And, there's ANOTHER angle

All of Paul's excellent thought is based on the basic assumption that Hillary is trying to win in 2008.

Of course Hillary would LIKE to win in 2008 (and again in 2012), but that's not the extent of her long-term strategic thinking.

If she can NOT be the nominee but can DESTROY Obama sufficiently to assure his humiliating loss to McCain ("How could Obama lose the race that the Democrats were GUARANTEED to win?") she can pretty much write him off as an opponent in 2012.  The economy collapses and the war lingers, and she's POSITIONED WELL to run against McCain or his neo-con VP in 2012.

Hillary only cares about HERSELF, not about Democracy or the Democratic party in any way.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 5:22:08 PM
 

Anything to win

If Clinton can't get the keys to the house, she'd rather burn it down.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 6:52:44 PM
 

Amusing

Gallop polling shows opposite trend; Hillary is gaining on Obama in national polls of Democrats.  By several points.  Incidently, as the truth leaks slowly out about Barack--his fabrications and obfuscations--thinking voters are taking a second look. Has less to do with Clinton strategies than with glaring facts.  The media is playing us all for fools.  They have their marching orders.  But I don't have to fall into the goose step formation.  Do you?  I thought the readers and contributors of this blog were independent thinkers. 

The caucuses have favored Obama because many Hillary Clinton supporters could not get to them; the way they are set up actually discourages large turnout, not increased participatory democracy.  News reports stated that the shoving matches in both Nevada and Texas, for example, were caused by poor planning, overcrowded meeting rooms or the fact that the members in charge were not fully advised to rules and regulations. ( In TX, the Obama campaign broke rules by passing out voter papers before the meetings were called to order.)  One report has been out for weeks: in areas where the primaries selected delegates, Hillary did very well.  (This op ed piece was found in the Providence Journal by Froma Harrop called "Close down Caucuses" dated 03/06/08.)

In other words, the large Obama delegate lead is not representative of the cross section of the American electorate; it is skewed toward Obama and very little vetting of him and his campaign were available for public scrutiny until recently.  All these scare tactics of super delegates switching to Hillary, undermining the will of the people is only that--a tactic.   Sen. Clinton has no control over that aspect of the dismal election season.

Please do some real research; bad habits cannot be covered up with bad journalism.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 8:24:38 PM
 

Amusing indeed

Superdelegates switching to Hillary?  Name one.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 1:46:53 AM
 

The Obamarama has the big mo

Perhaps I didn't make my case well enough: ever watched a sporting event and got the impression that the refs or umpires were, shall we say, slightly biased?

It isn't unheard of in either pro or amateur sports, unfortunately.  I get the decided impression that this year's Democratic primaries/caucuses are skewed to Barack Obama.  Ergo, the old time-honored, devious politcal ploys are trotted out; when the Obama camp is caught red-handed playing head games, they immediately shout out for the benefit of their cheer-leading media minions, "racist; Hillary's playing the race card!"

So then everyone rallies round the underdog.  No way Hillary can win on that issue.  Obama is a black candidate.  She might eke out a win if the party honchos get a grip and realize what is at stake with the Super Delegates--the power brokers--coming to the rescue; but they can't because, like Hillary, they are caught between Barack and a hard place. The race thing.  So they will go along to get along, the mark of a subordinate.

Obama devotees clamber that the people's voice be heard above the din of a heated political set-to.  The super delegates can't be allowed to choose our nominee!  The people have spoken and if Supdels throw the process to the Clinton camp, it will not be fair and democratic.  Oh, pleaaassse.  There has not been one factor in this whole silly scenario that is fair, logical, rational or good for America.  We deserve what we will be getting in Barack Obama--a self-serving, egocentric and angry man who cannot seem to choose his friends well and has a penchant for distorting even his own history.  I feel sorry for him, a neglected little boy sandwiched between two warring cultures, but not enough to make him my president.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 8:34:48 AM
 

It would take a lawyer to spin like this

Lets ponder the reality that Mr. DeMarco tries so hard to ignore; Senator Clinton is currently running against Senator Obama, not against Senator McCain, Her issue is that her opponent has not the experience that she, and McCain both have after a long service to this nation. The author attempts to spin facts like these into some ridiculous assumptions. Sorry, the jury aint buying it counselor.

As to the primaries themselves. Obama is great at winning caucusses, wonderful, twelve people in Idaho move together in a high school gym and he claims a great victory. Primaries, on the other hand, where great numbers turn out seem a bit more difficult for the junior Senator from Illinois. Excepting, of course, those States where the election will certainly give the day to John McCain. In the red states Senator Obama triumphs .....so what?

I do not dislike Senator Obama, I think him a fine speaker and one with a promising future. I also believe him to be as Centrist as his opponent, as his book and voting record both indicate. My problem is with some of his supporters, as this author so aptly illustrates, basing their choice on such a nebulous quality as "hope" what else have they got but hyperbole and , sadly, distortion?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 6:59:58 AM
 

Three neocons?

Thank you for the excellent analysis.  It does look as if Obama may well become the Democratic nominee.  Having read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I now see the three candidates as all marching in the Corporatist Army.  The preferred candidate would be McCain, then Clinton, and thirdly Obama.

The troubling aspect is that any change will require the repudiation of the Milton Friedman mindset, and that is not forthcoming from any of the three.

by Umbagog (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 1:01:24 PM
 

It's Simpler Than the Hillary Apologists Proclaim

Hillary's campaign is way in the red.  No money.  What leadership.  What brinkmanship.  Hillary's only chance to be President will come if McCain picks her as his running mate.

Make no mistake about it, folks, it's over for Hillary.  No matter what the media says, they don't put ads on TV for free.  And with the defection from Richardson -- someone both her and Bill thought was squarely in her camp -- it is very clear that the back of the campaign has been broken. 

That doesn't mean Hillary can't win more delegates from the remaining states, it just means that there's no point in beating Barak over the head with the race card anymore.  It may play well in Pennsylvania and the remaining southern states, but the latest Gallup poll (yesterday), shows that Obama has eaten up five of the seven point lead she had on the 18th just after the speech.

The whole, "demoralize the electorate, suppress the vote" strategy only works when people aren't willing to show up and vote.  When democracy is allowed to work -- when everybody shows up and votes -- the best candidate always wins and the best possible consequence results.

Rove knew this and that's why his first move was to demoralize the electorate and make the end result appear to be certain.  When people didn't show up and vote, his tactics would win the day.

People are sick of this BS, and they can clearly see another fascist regime on the horizon.  They see the cameras at stoplights, they see the surveillance society rising around them.  They see that their country is being turned into the world's largest open-air forced-labor camp.  People are not stupid -- when everyone shows up and votes according to their best interests.

Hillary's political career is over, which is why she is fighting so hard.  Once she crossed the line with her tactics, she sealed her fate.

Contrary to what's been said, it is Hillary, not Obama, who has been deceiving the electorate.  It was Hillary who called the Canadians to reassure them about the NAFTA dust up and then blamed Obama for it.  It was Hillary who swore up and down that she didn't support NAFTA when her records and the public record clearly demonstrate that she was all for NAFTA.  And it's Hillary's voting record and final positions on key bills that show that she is the lesser candidate.

These are facts, folks.  Hillary's apologists are simply brainwashed after all these years of being lied to by their government and by their favored candidate.  They are sheep and the wolves are fixin' to eat them alive.

by Richard Volaar (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 80 diaries, 261 comments) on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 9:05:05 PM
 

Special Treatment!! Really????

Thanks, Richard, you said it all.  After listening to the pounding every media outfit has been giving Senator Barack Obama this week, all salivating at the idea of tearing him apart, it amazes me to hear these remarks being made - that Barack has been receiving special treatment.  Well, yes, I guess you could call playing Rev. Wright's statements over and over every five minutes, "special treatment".  Then to find out that Fox network's Sean Hannity is taking credit for releasing a video that had the damning sound bite taken out of context and placed where it would do the most damage.

When Hillary's eyes are popping out of her head, and her grin is just about separating the top of her head from her neck, you can count on another one of her lies coming out.  I used to have respect for Hillary, but after watching her in action, my stomach turns whenever I hear or see her.

Still sounds to me as though she's hoping to run as McCain's vice president - she and her husband seem to idolize him.  I can't see where lying in a prison camp for five years makes anyone a hero.  Especially since McCain started giving out military information after four days in captivity.  Then, to top it off, he deliberately stopped our government from searching for the rest of the prisoners of war, left behind after McCain was released.  Nothing like having a candidate who crashed four planes before being shot down, and then dumping his wife when he decided he could do better politically by sticking with his mistress, little Cindy.

by lucydavis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments) on Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 4:31:08 PM
 

Wall Street...

I just read a report on the amount that Wall Street contributes to all three candidates, and Hillary takes the lead. With our $200 billion bailout of Wall Street /bankers at taxpayers expense, I sour on Hillary more than I have been. I wrote Howard Dean as I think Hillary's PUSH to get the Superdelegates to be the decision makers is a step in the opposite direction of Democracy.

Hillary is so self serving that I just can't support her. Besides, her Iran vote lost me way back when. She has NO excuse for that one. She's a war monger, no ends and buts. Blackwater contributes to her and Rupert Murdock of News Corps(Fixtnews, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, et al.) contributes ands supports her. Explain that!

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 315 comments) on Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 6:48:01 PM