"Clinton Supporters: The Global Warming Deniers of Democratic Politics?"

As the listing becomes more noticeable and waves begin to wash over the lower decks, a chilling realization is dawning on passengers and crew of the SS Hillary Rodham Clinton: that the iceberg wasn't some passing irritation but a lethal wound, and that their great ship is foundering in the unmarked darkness of the seas.

Something curious is going on, however. As the first-class passengers head for the lifeboats, deep in the bowels of the ship, someone is rat-tat-tatting on the Morse machine that everything is fine, even as icy water gurgles under the door.

Cenk Uygur takes a look, and diagnoses Hillary Clinton Supporters -- The Global Warming Deniers of Democratic Politics?

More >>>

Hillary Clinton supporters seem to have become the equivalent of global warming deniers in Democratic politics. If facts don't suit your argument, insist on the opposite. And even more importantly, insist that your non-facts get at least 50% of the coverage.

The Clinton team is now trying to make the specious argument that she is winning in the popular vote. The first problem with that argument is that it's not true. Obama still leads by over 500,000 votes. The second problem is that they try to include states like Michigan and Florida where all sides agreed not to campaign or have their delegates counted. Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on these states is even more absurd given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

Brief aside: Nobody buys the "It's his own fault that he took his name off the ballot" tripe. You can't ask to have a DNC decision you supported overturned, solely to your own benefit, and then add to that the demand that your opponent, the one who went a step further to honor that DNC decision, be penalized for it by losing the race.

But the more fundamental problem with this popular vote argument is that it is the wrong metric. Nobody ever said they were running a campaign for more popular votes. If those were the ground rules, no one would have spent any time in Iowa or New Hampshire. Obama and the others would have been campaigning in California for six months to a year instead of those first primary and caucus states.

This is like saying we're counting only touchdowns in the middle of a basketball game. Well if I knew that was the game we were playing I would have put on a helmet and tackled you a long time ago. Why did I bother scoring all these baskets?

Look, this is absurd. Why is anyone humoring these arguments? Why do we have to cover Hillary Clinton's side as if it has as much validity as Obama's? This isn't about who is the better candidate; this is about facts and reality. She can claim to be better on healthcare, but she can't claim to have a lead in this race. One is subjective, the other is objective.

Attention: here's the key paragraph.

None of her arguments make any sense: She wins the big states - congratulations, go run for president in a country where there are only big states. The popular vote is now the relevant metric in this election - then you're disenfranchising all of the caucus states and changing the rules in the middle of the game. Obama is not electable - really, then why is he kicking your ass in this election?

I love the audacity of someone who is losing to another candidate claiming that candidate is not electable. So, what does that make you?

Yup. Simple observation: Obama runs better in open primaries. Which scenario is closer to a general election: a closed primary like Pennsylvania, or an open primary like Virginia? Who's electable here: the guy who can reach out and win over independents, or the woman who can't capture demographics outside the traditional Democratic base? Chew on that, if you will; but back to Cenk.

You might love Hillary Clinton, you might think she would make a great president and you might even have concerns about her opponent. You have a right to think all these things, but you don't have a right to your own math. Two plus two still equals four and Hillary's team shouldn't get equal time for claiming it equals five for her but only three for Barack.

We have got to stop treating these math deniers as if they have any legitimacy or credibility. They are spinning for their side and the tales they are spinning are comically wrong. And as always, the media is falling prey to the idea that every side of an argument must be presented equally rather than what the facts merit.

Uygur is right. Discourse in a Democratic primary should be at least marginally tethered to observable facts. No, Hillary doesn't get to be the nominee because she polled more votes among registered Democrats - we have open primaries for a reason, and she knew about them. No, Hillary doesn't receive the top spot because she comes close enough to Obama counting un-democratic contests like Michigan that she can then proceed to ask super-delegates to overturn his majority. No, you don't get to claim a popular-vote margin by disenfranchising caucus states and then demanding Michigan count. You don't get a pony - not yours.

And so on and so forth.

To the people making these arguments, from the campaign on down, here's a hint: everyone understands that you need to make them. But if you think that the one remaining audience of any value to you, the super-delegates, lives in your fantasy world, the one where you can massage facts and numbers until they can come out just right, you're kidding yourselves.

The only thing that's happening is that people are taking offense at being thought dim enough to buy your arguments. You are losing. Fine, there's still a tiny chance that you can pull it out, that's entirely accurate. But don't insult the collective intelligence of the nation by pretending that you're actually not losing, but winning.

People are not naturally stupid enough to buy all of this unless they want to believe it. And guess what, dear Clinton campaign and affiliated mongers of talking points, if someone believes this, they're already on your side.

Tags: Alternate Realities, denial, Hillary Clinton, RMS Titanic, Victimization (all tags)




for being freaking reality-based.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips
good one MB. I cannot Rec this diary or tip you (due to my priveleges being stripped away)...

All I can offer is a big "HUZZAH!"

by power of truth 2008-04-26 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips
You state:  "people aren't...stupid..."  Well, one would have to be to accept your premise and Obama spin.  Many factors for Supers to consider, who will ultimately decide the nominee:
  1.  Pledged delegate count
  2.  Polular vote
  3.  States won
  4.  Electoral College map
  5.  Demographics
Among other criteria, it's all on the table.  Spin to suggest otherwise is just spin.
by ChitownDenny 2008-04-26 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

Gee, I think you just called all of us idiots if we agree with the diarist. Troll-rated for that; if you clarify or apologize, I'd be happy to remove it.

Interesting, however, that Obama has winning arguments and positions in all the criteria you listed.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

I never called you idiots.  But I am now.  And troll rated back at ya!

by ChitownDenny 2008-04-26 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

You state:  "people aren't...stupid..."  Well, one would have to be to accept your premise and Obama spin.

Except now you've broken the site user guidelines, and I have not. I offered a chance for you to explain yourself, and I'd change the rate. Instead, you retaliated and troll-rated me. Which, again, besides being against the rules you agreed upon to be a part of our community, is juvenile in the least.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

You clearly state you are uncertaing as to my intent.  And you troll rate.  That is idiocy.

by ChitownDenny 2008-04-26 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

So I offered to uprate you if you explained it/apologized. What's to wonder?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

Interesting you also ignored my comment about Obama leading those criterion, and rightly so, I suppose.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

waste...of...time  even typing this to respond to you.

by ChitownDenny 2008-04-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
That's a lot of

top-of-thread comments for a waste of time, friend.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: "Clinton Supporters:

since you do realize the SD's will the final factor in deciding the nominee, I would think that the Obama supporters are the deniers of democratic politics.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-26 07:07AM | 0 recs
The SDs

are not going to overturn the leader in pledged delegates. They've been very clear on that - google Pelosi Club.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The SDs

Pelosi doesn't control the SD's.  No one knows what they will do.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-26 07:20AM | 0 recs
Absolutely correct.

Nobody controls the SDs. But we know from various public statements that the idea of their overturning the pledged delegate lead is very unlikely at best.

I mean, what's the point of having an election if it gets nullified?

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely correct.

again, you accused clinton supporters deniers of democratic politics.  You know why SD's are in place and yes, that is one of the reasons - to nullified it if (and that is a big IF) they feel the person is unelectable.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-26 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely correct.


That's Clintons bar:  She has to prove to 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates that Barack Obama is "unelectable."

That's the bar for overturning the pledged delegates leader.

So has all the attacks from her done that?

Clearly not.

by bawbie 2008-04-26 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely correct.

Although I don't think the superdelegates will overturn the delegate leader, even if they DO think he's unelectable (because if he loses, they will at least have some political cover), I would disagree with your statement:

"prove to the 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates"

All superdelegates can change their mind at any time and switch over to either candidate.  No matter who they are supporting now - they can change their mind at any time (and as much as they want) up until the convention.  So any argument Clinton or Obama makes is for EVERY superdelegate, not just the undecideds.

by AnnC 2008-04-26 12:13PM | 0 recs

Except as, as I pointed out, the only electability case to be made is against Hillary Clinton. He would need to melt down, and he's not going to.

It's preposterous for someone who's losing to make the case that the guy she's losing against is going to do worse than her.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

It's not preposterous at all.  It's not all inconceivable that the prevailing candidate in  party primary is actually a weaker candidate in the general election.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
You're right.

It's not inconceivable; in fact, we had a mayoral election in NYC in 2005 where that scenario played out. Briefly, a Bronx machine hack whose "turn had come" won the primary, just barely, with the full support of the Democratic machine against a scrappy underdog, an outer-borough Congressman with crossover appeal.

The winner got crushed in the general. But in that scenario, it's the insider candidate who was the problem, not the scrappy outsider.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right.

scrappy outsider??!!??

and you call Hillary supporters deniers?  lol

by colebiancardi 2008-04-26 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right.

Oh, what were we thinking? That's right. Hillary Clinton is the scrappy outsider.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right.

did I disagree that Hillary is an insider?  no.

but to state that Obama, cherry-picked by Kerry in 2004 to speak at the convention, is a scrapper outsider is absurd.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-26 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right.

I have not seen one post from reakage that did not include at least one strawman and/or other fallacy

by zerosumgame 2008-04-26 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

weaker candidate != unelectable

Obama can win in November.  You can believe he will have a harder time than Hillary but that doesn't mean he is unelectable.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-26 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely correct.

The idea that Obama is unelectable is ridiculous.  As a result, the SD's don't need to overturn the will of the primary/caucus voters.

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-26 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely correct.
The "unelectable" argument is made in this diary.

If Obama is unelectable (while kicking Hillary's ass), then what does that make Hillary?

The SD's are not going to buy into the 'popular vote' argument, especially if Hillary is behind in that metric...

by power of truth 2008-04-26 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The SDs

LoL. It's a great laugh when someone talks about people on whom they have no control but ready to pass orders for them. Well if SDs are not going to overturn the leader in pledged delegates, then why they havent yet endorsed Obama and stopped this "so called negative" campaign? I thought it's over. I thought Obama is the nominee because he leads the pledged delegates count. But he still goes out and wastes millions on something which is already his?

Some people are in denial of reality. Good to see how people cope with PA defeat - be graceful or disgrace large swaths of Democratic voters who adore Hillary. Choice is simple.

by Sandeep 2008-04-26 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The SDs

Hmmm. Well, I'd think these are less orders than suggestions on what they'll do, and I'd wager they are 100% accurate.

Tell you what- if I'm wrong, I'll buy you a coke; and I'm right, I'll rec your diary admitting as much. 'kay?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 10:58AM | 0 recs
I keep on hearing

the "why haven't the supers come out yet" shtick, so here's the answer: the fact is that they are coming out, and that there will be a declaration of support when the last votes have been cast. To do otherwise would insult the remaining voters. If you consider the invigorating effects to the state parties of all the activism in this primary - when is the last time a place like Indiana or North Carolina has gotten saturation advertising from Democrats? - your question becomes obvious as the strawman it is.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:44PM | 0 recs
How it a fact "tripe"?

Is it not a fact that Obama voluntarily took his name off the Michigan ballot? And why only Michigan and not Florida? If both primaries violated the rules, should he not have taken his name off both ballots?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 07:07AM | 0 recs

Not possible under Florida ballot rules. And a good thing, too, because if he'd taken that step, Team Clinton would not bat an eyelash demanding exactly what they're doing in Michigan.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:11AM | 0 recs
Excuse me: When in the last

several years, has the media presented equally as to either side politically?

Are we living in the same country?

by Xanthe 2008-04-26 07:09AM | 0 recs
Hail Obama full of Grace

yep that'll win us over, insult us.

Go back to temple and get on with worshipping your obama messiah, remember he will make all things good again, racism will disappear, wars will end, money will grow on tress, we know this because he can give a speech.

The Cult you belong to is far to close to all the other cults of personality through history, all of which end in disaster. Blnd faith in the obamamessiah will not save this world.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:10AM | 0 recs

I knew someone would step up to exemplify the problem.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah.

with all DUE respect, go shove it in you Obamahole.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:13AM | 0 recs
Wow. Congratulations.

You're awesome.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

im sorry we should listen to your bullshit why??

you chose not to attack our candidate you chose to attack US.

AND BY PROXY YOU ATTACK EVERY GROUP who votes for hillary. you know like the white working classes? like seniors? of course these people dont vote in general elections. In general elections those that vote are largely under 25 and college educated right?

Your INSULTS to US will not be allowed to pass here. Take it over to orange land where you guys can chant and holler all you like.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

What insults?

by Fairy Tale 2008-04-26 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

calling us global warming deniers, saying we are advancing stupidity among voters..im guessing here you mean "low information voters" which is obamafan speak for dumb white working people.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

*comparing us to...not calling us.

oh BTW you may think all clinton fans are dumb old white hicks who cant count, well im 25 not white and have a PG degree. ANd yes i can count to 2025. Let me know when obamamessiah reaches thatnumber.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:34AM | 0 recs
So nobody is allowed

to point out the gaping flaws in your argument - and I'll admit that Uygur does so in very sharp terms - because you'll take offense? While in turn insulting us, of course?

What is this, kindergarten?

As Hillary says, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: So nobody is allowed

Yep just like only Obama campaign can use the words "he is a black man".

Kerry used it, McCaskill used it but beware if Bill Clinton uses it.

Hypocrisy is part of life.

by Sandeep 2008-04-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

..a lil' bitter are we...?

by april34fff 2008-04-26 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

You have heard that Hillary does well among the less educated voters, haven't you? That's public information, it comes in every exit poll. How is that an insult? Seems a bit elistist of you to say it is an insult.

by Fairy Tale 2008-04-26 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

less educated doesnt make them stupid.

Only in obama world are low education voters idiots who vote for hillary

by zane 2008-04-26 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. Congratulations.

Less educated doesnt mean low information voters. Less educated doesnt mean stupid or dumb or idiots. Less educated doesnt mean they dont know realities of life as MBNYC suggests.

Sometimes, more educated people lose touch with reality becuase they live in their comfort filled self patting elitist cocoon. They have no clue of what majority of people face in real life. I dont want to say that the diarist has never faced reality in life, but he or she sure come across as that.

For the diarist - if you keep patting yourself, the cocoon will become your reality soon.

by Sandeep 2008-04-26 11:07AM | 0 recs

...I don't consider education levels here at all. The capacity for delusion, as we can see from, say, Harold Ickes, isn't tied to socio-cultural status.

The point here is not that low-information voters are selling the tripe I describe; they're not. I know that you folks need to keep the victimization narrative fresh and current by taking offense where no cause exists; but when I'm obviously talking about media, campaign operatives and her hardcore blog support, that claim becomes just the slightest it threadbare.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:52PM | 0 recs

Problem is, though, that Uygur and myself point to the logical flaws in your presumed argument. If that's insulting to you, the problem is with your argument.

And while you're shouting about being insulted, you're doing what? Talking about temples and, I quote, "Obamaholes". Because that's not insulting, I suppose.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely.

calling it as i see it, i will return insults.

You are an Obamahole.

There are a lot of you, infact theres a whole big community of obamaholes over at dkos, why not go insult us over there.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:39AM | 0 recs

We do receive visits from Hillary Cliton supporters when they think we are in trouble. They come and express their concerns. Why not return the favor?

by Fairy Tale 2008-04-26 07:42AM | 0 recs
because it is typical

Truly, go back to kos.  You've got a nice echo chamber over there where you can insult HRC as much as you want. You've got the site owner in lock step with Obama, even though his fellow newsweek buddies are questioning Obama's electabilty.  But that should make for some good hate mongering dialogue that you seem to crave. What goes around, comes around.  Trash HRC and then act all upset when someone says something about Obama?  Please, save it for someone who can be convinced.

by 4justice 2008-04-26 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: because it is typical

What have you done to expand the dialog, other that drive-by ratings abuse and demanding the right to have your own echo chamber?

I was never AT Kos. MyDD is the only "home" I've ever known hereabouts, and I'll be damnned, sir, if I will follow your advice to leave simply so you can have your OWN version of an echo chamber. There's a #1 rec'd diary at Kos now, for example,  that lauds Clinton for supporting a union in a scuffle in Detroit; so your logic there is bunk, too.

You need to step back and examine your own behavior, sir, before you rail against others.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: because it is typical

And notice, for instance, you are the only one who mojo's zane's "Obamahole" comment, even amongst several Clinton supporters. You, sir, are a prime instigator in contributing to the divisiveness on this site.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Well,

I thought Obama and his supporters were above all that petty politics and had party unity in there heart. May be just all talk like the leader?:-)

by Sandeep 2008-04-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Of course.

When we temple-dwelling chanting Obamaholes take offense at such an accurate description, it must just mean that our aspirations to betterment are false pretense.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah.

Great way to lose the argument

by brit 2008-04-26 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

Nah, we'd rather club you unconscious and drag you back to our cave, then let our cult have its way with you.  That's what we cultists do best.

by username2 2008-04-26 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

yes many of his supporters would have lots of practice at such things.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

I have no idea if this is tragedy, comedy, or farce.  Please enlighten.

by username2 2008-04-26 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

WOW... I'm not sure I've ever seen a comment demonstrate hypocrisy to such a great extent.  

"yep that'll win us over, insult us."  Then you say,  "obama messiah" "The Cult You Belong to" "Blind Faith"  

by CardBoard 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

uh not trying to win you over. But you want to call us idiots, then expect to get your shit thrown back at you.

by zane 2008-04-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Obama full of Grace

I did not call you an idiot, and you called me a cult member

by CardBoard 2008-04-26 07:49AM | 0 recs

Obama fanboyz at work.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-26 07:14AM | 0 recs

...so can I say Hillary Fangrrlz now? Or would that be sexist?

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

Assuming you aren't in one of the states still to come, you might as well change your sig since you aren't going to be able to vote for her.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-26 08:22AM | 0 recs
As one of the GOP leaders that Obama ....

has praised in public statements used to say "there you go again".

Some of you can just never shut up when it comes to any reason to bash not only Hillary, and also Bill, but their supporters as well.  You seem to think it does your candidate some good, when in fact, the opposite is reality.  Now there's denial on a 'global warming denial' scale for you.

If you think for one minute that you can rub our faces in feces at every chance and then expect our vote in the GE simply because 'he' is the Democrat on the ballot, you are sadly mistaken.

Go on, keep it up.  Pat yourself on the back.

McCain thanks you.

by emsprater 2008-04-26 07:16AM | 0 recs
Wouldn't it be preferable

if you reached for the appropriate talking points, i.e. the ones that have some relevance to Uygur's argument that your various other talking points don't make sense?

What does Reagan have to do with any of this?

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:19AM | 0 recs
It's never preferable .....

to bang one's head against a brick wall.  Discussing issues or 'talking points' with someone as partisan as yourself who does nothing but work tirelessly to denigrate one candidate while showing signs that you feel entitled to the votes of that same candidate's supporters in the fall would be the same thing.

What does Reagan have to do with this?

Obama praised him, and as usual your diary and your commentary and your reason for breathing is always anti Hillary, so yep, 'there you go again'.

I'll rarely respond to you in the future, you've become much like what I consider Bob Johnson to be: insignificant, hyperbolic and insanely politically inept.

by emsprater 2008-04-26 07:46AM | 0 recs

First of all, Obama didn't praise Reagan; he accurately assessed what Reagan was able to do. Big difference.

Second, I actually get where you're coming from; in the context of calming the waters when all is said and done, this diary is not helpful. But neither are the ones flowing from the usual suspects like water into the Titanic, calling people like me cultists, Obamaholes, lazy ignorant children, and so on.

Remember: you still think you can win this. If you do, you need to reach out to me as well. And unfortunately, I don't see you doing the kind of forbearing outreach you demand from me as a matter of course.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 08:00AM | 0 recs
In reality ......

I ask nothing of you.  I expect nothing of you .  I have read he veild and he not so vield threats of riots and violence if Obama is 'denied' the nomination.  They were all over the blogs for a time, and somewhat supported over at orangeland.

You call it 'accurately assessing' Reagan's accomplishments, I cal bs because Obama alos consistently goes out of his way to denigrate (inaccurately, btw) the accomplishmnets of The Clinton years.  Now I realize he's running against the former First Lady, and any praise of her husband will undermine his denigration of her substance, but really?  To have to resort to the destruction of the only two term Democrat to hold the White House in decades to 'win'?  That's the epitome of 'say or do anything to win'.

I also do think Hillary can still win this, and I think her chance of becoming POTUS is slightly better than Obama's.  I think Democrats should look at that.  We were in high cotton this election cycle with a could not be lost chance at the White House.  We have been undercut by three things:  first, and foremost, the GOP gave their nod to the least evil of the folks running for their spot, and a person who can actually appeal to the middle ground, second, the economy is tanking and the Democrats have been in control of Congress for almost 2 years and have done NOTHING, even accepting the oil execs explanation about why they are making record profits (while we get skewered) and thirdly, because the Democrats had the bad luck to have two very good candidates who both happen to be a member of a minority that the Democrats historically are supportive of.  One candidate had to become the 'most maligned' in order to become the 'darling' of the Democratic conscience, and that's why Obama had folks dissecting everything any one remotely associated with Clinton said in order to find some 'fairytale' to call 'racist'.  Point to Obama, but what's the cost?  There will be a cost, surely as if Hillary had actually tried to BE 'racist'.  If she had, she would not be where she is now, she would have fallen off the grid long ago.  They are within striking distance of each other, he got there by whining 'racist' (thru surrogates) and 'Everything Bill did was negligible or bad'(thru commentary directly stating those years were bad).  She got where she is by perseverance, tenacity and focus.

I know who I'd rather have in the White House in the Oval Office.

Now, instead of consistently writing to tear down the candidate you don't choose, why don't you write about the attributes of your candidate?  You have shown nothing good aboout your candidate, nor have you espoused his attributes that make him a better choice.  All you ever do is write to denigrate, demean and destroy the Clintons.  Hell, you might as well be Ken Starr.

by emsprater 2008-04-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: In reality ......

Sigh. Ems, common sense; remember?

I'll just address one point. You're willing to inaccurately rail against Obama for "lauding" Reagan, but apparently Clinton saying McCain was more experienced and a better choice than Obama was a-okay. This is why your argument will continue to fail.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: In reality ......

Yes, common sense indeed.

I do continue to recount how Obama praised Reagan and his era and his accomplishmnets, precisely because your folks continue to state that Clinton said that McCain would be a better POTUS than Obama.  She didn't say that, you folks spin what she said that way, so I can do the same with his words.

After all, 'words matter'.  Obama has consisently denigrated the accomplishments of Bill CLinton's years as POTUS.  'Words have consequences'.  These are them.

by emsprater 2008-04-26 12:27PM | 0 recs

...some of what you say is well taken, and you're absolutely right about the dilemma of having two superstar candidates from two constituencies that have never even gotten a shot at the top spot. One reason I started out supporting Edwards, though it was at the time a minor concern, was that I saw what this contest could turn into if it devolved to the point we reached after he dropped out. I don't have an answer for you other than that one of them has to lose, and be compensated with as much power as possible for that loss; for Hillary, Senate Majority Leader, for Obama, the Veep spot.

However, I would respectfully differ from you in assessing who is doing what to whom. I don't keep a scorecard, but a lot of what I've seen coming from Team Clinton has been horrifying; the entire entitlement mindset that treated the actual election as a formality, for example.

As to blowback if Obama is denied the nom, it will happen. We can tell ourselves, being political junkies, that it would be alright for the SDs to give the nomination to his opponent; that's not going to convince his supporters, however. If he loses, he has to lose in a way that people accept; same with her, by the way.

As to me being Ken Starr, please. I'm going to ascribe that to the heat of the moment, because you don't believe that yourself, I'd warrant.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: It's never preferable .....

You of course know Clinton said pretty much the same thing Obama did about Reagan

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: As one of the GOP leaders that Obama ....

Humankind cannot bear very much reality

by brit 2008-04-26 07:21AM | 0 recs
My favourite version

The funniest and most blatantly paradoxical of these global warming denials is the following

Every vote counts. Are you going to deny the voters of Florida and Michigan

To which the answer is, of course not

1. By counting the Florida vote as it stands you disenfranchise all those Floridians who didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count.

2. By counting the current Michigan votes you disenfranchise all those people whose candidate wasn't on the ballot.

3. Oh. And don't forget, it's usually the same people make this argument who are more than happy to disenfranchise every voter in a caucus state

MBNYC you're dead right. No superdelegate is going to fall for this argument, and while others upthread may say 'you're doing nothing to persuade us', this talk about disenfranchisement is such spin, it would insult anyone's intelligence.

by brit 2008-04-26 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: My favourite version

Actually, none of those voters were disenfranchised any more than I was a disenfranchised because Al Gore wasn't on the ballot in my state. And caucus voters are not disenfranchised either because technically they don't vote. They select delegates. The only way to disenfranchise them is to not seat the delegates they selected.

by bouvougan 2008-04-26 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: My favourite version

How dare you bring logic to a debate on here!

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: My favourite version

Not really all that logical though, is it?  The disenfranchisement that the above poster is pointing out occurs if the popular vote is used to determine the outcome of the primary rather than the delegate count.  All caucus votes would then be null and void.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: My favourite version

Not sure what the hell you're talking about here. Caucus goers select delegates based on the apportionment of supporters at the caucus. There is really no way to determine what the "votes" in a caucus state would actually be. Often times people go to a caucus to support a given candidate, but that candidate doesn't have enough other supporters to be viable. In short, a caucus is not a democratic process and there is no "vote" to be disenfranchised. They are there to select delegates only.

by bouvougan 2008-04-26 10:04AM | 0 recs

Every voter in the democratic primaries is here to select delegates

Don't you all get it.

There never was 'who wins the most votes wins the primary rule'. So why is there one now?

Because it's the one remaining metric whereby some supporters might conceivable declare a future victory.

It's transparent, it's devious, and a simple grab of power, recognisable to Robert Mugabwe. Please don't try to clothe it in some kind of democratic legitimacy

by brit 2008-04-26 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah

Apparently you don't get it. There was also never any rule that whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates wins the primary. The super delegates get to decide the winner of the race unless a candidate has enough pledged delegates to win without them.

That ain't happening here. So whatever metric they choose to use to make their decision is strictly up to them. Pledged delegates hold no more weight than any other measurement the supers would use to base their decision. Anybody touting "pledged delegates" has no more legitimacy behind that claim than somebody touting popular vote.

by bouvougan 2008-04-27 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah

The pledged delegates account for a much higher proportion than superdelegates

And NOONE ever said the superdelegates have to base their support on 'popular vote' however defined.

The popular vote is the most tenuous of the arguments advanced. But go with it. Obama will still win the popular vote.

by brit 2008-04-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: My favourite version

Absolutely. And in south Florida where I live and where most of the state's democrats live, many people decided to stay home. Alot of Floridians weren't too enthused about standing on long lines in the heat, with work clothes on to cast a vote that was not going to count.

by april34fff 2008-04-26 08:24AM | 0 recs
Funny thing is

much is made about running in open primaries, but the place Obama really runs best in is caucuses. And while I concede an open primary is a closer to a general election a caucus is nothing like a general election.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny thing is

Once again you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.  The time to get rid of caucuses was a couple of years ago.

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny thing is

Show me the rule that says superdelegates cannot weigh primaries in swing states more heavily than they weigh caucuses in red states?

Here, I'll make it easier.

Show me the rule that says superdelegates need to give the nomination to whomever has the most pledged delegates?

Just because Axelrod made a talking point doesn't mean those are DNC rules.

And, say, if you're such a stickler for rules, you believe we should not seat delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, right?  They broke the exact same rule that Michigan and Florida did, and in the exact same manner.

Your hypocrisy wears thin.

by bobbank 2008-04-26 07:41AM | 0 recs
IA, NH and SC

changed their dates because of Michigan and Florida. That's a not immaterial fact, and one that you won't hear from the people making your argument.

You can't penalize entities that react to rule-breaking in the same way as the rule-breakers themselves.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: IA, NH and SC

Umm.. that's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in there.  So, just so I understand: rules are rules, immutable and irrespective of ethics, except when other people break the rules, in which case breaking the rules yourself is not really breaking the rules anymore.

What a mindjob.

by bobbank 2008-04-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: IA, NH and SC

Then I expect you'll be railing against Clinton for supporting those states' actions posthaste?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:08AM | 0 recs

If you'll recall, both Michigan and Florida did go ahead with their positioning. The other states had perfect cause to move ahead. Now, you can agree or disagree that IA, NH, SC and NV should be first in line. But you can't argue that they are not first by the rules of the contest, and had every right to preserve that position.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 01:11PM | 0 recs

The stupid, it burns.

Have a great day Mr. crazy talk guy.

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-26 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny thing is

You're right, superdelegates can choose by whatever rubric they want.  The fact is, though, that not many are choosing a rubric that points to Hillary.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-26 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny thing is

Where have I advocated invaliding that caucuses results retroactively? I have man problems with caucuses but since they have already been held, we have to honor the results. In the future, however, I would like to see them done away with and replaced with primaries.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny thing is

Fine.  I really have no strong opinions about caucuses one way or the other.  Get rid of them when this is all over if you want.

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-26 07:52AM | 0 recs
Reality based?

Speaking of general elections...

Clinton - 279
McCain - 259


Obama - 243
McCain - 295

Why do you suppose that Dean felt the need to make an announcement in the wake of PA that he expects superdelegates will vote mostly based on the impression of the final 10 states and who they think will win in the G/E?

I thought you and I had reached an agreement that you would put together a substantive, issue-based diary on the issues of energy and environmental policy.  Instead, just more tabloids.  Our mutual loss I suppose.

by bobbank 2008-04-26 07:37AM | 0 recs

If you want to make the argument that polls showing Clinton taking those states within the margin of error taken in April are dispositive of November results, we can have that discussion. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

Nor are you talking about anything more dispositive - that was my point.

by bobbank 2008-04-26 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.


That's it, guys, let's pack it in. Obama is unelectable.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:09AM | 0 recs
Unger mises the mark

he doesn't seem to grasp, or is willfully distorting the "popular vote" argument. Everyone knows that we don't hand the nomination based on raw popular vote totals. You need delegates and since there are so few primaries left, you need superdelegates. Both candidates need them, Clinton much more so than Obama. The popular vote claim is aimed at swaying superdelegates and influecning voters in the remaining primaries. No one is saying that Clinton will magically be handed the nomination when the primaries are done and she has the popular vote lead, if in fact she does.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-26 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Unger mises the mark

You got it half-right in saying that "the popular vote claim is aimed at swaying superdelegates and influencing voters in the remaining primaries".  The fact is, the supers know full well that there is no accurate or fair measure of a "popular vote" and will pay it no heed.  The real reason the Clinton campaign is trotting out the pop vote metric is to mislead the remaining voters into thinking there is still a race.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-26 09:30AM | 0 recs

You really enjoy flamethrowing these days, don't you?

I'm not sure who comes out looking worse with this hyperbole, you or Cenk.  It's a shame.  Young Turks used to be worth listening to, and I was a subscriber.  I ditched them long ago.  Unfortunately, I'm still a subscriber because despite several tries, I can't get them to take me off their GD mailing list.  I guess they are desperate for subscribers and trying to inflate their number of listeners.

by joanneleon 2008-04-26 08:54AM | 0 recs
Maybe Cenk Uygur had a point...

... but when I saw that post up at Daily Kos, I asked him, quite simply, if it was necessary to insult Clinton backers in his title:

I don't see how posts like this help.

I recall, as I'm sure you do, the hope of Dean backers in `04 even as it became increasingly obvious that his campaign was finished. You could have written a similar headline back then.

Granted, this contest has dragged on, but if I was an ardent Hillary backer, I am certain I would still be making arguments that she can win this thing -- even if those arguments fly in the face of reality and facts.

So are nasty, insulting headlines like the one you chose really necessary?

by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:53:20 AM CDT

His response was:

Yes, it is absolutely necessary

Part of the reason this is dragging on is because the media is humoring them and pretending this could go either way, meanwhile John McCain gets a free ride as Hillary Clinton spends millions of dollars attacking Obama, the eventual Democratic nominee.

by Cenk Uygur on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM CDT

So I asked the logical follow-up which was met with... silence:

But how is insulting Clinton supporters on a blog

... getting the message to the media? WHy not direct the subject line of your diary at the media instead of at fellow Democrats who are not ready to let go of their favored candidate's campaign?

Do you think calling them akin to global warming deniers helps the situation?

by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM CDT

That's the point. There was absolutely no reason to inflame and incite as he did. It's stupid.

If he wants to go after the media and its narrative, that's one thing, but going after loyalists at this point is inane.

Sure, diaries like this one, below, O'DRAMA - IS it a CULT? - Take the Totalism Test Today!, are just as stupid and insulting, but as our mothers always have told us, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Uygur's piece was needlessly insulting and inflammatory.

No hardcore supporters are ready to give up on their candidates yet. So calling them out is just, plain stupid.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-26 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Cenk Uygur had a point...

On the other hand Bob, one of the things I admire about your posts is that you're pretty good at insulting idiocy and denigrating doublespeak whenever you see it. Why hold back on this occasion?

by brit 2008-04-26 12:02PM | 0 recs
Because, in this case, I can easily put myself

... in the shoes of a Clinton backer.

What I usually shoot down is lies about candidates, such as in today's post (that was removed by admins) about Alice Palmer.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-26 12:20PM | 0 recs
I don't even dispute

your larger point, as I say to emsprater above: of course a diary like this isn't helpful to any healing process; it's too gleeful for that.

Nor are some diaries of yours, Mr. Johnson.

That said, however, the point needs to be made that the logical basis for a lot of what we see here is flawed. I make that point, and if it infuriates some people, I'd hazard the guess that it would infuriate them even without the Titanic imagery.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:36PM | 0 recs

Nancy Pelosi changed her idea of what the role of the SDs is. At first, she said they wouldn't overturn the "will of the people." After she was reminded that the role of the SDs was to do just that, she changed her tune.

After losing the 1968 Democratic nomination to Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern set up a commission  that changed the rules of the DNC to allow proportional delegates, with the method of apportionment left up to the individual states. As a result, McGovern won the 1972 nomination since it became easier for a far left candidate to win. As a result, McGovern went down to the most ignominious defeat in history, winning only 15 electoral votes.

Rather than go back to the winner-take-all rules that had been in place for many decades, the Democratic party instituted an additional check to balance the nominating process: the super delegate system.

As we've seen before, a proportional delegate system is perfectly capable of nominating a candidate who could be completely unsuitable in the fall election. The sole purpose of having super or uncommitted delegates is to ensure that the party has a viable candidate for the presidential election, irrespective delegate or vote counts. Howard Dean just reiterated that concept:

[Superdelegates] have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election. . . If it's very very close, they will do what they want anyway. . . I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.

If you're a member of the reality-based community, this is the concept you need to deal with. The sole purpose of the nominating process is to choose the best candidate with the best chance of winning in the fall. The super delegates are there to make sure that happens.

by Nobama 2008-04-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Reality

Interesting McGovern pegged his lost to having had to fight the primary challengers well into the summer, and the Republican candidate using it to his benefit to sew more confusion into the process.

Weird. Luckily it doesn't parallel anything now, right?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Yes and No.

In the end, because it's close, sure, the SDs are going to decide this. However, that does not rob the electoral portion of the process of its relevance. The purpose of party primaries - we didn't always use to have them, if you recall - is to give voters the chance to determine the outcome. The presumption of the process is indeed that voters do so by the method chosen, and that is by electing delegates to the convention.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 12:39PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads