License

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Search

WWTSBQ 2.0 – A Neverending Series

May 25, 2008 by

My blog bookmark listing is getting thinner every day. That goes along with the shrinking respect I had for some bloggers in the past. Boy has this primary been a reality check. Here is someone who used to be one of my favorite bloggers, Hilzoy, subbing for Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly :

"This might or might not be true in the abstract. In the actual world, however, everything depends on how Hillary Clinton conducts herself. She can continue to make her case in a constructive and positive way, trying to show that she is the best candidate while doing her best to defuse the idea that the nomination was somehow stolen from her, and to reconcile her followers to the idea that she lost fair and square"

Well, from where I stand, actually listening to Hillary’s speeches, she has consistently done that: making her case to the voters, discussing the issues, adopting a populist stance that is in synch with the core Democratic base. She is making a positive case for herself and for votes to be counted. At the same time, she has repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, the party will be united behind the nominee ("whoever she might be"… it was a funny line, but there is no sense of humor among the self-righteous, so-called progressive bloggers and the creative class… humor, along with irony and self-awareness, was thrown under the bus long ago. The only humor left is the neverending sexist jokes that can told about pantsuits and whatnot).

She is always the gracious one at the debates or in speech. And yes, she is campaigning, that means promoting her candidacy. It ‘s not her job to campaign for Obama or refrain from nudging him when the opportunity presents itself. And trust me, nudging him is all she’s ever done. The man has been treated with kid gloves.

And by the way, losing fair and square means once ALL the votes have been counted and ALL the arguments (including those about electability and popular votes, etc) have been made and discussed out in the open. "Fair and square", by definition, involves fairness.

But apparently, we live in a different universe:

"Or she can try to undermine Obama’s claim to be the legitimate nominee, if he wins. "Staying in the race" describes both options. But only one of them "will help unite the Democratic Party", and make "everyone (…) more likely to rally around the nominee." Hillary Clinton has not chosen that option."

Because, as you see, Obama has no agency here. The only way he can be undermined or promoted is NOT through his own actions but through Hillary’s behavior. Who has been systematically alienating the core of the Democratic party demographics? Who has allowed rabid misogyny to be unleashed and is now out of control across the blogosphere? Who has made the wildest accusation of sinister motives about the Clintons (the latest absurd iteration of which is the RFK fauxtrage)? Who has been trashing the democratic brand and running away from the liberal label? Who’s more than willing to discard the core Democratic base in an attempt to attract conservatives and evangelicals even if this means throwing women’s rights and LGBT causes under the bus while doing so? Good grief.

And let’s continue in that line of "It’s all the Bitch’s fault" argument

"I just heard someone on one of the talk shows say that it must be hard for Hillary Clinton to give up her dreams. I appreciate this fact, and I do not envy her. However, as I wrote a few days ago, Hillary Clinton is a responsible moral agent. She has the power to decide which of these two approaches she will pursue. Moreover, she has now had several months to get used to the idea that she lost. If she were an adult , she would deal with it. The fact that she seems instead to require our indulgence while she sorts through her emotional issues just gives me one more reason to be glad she lost: Presidents are often confronted with crises, at 3am and other times, and they do not always have the luxury of working through all the stages of grief before coming up with a response."

Emphasis mine. Oh my God, there is so much bullshit to go through here, it’s unbelievable. Where does this come from? Some talk show? Because, God knows how much talk shows have been reliable sources of information and analysis in this primary.

And here comes the sexist part: Hillary is not a grown woman, she’s a little girl who has to give up on her dream, but dammit, us adults have work to do and we can’t attend to her emotional needs… I think we can soundly blame Bill for that! And what is this paragraph based on? Nothing. There is absolutely NO evidence to support any of this. Oh, and by the way, if the primary was over months ago, how come the Annointed One has not reach the proper number of pledged delegates yet? Why haven’t the Democratic leaders stepped in and declared the primary over?

And when has Hillary EVER required our indulgence? What she has asked for? Our votes. Something Barack Obama has yet to do. And it’s a bit rich to infantilize Hillary when the whole Obama campaign has been like a fratboy wet dream. Loaded with sexism and contempt for older voters and people who have to struggle to make a living. And where coolness and quasi-religious revivalism has been what passes for substance and policy. But who needs that when you have a "movement".

"In the actual world, the only way Clinton can win the nomination, absent some genuine catastrophe, is for the superdelegates to decide to give her the nomination. If that happened, would she be more electable? She might have an edge over Obama in Appalachia, but she would surely be at a serious disadvantage among African-American voters. This might not have been true had she won the primary on pledged delegates: in that case, Obama’s supporters would probably be disappointed, but would manage to get over it."

I’ll let Paul Lukasiak deal with that one if he wishes. He has done great statistical analysis showing that this is pure BS.

But for all the talk of the "real world", what is missing from this post is, well, the real world.

The real world where the media is in the tank for Obama and has not hesitated to carry the most prurient narratives, along with the so-called progressive blogosphere.

The real world where absurd accusations of racism were thrown around so idiotically that now, Republican and conservative groups will be able to put out actually racist materials, and when the Obama campaign whines about it, it will be seen as crying wolf yet again ("they were whining about it with Hillary too, already").

The real world where racist discourse is unacceptable (thank goodness) but vile sexism is used and reused in polite conversations (and not so polite, white bitch!), in the media, across the so-called progressive blogs without any concerns for the real consequences of such discourse.

The real world where the Democratic leadership either sees Obama as a gigantic ATM (victory in November be damned) or just got caught up in the hipness of the "movement", with a complete disconnect to what happened to the kind of candidates Obama represents (McGovern comes to mind, of course).

The real world where the DNC has its collective thumb solidly on the scale in favor of the Senator from Illinois.

The real world where Obama has no coattails because the Democrats for a Day he has brought along are interested in voting for HIM, but now in downticket races.

The real world where the half of these great turnouts has voted for Hillary.

The real world where Obama can no longer be seen as a legitimate candidate , all by his own doing because there has been no such thing as "fair and square."

But I guess, it’s all Hillary’s fault. Only she has agency. Obama sits on the mountain, basking on the lovefest, deigning to make a few noble pronouncement when it does not matter anymore (RFK again) and the wankfest has already taken place.

We need more than a blogosphere 2.0. We need Liberalism 2.0.

Posted in Sociology | 20 Comments »



20 Responses to “WWTSBQ 2.0 – A Neverending Series”

  1.   Josh Taylor Says:

    I’d like to keep things as civil as possible, but I think these points deserve some discussion. I’d like to leave discussions of gender and race out if you please, and also issues of policy, because we would get off-topic. I want to talk about the delegate count and the nomination. Fact 1: there is no way for Hillary to win the majority of pledged delegates. I don’t think superdelegates should override the will of the voters, but they have been coming out more and more strongly for Obama as this campaign has gone on.
    Hillary’s popular vote argument is pretty flimsy. Even counting Florida, Obama is ahead. It is trivial to count Michigan, because no one voted for Obama, because his name wasn’t on the ballot. However, if we were to assume that people who voted uncommitted were voting for Obama (why else would there have been such a high uncommitted vote percentage), then he is still ahead in the popular vote. However, Michigan and Florida were not done properly, and several members of HRC’s campaign were among those who voted to penalize those states.
    From where I’m standing, many of HRC’s attacks on Obama have said implicitly that McCain would be better. I hope that we can all agree he would not.
    I would like to take issue with one of the end things you said: “half of these great turnouts has voted for Hillary.”
    The great turnouts are primarily from younger voters (that 17-29 demographic), so I think it’s difficult to make the case that half have voted for her (40% would be a more accurate figure).
    I will be honest. I have character issues with Senator Clinton, but I would readily cast a vote for her over Senator McCain. These opinions are outside the scope of this discussion. One final thing: were I in her position, I would drop out and endorse, no question. I am not a paint by numbers liberal, but I would recognize that this contest is hurting our general election chances (look at Rasmussen’s Balance of Power calculator).

    Reply

  2.   SocProf Says:

    Well, apparently, Axelrod has assigned my blog to you, so here goes.
    1. You cannot leave race/gender out of this. Sexism and race-baiting have both been an integral part of this primary. Nice try but this sleight of the hand does not work. I know why you’re trying to side-step this, nice try.

    2. Your fact 1 applies to Obama as well. And at this point, these are only pledges. These delegates will actually vote at the Convention… this is why even McCain is still the “presumptive” nominee until the Republican convention.

    3. The SDs can do whatever the hell they please. That’s the whole point of being a superdelegate.

    4. On the popular vote: well I guess we won’t know how strong an argument is once the votes have been counted.

    5. There is absolutely NO reason to assume that the MI uncommitted voters should be assigned to Obama. I guess he needs to get delegates he didn’t earn cuz he can’t win on his own. Speculation is not reality.

    6. The penalty for Mi/Fl was 50% of the delegation. The rest was Donna Brazile maneuvering to tip the scales in favor of Obama.

    7. I was discussing the Democratic candidates, don’t change the subject. This is not about McCain.

    8. For the turnout numbers, go read the link to Paul Lukasiak in my post.

    9. I don’t care what your issues and positions are with whomever. It’s not about you.

    Repeating talking points that have been debunked repeatedly already does not help your case.

    But feel free to try again.

    Reply

  3.   Josh Taylor Says:

    Do we really have to argue by numbers, it’s so disjointed… oh well.

    1. I didn’t mean every conversation, just this one which is about probability of victory, and effect of a prolonged primary contest on Democratic chances in November. You left it out of the conversation anyway (thank you, your argument was much easier to follow as a result), so my point is moot.

    2. I didn’t realize that we were going for 100% certainty, because more things than Obama’s pledged delegate lead go out the window with that. But, barring an unprecedented shift of “pledged” delegates, Obama has won the majority of the pledged delegates.

    3. Okay, I’m confused. Are superdelegates in or out? If they’re out, then I refer you to my point about pledged delegates. If their in, Obama is ahead by two metrics: overall superdelegate count, and trend of superdelegate endorsements.

    4. Okay, but I was talking about current numbers. I’m always surprised when Hillary claims the popular vote lead, until I realize that she’s left out most caucus states, and included MI and FL.

    5. If you can explain to me another reason why more people voted uncomitted in MI than in any other state in the country other than that they were expressing support for Obama, then I will consider this argument. For the time being, here is the in-progress breakdown of how the uncommitted MI delegates are going to vote: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/michigan-36.html.

    6. I will take that penalty, and Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote.

    7. This is about McCain, too. Part of my point is that it is detrimental to the Democratic nominee to have a mean-spirited primary, that has created so much animosity on both sides. Case in point: your tone and numbering system.

    8. Maybe I missed the part where they discuss specifically the cause of increased turnout.

    9. Fine, I’m sorry about that, I won’t do it again.

    That said, I respect both HRC and you. In fact, I started reading this blog when I saw your post at DailyKos, an analysis of capitalism. I was very impressed, coming out of a course entitled “Capitalism and its Critics.” This isn’t an attack on you, or HRC’s policy. I’m trying to make the case that the nominee is decided and we should unite sooner rather than later.

    Also, my internet goes off at 11 PM (boarding school), so if you’re wondering why I don’t reply until the morning, that’s why.

    Reply

  4.   Marly Davis Says:

    She voted for the war.

    She voted for keeping the war going.

    She’s DLC all the way.

    She polarizes the general public like no other politician in recent memory. People will register to vote just vote against her.

    She even said at Yearly Kos that special interest groups were a good thing.

    Reply

  5.   SocProf Says:

    Marly:

    Obama said he would have voted for the war if he had been in the Senate then.

    He voted for funding every time.

    The DLC is behind him.

    He’s divided the Democratic party by throwing core constituencies under the bus.

    He’s funded and supported by BIG energy lobbying groups.

    And criticizing HRC is not an argument in favor of Obama.

    Good grief, can’t you people do better than this?

    Reply

  6.   SocProf Says:

    Well, by numbers makes it easier to follow:

    1. there is no evidence of harm in November. Besides, nothing prevent Obama from doing both: campaigning for his primaries and attacking McCain. Or is he so limited that he can’t multitask… and multitasking is a useful skill to have if one wants to be President.

    2. Indeed, only pledges. I guess we’ll have to wait for the convention and let delegates decide. I’m fine with that.

    3. SDs are in and can vote whichever way they want. Same deal, we’ll have to wait for the convention.

    4. On popular vote. some states had both caucus and primaries, so we have the numbers. For those that had only caucuses, the state dems office can release the numbers as well. And of course Mi and Fl should count in the popular vote, even if their delegates are stripped (in violation of the rules).

    5. Edwards also strategically pulled his name off the ballot. At the time, he was still competitive. There were others who removed their names. So, there is no reason to assume ALL the uncommitted were Obama voters. Obama gambled, it paid off in Iowa. It may backfire otherwise. Too bad. That was his choice.

    6. Fine

    7. My numbering system is just my way of keeping my thoughts in order. If you want to read some nefarious, that’s up to you. And again, there is nothing stopping Obama from taking on McCain.

    8. We know the causes of heavier turnouts on some parts of the US. Again, go read Paul Lukasiak. He’s been posting on this for months.

    9. I do not take any of this personally.

    Reply

  7.   Josh Taylor Says:

    I don’t buy the argument that the primary contest is somehow diverting Obama’s attention from the general, that’s not what I meant by harmful. I meant that people are getting angry about this primary, on both sides, and every day that this primary continues, our chances in November get worse, regardless of the nominee.

    I’m not really sure what your idea of certainty is. You mentioned McCain; do you consider his nomination certain? Because I do; I’m not using Cartesian stringency of certainty here, it’s a bit more colloquial than that. On that note, pledges count for something, and I refer you again to that link I provided. I see no Michigan “uncommitted” delegates who are planning to vote for Edwards or Clinton; they are all either unsure or “pledged” Obama.

    I went through Lukasiak’s post again, and find no mention of turnout numbers. Maybe it’s somewhere else on his site, and if so, could you give me the link? I have finals, so I don’t really have the time to search for it.

    One final question: would you support Obama over McCain?

    Reply

  8.   SocProf Says:

    Josh, actually, the polls are very clear right now regarding the general election: in an Obama/McCain matchup, Obama loses.
    In a Clinton/McCain matchup, Clinton wins. The blog TalkLeft is constantly posting about all these polls with their sources and potential problems, you should go check it out.

    McCain nomination is almost certain BUT, again, it will be finalized at the Rep. convention.

    As for Lukasiak, the link I posted is to his blog as well, with all the posts he’s had on the topic.

    Also, I recommend you read Paul Krugman’s column today on the division within the Democratic party. If Obama becomes the nominee, that will his job to unite it.

    Reply

  9.   SocProf Says:

    Oh, I forgot to answer your last question.

    Would I support Obama over McCain. I would NEVER support McCain or any republican for that matter in a million years.

    Would I support Obama? If you had asked me that a year ago, I would have said yes. Now, I would say no, but I’m still open to have my mind changed.

    And it has a lot to do with the fact that this race has been heavily rigged in favor of Obama.

    Reply

  10.   Josh Taylor Says:

    Maybe there’s something out there I haven’t seen, but all the comprehensive analyses I’ve seen (and by comprehensive I mean all 50 states) show both Obama and Clinton winning, Obama by more. The most recent one was conducted by SUSA, which has been far and away the most accurate pollster this election cycle.

    Paul Krugman is essentially a Clinton surrogate. He never scrutinizes Clinton, only Obama, but his interjections into politics are confusing considering his expertise is in economics. He implied that Obama has been criticizing Clinton about RFK (he said that Obama supporters were criticizing Clinton, and then said that it’s Obama’s fault if Dems don’t come together) but all the video I’ve seen of him has him saying that he didn’t think Clinton meant anything other than what she said she meant and that he takes her at her word.

    On November. Maybe you live in a state that won’t make a difference (timestamp suggests west coast, so probably a blue state?), but not voting (which is what I got from you’re post, correct me if I’m wrong) is as bad as voting for McCain in my eyes. If Clinton’s supporters don’t come out for Obama in November, he loses. And yes it’s his job to appeal to them, but it is also their job to take an honest look at his policies and ask themselves if our primary quibbles are worth a third Bush term.

    On TalkLeft. I saw one KY poll on the front, and I am the first to admit that Obama has a BIG Appalachia problem. However, it’s not a white problem (look at Oregon, for starters). He will not win KY in November. He makes other states competitive, however. All of this is moot, though, as polls conducted five months before the election mean exactly diddly. Just look at the primary race five months ago. Also, they were cheerleading for the “Unity” ticket (Big Tent was, I think), but that would be a disaster. It might have made sense three months ago (and at that point, in either direction), but now both candidates have made too many comments about the other to shake off easily (front and center: Commander-in-Chief threshold). I would prefer a Clinton nomination to an Obama/Clinton ticket. And I’m a pretty fervent Obama supporter. The Rethugs would destroy that ticket in the fall. Forgive me if you don’t like the Unity ticket either, I just had to say that.

    If it’s not too much trouble, Lukasiak is a lot of statistical mumbo jumbo, and I don’t have time to sort through it. Would you mind just giving me those numbers, and a link?

    Reply

  11.   SocProf Says:

    No, the latest national data show Obama losing on the electoral college and Clinton winning rather easily.

    Krugman is not a Clinton surrogate and the fact that any statement that is not entirely pro-Obama or anti-Clinton = surrogate is ridiculous. I will not waste my time on that kind of Stalinist thinking. And even if… that does not exempt from examining the points he is making (and actually, Obama might well better read them).

    And a while back, he did some comparative work on the policies both Clinton and Obama were putting out (on health care for instance or social security). And on both these topics, Obama is closer to the Republican position than Clinton is…

    Yes, I have looked at Obama’s positions (when he has them, which is not always and that’s a problem in itself) and that’s based on that that I make all my voting decisions. The vile tactics his campaign has used, the attitude of the media and the so-called progressive blogosphere were just icing on the cake.

    And Obama does not have an Appalachia problem. He’s got problems with the entire core democratic base. But, hey, if he can win without it, good for him. But that means he’ll do that by appealing to conservatives and religious nuts. No thanks (new young voters won’t be enough).

    The blog TalkLeft is divided on the Unity ticket, BTD is all for it but I don’t think Jeralyn is for it, or she’s pretty tepid about it. At this point, I don’t think it matters all that much anyway.

    As for Paul’s posts, sorry Josh, do your own homework. That’s what data analysis is about. Take a stats class, it’s useful for a lot of stuff, beyond electoral maths.

    Reply

  12.   Josh Taylor Says:

    Show me that data. I cannot find comprehensive polling data that shows Clinton winning and Obama losing.

    It does not exempt me from examining the points Krugman makes, and I did just that in the above post. In fact it is from the points that he makes that I can tell he is biased. The RFK analogy is ridiculous, leaving out the MSM fodder about assassination. RFK’s campaign was barely underway in June of ’68, and there were still major primaries to be held (read: PR does not constitute a major primary). Okay, I get that people are angry over the primary. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying all along, but I don’t think that it’s Obama or Clinton’s fault; I think it’s the result of a long primary in which both sides have aggressively criticized the other, fairly or otherwise.

    As for health care and social security, I believe single payer to be the best way… but I think it’s politically unfeasible. For analysis of policy, I usually shy away from pundits and turn to non-partisan groups, like LCV, which scores Obama higher than Clinton on environmental issues. It is very difficult to make the case that Clinton is more liberal than Obama, and I’m ready for that discussion, but I think it’s outside the scope of this argument.

    I don’t know where you’re getting his problems with the core democratic base; in my opinion it will be far easier for him to win them than to win “conservatives and religious nuts.”

    I have taken a stats class, and math is by far my strongest subject. I didn’t mean that I didn’t understand the graphs; I do. I mean that the graphs have nothing to do with youth turnout.

    Also, I just saw that you posted about me on Corrente; as much as I’m flattered, I hope you don’t think that I work for Axelrod, or that I’m a troll. After all, I’m still in high school. As for talking points, all of what we are saying are “talking points.” Discussing them is the only way to get to the truth. Don’t insult me by saying that I am regurgitating information. I am doing you the same courtesy.

    Reply

  13.   SocProf Says:

    These are all talking points and they all come in waves and ebb and flow across the blogosphere depending on the electoral situation (as Zuzu pointed out in the comments at Corrente).

    The Democratic base: Obama is not getting enough of the older vote, the working class vote and the women. As Lukasiak shows in his latest post, actually, Clinton is making dents into his base and he’s not cracking hers.

    Paul’s next post will be on education levels and social classes differences. Even BTW, who supports Obama, is for the unity tickets precisely because he thinks that this would make up for Obama’s weaknesses with the Democratic base. Whether he’s right or wrong is another issue.

    As for the conservatives and religious nuts, Obama has consistently made clear appeals in their direction on issues such as abortion or gay rights. He also did so by making faith a central part of his appeal (that got him into trouble with the whole Rev. Wright mess, but that’s a different story… although I hope he’s ready for more of that from the Republicans).

    It is indeed interesting that Clinton actually has a more liberal platform than Obama now. But Obama has very centrist economic views (his advisors come out of the Chicago school, so, that’s not really a surprise). As for the liberal rankings, they tend to be meaningless… heck, Joe “turncoat” Lieberman gets high rankings by pro-choice groups.

    On the polls regarding the general election either nationally or by state, again TalkLeft posts practically every day on that. (although if you’re in high school, I guess I should not be encouraging you to spend time roaming the blogs and take time away from your studies!).

    And as for RFK: yes, exactly, by June of 68, RFK was way behind in the primary against Humphrey before the California vote.

    Which is why it is premature to declare a winner at this point. Heck I sure hope a lot happens with McCain between now and November (nothing bad for his health, mind you, just one of his apparently common angry lash outs at people).

    Reply

  14.   Ida Hagman Says:

    Soc Prof — those who say Hillary should get out of the race because she is hurting Obama’s chances, are treating the him as though he can’t handle the Republicans on his own. Unfortunately that may be true.

    In addition, I don’t understand why Hillary is supposed to drop out because she is behind in the delegate count. That’s like saying that a baseball team should quit in the 8th inning if they are a few runs behind. pointed out

    Reply

  15.   SocProf Says:

    Ida, the data certainly support your first assumption.

    And I think I get your metaphor even though I know nothing about baseball! :-(

    Reply

  16.   Josh Taylor Says:

    I am capable of independent thought. “Talking points” describes every single argument ever made. Just because other people say it doesn’t make it less valid, and please don’t accuse me of cherrypicking quotes to throw together an argument. I have a critical thinking process, and I am not interested in scoring points; I genuinely want to express my view. I am not a surrogate; I am high school student and a political junkie on the side.

    The primary cycle in 1968 was completely different from today’s cycle. California, and other major states had yet to vote by June; today, we have two states and a territory, a total of 86 delegates from a pool of 4000. Obama has already one the majority of pledged delegates by the allocation process that each state goes through, and that is based on the will of the voters. It is a poor analogy.

    On the economy, Obama is definitely more liberal than Clinton (case in point: the ludicrous gas tax). Do not tell me that that will make a real difference in people’s lives because it won’t, independent economists have come forward and said that it won’t, and it is a Republican economic position. As for his advisers, Obama has said on more than one occasion that he wants advisers who hold views that are different from his, that’s part of his message. As for Clinton, she supported NAFTA, which was an enormous economic blunder in my estimation, and although she has since retracted that support, it sheds light on the judgment she would show in the White House.

    I object to the fact that Obama is “making faith a central part of his appeal.” Have you ever considered that Obama is genuinely a man of faith? I think it has little to nothing to do with his candidacy, but I think that the claim that it is pandering is farfetched at best. Bill Clinton is one of the most brilliant political minds in the past century, but Obama doesn’t think like that. Read his book. He writes far better than I do, and that alone deserves respect; nothing bothers me more than when a public figure who is perceived as intellectual has their own book ghostwritten.

    As for Paul, I spent as much time as I had perusing his data, and he’s done a lot from exit polls, which are notoriously unreliable; it also does not instill much confidence in me that he doesn’t know the difference between “weighed” and “weighted.” Also, still no sign of these mysterious youth turnout numbers.

    I realize I have just spent this post arguing exactly what I said I wouldn’t argue about. That is to your credit. What I really want to say, is that regardless of all of this, Obama is the likely nominee, and Clinton’s staying in the race, by many metrics, does nothing but hurt the party. He overcame a lot of the Democratic establishment, which until Iowa was solidly behind Hillary (an almost 100 superdelegate lead, coming mainly from DNC endorsements), and he now has at the very least the upper hand in this primary (Rasmussen Markets has her chances of winning at just over 8%). With 86 delegates left, I don’t think it’s premature.

    Reply

  17.   Josh Taylor Says:

    Ida, what? The baseball metaphor is not a good one. It is mathematically impossible for her to win (by allocation) the majority of pledged delegates. There’s no baseball analogue to that.

    It’s like Huckabee said, when it became mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, “I’m not a man of mathematics. I’m a man of miracles.” He dropped out two weeks later.

    Reply

  18.   SocProf Says:

    1968 cycle: yup, which is why she also referred to the 1992 primary which was also not decided until June and hotly disputed. That’s a simple point. Primaries last long. Many of them have been disputed all the way to the convention. It’s not unusual. That’s the process. Get over it. And the comparison to the republican primary is even more irrelevant since they system is different.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton has the necessary number of delegates. And Clinton has always said that her strategy is to win the popular vote, win the big and swing states, focus on electability, then make her case to the convention and the SDs. So far she has done all that. You may disagree with the strategy. But that’s what it is.

    Any more divisiveness is coming from the Obama camp, so there is an easy solution to stop it. If they actually want to stop it.

    I have read his book and concerning faith: either he’s not sincere in which case he’s pandering; or he is sincere in which case, I’ve had enough of 8 years of religion in government. I do not care for more.

    NAFTA: see, that is a talking point AND a lie that’s been spread around (note: I’m not accusing YOU of lying. I’m saying you picked up a talking point that is a lie).

    And finally (because we’re running around in circles here), it seems that ANY discussion on this is focused on why Clinton is bad or how horrible it will be if McCain gets elected.

    How about making a case for Obama? With policy details that will show me he is truly progressive (UHC, LGBT rights, women’s rights, maintenance of SS rather privatization, etc…. on all these, he’s no liberal). Again, one can be exposed to different ideas without hiring conservatives as advisors, that is a big joke.

    As for Paul’s stuff, why don’t go comment on his blog. He responds to commenters, fairly extensively. You can ask him directly.

    Reply

  19.   SocProf Says:

    And on more data clearly presented regarding turnout:
    http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-so-precious.html

    Reply

  20.   SocProf Says:

    Regarding turnout, see here

    Reply

Leave a Reply