Every time one thinks the Clinton campaign has plumbed the ultimate and final depths of depraved indifference to progress, along comes another story dispelling the hope that it has indeed bottomed out.
In just the last 48 hours or so, we first witnessed Hillary's reintroduction of the passing, near-past preacher controversy, lest voters begin to miss the sight, sound and smell of sniper fire in the morning. But then, on the heels of that came another story from the Washington Post that confirmed the utter absence of fair play and honorable boundaries at Clinton HQ. To wit ...
Barack Obama, as we know, "offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country's problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated." Sounds like a smart political tack, as well as an overdue approach to busting ideological gridlock in the pursuit of sound public policy. John McCain, on the other hand, has "already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, 'a down-the-line liberal.'" Well that was expected, because that, after all, is his job.
But then came the kicker: Hillary Clinton's "campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past." Said Clinton-sniper Mark Penn: "The evidence is that the more [voters] have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking."
That would be the coalition that will be facing John McCain's coalition in the general. Obama's "ability to appeal to independents and even Republicans has been one of his main attractions for Democrats eager to retake the White House, and a cause for concern among some GOP leaders" -- a concern that is now easing with their every she-said-what? smile.
Republican leaders never dreamed their best ally would be a Democratic "liberal" denouncing as unacceptably liberal the party's presumptive nominee. It wasn't enough to smear Obama as an unfit commander in chief; now he's painted pink, to boot.
Those out-of-touch, island-stranded Japanese soldiers had a better chance of defeating the combined Allied Forces in 1946 than Mrs. Clinton stands against Obama. Only because he can't in his wildest dreams imagine a more appetizing opponent, paleoconservatism's Pat Buchanan still propagandistically puts her chances at about 20 percent. The New York Times' David Brooks recently put them at five, and the balance of political observers who can add puts them at a nano-fraction above zero. Last night on "Countdown," for instance, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter described Hillary's campaign as one in its "death throes."
Yet Hillary keeps whipping up the blind zeal of her scattered troops. Get out there and vote and agitate against the unfit pinko and we'll see where things stand "in three months."
If a week is a lifetime in politics, then in three months the Democratic Party will have long since entered the afterlife. It will be but the ghostly outline of what it was when Obama numerically nailed down the nomination last month.
And there's proof, or at least a leading indicator. According to Gallup, "Twenty-eight percent of [Hillary's supporters] indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee — and Obama is — they would support McCain." True, "it is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through" on that threat, because they may be speaking only out of a heated passion that will pass.
"Still," as Gallup goes on to observe, "when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election."
Denver in August? By then the Democratic Party will resemble Nagasaki, same month, 1945. Even by June, the situation will seem like Midway. Forced peace negotiations are the only answer -- now.
If Hillary differed dramatically from Obama in policy solutions to the gargantuan problems we face after more than seven years of George W. Bush's catastrophic stewardship, then one could understand and even sympathize with a principled resistance. But there is no such dramatic difference. Her rearguard actions are merely the stuff of Clinton ego, Bush stubbornness and Hirohito fantasy. And with profoundly predictable consequences -- another four years of Wild West foreign policy and Gilded Age fiscal management.
There is increasing talk of some sort of "superdelegate primary" in June. The responsible ones won't wait. They'll announce their inexorable intentions now and force this pointless, suicidal war to an end.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
From Carpenter's mouth to Casey's ear
"The responsible ones won't wait," P.M. Carpenter writes.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania apparently agrees.
Despite the fact that Sen. Casey adamantly stated that he would remain neutral until after the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, the Senator just declared his endorsement of Barack Obama.
He did so, he said, to help "unify the party." Which is the polite term for stopping Hillary Clinton's dangerous tantrums that threaten the Democratic party's survival.
I guess that's why so many of us read P.M.'s column. He usually gets it right.
BTW, this gain of one superdelegate may be offset by the yesterday's indictment of Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, the governor of Puerto Rico and a superdelegate who supports Obama. I'm not sure if he will be forced to resign between now and the convention, but his vote now looks shaky. In any case, Obama will not likely use him to campaign for the Puerto Rico primary.
A Plea
28%
Not Sure They Mean It
Liberals
“If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I'm proud to say I'm a ‘Liberal’." ---JFK, 14 September 1960
Proud Liberal
Obama Is Perceived As A Threat To The Powers That Be
That's Entirely It..........
You hit the nail dead on the head. As long as this was just an exercise that Hillary had to endure enroute to her 'inevitable' coronation---it was OK; but then, these dang 'primary voters' up and went populist on them. Now, its gotten serious. (First, one damn group will want freedom--and before you know it --THEY'LL ALL BE WANTING IT!). John Edwards had to be minimalized (and ignored), because it was assumed early on that he was the biggest, most logical threat, especially with his populist message. This is what they fear the most: a grass-roots movement of the 'commoners'. So they eventually phased him out (after the Iowa scare). But, out of the nethers comes this 'new horseman', and there was no attack-plan for him, so one had to be devised quickly. If you remember, early attempts to marginalize him were ludicrous (the kindergarten report card, for example), and they all were in a quandry. Obama deflected one attack after another. Now, the heavy-weights have come out of the shadows---its time to put this 'boy' ---in his place!
Remember, AIPAC (and others) had already declared, they have Hillary "in their pocket". But,so do many more in all the old, established groups that Obama is speaking against. Hillary (and McCain) represents 'business as usual'--this cannot be understated. This is starting to scare them. There are big initiatives and profits that are threatened by this 'grass-roots' upheaval. Even more importantly, the very 'future' they have envisioned for all of us could very well evade them now without the proper rep in place. Obama threatens to stir the masses from their long-time slumber. They have seen the new enthusiasm he brings, the 'new' money sources (replacing them), even, the new way this 'game' is being played by Obama. it does not portend good things for them. They want to see a return on their investments in Hillary, so shes forced, by whatever means, to give them some 'bang' for their bucks! They call the shots--so party be damned! To these people, the 'partys' have always been no more than mere 'vehicles' to get to a desired position. However, I think they're getting a little antsy, by imploring their will in such an open manner as a written letter to Pelosi.
Case in point, I wrote the other day, thats its becoming obvious to most that behind the scenes Pelosi is supporting Obama (as are many others behind the scenes). Now you have big-monied 'supporters' of Hillary now trying to flex their 'muscle' with extortion-like tactics. This has been going on for some time now with the super-delegates. Which helps to explain their fearful lethargy. They are being pummeled. But Bill's under pressure, so screw them!
You have to understand, the repugs have been fortifying the Presidency under Cheneys warped philosophy of 'the Unitary presidency', that is, a coalescing of power within the presidency instead of a constitutionally based division of powers. They simply CAN'T afford to lose it all now to the Democrats (or anyone else), or more importantly, have all the new-found powers actually IMPLEMENTED against them.
You may ask, what does this have to do with Hillary? Simple. She HAS ALWAYS been one of them (Repugs)---in disguise. She started as a Repug, and if you've been reading askolnicks posts she is part of a fascist Repug cabal now. This helps to explain many of the treacheries she has demonstrated in the last few months.
Also, the ramped-up, increased attacks on Obama by the MSM, under the guise of crap like 'the Rev. Wright's sad saga just continues to follow Obama...." Of course! They're helping Hillary push it along as often as they can! The word has come down to tarnish this guy any way they can!
Given Obama's potential power bestowed on the presidency (ironically, as Bush's legacy), plus, the NEW well-endowed, monied grass-roots movement that he will implement...will eventually eliminate, alter, or control the excesses of the oil, auto, insurance, health-care industries, Lobbyists and others--he poses a formidable threat. This is why, I believe, he keeps beseeching US TO HELP HIM do this. He will NOT be able to pull it off without us.
Fortunately, (if polls are to be believed) he does seem to be surviving Hillarys (and MSM's) spurilous attacks, this seems to indicate that the electorate is a lot more savvy than the media would give them credit for; but, there is such a LONG way to go. its twilight in America folks.
A Cuckoo in the Nest
New Names
That's crap
Pure crap vesus reality
Same Difference
You're nothing but a cult!
Facts? Facts?
As RobertJones would likely say, you're nothing but a cult. All you Obama-freaks do is drink Kool-Aide laced with facts. Facts, facts, facts, that's all you ever spew.
Well, we're sick of it. Enough with facts. We don't elect Presidents with facts. We elect them by dressing them up in crotched-stuffed flight suits to declare "Mission Accomplished," or with tall tales of their bravery ducking sniper bullets on their missions to save the world.
Get with it, man.
As usual
As usual RobertJones supplies the crap.
That Gallup poll and most other polls show Obama continues to be the preferred candidate over both Clinton and McCain. Of course there are some fluctuations over time. But in most polls since the first primary, Obama has been ahead of Clinton and McCain.
BTW, that Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans who strongly dislike Clinton is close to a majority, and is growing as she slings her slime and tells whopping lies that earn "Four Pinocchio" ratings from the Washington Post.
Most polls
A liar as well as dumb
Actually, yesterday's Gallup Poll shows no such thing!
Yesterday's tracking poll shows Obama is WAY AHEAD of Clinton -- 55% to 36% - that's a 19 point lead!
The three day tracking poll gives Obama an 8 pt. lead with 50% to 42%.
Obama's burying Clinton. Or perhaps Clinton is burying herself with her tall tales of heroism and peace making in 80 nations throughout the world.
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=196&topic_id=11176
On top of that, the latest scuttlebutt says Hillary's campaign is out of money and she doesn't want to tap any more into the personal riches she and Bill have been piling up.
Dumb as a bag of right-wing door nobs
Right, Obama. Finally you got something right. Obama is ahead in all measures that count.
He's so far ahead in the number of delegates, Hillary has no chance of catching up.
He's so far ahead in popular votes, Hillary, has no realistic chance of catching up.
He's so far ahead in the number of primaries and caucuses won, it is impossible for Hillary to catch up (Obama won 2/3rds of the contests.)
Hillary's campaign account is in the red while Obama is rolling in dough. What's even more important, most of his campaign money came from more than 2 million Americans who made small contributions.
The only "polls" that count are primaries, caucuses and elections.
No matter what happens in the remaining contests, according to an overwhelming consensus, Obama has won the Democratic nomination. We're just waiting for Hillary to stop throwing tantrums so that we can move on to take back the White House and give it a long-overdue fumigation.
Watch what Obama will do with this
You're right!
Gallup poll
Remember, everyone gets to vote in the General Election -- even Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. The winner is decided by the Electoral College and each state is winner take all. See my post below [End Democracy Now] about how great it would be to short-circuit the primary campaign and just let the media and the super delegates pick the winner. Obama is ahead by 167 delegates and there are still more than 650 delegates yet to be chosen.
Will you be happy even if the super delegates don't pick your choice? I live in New Mexico -- a state that was won by Hillary. Yet, our governor, Bill Richardson has endorsed Obama. How does that sit with the contention that the super delegates should express the "will of the voters"? Or are they only supposed to express YOUR will.
No you blithering idiot...
No you blithering idiot, Obama has NOT "already lost the only state that McGovern won." No one in the right mind would claim that Obama cannot win Massachusetts in any general election against McCain, unless they're lying through their teeth.
When it comes to deep blue state like Massachusetts, even a dead Democratic candidate would defeat any living Republican Presidential nominee!
(Hey, don't laugh. In 2000, a dead Democratic candidate defeated the INCUMBENT John Ashcroft in the Missouri Senate race! Proving again that a dead person is less a menace than a living Republican.)
And nice try with your latest obfuscation. While Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama was not consistent with the majority of voters in New Mexico, it was consistent with the majority of American voters.
Is Richardson wrong for choosing to endorse Obama, who received 13.4 million votes nationwide compared with the 12.6 million Clinton received? Or should he have based his endorsement on Clinton getting 73,105 votes in New Mexico, compared with 71,396 for Obama - less than 2000 more?
Richardson did the right thing in choosing to support the will of more than 13 million voters across America rather than just 73 thousand in New Mexico.
RobertJones, your logic is as twisted as it is transparent. That's the typical sign of a troll.
Pole Vaulting
False argument?
How not to wrestle victory from defeat
No vote is constrained
The first few items in your list of guidance for super delegates are true ... then you just can't resist putting in a dig at the end. I pity you for your closed mind. You sound like a Republican.
BTW, if Obama had been in the Senate at the time (which he was not) do you think his mentor, Joe Lieberman would have advised him to vote against the resolution? That is a false assumption, my friend. Try to make real arguments. I know it is hard when you are consumed by the Obama cult. But please try.
Say good night Gracie...
HRC - Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Mudslinging
What are you fighting for?
Come together
He supports the Vitriol Candidate
RobertJones says, "It does the Democrats no good to be second-guessing and spewing vitriol for or against either candidate until then."
And this is the guy that defends Hillary Clinton, who has already spewed an ocean of vitriol against Sen. Obama.
True colors _and_ propaganda
Bill "doesn't give a rip"
Hear, Hear!!
you wrote:
"we finally are offered a presidential candidate willing and capable of explicitly setting aside the clap-trap and discussing real issues with the American people. Why, when presented with such an option, would anyone in a purportedly "progressive" party opt for the tired disingenuity and banal self-interest exhibited by the Clintons?"
Because, I believe, Ken, that several of the posters on here (for example, robertjones) are not really progressives at all, they are merely here to engage in disruption---very much like their pompous, vacuous leader, Limbaugh, has instructed them too.
For the very reason you stated above, it is IMPERATIVE that they come over here posing as Hillary-backers---to give themselves access, acceptance and credibility---as "Progressives"............yeah,....sure.
Duct-Taped Glass House...
End democracy now
Democracy cannot survive giving the voters input into the process. Choosing the nominee should be done by media pundits and party super delegates -- not by voters. Let's end this now and have the super delegates make our decision for us -- preferably in secret (unless there is some chance that they won't select the candidate that I like.)
I, for one, could never vote for any candidate that has ever read the Wall Street Journal or maintained a bank account in a multi-state National Bank. We have to have some kind of standards here.
Boorish......
Ya know, your attempts at irony and/or sarcasm are.....lacking. You can cite all the upcoming primaries you want, and the number of delegates assigned to each, but the soundness of your sarcastic 'logic' lies not in the future----but in the past.
Had this primary been contested with ANYBODY else who's last name didn't happen to be CLINTON----and they lost 11 contests in a row, and 13 out of the last 15,---and lied, and cheated, and smeared, at every turn------you'd have been crying 'foul' long time ago.
You sound just like Hillarys desperate ploys of trying to find ANY yardstick that helps her mathematically (you're saying: now, lets just run out the string--and see what happens with the voters; party be damned!--yeah, sure. I feel your democratic concern). Assuming thats really the issue with you, I, for one, could never call 'co-progressive'--anyone who looks pass the math, and the despicable tactics used by her on a fellow progressive.
Math aside----'cause thats a done deal; its about decency, and purpose, and....yes, even class. Seeing how her lack of these little things doesn't seem to bother you, its no small wonder you support her.................... We have to have some kind of standards here. (no sarcasm intended)
Two....
Try to follow along
Robertjones, this has been explained many times, but you're just not following.
Everyone knows there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to catch up and pass Obama in the delegate count.
And everyone knows, according to the rules of the Democratic Party, the candidate who wins the highest number of delegates will be the Democratic Presidential nominee.
Everyone also knows that when all the contests are over, neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged delegates to reach the 2024 number needed to win the nomination -- without support from a majority of the superdelegates.
Therefore, everyone now knows that the superdelegates are going to decide whether Obama or Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.
The only question left is whether superdelegates make their decision based on the will of the voters or on the will of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
So stop your lies and obfuscations. Nobody on Buzzflash is arguing against the right of voters to decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Indeed, as progressives, we here are asking the superdelegates not to take that right away from the voters.
We want the superdelegates to pledge their support for the candidate that has the most delegates when the last primary is over in June. And we want them to make that pledge right now, before the Clintons do any further damage to the Democratic party.
By pledging to support the will of the voters, superdelegates can stop the Clintons' rampage. They would be telling the Clintons that they won't be blackmailed, that they will support the candidate who wins the most delegates -- not the fewest, as the Clintons are demanding.
Hillary knows she will wind up with the losing share of delegates when all the contests are over in June. That's why she's playing the only card she has left.
She's demanding that the superdelegates ignore the will of the voters and support her or she and Bill will tear the Democratic house down and ruin its chance of retaking the White House and winning many more seats in Congress.
The only way to stop these thugs is get a majority of superdelegates to pledge their support only to the candidate who wins the most delegates. And we need them to make that pledge NOW to stop the Clintons from destroying our party.
We'll need to reform our primary process before 2012
Excuses don't excuse her poor performance
It really needed to be said....
Fnygy----you have tapped into the one area that has, frankly, been rather puzzling to me, too. I did not start from the get-go with INSTANT acceptance and (according to some here) adoration for Obama. He EARNED them, or rather, at the same time, she BLEW them. I intended to study them both in great detail (despite what I already knew about her) before absolutely deciding on either of them. But, it didn't take long to see the inherent flaws in her camp (and her personality).
I'm not even talking about all the foul, devious, treacherous tactics she has employed, I was persuaded, at first, by the PRECISION of his camp compared to hers. He has handled his ground forces better than she; he has a better-run organization than she; he has nmaintained the 'high-road' far better than she; he has remained cool and calm under duress far better than she; and finally, he has been FAR superior in accrueing and handling his finances than she. These items, to me, are indicative of the kind of administration he'd most likely run.
Yet, like you, all I see is her supporters arguing that shes beset upon by us (and the imaginary media)! They cannot or will not accept the fact, that from the beginning--she has used every despicable trick some candidates employ that turns off men and women alike. If we all SIMPLY focused on what her camp has done----we wouldn't be arguing among ourselves as much as we have. It would be far more compatible here if they concretely looked at how her camp is conducting their business..... as we speak.
They Remember the 90s
I'm done
Re:How low can they go?
The latest buzz
I understand the Clinton campaign has asked a Photoshop artist to create a photograph of Obama in bed with both a dead white girl and a live white boy. "No sense in going half way," Hillary told her. "From now on we throw the toilet along with the kitchen sink."
You know the truly disgusting thing about the absolute bottom? No human being has ever actually reached it -- not Hitler, not Stalin, not Vlad the Impaler.
So there's plenty of room left for the Clinton campaign to descend. Hell, they're still at least a couple levels above Karl Rove's lowest.