Here's more on Hillary just about winning. Now her campaign is talking about trying to convince his *pledged delegates* to switch over - not superdelegates, but the ones he won in voting. In otherwords, she will consider not just ignoring the popular vote, but trying to overturn it. Leadership or winning? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html Clinton targets pledged delegates Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination. This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides. ... Deckard - you wanted to know why I thought she was corrupt and only concerned about winning? Here you go. She's willing to destroy the party in order to win. It's all that matters to her.
From the same article: _____ “I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.” “Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.” _____ So Roger Simon writing for Politico - having a completely anonymous source makes this true?
It isn't that hard when your husband is a two-term ex-president and you have a small army of Democratic pols that owe you (or Bill) a bunch of favors and others that want you to win so they can take their old positions at the government feeding trough. Hillary's problem is not being a woman. It's that she has enough baggage to fill an ocean liner. If her political career had been built from scratch instead of Bill's coattails more people would respect her. Her use of Bill during this campaign has been nothing short of shameful. The notion that being a woman is a major hindrance for Hillary is a convenient excuse to cover up her shortcomings. Of course sexism exists but that isn't her problem. Think about this: Being a woman is one reason she is still running. If it weren't for those tears right before the vote in NH, it would be over by now. Nice trick.
Yes - it's "legal". If it was impossible, she wouldn't be able to do it. But it's certainly not ethical - why even have primaries if you don't care what the vote is? Her campaign is the only one talking about this kind of strategy - and what they are saying is that they believe it is OK to overturn the popular vote in order to win. Obama's campaign has actually said the opposite - their goal is simply to win the pledged delegates and hope that the superdelegates will then ratify that vote. Are you actually OK with this? As for Simon - no one in the Clinton camp has denied this at this point (though it is early) and it's not like Politico is an unreliable or biased source.
Major/KingCheetah, I'll say this again as someone who thinks very little of Hillary: I truly do not believe she will follow through with those threats. The reason she's putting those signals out is to inspire her supporters and workers to work as hard as they can until March 4th. People have done the math on delegates and it doesn't look good for her. If she signaled anything other "scorched Earth" during this time, some of her backers would waver, and she cannot have that. If Hillary doesn't get what she needs from Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio, she will pull out. It's feels strange defending her from these charges, but it's what I believe. If Hillary actually follows through with the threats you guys posted, then she is a lower individual than even I thought. Surely she knows the consequences, which would be dire even if she was successful. If it failed, I assume Hillary still wants to go back to the Senate. Or maybe she has a "smoking gun" after all.
I agree it's not a viable strategy - I don't think the party or the superdelegates will really let it happen. That said, I don't know that it makes much sense as a motivational strategy. Saying "hey, don't worry guys - if we lose, I'm willing to try to steal the election" seems like bizarre motivation. I just think it speaks volumes that her campaign is willing to say "we're OK with overturning the popular vote if that's what it takes." It echoes other comments where they say many people's votes don't matter, red state delegates are second-class, etc. Either she has a serious problem with leaks within senior management or she authorized it - neither is a particularly good reflection on her campaign.
I think the way she has run her campaign thus far has severely dented any argument for her competency. Now, I don't want to turn into a "bashing" post, but check out this fascinating article in the Atlantic about the inner workings of the Clinton campaign in the wake of the Patti Solis-Doyle's departure: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle And in the Washington Post yesterday, there was this excerpt about Clinton's firewall state of Texas: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/17/AR2008021702461.html?sid=ST2008021702479 A blogger (Publius) comments: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/theyre-not-a-ma.html Add to the fact that the Clinton Campaign didn't have offices in every state (Obama did - even Alaska!), didn't organize well for caucuses (Obama's bread and butter) and wasn't even really prepared for a campaign past February 5th, I have strong doubts about her competency and readiness to be President "On Day 1."
Hey, I'm up for a Clutchfans North reunion! I'm just worried that after the last time we got together (Game 3 of the Mavs series in 2005, wasn't it?) the Rockets lost the game AND the series AND the All American Sports Bar where we met was shut down not long after - we may be a cursed group!
As an update to this - Clinton's camp is now saying they won't do this. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php False alarm on this one - my bad!
You've accused her of being willing to destroy the Democratic Party to win the nomination, which I find ludicrous. You've said you aren't a Democrat... well I am. Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the best things to happen to the Democratic Party in the last 2 or 3 decades. Bill won two elections a President, when it appeared that his effort would be hopeless. He had a terrific cabinet and surrounded himself with smart, politically savvy people, who weren't afraid to disagree with him if they thought he was wrong. Unlike Bush, Bill sought out contrary opinions from his people. You think Hillary was on the outside looking in during his administration? When Bill was being viciously attacked by the GOP assault machine, many of those attacking Ms. Clinton now were defending the Clintons then. Don't think the irony doesn't escape me. Again, I don't buy the "willing to destroy her party to be elected" nonsense. You won't find two Democrats more loyal to the party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. What we are seeing is a primary process that is a crucible for those who would want to run in November. The "terrible" things Ms. Clinton is being accused of are business as usual at this point in the election cycle. Obama's supporters will say, "Well, Obama isn't business as usual and that's one reason why I support him." As if Obama isn't running a smart political campaign and never goes negative. He is and does. And I don't care. Sishir doesn't like him because he reminds him of Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy who, as you know, I saw give his speech at Rice Stadium and is someone I've always admired. Obama has attempted to wrap himself in JFK's aura. Sorry, Barack, but you ain't Jack Kennedy. Interesting how Massachusetts didn't think so, either. I intend to vote for Obama when he gets the nomination and becomes my party's candidate. That doesn't mean I have to agree with how his opponent in the primaries is being treated by many of his supporters. I thought this level of animus towards the Clintons remained largely outside of the Democratic Party. I'm disappointed that it doesn't. Ms. Clinton can't win. If she runs a typical political campaign, she's accused of being an attack dog. If she loses some primaries, she's accused of running an incompetent campaign. If she were Mother Teresa, she's be accused of not using the right deodorant. Running against Obama, she seemingly can't do anything that isn't awful. Impeach Bush.
I didn't have any problems with *Bill* Clinton as President. Hillary, however, is not Bill - voting for her will not get a duplicate of his administration. And it's worth noting that almost everything Bill accomplished as President was with a GOP Congress because the US severely revolted from his leadership (in part due to Hillary & health care) between 1992 and 1994. The Clinton administration was good for the country - but it set the party back enormously in terms of its strength at the local and state level, as well as in the national legislature. Fair enough - many Democrats disagree from what I've seen. The uproar amongst red states over her campaign's attitude and comments is there and growing. Even some of her own biggest supporters like Schumer and Rangel have come out and publicly said her superdelegate strategy is nonsense. In 2006, it was Obama going out and raising money for fellow Democrats (go back to that "buying superdelegates" thread) - and it was Obama going out and campaigning for fellow Democrats in swing states and swing districts. Meanwhile, Clinton was raising tens of millions for her own re-election campaign with no real challenger, and her own PAC was donating relatively little to fellow Democrats to help them in their efforts. Again - going negative isn't the bad thing. I've already said that I have no problem with going negative on legit things like the issues. That's part of the process of creating a distinction between the two candidates or parties. It's the personal destruction stuff I find silly. I would point you again to the Andrew Sullivan article that goes back through the last 40 years and the "us vs them" attitude that has grown over that time due to the baby boomer wars. I don't believe in the idea that because the other party disagrees with you, they are fundamentally bad or evil or "the enemy". But you have no problem with the way Hillary supporters treat Obama? I point you again to http://www.hillaryis44.com This is silly. She wasn't criticized for losing Iowa, for example - despite it being her only 3rd place showing and maybe the single biggest disappointment. She's being criticized for very specific things about her campaign. Like how she had NO infrastructure after Super Tuesday because she assumed she'd have already won. How she ran out of $140 million in money in just a few months. How she didn't set up any grassroots support and didn't organize any caucus states. How she hired people based on loyalty instead of competence. How her closest advisors were *scared* to tell her they were running out of money. How they consistently try to change the rules to fit them. How her campaign is just now learning how the Texas caucus/primary works. How their campaign devalues any Democrats that don't fit into their ideal demographics as second rate Democrats. Do you NOT believe these things deserve criticism? Do you really believe she has managed a well-run campaign? Some of her own top supporters now admit her campaign screwed up multiple times. This is what I think is silly - that somehow, because she was involved in Clinton I and was a good Democrat, she's somehow shouldn't be criticized for her weaknesses. I have no problem with Obama criticisms if people can be specific. But every time I ask for specifics on her "substance" or "management skills" or "experience", I get mostly nothing (except for rocketsjudoka who provided responses that got a good dialog started). For all three remaining candidates - McCain, Hillary, and Obama - this campaign is the largest organization any of them have ever run. If you're talking management skills and judgment, why shouldn't it be looked at?
I'm going to apologize again for not getting responding to all of the good points brought up since my last posts but will try to respond to a few of them. At the same time though I see a lot of GW Bush's 2000 campaign in Obama. I see a campaign primarily made up of nebulous rhetoric with little sense of how that will actually be implemented or what that might mean. Both GW Bush's 2000 campaign and Obama's current campaign are built largely upon likeability the problem is though what does "Change" mean anymore than being a "Compassionate conservative?" To riff on Obama, I mean Deval Patrick's, rhetoric, yes words do matter so tell me then what do your words mean? "Change" and "Yes we can!" are great chants but I still have no sense of how that is actually going to happen. The problem with Obama though is I can't tell you for sure whether he will or won't be a good thing as there is so little history of him to go on. You might not like Clinton's history and that is perfectly legitimate for you to not like her for it but at least you have a good sense of her history. This is exactly the point though. We don't know enoug about Obama's history to judge him further. For as much as people want to dismiss the experience argument that matters, or at least should, when determining who should hold perhaps the most powerful position in the world. The facts are that Obama two years ago was only a state senator and has only been on the national stage for two years. Hillary Clinton first worked in Washington as an aide to the Watergate committee was very heavily involved in the Whitehouse for 8 years and has been US Senator for almost 8 years. Whether you agree with everything thing she did at least we've had the chance to see what she's done at the highest level of government. The same can't be said about Obama. While I'm supporting Hillary Clinton I will admit she wasn't my first choice, I was a Richardson supporter, but between her and Obama given that their views are fairly close I feel more confident about her ability and see Obama as a major gamble.
I did want to address this point since its been brought up a few times. I agree Hillary Clinton could run a better campaign but a lot of what we are seeing is a lot of what happens to a campaign that trails that you do have to make desperate moves. As I've said before Obama has largely had a charmed career and this election is not much different. There's no discounting Obama's incredible charisma and that has translated into fervent support and lots of money. The problem again is we don't know how Obama would act when faced with a crisis. What little sense we got shouldn't bode well when leading up to South Carolina we saw Obama become snippy too in debates and his campaign resort to playing the race card. Obama is a phenomenon but what happens to that phenomenon when things don't go his way? For how much Hillary Clinton might be hated and disliked she has came back from disaster and I would still chalk up that she wasn't buried in NH or destroyed following SC as many pundits predicted still shows she can hang tough. I would add though for someone who's supposed to be so hated and divisive Clinton has almost raised almost as much money as Obama has.
I agree that Hillary Clinton should be criticized for many things and I have criticized her before but that doesn't mean Obama lack of experience at the national level shouldn't be given a pass either as you often seem to argue for.
I don't specifically dislike Obama because he reminds me of JFK but am using JFK, he reminds me of Lincoln and Bill Clinton too. I do think the comparison to JFK is apt in terms of electing someone primarily on the basis of phenomenal charisma. And as I said I will probably end up voting for Obama if he wins the nomination too. While I am leery of Obama what I know of him position wise I agree with more than I do McCain or Huckabee. I agree too that Hillary can't get a break here and while there is a lot to criticize her on much of the attacks against her are unwarranted. As I said in another post Obama is a phenomenon in terms of his oratory and charisma and it is very hard to run against a phenomenon.
Oh come on. You don't think Obama is doing the same thing? I am voting for Obama, but frankly if he isn't trying to do the same type of thing, he is not probably tough enough to beat McCain in what will undoubtedly be a vicious campaign. I would be shocked if Obama is strongly discouraging his supporters from pressuring at least African American delegates to switch from Hillary to him. Oh well it is this feeling that Obama is untainted that I am hoping carries him to victory in November. I doubt he can win it against what will be a vicious general election by simply pleading: "please, please can't we all be reasonable and good natured".
Yeah that does seem like a bad sign. I will chalk it up to the fault of my friend who was a T-Wolves fan who watched that game with us. Let me know if you're up for catching a game sometime though.
when you hire for a position, you take experience over growth and natural talent for a position where there's not much growth opportunity, not much leadership opportunity, and you are looking for someone to step in and do a competent job from day one and happy that they do the same competent but unspectacular job at the last day as well. When you look for leadership, and someone that can step outside of their experience and take something to a place that people normally can't even with the "experience" necessary - the resume sorta goes out the window. I mean to say Obama is inexperienced is a bit strange, the guy has been in politics for a while. Half a term in the senate and in the state level as well. Bill Clinton was at the state level prior to his presidency, so was Bush. If you think of experience, think of Bush Sr. - now that guy had experience - head of the CIA, diplomat to China, and VP for 8 years. But yet he survived only one term. Hillary has an extra term as a senator and experience of being first lady. That's not a whole lot to hoot on. Frankly I don't see experience as something Hillary has a strong edge on, and I think we're looking for a leader to take us to new places. not just someone who will manage the day-to-day business of the country.
