On and On and On it Goes

-

Hillary Clinton won by about 10 points tonight against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, but you all know that.
From Indiana, Barack Obama just said, “she ran a terrific race.”
My main point about this fascinating contest remains as sound as when I previously wrote it: neither side is vanquishing the other. Barack Obama might have ended this in Pennsylvania had he beat Clinton, but that didn’t happen. Hillary Clinton won by a sizable margin — though not something that really clobbered Obama. Of course, I don’t think that there was any outcome tonight that could have ended his campaign.
There is another contest afoot that few are paying attention to. While other primaries have been held, the state by state polling stats are shifting with the various positions that Obama and Clinton have taken. Some super delegates may swing in surprising ways — particularly after various comments that the candidates have made about trade, the Iraq War, the economy, and small town Americans.
And in Kentucky — whose primary is May 20th — one of the more recent polls has Clinton at 62% vs. Obama at 26%. Each race is affecting not only future primaries, but also nudging public attitudes in races already held — which could affect super delegates.
The tilt is still clearly with Obama, but Hillary Clinton is hanging in there in an impressive way. My gut reaction is that she is waiting for him to make mistakes.
If he doesn’t, he will probably win — but at the end of the day, if he doesn’t seduce the Clinton campaign over to his team, this will feel a lot like an outcome after the 2000 Florida chad controversy.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

61 comments on “On and On and On it Goes

  1. Robert M says:

    Please make the case for why Obama needs to give the Clintonsan olive branch. IMO far more of the party is tired of them they just lack the balls to say so.
    I am prepared to say after Obama wins she will lose her seat in the democratic primary in NY. An awful lot of native new yorkers had to put their aspirations on hold for these carpetbaggers.

    Reply

  2. Matt says:

    You keep insulting me yet you still haven’t answered the question. Your lashing out this way indicates you are a little oversensitive. Come back to earth.

    Reply

  3. Tahoe Editor says:

    I’m not sure how you reached this point — did I say something that makes you think I’m a secret neocon, too?

    Reply

  4. Matt says:

    I was actually wondering if you could say something yourself, rather than just providing a link to a 7-page article written by somebody else.

    Reply

  5. Tahoe Editor says:

    A Tragedy of Errors (Michael Lind)
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040223/lind

    Reply

  6. Matt says:

    I’d like to know what you think is wrong with the neoconservative vision or the neoconservative philosophy, that’s all. Your link to that story says nothing. I personally find neoconservative thinking somewhat sympathetic, it’s just that it can never promote itself in the open and has to resort to political dishonesty.
    That’s my problem with it, what’s yours?

    Reply

  7. Tahoe Editor says:

    ?

    Reply

  8. Matt says:

    Tahoe Editor,
    What do you have against Neoconservatism?

    Reply

  9. Tahoe Editor says:

    Or maybe Obama can’t.

    Reply

  10. John Sanders says:

    Pay more attention. Their policy proposals are practically the same. I wouldn’t brandish HRC with the Bush light remark for that very reason and you could do better than the McGovern coalition. Or, maybe you can’t.

    Reply

  11. Tahoe Editor says:

    Of course you ignore my point: the McGovern coalition didn’t cut it then, and it won’t cut it now.

    Reply

  12. John Sanders says:

    haha. San Francisco! You wish it was that easy to brand me as San Fran. lefty.
    Tahoe, I believe Carson City is much closer to the Golden Gate Bridge than NJ.

    Reply

  13. Tahoe Editor says:

    Ah! You confuse “Democrats” with “Americans” — maybe you’ve been spending too much time in San Francisco.

    Reply

  14. John Sanders says:

    “If the world were voting for U.S. president, he’d win in a landslide. It’s those pesky Americans he’s going to have to deal with.”
    Yes, those pesky Americans of which he is leading in delegate and vote count.

    Reply

  15. Tahoe Editor says:

    Ah, so we’re going the “associations” route? Think twice, Liz, think twice.
    As Hillary said, she believes in redemption, and if RMS is willing to do a 180 on Hillary, that’s all well and good.
    Barack came to Reno and pandered to the Republican part of the state by saying the GOP was “the party of ideas” during the Clinton years.
    He came to Idaho and said, “I’m so glad you all love your guns!”
    BHO has some big balls to paint over Clinton & Bush with the same brush. I give him props for that and wish him luck — it’s the only thing going for him to prop up the weak side of his image. If the world were voting for U.S. president, he’d win in a landslide. It’s those pesky Americans he’s going to have to deal with.

    Reply

  16. Liz Williams says:

    Tahoe,
    And then there was her not so secret meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife. 🙂 Perhaps he isn’t neoconservative enough for you to consider him to be a substitute for Richard Perle. Was that just more Hillary Clinton pandering ?

    Reply

  17. Tahoe Editor says:

    Bwahaha well done. And now let’s get back to making sense.

    Reply

  18. John Sanders says:

    Tahoe,
    If this was a marathon, I am taking the runner with Kenyan roots. Thanks for the analogy.

    Reply

  19. Liz Williams says:

    Great clarification, Steve. Thanks. I guess my previous point was what some have noted. The present situation in Iraq, and the world in general, will define the traditional choices available to any future President, unless they demonstrate an ability to think completely outside the post-World War II foreign policy paradigms and take a much longer view.
    I don’t have the grasp of politics and foreign policy that you or some of your posters have, however I am trying to learn.

    Reply

  20. Tahoe Editor says:

    Dan, yes Hillary’s words are the words of any politician — but I still haven’t seen evidence of Hillary’s secret meetings with Richard Perle that some are so fond of imagining.
    John, sarcasm aside, Obama looks to have about 85% of the delegates he needs, and Hillary has about 78%.
    What marathoner would say, “I’m ahead at mile 20 — STOP!”
    Let the voters have their say — even if you fear it.

    Reply

  21. Liz Williams says:

    Great clarification, Steve. Thanks. I guess my previous point was what some have noted. The present situation in Iraq, and the world in general, will define the traditional choices available to any future President, unless they demonstrate an ability to think completely outside the post-World War II foreign policy paradigms and take a much longer view.
    I don’t have the grasp of politics and foreign policy that you or some of your posters have, however I am trying to learn.

    Reply

  22. John Sanders says:

    Tahoe,
    I’m not so good at math, what’s the delegate count? It’s tough to always play second fiddle your entire life. Second fiddle to your husband’s political career, and now to an “upstart elitist.” But, Hillary is tough, after all, so I’m sure she can handle being in second place the rest of the primary.

    Reply

  23. Dan Kervick says:

    HRC: “Our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests.”
    Empty boilerplate gibberish. Politicians have perfected all sorts of means of saying nothing while pretending to say something. One can also say that our foreign policy should be a perfect fusion of yin and yang, canine and feline, ebony and ivory, hard power and soft power, to-may-to and to-mah-to, lion and dove, carrot and stick, tragedy and comedy – and that there’s a thin line between love and hate.

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    “The United States will have a presence in Iraq for years to come, but not a major military presence if a Dem is elected.”
    I suppose this comes down to what you would count as “major”. The United States has already poured a fortune into turning Iraq into the effective headquarters of the US presence in the Middle East, including the construction of an array of military bases and the largest US embassy in the world. I just don’t see the next president pulling up stakes, undoing what has been done, and writing off these investments as unrecoverable sunk costs.
    When Democrats are out on the campaign trail, they may toss out slogans like “bring the troops home” for popular consumption by their left-leaning constituencies. But a look at the fine print always shows that they anticipate fairly substantial commitments of military personnel to Iraq for many years. Once the general election comes along, they will scurry toward the center – but especially Clinton, who has shown herself all along to be distinctly uncomfortable with the foreign policy tendencies of the majority of Democratic voters. Obama has indicated that he plans to run by offering a clear alternative to McCain and Republican foreign policy. But I would expect Clinton to run a more JFK-like campaign that looks for the contemporary equivalent of “missile gaps” with which to opportunistically outflank McCain on his right.
    Yes, many troops will come home. But many will be staying as well. And it is notable that all three candidates are committed to increasing the size of the Army. The lesson they appear to have drawn from Iraq is not that we should intervene less abroad. Instead they have concluded that what we need is more troops, so our next intervention will be more successful.

    Reply

  25. Matt says:

    You are quite the bullshi$%er, Tahoe Editor. Bravo!

    Reply

  26. Tahoe Editor says:

    Alphabet soup and this blog are tied at the hip.
    The reasonable consensus here is that Hillary is an idealist/realist, and not a neocon.
    Of course you’re free to believe she’s a neocon, she’s Bush-lite, she’s a communist, she’s an alien. Those beliefs will always be out there — if you enjoy being “out there” then bully for you.

    Reply

  27. Matt says:

    Do we really have to swim in alphabet soup and play dictionary limbo?
    Here’s what Wikipedia says about Idealism (International Relations):
    “Idealism may find itself in opposition to Realism, a worldview which argues that a nation’s national interest is more important than ethical or moral considerations; however, there need be no conflict between the two (see Neoconservatism for an example of a confluence of the two).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(international_relations)
    Tahoe Editor, I don’t think you mean to prove that she IS a neocon, do you?

    Reply

  28. Tahoe Editor says:

    HRC: “Our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests.”
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/323983/hillary_clintons_foreign_policy_platform.html

    Reply

  29. Steve Clemons says:

    Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative. She straddles the spheres of liberal interventionism (which is the left’s version of neoconservatism) and liberal internationalism. And she sprinkles the veneer of hard-edged, military defined realist posturing now and then — but she’s not a realist.
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  30. Tahoe Editor says:

    Steve — care to ring in on whether Hillary is a card-carrying neocon?

    Reply

  31. Matt says:

    I think Hillary is a neocon in sheep’s clothing. And it’s not so much that I disagree entirely with the neocon point of view. It’s just that I wish they didn’t have to mask their platform so much. It leads to too much political dishonesty. Once one goes down that road, it’s difficult to find the way home.

    Reply

  32. Tahoe Editor says:

    Dan, you’re behind.
    She has promised to bring the troops home.
    The commander in chief sets the mission — or at least has the option to either set the mission or let the generals do it.
    The United States will have a presence in Iraq for years to come, but not a major military presence if a Dem is elected.
    Again, I understand the MoveOnKerryKennedyMcGovern wing likes to turn the binoculars around with their “Hillary is Bush lite” rhetoric. But I just don’t see the American public falling for that claptrap.

    Reply

  33. Dan Kervick says:

    She will bring the troops home.
    That’s strange. Because Clinton has never promised to “bring the troops home”, but only to decrease troop levels in Iraq and redeploy those that remain in the country for a modified mission. To be fair, Obama’s proposals are only slightly different.
    The US is not getting out of Iraq, no matter who is elected. I suspect we’re going to be there for decades.
    I would also note that the low state of the US image in the world right now is not due primarily to bad diplomacy. People around the world judge us mainly by our actions, not our words. You can’t put lipstick on a pig, and if Clinton is determined to continue the same Bush-lite policies she has been defending since 2002, it doesn’t matter how many diplomats she sends out.

    Reply

  34. Liz Williams says:

    Well, Tahoe Editor, we will agree to believe differently because neither of us really will know until, or if, Hillary Clinton is elected President. If that happens, I most certainly will hope that I am dead wrong.

    Reply

  35. Tahoe Editor says:

    You know, it really doesn’t hurt.
    But why are you so gung-ho to inflict pain?
    She is & always will be a great American, win or lose.

    Reply

  36. John Sanders says:

    Tahoe,
    She will… lose the election (oh, that hurts doesn’t it).

    Reply

  37. Tahoe Editor says:

    She will bring the troops home.
    She will engage in very aggressive diplomacy to restore our world image.
    She will let Bush’s tax cuts expire.
    The double-digit win in Pennsylvania says, “Yes she will.”

    Reply

  38. Liz Williams says:

    I don’t believe Clinton CAN change the direction of the country because she is locked into a hawkish foreign policy view (same old, same old) and that she is far more sympathetic to the concerns of corporate lobbyists than you might want to believe.
    I believe she will adhere more closely the neo-conservative view of foreign policy than most people think. Of course she is vastly different from Bush on many issues not to mention competence, however I don’t believe her when she says she will pull the troops out of Iraq. Will she do a better job with diplomacy ? I’m not so sure given her recent posturing.
    I don’t believe that she will substantially raise taxes on the high income earners or corporations. So in the broad sense of the economy and the Middle East, I don’t believe things will change with a Clinton presidency. She will end the war on science. She will be progressive in environmental policies. There will be some positives, however I don’t think enough to overcome the broader issues facing the country. The U.S. broke, so I don’t see how she can really implement health care reform without an influx of significant dollars.
    As to carsick’s comment, yes I believe she wants to be the nominee and will pursue it at any cost even to the detriment of the democratic party. My point wasn’t that she thought she was the best democratic candidate, but that she thinks she is the best presidential candidate, period.

    Reply

  39. Tahoe Editor says:

    only from the Martian’s point of view

    Reply

  40. carsick says:

    Tahoe
    Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.
    Yes, policy proposals will be different between different parties but the undeniable fact is above. Does that not look similar to “more of the same”?

    Reply

  41. carsick says:

    Liz Williams,
    You missed one other reason why Clinton is in, she wants to be the nominee. Your choices seemed to imply that her primary interest is for the democratic party. I no longer believe that is true.

    Reply

  42. Tahoe Editor says:

    If you don’t believe Clinton will change the direction of the country after Bush, then I guess you might believe Bush didn’t change the direction of the country after Clinton. That might work with the under-30 crowd, but the vast majority of Americans actually see a difference. Painting the Clintons and the Bushes with the same brush is a real stretch for anyone who’s been paying attention since 1980.
    First woman president = more of the same?
    Get real.
    Yes she will.

    Reply

  43. Matt says:

    “If he doesn’t, he will probably win — but at the end of the day, if he doesn’t seduce the Clinton campaign over to his team, this will feel a lot like an outcome after the 2000 Florida chad controversy.”
    That’s exactly what’s so depressing about all this, and it seems so contrived. Who’s to blame?

    Reply

  44. Liz Williams says:

    I believe that Hillary Clinton is hanging in there because she and Bill believe one of two things or both. First that Obama would not be able to beat McCain and/or second that Obama is too naive and untested which could lead to a disastrous presidency specifically in the arena of Middle Eastern foreign policy. Then into that mix throw in the Hillary/Bill destiny paradigm which says, in part, that they truly believe that Hillary is destined to be President and that Hillary “knows best”.
    I am sure that their calculations include all future presidential race permutations as well, however I don’t believe that Hillary’s main plan is to destroy Obama to position herself for 2012. If my premise is correct that they believe that McCain can beat Obama, then that will take care of itself in the general election.
    Hillary is a centrist who will continue the present free trade policies and the present overall militaristic focus of foreign policy in the Middle East. Given that, I don’t see how a Clinton presidency will change the direction of the country either domestically or internationally.
    Frankly, her most recent posturing on the Middle East scares the dickens out of me. The inherent internal instabilities in many Arab states could blow up in our faces at any moment. Control of oil is the game and I don’t see how the U.S. can win on its present track without additional surging diplomacy efforts in South America and Africa.
    Add to this the nascent world wide food crises and we have a very dangerous world that will require nothing short of brilliant and sure footed diplomacy moves on the part of the U.S.
    Part of the disastrous nature of the Bush Presidency is not just Bush himself, but the people he has picked to lead critical domestic and international efforts. We need to get off this idea that any one person (the President) will be a savior.
    We should be concentrating on the people that the potential Presidential nominees will pick for the critical tasks ahead. Which of the nominees will be able to pick a cabinet that is likely to move the country from the brink of disaster ? I don’t trust McCain or Clinton in that regard and I believe that only Obama holds out the hope of picking a cabinet that will be able to think outside the box we find ourselves in.

    Reply

  45. PissedOffAmerican says:

    What amazes me about JohnH’s implications in regards to Steve is that he thinks that either one of these candidates need Steve’s help in order to prove themselves unsuitable for the Presidency.
    Hillary’s inability to open her mouth without lying, and Obama’s willingness to blather any platitude to appeal to whomever he’s addressing shows them both to be world class scumbags, with the exact qualifications required to further trash this nation in the grand Bush tradition.
    Frankly, I find any complimentary commentary about any of these candidates obscene and surreal.

    Reply

  46. Nobcentral says:

    I guess you could say she’s “hanging in there” but that really means, she hasn’t been “obliverated”. She still is losing in every available metric and still has basically no hope of winning the nomination. But she wants to stay in this thing until the end so we’ll keep trying to stay interested for another 6 weeks and the media will keep acting like it’s a “race” and then we’ll see.
    Anyway, I watched CNN’s coverage last night (we only get CNN down here in Bogota) and I was pretty shocked at not only how awful their coverage was (trumping up the “she’s in this story”, stupid partisan debates from wingers from both sides, etc) but also that they barely mentioned Hillary’s flip-flop on Iran. Did she really extend the US Nuclear Umbrella to Israel and then “unextend” it? Listening to CNN you wouldn’t even know that there were issues in this race, nor would you have known that Obama is still in the driver’s seat and nothing really changed by last night’s result.
    And that’s the sad state of American media.

    Reply

  47. jhm says:

    …Hillary Clinton is hanging in there in an impressive
    way. My gut reaction is that she is waiting for him to make
    mistakes.If her name were not Clinton, there would
    be no (or extremely little) talk of “hanging in” or even a remote
    parity in the coverage in this race; as if she had a reasonable
    chance of winning the nomination. It is the preservation of this
    false parity in media coverage which she has won, not any increase
    in her chances. If something major happens to bump Obama from
    this race, the current delegate totals allow the supers to adjust
    their stances at the convention, even if he wins every single
    pledged delegate yet to be assigned.
    I wouldn’t even mind this, if we were talking about the issues
    discussed above and on this blog generally, but the campaign has
    long since left that path, and I don’t foresee it returning.

    Reply

  48. Tahoe Editor says:

    “Hear, hear” was directed at:
    “a large proportion of the outraged commentary about Iraq on the Democratic side over the past several years was just so much insincere and opportunistic hot air.”

    Reply

  49. Tahoe Editor says:

    >
    Hear, hear. Maybe Dems should think twice before they flock behind a man whose hot-air 2002 speech he betrayed the moment he arrived in the Senate with the lock-step war-funding votes he’d need to make a run for president.
    Yes she will.

    Reply

  50. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve, I meant to write something about the depressing state of foreign policy discussion in this campaign in response to your Saudi Arabia post, but didn’t have time then.
    One thing I am puzzled by lately is exactly what is at the bottom of our continuing relationship with Saudi Arabia, and whether that relationship has the relevance for us it once did. I am also wondering why so many American leaders seem so eager to help the Saudis out in achieving their own national power goals in the region, when those goals have only a questionable relationship with US security.
    Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iran. Almost the entirety of the US threat from terrorism is the product of militant Sunni Salafist movements, not Shia or Iranian movements. And many of these militant movements are centered in Saudi Arabia.
    I keep hearing a lot of fretting lately from established American politicians – especially those who are great friends of the Saudis and the Israelis – about the awful threat of Iranian “hegemony” int the Middle East. Yet where is this developing hegemony to be found? Certainly there is nothing even close to Iranian hegemony in North Africa or East Africa. There is no trace of Iranian hegemony on the Arabian Peninsula. There is surely no Iranian hegemony in Pakistan, or in Afghanistan. There is no Persian domination of Israel or Jordan. It is true that Iran has more influence and better relations in Iraq than they did when Iraq was under Saddam. But they clearly have nothing that could be called hegemonic control of the country. Iran has good relations with Syria. But Syria also goes its own way on many issues, and is more an ally of Iran than a client of Iranian hegemony. All we’re left with is Hizbollah in Lebanon. So what I come up with is this: the much feared Iranian march toward hegemony in the Middle East exists only in one half of Lebanon, and nowhere else. The whole yarn about the great Persian Threat is one of the biggest cock and bull stories that has been foisted on the US public in decades.
    The most distrurbing thing about Clinton’s recent debate comments about Iran, Israel and a nuclear umbrella, to my mind, was not that she would entertain the possibility of offering Israel a nuclear deterrent shield. That actually represents progress among the hawks, I think, because it strengthens the position of those of us who argue Iran is a broadly rational state that can be deterred by established means, and therefore it is not necessary to engage in any preventive strike against Iran. Not was the most disturbing thing her reckless and callous rhetoric about the possibility of “obliterating” millions of people, most of whom have little impact on the decisions of their country’s national security leaders.
    The problem is that Clinton seems to have bought into the neocon pipedream of a new Middle East Cold War organized around the containment of Iran, and built on some sort of Israli-Sunni Arab axis.
    What the US should be working on, along with others in the world, is the creation and maintenance of a multilateral balance of power in the Middle East, with multiple centers of power and influence, including inside OPEC. We shouldn’t be picking sides and winners. The US is in the process of being suckered into helping Saudi Arabia maintain its dominant position in OPEC. But why? Saudi Arabia used to be able to pump extra oil to help us out when things got tight in the oil markets. But no longer, apparently. Oil prices are through the roof.
    The US is passing up a historic opportunity to re-open relations and build a new relationship with Iran, the largest and most important state in the region. Our priorities right now are deeply out of whack. American leaders are neglecting their chief obligation – the safety and security of the American people- because of their outdated personal attachments to old relationships in the region. This is one reason it is important to have new blood come into US policy. Bush literally grew up playing with Saudi royal friends, and is obviously in no position to re-evaluate our relationship with that country. And Clinton, a Senator from New York, is so heavily invested in the Israeli relationship and her alliances with the domestic groups that promote it, that she can’t be expected to move us to a better place.

    Reply

  51. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan — there is so much truth in your comment about the general positioning of Dems in the post-Iraq War period that I don’t have time to echo it loudly and frequently enough.
    I’m very fed up with JohnH’s innuendo that I am linked to the Clinton campaign — now because of my New America Foundation board — that I am a bit too angry to write. But essentially, what you just wrote is why I believe strongly that Chuck Hagel’s anti-war template is the right one.
    Obama is part way there, but to be honest neither Clinton nor Obama — nor McCain of course — have had the guts and clarity to position themselves were Hagel has on the Iraq War and the potential and likelihood of more wars.
    best,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  52. Linda says:

    See the lead editorial in Wednesday’s NY Times, “The Low Road to Victory.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

    Reply

  53. Dan Kervick says:

    I don’t think the Clintons have been passively waiting for Obama to make mistakes. They have instead been pro-actively trumpeting a message about Obama’s unelectability, and dipping into the standard Republican bag of tricks to do so.
    Essentially, the Clinton message for the past month or so has been this: “Barack Obama is too black to get elected.” They can shine it up however they want, but that’s what it’s been about: a fear-based, generational B horror flick about all of Barack Obama’s scary, militant negro friends and associates. They might as well be putting up a poster with Obama sporting an afro, a black leather jacket and his arm raised in a black power fist.
    In other words, the message is “No, we can’t!”
    Meanwhile, it really is nothing short of astonishing that after six years of Democratic rending of garments, knashing of teeth and lamentations in the valleys about the horrors of the Iraq War and the evils of the Bush foreign policy, an unreconstructed Lieberdem like Clinton can have gotten this far in the primary campaign. It really makes one suspect that a large proportion of the outraged commentary about Iraq on the Democratic side over the past several years was just so much insincere and opportunistic hot air.

    Reply

  54. Steve Clemons says:

    JohnH — what is your purpose here? I’m getting to the end of my tether with you. Would you like to keep posting or not? I am not influenced by any of the people you mention. If you want to fight it out, post your last blog comment — and you will be banned after as I just won’t have this sort of silly innuendo posted.
    You are constantly trying to tag me as a Hillary shill. Have you read my posts this week on the New Republic about Clinton’s China positions?
    I’m really done with your comments. Can you improve? Let me know. I’m serious.
    Any more of the innuendo about my New America Foundation board — and you can post that elsewhere on other blogs.
    I want to know what direction you want to go. My Board of Directors at the New America Foundation is incredibly balanced.
    Your brilliantly informed analysis failed to show that one of my best friends and former colleagues is Karen Kornbluh is Obama’s Senate policy director — and my boss, Steve Coll, went to school with Obama and his wife at Occidental College.
    So name it….want to play shadow games of continuing to try and blast me with imbalanced innuendo, or do you want to grow up.
    Answer carefully — and precisely.
    My advice to you is to keep posting here — but to get out of the gutter. I like you for the most part but you are on the edge of being banned.
    If you can’t handle the rebuke, get your own blog or blast me on other blogs — but not this way, and not on my dime.
    best regards,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  55. JohnH says:

    Please note, the New America Foundation has a number of Clinton heavy weights on its Board: Bernard Schwartz, Laura Tyson, and Steve Rattner, who was also a big Lieberman supporter. Then there is Francis Fukuyama, a neocon, Chritine Todd Whitman, and Walter Mead, a Kissinger Fellow.
    Just so you get an idea of the political leaning of the folks Steve works for…

    Reply

  56. JohnH says:

    “While other primaries have been held, the state by state polling stats are shifting with the various positions that Obama and Clinton have taken.” That may be, but the AVERAGE national poll has Obama up by 10%.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
    And the AVERAGE national poll has Obama beating McCain, despite Hillary’s unloading the kitchen sink on him in PA. Obama goes 4-1-3 in polls against McCain while Hillary goes 3-4-1. Superdelegates might take this into consideration.
    Of course, it’s curious that Steve just happens to cite Kentucky, the only remaining state where Clinton has a commanding lead. But in the remaining states with the most delegates to offer, Obama is ahead by 15% in North Carolina and down by 2% in Indiana. (Even Puerto Rico offers more delegates than Kentucky!)

    Reply

  57. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Hillary Clinton won by about 10 points tonight against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, but you all know that”
    Who gives a shit? Their mutual demonization of Carter has given us a glimpse of what the two of them are REALLY made of.
    Screw ’em. This is one pissed off american that isn’t going to be hoodwinked into voting for the same old crap in a new package.
    All three of these candidates spell disaster for the United States. None of them have what it is going to take to bail us out of the mess this pathetic buffoon Bush has made of things. Its just gonna be same-o same-o.
    Isn’t this where some Obama supporter gets on and rationalizes Obama’s horseshit by basically saying “Well, he’s just saying what he has to say to be elected”? I am so sick of hearing that crap offered as an excuse everytime he opens his yap and lets slip the fact that he’s reading from the same effin’ script the other two are in regards to the Middle East.

    Reply

  58. Mr.Murder says:

    If he doesn’t make mistakes, those gun toting white bigots wont have reason to vote against him.
    Glad for you to clarify as much, Steve.
    Tell us is he makes any mistakes, in your opinion. It might slip by otherwise.
    Thanks for the site, again.

    Reply

Add your comment

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