Clinton vows to keep fighting ‘until there’s a nominee’; Obama eyes general
Hillary Clinton hosted a press conference in West Virginia this afternoon, and she certainly didn’t sound like a candidate on the verge of dropping out. TPM posted this video excerpt.
On her first point, Clinton said she’d remain in the presidential race “until there’s a nominee.” Like Greg Sargent, I found the phrase a little ambiguous. As a literal, technical matter, “there’s a nominee” once delegates pick one at the convention, in this case, at the end of August in Denver. Is Clinton planning to fight on until then?
It’s more likely, I suppose, that Clinton meant she’d stay in until a candidate passed the necessary threshold for delegates (in Dems’ case, 2,025), thus claiming the nomination. But that leads to her second point from this afternoon’s press conference: “Under the rules of the Democratic Party, the Rules and Bylaws Committee makes the first determination. And if people are not satisfied with that they go to the Credentials Committee. So we’ll see what the outcome is.”
Listening to pundits last night and this morning, there was a sense that top Clinton aides and allies would go to the senator, congratulate her on a job well done, and argue that it’s time to wrap things up and make a graceful exit. A Clinton strategist told the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza this afternoon, “I believe there is no path to victory. I also believe she wants to see a Democrat win in November and she will do the right thing.”
But what if she considers the “right thing” keeping this race going indefinitely?
Well, perhaps “indefinitely” is the wrong word here. The Huffington Post reported this afternoon that the Clinton campaign is planning to stick around at least another five or six weeks.
A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be a Democratic nominee by June 15. He could not bring himself to say the words “Hillary will drop out by June 15,” but that is clearly what he meant. I kept saying, “So, Hillary will drop out by June 15,” and he kept saying, “We will have a nominee by June 15.” He stressed what a reasonable person Hillary is.
Everything about our conversation implied that he had already had this reality-based discussion with Hillary. He said the Clinton campaign plan is to collect as many votes and delegates as they can right through June 3, then take no more than a week or so to make their case to the superdelegates. Nothing he said indicated that he actually expected the superdelegates to move to Hillary in the week after the final election. The Clinton campaign has not lost its grip on reality. Yes, Clinton spokespersons publicly seem to be lost on gravity-free planet Clinton, but privately they know the end is near.
Perhaps, but June 15 is not exactly “near.” If the uncommitted superdelegates find the prospect of five or six weeks of additional campaigning unpleasant, this might be a good time to speak up.
And how has Barack Obama spent his day? The frontrunner was home in Chicago today, and the AP report said his “aides spread word that he would soon begin campaigning in states likely to be pivotal in the fall campaign.” Ben Smith had a similar report, noting that chief strategist David Axelrod told reporters on the campaign plane last night, “I don’t think we are doing to spend our time solely in primary states.”
Stay tuned.
So now Clinton cares about the rules of the party?
Um … okay. I guess it’s better late than never.
Hillary’s new threshold is over 2200 delegates though.
uh, hill? there is a nominee. and it ain’t you.
buh-bye, and thanks for playing.
It’s more likely, I suppose, that Clinton meant she’d stay in until a candidate passed the necessary threshold for delegates (in Dems’ case, 2,025), thus claiming the nomination.
That’s not the number her website uses. She’s in it until the end. The only question is, will anyone care? Ron Paul’s still in it, but no one cares; he’s a nonplayer. Her player status is granted to her because she’s a Clinton. No other nominee would have been afforded as much latitude.
She’s out of reasonable firewalls, so it’s Florida and Michigan now, and the more she disingenuously acts like it’s Obama’s fault they aren’t included (Lanny Davis on CNN last night outright said it was Obama’s fault), the more she hurts the party and proves me right that she’s in it for 2012.
The “dark” possibilty is that Clinton has always wanted to get to the convention so that some kind of “behind-closed-doors” pressure and tricks could be pulled using Enron-style accounting techniques. Last night makes that more difficult, but it may still be her goal, and also hoping again that Obama screws up once more in the next few weeks.
doubtful, the notion that clinton has gotten a free ride on her longshot chances doesn’t really past the test of history: humphrey had the nomination wrapped in 1968 and yet mccarthy fought to the end without disdain; mcgovern had the nomination wrapped in 1972 and yet an ABM (anyone but mcgovern) movement got traction without disdain; carter had the nomination wrapped in 1976 and yet an ABC (anyone but carter) movement got traction without disdain.
you see my point: and that was with races much less close than this one has been.
if clinton were running at ron paul levels, she would be treated with ron paul attention.
meanwhile, obama (if your last paragraph is correct) is on the right track: he should ignore clinton, by and large, and run against mccain from here on….
Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania Blvd.
Oregon has just been called for Barack Obama. Super delegates immediately begin supporting him. He has secured the nomination. Hillary Clinton sits alone in her hotel suite staring blankly at the tv. The lobby is filled with supporters waiting for her to come down to the ballroom to address them. There is a throng of reporters and tv cameras. Her aids are in a panic. The Senator will not leave her room. The hotel manager tells Bill Clinton that they must get her out. The Obama campaign needs the suite tomorrow. Bill Clinton says, “Wait a minute, I have an idea.” He motions to the camera crews to take their place by the staircase. He tells her teary-eyed aid to “go up stairs and tell Madame President that her motorcade is her.”
Moments later Hillary clinton appears at the top of the stairs dressed in her finest pantsuit. She slowly, regally decends the stairs. Halfway down she stops. She thanks all of those “wonderful voters in the swing states” and then continues on down the stairs…”I’m ready for my inauguration Chief Justice Roberts…”
Looks like Hillary is trying to reconstitute the Barnburner wing of the Democratic Party.
But this time, instead burning down party to destroy slavery, Hillary and her people have to burn down the party to destroy Obama. If she still thinks the nomination belongs to her, this is the route she’ll travel.
The Clinton campaign has not lost its grip on reality. Her supporters have, why should we believe this person? CB, you give Hillary way to much credit these days.
Hillary, like Bush is walking around with blinders on. She doesn’t want it for America, she wants it for herself.
And that is the irony of running for the 31 public service job in the country.
Who hasn’t seen this coming….?
I applaud her tenacity, but her stubbornness to see the damage she’s causing is unbelievable.
:crickets::
doubtful, the notion that clinton has gotten a free ride on her longshot chances doesn’t really past the test of history… -howard
The races in 68, 72, and 76 you mention were not subject to 24 hour news and the internet, so I feel the comparison is moot. Hillary is only allowed to persist in this race because the media has treated her differently than they would any other candidate because she’s a former First Lady, which also makes it incomparably different from those races.
I honestly don’t think you can historically support or deny it (an apt comparison just doesn’t exist), but I get the sense that if the standings were reversed, Obama would have been pushed out two months ago.
I would rather celebrate than mock or disenfranchise. To show my appreciation than my disdain because above all else this republican disaster must end. My fear is not of a McCain win but of what Bush might do before he leaves office, because our reps, thanks to Pelosi, are powerless to stop him doing anything he wants.
The frontrunner was home in Chicago today, and the AP report said his “aides spread word that he would soon begin campaigning in states likely to be pivotal in the fall campaign.”
Yeah; I got a note from the campaign a couple of days ago, saying they’re gearing up for an all-country campaign to register as many new voters as possible, to introduce Obama in places he hadn’t yet visited, etc. So it does seem like he, at any rate, is ready to move on.
Clinton Campaign Proposes One Last Contest
If everyone could send this link to their Hillary supporting friens it would be appricated. http://hillaryis404.org/
here’s what i find fascinating (and i say this a tepid obama supporter): apparently, people like commander guy and sickofbushclintonbush have the gift of foresight: they know, without question, that obama will run better against mccain than clinton.
one wonders how they know this?
obviously there is ego involved here (stop the presses! a politician with ego!), but clinton also (and in my estimation legitimately) believes that she will do better against mccain than obama will.
the more time goes by, the more i think that obama will be the jimmy carter of 2008 (for you young people, carter was once the refreshing new voice who would bind our wounds and all the other new agey stuff that is now ascribed to obama). i hope i’m wrong, but carter nearly blew the ’76 election (which should have been a rollover) and ended up with a pretty failed presidency.
i’ve truly only cared about one thing in this primary: who has the better chance to win in november. i still don’t know, although it no longer matters, given that obama does have this thing wrapped, but i do know that it’s entirely possible that clinton fears the same thing i do about obama and his prospects for november and beyond.
Hillary’s most important backer says “hang in there!”
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11573
what the dirtbag has already accomplished:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-limbaugh-effec_n_100488.html
The hotel manager tells Bill Clinton that they must get her out…
Bill laughs and claps off-key. His face is beet red. He says something ribald about the hotel maid and grins crookedly. Chelsea enters the room shaking her new hair like Farah Fawcett Majors. “Mom. Mom. Mom.” she says, “we got to go.”
Hillary continues to stare blankly at the tv.
Carville enters the room, walks up to Hillary and says: Ma’am you got some of the biggest hairiest balls I’ve ever seen on a woman. Go down there honey and obliterate them…
Hillary continues to stare blankly at the tv.
McCain enters the room with a bottle of Vodka and two shot glasses. He goes straight up to Hillary and pours two to the rim. They snort the shots together. He asks her: “Will you by my Veep.” She reponds: “You are my Hero.”
In the ballroom, Iglesias famous “You are my Hero” pop song gets sprayed over the crowd at mega-decibles. McCain takes McClinton by the hand… they move towards the door. Bill continues to grin fatuously. Carville squeezes Chelsea’s butt. She grins at him and says: Will you still love me when I’m 45?
Howard, do you think Obama is like Carter, and McCain is like Reagan?
Really?
Obama is the Reagan of our time. He’s got the charisma, and his opponent doesn’t. What’s more, he’s saying what needs to be said.
“…campaigning in states likely to be pivotal in the fall campaign.”
Good decision, Obama campaign. Obama should tour the toss up states in this very helpful map.
doubtful, you’ll forgive me if i say that i don’t think the internet has changed everything all that much: i’ve given you actual historic patterning.
you’ve given me back a supposition that obama would have been “pushed out” two months ago were the roles reversed.
as keynes tells us, people are entitled to their own opinions (but not their own facts): maybe you’re right, but telling me that the internet has changed everything (or the 24 hour news cycle, or what have you) or telling me that you believe that had obama been in clinton’s position, he would have been “pushed out” falls into the “own facts” column as far as i’m concerned.
but i’ll tell you what: find me a primary contest that has been as close as this one (which you’d be hard-pressed to do, partly because there are so many more primaries now) and show us what happened and whether it supports your case.
because i’d say what has kept clinton’s campaign alive is voters, millions of them, who favor her.
It sort of amazes me how superfluous the work of a US senator (and a powerful one at that, too) must be for her to basically take another month or six weeks off of her job and nobody bats an eye.
Hillary, McCain’s darkhorse VP choice is trying to kneecap Obama before she leaves the party
Racer X, Carter didn’t run against Reagan in 1976, he ran against Reagan in 1980; i’m referencing 1976.
as for the reagan of our time: that’s an analogy that i do not agree with at all. Reagan’s victory was the outcome of 16 years of hard labor by the right wing, starting with goldwater’s loss. he’d been a public figure for a very long time, was easily as gifted a speechmaker as obama, and people knew exactly what reagan stood for: lower taxes, less regulation, law-and-order justices, a hard line against the soviets, and no further iran-hostage-like humiliations.
i don’t see any comparability between that and obama: there hasn’t been a political movement patiently organizing since 1992, obama is not all that well known, and most important: i have no idea what obama stands for other than the virtues of intelligence in policymaking and the idea that old racial barriers can and should be transcended.
for the record, i think the upside with obama is quite high (higher than clinton’s), but so is the downside (hence my carter analogy). and most important, obama has already sold out universal health care.
so i don’t agree at all with the reagan-like figure analogy….
Howard is your last name Wolfson?
Rick, this is precisely and totally why i find these obama-clinton discussions so dispiriting: they lead people to saying inane things.
let’s see: i’ve noted that no one can forsee who will run better against mccain, i’ve suggested that clinton has legitimate basis for thinking she would, i’ve provided historic patterns that suggest that it’s not true that were she not named clinton she would have been pushed out of the race, i’ve praised obama’s upside while noting concerns about his downside, and for my troubles, some clown wants to know if i’m a clinton flack.
no, i’m not, and only a delusional obama supporter (of the type who have very nearly turned me off obama, whom, for the record, i have supported all along for the very reasons as notbushclintonbush) would suggest such a thing.
if you’d care to know why obama is getting a reputation as an elitest who has trouble with shot-and-beer voters, you might look in the mirror….
I think howard threw a rod back there.
Cleanup on aisle #24!
Howard–
The Carter – Obama comparison is invalid for one very good reason:
People in 2008 are absolutely sick and damn tired of the GOP.
That’s been proven in voter registrations and turnout for the Dems, the amount of money raised, and the fact even the Wright controversy hasn’t seemed to hurt Obama any.
It would take a meltdown of HISTORIC proportions for either Dem to lose to McCain … or some sort of shenanigans with the voting machines (which is more likely to happen).
Given that, I just don’t buy what you’re selling. Sorry.
the more time goes by, the more i think that obama will be the jimmy carter of 2008
But why? He’s totally trounced Hillary, despite the fact that she went into this thing as the clear frontrunner just a few months ago. And the only reason she’s been able to do what she’s done is through scortched-earth tactics which have clearly hurt her more than him. While he’s continuing to get the same support he always has, despite her constant attacks and the media’s complete focus on him; she’s just getting less popular with Democrats. She’s thrown everything she’s got at Obama, and still almost lost a state that heavily favored her. And her attacks are far more potent than anything McCain can throw at him, because most folks hate the Republicans. Hillary’s attacks were influential because she was speaking to Democrats who already liked her, but the only folks who will listen to McCain are the Republicans who were already going to vote for him anyway. And for as much as any non-wingnuts sort of like McCain now, that’ll change once Obama sets his sights on him. McCain’s freeride is about to come to an end.
But again, you’ve got to get out of this idea that Hillary’s somehow the better campaigner. She’s lied like hell and completely embarrassed herself with absurd pandering, and STILL couldn’t stop his momentum. She’s loaning herself millions while Obama continues to rake it in from a huge loyal following. Barack was definitely the better campaigner here. Hillary might have been better at controlling the media circus, but most folks don’t take their cues from those bozos anyway.
As for whether Hillary is just concerned about Obama losing, please. Would you say this about any other politician? Anyone else is considered an egotist for not acknowledging reality and dropping out. Only Hillary is considered a saint for doing the same, but the idea is just as laughable as it is with anyone else.
Kos went into this recently and I agree with him that the best case scenario is Clinton staying in until voting wraps up (early June) with a positive campaign.
Obama has been making appeals to Clinton partisans, who cause worry by the high number that say they won’t vote for Obama in November. If Clinton is seen as being forced out by Obama and the Democratic party a lot of them will be bitter (no pun intended) and will take that bitterness with them to the polls. If Clinton stays in until she has lost based on the rules (delegates) and then, as this post said, makes her appeal and drops out, that is the best case scenario.
The damage is already done by her sticking to it and running such a negative campaign. If she keeps being as negative as she has been, it is better if she gives up sooner rather than later, but if she runs more positively, as is expected, it would be good for everyone involved if she ran a graceful campaign, bowed out in June and worked to put a Democrat in the Whitehouse for 2009. Her negativity and gas-tax pandering failed to win her NC which was her last good shot – it’s time to give Penn a long vacation.
Her and her husband have already done enormous damage to the Clinton name and legacy and have spent so much of their political currency that a graceful and neat wrap-up is vitally in their interest if they have any political ambition for the future or for their daughter.
Daily Kos reference: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/6/221033/3197/107/510437
racer x, you’re going to have to explain that one to me: in what ways are you seeing obama as the democrats reagan? i’ve told you why i don’t: now explain why you do.
mark D, i’m not “selling,” i’m suggesting, but surely you jest: 1976 was 2 years after nixon had left office: the gop was not held in a favorable light (yes, it’s slightly worse now). you need to take a look at the polling data from 1976: careter had an enormous lead over ford that got smaller and smaller and smaller as the election got closer and closer and closer….
“It would take a meltdown of HISTORIC proportions for either Dem to lose to McCain ”
That would be a lot easier to believe if McCain weren’t running more or less even with both candidates in hypothetical matchups right now.
no one can forsee who will run better against mccain
All available polls show that Obama will run as well as Clinton against McCain, howard, and with stronger support in more states. He plays defense in fewer states than she does, wins many more lean-blue and purple states than she does, and has more states solidly locked up, leading to an electoral vote win against McCain (though a win composed rather differently from Clinton’s). You can find all of these polls at pollster.com, surveyusa.com and openleft.com, among other places, but you’ll need to take some time to go through them.
Howard, you gave me historical analogy, which I said was flawed. As I stated before, I don’t think history can prove you right and me wrong, or vice versa, especially 30 year old history. Too much has changed since then, and the most obvious change is the new player in the game: the corporate 24 hour media.
People are inundated with information about the primary in a way now they weren’t even as recently as 2000. It has permeated every aspect of daily life. That was not the case in any of the primaries you cited. Nor were any of the participants in the primary you cited a former First Lady.
If you don’t think that the corporate media and internet media have been a player in this primary and election, you’re just being naive. That’s a supposition you can’t support, even with loosely related historical evidence.
You may find it hard to believe, but there are situations that you can’t make a relevant historical analogy to. This primary is not case of history repeating itself, it’s a case of history being made. I give you a supposition because, as I assert and you cannot deny, this race is too unlike any that came before it, and as such I view it as incomparable to those races.
as keynes tells us, people are entitled to their own opinions (but not their own facts)
How insulting. You’re making an assumption based on history I feel is woefully unrelatable, and then essentially telling me you’ve got facts and I’ve got guesses. At least I am willing to admit I’m guessing, but you’re pointing to an apple and calling it an orange and then claiming that’s a fact.
What part of “…but I get the sense…” doesn’t lead you to understand it’s a feeling, belief, and thought I had? I’m not laying claim to it as fact as you say. I think your comparison of those previous primaries is to disparate to be meaningful; I don’t think there is any historical comparison that is apt. I have my own thoughts about this primary which I have stated, and you obviously disagree, but that doesn’t mean you’re right, and I’m wrong, no matter what flawed comparison you make. It’s still your opinion and I’ve not insulted you for having it.
because i’d say what has kept clinton’s campaign alive is voters, millions of them, who favor her. -howard
The reality is that those voters became less relevant once his lead in elected delegates became insurmountable a couple of months ago, around Wisconsin. I think it naive to think that another candidate wouldn’t have been pushed out in the name of unity at that point, but Clinton was able to persist because the media loved the story.
That story wouldn’t have been as interesting if she weren’t a Clinton, a woman, and a former First Lady.
And to your concern to Obama’s electability, don’t think for a second that Obama and his supporters don’t share the same concern about her electability. When a significant number of people in Indiana vote for her and indicate McCain will be their choice in November, I think it speaks volumes about her lack of viability.
doctor biobrain: i’ll repeat, this is why i find this kind of stuff so dispiriting. when have i said that clinton is the better campaigner? what i’ve said is that it’s perfeclty legitimate for clinton to believe that when push-comes-to-shove in the polling booths in november, she can do better than obama. she may be right, she may be wrong, but we have no useful metrics to tell us given that we have no past examples of a woman or a black running in november.
meanwhile, obviously people need to do a little more background reading: carter came from absolutely nowhere in 1976. he wowed people with his post-mcgovern transcendence; he was a southerner whose hands were not stained with racism. he looked like one helluva candidate in may, 1976.
and really, i am getting sick and tired of people proving unable to read the english language correctly: i did not call clinton a saint. i said – and i’m waiting for evidence, as opposed to opinion – that there is no historic precedent for clinton dropping out under the current circumstances because there is no modern historic equivalent of a race this tight.
That would be a lot easier to believe if McCain weren’t running more or less even with both candidates in hypothetical matchups right now. -JRD
Hopefully that is a side effect of all the infighting and will clear up once the party is unified behind Obama. One of them especially has been so focused on the others negatives that nary a word has been said concerning McCain. I think that’s about to change.
maria, i’m familiar with the polling data. may polling for a november general election is not dispositive. it’s really that simple.
doubtful, you must be a young sort: i can assure you that in 1968 and 1972 and 1976 (and it goes on, i just stopped with those) lots of people were paying every bit as much attention as they are today. what you want is me to concede your “opinion” as fact; i’m sorry you find that insulting (it wasn’t my intent: i tend to be blunter in my insults) but when you want to insist that if circumstances were reversed between clinton and obama, obama would have been pushed out of the race, it would be nice to see an example or two rather than your supposition.
as for your media assumptions, i don’t even understand them: clinton still gets play because she’s still winning lots of votes in many states. is ron paul? i stand second to no one in my disdain for media narratives, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
and i don’t know what your last sentence is supposed to mean (perhaps it was a typo?): that clinton voters say they’ll vote for mccain in november is an issue for obama’s viability, not clinton’s.
may polling for a november general election is not dispositive.
No, it’s not. But it’s quite a bit more dependable than gut feelings, including yours, if I may say so. We work with the measurable info and facts we have.
there is no historic precedent for clinton dropping out under the current circumstances
You are correct, Howard – there is no precednet.
There is however the math, and math does not require a precedent. Obama has rightly refrained from calling for Hillary to drop out. But come May 20th – barring an Obama implosion – he will have passed a threshold where it becomes mathematically impossible for Hillary to overtake him in pledged delegates, and there is a historical precedent for the majority winner of pledged delegates to be chosen as the nominee.
She can choose to stay in the race beyond that, but at that point her campaign will officially be tilting at windmills.
Her player status is granted to her because she is still winning primaries. If Clinton were like Ron Paul, she would be picking up trivial numbers of votes and would have only a handful of delegates. She is nearly tied with Obama. That makes calls for her to quit ridiculous. That these calls have come early and often and after every single primary shows that they are politically motivated, not an assessment of her chances of becoming the nominee at the convention.
Maria, please: i do not have a “gut feeling” (that would be doubtful up there who is pushing a gut feeling). i noted that no one knows who will run better in november.
you said i can show you may polling.
i said may polling isn’t meaningful for a november election.
you agreed, and then insisted that we work with the measurable facts we have.
so i’ll say again: we have no measurable facts. we don’t have useful polling data and we don’t have any past examples of women or blacks running for the presidency. ergo, the “fact” (which has nothing to do with my gut: if you want to know what’s in my gut, it’s the fear that obama is carter) is that, just as i said “no one knows.”
howard “not a Clinton flack”: in what ways are you seeing obama as the democrats reagan?
If you have to ask that, you’re pretty much blind. But here goes:
Grass Roots Support: 1.5 million donors and counting.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/15match_feature/graphic
Charisma: Obama gets hit by huge piles of Hillary’s mud, and walks away without a scratch.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/6/12101/53141
Organization: Obama has kicked Hillary’s ass with his smart, massive ground game, despite her huge lead and name recognition.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/indiana_early_voting
And most importantly, as Mark D said, “People in 2008 are absolutely sick and damn tired of the GOP.” Even Bush’s DAD says America is sick of Bush and his friends:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/23/bush-41-acknowledges-bush-fatigue/
I’m pretty sure thgat won’t convince you, but I had to try.
John S., thank you for noticing reality, so let me clarify something that all the jump-to-conclusions folks here haven’t bothered to ascertain: were it up to me, clinton and edwards would have dropped out the day after iowa and the party would have instantly rallied round obama.
i’m not saying that i want clinton to stay in the race; i’m saying there is a reason that she’s staying in the race that is greater than mere ego. she may be right, she may be wrong, and she’s certainly not consulting me (i’d tell her to drop out the day obama crosses the threshold, just as, apparently, you would), but she is entitled (as are her milliions of supporters) to make her own decision based on her own read of the environment (and she will suffer whatever consequences she suffers, such as the great likelihood that if obama loses in november, a large number of obama-philes will blame her forever).
Maria, please: i do not have a “gut feeling” (that would be doubtful up there who is pushing a gut feeling). i noted that no one knows who will run better in november.
All right. But one must be forgiven for interpreting “clinton also (and in my estimation legitimately) believes that she will do better against mccain than obama will” as meaning that you think Clinton’s opinion is, you know, legitimate.
Racer X, you’re right, i am completely unconvinced. what made reagan reagan wasn’t the large number of small supporters (hell, mcgovern had a large number of small supporters); it wasn’t charisma (tons of politicians have had charisma, and teflon); it wasn’t the “ground game” (which wasn’t a particularly large factor in 1980); and it wasn’t democratic fatigue as such (although that helped).
it was the fact that he fronted a large movement that had been building momentum for a long time and that had a very clear set of principles (regardless of what i thought of them).
what you’re listing here (other than the gop fatigure) is true of every sucessful nominee: they have small supporters, they are well organized, they avoid the muck. there’s nothing distinctively reaganesque about any of that.
This is Obama’s chance to win over the rest of the Democrats. Solidify his position as Democratic nominee.
When Clinton is taking the Liberal position on the big issues… You ought to know something is wrong.
Don’t spoil it, now.
maria, she “legitimately” thinks that because there are data points to support that, just as there are data points to support the notion that obama will run better.
no one knows, but if it makes you happier, i’ll happily stipulate that obama legitimately believes that he will run better too.
(in brief, btw, the “legitimate” basis for clinton is that she is strong with important and potentially swing constituencioes, in particular working class whites, and the “legitimate” basis for obama is that he has proven a strong ability to attract new voters into the mix.)
from commenter Pow Wow’s letter at GG’s site at salon .com:
“…That’s Empire speaking, unopposed. As Sandy Levinson put it well about Senator Clinton’s statement regarding Iran:
In any event, one should take special note of Hillary Clinton’s remarkable statement to ABC News, “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” This is the statement of someone running for constitutional dictatorship, not for a “republican form of government” presidency who might have said, for example, “as President, I will certainly urge the Congress to declare war on Iran should Iran attack Israel”–..snip..–“though I recognize that that decision is ultimately for Congress to make.”
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/as-we-prepare-to-elect-our-next.htm
These are the ideas of wars and nukes being thrown around here, death and destruction and atmoshperic effects lasting lifetimes. The USA corporation is an empire, America is still a Republic and Obama is pledging to keep it that way. Experience brings wisdom but it can also bring barriers to change. I want a government that fears it’s people, not the other way around. I know Clinton was just trying to sound tough, maybe she feels the need to, but it should be known that the president can do nothing without the approval of congress and congress must be the voice of the people. Obama seems to infer this when he talks of uniting the country but it is the people who must make this known to congress. Note how Pelosi and Reid ignore the will of the people acting as if they know what is best despite opposing public opinion. We do not elect kings and queens or monarchs or dictators, nor are we an empire. We are a democratic republic (in name only right now) and are ready for President Barack Obama. So we should focus on “We win” and not on “You lose”.
crissa, fwiw, after all of this, what would solidfy obama for me (beyond my current tepid support) would be a full-hearted embrace of john edwards’ universal health care program: i’d like to see obama running on something other than charisma (going back to my points about reagan).
Howard, so, we have no “useful metrics” by which we can judge this race, despite the 49 or so primary/caucuses we’ve seen, yet we’re supposed to turn to a race that happened 32 years ago as a guide? As if general elections are so different from primary elections that we can’t use them in any useful way at all. Right.
Look, I now realize what you think you’re doing, and trust me when I say that you should stop. You’re burying yourself with everyone here. All you’re trying to do is show off your knowledge of history and insist that all of us here are idiots for not being as skeptical as you. But sorry, we’re not. We have a different opinion and have the right to this opinion, even if you think we shouldn’t. You can disagree if you want, but you don’t get to tell us that we’re all wrong for disagreeing. That’s now how this works.
Again, I’m sure that’s not what you’re intending, but that’s exactly how it feels from our end. You’re insulting all of us. Please appreciate that. We’re not idiots. And believe it or not, history of this kind generally doesn’t repeat itself.
And last I checked, Carter actually won the election in 1976. So what’s the point of the comparison to 1976? That someone with a huge lead lost a bunch of it but still won anyway? Or that he had this huge lead, but some folks in the party wanted someone else (which, last I checked, happens quite a bit in primaries)?
Or are you more worried about Obama not being able to govern effectively if elected? If that’s the case, then why? He has pretty much the exact same policy positions that Clinton has (with key differences being her health plan and more hawkish attitude), so I’m not sure why anyone would think she’d do better than he would at pushing forth essentially the same agenda.
Seriously. I’m not exactly sure what your point is, other than trying to compare rhetorical tone and content, since that’s about the only thing the two have in common.
And, as you have correctly pointed out, no one has any real, definitive, 100% rock-solid way of predicting what will happen in November. The thing is, I see few hear trying to do so — just what peoples’ thoughts are on the issue. So I’m not sure what that line of argument is all about.
And it would be a lot easier to believe those hypothetical matchups mattered one bit if it weren’t for the fact McCain has been completely, totally ignored the past few months by the media. Meanwhile, every little thing the Dems have done has been amplified ten times over for days on end, yet the Dems are either tied or leading in almost every poll.
Once the Dems get their house in order, the amount of money they have will be unleashed in a series of ads that will bury McCain. Add in disdain for everything GOP, the economy, Iraq, etc. etc. etc., and I reiterate: It’d take an historic meltdown.
I just don’t see that happening.
what you want is me to concede your “opinion” as fact -howard
Wow, what an ass. I just said to you we have differing opinions, neither of which could be proven by history because there’s no equivalent, and you act like I want you to capitulate. You’re the only one who has claimed facts in our discussion. I’ve never claimed what I wrote was fact or demanded your fealty to it.
Ironic, given you earlier complaint:
Maybe instead of insulting people by assuming their age (and by extension intelligence) and claiming they aren’t able to read what other people write, you should take a second look at what you’re replying to before hitting submit.
and i don’t know what your last sentence is supposed to mean (perhaps it was a typo?)
When a significant number of people in Indiana vote for her and indicate McCain will be their choice in November, I think it speaks volumes about her lack of viability. -doubtful
Let me spell it out for you, oh old wise one with a firm grasp of the English language.
A bunch of people voted for Clinton in Indiana’s primary on Tuesday who will not vote for her in November. They indicated this in exit polls. That gives me pause concerning her chances in November. In other words, enough people voted for her yesterday to give her the slight win in Indiana and, somewhere on the order of 7% of those voters, do not intend to vote for her in November.
As for the remainder of my argument, forget it. If you’re naive enough to think the media hasn’t played a significant role (a role that they’ve only played in recent history) in the continuation of her campaign past Wisconsin, you’re being ignorant. Willfully so, I’m concluding, because no one who follows this closely could suggest otherwise logically. I submit the narrative of her ‘win’ in Texas as a single data point.
Maria, please: i do not have a “gut feeling” (that would be doubtful up there who is pushing a gut feeling). -howard
You have as much fact to support your argument as I do. I can cite unrelated facts, like you have, if that’d make you feel better. The sky is blue. Therefore I’m right.
Whatever, you win because I’m bored trying to convince you it’s okay that we both have opinions.
howard really isn’t a Clinton flack. He used to be a great, insightful poster at Washington Monthly. Don’t judge all his contributions on this conversation.
Mary, you should continue to support Clinton’s candidacy and deny Obama’s status as nominee as long as you want to, including sending her money to repay herself. The rest of us will go about the business of the general election.
it was the fact that he fronted a large movement that had been building momentum for a long time and that had a very clear set of principles (regardless of what i thought of them). -howard
How is Obama not doing that? He’s very clearly leading a movement against the establishment. Dean is part of the movement, as well as others.
So HRC is in a continuing to push a failure ‘indefinitely’ despite common sense, where have I seen this before ? Seems to like the kitchen sink is looking like the surge and the next primary is a Friedman unit.
maria, thanks for the nice comment! sadly, i’m tied up right now in a conference call, because i do want to pursue these matters further, so doctor biobrain, doubtful, and mark d, i’ll be back in a while if you will!
howard–
I actually have to leave here soon (got band practice … and no, not high school band — I’m a drummer in a blues band, thankyouverymuch 🙂 ) but will check in tomorrow.
And please note that I find the whole discussion very enjoyable. Seriously. I may disagree with your takes, but you seem to be presenting them well and I enjoy a good debate.
Check ya tomorrow!
I agree with doubtful @54: Obama IS part of a movement, and it’s been building for a long, long time. Obama just happens to be the one with the foresight to get out in front of it and lead it, rather than to try to steamroll over it as Hillary and her big money boys tried to do. There’s a reason the immense power at Daily Kos and MoveOn supported Obama: He’s saying what they’ve been saying, yet doesn’t sound like he’s just pandering. And the main group of people who haven’t joined on are the low information voters who weren’t part of this movement, as well as diehards who just like Hillary better. BTW, this is even how Obama puts it. He knows he’s not doing this on his own. We’re the ones sending him to Washington and he’s representing us, a coalition of all sorts of liberals and progressives who have been ignored for years, but who finally have a candidate they can believe in.
And I definitely feel a part of this movement. While I registered to vote for the first time ever in 1996 to support Bill Clinton, Obama is the first nominee I ever gave money to, and the first I attended a political rally for. Hell, I even went door-to-door before the Texas primary to get his people to vote. I’d never even CONSIDERED doing that kind of thing before. While I supported Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, I never felt like they really represented me and supported them because they were all we had. Obama represents me. And I can definitely say that we’re part of a movement. While the low info voters may not have supported him in the primary, they know enough to show up on Election Day. And in the meantime, those of us in the movement will continue as we’ve been doing for years.
And frankly, I don’t see how anyone who has been on the wrong end of an Obama argument can doubt this at all. For as much as we’re being dismissed here for being too rabidly pro-Obama, that’s the exact sort of fierceness that will help carry him through November. Rather than scoff at us skepitcally and feel repelled by our devotion, it needs to be understand that THIS is a big reason why Obama won’t be another Jimmy Carter. We’re not idiots. We just recognize that this is a historic election and understand that we’re about to witness something new. But it’s not that this man has suddenly developed a cult out of nowhere; he just saw a movement that all the other politicians had been too blind to see, and has harnessed it in order to lead us into the next presidency. He might be leading the movement, but we were already headed in this direction anyway.
What we know:
Obama is intelligent
Obama is a negotiator
Obama has integrity
Obama has sound judgment: note his:
Good advisors
Well organized and well run successful primary campaign (particularly given
his status of being less known and coming from behind)
Obama is not a bullshitter. Obama is a statesman.
Obama walks the walk for people…not corporations. And since corporate takeover is one of our main problems in America…Obama will counter it.
Obama has coauthored legislation for increased gov. transparency…vital given what the current admin has done.
More years than Hillary in an elected position.
An educator: constition law
What more do you want for Pete’s sake. This guy has it all.
I gave HRC more money for her campaign today.
The half million Indianans that voted for her thought she was the best candidate.
If we dems want to win in November we need to face the fact that winning primaries in states that will vote GOP in November is not worth as much as winning primaries in states we need to vote dem… like FL
I’m not sure what it is that howard is trying to say, except “we might lose in November” even with our charismatic candidate who has a hell of a ground game, and millions of donors. He’s saying that Hillary thinks she’s the one who could win in November, hence her refusal to acknowledge reality.
To that I say “duh”.
Nell helped Hillary get closer to repaying herself for loans required because not enough people support her.
The half million Indianans who voted for Obama thought he was the best candidate; as did the 800k+ North Carolinans; as did a majority of Democratic voters.
If we Dems want to win in November, we need to face that fact that people hate Republicans and that we need a candidate who doesn’t behave like a Republican or pander at every turn; but instead need a candidate who people think is honest and trustworthy, like Barack Obama.
Hillary supporters need to understand that Hillary didn’t win in Florida because there wasn’t a real primary in Florida.
And finally, Hillary supporters need to realize that the race is over and that Hillary cannot win.
Sorry for the snark, but I just couldn’t help myself. Nell, Hillary thinks you’re an idiot, just as Bush thinks his followers are idiots. And the sooner she drops out, the sooner we can all get back to loving each other. Not saying she has to drop out, but…things can’t get better until she does. Wouldn’t you rather be attacking McCain instead? It’d be a helleva lot more fun. Sorry, but this race is over.
BTW, I just gave money to Obama today too. Not that he needed it, but I couldn’t resist.
RacerX @61 – It’s definite that this was part of Howard’s message, though I disagree with it. As I suggested above, when any other candidate refuses to acknowledge reality, we assume they’re egotists who don’t care if they’re doing the right thing. Only Hillary is given the benefit of the doubt that maybe she’s doing the right thing. But I don’t at all think she thinks Obama will lose. She just wants this for herself. But again, this isn’t unique to her. I even remember watching a news show before the 2000 election where they showed that George W. was upset at his dad for conceding to Clinton during the ’92 election, because he thought they could still win somehow and insisted they should keep fighting. Needless to say, George Sr. disagreed and didn’t follow his idiot son’s advice. Politics is full of poor losers who don’t know when to bow out. Only with Hillary do we assume there might be a good reason for it.
And then Howard went out of his way to construct a scenerio whereby Hillary could convince herself that she was doing the right thing, and in a way where he could show off his knowledge of history and display his skepticism of Obama. And for as much as I think that was a useless endeavor, he definitely went about it the wrong way. He should have just said something to the effect like “It’s possible that Hillary thinks she’s doing the right thing, if she assumes Obama might be pulling another Jimmy Carter.” But instead, it comes off like we’re all naive fools for assuming he’ll do better than her, and refuses to even acknowledge our arguments at all. And even went on to say that HE’S increasingly thinking that Obama’s pulling a Jimmy Carter.
I don’t see how he imagined that this came off as neutral at all, but I found it insulting and wrong. Again, looking back, I don’t think he meant it to be as harsh as it sounded, but he really could have said it differently. It was fairly confrontational and then he blamed us for feeling confronted.
humphrey had the nomination wrapped in 1968 and yet mccarthy fought to the end without disdain
Let’s stop pretending that this election is anything like 1968. In 1968, the sitting president dropped out of the race because of his unpopularity, another major contender (Bobby Kennedy) was assassinated, Humphrey entered the race late, avoided the primaries and was winning largely on the support of party insiders. The party was furiously divided into pro- and anti-war camps and the convention was treated like a battle zone.
Today, some Democrats like Obama better, some like Clinton better.
Not really the same thing at all.
“humphrey had the nomination wrapped in 1968 and yet mccarthy fought to the end without disdain”
Plus look at how the Democrats wound up doing in 1968.
The real difference is that in 1968 conventions were still thought of as the place where nominations were determined. Now the convention is a show to benefit the person who has already won the nomination. Moving the conventions to later in the summer also makes it more important for the nominee to be known before the convention as opposed to allowing the Republican to have a much easier time campaigning.
As for Clinton, I suspect that if she had it her way she would take the fight to the convention. Two things will probably stop her. Superdelegates will defect, making it impossible for her to win. Plus her money will dry up. If she wants to keep on fighting she will have to self-finance after already putting 11.4 million into the losing effort.
well, i get to return to the thread a while later; let me try and hit a few of the key points that have emerged here.
the first was the old favorite: is clinton being egomaniacal by refusing to drop out, to which i have made the relatively elementary observation that clinton – supported by very close to half of the democrats who have participated – isn’t without legitimate basis for thinking that she has a better shot at mccain than obama (notwithstanding that there is an ego aspect to all presidential candidates).
making that observation is not the same as endorsing it, and a number of commenters appear to be confused on this point. someone up there made a good suggestion: if clinton does want to stay in the race at this point, where there really are no scenarios left short of asteroids that get her the nomination, she should do so by running a general election campaign: for universal health care and for withdrawal of combat forces from iraq.
somewhere into this mix came the whole question of whether clinton is, in some fashion, being enabled in her quest in a way that others would not be, and here i attempted to bring in some historical evidence (for my sins, i was denounced as a showoff or something!). There are two financial world sayings that are appropriate here: “the four most dangerous words on wall street are this time it’s different” and “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” that’s why i bother with historic evidence, for perspective.
and regardless of the various ways in which circumstances have changed (and the various ways in which the analogies are not exact), without even thinking twice or doing more reserach, i could point out that, in fact, in past scenarios when the nomination is clearly wrapped it is not a given that the defeated candidate drops out. that doesn’t make it right or wrong (which again people appear to be confused about) but it does mean i see nothing unique about clinton’s soldiering on (and i don’t think that the environment of 24-hour news and the internet changes that, and i’m not sure why it should).
separately still, we get to the question of whether obama is reagan, an analogy to which i continue to see no basis. reagan made a famous speech in 1964 rallying goldwater voters, he became the controversial and well-known governor of california in ’66 (and held office through ’74), he nearly snatched the gop nomination from nixon in ’68, he came very close to depriving the incumbent of the nomination in ’76 (and, btw, refused to drop out despite running against a sitting president of his own party), all the while being promoted by the emerging right-wing noise machine. By 1980, he was an iconic hero to the conservative movement that was coming into its own and more or less anyone paying any attention at all knew that reagan stood for tax-cutting, reduction in domestic spending programs, more military spending, a harder anti-communist line, and right-wing judges.
obama has many virtues, but i don’t see how he’s that: indeed, what exacftly does obama stand for that is the equivalent? as i noted above, he offers the attractions of an adult approach to policy, but as for actual policy itself, i don’t really know how to shorthand what he stands for in comparable stark terms that influence the entire political terrain. and even if he were reagan, the netroots of 2008 isn’t the conservative movement of 1980.
finally, we have what is my true “gut feeling,” as opposed to all this other stuff, which is that (as i noted above) while obama’s upside is high, so is his downside. i realize for people who only know about jimmy carter after the fact, it’s hard to believe, that once carter was the great outsider with a lot of upside – and he barely won and had an unsuccesful presidency. that’s not what i want from the democrat at this point in the politcal cycle of the country.
as i noted up above, there was widespread distaste for the republican party in 1976, but the upshot of the carter presidency was reagan and all that has followed: can we really stand to go through this again?
i could, of course, be completely wrong here, but relative unknowns becoming president have a mixed track record: jfk (who at least had come close to being stevenson’s vp in ’56) had an unsucessful presidency; carter had an unsucessful presidency; clinton had a sucessful presidency; and bush had an unsucessful presidency. we may all (justifiably) hate the way media narratives are constructed, but mccain’s is basically a finished product that is simply parotted while obama’s is still a work-in-progress, which provides plenty of opporunities for mischief in the coming months and (if he wins) years.
i would feel better if obama spent more time saying “a vote for me is a vote for universal health care, withdrawal of combat forces from iraq, and improved financial and mortgage regulation” or something similar, some very clear markers that were the equivalent of reagan and lower taxes, higher military spending, etc. the risk, otherwise (and here is where i think about the carter comparison) is that your support is wide but shallow and your actual leverage to get a few big things done limited.
i have no idea what obama stands for other than the virtues of intelligence in policymaking and the idea that old racial barriers can and should be transcended.
You’ve said this a couple of times in a couple of different ways. Are you saying you know what Clinton stands for but not Obama? What are you going on for her? Old Hillary or new Hillary, Republican Hillary or Democratic Hillary, Bomb Iran Hillary or we’ll get out of Iraq Hillary or I didn’t read the intelligence Hillary, pro-NAFTA Hillary or anti-NAFTA Hillary?
I mean going by written down policies, they’re virtually identical. Her health care plan is, in my mind, knocked down a few notches by her screwing it up before. I’m not convinced she learned the finesse lesson yet.
If you’re not going by what they’ve written down, well then again, I’ll go with the one that keeps saying the same things and isn’t changing his stripes to fit the state.
(as i noted above) while obama’s upside is high, so is his downside. i realize for people who only know about jimmy carter after the fact, it’s hard to believe, that once carter was the great outsider with a lot of upside – and he barely won and had an unsuccesful presidency. that’s not what i want from the democrat at this point in the politcal cycle of the country.
as i noted up above, there was widespread distaste for the republican party in 1976, but the upshot of the carter presidency was reagan and all that has followed: can we really stand to go through this again?
I agree partially — the problem is that both of our candidates have big POTENTIAL downsides. In fact, so does McCain. I feel that the media has downplayed Clinton’s downsides and definitely played up Obama’s. The Republicans have been helping with both of these — and doesn’t that make you suspicious?
IF she’s not the nominee, we’re not going to see the downsides she has, or at least not in the quantity and duration we might have before. I still think that Scaife will try to use up some of the dirt he’s dying to throw at her if she’s it.
So really, isn’t this all moot? Whoever is the nominee is going to get stuff thrown at them. If there were a lot more to throw at Obama, I’m quite sure Hillary would have done it. Basically, the big thing that’s left…he’s black. That’s it, that’s the big issue and we’ve already seen that it does and doesn’t make a difference.
That last part? Isn’t that sort of how we went Bush — Clinton — Bush? Clinton’s terms didn’t really grow the Democratic brand.
Jen, although i seem to be having a great deal of difficulty making the point clear, i am not providing a brief for clinton as the democratic nominee, i am providing commentary. the fact that i raise concerns in various ways about obama doesn’t mean i’m immune to concerns about clinton.
but yes, in the particular realm of your question, i think that clinton is (at this moment, and this could change in ways that i’ve outlined as well) better position to claim mandates for policies; i think obama is positioned to claim a mandate for obama, which can be more tenuous. (i do also think that in the realm of small but important differences, clinton is definitely better than obama on universal health care, which, in this context matters)
i am, in short, fully clear that obama is the dem nominee, but if we want (and really, who wouldn’t want this to be true?) him to be the dem’s reagan, he’s got to be able to have a high concept narrative of policy slogans that are greater than “i’m a thoughtful guy with a pretty good track record of making good decisions and in my personal and professonal evolution in american society, i am representative of, and able to understand and connect with, both the frustrations and opportunities of the complex mosaic that is race in america.”
in a sense, btw, i don’t care what they are as long as there are some things that obama can be – in high political narrative terms – perceived as going to the mat for (rather than engaging in dialogue on, so to speak).
He stressed what a reasonable person Hillary is.
She’s “reasonable” like George W. is a “genius.”
Howard, if you come back to read this, you’ve really got to see how the point you’re trying to make isn’t the one you’ve made. Do any of us “know” that Obama will win? Of course not. Can any of us “prove” that Obama is better able to beat McCain than Hillary? Of course not. Do all of us, both Hillary and Obama supporters, have logical reasons to believe that our candidate is better? Probably; and illogical reasons too, no doubt. Is it possible that Hillary is rationalizing her decision to stay in the race based upon Obama’s weakenesses? Sure. Is this egotism on her part? Of course it is.
In other words, your skepticism isn’t needed, thanks. We’re not idiots. We’re not Koolaid drinking kids. Obama supporters are some of the savviest, most politically-engaged people in the country. And that’s why your skeptism wasn’t greeted properly, as your basic assumptions are wrong. And finally, if you truly want to know more about Obama, you might want to consider learning more and preaching less. Overall, you sound like the upstairs neighbor bitching about the downstairs party, when you really should be joining us all along. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the sensitive teen who scoffs at love because he’s had his heart broken too many times; and mocks his friends every time they fall in love.
Sure, Obama might just burn us. We all understand that. But labeling him the next Jimmy Carter doesn’t make you cool or wise; it just makes you sound like you’re trying to shoot him down first before he can break your heart. A little skepticism is always a good thing, but too much can just leave you bitter and angry. And that’s how you sound now. Again, I now have a good idea of the message you were trying to convey, but that’s not how it came off it all. You were trying to tell us something we all know, but doing so in a way that sounded like you relished the chance to throw cold water on us. I’m not sure how you thought that’d go over, but the reaction was fairly predictable.
Howard, no one knows what’s going to happen in November, but the GOP apparently thinks it does. That’s why they’ve tried so hard over the last two months to take Obama down. They WANT to run against Clinton. They’ve been preparing for her for years. They’re confident they can beat her, and I believe they can. They don’t have a game plan to deal with Obama, and everything they’ve tried so far has blown up in their faces. What Obama has in common with St. Ronnie (may he be burning in the hottest part of hell) is the Teflon coating. Nothing has stuck to him.
Howard, the Republicans want to run against Hillary. They’re eager to destroy her as payback for Bill’s slipping the noose in the ’99 Senate trial. Why do you want to give them what they want?
Screamin’ Demon, quite obviously, you haven’t read a word i’ve written: what is it about “i am not providing a brief for clinton to be the nominee” that you don’t understand? (i will say that i could care less what the republicans “want”). i’m not sure what else to bother to say to you.
Doctor Biobrain, apparently in the brave new world, negative thoughts about comrade obama are not allowed. this is why i find everything about the obama-clinton race disspiriting: it has turned otherwise sensible people in knee-jerk responders (if you question the perfection of comrade obama, you must be a clinton supporter appears to have been the instant reaction of a large number of people here). if you think i’m “bitter and angry” you don’t have a “good idea” at all; i’m not “bitter and angry” in the slightest and your cheap armchair psychologizing is quite juvenile. i participate in online discussions for the fun, the learning, the interaction, the opportunity to sharpen arguments, etc. i am not throwing cold water on anything: i expressed a gut fear and told you why. if that’s too much for you, you can keep the clubhouse exclusively for the non-skeptics and sit around and fantasize about my character all day long and i’ll move on. sheesh.
if there is one thing i’ve seen to be true over and over this primary season, it’s that there are no people more likely to make me wonder about my (tepid) support for obama than obama supporters: you might want to think about that between now and november.