News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Astronuc]

It could have been Huckabee's attempt to label Obama as being overly sensitive to guns and gun issues, which of course would play well at an NRA meeting. How he stated that was stupid/assinine. I think most people would react strongly if someone else pointed a gun at them. Hopefully people at the NRA don't go around pointing guns at people. Usually one keeps a gun pointing down, and one makes sure that the chamber is empty while handling guns around people, e.g. at show.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's an interview with David Axelrod following the RFK mention by Hillary: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24791035#24796900

I just can't imagine Wolfson, Ickes or McAuliffe being anywhere near as decent.

 

[Poop-Loops]

The extra protection (or early protection in this case) hasn't been because of increased risk - it's because of increased significance.

Having any Presidential candidate assassinated or even wounded (as in the case of Wallace) is horrible once they actually become a legitimate candidate. But, having the first black candidate with a serious chance of becoming President or having the first woman candidate with a serious chance of becoming President assassinated would carry a lot more historical significance than having a white male candidate assassinated.

Hence the taboo on even mentioning assassination of any candidate - present, past, or future - for the duration of this campaign.

Besides, McCain is old, he'll die soon anyway.

Olbermann was VERY pissed at Clinton for this remark. He makes some good points in this comment of his. Basically, he points out reasons why, even though she didn't intend to suggest that something bad may happen to her opponent, her comment was still unacceptable:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

Yeah, I couldn't stand listening to that. I saw her comment as a good, but all of this "ZOMG ASSASSINATIONS OHNOES!" that it was supposed to invoke according to Olbermann just made me raise an eye-brow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought this was a great quote from Jon Meacham regarding Hillary's claim that in 1992, Bill Clinton didn't have the nomination locked until June.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, back then the Clinton campaign thought I was a mathematical genius. I knew how to add.

Jon Meacham, the fact is that Bill Clinton, at that point, had three times as many delegates as anyone else.

MR. JON MEACHAM: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: He had locked down the nomination in April of 1992.

MR. MEACHAM: Right. It is a technicality that I think probably President Reagan didn't ultimately get the number you needed until June. It's kind of irrelevant. It depends on--to use another Clintonism--what's the meaning of June?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24815500/page/2/

But I thought another very interesting point was made regarding Hillary's last-ditch effort to argue for her viability. She has already complained about misogyny while running against Democrats. And she can expect even more bias from a conservative base in the general election; even in the case of women voters, which greatly undermines any argument that she has of being the most viable candidate. But more specifically, it is highly unlikely that she would gain ground with the white male conservative vote in a general election, as she has in the primary. This means that her perceived advantage amoung this voting group evaporates.

 

[Gokul43201]

She has already complained about misogyny while running against Democrats.

This (complete argument) itself, as Gwen pointed out, is at best, incomplete. Exit polls in recent races have shown that among the respondents that admitted that the sex of the nominee was an important factor in their decision, the majority voted for Clinton. She gains more from feminist bias than she loses from misogyny. On the other hand, respondents that admitted that race was an important factor were also more likely to vote for Hillary (not in all states though; in some states, like OR, they were even). So for the most part Obama loses more from racism than he gains from black favoritism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This (complete argument) itself, as Gwen pointed out, is fallacious. Exit polls in recent races have shown that among the respondents that admitted that the sex of the nominee was an important factor in their decision, the majority voted for Clinton. She gains more from feminist bias than she loses from misogyny. On the other hand, respondents that admitted that race was an important factor were also more likely to vote for Hillary. So Obama loses more from racism than he gains from black favoritism.

But that was only among Democrats. Also, Democrats are not about to abandon the party for McCain - not after everything that has happened with the Bush admin. Emotions are running high right now, but come November I doubt that many will feel the same way. IMO, the complete and utter fallacy is that votes for Hillary now translate to votes for McCain in November.

 

[Gokul43201]

But that was only among Democrats. Also, Democrats are not about to abandon the party for McCain - not after everything that has happened with the Bush admin. Emotions are running high right now, but come November I doubt that many will feel the same way. IMO, the complete and utter fallacy is that votes for Hillary now translate to votes for McCain in November.

The turning point (when bitterness subsides from, for instance, feminist groups promising to campaign against Obama in the fall*) will probably be the Convention. But then again, it depends on the tone in the Convention - whether it becomes an event of coming together or a prize fight will make a huge difference.

* For instance: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23710227-2703,00.html

An Ohio-based group of Clinton supporters has announced it will actively work against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee for the party, saying Senator Clinton has had to fight gender discrimination from party leaders and the media.

Organisers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, say they are organising women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan - all important swing states in November - to protest at Senator Clinton's treatment.

"We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way" in accepting Barack Obama as a serious candidate, Ms Ruccia told online political magazine Politico.

"But it's been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it's wrong."

In a press release, the group said: "We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee. We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don't listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later."

As calls grew for Senator Clinton to quit the race, Ms Ruccia said women felt "we're being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program".

These were the kind of crazies that I was referring to in an earlier post in this thread, a point that c-tree chose to misinterpret for comedic value.

 

[Gokul43201]

Unbelievable stuff from Fox!

and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama ...well both if we could "

 

[lisab]

The turning point (when bitterness subsides from, for instance, feminist groups promising to campaign against Obama in the fall*) will probably be the Convention. But then again, it depends on the tone in the Convention - whether it becomes an event of coming together or a prize fight will make a huge difference.

* For instance: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23710227-2703,00.html



These were the kind of crazies that I was referring to in an earlier post in this thread, a point that c-tree chose to misinterpret for comedic value.

That's just stupid of them. The irony is that if McCain is elected, it is highly likely that Row vs. Wade will be overturned. One step forward; two steps back.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's just stupid of them. The irony is that if McCain is elected, it is highly likely that Row vs. Wade will be overturned.

That's why I called them 'crazies'.

One step forward; two steps back.

I don't really get this. How does Obama losing the general election take women one step forward?

 

[lisab]

I don't really get this. How does Obama losing the general election take women one step forward?

Sorry for the confusion - I meant if McCain wins, it will be a step back for people who believe in reproductive choice. I was referring to feminists campaigning against Obama. They worked so hard to win abortion rights, yet they're willing to lose the gains that they have worked for because they're having a hissy fit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unbelievable stuff from Fox!

Incredible! Right-wingers complain about patriots calling Bush a war criminal, yet the Zealot Channel broadcasts a call for the assasination of a democratic candidate.

As I have said before, these guys are enemies of the Constitution and enemies of the country.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's why I called them 'crazies'.

OKay, so at this point Obama pulls the Hagee vote, and McCain pulls the crazy feminist vote?

 

[chemisttree]

These were the kind of crazies that I was referring to in an earlier post in this thread, a point that c-tree chose to misinterpret for comedic value.

That's actually the funniest thing you've said yet. Obama lost WV and KY because an Ohio based group is threatening to spring into action in the fall. Brilliant!

 

[Gokul43201]

Obama lost WV and KY because an Ohio based group is threatening to spring into action in the fall.

Is there a different language I should be using to help you not misinterpret my posts? Or is this just a comprehension issue?

 

[chemisttree]

I've heard this same rationalization from black people, actually.

I've heard only one but I wouldn't be suprised if this were a more common belief.

http://mog.com/MrFrost/blog_post/143055"

 

[chemisttree]

Is there a different language I should be using to help you not misinterpret my posts? Or is this just a comprehension issue?

So you really do believe that women that vote for Hillary or that intend to protest the way she is being treated in this campaign are crazy? Wow...

 

[Gokul43201]

Edit: I'm tired of this game C-tree. I don't wish to respond to this string of repeated misinterpretations.

 

[turbo]

So you really do believe that women that vote for Hillary or that intend to protest the way she is being treated in this campaign are crazy? Wow...

Oh, gosh! She's a woman, and ladies go first? That's ridiculous. She and her surrogates have been playing the gender card all through the campaign. She voted to let Bush go to war, she lied about her Bosnia trip, she compared Obama unfavorably to McCain, she has lied repeatedly about how "electable" she is, switching metrics week by week as her nomination is less and less possible. Clinton is a monstrous ego in a pant-suit, and her supporters that intend to block Obama's nomination are crazy. Their contention that Clinton has been unfairly by the Dems have no clue what the Republicans would do to her in the general election.

 

[chemisttree]

Oh, gosh! She's a woman, and ladies go first? That's ridiculous. She and her surrogates have been playing the gender card all through the campaign.

So you believe that Geraldine Ferraro is crazy as well... I wouldn't have gone that far. Loser, yes. Crazy, no.

She voted to let Bush go to war, she lied about her Bosnia trip, she compared Obama unfavorably to McCain, she has lied repeatedly about how "electable" she is, switching metrics week by week as her nomination is less and less possible. Clinton is a monstrous ego in a pant-suit, and her supporters that intend to block Obama's nomination are crazy.

Her supporters know her record and those number almost half of all Democrats that bothered to vote. You are beginning to convince me that they are crazies! The crazy woman is going around quoting polling data! I can't remember, is that lying? The OP (Gokul's post) listed "crazy women" as one of the reasons that Obama lost WV and KY. I still haven't heard anything to substantiate that claim (so I thought he was kidding... Oh my!). Alas, he wasn't (and he continues to bring this up, btw, not me). The cracks have already formed in the Democrat base and they are widening... apparently. Perhaps, as Ivan says, the base will heal itself by election day. But I know a few things about angry women... (Pssssst! God! Don't call them 'crazy'!)

Their contention that Clinton has been (treated) unfairly by the Dems (demonstrates that they) have no clue what the Republicans would do to her in the general election.

I believe that they expect it in the general... at least that is what they have been saying.
Of course, they could be crazy...

BTW, I agree with most of what you have said about Hillary. Excellent analysis. I don't agree with how you have characterized her supporters.

 

[turbo]

I said that "her supporters that intend to block Obama's nomination are crazy." I didn't say that everyone who supported her are crazy, but the ones that scream about how unfairly she has been treated definitely are off-the-wall. If they would like to tear apart the Dem party and turn the convention into a bitter spectacle just to spite Obama for "stealing" Clinton's nomination, they may as well just vote for McCain.

 

[chemisttree]

Yes, I know. There are always a few that are willing to act on their... feelings? For every protester there are perhaps thousands that feel the same, though.

 

[Gokul43201]

The OP (Gokul's post) listed "crazy women" as one of the reasons that Obama lost WV and KY.

Stop misquoting me. If you are going to quote me, please do not quote fragments.

I still haven't heard anything to substantiate that claim (so I thought he was kidding... Oh my!).

I made no claim. Do you know what a question mark is?

Alas, he wasn't (and he continues to bring this up, btw, not me).

Alas! I thought I had laid this to rest when I said:

Edit: I'm tired of this game C-tree. I don't wish to respond to this string of repeated misinterpretations.

 

[chemisttree]

Stop misquoting me. If you are going to quote me, please do not quote fragments.

I'm sorry, I should have said "The OP (Gokul's post) listed "6. More crazy women?" as one of the reasons that Obama lost WV and KY." I was wrong to misquote you or partially quote you.

 

[BobG]

So you believe that Geraldine Ferraro is crazy as well... I wouldn't have gone that far. Loser, yes. Crazy, no.

Her supporters know her record and those number almost half of all Democrats that bothered to vote. You are beginning to convince me that they are crazies! The crazy woman is going around quoting polling data! I can't remember, is that lying?

...The cracks have already formed in the Democrat base and they are widening... apparently.

... BTW, I agree with most of what you have said about Hillary. Excellent analysis. I don't agree with how you have characterized her supporters.

I said that "her supporters that intend to block Obama's nomination are crazy." I didn't say that everyone who supported her are crazy, but the ones that scream about how unfairly she has been treated definitely are off-the-wall. If they would like to tear apart the Dem party and turn the convention into a bitter spectacle just to spite Obama for "stealing" Clinton's nomination, they may as well just vote for McCain.

I think turbo might actually be underestimating how willing some Clinton supporters will be to throw this election: Does a Clinton defeat mean a woman will never, ever be President?

Former Kentucky Labor Secretary Carol Palmore complained to Bloomberg news this weekend, "Never in our lifetime will we have another chance to have a woman president." Last Thursday, Marie Cocco wrote a column for the Washington Post suggesting that "if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation." Days earlier, Kate Zernike penned a piece for the New York Times bemoaning the fact that "there is no Hillary waiting in the wings."

... They argue that Clinton had a legitimate shot at the presidency only because she represented a once-in-a-lifetime lightning strike of marriage, fame, and experience that is not only unique to her but that will die with her failed nomination.

Seems to me that McCain could help himself quite a bit by choosing a female VP. Among those crazy feminists, there have to be a few conservative enough to jump ship.

It's no different than voting for a third party candidate. If you're not willing to throw an election now and then, how do you expect to get your party to listen to you in the long run?

In fact, what's to say the switch won't be permanent? Last election, I heard quite a few "true conservatives" of my district saying the RINOs should just go ahead and join the Democrat Party. Did they forget that their wing of the party used to be Democrats?

 

[Art]

I'm not so sure running Clinton on the ticket would help Obama win. I'm not sure what she'd actually bring to the party. For victory they need to win over the uncommitted voters many of whom might support Obama but detest Clinton so much they wouldn't vote for him if she's part of the package which probably cancels out the female voters who will defect if she is not on the ticket.

Obama's main problem is I would think with a hardcore sizeable minority of racist voters particularly from the Hispanic community whose prejudices probably won't be overcome by Clinton's presence either.

 

[Gokul43201]

From BobG's link:

They argue that Clinton had a legitimate shot at the presidency only because she represented a once-in-a-lifetime lightning strike of marriage, fame, and experience that is not only unique to her but that will die with her failed nomination.

You see this oh so often! Feminists that say things like the above seem quite willing to sacrifice any principles they may have had at the altar of opportunism. How can they justify supporting the woman candidate that has made it a key point of her campaign to ride the coat-tails of her husband? These people (Hillary leading the charge) do feminism a much greater disservice than the average misogynist.

 

[Art]

I came across this really well written article in relation to Clinton's RFK comments which is the best analysis I have seen. It begins thus - but you really need to read it all

Clinton's Grim Scenario

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; Page A13

If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?

A woman uniformly described by her close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race -- an argument that is ungenuine, unprincipled and insane. She vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the convention in August. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601743.html

 

[Art]

From BobG's link:
You see this oh so often! Feminists that say things like the above seem quite willing to sacrifice any principles they may have had at the altar of opportunism. How can they justify supporting the woman candidate that has made it a key point of her campaign to ride the coat-tails of her husband? These people (Hillary leading the charge) do feminism a much greater disservice than the average misogynist.

I don't see why they see Clinton as the only possible female candidate. Not so long ago Condi Rice was being touted as a possible Republican nominee until her close ties to Bush burned her and I've no doubt other female potentials will come along sooner rather than later.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I see nothing wrong with Clinton staying in the race until Obama reaches the magic number. If Florigan gets counted at 50%, and I think that's how it will go, then she can stay in the race through the convention. However, her claim that Florida and Michigan be fully counted goes against party rules. Nobody, except perhaps a few Republicans, wants to hear "He played by the rules and won, so they changed the rules." Anyway it isn't working for her. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

According to this site: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html" Clinton needs to get 5.5 delegates for each delegate that Obama gets, going forward. That's considerably better than she did in WV and KY. In fact, it's rare that you can get people to agree with each other that much about anything. The good news for her is that Obama got 7 delegates to her 1 delegate since May 25, so it can be done.