Now It Begins

-

obama twn 100.jpg
Barack Obama has clinched the nomination. Watching his speech now. He’s being gracious to those rivals who he beat, particularly Hillary Clinton. Good show. That is maturity.
I haven’t heard or seen Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight — but the blog buzz is reverberating with an echo that hers was less gracious. Obama is right to step higher and credit her as he did.
Now the real race begins, and McCain is salivating at getting back in the headlines.
Wow. Obama just said that when the nation achieves universal health care, Hillary Clinton will have helped deliver it. As usual, he’s delivering a moving, terrific speech.
Now he’s got to pull it together — and he needs to figure out how to be the force that can help the nation leap frog into new and better circumstances and get out of the political gridlock and policy incrementalism that dominate the political scene today.
I’ve been pointing to some areas in which Obama has triangulated a bit, but if his team is reading this, it’s important to keep Obama making the big leaps. What we did yesterday means less and less to how we should approach tomorrow — and he needs to instill confidence that he is not the incrementalist on important policy breakthroughs I sometimes feel he is.
I know John McCain pretty well — and this is going to be an extremely tough race, but at least it finally begins.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

135 comments on “Now It Begins

  1. Tahoe Editor says:

    Tell me again how the party machine supported Hillary in Nevada by awarding more delegates to Obama to compensate for her 6-point win? Diebold may have you paranoid, but I don’t have to wonder if the Democratic Party’s process is corrupt. I know it.

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    One person, one vote? Now who’s living in a fairy tale? Caucuses, in that only those who are free to attend at the specified time, are unfair, but then party machines that do funky things with voting machines and ballots are not kosher either. Perhaps you should read what Dennis Kucinich found when he paid for a recount in New Hamspshire. Hillary did best where the party machine supported her, New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania.
    I’m not so sure that obama can’t rally himself into office…landslides are harder to steal, but then I don’t think we’ll be voting again anytime soon. I don’t see the current occupants of the Oval Office willingly surrendering all the power they’ve amassed when their “term” expires. I see Darth saying, “So’?

    Reply

  3. Tahoe Editor says:

    As opposed to something called “one person, one vote,” which Obama will run up against in November. We won’t be able to rally him into office with caucuses.

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    Tahoe Editor…Game an undemocratic political system dominated by activists??? As opposed to an undemocratic political system dominated by party hacks? If only the undemocratic political system truly were dominated by activists.. Dopey and Darth, et al would be chopping rocks on a Chain Gang.

    Reply

  5. Tahoe Editor says:

    Obama has certainly proved that he (and his handlers) know how to:
    — game an undemocratic political system dominated by activists
    — trash & bash everything the U.S. government has done in the past 16 years
    — pose as America’s best and last Hope® whose transcendent powers have already begun to “heal the planet”
    Who would dare impede that progress?

    Reply

  6. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    Surely having gained his Democratic Presidential nomination, Mr Obama has certainly proved that he has all deserving qualities to lead the US elections-2008 by having no compromise on his political agenda as the would- be aspirant and dynamic US- President.

    Reply

  7. Kathleen says:

    Paying tribute…definitely insider’s tribute …

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “However, your long term, virulent anti-semitism, coupled with your paranoid theories about 9/11, are on record to read, for any who have the stomach for it”
    Care to elucidate? What aspect of 9/11 do you want to debate, you jackass?
    Also, I’d like to see an example of my “virulent anti-semitism”. Perhaps you’d care to provide us with an example? But then again, probably not.

    Reply

  9. Tahoe Editor says:

    Do tell.

    Reply

  10. MarkL says:

    POA,
    I see that you’re off your meds again.
    I have never been an “Israel firster”—in fact, its’ not even in my top 10 issues.
    However, your long term, virulent anti-semitism, coupled with your paranoid theories about 9/11, are on record to read, for any who have the stomach for it.

    Reply

  11. Tahoe Editor says:

    I paid tribute to Jane Curtain & Dan Aykroyd’s Point/Counterpoint into which this thread so quickly degenerates — when Carroll et. al. choose to hurl echo-chamber insults rather than answering questions they obviously can’t answer or don’t want to put in the honest effort to address.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Curtin
    I’m not saying “Give Em Hell Harry” is new, I’m saying using it as Step 1 to reach out to Clinton supporters was one of the more boneheaded actions out of the Democratic Party, now led by the King of Identity Politics.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    Tahoe Editor…Give Em Hell Harry has been sending out emails for eons.. nothing new there..
    Calling a woman commenter an “ignorant slut” shows how shallow and phony your support for the first woman candidate for President really is.. Im sure Hillary is really proud of your attitude.
    McPain doesnt smile, he grimaces. I get the feeling that if he didn’t clench his teeth, he’d bite someone.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, reading these “true believer” Obamabots and Hillaryhitlers tearing each other new assholes is simply amazing.
    How did these posturing marrionettes in Washington achieve such rock star status to invoke such putrid fawning from their fans?
    Tahoe Editor is predictably in swiftboat mode, Wigwag is looking for a sales pitch that resonates moderate, (having abandoned his drooling zionist personna), and MarkL would vote for PeeWee Herman if he thought Isreal would get an additional dime out of the deal.
    Is it my imagination, or are the Hillaryhitlers far more venomous and sleazy in their tactics than the Obamabots are? Truly a shame these people aren’t using this zeal and fervor on America’s streets to demand that Cheney and Bush get marched to the gallows. Now THERES a political movement I could get enthused about!

    Reply

  14. Sweetness says:

    MarkL,
    Obama “flipped off” Hillary after losing a debate? When was THAT? Refresh my memory.

    Reply

  15. MarkL says:

    Leo,
    Lying is so becoming of Obama supporters.
    Hillary acknowledged Obama’s wins many times; whereas I don’t believe Obama gave a concession speech ONCE, although he did congratulate Hillary on her “apparent win” in Indiana as his bagman in Gary was trying to rig the vote.
    Nor did Hillary ever flip off Obama after losing a debate.
    Really, there’s no comparison in class between Obama and Hillary– Obama has none at all.

    Reply

  16. leo says:

    Can I note that gracious just wasn’t part of Hillary’s act, she barely acknowedged Obama winning any state (or her losing on delegates and votes) until a couple of weeks ago.
    BTW, TE is sounding a bit manic these days.

    Reply

  17. Tahoe Editor says:

    The one-trick pony and the no-trick pony can agree “Give Em Hell Harry” — the message I got actually came from giveemhellharry.com — should be returned to sender ASAP. Come on, Nevadans — there’s got to be someone who can knock him over.

    Reply

  18. arthurdecco says:

    POA said: “Hell, his (Reid’s) voice even changed after Roberts got through gelding him.”
    this is one of the funniest, (because it’s true), lines I’ve read all week.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, that Tahoe Editor is a one trick pony, isn’t he? He oughta sign up for McCain’s proffessional swiftboater team.
    But I gotta agree with him about Reid. Reid is an ineffective mewling little pissant, who has been an utter and complete failure at countering even one iota of Bush bullshit. His Phase Two senate stunt, followed by a world class pfffffft, is all one needs to know about Reid.
    Hell, his voice even changed after Roberts got through gelding him.

    Reply

  20. Tahoe Editor says:

    I just got an email from Harry Reid, who apparently is the designee to take over Hillary’s email list and reach out for party funding.
    I can’t think of a worse person for this action. If Hillary had anything to do with this choice, it’s the first time I’ll buy the notion she might not want Obama to win. If it was an Obama choice, it confirms everything I already think.
    Reid is the last Dem who should have been chosen for this — he’s miserable.

    Reply

  21. Tahoe Editor says:

    Is it “Character Assassins”?
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/williams

    Reply

  22. questions says:

    Patricia Williams has a nice piece in the newest issue of the Nation about the “unknownness” of Obama and the racial implications of this notion. No link since I read the print edition.

    Reply

  23. Tahoe Editor says:

    On the media, it’s rich that they came down on Bill for being a racist for saying Obama is a roll of the dice, but now that the primary is over, Ron Brownstein comes out and says … Obama is a roll of the dice.
    The Democratic Gamble – Ronald Brownstein, National Journal
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php
    It’s Time for Another Obama Race Speech – Juan Williams, WSJ
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270934203350365.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    Reply

  24. Sweetness says:

    “Sweetness, it wasn’t just MSNBC. It was CNN, it was Maureen
    Dowd. It was Frank Rich. It was Gail Collins. It was Bob Herbert. It
    was Nicholas Kristof. It was Richard Cohen. It was E. J. Dione, Jr. It
    was David Ignatius. It was Ruth Marcus. It was Harold Meyerson. It
    was Dana Millbank. It was Eugene Robinson.”
    Perhaps you can elaborate here a bit about “the rules.” There’s a
    difference between pundits being “against” a candidate and being
    against the candidate for sexist reasons. People can even be
    against a candidate for “unfair” reasons that don’t rise to the level
    of sexism or racism.
    The pimped out comment by Schuster really did feel like sexism to
    me, as well as being strangely cruel. But these others…?

    Reply

  25. Linda says:

    WigWag,
    We can agree to disagree, but I’d like to see money and special interests have a lot less influence in our government. The price of running for public office and good government (and we surely don’t have that)is that kind of transparency.
    Neither Hillary or Bill fought for an issue that mattered to me when they triangulated on welfare reform. And Peter Edelman (Marian Wright Edelman’s husband and several of his top staff) resigned their positions over that. Granted that our welfare costs are lower today, but all that did was create a much larger group of working poor without health care, child care, etc.
    We disagree but amiably–no point in going through more of them. But think Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court before you vote for McCain!!
    Nice meeting you and getting a different viewpoint. All my friends have been for Obama or Edwards.

    Reply

  26. questions says:

    Hey WigWag,
    Not sure if I count as a counterexample for you — I hardly pay attention to the media — no cable, no tv watching…. I read endlessly and I come to my views without the “help” of pundits. And I have to admit, I was prObama before he announced his run, before he was even in the Senate. And I’ve been anti-Clinton on policy grounds since 1992 or so. Not everyone is a victim of media bias such that he or she cannot think independently.
    The sexism and racism charges in this election are hard to tease out of all the other issues, and they may have cancelled each other out anyway. The numbers show a pretty even split in votes, a better delegate-catching strategy on Obama’s side, equal media disdain off and on for both (think about the Wright affair and its endless looping on tv stations I don’t watch).
    Also remember the NYT endorsed Clinton, and it’s never worth reading MoDo anyway! And you could kick out Kristof for having “bought” the freedom of a prostitute in, was it Indonesia? without thinking about the entire social structure this woman existed in. Not the best intervention, but he got some columns out of it….. So you have the editorial board and Krugman against Robinson and Rich. Pretty even split — just like the voters.
    Clinton did not lose massively, suggesting that the charges of sexism have been overblown. What she did wrong was strategic — the Iraq vote (which was clear at the time as a campaign tactic) and her general lack of a good ground plan. Some blowhard on TV or in the Times’ editorial pages did not cost her the election. In fact, “sexism” probably got her votes of women who were disgusted with some pundits and columnists.
    Please note that I have deep feminist credentials, am the mother of a daughter pursuing a “non-traditional” career track, and I’d vote for a woman in a heartbeat — so long as she was opposed to “dumb wars”, top-down health care that benefits the insurance industry. (Massachusetts, so far, seems to be a mixed bag — more people insured, but not universal, shortage of primary care, and economic pain around the edges. The recession will make things worse, including massive budget problems as the subsidy gets more expensive. Health care reform is bigger than any one candidate, and I don’t think anyone has come up with an adequate and culturally specific enough system to work here. We’re not Canadians, and I can’t see national care being tolerated here without a lot of compromises…..)

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    Linda, should Clinton be more forthcoming about Ron Burkle? Sure. Should we know even more about why he pardoned Mark Rich? Sure. Has Obama been forthcoming enough about his relationship with Rezko? Probably not. Do I care about that? No. I think politicians are just like the rest of us. They make compromises to get what they want and sometimes they skirt closer to the line than they should. I don’t hold it against them. I wouldn’t want my life scrutinized that way. And I wouldn’t always be comfortable if I was judged entirely by my friends or family. I’m not looking for a savior, just for someone I think will do a good job.
    I don’t expect people who are ambitious enough to run for high office to be saints. I don’t think people can be ambitious in one aspect of their lives but not others. People who want power, usually want wealth and fame too. I think it’s just part of the package. And I don’t even think it’s bad. I think an effective leader needs a strong ego and an intense desire to succeed. Obama has it; Clinton has it. McCain has it and Bush had it.
    As far as Clinton and health care. You make a good point. She tried, she failed, she made mistakes. But she worked her heart out to get it done. She fought for what mattered to me and I am grateful for that. When she failed, she championed other causes like the family and middle leave act which was a life saver for my family.
    As for presidential daughters. I really don’t know anything about the lives of the Bush twins, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton or Caroline Kennedy. I’m not going to judge them on their job titles and if they want to campaign for their parents, it’s fine with me. My guess is that they are all fine young women. From what little I know from seeing them on television, they all seem bright, articlate and impressive to me. Have they capitalized on their family’s fame and wealth? Sure. Who wouldn’t if we were in their place?

    Reply

  28. Linda says:

    WigWag,
    I loved your comment, but one thing that has bothered me about the Clintons is that Bill will not release information about his business dealing with Ron Burkle or contributors to his Presidential library. Those things would have to be open on an Obama ticket and should be have been in Clinton’s campaign.
    I surely hate all the sexist remarks that were made including the one about Chelsea. But I try to be fair and look at all sides and even find some good in those whose policies I oppose. Bush’s daughters seem to have a sense of public service, but Chelsea uses her talents to work for a big hedge fund for a six-figure salary. And that has bothered me.
    BTW, I gave more money to Clinton’s 1992 campaign than I ever gave or will give to any candidate because I wanted health care reform. Clinton’s lack of experience as well as Hillary’s blew it. Hillary and Ira Magaziner knew nothing about health care, did their plan behind closed doors, and the result of that missed opportunity is that health care reform was delayed for 20 years. So I will never give a penny to another Presidential candidate (Obama’s loss). I did reluctantly vote for Clinton a second time. I will trust and hope but verify, and only give for re-election of someone if I still like him/her after the first term. It hasn’t happened yet…I’m every bit as cynical as POA–just not as angry.
    Any thoughts on that?

    Reply

  29. WigWag says:

    Sweetness, it wasn’t just MSNBC. It was CNN, it was Maureen Dowd. It was Frank Rich. It was Gail Collins. It was Bob Herbert. It was Nicholas Kristof. It was Richard Cohen. It was E. J. Dione, Jr. It was David Ignatius. It was Ruth Marcus. It was Harold Meyerson. It was Dana Millbank. It was Eugene Robinson.
    It was, as Paul Krugman called it, the “Clinton Rules.” The winners can celebrate that. Everyone likes to win. But similar tactics were used against Gore. Similar tactics were used against Kerry. Now that those tactics have been perfected against Mrs. Clinton, they will be used again. And again. Those who are so happy with the results thist time, might not be so happy next time.

    Reply

  30. Sweetness says:

    Wigwag–
    I think it’s true that Clinton was hurt by sexism, a little bit of it
    in the media. For example, David Schuster’s remarks about
    Chelsea being pimped out by the campaign were extraordinary,
    especially given Chelsea’s demure demeanor and the fact that
    family members almost always help out on a campaign if the
    campaign thinks they’ll be useful. And I do think MSNBC was
    largely in the bag for Obama.
    But by and large, the sexism came from the electorate (“iron my
    shirt”) (all the discussion about the authenticity of her tears) not
    from the media. And I can’t think of one example of the Obama
    campaign being sexist in its approach to Clinton.
    Sometimes, what happens, is the ball falls in a way that’s useful
    to the opposing campaign, and the opposing campaign takes
    the gimme.
    So yes, the Obama campaign profited from sexism, just as the
    Clinton campaign profited from racism–and in a perfect world
    both sides would have decried the electorate’s prejudice against
    their opponents’ gender and race–but I actually think that’s too
    much to ask of any campaign in a tightly fought race. Over all,
    as these things go, this was a pretty clean fight, with a few dirty
    punches thrown.

    Reply

  31. Tahoe Editor says:

    If Obama loses in November, we can blame “typical white people.” Obama says he’s “betting on the American people” — so a loss for Obama will mean America hasn’t yet fulfilled its promise.
    Of course Bill also said he’s a roll of the dice, but he’s a racist.

    Reply

  32. Ahmad says:

    Obama lost my vote the minute he outed his racist grandmother to get out of a political jam.

    Reply

  33. easy e says:

    An Obama cabinet with Vincent Bugliosi as Attorney General would be the right beginning.
    The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder…
    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/

    Reply

  34. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Some perspective…
    Idi Amin, in his reign of terror, killed 300,000 Ugandans.
    George Bush, in his reign of terror, has killed, by most estimates, over 600,000 Iraqi non-combatants. Some studies estimate over one million.
    If we take these figures back to 1991, “we”, (meaning the United States government), may well be responsible for the deaths of over two million Iraqi non-combatants.
    Its time to wake up, people. Is this really the kind of nation we want to be?

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Anyone remember the Phase Two Report? Well, if you’ll recall, this cowardly posturing pusbag of hot air, Harry Reid, got his nickname “Give ‘Em Hell Harry” by pulling a circus stunt in the Senate, demanding that the Phase Two report get completed and released. Consequently, the lying sack of shit who headed the committee tasked to create the report, (Pat Roberts (R-KS)) told the American people that a rough draft of the report would be ready in October of ’05, and the full report would soon follow.
    A partial report was released on May 25, 2007. (Doesn’t exactly square with October of ’05, does it?) HOWEVER, there were major focuses missing from that ’07 publication.
    From Wikipedia….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
    “Portions of the phase II report not released at that time include the review of public statements by U.S. government leaders prior to the war, and the assessment of the activities of Douglas Feith and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans”
    Now, TPM Muckraker is reporting that the final portions of the Phase Two Report is set to be released….
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/shouldnt_it_be_called_phase_ii.php#comments
    Interesting that they should choose to release it now, eh? What do you want to bet the press ignores it, and the release strategy is to hide it behind the din of this pathetic presidential race?
    Forgive me for mentioning it, but even our gracious host had great admiration for Reid’s ineffective and insincere posturing, cheering his actions even as Roberts was calmly cutting Reid’s balls off and hanging them on his office wall.
    And what did Reid get out of all this? The media fanfare for a cheap trick, followed by the media’s silence about the fact that Reid’s cheap trick produced exactly NOTHING. To boot, the mewling cowardly little pissant even got to keep the nickname. After eight years opf seeing this Administration get away with murder, isn’t it ironic that the head of the worthless ineffective and complicit “opposition party” is nicknamed “Give ‘Em Hell Harry”. And all for a ruse.
    And what did “we the people get”??? Just another snow job.

    Reply

  36. David says:

    I do like this website, and the people who comment here. I react to the stuff here more as intellectual ferment – there are some highly informed, very smart people weighing in – whereas on some other websites there is more of what I would call unenlightening ranting. As I said on another thread, I am improved by the good intellectual company I am able to keep because of the internet.

    Reply

  37. questions says:

    I suspect that checks and balances might come back into fashion no matter what. McC and Obama are both legislators. Just at the level of territorialism, they likely both believe that legislative power is worthy. When McC promises justices like Roberts and Alito I worry, though. I doubt that Obama will be a “unitary executive” controlling single-mindedly the entire executive branch. He’s by nature consultative near as I can tell. He’s also schooled in the Constitution and seems to have a deep respect for it. He also built a bottom up campaign and has promised more transparency in government. There’s a lot here that suggests that there may be a gradual reduction in executive power over the course of an Obama administration. (Unless, of course, we attack Iran and suspend elections…..)
    I doubt the media will pick up on subtle issues like this, but by November, we’ll probably at least know a whole lot about Cindy and Michelle’s favorite salad recipes.

    Reply

  38. Andrew Mehdiz. says:

    I think it’s a little funny that Hillary Clinton has just announced that she will concede on June 6 – the same day that Robert F. Kennedy died after suffering multiple gunshot wounds in California. To me, this may be more than just a simple mistake, or even a subconscious decision (maybe he’ll be gone by the time I’m done).
    We all remember her recent and controversial quote about Barack Obama and Robert F. Kennedy:
    “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

    Reply

  39. arthurdecco says:

    Amidst the powerful, passionate, convincing, (and not), comments on this thread, Rich, your clarity and evenhandedness stood out in a stellar field of thinkers.
    (though I thank you all.)

    Reply

  40. Paul Norheim says:

    Hi Linda,
    I am not saying that Obamas relative lack of experience in
    Washington DC necessarily is a minus. Many wars have been
    lost because old generals with plenty of experience tried to win
    the former war. I just observe that this is an issue currently
    discussed in the USA. Experience may be a bonus or a
    disadvantage, depending on how you interpret your experience
    and how you apply it to a new and different context. The same
    goes for lack of experience; it may result in disaster, or it may
    spur the ability to adapt to a new and unfamiliar situation. And I
    agree with you that “judgement and ability to pick and listen to
    good staff” is crucial.
    The trouble is: in critical moments, it`s hard to tell weather the
    leader with the “best intentions”, or the one you always have
    disagreed with will be the one that succeeds. I even happen to
    agree with Bush that nobody is capable of knowing the results
    of an action in the long term. This, however, does not imply that
    you should treat history as an opportunity to gamble, like the
    current administration obviously have done (mixing missionary
    aspirations with greed and “creative destruction” – and then see
    what happens).
    And personally, I believe that the experience of John McCain is a
    disadvantage. It looks like he intend to win the former war.

    Reply

  41. arthurdecco says:

    There are a lot of powerful, passionate, convincing (or not) comments on this thread.
    Rich, your clarity and evenhandedness stood out in a stellar field of thinkers.
    Whew!

    Reply

  42. Paul Norheim says:

    POA,
    as long as the most powerful (or impotent; whatever you prefer)
    members of the Democratic party in the Congress and Senate
    would be seen as co-responsible for the fact that checks and
    balances was put aside during the Bush years – if this had been
    focused on as one of most crucial issues in the campaign – they
    will avoid it.
    If the checks and balances will ever get back at the top of the
    agenda, it will probably happen decades after these women and
    men have retired. In other words: “history will judge”. From a
    comfortable distance. (As if the Americans delayed dealing with
    Watergate, or even the McCarthy years, until now.)
    Some people will probably end in jail etc, in the coming years.
    But I would be very surprised if a serious effort to restore ” the
    checks and balances, and holding the Bush Administration
    accountable before the law for high crimes and treason” will
    happen before most of those responsible for checks and
    balances are retired or dead.
    This is why the election will be about experience, Iraq, and the
    economy – not to mention former pastors, personalities, family,
    etc. etc. But of course you know all this.

    Reply

  43. Linda says:

    WigWag,Paul,
    WigWag, you didn’t offend or attack me though others probably would have. Knowing you are from FL also explains a lot. I was only trying to say what Paul said better.
    BTW, Paul, the best argument against experience is the combined experience of Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s not about experience but about judgment and ability to pick and listen to good staff.
    Also, Paul, Google “James Webb” who would be a very good VP choice. He was a Republican and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, grad of U.S. Naval Academy, etc.

    Reply

  44. David says:

    One of us two “radicals” is wrong, POA. I hope it is you, of course. And I must strenuously disagree that Obama is a charlatan. A political animal, yes, and a smart one – a charlatan, no.
    Meanwhile, and interesting take on Clinton and Obama at AIPAC: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/04/the_morning_after_obama_and_hi/#more

    Reply

  45. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, I will repeat my prediction that the die is already cast for a McCain presidency, especially with Obama cinching the nomination. Really, there is very little difference from McCain to Hillary as far as the Middle East and Israel go. AIPAC would have probably been content with either candidate, but would naturally prefer Hillary, as her head is firmly implanted up the Isreal agenda, and is highly placed by the monsters comprising the “Military Industrial Complex”. However, the American people are so fuckin’ fed up with the status quo, that there was a real chance that an unknown should jump in, that could not be controlled. That is when this flash bang grenade Obama shows up, muttering ethereal nothings, propelled forward by a media that is now inexplicably marketing him, (despite eight years of demonstrating that they have been unabashedly complicit in selling the zionist/neo-con agenda).
    The bottom line? The right eliminated Hillary by handing us this charlatan Obama, whom they already have the goods on. Now, it is simply a matter of timing, before they drop the bombshell that will ruin Obama’s chance of achieving the Presidency.
    McCain is going to be our next President, and the eight years preceding his presidency was the end of “democracy” as we once knew it. I see above, that someone has listed there opinjhion about what the three foremost “issues” are. Truth be told, he is probably right. And that is the most telling indicator of the validity of my theory, because if we were what we claim to be, the biggest campaign issue would be the issue of restoring the checks and balances, and holding the Bush Administratrion accountable before the law for high crimes and treason.

    Reply

  46. David says:

    What I intended to attack regarding gravitas is what it apparently means in politic-speak, which meaning allows it to be applied to Dick Cheney. That is the shit I am tired of. It is at best a misleading, and a worst an utterly useless descriptor. I do agree with the comment regarding Kerry v. Cheney.
    If at any point I have attacked anyone personally, that was unintentional and I offer a blanket apology. I do not, however, apologize for suggesting that the media enablers of the invasion of Iraq go climb up a goat’s ass (but with apologies to the goat). That particular issue is way beyond normal discourse, just as was the issue of apartheid in the South of my youth. Both have to do with criminal enterprises (yes, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and we have done nothing in Iraq to ameliorate that crime, and in fact have indulged in the additional crime of the “Salvador solution”).

    Reply

  47. Paul Norheim says:

    DonS,
    the tree biggest issues in the weeks before November will
    probably be
    1) experience/inexperience,
    2) Iraq (Middle East),
    3) The economy.
    Except for the first point, McCain seem to be remarkably weak
    on the hot issues. Many of the former Clinton supporters will
    probably see this clearly in the coming months, and vote for
    Obama.
    Today, Caroline Kennedy was, according to CNN, one of three
    who is asked to search for a Vice President candidate for
    Obama.
    Perhaps they are looking for a Lyndon B. Johnson, a hard liner,
    to match McCain and improve on Obama`s weak spot? This is,
    of course, pure speculations from my side. But if so, this may
    be good news for Obama, but perhaps not for America and the
    world. Who knows? It will mostly depend on all that
    unpredictable stuff that is not written in the speeches and
    statements from the candidates. Some of the challenges the
    new president will meet, partly as a result of the former
    Presidents failed policies everywhere, will probably be quite
    nasty.
    However, if Cheney and Bush intend to attack Iran in the weeks
    before the election, McCain may win simply because the
    American people become scared and insecure. On the other
    hand, Obamas speech to the AIPAC delegates today may
    convince Cheney and Bush that Obama is not such a unreliable
    guy after all. And so on…
    And as you see, WigWag: Perhaps I should do some walking in
    the mountains as well…

    Reply

  48. WigWag says:

    Ok, Paul, I take your point. I think it has merit. I will drop the issue for the time being and move on to other subjects.

    Reply

  49. DonS says:

    Good points, Paul.
    I think a lot of Clintonites have been very emotionally identified with Hillary, and many no doubt are needing to find ways to process their grief and anger.
    In the end, such identifiction with politicians is more about one’s own feelings than anything truly substantive.

    Reply

  50. Paul Norheim says:

    Well well, WigWag,
    I`ll envy your weather 5-6 months from now, when it`s getting
    dark in the northern part of Norway at 3p.m. and it`s usually
    either extremely cold or raining for weeks…
    A pity that it`s so humid and hot in South Florida right now.
    This is not meant as a hostile remark, but I was just thinking
    about the personal “dilemma” you`ve been sharing so
    generously with the readers at TWN on an almost daily basis
    during the last weeks, which seem to go like this:
    “Senator Obama did not defend Senator Clinton publicly against
    some sexist remarks during the campaign; ergo is the Senator a
    sexist! And since I hate sexists, I can`t vote for him. But I don`t
    like McCain very much either, and besides: he is a Republican
    (and I have been a fan of Democrats since Hubert Humphrey!)
    So what shall I do? Perhaps vote for McCain, despite the fact
    that I disagree with his political views? Could any of you
    intelligent and informed ladies and gentlemen at TWN please
    help me solve this dilemma?”
    To my surprise, the majority of the regular commentators here
    at TWN seem to take your so called dilemma quite seriously. So
    just before I read your answer to me, I was thinking: What if
    WigWag took a few days off, thinking about everything except
    politics, perhaps taking a long hike in the mountains, and who
    knows? – maybe this “dilemma” suddenly disappears into the
    same thin air as the sexist version of Obama once came from?
    You see, Wigwag: I may agree with many of your opinions (and
    probably disagree with more!). But I don`t think I will be willing
    to read one more sentence signed WigWag about this highly
    imaginary and private dilemma: saying no to Obama or yes to
    McCain!
    On the other hand: it`s not my business, is it?
    I mean, as a European.

    Reply

  51. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim, thank you for the information. Enjoy the beautiful Norwegian weather, Here in South Florida it’s about 95 degrees with 90 percent humidity.
    Not only do I envy your oil wealth. Right about now, I envy your weather.

    Reply

  52. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    regarding politics in Norway (and in very general terms): the
    country is so rich (oil), homogenous (regarding ethnicity and
    salaries) and harmonic, and the people are so content with
    themselves and their collective wealth, and has so little to argue
    about, that the politicians usually just repeat the same formulas
    as they did in the last election, and the election before that –
    except for some local fights, imagined conflicts etc…
    To the second question: yeah, it`s about the cartoons this time
    too. My brother called me yesterday, informing me that a local
    newspaper in Norway has made and printed a new cartoon “in
    solidarity” with the Danish victims. Haven`t beens speaking to
    anybody except my brother and his (Danish!) wife since it
    happened, so I don`t know what other Scandinavians are
    discussing at their dinner tables today. My guess: local stuff,
    family stuff, gossip, planning a boat trip (fantastic weather here
    at the moment), and maybe, but just maybe, the cartoons &
    Obama winning the elections.

    Reply

  53. ... says:

    aipac overshadows the end of the dem nom… pathetic… for anyone who needed a wakeup call still, i don’t know if it can get any louder then that…. i see the same people are still talking way to much about how obama is all talk, lol……what a coincidence, lol…

    Reply

  54. rich says:

    Steve,
    Bill Clinton’s ‘Sistah Souljah’ moment would dictate against Sen. Obama seeking to challenge or confront an audience that already disagrees with him, wouldn’t it? To score points with Zionist voters, he’d have to go into his own lion’s den, and challenge his own supporters of the more rabid variety, right?
    Igniting the resurgent ire of those ready to condemn Sen. Obama’s platform of change ‘wouldn’t be prudent.’
    Did you see clips of Sen. Obama addressing a largely Jewish crowd in Florida recently?
    There are many who’ve leapt to the conclusion that Sen. Obama would institute a wholesale change in US policy towards Israel.
    They’ve decided that, full-stop. Prior to hearing what he has to say; prior to reviewing his positions.
    So Obama has to strike a balance between acknowledging fiercely-held concerns and naming the necessary way forward: he won’t be able to challenge in more certain terms without costing himself victory in November.
    That’s just the way it is. He needs to challenge the passionate ideologues—but without further inflaming their fears.

    Reply

  55. alan says:

    To belabour a point after Steve’s comments: on his first outing as the Democratic nominee Obama gave standard American boiler plate on Israel. If this is his idea of doing something different in Foreign Policy I don’t need it. I am guessing: perhaps Clinton held off dropping out of the race until after her hat tip to AIPAC ( I am getting paranoid!!!) But in his first act Obama has got me into the question mark category. Not looking good.

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its comical seeing Hillary supporters focus derision on Obama’s sell-out to Israel and AIPAC. Hillary sold out along time ago, AIPAC having met her price. Obama is currently just negotiating, testing the waters about how large a bribe he can procure.
    One thing is for sure, the leaders of Iran aren’t stupid. If I was Iranian, and had observed these last eight years, and how this election cycle has unfolded, I’d want nukes too.

    Reply

  57. Paul Norheim says:

    Hey,
    what`s wrong with you guys?
    Why do you bother arguing against wigwags absurd phantasy
    about Obama having a “sexist” attitude?
    greetings from Norway
    (and good luck in November!)

    Reply

  58. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim, are politics less cantankerous in Norway? Your insight would be appreciated. Also as a Scandanavian country, has there been much talk in your part of the world about yesterday’s attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. I understand that 6 people were killed. Why are Danes so unpopular? Is it still those cartoons?

    Reply

  59. Paul Norheim says:

    Conclusion: no solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the
    next four or eight years. There was no reason to expect anything
    positive before this speech for the AIPAC audience anyhow, but
    Obama talking about an “undivided Jerusalem”, the “refrain” from
    building new settlements (quoted by Steve Clemons), and several
    other statements and formulations, was even worse than
    expected.

    Reply

  60. rich says:

    WigWag @11:19,
    You attack Obama. Smear him, really, without basis. I don’t see how you can commit those mistakes, complain that Obama hasn’t defended his rival (should he open the door for her as well?), and then play the wounded party. Not to mention fail to own up to it when called on it.
    I would like to see some substance included with your comments about Sen. Obama. Any substance.
    You wrote:
    “If, in their comments about Obama, the press had purveyed vicious and disgusting stereotypes like blacks are lazy or they commit crimes and thus implied that Senator Obama might be lazy or a criminal . . ”
    YOU purveyed vicious stereotypes as did Geraldine Ferraro in pretending Sen. Obama hasn’t earned his stature and somehow isn’t qualified (again, I refer you to the Constitution) and that somehow he’s getting a free pass. All of that’s disgusting; none of it is true.
    Three things to note:
    1. In no way, shape or form did the media go that far in dealing with Sen. Clinton.
    2. No Democrat bought into the media’s mistreatment of Sen. Clinton. It had no effect because we saw what the media did to the Clinton’s last time ’round.
    3. It’s the candidate’s job to rise above and put forth a persuasive case despite the village idiots that pass for pundits.
    Couple things you should consider before venting:
    4. I didn’t see Sen. Clinton defend Rep. Kucinich or Gravel or Paul from the derision and contemptible attacks levied against them.
    5. Clinton used racially based, divisive tactics against Obama, and is in no position to BLUR acts of sexism committed by the media and lay them at the feet of Obama. That’s wrong.
    Last—and most important—Sen. Clinton didn’t have much to say as US sanctions in Iraq killed what? 1 million children. 2 million? Hey, it takes a village, right?
    Nor did this Yale Law School-trained legal mind have the reading comprehension or gumption to stand up against Bush’s invasion and occupation—particularly the process that got us into it. The good Senator learned the sophistry doled out there all too well. She had every opportunity to build a track record as a Senator. Yet on the only issue that mattered, she didn’t do her job. Running as ‘the solution’ is to run based on a lie.

    Reply

  61. Zathras says:

    I don’t know what Steve Clemons was expecting from a Senator in his third year in Washington, who has spent almost all of his time on campaign politics.
    Sen. Obama repeated boilerplate about Israel/Palestine. For someone in his position to do something different than that would require greater than average knowledge of and experience with the subject, as well as a clear idea of where this issue fit in the campaign’s strategy. Obama doesn’t have any of these things — in perfect fairness to him, he has not as far as I know ever pretended to have any of these things.
    I am not now and do not expect ever to be an Obama supporter, but in the context of an American election issues like Israel and the Palestinians, Cuba, NATO expansion and so forth are second-rank issues. Candidates should of course indicate their general orientation, if they have one (and if they don’t, there is always boilerplate language, refined where the Mideast is concerned over many decades), but no Presidential candidate in his right mind will go before the public asking them to ratify the details of the policy he intends to pursue on subjects of this kind.
    Presidential elections are about giving the American people the chance to decide who they ought to entrust with making foreign policy decisions in their name. They do not want and do not need the opportunity to make such decisions themselves.

    Reply

  62. Steve Clemons says:

    In response to a friend applauding Obama’s speech today, I wrote the following note back:
    I am not in full agreement. While talking about the need for a Palestinian state — his fervor for that vision was limited. Obama stated:
    >
    The word “refrain” regarding settlements is code in the minds of the cynical for allowing what is now happening to continue. I also believe in Israeli security — but that requires responsible stakeholding behavior in the region, not unconditional support. And to “ease” freedom of movement for Palestinians sounds like “treat your underlings better than you have been.”
    I found Obama’s speech depressing in its incrementalist approach to the problem and the lack of understanding of what needs to be done there and elsewhere in the Middle East. Hillary Clinton would be no better � and this is a time when it is important to understand why Chuck Hagel’s approach is the missing but necessary template.
    End of Note.
    Steve Clemons
    The Washington Note

    Reply

  63. Tahoe Editor says:

    Campaign Absurdity Of The Week, c/o Donna Brazile:
    “No matter which way the winds were blowing, Obama stuck with his message of ‘change’ throughout this campaign.”

    Reply

  64. Luch says:

    His AIPAC speech illustrates the problem I have with voting for an Obama presidency. He shows he is a conventional politician but does not show how he will actually accomplish the conventions he espouses. However, because he may not accomplish anything of significance, perhaps an Obama administration might not be as dangerous as another radical left-winger’s presidency. The one thing I do like is his promise to expose the workings of the government as it develops laws through better use of C-SPAN and the Internet. If he really does this, then we citizens can have something to voice our opinions about, and hopefully, we’ll voice loudly and often.

    Reply

  65. WigWag says:

    For those who are interested, Obama at AIPAC is already up on youtube. He only finished speaking a little while ago. How do they get these videos so fast?
    Anyway, it looks like Obama is as big a Zionist as I am. Apparentley he wants Jerusalem to be the undivided capitol of Israel forever. He says, in his administration, terrorists will be given no quarter. Looks like he was trying to pass Bush and McCain on the right. I only listened once so I might have missed something. But as far as I can tell, he did not say one single solitary thing that an ardent supporter of Israel would find provocative.
    He was in full pander mode. Surprise, surprise!

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Just saw Obama before AIPAC. He said what GWB and JMcC said on Israel. Is this the new politics?”
    Even more relevant than WHAT he had to say, is when he said it. On the day following his apparent cinching of the nomination, he immediately panders to a group that represents the interests of a foreign nation.
    So, I’ll do my forty dollars in gas commute this morning, comfortable that Obama is going to make sure Israel’s interests are protected.
    Gee, Israel will REALLY score a trifecta if Hillary becomes Obama’s running mate, eh? Hell, Isreal can’t lose on this one. McCain, Hillary, Obama, apparently ALL of them will keep feeding the monster. Yep, Israel can’t lose.
    And we, the people, can’t win.

    Reply

  67. WigWag says:

    Linda, I must confess to feeling insulted. I’ve never attacked you or called you stupid. I just try to say what I think as respectfully as I can. I may go overboard sometime but I don’t think I attack people. That doesn’t mean I won’t respond to people like POA or Carroll, if they attack me. I’ve lived too long and spent too much of my life as a punching bag. But for the most part I try to be as substantive as I can. I regret that I offended you.

    Reply

  68. CLINTONISM IS DEAD says:

    Nancy L. Cohen:
    To wit, Democrats must take the electorate as it was — its size, its predilections — not as it could be. Bill Clinton didn’t invent the theory of the mythical swinging middle, but he honed it into the Golden Rule for Democratic victory.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-cohen-phd/clintonism-a-post-mortem_b_104989.html

    Reply

  69. Tahoe Editor says:

    I think this would be a good time for Steve to give up on his Hope® that Barack will be some sort of revolutionary.

    Reply

  70. Linda says:

    Wigwag,
    I saw your answer yesterday, but I didn’t respond because I don’t want to argue or debate with you or others on TWN, especially when that means being attacked and called names or stupid. You have posted on this thread 12 times in as many hours. I only asked you to take time to stop to think about what really matters. I respect your right to think and vote as you wish. This is a very important election. Every vote is important and will count.

    Reply

  71. Alan says:

    Just saw Obama before AIPAC. He said what GWB and JMcC said on Israel. Is this the new politics? Or is this just good old fashioned pandering: “Jerusalem will always remain the undivided caapital of Israel” etc, etc. On Day 1 he shows that he is a conventional pol. Thanks

    Reply

  72. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, reading these comments really underscores how fractured and divided this country is. Shit, we can’t even unify a party, much less a nation.
    This “party” business” is performing its role admirably in negating any possibility that the citizenry can speak on a united front and form any sort of consensus of dissension to oppose the political actions and policies that the citizens of BOTH sides of the aisle oppose.
    We all want the same basic things. Security, health, and welfare for our families, with all of us enjoying equal opportunity to achieve those ends. But through the divisive strategy of this abominational system of “party politics”, our self-serving and corrupt “leadership” is able to preside over a nation of squabbling scratching neighborhood adversaries, bickering over issues and ideologies that are carefully fed to them by the gargantuan machine of corporate media.
    We’re fucked, people. It matters not whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain slithers into the Oval Office. Do you really think any of these three got to the front doors of the White House by challenging the status quo, or going against the grain? This election cycle perfectly underscored what happens to anyone that truly stands for change and dares seek high office. Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, demonized, ridiculed, placed on the back pages, buried, marginalized, ignored, messages and platforms distorted, misrepresented and presented as crackpots and wackjobs.
    Forgive me, but if one views this circus through being reasonably informed about the state of the union, and having had watched the unchallenged lawlessness and malfeasance of these last eight years, those of you cheering the loudest, and waving the most colorful pom-poms, are the least patriotic of all of us. As long as we are willing to play this ridiculous game, and be a part of this despicable con-job, Carroll is right. We get the government we deserve.
    We should be in the streets, demanding representation, from BOTH sides of the aisle. But we have allowed this fascist Administration, in these last eight years, to legislate away our ability to do so. If we take to the streets now, our government will show us the same mercy they have shown a few hundred thousand Iraqi citizen non-combatants. Worse, they will do so legally, thanks to the unprecedented power that this Administration, abetted by these fucking cowards in Congress, have ceded to the Presidency.
    Bend over, America. Your government has a present for you.

    Reply

  73. WigWag says:

    Linda, now that I answered your question, I am curious what you would have liked Senator Obama to do when those comments were being made by the press about Senator Clinton. Do you think he should have spoken up? Just curious.

    Reply

  74. Tahoe Editor says:

    Find the “undignified/ungracious” line:
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/hillary.clinton.speech/

    Reply

  75. Tahoe Editor says:

    I predict a lot of whining when the Obama camp realizes that replicating all of Clinton’s positions while trashing the Clinton years (except of course last night all of a sudden Bill was again a good president) doesn’t automatically bring everyone around.

    Reply

  76. WigWag says:

    Sorry…, speaking up is not sn accomplishment. It’s not about speaking, it’s about doing.

    Reply

  77. Tahoe Editor says:

    POA, pot, kettle

    Reply

  78. ... says:

    It’s time for some of us to lay off the peyote and leave the shrine of the Madonna. After sobering up, rewind the tape to 2002 and think of the climate that existed during the mindless rush to war when political courage and leadership in Washington against George Bush’s madness was incredibly rare. Someone spoke up and challenged the status quo “wisdom” of the “experienced realists” in Washington. That is courage. That is leadership. That is accomplishment of the highest order. Remind everyone who makes the absurd arguments below of that political courage. $3 trillion later and in the aftermath of Scott McClellan’s WHAT HAPPENED, no one can deny the magnitude of that leadership before that critical test.
    Posted by rise hillary rise Jun 04, 12:08AM – Link
    still waiting for some of you Obama supporters to describe ONE
    ACCOMPLISHMENT in his political career that proves he is qualified
    to be President. Just one, y’all. One solid demonstration of
    leadership, one actual challenging of the status quo, one single
    legislative accomplishment. Just one.

    Reply

  79. Aresluna says:

    Wigwag
    If you voted clinton before , and support clinton now, you are supporting the moderate republican canidate.

    Reply

  80. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Astounding. With a number of domestic auto plants set to be closed, these pieces of shit could be standing before the UAW this morning, telling them what they would do to restore jobs. With our elderly facing rising costs, soaring medical expenses, crippling fuel costs, they could be addressing the AARP. With hundreds of thousands of Iraq veterens suffering debilitating injury, PTSD, and broken families, they could be addressing veteran’s groups.
    But who are these pieces of shit Pelosi, McCain, Clinton and Obama addressing this morning?
    AIPAC.
    Funny, I thought they were running for the President of THE UNITED STATES, not Isreal.
    Tahoe Editor…..
    I have called people assholes here. Jackasses. Morons. Idiots. And a number of other derogatory names. Some deserved it, some didn’t. I regret some of those comments, and don’t regret others. But I have NEVER sunk to the low you have on this thread by calling Carroll a “slut”. Nor have I ever made the excuse that I was just attempting to be “humorous”. There is absolutely nothing humorous about the comment, and Carroll is right, it really did underscore an aspect of your character that you probably should have kept in the closet. You aren’t doing Hillary any favors here, man. Don’t bother to reply. Nothing you have to say interests me anymore.

    Reply

  81. WigWag says:

    Linda, I did answer your question, yesterday. Sorry you didn’t see it. I will copy and paste it here.
    Linda, thank you for being interested enough to ask where I’m coming from. I am happy to tell you. The direct answer to your question is that I am pro choice and I might actually vote for McCain; I’m thinking about it. I know this must seem ridiculous to you so let me explain.
    Like many supporters of Senator Clinton, I have never voted for a republican in my life. Not once. Not for dog catcher, not for city counselor, not for state senate, not for mayor or governor, not for president. Not once. I am old enough to remember the race between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. Humphrey was a true progressive on civil rights and a wonderful orator, not unlike Senator Obama. As Johnson’s Vice President, he felt he had to support Johnson on the Viet Nam war. As a result, millions of people who opposed the war refused to vote for him and Nixon was elected by a mere 200 thousand votes. It was one of the closest elections (in the popular vote) in American history. I thought the people who refused to vote for Humprhey (and thus insured Nixon’s election) were idiots. So the irony is not lost on me that in this election, I will probably do the same thing they did.
    I understand that Senator Obama’s views on most issues, foreign and domestic, is much closer to mine than Senator McCain’s. I think Senator Clinton is highly qualified by experience and temprement to be president. I think that Senator Obama is unqualified. Reasonable people can disagree about that and I know that smart people looking at the same facts as me, have come to a different conclusion. But that’s what I think. I think Senator Obama is unqualified. After everything I’ve seen in my life, I just can’t bear to vote for an unqualified man who has defeated a highly qualified woman with the help of a press corps that spews the most vile sexist comments.
    It’s hard for me to understand why Obama supporters don’t get this. Had the press corps been racist instead of sexist, would Obama supporters feel obligated to support Senator Clinton. If, in their comments about Obama, the press had purveyed vicious and disgusting stereotypes like blacks are lazy or they commit crimes and thus implied that Senator Obama might be lazy or a criminal, would Obama supporters vote for Clinton if she remained silent in the face of this? I doubt it.
    If one of the candidates had been an Irish American and had the press purveyed vile sterotypes like the Irish drink too much and wondered whether we can we afford to elect an Irish American candidate, would Irish American voters feel compelled to vote for a candidate who remained silent in the face of this, even if they agreed with that candidate’s views on everything else? I doubt it.
    But that’s exactly what happened here. Hillary’s cleavage was an issue commented on for days on cable news. Carl Bernstein on CNN commented on the thickness of her ankles. The so called crying incident before the New Hampshire primary was news for weeks. Tucker Carlson on MSNBC mentioned that he crossed his legs whenever he saw Senator Clinton. Chris Matthews said that all of Senator Clinton’s accomplishments can be attributed to the fact that her husband messed around. David Schuster implied that Senator Clinton was pimping out her daughter (thus making Chelsea Clinton a prostitute). While all this was happening, Senator Obama said nothing. He was overjoyed to benefit from the political advantage he got from it. And Senator Obama’s supporters? Well their commentary was as bad or worse than the republican wing nuts who thought Mrs. Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
    Linda, when they were attacking Senator Clinton this way they were attacking all women. They were attacking you too. Those comments have been made about women in the work place over and over again.
    After all of this, the Democratic Party thinks Clinton supporters should forget it all and be loyal Democrats. How stupid do they think we are? Senator Obama seems to think he can call people names with impunity and still get their votes. Does he (or do you) really think it’s okay to tar tens of millions of people as bitter merely because they are white and working class? I was always taught that steroptypes are bad and destructive. Jewish people are not greedy. Black people are not slovenly. Irish people are not drunks. Gay people are not fairies. So tell me, why is it okay to call white working people bitter? I don’t get it.
    I know that McCain is likely to appoint 2 and maybe 3 Supreme Court judges. I am agonizing over that. But everything about this campaign has demonstrated to me that not only is Senator Obama inexperienced; he has also behaved terribly. I don’t want to reward that.
    So I hope that Justices Stevens and Ginsberg will live very long lives. I hope that a Democratic Senate will carefully scrutinize any Supreme Court justice that McCain might nominate. And I hope that John McCain will be a little smarter than George Bush and that his foreign policy will be moderately better. I know it won’t be great.
    Will I vote for McCain? I haven’t decided. Will I vote for Obama. The answer is no.
    Thank you again for asking.

    Reply

  82. Linda says:

    Wigwag,
    It was a hypothetical question two days ago. It’s now a real question that I don’t expect you to answer on this blog. I just ask you to stop and think about your vote, and maybe consider making a contribution to Planned Parenthood or NARAL rather than to a 526 to attack Obama.
    I share all your demographics–older woman, lifelong Democrat, Jewish, etc., but I have been for Obama since he announced in 2/07. I happen to believe that we need a different kind of politics in DC that unites us and that the politics of Lee Atwater, Clinton’s war room, and Rove must end as well as the financial power of lobbyists.
    However, if Clinton had been the nominee, I would have voted for her.

    Reply

  83. questions says:

    Today I am smiling! To those who are convinced that Obama has done nothing, can do nothing, and wouldn’t even want to do anything were he given the chance, I would like to say that the president above all else is the locus of national rhetoric, and that rhetoric shapes the choices that editors, readers and legislators will use to shape the actual policy of the government. Obama has shown a tendency to prefer pragmatic engagement and compromise over dogmatic and rigid position-taking — just this shift would be a huge change from what this country has been through in the last 7+ years.
    We have enormous social problems that pit group against group and I am ever hopeful that Obama will be able to set the rhetorical tone of the country so that when we have to ration health care in a new way (and near as I can tell reform is really going to function as a re-rationing of care), when we have to ration transportation convenience in new ways, when we have to shift a wide variety of pains from one group to another, when we go through this process, I am hopeful that Obama might be able to smoothe out some of the ruffled feathers.
    Remember Bush’s line about the “haves and the have-mores”? That this line could be uttered with a smile shows the major fault lines in this society, and it is these fault lines that have to be navigated.
    So is Obama perfect on energy? Not necessarily. But there’s no perfect solution. We’re going to need a complex, compromised, imperfect set of responses. Limit nukes, limit greenhouse gasses, limit cars, limit sprawl, give people the freedom to consume, tax them but don’t bankrupt them, keep suburban home prices up, but don’t build suburbs…how can anyone be perfect through this mess?
    Seems to me that Obama has the best sense of just how imperfect any response is going to be, how political action depends on favor trading but being owed favors is corrupting, and how the best way through is to get people from the bottom up hooked into the system as a countervailing power (google the phrase) to the whole favor trading structure.
    We’re not entering paradise, but perhaps we’ll exit hell.
    Thanks for the patience with my morning smile!

    Reply

  84. Tahoe Editor says:

    I do agree McCain has a scary smile. But the one Barack flashed to ABC’s Robin Roberts after quipping “Lay off my wife” was truly contemptible. So their unappealing smiles cancel each other out.
    http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/14648ef9-3e66-4d8a-9141-5cc751579cb6.html

    Reply

  85. WigWag says:

    Linda, hi. I saw your question yesterday and I provided a lengthy answer. You must have missed it. If you go back to Steve’s post about “Triangulation” you will find my response to your queston at 11:39 am. I am certainly interested to know what you think.

    Reply

  86. Tahoe Editor says:

    Silly Carroll, it’s a little SNL humor.
    Notice you have failed to answer my question twice now. Did the “undignified” Hillary really appear on stage in New York City? Or is she in your head?
    Put some words where your mouth is or admit you’re just echoing. Echo echo echo echo echo.

    Reply

  87. Carroll says:

    Posted by Tahoe Editor Jun 04, 1:42AM – Link
    Carroll, you ignorant slut 😉
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL….the real Tahoe revealed. No wonder you lose all your arguments.

    Reply

  88. Tahoe Editor says:

    David writes, “This gravitas and experience crap got us Cheney and the dumbest, potentially most costly and destructive war in American history.”
    Actually, it was Kerry pushing the gravitas & experience line. America went with the fool with no foreign policy experience.
    I still challenge anyone to provide an “undignified” line from Clinton’s speech last night.

    Reply

  89. rich says:

    WigWag,
    I’ll respond to your statement below, but won’t engage on other facets of your, uh, argument. You wrote:
    “I don’t think Senator Obama has ever done anything in his life to qiality him to be president.”
    He just won the campaign for Democratic nomination for Presidential nomination of the United States. By definition, he’s earned it. He outpolls McCain, he’s earned his position as POTUS too.
    Your absolutist language really indicts itself. Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary Clinton. Again by definition, he has more experience as an elected official than Sen. Clinton. Check your Constitution for the job requirements.
    You need to examine whether the venom and ire you direct at Sen. Obama are the product of something he’s done—or of your own disappointment. Not only is there zero basis for assigning Obama blame for Clinton’s shortcomings, the ‘sexism’ shoe is on the other foot. There’s no room to wave that flag when Clinton’s campaign exploited race and racism actively and openly. Further, it’s essential for you to come to grips with the reality that any non-sexist assessment of this campaign look at Obama as a candidate and equal, not as a man who must necessarily be a sexist because you view him through a feminist lens. And as a feminist, I have to question your facts, and what passes, sadly, for feminism in your experience.
    You have a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama. You can let resentment determine your vote. Or, you can consider how many dead Iraqi (& Iranian!) women will result from your self-indulgence. Good luck wrasslin’ with your conscience. Whatever ticked you off, it wasn’t Obama.

    Reply

  90. Linda says:

    Wigwag,
    I am repeating what I asked you two days ago:
    I have wondered and not asked previously where you are coming from–and you stated a lot of views in your most recent post. So I will ask you the question that I’ve wondered for several days now–Are you pro-choice? And would you actually vote for McCain against Obama in November and give McCain the ability to appoint as many as three justices to the Supreme Court if he is elected?
    Since Clinton and Obama both are Democrats and have basically the same positions on all major issues, there really is only one way that any vote for President will matter beyond four years.
    And that is the President’s power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court–and that impact can last for decades to come.
    You have a right to vote for whomever you want or not vote at all. You can be as angry, bitter, upset as you are, but at least take a few days or months to reason and think about how every vote does count. You say you are lifelong Democrat and a feminist. Do you really want to see Roe v. Wade overturned? Think about it.

    Reply

  91. WigWag says:

    Rich, thanks for the response to me. I actually partially agree with you. Sometimes my language, like the language of many others who comment here, does get a little carried away. I plead quilty. When I let my emotions get too riled up, I can lapse into hyperbole. For what it’s worth, I’m never proud when I do it.
    I do disagree with your other points. I don’t think Senator Obama has ever done anything in his life to qiality him to be president. I don’t think being an activits (whatever that is) provides adequate experience and I don’t think his state senate experience is enough. For goodness sake, he was only in the U.S. Senate for 2 years and for most of those, he was running for President. I think my metaphor with the medical student was apt. I understand that smart people, looking at the same facts can disagree.
    I do think the media was extraordinarily sexist in this campaign. I think it hurt Mrs. Clinton. I don’t think it’s the only reason she lost. But Senator Obama’s refusal to condemn this sexist commentary contemporaneously with its occurence was offensive to me and many Clinton supporters.
    Will Clinton supporters eventually coelese around Senator Obama? I won’t. I think many won’t. But I can’t predict the future any more than you can. We will just have to wait and see.
    …some of us, including me, do comment alot. It’s Steve’s site. He’s nice enough to let us be here. If he wants to impose a limit on the number or length of comments, I will happily comply. I actually find the nature of the comments here to be dramatically better than almost anywhere else. That’s why I come here. Your plea for us to “group up” is commendable. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
    David, just because Cheney and that crowd are uniquely awful is no reason to criticize gravitas and experience. You want your surgeon to be experienced, you want your lawyer to be experienced, you want your scuba instucter to be experienced, you want your airline pilot to be experienced. Why wouldn’t you want your president to be experienced. It has occurred to me that perhaps one reason so many Obama supporters devalue experience is because many of them are so young and don’t have any. Experience and intelligence are both important. Senator Obama certainly has the later. Before running for president, he should go out and get the former. As for watching McCain speak versus Obama, I couldn’t agree more. McCain actually looks ridiculous. As an orator, I would give him a “D.” Obama, of course, gets an “A” And McCain looks old (I get to say that because I am old). But as I mentioned to Cherish, above, being a good speaker doesn’t mean you will be a good president. Just remember Ronald Reagan.
    Beth, there are so many smart bloggers out there and even a few smart journalists. Is Matt Yglesias the best you could do. He’s contemptable.

    Reply

  92. cherish says:

    Wigwag,
    Thank you. Props to you too for making coherent points. PS – I should not have qualified “candidate” with “his.” Nonsensical. My error.

    Reply

  93. rich says:

    NOTE—above comment directed to WigWag.

    Reply

  94. rich says:

    You err, strategically and factually, in extending the ‘media is sexist’ line to the Obama campaign. Be glad I won’t fight that out on this board. But be aware it is a baseless smear, and one you’ve extended above to include other false and ludicrous charges.
    Never mind exaggerating the zeal of disappointed Clintonites—claiming Obama’s “sexism and bigotry” as though wild language lend some sort of credence just underscores the ineffectual tactics used by Sen. Clinton’s campaign.
    You write: “Senator Obama to be president is like allowing a first year medical student to be a brain surgeon. It’s not rookie mistakes the patient needs to worry about, it’s that the guy doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.”
    All credible accounts tell a much, much different story. If he didn’t know what he was doing, why’d he win? Obama ran a brilliant campaign.
    I’ll leave it at that. But I’d advise you to stick to the facts, and tone down the sad and fruitless rhetoric; it veers into science fiction.

    Reply

  95. Mr.Murder says:

    “Posted by David Jun 04, 1:58AM – Link
    This gravitas and experience crap got us Cheney and the dumbest, potentially most costly and destructive war in American history.”
    Thank Obama for supporting Cheney’s energy bill with a vote on your way out the door….

    Reply

  96. ... says:

    group- grow

    Reply

  97. ... says:

    steve, thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas on your website – washington note… it is a disappointment to come and read the posts tonight… a few posters are posting way too much and much of it seems to be about clobbering someone else over the head who doesn’t see it the same way as them politically… lets have less of that and more a desire to appreciate our differences and how 2 different people whether they be obama or hillary have many fine characteristics that don’t need to be trashed in order to only feel good about one of them…. group up people….

    Reply

  98. Luch says:

    Any personal agenda that I’ve seen on this blog is a desire to elect the best government possible. Carroll demonstrates one of the most distasteful traits of Obamabots — truculence.

    Reply

  99. David says:

    This gravitas and experience crap got us Cheney and the dumbest, potentially most costly and destructive war in American history. We criminally invaded and destroyed the cradle of western civilization, and our occupation has brought nothing but misery, dislocation, and death to the Iraqis. So put the commentary about Barack not having the experience or the gravitas to be a successful president where it belongs.
    And the pundits, who we have to thank for being enablers of this disastrous war crime, can go climb up a goat’s ass.
    Watch an Obama speech and a McCain speech, and you tell me which one will prevail in the general election.
    Hillary was correct to essentially tell AP to go to hell for running that false story that she would concede tonight. I do not know why she called on her supporters to blog their stances, but it could very well be that she is smart enough to know she needs to bring them down gently, to give them a last chance to have their voices heard.
    I am as tired of the shit about not allowing the primary process to run its course as I am of the media demanding answers when they want them. For God’s sake, people, the votes of Democratic primary voters in Montana and South Dakota mattered for the first time in my life. What in hell is wrong with that?
    The only mistakes were the anti-Obama low blows from the Clinton camp, and vice-versa, but it was some of Hillary’s that went beyond the pale.
    Misogyny is ultimately still a more intractable problem in America, at least in academia, Washington, and the major media, than racism. Misogyny is low on the scale among my forbears in Appalachia, but racism is still strong, and that I suspect helps account for Hillary doing so much better than Obama.
    And Beth’s comment went up while I was writing mine. Amen, Beth.

    Reply

  100. Beth in VA says:

    Obama’s speech was brilliant. He was gracious, he was inspiring, he has vision.
    Hillary…I’ll quote Matt Yglesias:”I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different. I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll.”
    McCain: He says he’s the change guy. He says really tough things against Obama and then has a scary, scary, smile.

    Reply

  101. Tahoe Editor says:

    Carroll, you ignorant slut 😉

    Reply

  102. Carroll says:

    Posted by Tahoe Editor Jun 04, 12:49AM
    >>>>>>>>>
    Adjust your tinfoil hat…The reality is Hillary lost.
    Too bad, but now it is you and the wigwags who are between a rock and hard place…with your personal agendas you are now damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Whether you vote for Obama or McCain you are screwed.
    LOL

    Reply

  103. Tahoe Editor says:

    BO is a bullsh1t uniter. Just words, no record. He filled the space created by Clinton’s candidacy to pose as the “uniter, not a divider,” exploiting her reputation with divisive crap like, “I have no doubt I can get her votes — the question is, can she get mine?” and “I’d have to examine her approach, her tone before supporting her” (granted that was Michelle). We know how “uniter-not-a-divider” turned out last time.
    David Ignatius | Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

    Reply

  104. WigWag says:

    Cherish, I think you make some good points in your comment. I only take issue with one.
    You credit Senator Obama with “uniting of diverse interests.” I don’t think he’s done that. I think his nomination is much more likely to ignite a civil war in the Democratic Party. But maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.

    Reply

  105. Luch says:

    I just hope Obama is smarter than his supporters and that he realizes that if Hillary’s working class and women voters vote for McCain, Obama will not be elected president.

    Reply

  106. cherish says:

    WigWag,
    You complain about the trees and miss the forest.
    The last time I checked, a campaign was a political action, a campaign staff was a team needing leadership and the uniting of diverse interests, and a candidate had to prove his wit, stamina, grace, courage, vision, passion, cool, strategic thinking and endurance no matter how hot the kitchen.
    Since no one can predict the future, no one can predict how any candidate will govern. (I thought Clinton was going to lead us into Progessive Utopia. Oops.)
    But Obama has accomplished this victory without the support of Diebold, a filthy rich political family, or the Supreme Court.
    I stand by my response to risehillaryrise. We’ve got a live one here, in Barack Obama.

    Reply

  107. WigWag says:

    “my instinct on Hillary’s personal ambition overriding the good of the country was right in spite of her policies I support.”
    Wow, Carroll, those instincts of yours are something. I wish all our instincts could be as finely tuned as yours.
    “If Hillary’s working class and women supporters want to vote for McCain let them, they are the classes that will suffer the most in a McCain presidency. You know what they say…people get the government they deserve.”
    Isn’t it amazing how Senator Obama and his supporters feel they have the right to ridicule working class people and disparage their values and then still get their votes. In Yiddish we have a word for that; it’s called Chutzpah.

    Reply

  108. Tahoe Editor says:

    Jim Hoagland | The Orthodoxy of Hope: Barack’s Incrementalism
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002520.html

    Reply

  109. Tahoe Editor says:

    Carroll,
    Step out of your echo chamber for one moment and give us a line from Clinton’s speech tonight that was “undignified.”
    Are you sure you weren’t listening to the voices in your head? Are you that determined to create your own reality?

    Reply

  110. Tahoe Editor says:

    Take away the teleprompter and the picture changes entirely.
    Obama’s communications director told one of the best jokes of the primary season yesterday when he said Barack’s decision to drop the churchfolk he’d been exploiting for the past 20 years was a “personal, not a political decision.”
    Forget that Obama’s single greatest achievement — “The Audacity of Hope” — was named in honor of Jeremiah Wright. Now that’s just a “distraction.”
    Speaking of distractions:
    http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/7740fcf5-de04-4477-be38-b019b4a51810.html

    Reply

  111. WigWag says:

    That’s right citizen we’re low info. You forgot to mention bitter. You remind me of someone. Who is it now???
    Oh that’s right, you sound just like Senator Obama.

    Reply

  112. Carroll says:

    Well Hillary was a disappointment tonight…I thought she would have made a more dignified showing….. my instinct on Hillary’s personal ambition overriding the good of the country was right in spite of her policies I support.
    Too bad, but she’s out, it’s over, she needs to move on.
    If Hillary’s working class and women supporters want to vote for McCain let them, they are the classes that will suffer the most in a McCain presidency. You know what they say…people get the government they deserve.

    Reply

  113. WigWag says:

    Cherish, I am always surprised how Obama supporters site Senator’s Obama’s political success and now likely nomination as evidence of his competence to govern. If that’s your standard then you would have to conclude that Ronald Reagan was a better President than Jimmy Carter. After all, when it came to campaigning, Reagan kicked Carter’s butt. You would have to say that Bush is more competent than Gore. After all, not only did Bush out campaign Gore, he out lawyered him as well. The truth of the matter is that running a successful campaign tells you nothing about whether a candidate will be competent or successful once in office. Rise Hiilary Rise asked you a simple question. In my humble opinion, you failed to answer it.
    Obama supporters also like to site his oratorical skills as evidence that he’s competent. Obama is certainly a wonderful orator. So was Ronald Reagan. Do you think Reagan was a good president? I don’t.

    Reply

  114. citizen says:

    TWN is now billary denial central…this race ended in wisconsin way back in feb…”obama is a bigot”…at least her low info supporters can turn on a computer….

    Reply

  115. Tahoe Editor says:

    Tonight is a good night to draw the sharp contrasts between Obama and McCain.

    Obama tonight in St. Paul, demonstrating his head is so big and his air is so hot that his presence alone will negate any charade he puts on with Al Gore to stop global warming:
    “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    McCain tonight in New Orleans, calling MoveOn.org’s bluff:
    You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving.
    Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington’s stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn’t. Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven’t seen Senator Obama do the same. For all his fine words and all his promise, he has never taken the hard but right course of risking his own interests for yours; of standing against the partisan rancor on his side to stand up for our country. He is an impressive man, who makes a great first impression. But he hasn’t been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. I have.
    I don’t seek the presidency on the presumption I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me.

    Reply

  116. Tahoe Editor says:

    This is sloppy, Steve. I watched all the speeches. She was very congratulatory of Obama. They both puffed up each others’ skirts tonight. Relying on the media after this primary to posit she was “less gracious” when you don’t know yourself what you’re talking about is lazy and stains your credibility.

    Reply

  117. cherish says:

    “… describe ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT in his political career that proves he is qualified to be President. Just one, y’all. One solid demonstration of leadership, one actual challenging of the status quo, one single
    legislative accomplishment. Just one. ”
    You watched it on TV tonight.
    It’s called “won his party’s nomination fair and square, with a well-managed campaign that stayed clean in the black, signed up hundreds of thousands of new voters, and always took the higher ground.”
    Challenging the status quo?
    Called the GOP on its BS, took command of the narrative frame as no Democrat has dared to do for eight years, refused to sleaze-bomb his challenger … and oh, maybe you noticed, he’s Black. And so are his wife and kids.
    And he won.

    Reply

  118. WigWag says:

    Luch, if they’re just rookie mistakes we would be lucky Allowing Senator Obama to be president is like allowing a first year medical student to be a brain surgeon. It’s not rookie mistakes the patient needs to worry about, it’s that the guy doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.
    By the way, if you listened to Senator Obama’s speech tonight he didn’t come out in favor of universal health care, he came out in support of health insurance for everyone “who wants it.” That’s not universal health care. If you let young, healthy people opt out (as Obama wants to), it raises the premiums dramatically for everyone else. Who wouldn’t want to skip paying for health care when your healthy and sign up only after you get sick. That’s Obama’s plan and he made clear tonight in his speech that he’s sticking to it. If he doesn’t change his mind, his plan offers just about as much chance of success as John McCain’s plan. McCain’s plan is a fraud and so is Obama’s.

    Reply

  119. rise hillary rise says:

    still waiting for some of you Obama supporters to describe ONE
    ACCOMPLISHMENT in his political career that proves he is qualified
    to be President. Just one, y’all. One solid demonstration of
    leadership, one actual challenging of the status quo, one single
    legislative accomplishment. Just one.
    All I see is political maneuvering, hype and some fancy
    speechmaking, and a whole lotta smoke blown up the country’s
    collective a**.
    Still waiting.

    Reply

  120. Luch says:

    Even though Hillary did not win the delegate race, her ideas, especially universal health care, are going to move forward no matter who is elected POTUS. She is better off now because the media won’t have a Clinton to disrespect. If Obama is elected, he’ll never live up to the expectations his followers believe him to have. I just hope he won’t make too many rookie mistakes.

    Reply

  121. WigWag says:

    Hey Steve Clemons, who are you going to endorse? The smart money is on Obama, but you’ve surprised us all before.

    Reply

  122. WigWag says:

    Even though I support Hillary, POA, I can’t disagree with you entirely. The only thing I would point out to you is that neither Senator Clinton or her backers ever claimed she was the second coming.
    It was Senator Obama’s supporters who were convinced that the Messiah had arrived.

    Reply

  123. PissedOffAmerican says:

    McClellan who? Oh yeah, I remember. Wasn’t he news awhile back?
    Pfffft.

    Reply

  124. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Well in just a few short months, the truth about him has come out and now no one thinks he’s anything other than your typical sleazy politician”
    Yeah, he’s damn near caught up with Hillary in that department, hasn’t he?

    Reply

  125. finest says:

    There are two important points to remember in the run
    up to the (d)emocratic Party’s convention. One is that
    the declared SUPERDELEGATES (kinda fascist
    sounding, huh?) can change there minds. They’re not
    bound by any constraints, let alone telling the truth
    (remember, they’re SUPER). The other point is: the
    Second Ballot. If no candidate is chosen on the first
    ballot, all bets are off. No delegate is required to vote
    according to their states expressed majority. They ALL
    become SUPER.
    If you have spent more money than God trying to get a
    nomination, why would you stop before the
    convention? Because Harry and Nancy want you to,
    when you gots more votes? Cuz you’ll split the party?
    Where they gonna go? To the altar of the Right? (Sigh)
    Anything can happen. The MOOD can change. A bimbo
    eruption. Money scandals. A live boy or a dead girl.
    They can all change the SUPER’S mind. (That’s
    SUPER, as in SUPERIOR, right? If you choose
    someone fair and square, and we don’t like em, we’re
    better than you, better educated, wealthier and we’re
    just badder, and we’ll find somebody else. And you’ll
    just like it.

    Reply

  126. WigWag says:

    “She will now be informed by her
    backers, I predict, that it’s time to go.”
    Spunkmeyer your living in a dream world. Hillary Clinton’s backers despise Senator Obama far more than she does. Some big donors may want her to quit, you might be right about that. But not her supporters. Do you think the feminists ridiculed by Obama’s backers will tell Hillary it’s over? Do you think Latinos who voted for Hillary in enormous numbers and Obama in staggeringly small numbers will tell her to exit? Do you think the gay community (especially lesbians)are going to suggest that she quit and back Obama? Do you think the white working class voters he ridiculed as bitter will tell Hillary to pack it in? Do you think fair minded relegious people who’ve never witnessed in their churches and synagouges anything like what was apparentley rountine in Obama’s church up until last week, will suggest that Hillary retire from the race? Other than people who already support Obama and his friends on the cable channels, who exactly is it that will want Hillary to quit before Denver?
    Look, in a nominating fight like all political fights, someone has to win and someone has to lose. What Obama backers don’t get is that while they may love him, millions of Americans and millions of Democrats don’t. His candidacy is unacceptable. Delude yourself into thinking it’s just a few die hard supporters if you want to, but you’re doing it at your peril.
    There are numerous Clinton supporters who will do everything they can to make Obama pay a price for his bigotry and his sexism. While the nominating fight may be over soon, that fight has just started.
    Remember just a month or two ago how Senator Obama was touted as a transformational figure. Well in just a few short months, the truth about him has come out and now no one thinks he’s anything other than your typical sleazy politician. Give it a couple of more months and let’s see what Obama looks like when August rolls around.
    In the meantime, if anyone knows of any anti-Obama 527’s worth contributing to, please let me know.
    Thanks

    Reply

  127. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Darn, MarkL, whatta setback for ya. But don’t worry, it won’t take AIPAC long to find out what Obama’s price is.

    Reply

  128. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh goodie, McCain and Obama. Both have exaggerated the extent of Iran’s nuclear program in the last few days, and McCain has promised Isreal that she won’t be short on weaponry to eradicate Muslims with. No doubt, McCain has an eradication program in mind as well. I mean hey, don’t get me wrong, Hillary was AIPAC’s darling, so we could have expected the same from her as well.
    Ho hum. How anyone could be thrilled with any of these three is beyond me. McCain, Hillary, Obama, big deal. Meanwhile the outgoing scumbags get a free pass, screw the law, screw the people, screw the Constitution, screw science, and murder a few hundred thousand people.
    No big deal, nothing to see here folks. Move along now, buy some gas, shop Wal-mart, and be sure to vote.

    Reply

  129. MarkL says:

    Incorrect.
    Obama is not the nominee unless Hillary concedes or unless there is a vote in Denver.
    Given that Hillary has won the popular vote, and given that Obama has been crushed in several of the late primaries—not to mention that his unfavorables are heading through the roof—I hope Hillary takes it to Denver.
    Please, we don’t need a Democratic version of Bush as President. GO HILLARY
    If you don’t agree with me, consider this: the percentage of Democrats who say they will not vote for Obama is extraordinarily high. Whether or not you find their reasons valid, the strong antipathy towards Obama is real. He is dead in the water already, because he has pissed off so many loyal Democrats.
    The only chance he has is to nominate Hillary as VP—and of course he will not do that.

    Reply

  130. Bill Davis says:

    I just listened to her speech, and she said some very nice things about Obama, congratulated him (and his supporters), and said very nice things about participation being up, new voters, etc…
    Yeah, i think you should give her a bit of a break.

    Reply

  131. Luch says:

    After the grueling process Hillary has just gone through, it’s not too much to for her to say “I’m not going to decide anything tonight”. What is wrong with people that think she has no feelings and then jumping all over her when she shows a peep of her feelings.
    I think it’s quite reasonable for her to take a day or two to think about what is best for the democratic party and what is best for her at this point. Why have people tried to push her? She just made history. Give her a small break, man.

    Reply

  132. Spunkmeyer says:

    Hillary Clinton has officially become our National Psycho Ex-
    Girlfriend. She had an opportunity to concede gracefully and
    profoundly squandered it. She will now be informed by her
    backers, I predict, that it’s time to go. That will never be as
    graceful as it could have been.
    It didn’t have to be this way.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *