News over the weekend is that Obama picked up more delegates in Iowa at the Iowa conventions, as most if not all delegates pledged to Edwards have now switched to Obama.
Now the Clinton campaign is trying to delay the Texas conventions and cast doubt on the results of Texas caucuses.
krikkit4 writes at Burnt Orange Report,
Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to cast doubt on the precinct conventions.
Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to deligitimize the concept of the convention itself.
Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to drag out the delegate selection process for their benefit.
And ultimately, Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are probably trying to null and void as much of the convention/caucus aspect of Texas’ delegate selection process as possible.
I’m genuinely disgusted.
I notice the pro-Clinton blogs (you know who they are) have no problem with this. However, they are insinuating there is something shady behind Obama’s appeals to Pennsylvania Republicans and Independents to vote for him in the primary.
At least Obama is trying to win by getting people to vote for him, as opposed to tweaking election results to make them turn out “better.”
HRC is no GWB. But she sure seems to be trying…
This is what wanting to win looks like when you don’t care at all about the consequences.
At one point, I liked Hillary Clinton, even wavered in my support of Edwards or Obama. Not any longer. I’m sick of her. Yes, I’ll hold my nose and vote for her if she’s the nominee. I’ll have to stifle my gag reflex doing it, though…
Some folks think Hillary is acting to ensure Obama loses the general election so that the field will be open to her in 2012.
If I determine that’s true, I’ll not only not vote for her, I’ll vote against her.
Besides, do we want a Democrat to have to try to deal with Iraq and with what looks like a possible economic depression?
Besides, do we want a Democrat to have to try to deal with Iraq and with what looks like a possible economic depression?
Well, yes, we do want a Democrat to deal with Iraq and our economic problems. Considering that Republican policies caused these problems, I can’t imagine why anyone would want Republicans to stay in charge and continue to bleep things up. I fear McCain would amount to a third Bush term. The nation can’t afford it.
So Nick, you would prefer a Republican to handle Iraq and the economy since they got us in this mess in the 1st place?
For the life of me, I do NOT understand why none of the candidates are poinitng out that IF the Republicans think making the tax cuts permanent is needed to stave off a recession, WHY did that recession happen when those tax cuts have been in place 5 years? If the bleeping tax cuts and HUGE deficit were so good for the US economy, why is the value of the dollar overseas in free fall?
It seems to me the Republicaans had their way for 6 years; tax cuts, deregulation, deficit spending.. and has brought us here. (Unless you can find a way to blame Bill.) So on what basis to you argue forr a continuation or expansion of those policies?
Nick, in #2. With all due respect, are you insane? (Or are you actually a Republican?)
1. If a Democrat pulls out of Iraq, we’ll get blamed for losing Iraq. The Viet Nam recriminations will seem minor in comparison.
If a Democratic president decides to STAY in Iraq….
2. As fouled up as things are, a recent Rasmussen poll has McCain AHEAD of both Obama and Clinton. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Stunning isn’t it? Especially when you consider that yes, a McCain presidency is essentially a third term for the Bushistas.
3. Some analysts believe we may be headed into a depression. Oil production may have peaked in 2005 and Bush has limited government’s ability to intercede because of his deficits.
It’s a horrible time to throw a black guy into the hot seat (a real set up), but we just about need a miracle, and he’s the closest thing a secularist like me sees to a miracle.
Absent a miracle, the Republicans can only drive the nation into a Hoover-like despair.
And voting for Hillary at this point would be similar to voting for Nader–rewarding an intransigent who brought us to ruin.
Are We Heading Toward Depression (Part 3)?
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-we-heading-toward-depression-part-3.html
Crude oil production figures suggesting the peak was hit in 2005:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Table%2012.png
Nick — I don’t have time to answer all of your points, but I will take on a couple. One, leaving Vietnam didn’t hurt the Dems politically at all. In fact, in the 1976 elections — one year after the fall of Saigon — we elected a Dem president and made small gains in Congress to add to big gains in the post-Watergate midterms. The Right Wing managed to create a myth that opposition to Vietnam hurt the Dem Party, but it’s a myth. Opposition to Vietnam wasn’t even the chief reason George McGovern lost in 1972, although I’m sure you’ve heard otherwise.
I’m not concerned — yet — about the polls showing McCain slightly ahead of the Dems. McCain has had the advantage of being able to stay out of the news because so much attention is focused on the Dem nomination fight. As soon as he’s flushed out from behind his rock and the electorate gets a good look at him, I expect his numbers to drop.
Also, Nick, the Democrats were never wrongly blamed for exiting Vietnam; rather, they were rightly blamed for getting us into that quagmire in the first place.
The correct analogy would be if Richard Nixon had been blamed for the 1973 peace accord and subsequent exit. But he wasn’t. The Vietnam hawks thoroughly appreciated his willingness to bomb Cambodia. It sickens me to think what McCain will do in Iraq, if elected president in 2008. Remember, this is the guy who chuckles and sings, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran” to an old Beach Boys tune. Are you really going to vote for him?
So I have to be blunt here: “We’ll get blamed for losing Iraq” and “It’s a horrible time to throw a black guy into the hot seat” are absolutely the two stupidest reasons I’ve heard for voting against the Democratic presidential candidate this November. My suggestion to you: Try eating more fish. It’s brain food.
Also, Nick, the Democrats were never wrongly blamed for exiting Vietnam; ….
Try eating more fish. It’s brain food.
Comment by joanr16
———————-
Those guarantees were written in to the 1973 Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger under which North Vietnam pledged to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia and not to overthrow the Saigon Government. But Hanoi knew it could violate the accord with impunity, confident that the large postWatergate Democrat majority in Congress would never authorise renewed airstrikes. Not only that; the Democrats refused to authorise the promised US military aid, leaving the South Vietnamese all but defenceless against North Vietnam’s rapid Soviet-assisted military build-up, and its full-scale tank-led invasion in 1975.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rosemary_righter/article2317291.ece
And if you’ll read my post carefully–perhaps after eating some fish–you’ll note that I wasn’t suggesting that I wouldn’t vote for Obama. I won’t vote for Hillary and am considering voting against her, contingent upon—well, read what I wrote.
If you’re argument is solid, you don’t have to get nasty about presenting it.
Great presidents are nt great because they did OK with an easy period of history. FDR took over in the great depression, and then turned this country to the role of world leader. Lincoln was damned-if-you-do – damned-if-you-don’t with the Civil War. Great leaders EARN the place they have by taking on TOUGH issues – and winning.
Now I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, but the suggestion that we do not want our first black president to be thrown in the ‘hot seat’ feels faintly racist. Do you think it’s a good idea if a black man is eventually pesident, but we won’t give him any tough problems? After all he’s a black president and can’t be expected to perform as well as a white man. Whether you intended it or not, that’s going to be the argument when he is the nominee – that the problems may be too tough for the first black president. I for one will be the first to stomp and stomp hard on that . Ditto if Clinton is the nominee and the you substitute ‘woman’.
Nick, you are not paying attention. What happened with the Peace Accord is irrelevant. The Democrats did NOT pay a political price for Vietnam. That’s a myth created in the 1980s by the Right. See my comment #8, above.
I like this Nick, he and I appear to have similar brain patterns or ideas, it must be all the fish we eat. The problem with it all is he does not address problems bluntly enough. Its my opinion that the next four years are going to be very rough ones, wouldn’t it be swell to point at a member of the Grand Old Persons (Party) in the White House to blame? The President will not be able to do much in the next four years regardless of who is there.
In regards to the website theoildrum.com: there are lots of prognosticators and pundits out there if you look who are warning us that we are soon going to face a sharp drop in the worlds oil supply (my favorite is James Howard Kunstler and the Long Emergency) – but I wonder if it isn’t mostly hogwash meant to be provocative. The point I take from them is that our urban areas have been progressively getting more reliant on the automobile since the end of World War II and if gasoline becomes tremendously more expensive it could be much harder to get around cities. I know the great Maha lives in New York – but here in flyover land it would be tough getting around without a car, the US has virtually no train or bus system, and no significant decision maker appears to even be aware of the problems it could cause. Anyway, I’m way off subject…
It’s the appointments, stupid!
Get over this obsession with personalities. Keep your eyes on the prize: a Democratic-controlled White House and thus the appointment power over thousands of key jobs in all executive agencies, regulatory bodies, and the courts. These people make thousands of crucial decisions every day. The real question is: Do we want them to be Democrats or pro-corporate, anti-regulatory, anti-civil rights Republicans. The Republicans understand how important this is. When will we?
Its my opinion that the next four years are going to be very rough ones, wouldn’t it be swell to point at a member of the Grand Old Persons (Party) in the White House to blame?
And if John McCain is president for four years, and continues Dubya’s tax and economic and war policies as he promises to do, IN FOUR YEARS THE COUNTRY WILL BE IN AN EVEN BIGGER EFFING MESS THAN IT IS NOW!!!!!
Are we waiting for the Good Government Fairy?
The American people, on the whole, have realized the nation’s economy is bad even as media and the Republicans told them otherwise. They also realize, now, that Bush is a five-alarm screwup. I think a majority of them can understand that Bush made a heck of a mess that won’t be fixable overnight.
We need to get the White House in Dem hands in 2008, even if it’s Hillary Clinton’s hands. No screwing around with this.
Maha:
I am in a crappy mood today. Don’t know why. Feeling very disillusioned with the whole world. I am not a Democrat nor a Repug. simply because I dislike signing up to “belief systems”. To top it all, I am getting very annoyed with Hillary and also Obama to a lesser extent. Perhaps it is because this thing is being dragged out too long or maybe it’s just me. Have been thinking lately that if Clinton gets the nomination, I just won’t vote. Now, I know that is the wrong attitude. Wouldn’t vote for McCain if I was tortured. So, I know you probably have gone into all this before but humor me and explain to me why it is so important that we get a Democrat in the White House. Right now I need a talking to.
I think “winning in the courts, not via the electorate” is the second distinctly identifiable idea that the Clinton’s have taken from the GW Bush playbook. The first, of course, was the whole “Commander In Chief” meme. Memo to all presidential campaigns: The office title is President of the United States of America, NOT “commander in chief.” Commander in Chief is one of many job functions attached to the office. President of the United States of America is a plenty powerful and respectful title, and has sufficed for everyone preceding GW Bush. It will suffice for you, too.
I will support Clinton if she is the nominee, even if she wins it through extra-electoral means. I will support a turnip or any other root vegetable over any Republican. But I will not do either of these things with any enthusiasm. I have respect for neither Clinton nor turnips.
First, I think measuring whether or not Democrats paid a political price for liberals’ opposition to Viet Nam requires consideration of so many variables as to be impossible. On the other hand, it’s clear that we’ve been blamed and continue to be blamed for Viet Nam.
Second, I’m reluctant to see our first black president get ravaged by what are likely to be four very extremely difficult years, the blame for which rightly belongs to the Republicans. It’s because I want to see him succeed that I am concerned (just as any decent person wanted to see Jackie Robinson succeed); I’m not worried that he won’t be as capable at the job as a white person. It’s just a set up for failure.
Third, George is correct.
I think measuring whether or not Democrats paid a political price for liberals’ opposition to Viet Nam requires consideration of so many variables as to be impossible.
No, it isn’t. Fall of Saigon, 1975. Elections of 1976, Dems win.
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember those years, but I am. Other than some bitter-enders on the Right, the whopping majority of Americans didn’t give a shit what happened in Vietnam once we were out. Everybody was sick of it. If you pay close attention, most of the people these days who get worked up over the peacenik Dems losing Vietnam are too young to actually have remembered those years. And this is because they believe the lies they’ve been told.
On the other hand, it’s clear that we’ve been blamed and continue to be blamed for Viet Nam.
If you’re talking about losing Vietnam — that’s a Right Wing fabricated narrative, Nick. It doesn’t have anything to do with what Dems actually did. Think of it as a party-wide swift boating.
Second, I’m reluctant to see our first black president get ravaged by what are likely to be four very extremely difficult years, the blame for which rightly belongs to the Republicans.
I repeat, if John McCain is president for four years, and continues Dubya’s tax and economic and war policies as he promises to do, IN FOUR YEARS THE COUNTRY WILL BE IN AN EVEN BIGGER EFFING MESS THAN IT IS NOW!!!!!
Basically, you’re saying that we’ll keep Republicans in charge until there’s nothing in the way of a country left to govern. Not a plan.
I think a large majority of Americans fully understand that the Bush Administration screwed the pooch, and they’re going to be understanding if the problems aren’t solved right away. As long as they see that government is doing something to solve the problems, I think they’ll give him some time before they blame him for the problems.
Nick & George,
The economic news is not good. The economic condition under McCain will be a disaster because he has the same deregulation & low-taxes-for-the-rich philosophy that will run the country further into debt. The value of the dollar internationally has tanked.The fed just coughed up 30 BILLION for a bailout, possibly to keep Wall Steet from tumbling. By November, the cracks in the pavement on Wall Street may have grown to the size of the Grand Canyon. At best, whoever sits in the Oval office will inherit a VERY fragile economy. People are arguing about the word ‘recession’ but the risk may be a depression the likes of which we have not seen in 75 years. Bread lines and tent cities. Wake up; this is no game with a restart button.
And you seriously propose we leave Republicans in office so we can BLAME them? How many millions do you think should suffer so you can safely lay blame? Because either of the Democratic candidates has a better grip on economics than McCain.