The Hot Blog

"But what I would say that the problem was not that these were hard questions that voters desperately wanted answers to… they were rehashing of the same side issues that have been chewed over for hour after hour after hour on all the political channels…"

It's still a maxim in this country that people don't start paying attention to the election until after Labor Day, so if you think it's bad now, just wait until McCain and Obama/Clinton are in the presidential debates come October. All this will get regurgitated time and again. And, of course, it's a mistake to equate the cable news channels with the political discourse in this country.

Maxims, they are a' changin'...

And might I say, more substantively, that fighting with John McCain will be a fight with a lor more true conflicts of philosophy. Of course there will be "bitter" battles, but the fight can be raised to real issues because there is a fight in those to fight.

Here we have two candidates who are very close on policy... one of whom has lost a race she expected to win and now she is just grinding and grinding and grinding with all she has, which is the petty stuff.

She doesn't want to lose. She's a fighter. I get it. But this is not a guy with no chance hanging on until McCain gets his magic number. This is nothing but destruction, destruction, destruction in a fight that is already, with an impossibly narrow window, over. It's not the same.

"Maxims, they are a' changin'..."

We'll find out, that's for sure.

People may not seriously 'pay attention' to the race until Labor Day, but the battle is being waged to establish voter impressions, branding, and narratives

What do you think the purpose of the superdelegates is? It sounds like you kinda sorta wish they didn't exist. They do, and are empowered to act on their independent judgment, even in ways that are (gasp!) contrary to yours.

If you saw Georgie boy's interview with McCain this morning, you saw the the high level of campaigning we'll see this October. He was constantly harping on Barack's flimsy relationship with Ayers, while brushing aside his own relationship with Hagee. This election is gonna be so dirty, we can't even imagine the depths it will sink to right now.

"Why are Obama supporters so angry lately? Because there is no rational argument for the behavior of The Clintons since they fell too far behind to be able to win by any means other than the Superdelegates reversing the vote."

Now let's add Odd's response:

"What do you think the purpose of the superdelegates is? It sounds like you kinda sorta wish they didn't exist. They do, and are empowered to act on their independent judgment, even in ways that are (gasp!) contrary to yours."

Do you get it now Ducky? Do you get why we are angry? I mean the ROYAL WE of Obama supporters because SHE HAS LOST. She can win Tuesday, but it's over in May.

It's over, he's the guy, and McCain is screwed. He can insult Obama all day, and Obama will kill him with faint praise. The old vet at least has a good idea for a campaign, that I will commend on. Yet, really, we got a guy. He's the guy because he inspires people that long to be inspired.

So please understand that the superdelegates are not going to do a damn thing to change the inevitable outcome of this primary. It's over, she lost, and now she has to be the other LOSER from the Clinton LEGACY. It's not much of a legacy. If you only care about yourself.

^ IO doing his best Chicago Tribune impression.

Of course I am doing my best impersonation of my best Eric Dickinson... hold up. Of course course I am doing my best Trib impersonation. I am a freakin CUBS FAN! THOSE BASTARDS ARE HOCKING ME IN CHINICK! THE RAT BASTARDS! Fukudome was a good move. Thanks TRIB... YOU ROCK... AS HARD AS A BUNCH OF "SORRY NO GOOD BASTARDS" CAN ROCK.

You want to know where the anger comes from? Be a Cubs fan, then you will know.

Awwwww, mannnnnnn. I came here to get away from all of the Wells et.al psuedo-political postings to actually talk about film. Please don't narrow down my choices to AICN or make my limited internet know-how create my own website.

Well, Crap... haven't seen you posting on the vast majority of postings that are about movies and not politics.

OddDuck... the funny thing is that if the situation were reversed, I'd be saying the same thing about Obama being done... even if I preferred him. The reason I have gotten behind Obama is that I actually think that my preferred party, The Democrats, can win with him as the candidate... and not with Clinton. At first, I thought both would lose.

But what you did is what continues to be the bad nature of all this. I give you stats out the ass... and you make it personal. Why? Because it is the only answer left if you (or anyone else) want(s) to argue Obama out of the nomination.

Uh-oh, quotas.

I didn't intend to make it personal Mr. Poland, just like throwing an elbow now and then, sorry. But I find so many of the Obama supporters, well, almost disingenuous in their complete ignorance of the reality of the superdelegates. Neither Clinton nor Obama has enough votes to win without superdelegates. You can't dispute that. At the same time, I understand the role of the superdelegtaes in a Hillary win would look far "uglier" than their use in an Obama win, and for that reason I am somewhate ambivalent on whether she should stay in the race. Ambivalence and some concern I can understand, but given the rules of the game as set up by the DNC re superdelegates, I find all this outrage to be rather specious.

I won't even bother engaging with IOIOIOI. To see why, look here: http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/03/bitch_vs_black.html#comments

Quick clarification - by ignorance I didn't mean a failure to understand, but really a convenient omission in their discussion. The real argument here is over the proper role of the superdelegates. Are they truly intended to merely follow the will of the voters, or to exercise their own independent judgment. If it is the latter, and Obama can't win without them, then on a purely tactical level how can one say Hillary has already lost?

the argument is about technical reality over practical reality. Yes, technically, clinton can still win the primary. But she will almost certainly lose the general by splitting the party in November.
This might have been survivable in a year where Rudy or Mitt or Hukabee 's was running, but with Mccain (by republican standards, he's a moderate and will get plenty of cross over vote), it's death.

I think the fears of splitting the party are overblown. It's pretty clear that either candidate will be actively campaigning for the other in the general election.

I concede that the chances of Clinton winning the primary are slim, very slim. But if she does, I predict it will only be in an environment where such a result reflects to some degree the current state of the party, as embodied in ALL the leading indicators at the time (including but not limited to electoral count, popular vote, current polling).

If she wins that way the party will quickly come together, and with Obama's support she has just as good a chance at winning the general as he does. I honestly don't know who presents the better chance of winning the general - both have different strengths.

A couple things:

*As far as I know, Obama had never been asked about Ayers. Obama himself must have known the association was problematic-- he had answer ready. It was a fair question.

*Its also interesting how you characterize the super-delegates. You've repeatedly proclaimed that Obama won Texas, despite losing the popular vote in that state. So do you like small groups with an inordinate amount of sway deciding results, or not?

*DP, if I remember correctly, you freely concede that Bush won the 2000 election over Gore. Is that correct? I recently heard that Obama thinks Gore won.

Two things:

1) Hillary is waiting for Obama to have a Howard Dean moment, a "yeargh." You can argue whether that moment will arrive or not (I certainly don't know), but as long as it's a possibility, she'll stay in.

2) Because this is it for Hillary. No second bite of the apple. If she doesn't become the candidate now, she never will. I don't know many people who would cede that dream while a possibility of acheiving it still remains. Selfless is not the first word I think of when I think of either Clinton.

"Selfless is not the first word I think of when I think of either Clinton."

No, it's the sound-alike that ends with "-ish" that one thinks of first.

Mystery -

1. Obama has spoken to the Ayers issue repeatedly. So no, it was nothing new. And his response was completely right.

Do you agree that if GS brought up a passing social relationship to Obama that he should have also brought up the pardons of actual imprisoned Weather Underground members by Bill Clinton to Mrs Clinton?

2. What I like is The Rules. If the rule is that you have caucuses, you count them. If the rule is that you don't you don't. It's that simple.

Same with Florida and Michigan. I think Florida has a better case for a revote than Michigan, where it was a 100% Democrat choice to go against the party. But as with the Gore/Bush situation in Florida, if Gore, et al, had called for a statewide recount from Day One, I would have been 100% supportive. But the cherrypicking of counties they felt they had votes coming to them in is what made the effort suspect.

If you want to argue fairness, there are real boundaries. Barack Obama didn't invent caucuses or force states to use them.

You could also argue that winner-take-all for delegates is a better system. But it is not the system they are running within.

3. I'm sure Hillary feels the same way Obama does about Florida. I disagree. Why does this matter in the least?

Hey David,

Superdelegates being able to do what they want - including acting in opposition to pledged delegate counts or popular vote totals - that's part of the rules too, isn't it? You never talk about that, except to say that if they don't vote for Obama it'd be an abuse. Hmmm...

What's that I hear? I hear... MCWEENEY STYLE!

"Two things:

1) Hillary is waiting for Obama to have a Howard Dean moment, a 'yeargh.' You can argue whether that moment will arrive or not (I certainly don't know), but as long as it's a possibility, she'll stay in."

This is a moronic reason for anyone to stay in a race that they have lost. Obama has more composure in one finger, then Dean has in his entire body. Hillary is more prone to freaking out, then Obama ever will be. If her internals are right. She still does not have a big enough gap to move any numbers in the delegate hunt. Go read or watch Chuck Todd from MSNBC discuss this freakin primary. Obama will get the big cities. While Hillary will get the same chicken-hawks who are scared of the man with the thoughts that are too big for their lives right now. She has lost and she's broke. Thank goodness this is over in May.

"2) Because this is it for Hillary. No second bite of the apple. If she doesn't become the candidate now, she never will. I don't know many people who would cede that dream while a possibility of acheiving it still remains. Selfless is not the first word I think of when I think of either Clinton."

Hillary never had a chance because her campaign sabataged her from the beginning. She's under a delusion that the party believes in her and her hair-brain theories then the guy who has inspired millions of Americans. It would be great if Hillary could have a moment of Selflessness tomorrow night. Too bad Hillary refuses to get a handle on her life.

Yes, OddDuck... those are the rules.

In fact, pledged delegates can go against their pledge by the rules too.

I have never said they can't. I have just said that it would tear apart the Democratic Party.

Again... you want to tell me what I think, but you don't seem to get what I think at all.

Clinton is done because there is no way that the Dems are going to overturn the vote, not because there is no way she can win by the rules.

Odd: did you really post that? How could superdelegates turn on the delegates of the party that clearly do not want Hillary? Really? Come on, man. Come on.

[Patiently ignoring IOIOIOIOI…..]
David, I’m not trying to tell you what to think (at least not consciously). All I’m saying is that in the unlikely event that Hillary wins huge in PA, then does impressively well in most of the remaining contests, we might possibly see the kind of circumstances that would enable the superdelegates to reasonably conclude she is the candidate with the better chance in November. I flat out don’t believe that such a victory would tear the party apart. Many of you feel differently.

And since I realize Obama is probably gonna be the nominee, let me just say that I really fdeel that none of Clinton's negative campaigning (which I honestly think has been overblown by Obama and much of the media) will have done any lasting damage, and quite possibly will help strengthen Obama for the general election - the sooner you deal with the negative stuff, the better, and it's not like McCain would have said "ah, it's unfair to bring up Wright".

What is a huge win in PA, Odd?

And what is a huge win for Obama in NC?

Even if Hillary Clinton won the rest of the way by 10% - which no one thinks can happen - she would need to grab 209 of the 311 uncommitted superdelegates (67%)to get nominated. Obama would need 122 more uncommitted superdelegates (39%).

This idea that delegates who have already committed to either candidate are going to just roll over or throw it all up in the air is not realistic... even if within the rules.

And what about if the numbers remain, as they likley will, somewhere fairly even, with even a 10% win by Clinton in PA being balanced by a 15 pt (or more) win by Obama in North Carolina and the rest of the eight primaries looking close? (I'll even put the one stray delegate on Clinton's list!)

Then Clinton would need 237 of the uncommitted superdelegates (76%) to Obama's 94 (30%).

In other words, if the rest of the primaries were to go 50/50, Obama would need to secure just 30% of the still uncommitted delegates to win on the first vote without anyone abandoning anyone.

Then let's add this detail. 65 of the remaining undeclared delegates are "add-on delegates," who are there to vote specifically the same vote of the states. Obama already has an insurmountable 35 - 20 lead there with 10 races to go. So even in the best case scenerio for Clinton, winning out, she actually would need 84% of fully uncommitted delegates to win. And Obama? 24% - in that worst case scenerio.

"Obama has more composure in one finger, then Dean has in his entire body."

Interesting, especially in light that one of them is currently running the DNC.

And he's been doing a pretty good job, in my opinion.

Well David, why haven't 30% (or even more) of those uncommitted superdelegates already broken for Obama? What do you think is keeping them from doing so? I think the answer is very simple. They are more patient than you.

All those numbers you threw show why Obama is probably our nominee at this point. They don't prove that he's already won it. There's a difference. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, and as far as Dean. I don't know enough about the particulars with the brinksmanship between the DNC and Mich and FLA, but think the party would have been way better served had they figured out a way to avoid the current mess. I think had those primaries run we'd have a presumptive nominee by now - and not necessarily Hillary. A big part of her case for staying in the race is her strength in two states that unfortunately fucked themselves out of a primary vote but will definitely count come November. If Obama had done well in those states we'd have a different playing field right now.

Yes... the difference is that if Clinton was in this position, there would be hourly calls for Obama to exit the race.

Jeff: go read about the lack of money the DNC does not have at the moment before you make such statements. Odd: why are you fucking patiently ignoring me? Seriously... are you being a dick for a reason? It's one thing to have discussion with someone. It's another to try to have a discussion with someone, while they are being a dick to you, for no good fucking reason.

Your candidate lost. She has gone out of her way to cripple Obama and ruin his chances at the White House. She believes that he's unelectable, and believes her electability is pre-ordained. She laughs neverously as Keith Olbermann asked tough question after tough question, and had ridiculous response after ridiculous response.

She is becoming a national joke. While people like you keep propping her up with this delusion that over-turning the primary results would be a GOOD THING FOR THE PARTY. When the party would be destroyed like it was during the mid-90s by a president who only cared about his power. While the party crumbled around him. She only cares about herself. He cares about the party. Do you really believe that the candidate who only wants power for powers sake, would not destroy the party? Really?

IOI, your Dean comment ignores the big picture. Yes, the RNC has more money right now than the DNC, but at the same time Dean has helped capture the Senate and the House and rebuilt party infrastructure in a way that Obama (and not Clinton) is not capitalizing on.

'now capitalizing on', not 'not'.

[Still patiently ignoring IOIOIOIOIOI]

David, you might be right in your last point, it's hard to say for sure. As for the rest, just have agree to disagree (in a major way).

Last thing for the night - from nytimes today:

"[Obama] sat beneath a blossoming dogwood tree, surrounded by about three dozen people who had been invited by the campaign, and took questions about the economy, education and foreign policy. He did a series of television interviews but did not take reporters’ questions.

“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?” he said when asked about former President Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas officials."

Ha! Love that he said that! Something so human about that line. Definitely akes me like the guy more. I genuinely hope he got to finish his waffle...

To be fair, this does sound like something that GWB would have said in his 'now watch this putt' heyday.

Jeff; I see the big picture and I am still not into Dean's ability to raise enough money in order to make a national effort to retain Congress. Also Odd Duck is an ass. If you have to patiently ignore someone whose making better points and taking your buster-brown ass to school, then keep on ignoring me... you silly silly man.

Wy do people still keep insisting that Clinton won Florida and Michigan? We'll never truly know how those races would have turned out. If you were an Obama supporter would you have even bothered to show up? It wasn't going to count and your candidate wasn't even on the ballot.

"To be fair, this does sound like something that GWB would have said in his 'now watch this putt' heyday."

Shit, that's true! But it also sounds like something Larry David might say, on the show or in real life. And really, like something I probably have said some variation of many times to a girlfriend/sister/mom while trying to eat a meal in peace. That's why I liked it so much.

IOI, the DSC and the DCCC have wayyyy more money than their Republicans counterparts. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the Dems will pick up 2-3 seats in the Senate and a few in the House this year. Not losing seats, gaining seats.

"1. Obama has spoken to the Ayers issue repeatedly."

I didn't know that. Are you saying that he's addressed it in this campaign? In a debate, or a national interview on TV or in a magazine? Hannity's premise for the question was that Obama hadn't been officially asked about the connection. Would GS have asked such a well-worn question (of course, they asked about the stupid flag pin again)?

"Do you agree that if GS brought up a passing social relationship to Obama that he should have also brought up the pardons of actual imprisoned Weather Underground members by Bill Clinton to Mrs Clinton?"

Ummm... not necessarily. One concerns a direct association, the other concerns something that Hillary was not responsible for. But Obama was entitled to bring it up, and its one of about a million questionable associations that the Clintons have. Obama's associations are resulting in a pattern, imo.

"2. What I like is The Rules. If the rule is that you have caucuses, you count them. If the rule is that you don't you don't. It's that simple."

Fair enough.

"3. I'm sure Hillary feels the same way Obama does about Florida. I disagree. Why does this matter in the least?"

I was just curious. But it doesn't matter to you, being a Rules man and all? I'm sure Obama is aware of the electoral college.

Now it's over. Michael Moore has made his endorsement.

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/04/michael-moore-e.html

And, Jeff, if you don't think the democratic party is in a bit of a mess right now, I don't know what to say except what shade of rose are those glasses?

Mystery... 3) It doesn't matter because it was an election 8 years ago.

All of the recounts of Florida have indicated that unless the rules of how the "bad" ballots were handled were changed, Bush actually won. I don't like the outcome, but those are the rules.

Does that mean that there weren't bad acts in Dade County with black voters? Nope. But that's hard to quantify. Does that mean that 80% of the "Buchanan voters" were confused and meant to vote for Gore? Nope. But that is impossible to quantify. Does that mean that hanging chads didn't cost Gore the election? Nope. But those ballots were selected by Democratic-controlled counties.

I believe that the Florida State Supreme Court voted to break their own laws... and that the US Supreme Court responded in kind. Both were obviously political. But I would argue that had the Gore camp taken a different tack that popular opinion would have been so one-sided, demanding a full state recount, that there would have been one. And it would have been a nasty event with accusations of miscounting all over the state. But it would have happened, I think.

There is a reaosn why the Clinton campaign keeps going negative then slams Obama for responding with negativity. People naturally want an affirmative fight... the same people who will happily tar a candidate with minutae.

Hendhogan, not sure what you mean. Like I said, all indications are that the Dems will improve their majorities in Congress by a small amount. The Presidential side of things is a huge muddle and McCain is even with either candidate, but not ahead in any significant way.

Well thankfully hendhogan everything in the Republican party couldn't be better. It's just peachy keen. What color are your glasses?

Stella:

I think you are confusing a party's message with it's organizational capabilities. And, I got lasix so I wouldn't have to worry about them.

Jeff:

Dems have controlled Congress for quite some time now and have an approval rating just a few points above the sitting President. Dean is responsible for consolidating the message of the Democratic Party, setting an agenda. Do you see any of that? Congress writes the laws and the Dems control Congress. Where is the slate of issues that the Dems think is lacking and why aren't they pushing for them? Make the Executive Branch exercise it's veto (a rarity at best under Bush).

Wow, Hendhogan, are we on different pages.
'Quite some time now"? Less than two years? And with a President who has used his veto more in that amount of time than in the previous 6?

Regardless of the macro situation, on a race-by-race basis, like I say now for the third time, Dems are expected to pick up seats, primarily in Virginia and New Hampshire, but also possibly in New Mexico, Colorado, and Minnesota. People might be giving 'Congress' low approval ratings, but as usual they like their individual Congress members.

That's the Senate I'm talking about, state-wise.

Yeah what jeff said. Quite some time? Really? What is the Republican agenda? I have read plenty of articles in the last year or so, written by Republicans, lamenting the state of the party. I believe a few books have been written about it too. Might want to get those eyes tested.

just so i'm clear, stella, your response to my point that the democratic party is in a mess is roughly "so are the republicans?" so, then, it's okay, in your opinion, that the dems are in a mess as long as the republicans are too. don't want to put words in your mouth, looking for clarification (especially seeing as my vision may be spotty).

jeff, two years in a full term in the house. that no longer qualifies as "quite some time?" maybe i need a definition of terms, please.

i also don't get your point on the popularity of individual congress members over congress as a whole. so?

Hendhogan, obviously we're talking about two different things. I'm strictly talking about prospects for winning in November. Your original words were 'the Democratic party is in a bit of a mess' and I figured that any party that will improve its standing in Congress and has (in my opinion) a greater than 50% chance of winning the White House can't be in too bad of a mess.

hendhogan, my point was that both parties seem to be "in a mess" right now. It's silly to think that fact could hurt one party but not the other in November.

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: