Stick a fork in her: Clinton's done

Great Debates
341

I think Clinton went to Florida after the primary with an eye on the general election. Even if the vote didn’t count, she hoped for momentum and a psychological victory. Clinton will not persuade the DNC to seat the Florida or Michigan delegates any more that Obama will persuade the DNC to pressure or force super delegates to vote like their constituents. The rules are the rules and both candidates knew the rules going into the race. It is a tight race. Obama and Clinton both want to win.

I am supporting Obama and believe he will win the nomination, but I will certainly vote for Clinton if she lands on the ballot. I just want the blue team to win. Unsustainable war spending and health care should be the only reasons anyone needs to justify a vote for Obama or Clinton.

342

I would think you did it by accident, just as you have described. It was not an accusation, but a “heads up” in case you were posting with the wrong username by accident. (Sort of like asking people in parking lots if they know their lights are on, even though I know that 95% of the time I will be told that their cars’ lights are on a timer that turns off later.)

343

From the context of this thread, I have the impression that you did not perform this perfunctory look and come to this (somewhat inconclusive) conclusion until appreciably after you made the assertion that Diogenes was wrong. I invite you to disabuse me of that impression.

I also invite you to reveal what was the matter (on which Dio was wrong) that you had been thinking of, when you submitted post #325. I’m really interested in knowing.

I’ll (provisionally) give you the apparent non-right-wingedness of The National journal; I’m having a difficult time drawing a bead on them, myself. The wikipedia article on them calls them non-partisan, but there is a caveat that the article appears to be written like an advertisement. Although MediaMatters has a few unkind words to say about them and the reliability of their data collecting and analysis processes, the digging I have done suggests that it’s probably not what Richard Scaife keeps in the john for light reading (unless perhaps he’s running low on Charmin).

So come on, Carol Stream! what did you have in mind in post 325 when you said “Dio was wrong”?

344

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I have the feeling that people might be getting The National Review mixed up with The National Journal . The former is definitely right wing; the latter tries to be non-partisan.

Ed

345

It’s possible I may have conflated the two publications in terms of political bent, but I could swear I’ve heard the National Journal called “conservative” on talking heads shows specifically in the context of discussions about these ratings.

“Non-partisan” doesn’t necessarily = non-ideological.

346

True, it doesn’t; but two of the three contributors to the National Journal with hyperlinks to their own wiki pages (or stubs) appear to be affiliated, at least casually, with the Brookings Institution (or Institute, it’s confusing; either way, definitely not a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch Holdings, Inc.).

347

I guess I’ll withdraw the “conservative” characterization unless and untill we can confirm any ideolohical bias one way or the other.

At least I was right about the name of the source and the criteria for the ratings looks pretty suspect as well.

348

Good man.

:slight_smile:

349

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighs in on the Florida and Michigan delegates:

It’s about freaking time somebody had some guts in this party! THANK YOU, Nancy!

350

“He’s liiiberal!” “Is NOT!” “Is TOO! Betsy said so” “No she didn’t.” “Well Sally did!” “So. Sally sucks raw putty balls!”

Boy.
You know at this point being called liberal aint a bad thing, especially at this point in the process. Some of the core has been worried that he’s too centrist, too much of an compromiser. Pointing out that he has decent liberal creds (even though he knows how to be a pragmatist to get things done) is not exactly a bad thing in a primary phase.

In the general I can only hope that he’s not fool enough to react to the charge of “liberal” as if its an insult, like that idiot Dukakis did. If he’s smart (and I think he is) he will react like this:

"I have been accused of being a ‘Liberal.’ Well lets look into that charge. If by liberal they mean that I am against sending troops into wars to die without good cause, then I am guilty. If by liberal they mean that I believe in protecting the privacy rights, then I am guilty. If by liberal they mean that I believe that global climate change is a crisis that needs immediate action, that achieving energy independence needs immediate action, that I believe Americans deserve a working wage and that we all deserve good health care, that I believe that working together we can all be something greater than we can by being apart, then I am guilty. That I believe in individual rights to freedoms and that I believe in responsibility to each other, then I am guilty. GUILTY… Guilty… But I have another word for what those beliefs are in addition to being “liberal”: American. [Seg into variation of “not about liberal vs conservative, Black vs White, young vs old … etc.”]

BTW, Americans For Democratic Action (warning pdf) actually rated both Obama and Clinton at 75%, not 95%. That’s the other Illinois Senator who got 95%. (It’s page 24, and you can find what the bills were that they rated people on there too.) Not to worry, it’s hard to get a higher rating when you miss some votes running for President. I still think he’s liberal enough.

351

Today’s news has one story about Hillary lobbying to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated because “the voters must be heard,” and another about Hillary being completely OK with superdelegates overruling the popular vote because “that’s what they’re there for.” It’s hard to know where exactly she stands on the whole small-d democratic process.

352

You are correct. The 95% rating came from their 2006 report, which I believe is where it was picked up and strewn about the conservative blogosphere with that erroneous attribution.

353

More Barack Obama endorsements: [ul][li]The Corpus Christi, TX Caller-Times[/li]. . . “[Obama’s] candidacy is rooted in the notion that politics can be about solutions, not divisions, that elected leaders are elected to lead, not to drive wedges between groups of Americans. This is a chance to break from the past. . . For Clinton, every issue must have an enemy – oil companies, the rich, insurance companies, a corporate oligarchy, and on and every enemy must be vanquished. Beating up on a political enemy doesn’t educate children, comfort the aged or ease the anxieties of economically stressed families. . . Nominating the Illinois senator offers Americans a chance to transcend the old politics. The Editorial Board endorses Sen. Barack Obama because it believes that he offers the kind of inspirational leadership the country is hungry for.”[li]The Fort Worth Star-Telegram[/li]"Obama steps up, fresh and inspirational, with a message and an energy that transcend the demographic differences among voters that the media so stubbornly focus on: race, gender, age and economic standing.

“On an international stage, his face representing the United States of America would speak volumes to a world community that has turned away from assisting this great nation.” [li]The Honolulu Advisor[/li]"The Honolulu Advertiser endorses Barack Obama, recognizing his ideas and policies as being most closely aligned with the needs of the country. . . Obama [has] very real credentials and, in particular, the power of his presidential platform [on]. . . Foreign Policy. . . [The] Economy. . . Healthcare. . .

"The U.S. is a nation at war and in economic distress. The road back will be a long one, the journey likely to span more than one presidential tenure. The capacity for hope and the willingness to change, both rallying cries of the Obama campaign, are elements critical to that journey.

"The Democrats should recognize that the ability to inspire and to persuade others to follow is no trivial thing, no superficiality.

"It is, in fact, the critical aspect of leadership required at times like these, when only a more unified nation can find its way through the difficulties ahead.

“The party needs to acknowledge the clarion call that’s resonated through the past weeks of the presidential campaign. It needs Barack Obama.”[/ul]

354

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I bothered to enter this debate is because it seemed to me that Carol Stream was pushing this idea that (I’m paraphrasing here) “even liberals think Obama is the most liberal senator” and that liberal groups rate him “more liberal” that Clinton. In reality, the “liberal” group she claimed made those ratings said neither of those things.

While that may seem like semantic quibbling to you, to me it seems like the beginning of a Republican talking point that we’ll be hearing a lot of if Obama secures the nomination. I think it needs to be nipped in the bud. YMMV.

PS. I love Irish accents, and when you use “ye” it reminds me of my trips to the old country. Good stuff :slight_smile:

355

Would you please describe an *officially acceptable * method of pointing out that a statement, or series of statements, made by another poster is factually false? There does have to be one, of course.

356

AKA “I was for it before I was against it.” Well, we’ve seen that movie before, and we know how it ends.

You’re right, he does need a clearer explanation, and sometime soon, because the GOP spin machine has a proven approach at the ready.

357

(A) A “freshman senator” who carries with him the support of so many enthusiastic voters? Yes.
(B) Is that supposed to be *evidence * of your contention, presented as simple and obvious fact, that she’s “playing dirty politics”?

ME "come on? :dubious:

358

Dick Morris must really not have liked working with the Clintons.

359

How come critiques of Hillary are always framed as people “not liking” her, or “hating” her? Why can’t any criticism just stand as an observation about the shortcomings and failings of someone who wants the most powerful position on the planet, without it being assigned to some personal vendetta against her?

360

cricetus … noted. But while I wholeheartedly agree with Morris’s assessment it is relevant to note that this comes from someone who had significant experience as part of the Clinton team from the early days and also that after that experience he has been a consistent and harsh critic of the Clintons for the last several years.