|
Oh, if only they would BOTH run, one as a third party... |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
If Clinton gets the nomination, this fight will severely damage her.
If Obama gets the nomination, he may emerge strengthened.
Reason: Obama’s big strength is the energy he brings to the contest, as well as new voters and a chance to dramatically increase the black voter turnout rate in important states. But his weakness is being tested in a tough campaign, especially on experience issues. If he can handle Hillary and emerge victorious, it was a test that can’t help but strengthen him, even if it gives McCain some ammo.
If Hillary gets it, then there will be a massive loss in enthusiasm among Obama supporters, and she’ll be seen as having gotten it through a kind of power hungry bit of character assassination (I can’t see any other way she can emerge on top). McCain will then be more appealling and likely to win.
I suspect McCain would beat Obama too, though I think the Democrats with Obama on the ticket will have an extremely good year in the Senate and House elections, regardless of who wins the Presidency. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
OTOH, if Obama fights too hard and looks nasty, he becomes another old-style pol and the O-magic disappears. Since Obama has no record to fall back on, that’s the end of his candidacy.
Obama is a dotcom candidate. He looks exciting, promising, like the bright new future, but he doesn’t have the fundamentals to back it up. It’s OK as long as people agree that he’s great and avoid noticing his emptiness. But if that agreement starts to go, his support could melt away very quickly. Obama could look as silly as Milli Vanilli overnight.
I think this is why Hillary stays in the race, and why I consider the superdelegate scenarios where she gets the nomination a definite possibility.
|
| |
Written By:
huxley
URL:
http://
|
I call Balogna. The MSM will come to the rescue of the Dem when their fight is over and hammer McCain (even tho he is their boy). Don’t forget only 22% of people who took an online pole read political blogs, the rest get their news from the TV.
The real fight hasn’t even started yet. (to bad it is McCain on the Repub side:() |
| |
Written By:
SkyWatch
URL:
http://
|
|
All I know is that they are both claiming that the other lacks the qualifications to serve. They have both convinced me. |
| |
Written By:
Rich
URL:
http://
|
Well, at least Hillary finished her first term as senator and got re-elected. She’s also been in the national eye since the Clinton administration.
But otherwise they are both weak candidates whose resumes don’t hold up when compared to just about any presidential candidate who could have won in the past 50 years.
Even JFK, who was young, rich and charismatic and was groomed by his father, had to pay some dues (WWII war hero, 13 years in the House and Senate) before he got to sit in the Big Chair. |
| |
Written By:
huxley
URL:
http://
|
Boris:If Obama gets the nomination, he may emerge strengthened. Obama hit his political peak in January-February. By then he had already given the 35th speech of his life and began his descent into self-parody (helped out tremendously by his zombie supporters on YouTube). Now he’s caught in the Clinton paradox, where politicians who fight back against the Clintons damage their own reputations.
The Clintons, of course, run the Emperor’s Club for damaged goods, so they always have scores of hangers-on to act as surrogates.
And Bill and Hillary are the unscorchable scar of American politics.
The Clintons also have that "L’Etat c’est moi" attitude about the Democratic Party, and they will see to it that if Obama wins the nomination it won’t be worth having.
As someone who long engaged in self-abasement on behalf of the Clintons, Boris, you should understand (but you don’t) that. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
Obama hit his political peak in January-February.
Yes, but he could peak again if he beats Clinton.
Of course, it is one thing to be the messiah in the Donkey Party, another thing to pull it off with sane adults . . . |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
"If Obama gets the nomination, he may emerge strengthened."
Billary will get the nomination and lose in the national election by about 55% -44%.
If Obama does by some miracle get the nomination then Hillary will work behind the scenes to ensure he isnt elected so she will have a shot at 2012.
But the nomination is hers. By hook, crook, or 9mm.
|
| |
Written By:
retired military
URL:
http://
|
Obama hit his political peak in January-February.
Yes, but he could peak again if he beats Clinton.
Of course, it is one thing to be the messiah in the Donkey Party, another thing to pull it off with sane adults . . . |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
I wonder how well Obama can withstand continued SNL-style ridicule. Even I was shocked by the SNL skit parodying the press’s fawning adoration of Obama, and I noticed how quick the press was to pull its socks up after that played.
It’s not hard to spoof the sort of idealism that Obama peddles, especially since he doesn’t have any hard-earned accomplishments to back up his claim to the White House. |
| |
Written By:
huxley
URL:
http://
|
I think that Obama takes things personally.
The Clinton objective is to get him to blow in a self-destructive moment of rage on the cumulative effect of the things being thrown at him. The way any normal person would under a continuous assault of cognitive dissonance.
In that area, Obama might just be a normal person, whereas the Clintons can barely lay claim to being persons, let alone normal.
I suspect that they’re looking to induce a moment of something a couple inches up the scale from the Howard Dean scream.
I hope they succeed, because like Dean, like Eliot Spitzer, like the Clintons themselves, I think that Obama needs to pursue his life outside of politics. If he knocks himself out now though, in this sewer wrestling match with the Clintons, he takes her with him. That’s because black voters will allocate all the blame to her. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
I wonder how well Obama can withstand continued SNL-style ridicule. Even I was shocked by the SNL skit parodying the press’s fawning adoration of Obama, and I noticed how quick the press was to pull its socks up after that played.
It’s not hard to spoof the sort of idealism that Obama peddles, especially since he doesn’t have any hard-earned accomplishments to back up his claim to the White House. This is why, if Obama gets the nomination, the Clinton attack is good for him. He needs to know how to respond to these criticisms. He’s the same age Bill Clinton was when Bill became President, ironically, and drawing on a similar sort of call for hope. Bill managed to overcome Bush the Elder’s experience factor. Does Obama have the capacity to do the same thing? We’ll see. It’s his to lose. If he does lose it, then he’d have had no chance against McCain. I think the most likely scenario is Obama beats Hillary, and McCain beats Obama. But the nomination is hers. By hook, crook, or 9mm It’s funny to me how the Clintonophobes have started believing their rhetoric about the Clintons being some kind of almost omnipotent political machine. Get real. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Boris discovers deductive logic:If [Obama] does lose [the nomination], then he’d have had no chance against McCain. Vell said, Herr Doktor! Vell said!It’s funny to me how the Clintonophobes have started believing their rhetoric about the Clintons being some kind of almost omnipotent political machine. Get real. So, why is it that everyone is still talking about the Democratic nomination, Boris? Hillary has no chance to close the gap in delegates unless the Clinton machine takes Obama down outside the primary process. That consists of either twisting the arms of superdelegates right off, or doing a beat down on Obama’s character.
Now, Boris, contrast and compare how fast Eliot Spitzer went down after his hooker escapades surfaced to what happened with the Clinton machine after Bill lied to a federal judge under oath about getting blown by a White House intern in the Oval Office toilet?
Think of the many times you abased yourself on behalf of the Clintons, Boris. Your vill vas not very strong, Von Erbling. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
"It’s funny to me how the Clintonophobes have started believing their rhetoric about the Clintons being some kind of almost omnipotent political machine. Get real. "
Scott
I will make you a bet. If Clinton’s name isnt on the ticket in NOV then I will never post on this blog again. If it is then you will never post on this blog again.
What do you say? Put your money.. er keyboard.. where your mouth is.
|
| |
Written By:
retired military
URL:
http://
|
I will make you a bet. If Clinton’s name isnt on the ticket in NOV then I will never post on this blog again. If it is then you will never post on this blog again. Why would I make that bet?! Certainly Clinton still has a chance, even though I think Obama has a far greater chance. You’re the one saying one of the two are certain to get the nomination, I’m talking in terms of probability. So I have no motivation to make a bet, I know Clinton has a chance.
Look, you may not be one of them, but I just get amused by how some people give the Clintons almost superhuman power — power that if they had, they wouldn’t be in the situation they’re now in! I noticed that in the 90s reading a conspiracy theorist ridden newsgroup called alt.clinton.whitewater (maybe it was alt.politics.clinton-whitewater...something like that). I was amazed at the level of fantasizing about the Clintons, as if they were some criminal mastermind organization. If it were possible to be as powerful and evil as they were posited (they were treated like villains in James Bond movies almost), then people a lot smarter than Bill and Hillary would have taken power long ago. That group was a hoot...conspiracy theorists, cold war relics who didn’t seem to understand that even Cold War terminology is dead for most people, so-called ’rational anarchists’ and the like. I’d print up articles and read parts to classes to show examples of the ’lunatic fringe’ of American political discourse.
Now, I don’t accuse you of being part of that, but I do think the Clintons are not that powerful, and now in fact they can see the chance at regaining power slipping away quickly. I think they’re locked in groupthink on the campaign (my blog topic today) and realize themselves that they are not really in a position of strength. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Boris, who for so long licked Clinton d**k, misunderstands what the Clintons are about:Look, you may not be one of them, but I just get amused by how some people give the Clintons almost superhuman power Not superhuman, Boris, subhuman, as in there is no bottom limit on the lowness of their means.
Do you think that sending out their house reptile Carville to call Paula Jones trailer park trash was an example of superhumanity?
Do you think that sending out Sidney Blumenthal to go on background with reporters that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker was superhumanity?
Do you think that having crews of sh*theel lawyers and rape defenders hitting the beaches of cable television like waves to keep themselves in the presidency was superhumanity?
Do you not recall your own endless grovelling, d*cklicking trench work for the Clintons? Maybe it was you who thought that their humanity was just super. Unless it was just a cash transaction. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
Boris is still in their thrall, apparently:I was amazed at the level of fantasizing about the Clintons, as if they were some criminal mastermind organization. I don’t know, what would you call a young man, who is the fair-haired nephew of a racketeer who sets him up in politics, who very early on in his first elected office, uses his own wife to take allocated profits in a scam commodities deal?
Are you perhaps a bit naive about the way things were done in Arkansas, Boris?
Are you a bit naive about how those methods were transferred to D.C. and then to dealings around the world?
I have a good friend who likes to recount how his father was arrested 55 times but never spent a day in jail. Do you know what organization his father was associated with, Boris? Yes, Boris, that organization sometimes euphemistically referred to as "our thing."
When young Billy Clinton saw his Uncle Raymond’s house in Hot Springs firebombed in a "business dispute" I’m guessing he pretty much integrated the "it’s just about business" method of dealing with it.
Just like pardoning big time crooks and drug dealers and terrorists on your way out the door of the White House with some of the furniture is "just about business."
|
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
Here’s Christopher Hitchens talking to Hugh Hewitt after the Hillary’s TX and OH victories:HH: 20 seconds, who’s going to be the next president of the United States?
Hitchens: Hillary Clinton.
HH: Oh…because of yesterday?
Hitchens: No, no, I’ve feared it for a long time, and there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power.
HH: The Mummy is back.
Hitchens: …people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end.
HH: Mordor. Christopher Hitchens, a pleasure. Thank you for joining us from Vanity Fair. |
| |
Written By:
huxley
URL:
http://
|
|
Martin — I’m naive about how things are done in Arkansas. What are some good links on this? |
| |
Written By:
huxley
URL:
http://
|
I don’t know about links, but one of the best no holds barred books about the Clintons in Arkansas is Partners in Power by Roger Morris.
Given the difficulty of getting people down there to talk — to anyone — Morris has some hits and misses. But his coverage of Clinton’s family, which is to say the family of Roger Clinton, his step-father (and adoptive father), is very detailed. Roger Clinton (after whom Bill’s half-brother Roger was named) was the brother of Raymond Clinton, who was the head of the rackets in Hot Springs. (Bill Clinton famously said he was from Hope, Arkansas, but he really grew up in Hot Springs, a rather famous mob stronghold, and not really a suitable place for a President of the United States to come from, rather like Chicago in that respect, which shared Al Capone with it).
Uncle Raymond was instrumental in getting Billy into Arkansas politics, financing included. Billy, of course, first went off to Georgetown and then Oxford and worked for the segregationist Senator William Fullbright in there somewhere, before coming home to jump right into his political career.
Just as this part of Clinton’s real background is never mentioned, neither is Morris’s book.
|
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
I was amazed at the level of fantasizing about the Clintons, as if they were some criminal mastermind organization. Hmm, kinda like, oh I dont know, the talk about BushRoveCheney at Kos, lakedogfire, and prog-lefty-claptrap-blog! |
| |
Written By:
rob
URL:
http://
|
And this, from one of my comments above:I have a good friend who likes to recount how his father was arrested 55 times but never spent a day in jail. Do you know what organization his father was associated with, Boris? Yes, Boris, that organization sometimes euphemistically referred to as "our thing." ...Is not a reference to Clinton’s father, but to the father of my friend, whose record of being caught but always avoiding conviction or punishment was perfect. I use it as an example of how professional criminals are experts at dealing with the law, especially when they have a "good" organization behind them.
The instant case of Spitzer is instructive as well. It’s one thing to think that you are above the law; it’s another thing to prove it.
Note the difference between Spitzer being brought to heel on one scandal, while Clinton dodged a good dozen that were worse. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
Hmm, kinda like, oh I dont know, the talk about BushRoveCheney at Kos, lakedogfire, and prog-lefty-claptrap-blog!
Except they don’t have anything on Bush. Unlike Clinton, who had quite a bid of serious indiscretions. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Except they don’t have anything on Bush. Unlike Clinton, who had quite a bid of serious indiscretions.
Bush made a huge policy mistake in Iraq, and he’s suffered politically. We’ll never see whether or not the "opportunity society" would have worked, Iraq destroyed his domestic agenda. Clinton was lucky to be President during a bubble-produced economic boom, and squandered that opportunity to prepare for the dangers in the future (though the Clinton administration did have a robust counter-terrorism strategy, something Bush downgraded when he first took office). Clinton was symbolic of the 90s, over-indulgent, unwilling to prepare for a difficult future, and ultimately unable to achieve what he could have. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Boris:Bush made a huge policy mistake in Iraq, Based only on the number of terrorists killed in Iraq, it continues to be a pretty good investment. Then there’s that getting rid of the psychopathic Hussein regime thing and the establishment of a new government that has potential for being something other than the standard Middle Eastern Arab dictatorship. You know, an introduction to modernity for our medieval friends.
But if you’ve just stood around for five years whining about a "huge policy mistake" and quoting Juan Cole, you wouldn’t be able to look at the other side of the question and, of course, you would raise every conceivable half-truth you could find by way of objection.and he’s suffered politically Funny thing about Bush "suffering politically" is that he got re-elected and has pretty much prosecuted the war as he wanted to.
His most serious political blunder, which was his own doing, was his failure to reform Social Security. He played that too coyly, when he had established the bona fides to take it head on. His immigration fiasco finished in second place to that, but that thing had big name Democrats on board, so it counts as a bipartisan failure. Otherwise, whether you like it or not, Bush pretty much got the legislation he was looking for, plus two really conservative Supereme Court justices.
Then there’s that thing about us not being attacked again after 9/11, when virtually everyone believed we would be. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
His biggest failure, regardless of subject, was attempting, as his father did, to compromise with the Democrat party.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
