Relax, HRC supporters are not jumping to McCain

This article from Slate does an excellent job of explaining the whole HRC supporters for John McCain issue. It is not that they don't exist or don't matter, it is just that the Obama campaign should not get lost in trying to convince the unconvincible. Most of the die-hards who don't like Obama will eventually come-around, but there will be a noisy contingent who will not.

Trying to convince them otherwise is a waste of time and frankly not that important to the election. That is very different than the sizable group of HRC supporters that would still prefer her over Obama, they are hugely important. Just like Dean and Edwards supporters were hugely important to John Kerry.

Others said it better, but this is why HRC lost

I have had this thought for a while, but lucky for me someone said it better than I could. The simple reasons she lost are two fold: the war and bad strategy.

Obama would not have had an opening without the war. Back when he entered the race, the only reason I considered him over HRC was the war. I was simple waiting for her to say it was a mistake to vote for it and that she learned from it. Her inability to admit the mistake pushed me to give Obama a long look. That is how I became a supporter.

The second problem I have written about previously. Her campaign ceded so much ground to Obama in the caucus states that he won the nomination based on that. Argue all you want about the validity of caucuses, but like it or not you don't cede any contest when the delegates are given on a proportional basis. Her campaign never seemed to wake up to the problem.

Congrats to Barack Obama for winning the nomination. It is time for everyone to hold hands, sing kumbaya and then elect a Democratic president.

A sad state and a good compromise

The Rules Committee ruling yesterday was both sage and fair. However, I fear that we are heading for a very close election in the Fall because of the actions of HRC and her die hard supporters. The wounds inflicted through this process, I fear will not be soon forgotten.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand the ferocity of the anger many of her supporters feel. Anyone involved in politics has felt the disappoint and frustration when our chosen candidate loses a close election, but most of us subscribe to a higher good and we believe the Democratic Party represents the best vehicle for achieving our policy goals. Some of her supporters feel robbed by a fair process that was governed by clear rules. HRC had every advantage going into the process, but chose to ignore caucus states and run as though she was an incumbent.

I want to be unequivocal in my statement: I hope that HRC's supporters will come back to the Democratic fold. They are a large and important constituency in our party (I think most of them will), but let me be very clear, anyone considering voting for John McCain after eight years of Bush and the disasters he has wrought is not a Democrat. If you value the election of Hillary Clinton over the swing of the Supreme Court and the rights at stake, you are not a good American. If you think we are better off with four more ruinous years of Republican policies then you don't care about the future of this country. We have no room for you in our party.

My favorite part of this election season: YouTube videos

HRC, sexism and bellyachin'

I have tried to hold my fire on HRC, but I cannot sit and listen anymore without saying something. And no I am not talking about the Bobby Kennedy comment, even though it was crass and idiotic.

I want to talk about sexism. Day after day, I hear complaints from HRC supporters about how sexism is the reason she lost. I find this both sad, laughable and frustrating. The reason she lost is because her campaign was not well executed.


HRC has undoubtedly been the subject of sexism, but guess how much sympathy I have for her, none, zero, zip and nada. Politics is a hard. In politics, there is no excuse for losing, not sexism, not racism, only incompetence, bad strategy, bad message, a bad candidate or circumstances beyond your control (these are all reasons, but not excuses). While I am sure there are people that will not vote for her simple because she is a woman, there is a much larger group of people that are voting for HRC because she is a woman, but I don't hear too many complaints about that. That brings us to her biggest problem with voters (her 45% ceiling): Most of the people who will not vote for HRC are doing so because she lacks ethics, moral fortitude, has a problem with the truth, has very little concern for her party, very little concern for her country, her personality is grating, she has an unquenchable quest for power and offensive sense of entitlement.

I have to say that I do not like Hillary Clinton, but it has nothing to do her with being a woman. I also no longer can stand the sight of Bill Clinton. When I don't like HRC I am accused of being sexist, what does it mean when I don't like Bill Clinton? How about Joe Lieberman (Anti-Semitic)? What about condoleezza Rice (sexist and racist)? There is a large difference between feeling aggravation and anger because of a persons actions and disliking them because of a genetic fact.


Every candidate has built in advantages and disadvantages. HRC has more advantages than most candidates. Please stop complaining about how the media has treated her. Every candidate in every race in both parties is treated unfairly by the media. It is part of politics. Suck it up and get over it. She has lost... In the parlance of my grandmother, she is showing her ass and she needs to stop it (will you say my grandmother is sexist too?). While you are at it, NARAL has no obligation to support a losing candidate when the very existence of Roe v. Wade is on the line if McCain wins.

One last note, this goes out to white, upper middle class, middle aged, second wave feminists that think that sexism is the last acceptable form of discrimination, please spare us. Not a single one of you would trade your privileged existence for that of a black person (or any person of color), nor a gay person, nor an atheist (and the list goes on...)

Obama wins the night!

Obama wins big in North Carolina and it is close in Indiana. I know she won't drop out because she has no shame and does not care about the Democratic Party, but she is done.

Nuns turned away in Indiana (Clinton Campaign confused)

Hillary does not know whether to look like this:



Or like this:

Here is the story from Politico. The nuns did not have the proper identification, so they could not vote. Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the article does not state who they intended to vote for, so they don't know whether to feign outrage or not...

This is cool...

Uncle...

I am going to layoff blogging about the Presidential race for a while (unless I feel compelled to comment). I am sad that seeing the Clintons on television makes me want to throw things at the TV.

After weeks of working very long hours and weeks of being angry about the nomination fight, I have decided to take some time off. At this point, I cannot go to any of the states (Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, etc) to affect the outcome, so I am inclined to accept that it is going to happen no matter what I think.

I would still like to find some good contributors for the site, but so far I have not had a lot of luck (you know who you are, lazy contributors).

I am going to try to post only once per day, but we will see...

I think this sums things up well

The tax returns are here

I am not sure why the Clintons thought that releasing their tax returns this late in the season was a good idea. Here is the link:

We will have stories for at least the next week about their massive $109 million in income since 2000. I think this could be what finishes her off, but then you never know...

HRC running on fumes, screws the people she claims to represent

I don't have a lot comment on this article from Politico. My grandmother always used to say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat people when they think no one is paying attention.

Is Gore the answer?

I am not sure what the question is, but the answer is no. This article from Time magazine written by Joel Klein is goofy. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Al Gore. He has done some great things as of late, but make no mistake Obama has won the nomination. If Gore is installed, you would not see the outcry you would see if HRC is installed, but there would be a falling out none the less. I don't claim to understand the fascination of the Gore people (you know the ones who bring up Gore at every turn as though if he were the nominee he would have a lock on presidency).

I was not a big fan of Gore when he ran for president and did not think he ran a very good campaign. He is a smart and talented guy, but he is not a very good candidate in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't think Gore is interested. Not only that, but I think he is actually doing more good outside of politics.

Like it or not, Obama is the nominee. It may take a month or until June, but he will be the nominee. It is up to HRC to decide whether she wants her party to win the presidency or whether she thinks her quixotic and hopelessly improbably chances of winning are more important. She will not get the nomination either way.

Gore could help to end this standoff by negotiating a settlement that would force HRC out of race and clear the way for the race against McCain. It is time for Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and other party elders to start bringing this nomination to a close.

Misspoke (aka lied)

This video is precisely why I did not support HRC.




There are large swaths of the country that do not trust the Clintons and will never vote for them. For the HRC to be successful she needed to be cleaner than the next candidate. Lying about one's experience does not help the case. Furthermore, I hope that this will start to put to rest the canard of HRC's "experience". I have written about his before, but her experience is really on par with Obama. She has a little more experience in military affairs since she is on the Armed Services committee. I am not sure that is the same as foreign policy experience. Overall, she has less legislative experience.

Sorry guys a lie is a lie...

3 AM ad revisted

This is pretty funny... The internet really has changed things in political campaigns.

Obama wins two more

Obama won another blowout in Wyoming and tonight a blowout in Mississippi. I am sure that the Clinton people think it doesn't matter. Tonight, Obama will regain the lead he had before Ohio and Texas.

Senator Hillary "Huckabee" Clinton of course will continue on even though she cannot win.

Clinton supporters lack class

How many quotes do we have to see from desperate Clinton supporters that show their utter lack of class. How about this one? (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan)

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," - Geraldine Ferraro, on an uppity senator.

Please allow me answer this question... If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position, he would already be the nominee.

Breaking: Mike Huckabee offers John McCain Vice Presidential spot

Sorry everybody, I got that wrong. It is really Hillary Clinton offering Barack Obama the Vice Presidential spot. You can see how I would make the mistake: Huckabee and Clinton are both candidates that are/were so far behind in the delegate count that they cannot win their party's nomination.

I apologize for the mistake...

Tax Returns

HRC won't release her tax returns and has no reason for it. I have had four years of secrecy, I don't want four more. You cannot claim to be vetted and not release relevant information. Release the tax returns and do it now!

Untenable

The latest news is that Michigan is likely to have a caucus for their do over election. The Clinton campaign says they will not accept a caucus (maybe in protest she should leave her name off the ballot. We can then allow people to vote for Obama and uncommitted and decide the winner that way :)). That leaves us with a dilemma.

Having a primary in Florida is estimated to cost between $14 to $18 million and I have heard anywhere from $8 to $12 million in Michigan. The only way we end this contest fairly and without taint is to have real contests in those states. This has to be resolved for the good of the party. Who will pay? The campaigns cannot afford it. The DNC cannot afford it.

I am personally agnostic about whether we have a caucus or primary. I think the nominee has to be able to win no matter the circumstances. The whining from the Clinton side about caucuses is farcical.

So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, I fear that the Clintons would prefer to not resolve this unless it means they get all of the delegates. This means they do not want a do over whether it is a caucus or primary. Even if there is a do-over, I expect that if Obama wins Michigan (which is more likely than Florida) that they will call the win illegitimate even if it is a primary.

If my friends on Clinton side cannot admit that the elections were illegitimate then they are being dishonest and petty. I can certainly admit that not seating delegations from the two states is wrong. I can also admit that it was not the fault of Florida Democrats that their Republican legislature moved their primary. So, what is the solution? (here is a hint it will never be acceptable to seat the delegations and give Hillary all of the delegates).