Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Making Excuses for Your Losses

by BooMan
Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 01:43:13 PM EST

On Tuesday, there will be primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The latest polls show that Obama is up 19 points in Maryland and between 15 and 20 points in Virginia. I assume that people in those two states are all going to be working all day on Tuesday, except of course for the Obama voters. Obama voters don't work. This allows them to show up at 1 o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday for a caucus or at anytime on a Tuesday for a primary. If it weren't for the fact that Clinton's supporters have jobs, she would obviously win all these caucuses and primaries. Unfortunately, she has this built in disadvantage which is really very undemocratic.

If Clinton doesn't want to minimize her losses in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia by suggesting that Obama's voters are all shiftless losers, she can point to the high number of African-Americans in the Potomac area. Surely if those people had not turned out to vote Clinton would have 'felt pretty good about' about her chances.

Look, I understand the necessity to find some kind of excuse to explain why she is losing primaries and caucuses. But disrespecting her opponent's voters by suggesting there is something wrong with them is not the way to go. If she wins the nomination she is going to need Obama supporters and she simply is not going to get them if she goes around saying that they don't work.

If she wants to complain about the caucus system she should be explicit and explain why caucuses disenfranchise people that have to work. But to suggest that she is only going to lose today in Washington because her voters have to work and that otherwise she would 'feel pretty good about' her chances is incredibly insulting. If she loses today it's because people preferred Obama. They both knew the process and the rules.

This brings up another point. Some people are getting the vapors over the prospect that superdelegates might decide who the nominee will be. But those are the rules. If Bush had won Florida in 2000 by a decisive and uncontroversial margin, it would have meant nothing that Gore won the popular vote. If the election was decided by the popular vote, both Bush and Gore would have pursued completely different strategies. You have to compete according to the rules. And the popular vote has nothing to do with either the nominating process or the election of the president. Get over it.

Making Excuses for Your Losses | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Markos is that you? (none / 0)

Sorry, but I had to keep checking I wasn't at DK, this reads like Markos so much.

Not that I disagree with any point. I find it utterly fascinating that after Iowa, every primary/caucus that happened, The Clinton's downplayed their chances for winning with some of the lamest ~~lies~~ excuses and the MSM dutifully reported it like it was news. The fact that the Clinton's downplay their chances in races where Clinton is either ahead or behind by 10+ points speaks to the mindgames these people like to play.

I spent this morning looking through Clinton news from the last month, culminating in the MSNBC drama and what I see is some serious psychodrama playing out. It allr reminded me of that attention-seeker in jr. high (Janet and Rolando I'm looking at both of you!) who wanted all the focus, but couldn't stand it when people didn't think s/he was all that.

This latest thing with MSNBC is equally dumb. The Clinton's, after begging for more debates, are saying that they just may not put Sen. Clinton on MSNBC. Do we really believe that? Are we really that stupid? This is a person who goes on Fox and they talk all kinds of shit about her and her family. And we're supposed to believe that it was a crass comment from Schuster that just did her in? Please.

No...with this last stunt Clinton is, once again, upping the drama quotient. Go to MSNBCs site and see all the Clinton ass-licking going on over there. She'll be at that MSNBC debate and she'll play the injured victim all over again. Maybe she can get more free publicity out of it.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST

Re: Markos is that you? (none / 0)

I don't blame them for pushing back at MSNBC. That network's treatment of the Clintons has been disgraceful.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos is that you? (none / 0)

I may be one of 3 people who catch Dan Abrams' program and he's been pushing the "media is against Hillary" line for the past week or so (even before the Shuster comment), and given that he's a bigwig there, I wouldn't say the whole network is anti-Hillary.

by RollaMO on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Somewhat agreed (none / 0)

I think that comments on-air have been horrendous, they always have. But like I said, Fox has said even worse stuff for a much longer period of time and both Clinton's still go on that channel.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Markos is that you? (none / 1)

"with this last stunt Clinton is, once again, upping the drama quotient."

Tears work and it is apparent that Hillary wants to maximize the tearing quotient, with Obama still at zero and working on it. Is this some kind of reverse feminism? I invented the internet, no, I meant to say I invented the concept of "feminizing the presidency" in order to get us away from Texas walks and other pompous deadly male macho bullshit (spell it yourself), and getting us a real female in the presidency. Hillary ain't that female, with or without the tears.

by shergald on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

The CNN newsreporter from Washington state (Jessica) just stated as fact that Hillary's voters have to work and that will hurt her in today's caucuses.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

yep i saw that too...they're saying, "move along people, no big win for Obama here"

by liberaljournal on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

not literally of course

by liberaljournal on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Hillaryland talking points.

guess Hillary's supporters see nothing wrong with using the geneder card.

all those "Go Girl Go! Be Yourself" squads largely composed of present and former Hillary Clinton staffers. It has wrestled for control with architects of the insular, overbearing campaign that lost in Iowa and smeared Obama, only to swell Obama's South Carolina victory.

are they part of the over 60 crowd?

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Look, I'm already making excuses for why Obama will probably lose the machine-driven, working-class-dominated, elderly electorate contests in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. (Not all excuses apply to all states in the above list.) There's nothing wrong with making excuses per se -- so long as they're accurate. The problem with what Clinton is doing is the content of their excuses -- like this bizarre "we have to work and they don't" thing -- rather than the form.

Clinton does a lot better job at lowering expectations than Obama does, but that's probably because lowered expectations can lead to calls for him to drop out of the race; not so mcuh so with her.

Obama-Gore 2008. Broker that!

by Major Danby (senecadoane at lycos period com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

blue collar demographics & excuses (none / 0)

I'm somewhat less likely to write off the Midwestern states. Obama did well in Minnesota and Iowa, and it will be interesting to see how well the Clinton campaign withstands Obama's steep upward trajectory.

Part of the problem with the Clinton claim to a native appeal with blue collar (or lower income) groups is that it presumes an intra-party 'income effect.' This type of effect is obviously an underlying dynamic in Republican versus Democratic races, since each party's policies reflect this income bias, but intra-party races are a different matter.

Much of Obama's recent movement occurred initially within upper income levels of the Democratic Party, and then moved to middle income groups. I expect Obama will be making inroads within the lower class/blue collar groups next. And there are several reasons for believing this.

Recent union endorsements of Obama are one indication of potential support for Obama, but it's also logical to assume that part of the apparent income effect was due to Clinton's status as the frontrunner, which cemented her status with traditional Democratic constituencies, who are also the last to move away from the Democratic mainstream.

It will be interesting to see where the race is by the time the Midwestern primaries are held, since there will be a number of Clinton losses in the coming weeks, with the sole exception of Maine, which appears to be a narrow win for Clinton.

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 09:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Umm, what are "the vapors"?

by rae on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

technically, it is a word for 'female hysteria'. A Victorian term, now not considered a legitimate medical diagnosis. BTW, the word hysteria comes from the greek work for uterus (thus, hysterectomy).

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Mrs. Dem still uses the term on occasion, but we are in southern Indiana after all.

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

by Indianadem on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0)

That makes you sexist. ;P Of course, you could have used, "getting their panties in a bunch", "getting their knickers twisted" or "becoming hysterical". FWIW, since everyone has now be deputized into the Sexism Patrol, you should have gone with phrases like "getting their noses bent out of shape", "becoming unhinged", "running around like chickens with their heads cut off".

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Well, I hope I never get the vapors. That would be embarrassing.

by rae on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talk Among Yourselves (none / 0)

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

They go hand-in-hand with "pearl-clutching."

there is no such thing as history. there are only historians.

by S2 on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

You're awfully grouchy today.

The potential of party officials deciding who the nominee will be is a pretty serious problem.

by shaej on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

why? That's the system that's been in place from the beginning. If anything, the system is better today than it has ever been.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the beginning (none / 0)

It's only been in place since the mid-80s.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the beginning (none / 0)

are you suggesting that prior to the 1980's the nominees were selected by a more Democratic process?

And I think the current system was set up after the 1972 elections, not in the 1980's.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not suggesting anything (none / 0)

I know it changed in the 80s because it changed how we held school gov't elections. I was a superdelegate in 6th, 8th grade and as a junior/senior. That was based on my grades, gender and underrepresented race. The teachers always complained about the superdelegate thing and thought it was a bad idea.

But check this:

The tradition of super delegates was adopted in the 1980s as party leaders and elected officials looked for ways to maintain their influence over a national convention. DNC officials Friday defended the practice, arguing that many of the super delegates are grass-roots activists.

and...

Why: Democrats banned winner- takes-all contests in the 1980s to apportion support so that underdog candidates had a fighting chance. But the invention also shelters party front-runners from being overwhelmed by unknown candidates who surge from behind. The real aim is to head off protracted fights on the convention floor, keeping some power for party insiders.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the beginning (none / 0)

Superdelegates were added in '84, although the current system was installed after '68 I believe.

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the beginning (none / 0)

the changes were the product of the mcgovern-fraser commission which was formed at the debacle in chicago in '68:

The convention approved the establishment of a party committee to examine current rules and make recommendations designed to broaden participation and enable better representation for minorities and others who were underrepresented. The McGovern-Fraser Commission established open procedures and affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates. In addition the commission made it so that all delegate selection procedures were required to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the convention delegates in secret. The commission recommended that delegates be represented by the proportion of their population in each state. [3] An unforeseen result of these rules was that many states complied by holding primary elections to select convention delegates. This created a shift from caucuses to primaries. The Republican Party's nomination process was also transformed in this way, as state laws involving primaries usually apply to all parties' selection of delegates.
wiki

lTMF'sA

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

This is one of those cases where you need to look at why a rule was implemented.

In the case of the superdelegates, the goal was to have a short-circuit in place to prevent an unelectable candidate from securing the nomination. The intent of the superdelegates was not to decide the results of an election, but to keep someone like Ron Paul from becoming the nominee.

The superdelegates were chosen from party officials and elected officials for two reasons: they are generally loyal to interests of the Democratic party, and they would have to run for election against regular party members if they weren't given an automatic delegate slot.

The problem with this system, as implemented, is the these party officials are not subject to the democratic will in any real sense. Also, due to their enormous ability to swing a close election, their votes can become very valuable ... meaning, backroom deals and outright bribery.

In the case of Obama vs Clinton, neither is a Ron Paul type candidate. They are both politcally moderate, careful politicians with a large base of support. The justification for the superdelegates (specifically, the party officials) to throw an election towards one candidate over another is not present.

by shaej on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's funny to me (none / 0)

Is that these superdelegates, these party officials have always chosen our candidate. They have the pull to tell other candidates, "Hey, you need to step aside so that so-and-so will win." This isn't a secret. It's just that now it's out in the open. They aren't worried about having to usurp voters intentions to install someone. They're worried that it's finally out in the open.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

the Clintons have lost the Af-Am support, word gets around very fast. Yes we can; we know how and no need to use the tom-tom drums as our forefathers did during slavery. Rappers and internet.

BooMan, do you not think the MI and FL delegates will be seated?

The Three Co-Chairs of the DNC Delegate Credentials Committee All Served in Clinton Administration and imho, these three should be recused.

Dean is quoted as saying - he'll intervene (I paraphrase) and that before the convention the two candidates should work things out.

Do you see Clinton hinting that Obama should wait his turn?

This convention will be messy foretelling a divided party into election campaign.

McCain or Bloomberg wins.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

"Do you see Clinton hinting that Obama should wait his turn?"

Methinks the Clintons have had their turn already.

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

by Indianadem on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

have you ever heard of the Clintons' entitlement? Since they left thhe White House, they've done very well and need to extend those gains - thus the third term.

It's a co-presidency. And America doesn't get it.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 1)

Yes - its just never enough for some people.

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

by Indianadem on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Right now on CNN they are explaining this away using Hillary's narrative. (Since Hillary's voters are mostly blue collar, they all have to work on Saturday, while Obama's voters are higher-class, higher-educated white-collar privileged folks who get Saturdays off.)

This makes no sense either. Fact is, most people have Saturdays off and Saturdays are the best day of the week for most people - except maybe jews, but I'm sure they'd be forgiven for caucusing or voting on the sabbath.

by RandyH on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST

Told ya (none / 0)

That's what I was saying last night. She's been pounding this. Both the Clinton's and the media have been creating this class warfare inside the Dem. party for the past month. Look at the "hip black friend" comment. Look at how often CNN and MSNBC pound the fact that Obama seems to have a lockdown on the highly educated, while Clinton has locked up those making below poverty level.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

I think you are misinterpeting what HRC is saying. She is saying her supporters are more likely to be retail clerks, hospital workers, and other voters who work on Saturday and more likely to be unable to attend a caucus that takes up most of Saturday. She is saying Obama's supporters are more likely to have Saturday off.

by AliceDem on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

I know that is what she is saying. That's what I am saying she is saying. How is that not what I am saying she is saying.

It's false on its face.

Her voters are older (less likely to be at work on Saturday, or at all)

Her voters are whiter (less likely to work in the service industry)

Obama's voters are more likely to be young or students (much more likely to be working on Saturday)

His voters are more likely to be black (much more likely to be working in the service industries).

Her argument is bogus, and it's insulting.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

That's exactly what the Clinton narrative is saying but it is just not true. No one has stats to back it up, but I would be willing to bet that Obama has just as many (or more) retail clerks, medical workers, hotel staff, etc that all have to work on Saturdays. So it's a wash, at best. But for the media to repeat this bullshit narrative uncritically is disgraceful.

I think the more likely real-world explanation is that the typical Hillary supporter just accepts her as the inevitable default nominee. But they're not interested in politics enough to bother devoting a couple hours of their day to "support" her by going to caucus for her. Obama's supporters are more excited about his brand of change and will make that investment on his behalf.

This isn't about race or class or other demographics so much as it is about interest in the process.

by RandyH on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because she says it (none / 0)

Doesn't mean it's true...My aunt and uncle (Obama supporters) are both nurses and they had to work on Super Tuesday. They live 50 miles away from the hospital they worked at. They both worked overnight shifts that Monday, my uncle picked up my aunt, drove all the back to their place so they could vote, took a nap, drove back to the city where he dropped my aunt off so she could do coordination for Obama in one part of Kansas City and my uncle drove on up to Independence volunteer up there. That's just two nurses. I have friends all over this country who work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet and they're Obama supporters.

My friend up in WA has a PhD, as does her husband. Since she works in science and he works for a non-profit, they don't make that much money. On weekends she works at a coffeeshop and he works at a store. They both took the time off to caucus even though they need the money.

As for Louisiana, well, we're back where my family is. People who are poor and will always be poor, they definitely work on weekends, but they're making sure that everyone has rides so they can go vote today.

That's just a few examples of my small sphere. If the Clinton's want to push that narrative, which is clear that they do, fine, but it's not true, unfair and once again risk turning voters off of them.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Booman you cover a lot of topics in that short post. Hillary should be worried if Obama is filling 17,000 seat arenas and 3,000 or out in the street listening. Hillary needs to suppress the vote in order to win, a big turnout is bad for her, although good for the Democratic Party. Vapors is a back-door, maybe, for Hillary to want to count the delegates from Florida and Michigan..i.e let the delegates decide the election not the super-delegates.

by americanforliberty on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST

Kick Excuses (none / 0)

I understand the necessity to find some kind of excuse to explain why she is losing primaries and caucuses.

The Clintons would do well to commit this gem to memory:

Excuses are tools of incompetence
Used to build worthless monuments to nothingness
And those who specialize in utilizing these tools
Will seldom able to accomplish anything.

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST

Aren't you crabby today (none / 0)

Saying things like "get over it" and "the vapors"...

Superdelegates deciding the nomination will be terrible for the party. "Regular people" everywhere will take it as yet another sign that their vote means absolutely nothing and the deal is sealed behind closed doors...possibly giving it to Clinton because she's better vested in the party and has better connections than Obama does. You'll have a bunch of pissed off, disenfranchised voters who will stay out the next election. Watch.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST

Re: Aren't you crabby today (none / 0)

well, the superdelegates are going to decide the election, so the only question is whether they will vote against the popular will, as expressed by the imperfect pledged delegate system, or by some screwy seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates.

As long as they vote for the person that is in the lead (no matter how narrowly) I don't see it as a problem. And I don't expect them to screw around.

by BooMan on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aren't you crabby today (none / 0)

I see that as a very likely situation, BooMan. Obama wins the popular vote and the supers give it to Clinton because she has more pull.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crab Cakes (none / 0)

As much as I loathe the idea of Clinton being the nominee, it would be absurd to think that "Regular people" everywhere will take it as yet another sign that their vote means absolutely nothing and the deal is sealed behind closed doors. The only reason why superdelegates would become relevant is if a majority of the "Regular people" can't agree on who the nominee should be. If that's the case then someone has to break the tie, and the way the party is set up (for better or for worse) that responsibility falls to the superdelegates.

We could just flip a coin, I guess.

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 1)

Way too much is being read into HC's statement. She used anecdotal evidence to diminish her expectations in the caucus. No part of that isn't SOP for every candidate who's run for office. And she has no control over what dumb reporters say for or against her campaign, as the MSNBC flap should prove.

The larger context to this is more troubling than anything Hillary actually said. First, we're now adopting a tried and true Republican strategy - attack the strengths and rewards of any Democrat. So, normal campaign strategy like spinning wins and losses becomes toxic when employed by Democrats; political networking is underhanded; so is having a child the candidate can be proud of. This line of attack is no different from Republicans' demanding that liberals have to donate their book profits, or live in houses under a square footage that only they know and set.

I want both HC and Obama to use every legal political strategy that will help them become President and squash the Republican agenda underfoot for the next 20 years. No apologies. Instead, we're mandating a unilateral disarmament by one of our front-runners that would be suicide in the general election.

The second problem is that Obama is being set up as someone whom Democrats can't criticize or play hard against. In his SC victory speech, Obama referred explicitly to how "proximity to the White House" shouldn't be a qualification for President. That was allowed to pass. But apparently, this needs to be the only campaign in which referring to the socio-demographics of the candidate's supporters is out of line.

We've had 8 years of a President who is so above reproach that even the mildest critics are called unpatriotic. Think about the implications of making Obama more symbolic than real.

by whisper in blue on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST

Hip hop (none / 0)

I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions that just aren't there. No one has said that Obama is above reproach. In fact most of us here have some misgivings about him and we've discussed it.

Now, how do you equate Clinton with saying that her supporters work with Obama saying that living in the WH doesn't make her presidential material. First off, that's comparing apples (supporters) and oranges (candidate). Secondly, it's true. Is Bush a good president because his dad was one? Would you vote for Micheal Reagan or Caroline Kennedy?

But what is being discussed isn't the Clinton's use of tried and true campaign tactics, what we're talking about is the constant use of this particular tactic in every single race.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hip hop (none / 1)

Just to clarify - There are two main, legitimate ways to handle an opponent - on the issues, and strategically. The ability to spin well is a weapon and a strength in politics, even when the facts are on your side. (The lack of that ability is one of the reasons why Democrats can't even stand up with a majority.) So I'm not going to be surprised nor offended when our candidates play to win against each other.

Secondly, your comparing Hillary Clinton to Michael Reagan or Caroline Kennedy is dismissive of her accomplishments in the same way that Obama's remark was meant to imply. And by dismissing her accomplishments, it disses her supporters who must by implication be dumb enough to be conned by nothing more than her proximity to the White House based on her marriage to Bill Clinton.

What I don't like is the double standard. We should acknowledge that HC is doing nothing more than what Obama will do when it becomes convenient, and that both are perfectly entitled to use every political tool available to them. The Republicans have spent the last 15 years doing everything they could to hamstring the Clintons from using their strengths, and I'm not going to join them in that. With the exception of Feingold and Dodd, not a single sitting Senator would have had the spine to stand his ground during the Lewinsky affair the way the Clintons did. Obama supporters who complain about normal campaign tactics just make him look vulnerable, IMO.

by whisper in blue on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 05:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dismissing her accomplishments? (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but she is using her proximity to the WH as a basis for her 35 years of experience. She's held one office. She's been an elected official less time than Sen. Obama. She's never even fought in a hard contest before.

I think people who point to her mostly failed duties as First Lady (AR and US) are disingenuous and slightly deluded. If she wants to tie her experience to her proximity to the WH, then she also gets saddled with all of the stupid and misguided policies of the Clinton WH. Does she want that? This is a person who said of the bankruptcy bill, "Yeah, I voted for it, but I'm glad it failed." Huh?

We were already sold her as the co-president back in '92. So, we're at her 3rd term now, right? She's claiming that proximity means she's better ready to deal. I'm sorry who needs the reality check? As I said before, as a married woman, that is not a door I'm willing to open.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Sun Feb 10th, 2008 at 02:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Making Excuses for Your Losses (none / 0)

Re: "proximity to WH" comment

I'm willing to grant possible alternative meanings to HRC's "don't work on Saturdays" comment, even though others here may not, but the "proximity" comment is not a very good example of something that would be considered out of line.

The problem is that the HRC campaign has made explicit claims of foreign policy experience and experience in other areas which are false. Claiming that Bill's experience is Hillary's is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's hardly even been mentioned by the Obama campaign, even though it's such a glaring error by the HRC campaign.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Sun Feb 10th, 2008 at 02:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So are you saying that people should (none / 1)

work to get rid of the super-delegates if they don't want them deciding the primaries?

I am all for it. I am also for getting rid of the Electoral College. In this day and age there is no reason for this country to not have direct democracy.

Blogueando @ culturekitchen.com

by liza (nyc.blogdiva@gmail.com) on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST

Making Excuses for Your Losses | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile