It's the close of Super Tuesday II, and nothing's changed. Let's recap what we've learned:
- There are no "elders" in the Democratic Party to tell Hillary not to run. The name "Clinton" alone gives her a clout that no one else can top. The most senior-ranking Democrat is Bill Clinton, and we know where he stands. Who's going to stop her, Nancy Pelosi? The answer is no. The only ones with any power to stop her campaign are the Superdelagates, which is exactly why they were created in the first place.
- As much as the press has favored Obama, they are still considering her as a viable candidate, even though she lost 11 in a row. Once again, she receives this special treatment only because her last name is "Clinton."
- Looking beyond tonight, Clinton has a long way to go until Pennsylvania on April 22. The only contests are Mississippi, where Obama is heavily favored, and Wyoming, which has caucuses, Obama's specialty. Unless Obama's momentum shifts dramatically, she will not be able to sustain her campaign.
- "White ethnics" = "white trash."
- Clinton's argument about "letting all the voters have a say" only applies when she's losing. Notice how she has no problem being nominated by the Superdelagates.
- Check out David Brooks' column in the NYTimes today, talking about how Hillary represents the traditional candidate who will fight, where Obama represents a fundamental change in politics.
- Clinton should not say she "won" Michigan. Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
- "Solutions" = boring.
- Clinton's strategy in Texas tonight appears to be based on questioning the fairness of the caucuses, which Obama is favored to win. While this tactic may work in the short term, it will only affirm the negative opinions many have against her. Right, Irene?
- And, of course . . . BANG BANG BANG!!!
18 comments:
Wow! That is certainly an instant classic. (Even with the rather unfortunate placement of the cursor on the screen...)
Now let's have your post mortem, B-Dub!
Dude, I have a few "issues" with this blog, besides it being totally gay:
- What's the issue with "elders"? What would you call Howard Dean? And who are the "elders" in the Republican party? Why would anyone WANT to stop her, a popular, powerful woman with a great shot at the White House? Because you love Obama? Whatever!
- The press has favored Obama. Heavily. His 11-in-a-row was impressive and the media were eating out of his hand. Hillary got anything but special treatment.
- Who cares what David Brooks says? Isn't he a Republican? Won't he be voting for McCain anyway? (You and Irene can say what you want, but most Republicans will stay within the party once the primaries are done.)
- How many delegates does Wyoming have? Don't forget, this is the state that gave us Dick Cheney. Thanks, douchebags.
- As you yourself have stated, caucuses are not as accurate as elections. People voting for Obama want to stand around all day and participate. People voting for Hillary have to go to work the next day.
- 'm sorry Obama didn't win this for you, but don't be angry at Hillary. Her campaign just got a shot in the arm. Obama now has to work again. Let's see what he can do. If he's as good as you believe, this should not be a problem.
Well, douchebag, I don't think it will be a problem. This is a short term surge that won't be enough to sustain Hillary. In order for her to get the nomination, the superdelegates will have to override the voters. That would kill the party, so it won't happen.
Why am I even responding? I should just delete the comment. I'm changing my middle name from "Awesome" to "Fidel."
Let's compare: Clinton has only won a handful more states than Huckabee has, yet she's been given thousands of hours of press time. We all know just how little press time Huckabee's been given, he was hardly mentioned in the past couple of weeks after just a couple of losses.
If you think Clinton hasn't been given preferential treatment by the press even though she lost 11 in a row merely because her last name is Clinton then you've got blinders on. Obama's press coverage is a direct result of his successes and ability to draw 10,000+ crowds - it's called newsworthy.
Who's mad at Hillary? Being genuinely disappointed by her tactics is not the same as being "mad" at her.
I am a woman, but I admire Obama's integrity and hard work (you think he's just been napping while consistently winning more delegates than Clinton) too much to turn a blind eye to Clinton's shady character. I wouldn't want her as my mother and I don't want her as my president.
Geez, Andrew. You kinda lost me with this: "People voting for Obama want to stand around all day and participate. People voting for Hillary have to go to work the next day."
If I wanted to be all tongue-in-cheek-y, my response would be: "Racist!"
Frankly, though? I'm more than a bit confused by that, and hovering on the brink of offended.
So... Care to clarify?
Also, Andrew, as of February 21, this poll shows otherwise.
Do you have any support for your position other than Harley's anecdotal evidence?
Dorothymantooth, the "stand around all day" comment was referring to the people participating in the caucuses. I've read many an article about how some can be a bit unorganized, with lots of people waiting for hours in gymnasiums to participate. Not sure how that could be offensive to you. Don't know how race got into either. I didn't mention anything about that.
The Wife, there is a HUGE difference between the Republican and Democratic races. Hillary and Huckabee are WAAAYY different, and you cannot compare them without a shitload of caveats. McCain has had a healthy lead in front of Huckabee for weeks, while O and H have been neck and neck. THAT is why she's still been getting coverage.
The Wife, H'scoverage IS harsher than Obama's. I'm not as emotionaly invested in this race and feel I am more apt to see that reality. Your comments show me how much hatred you have toward Hillary, though I don't know why. What has she done to you besides challenge Obama?
Finally, "newsworthy" is a loaded term that requires definition. Who decides what is newsworthy changes by outlet and market and is usually determined in financial trms (i.e. which story will get the most watchers. That's a whole other debate.
And of course, you can find a poll for anything you want if you look hard enough.
Irene, thanks for the comment of "going to work the next day". As the unemployed Hispanic on the blog :) I decided to leave it alone, but yes, it's very offensive. It connotes not only a racial and class divide of people who don't work therefore have the time to go vote for Obama, but somehow that Clinton supporters have "real" jobs and more important things to do than rally for a cause. There's nothing more important to me than our future (and future kids' future) and that's why we recycle, and donate to charities, and support Barack Obama.
The "going to work" comment reflects Hillary's focus on the working class. Rather than being racial, she has tried to keep her working class base by portraying Obama supporters as latte-drinking snobs who don't have the problems that working class people do. It appeals to the "white ethnics."
Wow, Andrew! I think you're really reaching with that attenuated explanation there! I mean, I'm certainly not saying that you were implying something offensive, but I hope you can see how it might have come across that way (for all the reasons Nilda pointed out).
Anywho! If you can find a poll for anything (a sentiment with which I generally agree), then find one that says that Hillary would beat McCain in the general!
Here is a sampling. So, (to quote the boys) "Suck It!"
http://www.agi.it/world/news/200803061745-pol-ren0090-art.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_not_obama_is_the_d.html
http://www.newser.com/story/20861.html?rss=y
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7282237.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3492457.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3492457.ece
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/06/survey-says-clinton-or-obama-will-beat-mccain/
http://poligazette.com/2008/03/06/both-dems-poll-better-than-mccain/
Excellent! Touché.
So, in the first one, it's 52-40 Obama over McCain, while Clinton's over McCain by a margin of 44-40, yes? (Or is it 46-40?)
A couple of the others seem to refer to this same poll, I believe.
The BBC one is interesting -- makes the decision a much closer on in the popular vote, with Obama's margin over McCain just the tiniest bit wider than Clinton's over McCain. I'm not sure I'm savvy enough to parse the coupla paragraphs before that conclusion, though.
I just want to point out that none of these say that McCain will beat Obama if the general election puts them against one another. To the contrary, each one (that I could read) says that Obama will beat McCain much more handily than will Clinton.
Unfortunately, I can't see your second link or the TimesOnline one because the text on my work computer won't go that small. Please do this to create links in the future: (use the little triangular bracket things you see under the comment box - "<" and ">" - instead of "[" and "]") [a href=your link here]whatever you want your hypertext to say[/a]. Okay? That concludes today's lesson in html.
(Also, you subscribe to Newser's RSS feed? That's kinda badass...)
Also, Pam was totally the one that said "Suck it!" on The Office!
Stoooooopid Blogger, posting my comment twice...
actually, what's funny about the polls (which all reference the same ABC poll) is that they were released the day AFTER Irene challenged anyone to find a poll with thise results. I know this (besides the poll release date) because I had been keeping up with these poll results. Just note that the poll was taken during the weekend of negative attacks launched by Clinton AND the primary on Tuesday so the results are more than a bit skewed. I'm surprised you didn't notice this, Irene. tisk! tisk! ha ha
Ha!! Touche, Nil!
Frankly, though, when this poll came out didn't really matter for what I was getting at: At the end of the day, the ABC post-3:00-a.m.-commercial poll nonsense still doesn't indicate that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain in the general election than Barack does. And I still think that's the most important thing to take away from this.
Post a Comment