Booman Tribune

Media Drip: The Way this Ends

by BooMan
Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 10:58:40 PM EST

My theory on the campaign is that the Clintons cannot limp all the way to April 22nd when the logic/narrative puts them strictly in the role of party wreckers. The poison that will eventually erode Clinton's poll advantage is the cold hard truth that she cannot win a brokered convention. But, before that poison can work its way through the body electorate, the media must begin reporting the truth. This started yesterday when Ben Smith of The Politico reported that members of Clinton's staff privately acknowledge that she has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Mark Halperin continued the trend today when he listed Fourteen Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows — Or Should Know. Tomorrow is Maureen Dowd's turn to push the narrative.

It is a tribute to Hillary Clinton that even though, rationally, political soothsayers think she can no longer win, irrationally, they wonder how she will pull it off.

It’s impossible to imagine The Terminator, as a former aide calls her, giving up. Unless every circuit is out, she’ll regenerate enough to claw her way out of the grave, crawl through the Rezko Memorial Lawn and up Obama’s wall, hurl her torso into the house and brutally haunt his dreams.

“It’s like one of those movies where you think you know the end, but then you watch with your fingers over your eyes,” said one leading Democrat.

That's a typical Dowd construction and ordinarily it wouldn't be worth the paper it is printed on. But she closes her column with a valuable insight.

If Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are the dealmakers, it won’t take Hercule Poirot to figure out who had knives out for Hillary in this “Murder on the Orient Express.”

Carter, who felt he was not treated with a lot of respect by the Clintons when they were in the White House, favors Obama.

“The Clintons will be there when they need you,” said a Carter friend.

Al Gore blames Bill Clinton’s trysts with Monica for losing him the White House. He resented sharing the vice presidency with Hillary and sharing the donors and attention with her when she ran for Senate as he ran for president.

“There’s no love between him and Hillary,” said one former Clintonista. “It was like Mitterrand with his wife and girlfriend. They were always competing for the affection of the big guy.”

Like Carter and Gore, Nancy Pelosi was appalled by Bill’s escapades with Monica. And, as The Times’s Carl Hulse wrote, the Speaker has been viewed as “putting her thumb on the scale for Mr. Obama” in recent weeks. As a leading China basher, the San Francisco pol tangled bitterly with President Clinton over his pursuit of a free-trade agreement with China, once charging him with papering over China’s horrible record on human rights. And she has been put off by the abrasive ways of some top Hillary people.

The Clintons are looking around and realizing that they don't have as many friends as they thought they had. But it isn't really important what Maureen Dowd says. What matters is that the media is now giving itself permission to write the Clintons' epitaph. There is no way for the Clintons to stop the momentum of this narrative once it catches on in the press. Once Tim Russert starts quoting Halperin and Dowd, then everyone will start echoing the new common wisdom. It was too long in coming, but it's too long to the Pennsylvania primary for the Clintons to maintain the fiction that they have a chance.

Now, one of the strongest articles of faith in the business is that the Clintons will never give up and they will do anything to win, even if it hands John McCain the White House on a silver platter. But even the Clintons need the support of a certain baseline percentage of the political establishment. There is no way that Hillary will be president or vice-president, but she might be able to negotiate something of value. Some people have suggested that she could be made Majority Leader of the Senate. I think that's a long shot, mainly because of logistics (how do you get 50-plus senators to agree in advance?). Others have suggested a seat on the Supreme Court. That would be possible if the Democrats pick up a few seats in the Senate (and maybe even without it). And it would be a priceless spectacle to watch the right-wing howl in agony as she took her place on the court.

A lesser prize could be attained if Teddy Kennedy would offer her his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. From that perch she could be instrumental in pushing through Obama's health care reform (although, they'd have to get the Rules Committee to give HELP jurisdiction over the bill).

I can't really think of another prize that Clinton might want. But cabinet positions could also be up for grabs. In any case, I hope that the Clintons are taking a moment over this Easter weekend to take a realistic appraisal of their prospects and options. The media narrative isn't going to get any friendlier, and any attacks on Obama from this point on are going to be met by increasingly resistance from the party establishment (including superdelegates).



Display:
President Obama then Supreme Court justice Obama.
by JayGR on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:08:32 PM EST
When did liberal blogs start listening to these harpies?
by AliceDem on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
It's not that I'm listening to them...if anything, they are listening to me, and other bloggers that have been saying these things for quite some time.

What matters, though, is the media narrative.  If it is all about Rev. Wright for the next five weeks then Obama loses.  But if it is about 'what the hell is the point of all this?' then Clinton loses.

My prophesy is that Clinton will get an ever increasing drumbeat of press of the kind I cited, and it will be the end of her viability.

by BooMan on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bob Parry talked today of Obama's speech on race and compared it to Michael Douglas' speech (penned by Aaron Sorkin) in the film "The American President." But his quote also makes me think of the Clinton campaign as well:

"We have serious problems to solve," Douglas says, "and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.

"That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-age, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. ...

"We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up."

Hillary's fifteen minutes are up. Serious people know this. It's time for serious people to start ending the madness. Hillary should stop taking money from people who can barely afford to donate for a cause she simply cannot win.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
btw, Obama's speech was written by himself.

And yes the media narrative has shifted. Falling in line with online chatter, AP puts the month behind him.

AP March 23, 2008  Obama's rough patch could've been worse

"Most importantly, as the Illinois senator prepares to takes a break from the campaign for a brief family vacation, he retains a nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and is winning the nationwide popular vote.

and I'm hopeful MSM will pick up on Clinton's whoppers:

NAFTA: Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy

"When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar."

Foreign Policy: The Bosnia Video counters the Lie

"If you're Hillary Clinton and you've just been caught in a "whopper," the only thing to be grateful for is that it's Good Friday and people are distracted.

How bad could this story be for her? When you tell the American public you faced gunfire, and it turns out all you really faced was a little girl with flowers -- well, that's as bad as it gets.

When you dramatically say you made a journey that was too dangerous for the president, only to have it revealed that he made the same trip two months earlier -- and that your teenaged daughter was by your side -- that only makes it worse."




Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"
by idredit on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by JayGR on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Left Coaster is citing Kathleen Parker's defense of H. Clinton.
by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Digby and Atrios are the only ones maintaining their integrity in all this.

sigh

by AliceDem on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My integrity is intact.  I haven't said anything I regret and other than New Hampshire, I've called this race right all along.
by BooMan on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As soon as the harpies agreed with them, of course.

Just as it's always been.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very few people are always wrong or always right. Issuing a purity test on such matters isn't helpful.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes
by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
heh.

Too true.  What took so long in convincing them?

by BooMan on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What took so long?

They're hustkers, Booman.

They try to be on the winning side, and this side now looks like a sure thing to them.

Ignore 'em.

They aren't worth the shit that they are drawn with.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, the narrative is starting to shift.  I wonder though if it will push her out before Pennsylvania.  I doubt it.  

It's very possible though that the narrative will become focused on the VERY large percentage she would have to win PA by in order to stay in.  Then, when she doesn't win by that percentage - she's lost.

For this to end she either has to wake up one morning and decide to do the right thing OR the superdelegates need to commit en masse to Obama.

The superdelegates won't commit unless and until Obama beats her in a head to head.  He hasn't been able to do that so far.  But if the definition of a win is shifted to simply stopping her from achieving an unachievable percentage ... that might work.

by maryb2004 on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
I agree, Mary. Obama hasn't yet beat her on her territory. But she certainly hasn't beat him, either, and I think that's an equally important point. And she should have been able to beat him. She's the one with the name and the "experience."

I just don't even want to know what the Clinton's are planning to unleash in the last 48 hours before the election THIS time.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I think it will be something like this. But who will bell the cat?
Anyway, someone will, or all together.

Just for the record, I have to say this: I think Hillary would be a dreadful majority leader. Would you want Joe Lieberman as majority leader? Is there really that much of a difference? -- And as for Supreme Court justice, she would be about the most polarizing choice a Pres. Obama could possibly nominate for the that position. Even though the Dems would probably be able to get her on, I don't think polarizing is Obama's style. It's called blowing your political capital ...on what, exactly? -- Furthermore, I don't think a calculating liar like Hillary has the temperament to be a good judge. All of this sounds to me like a booby prize for not getting the presidential nomination. NOT a good reason.

by priscianus jr on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
If Mark Halprin is calling her candidacy over, and pointing out the reasons why, you can be sure that the Gang of Five Hundred will all know his points.

That bunch has their own schadenfreude to work out with her, and those points (and others less civil) will be made just as soon as the opportunity to do so with maximum snark presents itself.

I've thought for a while that lots of people in the punditocracy enabled her pretenses of viability just so they could deliver the inevitable denouement more personally.

I like Gore for Supreme Court, myself. But Hillary would leave a real legacy getting a good health care bill through the Senate.


The more control, the more that requires control. This is the road to chaos. -Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

by chimneyswift on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
Well, I hope Carter, Gore and Pelosi come right out and formally endorse Obama on Monday. That would put an end to it, for sure. I'm tired of the Clinton's throwing poo.

The media can spin whatever narrative they choose. What matters is significant and numerous super delegates shutting the door in HRC's face. She won't give up because of the media; she'll just whine about how badly they treat her.

by sjct on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM EST
And then there's the money. Last month's take was close to a break even but the coffers are not being replenished enough to carry on the long fight to PA. The more the pundits do the math in primetime, the harder it will be to raise ad money.


by mainsailset on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:31:02 PM EST
Good post, Booman. As the media narrative shifts to "Obama is Inevitable," good old human nature will kick in.  Nobody likes being on the losing side, and if the perception that Obama is the likely nominee takes root, then pundits and politicians alike will start to get on board his wagon.  The pundits want to be able to say, "See, I was right!"  And the politicians want to position themselves favorably with the new incoming administration.  I think that two things happened this past week that tipped the scales--Obama's courageous speech on race, and the Richardson endorsement.
by eagleye on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:48:43 PM EST
That and the Bosnia video. Once something like that gets into the national consciousness (cf. the Edwards "I Feel Pretty" video) it's hard to shake it loose.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55
by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Mon Mar 24th, 2008 at 12:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Media drip started on the Clintons in January 1992 and has never let up. I don't know what is going to happen, but I don't imagine the Clinton's can be gamed into anything by a hostile media. What Hillary Clinton doesn't know about dealing with hostile media would fit on one side of a postage stamp with room to spare.
by AliceDem on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
that's true.

but she needs allies.  When the Clintons were under attack in the 1990's they had lots of allies.  Now they have very few.

by BooMan on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:08:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's for damned sure. And when we needed them...well, they were otherwise occupied, either positioning in the Senate (Hillary) or palling around with Poppy Bush (Bill.) They've screwed around and screwed up, and good Dems have been there to pick up the pieces.

But no more of this. Screw them and get out.

Since they're now so enamored of Teflon John, maybe they'll offer him the veep slot on the repub ticket.


Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i like that...
"maybe they'll offer him the veep slot on the repub ticket"

sounds like a Billary move.
and here i've been thinking that she was angling to be HIS veep!

The sleep of reason begets tyrants. -Goya

by joe in oklahoma on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 01:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, yes, Teflon John.  I'm really glad Dan Abrams has gone after him on that.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Her biggest strength is also her biggest weakness. She'll say anything to change the media narrative. But that shows an inconsistency that is read by many as disingenuousness.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes
by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 01:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly!  while Obama has never faced a hostile media that has given him a pass from the gitgo.

The media has played along with the Obama Camp purposely "misinterpreting" various Clinton comments - then conveniently accusing the Clintons of racism or slighting Obama in some way.

Obama has perfected Rove's lying and smearing!

by Josey on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 07:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree about the media attacks of the 90s, but she has benefitted from the press as well.  What about the discussion following all of the debates up until October 30 of last year, where she was constantly proclaimed the frontrunner and presumptive nominee? She and her campaign had no complaints then.

I don't think the media is fair, or accurate, or even interested in the issues (I mean, really, CNN calls it "Ballot Bowl" like it's a sports contest), but in the current atmosphere you have to take how they treat a candidate as part of the package and whether they can get elected or not.  All the candidates have baggage of one sort or another, and part of the Clintons' is this long and ugly relationship with the press. Edwards was totally ignored by the press when he wasn't getting hassled over his hair...and he's no longer in the race as a result.  

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

by CabinGirl on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 08:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this chart shows alot:

Obama just recovered from a Swift-boating.

On Monday morning, the "wisdom" of Maureen Dowd will dominate on Morning Joe, as it usually does on Monday mornings. And the pundits, looking at fresher polls, will be trying to re-write the history of last week when they all but wrote Obama's political obituary for him.

Also, the campaign finance reports came out yesterday. Looks like Hillary's running out of money again. It's gonna be hard for her to keep raising it now.

by RandyH on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 12:48:30 AM EST
That's just because Scarborough and all the other male pundits think MoDo is really hot.  (And fair enough.  Her weirdness aside, she's not bad to look at.)  But, hey, I'll take what I can get, and if that puts the Wright story to bed, it's great.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And, by the way, if he just recovered from a Swift-Boating, -- I'm not fully convinced yet, but I'm getting there -- I think the probability of him becoming president has gone up a great deal.  This could've been the catastrophic hit, but he recovered with that speech and Richardson's endorsement, to the point that he may well turn it into a positive for him, if that CBS/NYT poll is to be believed.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Talk Left is reporting that The Clinton Tag Team may control the credentials committee.

behind in delegate count, in states won, and  in popular vote...
she wants wants a bar fight and she has the keys to the bar, apparently.

The sleep of reason begets tyrants. -Goya

by joe in oklahoma on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 02:12:52 AM EST
TL is a very weird place these days. No matter what happens, rainy skies, bad traffic on the Jersey Shore, it's blamed on on Obama. If Richardson hangs out with Bill, that's a sign that he'll endorse Hillary. If he endorses, Obama Richardson's a traitor. It's all zero-sum, with Hillary as the object of worship. I find it all bizarre.

I'd never outright dismiss anything said there without examination, but nothing rises up out of that mess that isn't pro-H. Clinton.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Marc Ambinder did 2 very informative posts about the credentials committee just a few weeks ago.

The first post lists the 25 members who are appointed by Howard Dean:

The chairs of the committee are all veterans of the Clinton administration in some way: Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr. and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo: this led to certain conspiracy theories. But all three have maintained their neutrality; there are many Clinton officials supporting Obama, and it's hard to find prominent Dems who didn't play some role in the Clinton administration.

Anyway, Mr. Dean has not packed the committee with Clinton loyalists. He's packed the committee with, well, Dean loyalists.

* * *

Some of the members of the committee have allegiances to the candidates: Mr. Beyer raises money for Barack Obama; Flournoy is one of Clinton's top outside advisers. She also happens to be on the party's rules and bylaws committee.

But most are loyal to Dean. And Dean's overwhelming priority is to maintain the integrity of the rules.

The second post he wrote lays out how the process works. And how it is unlikely to be helpful to Hillary.  The remaining 161 delegates are selected by the states.

The members do not have to be Convention delegates.

The presidential candidates get to choose them, based on the delegates allocated to them in that particular state primary or caucus.

It's proportional (of course).

So if a state has 4 members, and one candidate wins 50 percent and another candidate wins 50 percent, then each candidate gets 2 members.

What does this mean?

Let's say that ALL 25 of Howard Dean's appointees vote AGAINST seating Florida and Michigan. Let's say that 80 additional members are appointed by Obama and 81 by Clinton. 25 + 80 is more than 81. You can fiddle with the numbers and get to a scenario that might seat the Florida delegates. But it's safe to safe to say that the credential committee option for Sen. Clinton to get Michigan and Florida seated would require her to have won more delegates than she will win.

At the end the committee files a report to the convention to be approved and there can be a minority report if 20% of the members of the credentials committee choose to file one.  THAT is really going to be Hillary's hope - to have a floor fight based on a minority report.  

But think about it.  Are the superdelegates going to want a floor fight over the credentialing process?  Especially when they KNOW that any fight over the credentialing process will cause the teevee networks to dig out the coverage of the 1964  credentials committee fight when the convention seated  the discriminating Mississippi delegation and did NOT seat any of the black members of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party's representatives?  I don't think so.

by maryb2004 on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I heard this a while back, too. Dean has commented on this, also. I can't say I know much about how the credentials committee works, or whether they have the leeway to override the earlier decisions concerning Florida and Michigan, which were made by the entire body of the DNC (to my knowledge).

"..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 Mar 23rd, 2008 at 06:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This whole thing is starting to remind me of when Pluto got plutoed. The discovery of Eris, which started the whole thing, occurred 173 days after Mission Accomplished. The discovery of the personification of strife & discord—the astrological nutshell of the Bush Administration. Btw, the Democratic National Convention in Denver occurs two years and one day after Pluto got demoted on August 24, 2006.

Plutonium and Pluto

The new planet Pluto appeared in 1930 conjunct its own node. Its orbit makes a steep angle to the ecliptic so this was quite a pronounced event; therefore its appearance was enormously powerful, as if some Hades-type principle had emerged into the light of day. In 1932 artificial transmutation began, and then in 1942 atomic energy was unleashed. In politics unheard-of horrors appeared, as if underworld principles had emerged: the victors of World War II somehow acquired the assumption that it was OK to target missiles on the cities of other nations. For the dreadful new weapons, Pluto's element was the trigger.
- - - -
Within the core of nuclear reactors, a transmutation-process goes through the sequence of the outer planet-names: Uranium 238 to Uranium 239 to Neptunium to Plutonium 239

The uranium-cycle is: Earth: Uranium is mined; Air: a winnowing separates the isotopes, the fissile U-235 from the denser U-238 which remains as 'depleted uranium'; Fire: in the heat of the reactor core, the uranium chain-reacts and plutonium is bred; and then Water: in nitric acid baths, the spent reactor fuel is dissolved and thereby the plutonium is separated out - and given to the military (3). The 'plutonium economy' is one of stealth and secrecy, as may remind us of the way in which 'Hades was never depicted in ancient Greek art, more out of awe than because of the problems of showing an invisible ruler' (2).

The problem of who had what plutonium was an exciting government secret, labyrinthine in its deceptions. Pluto's domain gained its `plutocratic' wealth from minerals, especially precious stones and metals, underground: advocates of a plutonium economy foresaw an era of cheap energy that would ensue from using it.

by northanger on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 07:35:42 AM EST
Booman, you are right, I think, because the Sunday talking heads are starting to question whether Clinton can win without nuking the Democratic Party.

All Progressives need to become ardent supporters of the Second, as well as the , First Amendment
by phronesis (swwiener@gmail.com) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST
the Democratic Party. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind. If Hillary can't have it, then neither shall Obama. That is going to be their modus operandi. This will preserve another shot for her in 2012. The aggrandizement of John McCain by both Bill and Hillary is indicative of the tactics they'll employ to sabotage an Obama candidacy in the general election. Their shamelessness is not to be underestimated. Remember Bill's appearance on a Rush Limbaugh radio show. Though hosted by a substitute, it still appealed to the same audience. They did it before and will do it again. Dick Morris, a most repulsive character, was hired to help formulate a process of triangulation. No Democratic President with any integrity would have stooped to that level, yet here was BC availing himself of the services of a man who was adviser to some of the most right wing politicians of our time (Helms, Lott) How many times did he sell out his base: NAFTA,Telecommunications Act / Welfare Reform Act. After the whole Lewinsky fiasco, he could and should have gracefully resigned, admitting egregious errors in judgment and turning the scepter over to Al Gore. The tenacity displayed trying to stay in office during that whole endeavor is symptomatic of their priorities. The Democratic Party paid a steep price for this pyrrhic victory as we all have found out now. What a different world this would be had he done the right thing. But with this couple it's never about doing the right thing, but doing what is most opportunistic and advantageous to their own personal agenda. We've only seen the leading edge of the mudslide.
by Cabaret Voltaire on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
So...

If Hillary can't have it, then neither shall Obama.


Can't hear ya, Peach!
by AP on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure if that will work. The nuking may work, but I think this is her last time on the campaign trail for President. She'll be sixty-one by the general election. She's burned a shitload of bridges this election cycle. Even her money people will probably be looking for a younger candidate with less baggage in four years. The spell will be broken. It may be broken in the next month or so.

If I were an Obama strategist I'd attack her where she's seemingly strong. In reality Clinton is a fairly conservative Democrat and I think that a lot of feminists who presume Hillary is a fellow traveler. Obama needs to point out some of that legislation done with her Rethug prayer partners. The problem with the strategy is that it's not going to win Obama any votes in Pennsylvania and Obama's not the flaming liberal the MSM pretends he is. Still, there should be some effort made to undermine some of her true believers by pointing out Clinton's actual record. That would at least cushion them when the crash occurs and help them over to Obama.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And it would be a priceless spectacle to watch the right-wing howl in agony as she took her place on the court.

Priceless, indeed!  Oh, to see Scalia, Thomas, and a few others, the look on their face, when she looks them up and down and sits next to them.  Hilarious!!

by martini on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 04:33:33 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

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.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
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!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune