The Hot Blog

From the director of THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING!

Really?

That IS creepy!

Personally, I wouldn't really have a problem with DP's enthusiasm for Obama if he didn't insist on being relentlessly, recklessly, severely, arrogantly, destuctively, desperately melodramatic (in the worst way). I guess its a nod to the "theatrical" bent of this blog.

Mystery P., everything is relative, and DP's enthusiasm is very restrained compared to that of certain others online.

Does this mean Hillary is now going to re-edit Obama's speeches?

DP's enthusiasm is what it is. Comparing it to other online hysteria is irrelvant. I think it is possible to be passionate about something and remain objective. If the passion is justified, it doesn't need to be embelished.

I don't disagree with that, and like most bloggers, when he gets his teeth into something, he can't let it go. I just wanted to point out that your earlier post was a little hyperbolic.

So now that you are throwing shit, mystery... where is my hype and theatricality? What melodrama is there?

Or is it just that you disagree?

Everytime someone wants to diagree with me but has nothing constructive to add in doing so, it seems to become about me. And I'm not even speaking to some of the personal stuff that comes out of having a history with a few people who get harshly critical of me.

I would love to be able to take your complaints seriously, but no matter I actually say, you just tell me/us how terrible I am being... but you don't make your case. That's a smear, not a discussion.

Actually, Jeremy, that director is on the video image from "The Path To 9/11," which he directed.

The director of this "movie" is the same right winger who did "Fahrenhype 9/11."

More fun with Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c

Ironically, I chose not to link to that or to any of the many stories in the HuffPo attacking Clinton. That is not my intent.

Of course, some things are self-evident.

Haven't many of the big-hitters already come out for Obama? Kennedy endorsed Obama. The way Pelosi was talking about expecting the superdelegates to vote for whoever is the lead in delegates made it sound like she's pulling for Obama. Of course Hollywood has already gone Obama. Who exactly is left, other than maybe Edwards, Gore and Bill Clinton?

As for Obama looking like the bad guy, I doubt that him saying no to her as a VP would really make him look like a bad guy to Hillary supporters (any worse than the condescending way he treated her in that one debate a while back or the whole "monster" flap). I think if the public knew how opposed and threatening he and his camp have been about revotes (not seating the banned delegates, but against mail-in ballots or revoting in a fair election) in Florida and Michigan, he'd be viewed a little worse by the fiathful.

As for getting coronated as the new Kennedy, that seems a little premature. He has to win a national election, otherwise, sadly, he's just another Kerry or Gore.

My biggest concern is that this harsh primary will damage the Democratic party. Not only will it look like the Dems can't make up their mind, but it also seems to divide the party. Hillary seems to enjoy repeating that "we'll all be there together at the end," but I don't think we will be if she keeps forgetting that Obama isn't a Muslim or her husband accuses him of being a Jesse Jackson dopelganger again.

If Hillary somehow winds up with the nomination (which won't happen), there is no way Obama's supporters would vote for the woman. They would just stay home.

"If Hillary somehow winds up with the nomination (which won't happen) . . ." Er, either it will somehow happen, or it won't. But not if it happens it won't.

I think Obama is better served not being the new Kennedy. That narrative is being pushed by the old guard, whereas one of the groups his appeal is strongest with is those who have never seen a Kennedy of national significance in their lifetimes. Obama is about the future. Camelot is the past, and he should not even pretend to revive it.

Blackcloud, I was talking hypothetically (and then parenthetically I spoke about the reality) about what would happen if she did win. I was merely saying that even if she wins the nomination, she wouldn't win the election. Why nominate somebody who isn't electable?

Okay, that wasn't clear that you think Hillary would lose if Obama's supporters refused to vote for her. You implied it, but I missed it.

The problem with nominating someone who's "unelectable" is that you don't know that they are until they aren't elected. Which is exactly the dilemma that Hillary's camp is trying to raise in the minds of the uncommitted superdelegates. I believe that is what the internet geeks like to call FUD.

I admit I couldn't take much of that beyond a few minutes...but if the rest leans as heavily on Ann Coulter and Dick Morris as talking heads, I can't imagine it'll change many minds.

After all, didn't Coulter also say she'd campaign for Hillary if McCain were the Republican nominee?

I'll vote for either Clinton or Obama, I would rather vote for Obama, but the supreme court issue is too significant to hand to McCain.

Obama's supporters have done an absolutely horrifically bad job of representing themselves and the candidate online, and it's squandered a lot of goodwill from Clinton supporters. the recent development that clinton supporters would vote for mccain is a response to the longstanding whisper campaign that obama supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton but Clinton supporters would vote for Obama (probably because a lot of Obama supporters are mix of philosophies while Clinton supporters tend to be more long term democrats that are socially and fiscally liberal (also the youth element but they've almost never been a factor in elections when it's time to actually vote)). It's really the only logical response to the whisper campaign and why I've thought the tactic was a bad idea to begin with.

Unfortunatley we've gotten to the point where the democratic party superdelegates will have a choice, lose the black vote this election and choose Clinton and party loyalty, or lose the faith of the party loyalists (and potentially some of the women vote) who have been waiting for this candidacy for eight years (or more). The choice is clear, the democratic party can't win a presidency ever again without the black vote, and while black voters will likely only disenfranchise themselves for just this presidential election cycle, not picking Obama will result in a chilling effect in black turnout. A carpetbagger sentiment will develop against democratic get out the vote machines, especially for white candidates and the democrats will bleed percentages of the black vote to republicans for years to come (and republicans are already making inroads in the black voting bloc by pointing to their socially conservative non-christian-hating platform and trying to twist history to show that democrats' policy is designed to keep them in their place and voting without thought for only one party (all while laughing at blacks for being so backward as to still be religious in an age of enlightened college graduates with humanities degrees)).

So why doesn't Clinton have to make a speech on sexism and deliver a history lesson on the complex sexual politics of America? because one side isn't playing dirty politics and stirring up subconscious fears and prejudices against her.

The thing we need to really look at for the general is coattails. Clinton's strategy for winning the election is winning all the states Kerry won (but Kerry lost the general) which means she will be of little help to democratic candidates running for HoR and Senate seats in the general. This year there are an unprecedented amount of republican senators and reps retiring which makes for an awesome coattails oppurtunity. If the presidential candidate is popular and campaigns in their state for them (and vice versa), a campaign that only focuses only on adding Ohio to a roster of blue states is much less likely to have the same coattails effects. Obama's rhetoric of "not a nation of red states and blue states but a United States of America" is much more constructive and plays incredibly well in middle america (where I'm from). It plays a heck of a lot better than "I won the states that are important". I think Obama's coattails have a lot more potential than Clinton's coattails, I think there's a lot of oppurtunity in this election and that either will run a historic administration if they're lucky enough to win the general.

but right now it just looks like democrats are doing everything they possibly can to shoot themselves in the foot. an unpopular war, an unpopular president an unpopular party and democrats can't capitalize on it.

I seriously hope that Clinton drops out by the end of April or midmay at the latest. there needs to be time for things to cool down before the convention, and time for things to cool down before the general election and the time between the convention and the election is not enough for democrats to cool down enough and still pull out a win.

btw, IOIOIO is clearly a Clinton supporter, I've never seen someone more callously trying to destroy support for a candidate than IOIOIO's posts have attempted to destroy other posters support for Obama.

I go back and forth whether to support Obama or Clinton. There have been a number of comments about Clinton's (possible) innability to win a gnereal election, which are valid concerns, so I won't go into them again. Frankly, I think it's more likely Obama can't win the general.

It's nice that he's taking the Wyoming primaries and all that, but there is no way he's going to take them in an election against a Republican. It also doesn't matter that Hillary won California and New York - those are going Democrat, either way. So, what's really of concern to me is if Obama can't connect to the blue-collar voters in the battleground states (or purple states) like Ohio and Pensylvania enough to even win the primaries, (and if the real sentiment in Florida and Michigan is anywhere close to what the fake primaries there looked like), he can't possibly win the battleground states that would ensure an electoral college victory. It's nice that he might win the popular vote, but against McCain's ability to connect to blue-collar guys, I really see Obama going down in flames the way Gore and Kerry have before him.

And say what you want about Clinton, I really think that if she were to somehow scrape the nomination together, she'd be a much stronger candidate in those states (as evidenced by her primary wins).

DP said "where is my hype and theatricality?"

The words I used to describe your enthusiasm are the exact words you used to describe the political attacks on Obama. The descriptions are over-the-top, in both instances. The vibe I'm getting is that the intensity of these attacks are unexpected and unprecedented. I disagree.

And in the characterization of your enthusiasm, I didn't even mention your seemingly sincere use of religious terms to describe your connection to Obama. I think you at least partially sense how all of this is coming across, but if so, then why so surprised that someone (me, in this instance) balks at it? Taken in total, its just too much, imo.

jeffmcm said "I just wanted to point out that your earlier post was a little hyperbolic."

Absolutely. More than a little hyperbolic. But it was intentional, as I described in my previous post.

Mystery: got it, sorry.
Obama doesn't need Michigan and Florida because he can compensate with states like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. Either of them can win, but in different electoral ways. Remember that Gore and Kerry won the Florida and Ohio primaries too and that didn't really help them much.

Jeff, living in Virginia (and being one of the few thousand votes to push Webb into the Senate, pushing the Senate to the Dems), I can tell you it isn't as purple as it seems to outside observers.

And you sort of proved my point, both Gore and Kerry at least won those primaries, Obama can't do that. That's my worry.

Colorado and Nevada maybe, but I think Virginia's potential as a "blue" pickup is highly overrated. I'll believe it when I see it. I don't expect that to be 2008.

Obama doesn't need to win a primary to win a state in the general election. He lost Rhode Island to Hillary; it's highly unlikely McCain will win that state. Likewise, she won Arizona, which will clearly be in McCain's column.

None of it is unexpected and unprecedented. That's the problem, BC. Because they are disgusting and reckless.

And yes, I am equally concerned to see the Obama camp getting down and dirty now. They must feel they have no choice. Two weeks of attacks, supported by Clinton, hurt. The fact that he is moving back up the polls so quickly is kinda shocking, really. But that tells you why he is The One.

Clinton remains the one who offers up redacted records of her schedule, forced by a lawsuit from non-Obama forces, then calls on Obama to be "as transparent" when he is already more so. And still, no tax returns for the SEVN OF THE YEARS that her husband's been out of office. Not just this last year, waiting on April 15. But all these last years of gravy training post-presidential life... which every president does... and every president should be embarrassed by.

And riddle me this... why is anyone buying this utter bullshit about winning a state in a primary having any effect on winning it in the general election? Kerry and Gore and Dukakis won all of those "key" states in the primaries.

The fact remains that Al Gore didn't need to win Florida to beat Bush. Had he won Arkansas, he would have won. (please hold the "but he did win" stuff... not the point)

"And riddle me this... why is anyone buying this utter bullshit about winning a state in a primary having any effect on winning it in the general election?"

I don't buy it wholehog. But there's a flipside to what you're saying - Obama's campaign constantly points to the number of states they've won so far in the primaries. Fact of the matter is though, Obama winning the primary in a red state like Wyoming and others like it is meaningless.

And "The One"? I know that was a poke at those who accuse Obama supporters of mania, but despite your intentions, I find it telling. Obama supporters do worship this guy and look at him almost as a Jesus figure. It follows then that whoever opposes or competes with Jesus must be the devil, right? That's the mindset I see all over town, and it's lame. It's lame because it stands more on faith and gut instinct than reason and argument. Just remember what that got us last time...

Maybe because it isn't utter bullshit; it's the reality of presidential politics. A hundred thousand votes in Ohio in 2004, and we're having a very different conversation. A few hundred in Florida in 2000, and the same deal. Battleground states are the only states that matter. Sure, Arkansas could have worked, but he didn't win that one either. There are a bunch of states that could add up to be wins, and every campaign is about marshalling resources toward a strategy to get the states you need to win.

The point I'm trying to make is not that winning primaries equals winning states in the general (in fact, if you look at my first post about it, I was quite clear on it), it's that coming in second in the primaries in states that are so closely divided, and so necessary to win, is a really bad sign for Obama. If you don't want to talk about it, fine. But, if you want to call it bullshit, and would rather write about "The One," then I really think we've gotten a long way off from holding a rational conversation.

"The fact remains that Al Gore didn't need to win Florida to beat Bush. Had he won Arkansas, he would have won."

Forget Arkansas. He couldn't win Tennessee, his home state. That's far more damning than losing any of the other states.

I don't think anyone buys the "winning in a primary = winning in the general" argument. Hence the skepticism about Obama's prospects in red states like Wyoming and Texas and Virginia. And McCain's in blue states like CA and NJ.

I take it back. Some people do believe that canard. More ammo for ya, David.

Me, what you're ignoring is that the dynamics of an Obama/Clinton election are very different from the dynamics and demographics of a McCain/whoever race. To continue the logic, how can McCain win in the South this year since so many of those primaries went to Huckabee?

Also, realistically, Gore's 'home state' was Washington D.C.

Jeff, a number of those states are naturally red states, and would go to whichever Republican is in the general election. It's the same as California and Massachusetts in the general are going to go to whichever Democrat is up. It makes no difference to me that Hillary won those in the primaries, as they're going to vote Obama in the general.

But we're not talking about states that are gimmes for one party or the other. Florida could just as easily go Democrat or Republican. Same with Ohio. The margin of error in both states is razor thin. Yet, some collection of these battleground states are needed for either party to add up to 270 electoral votes.

While I think Obama deserves the nomination on the basis of his victories, as a Democrat whose only concern is a win, I have to say that the notion of putting up the guy who performed worse in those battleground states is troubling.

I'm sorry that argument dovetails with the Clinton campaign's argument, but to throw it out as nothing more than bullshit strikes me as politically naive.

I didn't say it was bullshit, but you're still not looking at this logically. Yes, Hillary might outperform Obama in a primary, but that's when they're competing for only a single type of voter (registered Democrats). Stick McCain and all of the other voters into the equation and it's a completely different ball of wax.

Jeff, the BS comment was directed at Dave.

I am looking at it logically. Many of these states weren't sorely Democrats - Ohio and many other of the states Hillary won were open to independent voters. Beyond those primary numbers, we don't have a lot of data to suggest how voters in these states are going to vote. (I saw four recent polls in Ohio: two showed only Clinton being able to beat McCain, one showed both Democrats being able to beat McCain, and one showed McCain being able to beat both Democrats.)

You're absolutely correct to say the dynamic might change during the election versus primary. But will it change enough in the place where the Democrats might need as few as a thousand votes to sway the entire national election?

That gives me pause.

Hey, I want whichever of the candidates who can win to get the nomination too. I simply am of the opinion that Obama is more likely to be that person, for a variety of reasons.
Also don't forget that we don't know how he would do in Florida since he honored his pledge to not campaign there.

Jeff, I hope Obama is the guy, too. But I still think there are positives and negatives about both candidates - and this is one of my real worries about Obama getting the nomination.

You're right about Florida and Michigan, and Clinton's attempt to get those delegates seated is sickeningly blatantly self-serving.

Any Democrat who chooses to not vote or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nom, is not a Democrat. Simple. They're petulant narcissists with floating principles and they'll get exactly the country they deserve. McCain is sitting back laughing at Obama and Clinton and many of y'all. Just sayin.

Yep, those Dems are just like Bill Richardson, that Judas.

I like Richardson fine, especially his anti-drug war approach. But I don't get that if New Mexico voted for Clinton and Richardson comes out for Obama, isn't that some kind of rebuttal to the actual voters? Isn't it the argument the Koswhacks are making that Clinton is thwarting the "will of the people" by staying in the race?

Anyway, I'd vote for a log to get rid of the GOP.

i'm an independent voter that leans to the right. i don't think that's news here.

the only thing i know for sure about the upcoming election is that i will not vote for hillary. i am undecided between mccain and obama and i intend to stay that way for some time. the campaign trail is taking years now and i don't care who you are, no one can stand up to years of scrutiny.

i'm not a fan of christian's position on not voting the democratic ticket across the board means you are not a true democrat. i prefer to choose who i think is the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. but the position is not a new one to me. have quite a few friends that think that way (and mostly on the democratic side, although i do live in a blue state so that might explain it).

The vote margin in NM was so pubic hair thin that I think he has some leeway which way he wants to go. It's not like his state stood overwhelmingly one way or the other.

On principle, yeah, I guess it is a subversion. But NM would be one of those grey areas for me. The results weren't even called for, what, a month?

Christian's attitude seems to me the same as the one informing the view that Obama's not a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin. Christian's is somewhat more plausible, I think, but still misguided. As for the flag pin, anyone can wear a pin. That's easy. Then what?

The Republicans are still just praying to get Hillary nominated. She is doing as much as they ever could against Obama and if she were to get in, the stuff they have in reserve against her, which is fresh since Obama hasn't played that, is the kind of stuff that would be confirmed for the middle voters - who will decide this election - by her behavior in the primaries.

And they haven't even see her tax returns!

Richardson isn't bound by any party rules to support Clinton. Ultimately it seems like it would be a bad idea for the superdelegates to overwhelmingly support a candidate that had the majority of the popular vote/pledged delegates, which is the real risk for the convention.

I wouldn't wear a pin either. I'm actually the last guy to preach party loyalty, as I voted for Ron Paul back in 88. But it seems like the same people who damned Nader voters are the ones who now have a purity test. I can't stand HRC. I'd just as soon see Obama win.

But this election is too fucking important to sit out or vote the GOP in again. They must be stopped to put the brakes on and to send a message. I don't expect the Dems to be much better, but maybe they won't screw the populace and world in the way in which we've become accustomed.

Eisner destroyed his own reputation--didn't anyone else go to Disney World during his reign? Decrepit, litter-strewn, and..."The Enchanted Tiki Room--Under New Management"?!?

Time for the villagers to break out the torches.

Obama should wear a Mickey Mouse lapel pin, so when anyone asks why, he can reply, "Because this is a Mickey Mouse issue. The End."

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: