Here and There

A semi-new blog I set up because Hillary pissed me off.

I’m so pissed I could Blog. Let it out.

With the latest endorsements, Barack Obama is now within a decent showing in the three upcoming elections. Predictions to come, but my estimates show him picking up a little more than 40 between now and Tuesday. Remaining superdelegate endorsements, plus any fair seating of Florida and Michigan delegates, put him over the top, where we’ve all known for some time that he was destined.

For the record, DemConWatch now has him needing 41 to clinch

Caveat: I don’t expect Clinton to go anywhere. I fully expect challenges, appeals, lawsuits, and it could easily become exactly the media narrative she wants. The biggies in the party, Reid, Gore, Pelosi, Carter, Mitchell, they’ll show support for Obama next week, but no matter. It’s about to get ugly, y’all.

Halperin lays out at least some of the moves Team Clinton may make after next Tuesday, when all the voting will have wrapped up and Obama will, to everyone with a nugget of logic and acceptance in their brains, be the presumptive nominee.

A brilliant ass-ripping of Clinton huckster (and general moron) Lanny Davis’s so-called solution to Michigan and Florida.

It’s a long read, to be sure. But so worth it to see what depths of illogic the Clinton people will stoop to get their way.

Thx: John Cole.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

So of course they’ve done it. The Clinton campaign is blaming the Obama camping for “blowing” this assassination controversy up. It’s quite brilliant, if it works. If you believe people are that stupid, then you can try anything.

Here’s how it goes: Your candidate says anything she wants to try to get elected, especially when she’s beyond the mathematical possibility of doing so. In fact, now that she’s out of mathematical range, her comments will be more desperate, thus the assassination comment.

Then, after everyone in the world except your husband and your most die-hard supporters (i.e., all those who believe, as you seem to, that you can somehow win it) cry wolf, blaming either the press or the candidate for making such a big deal.

For the record, Clinton’s apology is about as offensive as the original comment, if that’s possible. She used it simply as an opportunity to try to get back in with the Kennedy family, not mentioning anything to or about Barack Obama, not offering the American public an apology, and qualifying it with “If my comments were offensive …” They were offensive, you dolt. (I realize this is pro forma for all public apology, and it bugs me every time I hear it.)

Okay, so we’ve got massive amounts of Republicans voting in the Indiana primary, almost certainly coming out “for” Hillary.

This is what it’s come to.

In a pointlessly drawn-out campaign season, with unnecessary millions spent on advertising, travel, and other aspects of 24-hour campaigning … with a candidate supposed not to have “sealed the deal,” despite having put together the largest coalition of political contributors ever (1.5 million and counting), despite having registered what will surely amount to a record number of new voters … despite having, month after month, outraised and outpolled his opponent … despite the fact that, as early as February, this could’ve been over and all the money and energy and attention could’ve been focused on John McCain, THIS WHOLE TIME … despite what has been the mathematical near-certainty since February (that she couldn’t regain the lead in delegates) … despite Obama’s having come back from more than 100 down in superdelegates to the latest count of around 15 in a few months … despite having netted 28 superdelegates to his opponent’s 11.5 since he lost Pennsylvania and the press has kept the Reverend Wright affair alive for its own cynical bottom line…

Despite all these factors and more, Hillary Clinton remains defiant.

They say Barack Obama can’t close the deal. Well, actually, he can. He could’ve a long time ago if Clinton believed in math (or economists, for chrissakes).

But has anyone ever questioned whether she can close the deal? Has anyone asked her, directly, how exactly she plans to even come close to Obama’s delegate count? And, as a follow-up question, what good such a tactic would do for the country, the party, her own career and legacy?

If I could ask Senator Clinton one question, it would be this: “Isn’t it possible that this is the closest primary race in a long, long time, but that, even then, there’s no way for you to win it short of destroying the party and your opponent?”

Al Giordano does a way better job of explaining the madness than I could ever hope to do. I turn you over to Al.

In light of Mark Penn’s quitting as the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist, I’ve decided to lay out some arguments for anyone reading this who may still be a Hillary supporter.

I really want to look at this logically, and if you’re reading this and see any faults, please let me know. By asking for comments, I’m in no way trying to indicate that I think my logic is sound. I of course feel that it is, otherwise I wouldn’t put it forward as my argument.

Okay, let’s play a little game of question-and-answer:

Q: Given the near impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s achieving a lead in pledged delegates going into the DNC convention in August, and the almost total impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s being able to surpass Barack Obama in popular votes, why is she refusing to bow out?

A: She’s either a) hoping that by beating Obama to a bloody pulp over the Wright story, which can be done only by exploiting the racism of whites, Asians, and Latinos, she’ll be able to convince people in the 10 remaining states and territories that haven’t voted yet, by a margin of 4-1, that Obama is a terrible, terrible Manchurian-candidate type of candidate; b) she is the Manchurian Republican candidate, in the race to lure unsuspecting “Democrats” into supporting her, thereby thwarting public will; c) there’s a secret deal among the Democratic leadership and the two candidates that whoever ends up with the nomination, the other will “automatically” be the VP nominee, thereby uniting the party; d) she enjoys the humiliation of losing for a long time, versus graciously bowing out now and helping Obama take on John McCain, who, she has said repeatedly, would make a better president than Obama; e) she’s going to loan her campaign the $95 million Obama raised in February and March in order to catch up with him (hey, the Clintons have been involved in sketchy, stupid investments before; this would in no way break precedent).

Responses, one-by-one:

a) It has been admitted by top Clinton aides and strategists that a major (if not the main) part of their talks with superdelegates involves discussion of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This is widely reported in liberal blogs. Not sure if the mainstream news runs it, because, frankly, I quit my NYT addiction after March 4. So, in a sense, this is what the campaign is doing: exploiting fear and racism.

But as a strategy, how exactly is this good for Clinton? How is it good for the party, when Clinton has beaten Obama so badly that, as the nominee, the Republicans only have to finish him off?

b) As much as I love reading and hearing about them, I don’t really believe in conspiracy theories. And that’s mostly because I know firsthand how difficult it is to organize any group of people larger than one. So, for there to be some kind of conspiracy of masquerading candidates, to me, is ludicrous.

c) I let myself think about this as a real possibility for about 12 seconds today, especially after Harry Reid’s recent declaration that, as early as July, the party would be united behind its nominee. But then, going back to the nearly impossible math presupposition, why would Clinton drag it out? Why would she have her aides engage in the type of attacks on Obama (see argument a), above) they have been?

I don’t know what exactly is behind Reid’s assertion, but I really don’t see any way that these two will be on the same ticket together, and well they shouldn’t. It’s my firm belief that Obama will be the nominee, and as formidable as some may believe her to be, Clinton is simply not a good choice for second fiddle.

d) This could be true. She entertained many years of humiliation as the wife of a cheating male politician. “Stand by your man” doesn’t mix well with a youth of feminism. Maybe she’s a glutton for punishment?

e) Stranger things have happened, but there’s no proof whatsoever that more money spent by Clinton would lead to her overcoming Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and popular votes.

Oh, and Obama’s catching up to her on superdelegates, too.

PLEASE, for the love of god, if you or someone you know knows of a reason Clinton is staying in the race (and I don’t want to hear “so that the voices of the voters in the remaining states can be heard. Some of those voices will vote for John Edwards, or Chris Dodd, for chrissakes), I want to know. Comment here. Please.

Read what she told Bill Richardson before he endorsed Barack Obama.

Thx: turneresq at Daily Kos and Olivia

A nice op-ed by the New Mexico governor, recalling that the attacks against him are the very thing he (and Obama) campaign against.

Recent news said James Carville and his wife were leaving Washington. Good. Can they go away forever now?

… Clinton truly dropping out and turning all her balls-to-the-wall campaigning against John McCain instead. Obama would be wise to employ her (hell, it’d help her get out of debt and keep up with her staff’s health insurance payments) as a surrogate to destroy the old man. Of course, that would require ceasing to praise him at every turn.

When Clinton lovers say Obama’s supporters are being unfair asking her to drop out, they should consider that fact: That a noncandidate Hillary, with even less to lose than she has now, could be an awesome tool for Democrats in the general election.
I can dream, can’t I?

Too bad Emina Bicakcic can’t vote for Barack Obama the way Casey Knowles can. But then again, it’s never too late for the Clinton people to try to seat the Bosnian delegates.

But I’ll certainly keep posting these fucking lies (misstatements? Spare me) from Hillary Clinton as they come, and they come rapidly these days:

Hillary Clinton isn’t as good as her husband at lying about lying. But that doesn’t stop her from trying.

And now, in Clinton’s interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, she’s doing her best to spread mayonnaise all over her pretty little Bosnian lies by resuscitating the Wright story:

“He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”

Good luck, senator. Honestly, as Kos points out, Obama has springboarded to a sizable lead in North Carolina and could be gaining ground in that most improbable place — Pennsylvania. And this ahead of Obama’s upcoming six-day bus tour of the Keystone State.

Dubious associations are one thing (were they more vital, Clinton’s choice of Mark Penn would’ve destroyed her a long time ago); really obvious lies are far more fatal.

This composite video is hilarious and disturbing: