possibly believe a word she says.

    Clinton isn’t my preferred candidate, but if she becomes the nominee, then I’ll certainly vote for her. Blemishes and all.

  • To anyone considering a spite vote against the eventual Democratic nominee, do your kids and the rest of us a favor: take a minute and imagine a Supreme Court with McCain appointed Justices.

  • I hear ya Bruno. I find it amazing that many, with very recent history smacking them square across the face, arse, and elsewhere, still believe that there would be no difference in a Clinton or GOP administration, or would Don Quixote their vote and risk the chance of a GOP administration come January 20, 2009. As CB says: “the mind reels.”

  • Clinton may have a sense of entitlement, but privilege? Ever hear of Al Gore? JFK? RFK? FDR?

  • He added, however, that he may attend the Republican convention if McCain wins the GOP nomination. “I’d probably be more welcome there,” he said.

    For once you are right Senator Lieberman. In my dreams the Dems win 61 seats in the Senate, including yours, in 2008. Then we kick you out of our caucus. HA!

  • “I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that.”

    If McCain is the GOP candidate, Joe might in fact be a visionary!

  • I totally agree with comments #30 and #32. If you like Roberts and Alito and think their support for an all-powerful Executive branch is good for the USA, then by all means don’t vote for the Dem nominee.

  • “If you like Roberts and Alito and think their support for an all-powerful Executive branch is good for the USA…”

    Or their support for corporate rights and profits uber alle. This is where a Dem who can appoint someone like a John Edwards makes all the difference in the world. Go ahead and dilute the Dem vote and risk a GOP presidency–when SCOTUS ensures that this country is completely under the thumb of corporate interests, you can at least fall back and play dumb and say ‘there is no real difference between the parties’ all the while knowing you have given to the corporate world everything which Ralph Nader warned of and railed against. A fine tragedy in the Shakespearean model if ever I saw one.

  • For those concerned about judicial nominations, read CB’s previous post:

    “McCain broke with his party on taxes, immigration, an anti-gay constitutional amendment, judicial nominations, environmental policy, and campaign-finance reform;”

    Still not seeing much difference between him and Senator Clinton…

  • exactly right Bubba. The current Supreme Court make up is shaky enough as it is. With Stevens on the verge of retiring, a GOP presidency would bring us one giant step closer to a return to the Gilded Age. And that thought overcomes any doubts I may have regarding Clinton or Obama.

  • Well, bubba, what I see happening is that the religious right will stay home rather than vote for McCain and the vehement anti-Clinton group would rather vote for Nader than vote for her. If it’s a McCain vs Clinton campaign, maybe they’ll cancel each other out.

  • Judy,

    Mr. Carpetbagger is referring to McCain’s involvement in the “Gang of 13” that ended the impasse in the Senate. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that McCain would nominate judges like Roberts and Alito; he said so himself. And there is no doubt in any sane person’s mind that Clinton would nominate people like Ginsburg or Stevens. If you think there’s not much difference between the two in this regard, then I really don’t know what to say other than you need to do a little more research.

  • Exactly Edo. As for you jen, if (when) McCain selects Huckabee as his VP, then what you ‘see happening’ will not happen. At all. And I have no doubt SCOTUS nominations are most important to them. Judy, you are either hysterically blind, or maybe just simply intentionally stupid. Go ahead and ask CB just what types of SCOTUS nominees he thinks McCain will provide versus those that Clinton would provide. I know what that answer will be. How did McCain vote on Alito and Roberts? Look it up.

  • will vote for Nader – or Bloomberg – over Clinton.

    If you’re stupid enough to believe this warmed over CW from the Gore/Bush campaign, we don’t want your vote.

  • “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that McCain would nominate judges like Roberts and Alito; he said so himself.”

    As I said…McCain is tacking to the right to get the nomination (hell, he’s not even sure he wants to server two terms). I don’t believe what he says to pander to the right anymore than I believe what Clinton says to pander to the left.

  • BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) — A town petition making President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest for crimes against the Constitution has triggered a barrage of criticism from people who say residents are “wackjobs” and “nuts.”

    In e-mail messages, voicemail messages and telephone calls, outraged people are calling the measure the equivalent of treason and vowing never to visit Vermont.

    “Has everyone up there been out in the cold too long?” said one.

    “I would like to know how I could get some water from your town,” said another. “It’s obvious that there is something special in it.”

    The petition — with more than 436 signatures, or at least the 5 percent of voters necessary to be considered — was submitted Thursday and the town Select Board voted 3-2 Friday to put it on the ballot. It goes to a town-wide vote March 4.

    It reads: “Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?”

    News of the measure made the rounds on the Internet, and soon people started calling and writing. The Brattleboro Area Chamber of Commerce got about 60 e-mails Monday, all of them negative, said Executive Director Jerry Goldberg.

    A day later, he said, “we had three or four calls in a row that were very positive. One even volunteered to help.”

    The petition has no legal standing, since the town attorney has no authority to write an indictment and the police have no authority to arrest Bush or Cheney if either visits Brattleboro.

    Anger at the Bush administration is hardly new in Vermont. The state Senate voted last year to support impeaching the president. Anti-war rallies are regular occurrences, and “Impeach Bush” bumper stickers are common.

    The petition prompted Brent Caflisch to go to his computer in Rosemount, Minn. “Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont,” he wrote.

    It went on to say terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor, “cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet.”

    Caflisch, who confirmed sending the e-mail, said Tuesday he did it out of disgust after reading about the measure on The Drudge Report.

    A few messages were positive (“Arrest Bush and Cheney? You go, Brattleboro!” wrote one man) but most were critical.

    “Be American, not a sniffeling liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President,” said another e-mail. “Vacation to VT CANCELLED!”

    The reaction caught town officials off guard, and left some workers on edge.

    “We have some concerns about safety,” said Town Clerk Annette Cappy. “After reading some of these e-mails, you can’t help it.”

    Acting Police Chief Eugene Wrinn said any threats would be taken seriously and possibly prosecuted. So far, no threats have been made, he said.

    “If someone is concerned for their safety, if there’s a threat of harm, we will look at that seriously,” he said.

    Resident Kurt Daims, who submitted the petition, said late Tuesday he was chagrined that the town and its employees were subject to ridicule.

    “I feel bad for people who are loyal to Bush who have lost a son or had one in the service and it’s hard for them to admit the utter waste of it, and that it was caused by this man in the White House,” he said.

  • Forgive me, but I don’t think it is petty of me to make my preference with my vote. Clinton has done underhanded and immoral things in this campaign. She has prayed on the ignorance of the electorate. Karl Rove has done the same things. Even if I agree with her on issues, I do not want someone like that in the White House any longer, and I will not vote for someone just because it is a “two-party system.”

    For the record, I would prefer Bloomberg because my vote has more of a chance of mattering.

  • While there has been a lot of talk of a Gore endorsement in the past week, I don’t think it will matter much, and certainly not as much as the Kennedy endorsement.

    If Gore did endorse he presumably would endorse Obama, but Gore attracts largely the same types of Democratic voters who already support Obama. The Kennedy endorsement is turning out to be the bigger one as it helps bring in voters from the portions of the Democratic Party where Clinton has been leading Obama.

    As for Nader, I don’t think he would be much of a factor if Obama gets the nomination. However should it turn out to be Clinton vs. McCain I could see a larger number (back to 2000 figures) voting for Nader. Obviously Nader has no chance to win a meaningful percentage of votes, but he can tip the balance in a close Clinton vs. McCain election.

  • I think at some point in time, if not in the near future, Bush and Cheney will be considered to be criminals if not war criminals. It is not un-American to renounce officials who laugh at our own laws. We don’t have to support a President just because he is our President. That goes against the spirit of the American revolution.

  • Toby,

    right. And let’s look at the vote totals:

    Thomas: 52 to 48. Hmmm…seems kinda close…in fact maybe the closest in modern times.

    Breyer: 89 to 7 (4 abstaining)…Hmmm…not so close…

    Ginsburg 96 to 3 (1 abstaining)…Hmmm….again not so close.

    So, what can we take from this. McCain will support consensus nominees who are universally regarded as well qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. And that McCain will also support a very controversial, far right-wing conservative candidate who was one of the least qualified people in modern times to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

    ’nuff said.

  • I believe that 90% of Obama supporter’s hatred against Hillary Clinton is the result of buying the crap put out by the Republican machine during her husband’s presidency … and perpetuated by Karl Rove and the like. I find that Hillary haters in the democratic party make the same baseless statements.

    Look at her life’s work and tell me where the evil lies.

  • Look at her life’s work and tell me where the evil lies.

    The “evil” lies in her being wrong more than right on major decisions. (Not technically evil, but why we oppose her).

    The “evil” lies in her career of ignoring principle for political expediency.

    The real evil was seen in the past couple of weeks as her campaign resorted to lies and race baiting.

    Before a couple of weeks ago I would have ranked her slightly ahead of McCain, but only slightly so. After seeing how dishonest she has been, at this point if I had to choose between the two I’d be more likely to vote for McCain over Clinton based upon character. More likely I’d stay home if it was a choice between the two or vote third party if there was an option I liked (which would not include Nader).

  • Judy –

    1) McCain is the only candidate in either party who is ok with being in Iraq for 100 years;

    2) McCain is stridently anti-choice; Clinton has a lifetime average rating by NARAL of over 90%

    3) McCain admits he doesn;t know much about economics; Clinton was the only one at the Las Vegas debate discussing sovereign wealth funds;

    4) McCain campaigns at places like Regent, Liberty, Bob Jones and Oral Roberts (after claiming to want nothing to do with them in 2000); Clinton has been on the board of Legal Aid (services for the poor) and Childrens Defense Fund

    And that is just the quick few off the top of my head. The differences between them are huge. Huge.

    And as beep52 stresses, the justices they would appoint would be vastly different on these and other issues.

    I can’t make anyone like Clinton, but it is just blindly biased or intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is no difference in a general election between voting for her or voting aginst her (for McCain or protest voting, which has the mathematical impact of voting for McCain)

  • Zeitgeist,

    Both Clinton and McCain are pro-war candidates. I don’t believe Clinton would get us out of Iraq a day sooner than McCain.

    Clinton is a nanny-state loving, self-professed government junkie. I’d rather have someone that doesn’t know a thing about economics than someone with her economic views.

    She definitely does win with regards to choice. I had a post a while back saying that was probably the one and only one reason I’d vote for Clinton if she was the nominee. Her unethical conduct in the past couple of weeks has worked to tip the balance in the other direction.

    I’m not saying there is no difference, but neither is better as the differences balance each other out. I’m sure you won’t agree, but it doesn’t do anything to write off those of us who view the election this way as blindly biased or intellectually dishonest. My view is reflected by many others, and is what Democrats must consider when looking at a general election and the votes of independents such as myself. As things stand now, Obama will get my vote, but Clinton will not. This may or may not change as the general election campaign goes on as it is certainly possible McCain, being a Republican, will make me mad enough at him to be willing to vote for Clinton.

  • Thanks for the sanity Zeitgeist. I really would have no problem if an Obama supporter said to me. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because her stand on economics, minnimum wage, social security, child wellfare issues … etc. is far from what I think. But instead, its that she’s underhanded and deceitful … I look at the big explosions about her and or Bill in the last month (except for the Jesse Jackson comment which was rediculous) and think … are you guys a bunch of whimps or what? What the hell are you going to do when you have some cut-throat Republican insulting your hero, when we are seeing interviews all over TV of drug dealers who knew Obama when and debates really turn nasty. Hillary is no doubt a tactical politician and politics, in case you haven’t noticed — is pretty full of passion. I honestly believe that Obama’s camp thinks everyone will play nice with him once he’s president. Get out of that illusion. We need a tactical politician in the White House who knows what he/she is doing. Having the very polarizing Ted Kennedy as your mentor isn’t going to help you be non-partisan either.

  • Marian,

    There’s a huge difference between being partisan, insulting, cut-throat and even polarizing versus being outright dishonest as the Clintons have been. Clinton has crossed the line to falling into the Nixon/Bush/Rove/Atwater class of politicians.

  • Wow, if so many Obama supporters are ready to bail and vote to the right if Clinton is the nominee…what does it say about the reason they support Obama?

  • uptown,

    It says that we see Obama as being a real and principled supporter of liberal causes while we do not see Clinton as being significantly better than the Republicans.

  • Marian and others,

    Others have said it before, and I’ll say it again. Like some of them, I’m a progressive first and a Democrat second…and honesty and integrity are progressive values.

    So when you tell me that Hillary is a “tactical politician”, and we’re “a bunch of whimps” and her being “underhanded and deceitful” is no reason not to vote against her…well…you do not persuade. Clinton’s “passion” and “tactics”, as you call them, have backfired. My husband and I are not so much voting for Obama in the primary on February 5th…more like we’re voting against Hillary.

    I’m a progressive first and a Democrat second, and if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I’m not sure what I’ll do in November. Voting for liars, cheaters and bullies (Hillary Clinton is all of those things) is not as easy for us as it seems to be for you.

    One last thing — you asked, “What the hell are you going to do…when we are seeing interviews all over TV of drug dealers who knew Obama?” The same thing we’re doing when we saw Hillary parade Bob Johnson around. Vote for Obama and against the other guy.

  • Apparently ‘progressive’ means ‘willing to turn my back on process’ and ‘able to withstand another eight years of republican looting’ to Julie et al.

    That’s the wimp. If you aren’t willing to go out and campaign for a third choice, and you’re just going to sit home after losing the primary?

    What good are you?

    Besides, Obama isn’t all that different than Clinton. At all. War? He’s made the same votes as she has – and missed any others that could be seen as different. Conservative? He’s the candidate talking about buddying up to Republicans – while you hold it against Clinton that she’s actually done it in the senate. Name? Clinton has been a Senator. For just as long as Obama.

    There are enough people out there to elect another Republican into office. Do you want to stand up and do something about it? Or stay here and whine that it’s not progressive enough?

  • War? He’s made the same votes as she has –

    That is one of the most dishonest Clinton talking points at all? The question of going to war was settled before Obama came to the Senate. The votes since there are totally irrelevant to that question.

    Whine that she’s not progressive enough? The problem is that on the issues I care about she is on the wrong side. It isn’t that she isn’t progressive enough but that she wants to go in the wrong direction. Under Clinton I primarily see further dishonesty in government, further abuse of executive power, another pro-war president, extension of the nanny state, overly intrusive government, and a lack of willingness to stand up for liberal principles.

  • extension of the nanny state

    1) The attacking of government plays into Republican memes about both tax and spend liberals and the government being the problem, not the solution; I fundamentally disagree with your relatively Republican framing of the role of government, and it might explain our different choices in candidates; but

    2) what votes/espoused campaign proposals do you see that distinguish Obama and Clinton on “nanny state” issues?

  • Crissa,

    Yes, I agree your implication is dishonest

    Zeitgeist,

    You give one strong argument against your candidate. When you have to rely in writing off something as a Republican meme you reveal you have no real arguments. A balance is needed between government and non-government action. To write off this consideration as a Republican meme verifies that you have no understanding of this. Unfortunately Clinton does not either.

  • Zeit, don’t bother, the troll won’t listen, and is too much invested in being a loser to actually note any policy differences between the Primary candidates or work to make an alternative in the general election.

  • Zeitgeist,

    Regarding comparison between Obama and Clinton on nanny state, a few differences which quickly come to mind is Obama’s opposition to mandates in his health care plan, the extreme intrusiveness of HillaryCare, Obama voting for and Clinton voting against a measure prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law, Clinton’s obsession with policing video games, Clinton’s greater support for the drug war and opposition to needle exchange programs which Obama supports, the Clintons support for anti-gay marriage amendments. I’m sure there are many more. There is a significant difference in the two with regards to their views of government over extension in people’s private lives.

    Crissa,

    So I don’t go along with you repeating dishonest Clinton talking points on Iraq and Iran and that makes me a troll? Strange that Steve chose me as one of the people to cover for him on this blog on his weekend off and he frequently links to my material. That’s hardly how one responds to a real troll. Of course you don’t really mean troll. To you a troll is someone who doesn’t blindly accept your distortions.

    So we have Crissa who writes off people who don’t accept her dishonest arguments as a troll and zeitgeist who mindless discounts anything which varies from the Clinton line as Republican talking points. Two great examples from the Clinton wing as to why this is one wing of the Democratic Party I have no use for.

  • Zeitgeist,

    While not technically nanny state there’s another difference which is related and especially important post-Bush. Clinton supports increased executive power and executive privilege, while Obama has been an advocate for reversing the power grabs under Bush.

    Obama’s experience as a professor of Constitutional law helps make him a much stronger choice on issues involving civil liberties and separation of church and state, while Clinton has often taken a very hostile attitude towards rights of the individual. Obama’s time at the University of Chicago was helpful in exposing him to a wider variety of ideas, so that unlike Clinton and her supporters he doesn’t restrict himself to a limited set of accepted ideas and automatically write off other ideas as Republican framing.

  • Here is where I stand at the moment. Obama is my first choice. On policy he and Clinton are not very far apart, but my gut tells me Obama is more honest and his exposure to Contitutional law is a HUGE plus in my mind. Add to that the idea that he can draw in large number of independents and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and the case for him looks even stronger.

    I don’t see Clinton winning a sizable victory against McCain. She might squeek out the win, but only after punishing brawl…nothing close to a mandate. Obama, on the other hand has the potential to cause a progressive tidal wave spreading over a decade or more.

    I have said this before, I find Clinton’s blatent divisive race bating tactics and misleading statements reprehensible, but come general election time if it comes down to Clinton or a Republican, I will vote for Clinton. The prospect of nominating several supreme court justices is just too important to give to the Republicans.

  • Crissa wrote, “That’s the wimp…What good are you? Do you want to…stay here and whine…”

    As I wrote, in my previous post. Voting for dishonest bullies would not be easy for me (if Hillary were to get the nod by the Dems). Crissa should also have noticed from my post that I’m not pursuaded by bullies either. If I was easily influenced by silly rhetoric such as that coming the likes of Marian and Crissa, then I’d be visiting Republican blogs instead.

  • The Clinton supporters never give a good reason to support their candidate. Bring up the dishonesty and they will either 1) deny it, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, or 2) claim it is a good thing to win and call those who oppose such dishonest wimps. Neither of these arguments are convincing to those of us who are concerned about Clinton’s disregard for the truth and fear that this will extend to how she governs.

    They downplay all the policy differences between Clinton and Obama. If there is really no difference between them we might as well all go with Obama since he receives more support from independents and doesn’t have the problems with dishonesty that Clinton has. When we do argue there are differences they write it off as Republican talking points (just as they sometimes try to write off the criticism of dishonesty as Republican talking points).

    One major difference is that Obama’s views transcend the narrow confines of the left right spectrum. With Clinton we have all the same arguments between Democrats and Republicans which we have had for the last generation. Obama provides an opportunity go finally move beyond these narrow frames–which is why so many independents find him appealing but will never vote for Clinton.

    • Comments are closed.