I was off the grid from Friday afternoon to Sunday night, as I'm sure many of you were as well, so here's a little catch up post. It's best to go right to the source, so here's the video, decide for yourself. Hillary felt the need to write an op-ed defending herself, and largely blaming others for the uproar. Then read Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News. Also check out Maureen Dowd's take, it seems most people think this has "killed" any chance of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket.
Hillary's "apology"
The Sunday show mash-up on Hillary/RFK:
The first ten minutes of Meet The Press were particularly brutal and solemn from a historical perspective. This may be one that Hillary can not take back and that people will not forget.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The source video
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Olbermann's special comment on Hillary/RFK
AmericaBlog: Would Hillary talk about hijackings in the security line at the airport? Just curious since, you know, people trying to blow up planes are historical facts.
The Secret Service should make an example of this FOX News analyst... so NOT funny. She jokes about knocking off Osama and Obama, she'd get both "if we could."
Veepstakes
It's really fun to think about who should be Obama's VP. Let's go through the qualifications:
1. Helps win swing states.
2. Balances the ticket.
3. Doesn't wish you dead.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Beyond the pale
Apparently Hillary's last best hope is that Obama will die before he can actually get the nomination.
Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.Yes, she quickly apologized, how could she not. Damage control and all. But the mere fact that she ever entertained the thought, much less verbalized it, should be deeply disturbing even to her supporters.
The Hillary/Obama VP dance
As someone who loves politics, I find this whole VP dance fascinating. How does Obama avoid being saddled with Hillary Clinton? It's a delicate game.
We have tons of unknown dependent variables that have huge influence over the independent variable (who Obama will pick). Unknowns:
1. What does Hillary want? How bad does she want it?
2. What does Obama want? How strongly does he feel?
3. What does Bill want?
4. What would Bill's role be "on the ticket"?
5. Would Hillary and Obama be willing to "play ball" and put on a political kubuki show where Obama offers her the VP spot and she graciously declines and then endorses him?
6. What do party insiders want?
7. How badly do Hillary's elected supporters want this?
8. What does Michelle Obama want?
9. What do Obama's elected supporters want?
I've been speculating that the scenarion layed out in #5 will probably play out (because Hillary doesn't want to be VP), but recent headlines/rumors ("Bill wants Hillary on the ticket!" and "Obama rejects Hillary over the phone" and "Michelle nixes Hillary") have really throw a monkey wrench into this whole thing.
Let's look at the pros and cons of Hillary on the ticket:
Pros:
1. Immediate party unity - Obama's percent of the Dem vote in polls goes up a bit - particularly in Florida and Michigan. His fundraising surges to astronomical levels as Clinton money floods his campaign.
2. Obama gets access to the Clinton economic brand, which helps with a few white blue collar folks.
3. Obama gains female supporters.
Cons:
1. GOP base turnout goes up 3% in every Congressional Distric in the nation. Dem pickup opporunities shrink. Whereas Dems would have picked up 30 House seats, they pick up 15. Whereas they would have picked up 6-7 Senate seats, they pick up 4-5.
2. Obama's carefully crafted "change" brand is demolished in one stroke. He looks weak and willing to bend to pressure from Bill Clinton.
3. Hillary/Bill Clinton financial/bimbo scandals emerge. Old scandals (like the pardons, which have barely been touched by the media) reemerge.
4. Clinton turns off male swing voters.
5. Clinton turns off male crossover Republicans.
6. Clinton turns off older voters who could have stomached voting for a black man or a white woman, but not both.
7. Clinton turns off young non-politicos who warmed to Obama but who genuinely hate her.
8. Bill Clinton is gaffe prone in the new media age.
PS: This is a great post over at Americablog. For Hillary to be on the ticket, she has to agree to be vetted by Obama. That means she has to open up all of the library records and everything else. Would she feel comfortable even giving this information to Barack Obama? I doubt it.
Joe Biden is my Hero.
An excellent rebuttal to rogue Democrat Joe Lieberman's complaint about Democrats and foreign policy:
I would add that Hezbollah is actually victorious in Lebanon following the expansion of their representation in that government. Hezbollah is powerful enough to veto any action the Lebanese government takes.On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.
Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.
He continues his offensive against McCain, backing up Obama's stance:
And lastly:Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
McCain Drops his Hitler-Praising Pastor
Just weeks after Hagee tried to calm the political storm over his calling the Catholic Church "the great whore," now revelations that in the 1990's Hagee also preached that Hitler was doing "god's work" by exterminating Jews in Europe have caused McCain to cut his ties to the preacher. McCain had formed a political partnership with Hagee early on in his campaign and accepted his endorsement.
This reflects the increasing difficulty McCain is going to have with balancing his actual views and beliefs with that of the far right, which he must court and win the backing of to win the US presidency. It also has direct parallels to Obama's trouble with his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The Obama campaign would be foolish not to go after this hard, pointing out the difference in extremity between what Haggee has said about Catholics and Jews and what Wright has said about America's foreign policy. They would also be wise to point out that Wright has never been part of the Obama campaign, wheras Hagee has been an integral part of the McCain campaign Now that Obama is guaranteed to be the Democratic nominee, the campaign can fully devote the time to persuing McCain on this issue.
al-Jazeera report from Kentucky
This was interesting... they dug a little deeper than most US media outlets seemed willing to in the past few weeks. I think Jim Webb said it well that if somebody can bind blacks and less educated whites together in a political coalition, they will be able to re-shape American politics for a generation.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Electoral College Math -- State Rankings
Update, Thursday, 5/22: I'm going to drag this post to the top every once in a while, to keep our discussions all in one place on this topic. If people would like to do that with other topics, let me know.
Interesting poll out this morning showing Hillary doing better in FL, OH, and PA. Obama still ahead in PA, but by less.
But it's not all about just the BIG STATES. You can win with the right combination of smaller states as well. Florida would have been irrelevant in 2000 had Gore gotten a few thousand more votes in New Hampshire. There's another poll from SurveyUSA showing Obama ahead 49-42% in Virginia. Pair IA, CO and VA with the Kerry states, even minus NH, and you're at 277 for Obama.
And I would not put much stock in the VP matchups that SurveyUSA is testing in these state polls coming out recently. It's all kind of just nonsense at this point, mostly just a measure of name ID.
My map shown here is my scenario, giving Obama IA, CO, NM, NV, VA, OH, MO... and also Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (which includes the city of Omaha and its suburbs). It results in a 323-215 result. You can play around with the map-maker here. It's annoying because the colors are reversed.
Wednesday, 5/21: Here's a little game we can all play in the comments. It looks like it's going to be Obama vs. McCain. To become president, you need 270 electoral votes... what state do we think is the pivot point that would put Obama over the top?
John Kerry won 252 electoral votes in 2004, and I think people would argue that only these states are seriously at risk with Obama as the nominee, barring a total McCain blowout: New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17). Obama is strong in the Pacific Northwest, so this takes Washington and Oregon out of play, as his strength in the Upper Midwest makes Minnesota and Wisconsin pretty strong for him. I doubt any of you envision a scenario where he wins without these states. Same story with New Jersey or Massachusetts, etc. If he loses any of these states it's a McCain blowout.
That gets us to a baseline of 210 electoral votes. What marginal order do you put the rest of the states in, that you think it's possible he might win? If you think it's even remotely possible he'll win a state, include it in your list. Put a star next to the most likely place where you think things will come out. You can cut and paste my prediction and adapt it in the comments.
BASELINE: 210
Iowa (7): 217
Michigan (17): 234
Colorado (9): 243
Pennsylvania (21): 264
New Mexico (5): 269
Nevada (5): 274
New Hampshire (4): 278
Ohio (20): 298
Virginia (13): 311
Missouri (11): 322 *
Florida (27): 349
North Carolina (15): 364
Georgia (15): 379
Nevada is my key state.
NJ Senate race heating up
A clear play for the older woman vote in New Jersey, many of whom are probably feeling depressed about Hillary Clinton's defeat by a younger man.
Lautenberg is out in front 49-19-7% as we enter the final two weeks. Andrews would need quite a rally at the end to overcome that, though not impossible as most people probably won't really focus on the race until after Memorial Day weekend. I really have no idea what the big issues are in this race, besides Lautenberg's age.
Hillary Clinton should not be considered for the Supreme Court
"It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one."I think Clinton should have been the nominee and I also think that given a different career path she would have made an excellent judge and given her own talents and intelligence would probably have been among a select few to be considered for the Supreme Court.
But one of the central arguments that Democrats have made since the dawn of the age of Bush II is that merit, not political debt or loyalty, should be the determining factor in choosing the stewards of our government. Roberts and Alito, while conservative and not whom I have in mind when picking Supreme court judges, are qualified by their long experience. Clinton has never been a judge, has never argued a case before the supreme court, has no experience in the field of Constitutional law, hasn't practiced law since 1991.
Obama making this pact would be conforming to Washington "politics as usual," and this act will be seen by all as the cynical grab for votes that it is. It would make us as bad as our opponents.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This is really sad II.
(Via Johnathan Martin, via Michelle Malkin, via Redstate).
John McCain wants you to Blog. And Comment. and earn points. Like Marlboro points or something. after you go back to John McCain and tell them which of the day's blog you posted or commented on.
you cut and paste McCain talking points like these in a blog:
The Issue: Time for Solutions John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin. Read More...
The Issue: Partisanship There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. Read More...
Besides me, what Moron would do this?
This Appeasement Nonsense
I think we are all in agreement that George W. Bush, if not the worst president to ever burden the U.S.A., is at least the dumbest. Barack Obama's response to his appeasement comment was suitable, and played to his desire for newer and better efforts:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.Other Bush supporting retards include Joe Lieberman and Ed Koch.
"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in his statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."
Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels - President to President without pre-conditions -- with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name - appeasement?Yes Ed, it is. Appeasement would be AGREEING to something after negotiation, and surrendering something in the face of a threat. Talking to Iran doesn't give them anything except perhaps the initiative to actually accomplish something at a negotiating table. A photo-op of President Obama talking to Ahmadinejad may make for great propaganda, but so would President Obama walking out of talks.
Former Kissinger staffer, K.T. McFarland, is master of the obvious with this line:
I was in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and I can attest that those Presidents understood the danger of prematurely forcing top-level meetings without sufficient preconditions. Neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan would sit down for face-to-face meetings with their counterparts in enemy nations until America had some realistic - and playable - bargaining chips. They recognized that negotiating without leverage isn't negotiating, it's begging.K.T. failed to note that our bargaining chips are being thrown away a dollar and a life at a time in Iraq. Our economic health is another bargaining chip, as is the power of our currency and our international prestige. He also fails to mention someone who sat down with Iran and negotiated without much of a chip pile, President Jimmy Carter, negotiating the release of American hostages, was able to do so with nothing but international opinion to back him up.
I think though, that the best response to the President's words comes from Republican Pat Buchanan:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing," wrote Alexander Pope.
Daily, our 43rd president testifies to Pope's point.
Question.
So...
She's basically staying in the race to force them to seat florida and michigan?
Also...
Does anybody believe this will happen?
Also...
Does she really think she'll get ALL the delegates?
Electoral College Math
EJ Dionne was on Diane Rehme Show on NPR today. He was saying the Electoral College math is very difficult for both Obama and Clinton.
While, in a generic dem. v. rep. contest, the democrat trounces the republican, put McCain on the ticket versus either Sen. Obama, or Sen. Clinton, and its a tight race indeed, with the advantage going to the Dems, but unfortunately, a very small advantage.
Basically, if it is Sen. Clinton, she has the traditional Dem. map at play. She HAS to win BOTH Fla. and Ohio. With Crist as gov. of Fla., and the state trending Rep., it would be amazingly hard to do.
Barack, if he loses Ohio, has to win Wash., Oregon, Iowa, and VA, and also win NH, where the polls show him sig. behind McCain. That is a tall order indeed.
Ohio, again, becomes THE state.
Who knows what will happen in the future, but this election, while slightly in the dems favor, could seriously go to McCain. I am sure Electo knows this far better than I could ever hope, but due to the utterly arcane electoral college system, the dems may yet lose this thing.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Which is it?
We're hearing two contradictory statements out of the Hillary camp lately:
Statement one:
Hillary Clinton has been savagely brutalized by sexism during this primary. Sexism has effectively stolen this primary from her. (Note: 58% of Democratic primary voters are women....mostly liberal women)
Statement two:
Hillary Clinton is a dynamic and strong general election candidate. She will crush McCain. She is vetted and nothing will stick to her.
These statements are ridiculously contradictory. If Hillary can't beat sexism in a primary where the demographics are stacked in her favor and gender attitudes are liberal, then how can she win in the General Election?
The answer is obvious. There was occasional/anecdotal sexism in this campaign, but:
1. Hillary Clinton's campaign was too incompetent to rally women around their cause.
2. Despite her overwhelming demographic advantage, Hillary Clinton is a horribly flawed candidate. She's not likable. She's wrong on the biggest issue of our generation (Iraq). She failed miserably at healthcare. Her experience is nonexistent (first lady for 30 years is not actual experience). She's an awful candidate who is nothing more than a weak continuation of her husband's brand fueled by favorable demographics.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton will go down in history as a sort of weak and watered down version of Bill Clinton - handed every advantage, but without an ounce of charisma and saddled by a criminally incompetent campaign.
Yep, we should listen to wise, unbiased Karl Rove
This is a new level in ridiculosity.
Quoting a Karl Rove-engineered analysis that "somebody got a hold of" (OMG, He did not lock up his Super-Secret Analysis?!?), Clinton points out that Rove believes she could vanquish McCain more easily than Obama. So she should be the nominee of course.
I don't know what makes this more ridiculous...Sen. Clinton not understanding why Rove would be pushing for her to be the nominee? or thinking her Democratic audience would receive Rove's "analysis" with anything more than a chuckle? because the Rove Math was so accurate in the 2006 elections, yes it was.
I thought her remaining time in this race would be used to repair her image and unite Democrats...She should be deeply embarassed to be using Rove's "opinions" to bolster an electability argument if for no other reason than it makes her look extremely foolish. I wish she would exit more gracefully for her own sake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
