Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Favorite fallacies of the Clinton "wins the important states" argument: Dave Shaw

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 7:04pm.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Shaw

Fallacy 1: Clinton could win OH the same way she won it against Obama, by capturing the rural vote. Truth: those votes will be McCain's, which
leaves her with the cities, which Barack won. So who votes for Clinton
in Ohio?

Fallacy 2: Barack didn't beat Hillary in swing states. Wisconsin, Iowa,
Missouri, Colorado, etc. prove that wrong.

Fallacy 3: Some states that were blue last time aren't trending red and
are safe if Hillary is the nominee. There's Hawaii: poised to be red in
the fall, unless the native son runs.

Fallacy 4: Florida is a swing state. Florida now is actually a red
state, with the red apparatus in place, red rules, red voter
registration, and a red governor. The single smartest thing Democrats
can do in the fall is ignore Florida -- or make a show effort there that
forces McCain to splash out some cash. But Dems will NOT carry it.

Fallacy 5: Only Hillary can win the biggest true blue big states in the
Fall because she won them in the primary. Which of these big blues will
go to McCain: California, New York?

Fallacy 6: Hillary can turn out the vote to unseat a single traditionally
red state. Where? By contrast, Virginia, marginally red last time, looks
like a possible switch to blue with Barack at the top of the ticket. Even North Carolina and Georgia might be doable, but only if Clinton's
instant and automated GOP Get-Out-the-Vote isn't in play.

Fallacy 7: The candidates bring equal turnouts to the table. True -- but
not necessarily to the benefit of the Democratic Party. One candidate
brings new voters and motivated Democrats, the other brings termites out
of the woodwork to vote against her. One has crossover appeal without
Rush Limbaugh's help, the other doesn't. One can help downticket races,
the other drags down the ticket.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Dave Shaw




»

Her problem with this Independent is Trust.

Submitted by gjoh on Mon, 03/10/2008 - 11:34am.
Colleen, I'm an Independent that registered Democratic to vote for Obama. I would not have done this for Hillary. I have never given money to support a political candidate's campaign in my life but I give regularly to the Obama Campaign. I talk to people about Obama. I encourage them to vote for Obama. I can't name a single politician in the last 20 years that has made me feel like I can make a difference in my government. I don't agree with all of his policy proposals. What I like about him is that he is open to other ideas; to real CHANGE. HRC does not make me feel like that. There is no room in a HRC campaign or Administration for ideas other than those her EXPERIENCE in politics has taught her. Everybody who disagrees with her is naive; evidenced by her campaign's characterization of Obama supporters as "cultish". And while I despise the current administration, I would rather work to get a Democratic Majority in the House and the Senate than vote for HRC. Her problem is trust. I don't trust her as a voter to do what she actually says. I don't trust her to really get us out of Iraq. I don't trust her to do anything about NAFTA. I don't trust her to do anything about Healthcare that won't in some way be a better deal for the Insurance Companies who finance her. She doesn't LISTEN to us; she tells us what she is going to do. Obama opens the doors to our government and tells us to get involved; he can't do this without us. HRC says stand back let me show you what I can do. I want my government back and Obama says "Yes you can".
»

I'd agree with these rabid declarations

Submitted by Swift2 on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 2:11pm.
I would, if it was Edwards-Clinton left. Then there would actually be a candidate to the left of Clinton, and I'd hop on board. You've got Obama, most of whose domestic policies are to the right of Clinton, and yet the brainwashed Buzzers say that Obama's the radical new voice! His first, and very tactical endorsements were from people like Ben Nelson, for God's sake. When's the last time that Bush Dog Nelson supported anybody who was progressive? Ben Nelson, who's voted for Bush more often than anyone else, is now leading us out of the woods? As for the rest, the Obama wing of the party is using the most negative tactics in living memory. Not Obama, of course, but the Obama Army: the secret is very simple. They believe everything Ken Starr ever said. Were you asleep in the '90s, or out in the playground until recess was over? Everything they brought up, with the exception of Monica, was completely false or completely exaggerated. Nothing ever came out of that investigation at all. Hillary wins New Hampshire, and they say, "Racist! she's pretending to cry! and she's rigged the vote with Diebold, because she's a fascist!" They start talking about change versus experience, and that's racist. Don't ask me how. The Obama campaign combines the name-calling of the Politburo (Hillary's a Trotskite Wrecker!) with the policies of moderate Republicanism. And now his most rabid supporters want half the Democratic Party to disappear, because it doesn't please their hero.
»

Hillary is Bush?

Submitted by hpdonle on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 8:00am.
The Hillary defenders are as bad as the Bush defenders. Despite everything she has done and claimed, they continue to turn a blind eye and defend her at all costs. Hillary as much as endorsed John McCain with her comment that her and McCain bring experience and Obama only brings a speech. She has been a corporate shill for the entire 35 years of her claimed experience. She has consistently sold out America and the Democratic base her entire career, as did her husband. She divides the Democratic Party and without a united Party there is no chance of taking the White House nor increasing the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. A significant number of Democrats will either sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate if Clinton is the nominee, independents will vote for McCain in droves if Clinton is the nominee and Republicans will turn out in historic numbers to vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. If Democrats are bound and determined to turn the country over to the neo-fascist party that is today's Republicans then nominate Clinton, but when the America of the Constitution and laws disappears don't start your silly whining and crying.
»

Hillary bashing

Submitted by andyod on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 1:18am.
I have read all the headlines that you choose to print.Not even one nice thing about our democratic candidate. You will have the gall to ask us Hillary supporters to vote for your guy if he is nominated after this. Don't the Jews have a word for such gall? Are you conscious of the hypocrisy of your position as a Democrat hoping to win the White House?
»

Stop with the "our" candidate and "your" candidate

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 1:05pm.
Andyod - You are a supporter of Clinton's candidacy. Others support Obama. But the supporters don't own the candidates. And it would be hard for me to take seriously a partisan of one candidate who would refuse to vote for the other if (s)he is the candidate chosen by the Democratic Party in August. I can't understand why anyone who's not already a dyed-in-the-wool Republican - not a likely description of a buzzflash reader - would not vote for the Democratic candidate next fall. As for the "important states" argument, I'm totally with Dave Shaw. Even if 90% of the primary voters in a state, large or small, vote for one of the Dem candidates that has no relevance as to whether that state will go for the Republican or the Democrat in November. Does anyone really think that California, NY, and Massachusetts would go Republican if Obama's the candidate? And Illinois would go Republican if Clinton's the candidate? Let's all keep our powder dry. We'll need it in the fall to get a real change in the White House. The news today that Bush is going to veto!!!! a bill that would ban waterboarding. (McCain has sold his soul to the right wing and is on the President's side on this.) How low we have fallen. Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
»

Hillary

Submitted by jaydiamond on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:02pm.
Bottom Line. The poisonous nature of the ill will toward Hillary Clinton...the INTENSITY of that ill will, is a direct result of the disgusting GOP/TALK RADIO campaign of pure hate that targeted her about 17 years ago and which has never stopped. Hey....ALL politicians are very ambitious and very aggressive. To pretend that Hillary is any more so than Obama or Bush or Walter Mondale or Gary Hart or any of 'em is Baloney, plain and simple. She'd make a Zillion times better leader than bush in his most fevered fantasy. So would Obama, though he was sworn in as a Senator in 2005. It is time for the "Obama or Nobody" babies to cut the crap. Hillary is not Poison. Obama is not Poison. The GOP and the "conservative movement" ARE POISON. Think on that and stop devouring a highly intelligent and decent human being because the GOP smear machine wants you to. In other words: Grow Up.
»

huh?

Submitted by Buckywunder on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 3:28pm.
Where the f*ck were you during the eight years that Bill Clinton sold out progressives? Should we start listing everything you can remember? NAFTA, Telecom Bill 1996 (which *helped* create the GOP/Talk Radio climate you disdain), Lani Guinier (sold her down the river), Derek Shearer (caved on his nomination at first hint of GOP resistance), Monsanto GMO/bovine growth hormone allowed, harsher prison terms for crack over powder cocaine, blocked death penalty reform, "the end of welfare as we know it," "the era of big government is over," did NOT support Kyoto protocols, starved and bombed Iraqis for eight years leading to 500,000 deaths, Serb/Kosovo intervention was arguably a war crime, complete indifference and inaction in Rwanda, Orrin Hatch had veto power over Supreme Court nominees, never bothered to investigate crimes of Reagan/Bush years in the hope that GOP would be nicer to him (they were not), Marc Rich pardon which helped sink Al Gore in 2000, etc., etc., etc. Have you EVER considered the fact that the "intensity" of dislike toward the Clintons are from people who are VERY knowledgeable of each and every single thing they have done to help send this country into the ditch that it now finds itself in? People are sick and tired of Avis-DLC corporatist Democrats who are happy to take contributions to run the Democratic Party into the ground and keep them as a happy-to-be-here, #2 and lovin' it political party. Wake up.
»

obama is no more progressive than Hillary by any rational look

Submitted by slick willie on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 3:43pm.
this is why the "obama babies" annoy so many people. Obama delivers inspiring rhetoric but all tangible and rational evaluation of his policies and political history show that he is EXACTLY in the center EXACTLY like BOTH of the Clintons. The obama supporters positive "progressive" differentiation of obama from clinton is as purely a projection of their fantasies, in complete defiance of all the evidence, as is their absorbtion of the right wing hate campaign against the clintons now being regurgitated as "progressive". If these are the knowledgeable people we are in trouble.
»

um, no, not really

Submitted by Buckywunder on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 7:52pm.

"Tangible and rational evaluation of his policies and political history show that he is exactly in the center..."

No, actually Obama has accomplished more in two years in the Senate than Senator Clinton has done in eight. He passed ethics legislation. He also worked with Richard Lugar from Indiana, to prevent the spread of nuclear material around the world (Lugar has been very open and public with his respect for Obama in their work together). Dare I say that someone who exemplifies the democratic wing of the Democratic Party like Russell Feingold said that he voted for Obama during the Wisconsin primary and would probably support him (he did not commit yet at the time of his comments) as a superdelegate.

I think that you are the one projecting fantasies. Please provide evidence of any credible progressive legislative success accomplished by Senator Clinton. You also did not refute anything that the first Clinton administration did that went against progressive values while giving those who fought against his impeachment the middle finger.

BTW, you *do* realize that the nickname "Willie Slick" that Arkansans gave to Bill Clinton was for this very kind of parsing, muddying and manipulation of language? So you, in fact, are telegraphing your message and meaning.

»

Yeah except...

Submitted by VettaKing on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 5:21pm.
For that whole Iraq thing, Iran thing, cluster bomb thing, NAFTA thing... You may be annoyed but you are also terribly wrong. And you should be thanking the right wing hate machine. If it wasn't for the 8% of Rethugs that voted for Hillary in Texas at the behest of Rush Limbaugh she would be out of the race right now. Or maybe not, she does seem to be determined to either be the nominee or destroy the party/country if she's not.
»

it doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise

Submitted by slick willie on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 6:42pm.
obama and clinton are the same on policy. The wildly differing responses to them are emotional and cultural, not rational. I really don't care which of them is the nominee as long as they beat mccain, but it's not reassuring to see the process dominated by irrationality.
»

FISA, cluster bombs, bankruptcy bill: the cold hard facts

Submitted by Buckywunder on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 8:10pm.

Obama voted against telcom immunity just last month, Senator Clinton did *not* vote even though it was a highly publicized and public debate about civil and privacy rights at the heart of our Constitution and she was in the area campaigning.

Obama voted against cluster bombs, Senator Clinton voted for their continued use even though it has been proven that they harm children, seniors and non-combatants disproportionately -- both in Iraq AND throughout their use in the Middle East.

Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill, while that was yet *another* occasion where Senator Clinton did not cast a vote in a highly charged, important bill for consumers and people in the working and middle classes versus the banking and financial industries.

So right here you are incorrect. These are just three examples of very well-publicized votes that reflect the values of what the Democratic Party says that it stands for. And Obama clearly distinguished himself from Senator Clinton. There is no need for emotion to be able to recognize who stands where. I am looking at the cold hard facts. Are you?

»

you can pick and choose isolated votes all you like

Submitted by slick willie on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 8:38pm.
but it has no meaning unless there is an evaluation of the overall voting record and the candidates overall policy views over time. If this is done it is clear that Obama and Clinton are both centrists with comparable policy positions and likely policies.
»

Hillary

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 12:13pm.
"Favorite fallacies of the Clinton "wins the important states" argument:" by Dave Shaw. That's exactly what's she done!!!!!! And there's no denying it! I suppose you can't see it, because of the blinders you have on. Researching your little piece you must have come across these facts. Why did you not report them!!!!! Bias? You bet!!!! These are the "Real" facts if the Democrats want to win the General Election. Why the Media doesn't report this stuff is beyond me. And why the Obama supporters don't take the time to educate themselves, instead of Hillary Bashing, for the good of the party. And shame on you Buzzflash for not being fair & reporting this yourself. You used to have some fairness in your reporting. But you seem "hell bent" on losing the election for us Democrats. 11 core Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses, Obama has won 10: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana. In 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic nominee, lost each of these states by 15 points or more. We are not going to win these states folks!!!! ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today Hillary Clinton 263 Barack Obama 193 In other words, if this were NOVEMBER, Senator Clinton has won the States that would win more Electoral Votes than Obama against John McCain. And you want her to Quit!! You have to be kidding!!!
»

Electoral College

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 1:24pm.
Thomas M - You're not thinking logically. There's no evidence that Ohio and Texas, for example, would be more likely to vote Democratic in November if Clinton runs than if Obama does. And no way are New York and California going to get in a snit and vote for McCain over Obama, if he's the Democratic candidate. In the states that are a toss-up what will count will be the relative enthusiasm of the Democrats for their candidate, the Republicans for theirs (turnout)and whom the majority of the independents prefer. The primary results are irrelevant. Well, not exactly because disgruntled and disappointed partisans may be less likely to vote. Will Clinton, for example, be able to turn out as many younger voters and black voters as Obama has? And will blue collar white Democrats work as hard for Obama's election as they might for Clinton's? I would say the jury is out and almost none of the reams of paper and hundreds of hours of pundit analysis has seriously addressed these questions with real information and analysis of local level data. Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
»

Colleen

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 3:13pm.
Colleen Clark...............Finally a "breath of fresh air"! A Obama supporter who can disagree without "flaming" everyone that disagreeds. Thank you for that Colleen. But I still disagree to some extent with you. You are right when you say New York and California would probably not get out of being Blue States. But I would feel much more comfortable if Hillary was the ticket there. I also feel Hillary would have a much better chance in Ohio & Texas than Obama. you said....."disgruntled and disappointed partisans may be less likely to vote." That would be sad for the party. But with the fevor of the Obama supporters it could be possible. But let me give you one more thought that no one has brought up. If the women of this country ever backlashed because they thought Hillary was unfairly treated, you can throw this election away for the Democrats. If the women don't turn out for Obama the way they have for Hillary, we have a problem, a big one. That would be sad to, but possible. you said...."none of the reams of paper and hundreds of hours of pundit analysis has seriously addressed these questions with real information and analysis of local level data." That, I whole heartly agree with you!!! But my bottom line is that you cannot discount the National electoral votes of the States she has won. If we lose either California ( that McCain already said he is going after) or New York, we will not have a Democrat as President. I think Texas is in play for Hillary because of the Latino vote. But you are right, we need to be very careful & think hard on this one. Thomas, Kingsland ,Tx
»

Texas, Ohio, etc

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sat, 03/08/2008 - 5:13pm.
Thomas - You live in Texas, so surely have a better sense about it than I do. If you think Clinton would be a stronger candidate against McCain then of course you'd be supporting Clinton. The state is larger and more diverse than many countries. Still, a detailed analysis of who voted where could be informative. One question is how many Republicans, those who would never vote Democratic, took Rush Limbaugh's suggestion and voted for Clinton? On disgruntled voters - I worry about losing the young Obama enthusiasts who might just stay home, not yet being committed to the political process. Again, some good reporting and analysis could help us out here. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter although I fall right into the prime Clinton demographic. There are a lot of women Obama supporters in several states in my family from my 17 yo granddaughter who won't be 18 by Nov, to my daughter and daughter-in-law, niece, cousins, even my daughter's middle of the road Republican mother-in-law who voted for Obama at a caucus in Grinnell IA. I certainly will vote for Clinton (we all will) if she's the candidate, and maybe even leave my home on the east coast and go camp out in Ohio as I did in 2004. But here are my reservations about Clinton - Iraq war vote, Oct. 2002. I happened to hear her speak before she voted and was really disappointed. It was politically safe but not courageous or maybe she really thought the war would be not too bad. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton - we need some fresh air. She talks a lot about "I." "I have a plan, I have a policy, I will work hard for you etc." I don't doubt her sincerity, but where's the "we"? I'm at best ambivalent about the ruthlessness of her campaign, her (and Bill's) willingness to go right up to, and even over, the edge of acceptable rhetoric and fair challenges to Obama. And what's with her giving ammunition to McCain by saying she, like he, is prepared to be commander in chief? Well, politics is not a pretty business. One doesn't want to look under the LBJ hood but on the domestic side he accomplished a lot. Too bad about Vietnam. Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
»

War vote

Submitted by Thomas M on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 4:03pm.
Colleen.......You guys really need to get over the War vote by Clinton. Mr.Obama made a speech in 2002 against the war. I commend him for that. But he was not in the U.S. Senate & being fed misinformation by the Bush admistration. There were 77 out of 100 senators that voted yes on that vote. And why do you Obama supporters not recognize that he said (after being elected to the Senate) that he doesn't know how he would have voted. And, also said that his position on the war was not much different than George Bushs! And how do you explain he has voted the same way as Clinton has on every war issue? And why does everybody think it was a absolute "war" vote. It was not! You need to look up the wording for yourself & see that it stipulated only after all Diplomacy & Inspections failed, would consideration for war be approved. George Bush & Cheney violated that agreement. No one would ever think that our President & VP would lie to Congress. But that's what they did!! So the blame lies on this Admistration, not Congress! We need to put the blame where it Lies! you said...."I'm at best ambivalent about the ruthlessness of her campaign, her (and Bill's) willingness to go right up to, and even over, the edge of acceptable rhetoric and fair challenges to Obama." This sounds like you are believing the "media" hype! Everything the Clintons do & say is twisted & projected by the Media as "Dirty Politics". Go on utube & listen to what Bill Clinton said about his fairy tale comment. He didn't say Obamas campaign was a fairy tale, he was talking about his Rhetoric about the War. In fact he praised Obama's campaign. And in so many words said he was a fine candidate. Hillary's comment about LBJ. She didn't demean MLK, she was just pointing out it took a Democratic President to help get Legislation passed. It was Obama's campaign that jumped on that & twisted it with the help of the Media. Do you know what Tim Russert had in his hand at the Ohio debate that he asked Obama about? It was 4 pages of memo's to his campaign workers playing the race card. To try & ruin Bill Clinton's reputation with the Black people, after years of total support for them, is more like "Dirty Polictics" to me. But I am not going to convince you or any other Obama supporter unless they are willing to keep a open mind about what's going on. Both sides of any issue has to be explored before trying to make a reasonable decision. You guys have a "movement" going on framed by Obama. And that's OK if you are responsible enough to examine both sides of every issue. But to swoon, shout & cheer when he blows his nose is a scary thing to me. Last thought, here in Texas they have said Limbaugh's cross over vote was nonexistent. I have enjoyed talking to you. You have been congenial & not resorted to "flame" tactics when we have disagreed. That is a big Plus for you to me. A lot of Obama supporters could take a lesson from you.
»

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sun, 03/09/2008 - 6:58pm.

That is the full and official title of the resolution. There's nothing ambiguous there.
Here's a link to the full text from Wikipedia. It's 4 plus pages long.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf.
2 pages of Whereas
then Section 1 is the title
Section 2 is "Support for Diplomatic Efforts"
2 parts, 7 lines, supporting the President's efforts at the UN Security Council
(Congressional approval, of course, not necessary for this.)
Section 3 is "Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces"
President is authorized to use armed forces as he deems necessary to...
"1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq and
2.enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

I'm not the only one to have understood that as a blank check for the President to do whatever he wanted.[Bob Woodward, "Plan of Attack" p 204.]
There was a 92 page NIE of which, apparently, very few in Congress read more than the 5 page summary, including, according to Thomas Ricks ["Fiasco" p 61] President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.

None of this says, of course, what Obama would have done had he had to vote then. But since I was appalled at the time, listening to Clinton and then hearing her vote, I feel firm in my opinion that her vote was a mistake and that she was in a position to have even more information about the flimsiness of the pretext for war than I was.

I don't agree with your characterization of Cheney and Bush violating the agreement in the resolution. They were dishonest about their intentions, but if I smelled al ot of rats why didn't the Congress??

As for the other comments about Hillary and Bill and Tim Russert, you're going far beyond what I said.

Clinton campaign ruthlessness - I was one of those offended by Bill Clinton's remarks before the South Carolina primary to the effect that since Jesse Jackson had carried SC, no one should be surprised that Obama might also. I know not everyone, even blacks, perceive that as a racist remark but that's how it came across to me. More recently H Clinton came up with a ridiculous charge of "plagiarism," the 3 am ringing telephone ad is fear-mongering (haven't we had enough of that for the last 6 years?), and then she said that she and McCain were the only 2 candidates ready to be "Commander in Chief." Not only is it nuts to compare a candidate in your own party unfavorably with the one in the other party, but I will say I'm sick of the whole war-mongering talk about "Commander in Chief." She didn't start that for sure, but I bridle when I hear it and in my view it's too close to the edge.

All that being said, Clinton is so far superior to John McCain that any Obama partisan who says (s)he won't vote for her has his/her head wedged, and worse.

Re Limbaugh and the Texas vote - I raised it as a question. I have no idea if there's any substance to it at all. In any case, when cross-over voting is permitted there's nothing unfair about trying to put a dent in the other side.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

»