Excuse me….who’s an elitist?

Wow. Just wow. Hillary Clinton must have known she was on the teevee, right?

“Rich people, god bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation.”

Don’t get me started on the word “deserve.”

TheZoo got a heads-up about this from Willy at the American Everyman.
Check out his post here.


From Op-Ed News: Hillary Clinton To Bill O’Reilly, “Rich People: God Bless Us;” Elite? Hmm

From Daily Kos: HRC: “Rich People, God Bless Us”

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

123 thoughts on “Excuse me….who’s an elitist?

  1. I can’t wait to see the videos of the second part of O’Reilly’s interview. He seems to bring out the real Hillary nicely.

  2. I can’t watch any of this crap. Clinton is irritating enough, but O’Reilly is such a gobshite that I can’t listen to him for more than 10 seconds without screaming. My clock radio went off at 0530 in the midst of a report about the interview and I lay there stunned and sickened because the very first thing I heard in the morning was that pompous voice. I’ve yet to recover seven hours later.

  3. Okay, to be clear, I can’t stand Hillary. But this sound bite seems too outrageous even for a pandering , self-serving snotbag like her.

    Each sentence, individually, is not offensive. Note the camera cut between the two sentences. It seems highly possible that Fox intentionally pasted together two sentences that really did not connect together.

    For example, the original full context might have been something like this:

    “Rich people, god bless us. But this issue is important to all Americans. We deserve the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation.”

    Maybe I’m being too nice giving her the benefit of the doubt here, but that’s only because Fox and O’Reilly have such a record of scumtastic behavior.

  4. Hi gorn, as far as I know the interviewees or their staff have a close look at what will be aired of an interview, before it goes on the screen. So, I don’t think it was pandered by Fox. This may have been a sarcasm gone bad, but I’d say let Hillary explain her own words. She was instrumental in Obama having to make statements on Wright’s words not his own and explain, so let her explain what she really meant here. She was behind the “bitter” controversy and made Obama explain his words over and over again, I don’t give her any benefit at all.

  5. It does help to watch the entire interview. I cannot stomach Billo. He tried constantly to trap her or get her to stumble or put her on the defensive. She stayed with him through the entire things and he never bested her. I can’t stand Hillary, but she definitely bested Billo.
    It put the whole thing in better context to see the entire video.
    I don’t know WHY she would agree to go on FOX except to try and prove to voters what a pitbull she is, that she can bring men to their knees.. (sarcasm)..
    Either that, or she has become very comfortable with the attention and support she is getting for whatever reason from FOX.. That in itself puts me on alert. There is more to this..

  6. muse, I have the benefit of not being used to Bill O’Reilly. The only things I see or saw were clips on TP or C&L, but no more.

    If I may give my 5 cents. He is no intellectual match for Clinton and she was fully well prepared for the interview. It is standard procedure, at least over here, to first get an outline of the questioning and then a transcript of the interview before airing. All the O’Reilly upset seemed phony to me.

    What I saw was an interview with someone who was clearly aware of the huge publicity this interview was having. The many, many voters out there and she wasn’t answering O’Reilly’s questions she was catering to the masses of Fox viewers, in other words “the sheeple”. This was done admirably well and make me break out in goosebumps. This lady is so status-quo that I don’t wonder she’s the corporations’ darling.

    As an aside: I watched her eyes, now I feel a little sick.

  7. Pingback: Pourquoi j’appuie Obama, chapitre 1 « Le Mur de Bièrelin

  8. I will tell you something; however you look at it, the point is clear… she changes subjects, and she is assuring the “rich” that;

    1. she is one of them
    2. she is not going to increase the inheritance tax
    3. she is going to protect the way the “government” works so that it continues the way it has.

    this is the most damaging quote she has made as of yet. And there have been alot of damaging quotes that she has made.

    Anyone who says this after accusing Obama of being “elitist”, desrves to lose. She blew it, and the MSM is syaing nothing about it.

  9. I am glad you put this up, Zooey. No matter what I say about how this system is working now, Obama is the best choice they have given us… and when their picks screw up like Hillary just did, we should jump on it as quick as possible.
    Obama may be one thing, but he isn’t Hillary… and that is saying a lot these days.

  10. I agree with that Willy. She is most definitely ‘one of them’. The last couple of days, watching her make a fool out of herself trying to be “one of the little people”, by pumping her own gas, trying to work the coffee machine, etc.. just made me shake my head. Who does she think she’s fooling?
    I told my husband I was going to go out and buy a set of those blue overalls mechanics wear and have her name embroidered on it, then send it to her. She could wear it out on the road.. Maybe that will make her look more ‘blue collared”.. She seems to like to ‘play’ different rolls.

  11. Thanks, Willy. I appreciate the heads-up. This just raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

    I think what Hillary might be forgetting is that the rich know who and what she is — one of them. She failed to consider that many of Billo’s viewers are not rich people, and they might not appreciate her attitude.

  12. I loved it last night when one of the news people said they wouldn’t be surprised to see her driving one of those 18 wheelers next..

  13. What gets me is all the “progressive” sites that aren’t running with this story. They are the same ones that reported over and over again on the ‘elitist” comments of Obama, yet here we have the clearest elitist comment of any candidate… and they are silent.

    what a world….

    I am glad TheZoo took up this story. It needs to be told.

  14. I’ve been studying, so haven’t been paying that much attention. I thought this would be going like wild fire through the blogosphere.

  15. I have to agree with Jon Stewart about this whole “elitism” crap. To paraphrase him, “You’re running for an important elected office, and if all goes well, they might put your face on a mountain. You;re supposed to be better than me.”

    Fran Liebowitz (the comedian) said, “Everybody wants the president to be just like them. You’re not qualified to be president!”

    Now, none of this means that I support Sen Clinton to be president. She asked us New Yorkers to give her six more years in the Senate and we did, and I intend to make sure she’s around to serve out those six years. She can’t do both in 2012.

    But this whole idea that “regular Americans” want the president to be “just like them” is absurd! I don’t want the president to be “just like me.”

    I want a president who will enjoy getting out of bed each morning and facing the challenges of the day.

    I want a president who doesn’t go through each day wondering if he can stay off the alcohol.

    I want a president who is knowledgebale enough about the rest of the world to have a proper idea of how to handle things, not some nobody who’s only read about these places and has never been there.

    In short, if I were choosing a president, I would NOT want someone “just like me”. And if most Americans would take an honest look at themselves, they would say the same thing. But about themselves. I know they wouldn’t want me, either. 🙂

    Maybe that’s just me.

  16. Thanks for the welcome, I’m a fan of TheZoo for sure! Keep up the good work! I had to repost the video, more eyes are necessary. I have a suspicion this story won’t take hold like the “bitter” comments. That’s especially odd considering the poor quality audio recording supposedly “lessened the blow” of those comments, and yet this plain-as-day interview will probably fly under the radar.

  17. Good idea to re-post the video, unastronaut. It looks like getting this out there will be up to we “angry” bloggers. We’ve had 7000+ views so far, so the word is getting out there.

  18. Pingback: God bless the rich elitist, screw the poor and bitter «

  19. Oh, it’s worse than that, folks. Wayne, there’s a BIG difference between Obama’s alleged elitism and that of Hillary.

    Obama, at worst, was saying that the poor have a grudge (damn him for telling the truth!) On the other hand, Hillary was implying the rich are special people.

    I agree with Jon Stewart that we should hope our president has a superior intellect, compassion, and wisdom. By contrast, I’m pretty sure none of us giving a flying shit if the president has superior wealth.

    As to why the MSM has not picked up on this story – simple. The MSM no longer comprehends independent investigation and reporting. Instead it only reports what comes easiest – whatever is fed to it by political and corporate shills, such as the ones who prime the MSM pump for the Republicans and the Clintons. Obama appears not to employ professional assassins of Rovian caliber.

  20. Being rich is bad? Then why do people work hard to save money? to be poor? DUH! you work hard to save Money to accumulate wealth whenever possible. Nothing elitist about it.

    As if Anyone is actually Focusing On Obama’s or Clinton’s Elitism now. It’s all about racism and Obama Not having the Cojones to do things right when he had the Chance and leave the Church Of we hate whitey…which he’s still a Member of.

    Don’t Hate Hillary. She’s a democrat, Just Like You! She, despite what you think,has the Ideals of the Democratic party and the American people at heart.

    She and Obama have almost the same views on a great many subjects. Look at their voting records in the Senate. 98% Identical. 102 out of 105 votes they voted the same way.

    Yer bitching about style. Substance is what’s Important. She has More of it. He’s a pretty boy, a Media Darling who gets all the good press.

    That’s My View. He’s a Good guy, but I don’t Think Barry’s ready just yet. That he hasn’t finished her off when he had the chance is the proof of it.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  21. I don’t think she is a Democrat as much as she is a Hillaryite.. This feels so much like it is more about her than the party or the good of the country. Its an attitude of entitlement. There are undercurrents and hints of behind the scenes connections that don’t go along with the words she is using to paint herself to be whatever it is people want to hear. It is more than a little unnerving how in sync she seems to be with McCain and FOX. Something is very wrong with this picture.

  22. A politician who is not an Opportunist is not a politician for long. Obama is an Opportunist, and that’s not a bad thing for him. Tell me he hasn’t taken advantage of the Opportunities given him by the press and the Clinton Campaign. Of course he has.

    It may feel that way, but look at it without the Obama Blinders on. Look at the Democratic Party platform. What the Party wants to achieve. And then look at Both candidates. They are Both in Lock step with the Wants of the Party.

    Hate her all you Like. Hate her for what she’s Done that you think is wrong. Not for YOUR emotions, But HER actions.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  23. Yeah Mikey, you’ve hit on it. We dislike her because of HER actions.

    Thanks for clearing that up for us, we really hadn’t figured that out until now.

    Kisses & snuggles.


  24. Which Ones? Inquiring Minds want to know!

    A complete list would be helpful.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  25. That’s a reason to Not Vote for her? or to Not like her? Are you High?

    LOL. Try again.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  26. ….and on this basis you either will or have voted for, I am presuming, Obama?

    FAIL. 😛

    we’re talking about looks here? You’re the Ones who fell in love with Senator URKEL and you can talk about the way Hillary Dresses? LOL.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  27. It’s been Fun, But I have to do things tomorrow, so I must go. It would have been nice to have a real political discussion, but yer a fun crowd, even if you’re, on average, about as sharp as a bowling ball! 😛

    Enjoy Your Elitism! HAGN!

    Love Always! 🙂

    The Rhino


  28. Truthfully this isn’t a voting issue. None of the previous distractions, gaffes and rhetoric attacks on any of the candidates should be considered voting issues.

    It is, an example of her hypocrisy. She was an opportunist when she attacked him for his “elitist” remarks. When she turns around and says something very much resembling her pride in the club and willingness to keep membership the same, it reveals that hypocrisy. Not that this is strange for politics, but worth reporting in the name of fairness.

    It’s funny Rhino, you talk about a lack of real discussion but you brought absolutely nothing (except for the excessive capitalization) to the table. I’m sure nobody would mind if you made sense every now and again.

  29. mikeytherhino,

    It’s a shame that you can’t comprehend that the issue at hand is not one elitism versus another, but rather the issue is hypocrisy.

    Clinton and Obama are both “elite” in their own ways. This is obvious, as Jon Stewart points out. So is McCain. So is Bush, though unlike the others, his elitism is purely inherited, and is far outweighed by is ignorance, drug-addled brain, intellectual apathy, and general incompetence.

    The distinction between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton and her attack dogs make a spectacle of Obama’s generally benign elitism. We distinctly do not see Obama playing the same game: spouting off about Clinton’s elitism.

    This is perhaps too subtle for you, but we should not be surprised as you also made the erroneous assumption that everyone here is a Democrat.

    I guess you’re just about as sharp as a bowling ball. Hee haw hee haw…

  30. she isn’t pretending to be poor or under privileged like Obama and his wife – what’s the problem? things never get better when you ad a brief clip from a tabloid gossip ridden, former sports newscaster like Olberman…esp when all it shows is someone at a vending machine…as opposed to say, exposing terrorist links, a racist spiritual advisor, illegal housing transactions, suggesting talking to terrorist regimes – yes what’s more trivial…oh yes, the vending machine

    How about Obama and his poll-fixing friends the Zogby’s?

  31. Seems like someone missed the point…

    Look, there was nothing edited from her comment. You can tell by wathing her “hed-bobbing” for dramatic emphasis. Her “sing-songy” vocal pattern doesn’t change and never misses abeat.
    nothing was edited out.

    Now for those of you who say there is nothing wrong with being rich…

    again, on my site I said the the Obama people would avoid using this because it is too easy for Clinton supporters to dismiss it as being about class baiting.

    But that’s NOT why this video is important; what she is doing is reasurring the wealthy class that she is not going to change the status quo, folks.

    That’s what the democratic national committe wants and that’s why they hand selected the candidates they have.

    In an election that is all about “change” here she is assuring the ruling class that she is not going to change anything.

    And there is a problem when she makes her moeny because of her close connections to political power. Check our her previous holding in WalMart, Wal-Mart de Mexico, General Electric, Raytheon, NewsCorp, big oil companies, and the pharmacudical industry.

    It isn’t just “opportunism” or cronyism, it’s the fact that she had economic ties to these businesses and that slanted her votes as well as her influence on other legislators when it came to getting bills passed.

    Her “opportunism” comes at a price; and that price is too often paid by her constituants.

    Besides, was it just “opportunism” when Dick Cheney was pushing all those no-bid contracts for Halliburton? Is that just “opportunism” or is that corruption?

  32. Excellent rebuttal, Willy. I knew I wouldn’t vote for her when I realized she was all about corporate america and keeping the 1% ahead. This is just another confirmation and blatant hypocrisy. Most of us haven’t made a voting decision based on one interview……we are a little more informed than that, Strawman Sam.

  33. Funny that Hillary is now thought of as less of a liberal than Obama.
    We truly are doomed to socialism.
    Real Sad.

  34. There is nothing wrong with being an elitist, unless you’re running for office, of course.

    Many of us work hard – or work, period – to achieve a desired level of financial security – we’re supposed to look upon those who feed off the gov’t tit or sit around and cry the blues with the same level of respect we’d give our peers? I think not.

    You lose you job, go out and learn a new skill and get another one. Stop blaming other people. It may, may not be true, but sitting around and pining over “what was” serves no good purpose.

  35. It’s good to see that this is about more than pantsuits and coffee machine gaffes.

    Unastronaut. I apologize if you dislike the way i type. My wife takes me to task for the Capitalization thing as well.

    And the statement I made was about Senator Clinton’s actions vs. The Emotions of those who dislike her. No one has yet explained exactly what form her hypocrisy has taken.

    To Gorn: Obama has No Attack dogs? Do you remember where the term “Reject and repudiate” came from? It was the Obama camp speaking about Geraldine Ferraro. Like she said something bad, which she didn’t.

    And thank you. I would have been deeply disappointed had no one responded to the Bowling ball comment.

    And gorn, if you’re voting for Obama, regardless of what you think of yourself as, or how you are registered, It is a vote for a Democrat. Which makes you at the very least pro-democrat.

    Thank you Creeping.

    To WillyLoman: before anything else is said, Nice Emoticon!

    So there is something entirely sinister in owning stock in These companies? Hadn’t realized that.

    WillyLoman, i want to know exactly what votes were influenced by those corporations when. Details my Brother. Bring me Details.

    This election isn’t about change. It’s about control. About who controls what in Washington. The Republicans have done it wrong for 8 years and made a shambles of everything.

    Obama says he will change Washington. How? Will he change the Democrats? No, he is one of them, no need to change that. Will he change the Republicans? No. He is incapable of that. Can he change the way Lobbyists and Pacs do Business? No. He is incapable. It cannot be done. you cannot tell 36,000 lobbyists that there jobs are no longer necessary. The house and Senate, which live by the Pac and the Lobbyist, will not stand for it.

    …or do you not remember the earmarks bill that got voted down last month. By Democrats and Republicans. The same thing will happen if Obama tries to legislate the Lobbyists out of Washington.

    Obama is as Much the Regular old Politician as Clinton. The issue I have is that he plays like he’ll be different when all arrows point to that not being true.

    I thought about voting for him too, but his entire campaign is based on Hypocrisy.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  36. She is an idiot…I hope she wins the Democratic Primaries so that John McCain and the Republican machine can send this Elitist %@^! back to Arkansas packing.

    Stupid *&@^@&@**&^@*!^!(@(


    Iranian Ajax

  37. mikeytherhino:

    “To Gorn: Obama has No Attack dogs?”

    I didn’t say that. You should try a little harder not to draw broad assumptions. It’s impossible to play in politics without some level of aggressive observation and response. That said, I find his approach and demeanor about ten notches above the gutter lived in by the Clintons and by the Rove machine. She’s not much better, or less obvious, than the swift boaters.

    “And gorn, if you’re voting for Obama, regardless of what you think of yourself as, or how you are registered, It is a vote for a Democrat. Which makes you at the very least pro-democrat.”

    More broad assumptions. I haven’t said who I will vote for, though I grant you that at this point there is only one choice.

    I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and independents over the years. I don’t vote based on the schoolyard ideological definitions of Fox, Rush, and Ann, but on my assessment of what is better for the country at a given time (or, often, I vote against what is worse – a policy that should be considered by many followers of this blog – if followed more generally, the Bush disaster would never have happened).

  38. Hey mikeytherhino, so your point is every one of them is as bad as the other one. We’re all doomed no matter who we vote for. Spokent like a true Republican. Most of the regulars here started out as supporters of neither Clinton or Obama. Believe me, we each have our own reasons for who we are supporting now. However, that reason is not based on the premise that nobody can do anything to improve the country no matter what. That’s how you feel when you vote for somebody like GWB or Ronald Reagan, TWICE.

  39. Shayne. I am a Democrat. And a realist. I have seen too many contests decided by personality rather then issues and the People ALWAYS lose out when that happens. I never said no one can do anything for America. I have great faith in the American People to do the Right thing.

    And I voted for Gore. And Kerry. And Bill Clinton. Did you?

    To Gorn: My Humblest Apologies. you are right, I should not make broad assumptions. I will simply say that I disagree with your contention about his approach and demeanor. I say it is The demeanor and approach Of Obama and Axelrod and the rest Of Obama’s staff which is below board here.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino.


  40. mikeytherhino:

    “I say it is The demeanor and approach Of Obama and Axelrod and the rest Of Obama’s staff which is below board here.”

    Fair enough. I totally disagree, but that’s why we have elections, so it’s okay.

    However, given that there is zero chance of Clinton taking the nomination, and that has been the case for some time, if you are really a Democrat as you have labeled yourself, at this point you should be rallying behind the inevitable nominee.

  41. This woman was never an appealing candidate predating when she moved up and became a Senator. She rides the coattails, plays up the pitty party, thinks that just because she has a vagina she’s entitled to things, and wants the common man to feel they can relate to her…
    never believed any of it for a second.
    And now…
    that’s a great statement. It shows people just who she *really* cares about. Then again, they are paying for her run.
    Please let it finish. I don’t want this little engine to go.



  42. If Obama is the Nominee, I will back Him, support him and Vote for Him. I think Hillary is the better more able candidate, but if she should lose, I will back him. Until that Time tho, I will back Hillary.

    Like i’ve said, personality aside, on a strictly issue based viewpoint, Obama and Clinton are almost Identical. Precisely Identical when It comes to Environmental Issues.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  43. And of course mikey you have a right to your opinion and nobody is trying to change it. Most of us here are very much against the war in Iraq and have always been. Hillary’s vote to for it has been the reason most of us supported somebody else during the primaries.
    It was a Hillary staffer who went in with a tape recorder and taped Obama’s comments, which I understand and feel are vastly misconstrued, in San Francisco and then released them to the press. At this point I don’t think we need a Democrat who is working so hard to get a Republican the general election if she can’t win the nomination.
    Also, I feel that for all of us who voted in the primaries earlier, and who gave Obama the lead that Hillary legitimately is unable to catch no matter how her people try to convince the media they can, it is vastly unfair that she believes she can take the nomination away from the frontrunner. Because a bunch of dumbasses in Philadelphia care how a nominee bowls doesn’t mean that the rest of the voters that voted for Obama in other states don’t want him nominated no.
    Clinton’s people talk like we are all on school of fish riding the same big wave and that when people in one part of the country vote for Hillary we all turn and follow the head fish.
    In addition, as an Illinois resident I voted for Obama for Senator even though he wasn’t my first choice for the presidential nomination. What most of us from Illinois find “Hillarious” is during the whole Clinton presidency Hillary was always know as a Park Ridge, IL, girl. Only when she wanted to run for senate did she become a NY resident. Then when she was running in Philadelphia she all of a sudden was born there. Who knew all those years she made it seem that Illinois had been her home.
    Who said a leopard can’t change her spots.
    For the record, I only voted for a Republican once, that was for Ronald Reagan the first time he ran. And that is because I was working for an investment banking firm and believed all the lies I was being told about Jimmy Carter.

  44. And mikey, while environmentally and on many other issues Hillary and Obama may seem to have the same viewpoint, I can find many more places where Hillary has lied and is not to be trusted then I can on Obama. Also, it would have been nice if just ONCE she had admitted she’d been wrong on the Iraq war.

  45. “If Obama is the Nominee, I will back Him, support him and Vote for Him. I think Hillary is the better more able candidate, but if she should lose, I will back him. Until that Time tho, I will back Hillary.”

    Understood, and I will (gag) back Hillary if she is the nominee. However, this does ignore the point that she cannot win the nomination through any rational scenario.

    “Like i’ve said, personality aside, on a strictly issue based viewpoint, Obama and Clinton are almost Identical.”

    I agree. However, in my opinion she is by far the greater pandering opportunist, and much more likely to back away from her principles in order to satisfy corporate and political power interests.

    He proved his willingness to stand for principle despite political cost when he declined to “disown” Rev. Wright during Obama’s race speech. Clinton most certainly would not have that kind of ethical courage. Few politicians would.

  46. she’s not the Only dem who voted for the war in Iraq. The majority of democrats in the senate, by a 29-21 margin voted For the war.


    A lot of people were hoodwinked into voting for that damnable war.

    The Obama lead in the Popular vote is a small one and is only a recent occurrence only developing after Louisiana if I remember correctly. I could be wrong tho.

    I think Hill Can catch him. mind you, she will need some help. Michigan and Florida would need to be seated as they voted, and the Super delegates would have to go her way, But it can Happen, despite the Viewpoint given here that it is Simply Impossible for her to pull it out.

    And In some way shape or form, Michigan and Florida MUST be seated. To cut two Large states Like that out of the convention would send a Message to Swing states that the Dems Just don’t Care about them. Even if it means giving ALL the delegates to Obama, it matters not. The Delegations for those two states MUST be seated, or the Democrats will Fail in November. Regardless of what else happens.

    Talk of Clinton People and Obama people really should Just stop. Let’s keep it to Issues and the Candidates.

    “School of fish”…. never heard that before.

    I think this is gonna be it for me here today, I have things to do. If you wanna talk Politics drop me a line On my blog, or here, I’ll get to it, probably tomorrow. HAGD.

    Love Always. 🙂

    The Rhino


  47. Don’t expect the poor lady to know how to operate every coffee machine in the world!…sorry..Don’t expect the “rich” lady …:)

  48. Right amlistening. And it’s not her fault she hasn’t had to pump gas in a over 16 years because of her coverage by the Secret Service. It’s just the way it is. But then maybe her people shouldn’t be throwing around accusations of elitism.

  49. Sure mikey, but many of the Democrats who voted for the war authorization admitted they were wrong and apologized. Hillary hasn’t done either of those things yet. And since when does two wrongs make a right? And with all her “experience in the White House” shouldn’t she of all the senators have known better and maybe led the others to vote against the authorization.

  50. “I think Hill Can catch him. mind you, she will need some help.”

    Indeed. She will need to count on the destruction of the Democratic party or some catastrophic event for Obama.

    “Michigan and Florida would need to be seated as they voted, and the Super delegates would have to go her way”

    Oh, is THAT all?

    “But it can Happen, despite the Viewpoint given here that it is Simply Impossible for her to pull it out.”

    No, the viewpoint expressed here (at least by me) was that she could not win under any rational scenario. Hoping that Michigan and Florida would be seated as they voted is not rational, nor would it be representative of the Democratic process. Hoping that there would be a mass defection of superdelegates from Obama to Clinton is not rational either. If the only way she can win is to disenfranchise the majority of the electorate and try to slide on with some good-ol-boy backroom dealing, she is one sad bit of work, completely lacking in principle.

    She cannot possibly win in any rational, non-destructive manner.

  51. Not only would they have to give her all the Michigan and Florida delegates they’d have to act like all the caucus voters don’t count. How is it good for the party to recognize the two states that violated the rules but disregard the wishes of all the people who spent time at the caucuses?

  52. I’m not for Clinton, but it almost sounded like she was being sarcastic in response to the douche she was talking to.

  53. “Not only would they have to give her all the Michigan and Florida delegates they’d have to act like all the caucus voters don’t count.”

    Right. There’s nothing elitist about being dismissive of those silly, unimportant caucus states, is there?

  54. To be honest, when Obama’s “bitter” comments came out, I was quick to defend. I’d like to think if this clip came out before those comments, I’d have defended Clinton as well. The problem is in the between-time, where Hillary chose to be opportunistic and jump on a misspeak, trying to imply he actually meant it to be condescending.

    There’s nothing wrong with a candidate telling a rich person she believes that wealth should continue to the next generation. (Steve Forbes, for example)

    There’s nothing wrong with a candidate saying that people who are disenfranchised by the government feel comfort in religious and cultural communities.

    There’s nothing wrong with a candidate letting a crazy religious group or figure endorse their campaign, they are Americans too.

    It’s more about time and setting than any one phrase or quote.

  55. Whoa, love the dialogue. Thanks!

    To Iranian Ajax: As a Canadian or a “citizen of the world”, trust me, we don’t need another Republican Prez in the US. 8 years of George W was quite enough, thanks.


  56. She was reassuring Bill-O and the 1% that she is not going to change anything.

    Call it what it is. If you still want her in the White House after she flat out admited she lied about the Bosnia sniper story, then more power to you.

    I for one, think I have seen enough liars in the White House for one lifetime.

  57. The best part of the above video is when the Taliban Godzilla Suicide Bomber attacks the one building and it blows up… another falls down (straight down) all by itself. Ha, that’s funny.

  58. It is frightening the number of persons here who cannot decipher a recognizable human tone. Clinton was being ironical, not literal. There isn’t even the vaguest hint of elitism in her remarks and one can only wonder why any listener/viewer would read this into her remarks. It’s scary to think that such people get to vote.

  59. To anyone stating as a matter-of-fact that Obama cannot change Washington, I ask you one question:

    Did President Bush change Washington?
    Did he not make it a happier place for big business? Is the current administration less flexible than previous administrations?
    Did he not turn a blind eye to more pork-barrel projects than any of his predecessors?
    Did he not expand government drastically with the Department of Homeland Security (which I thought was a job of the military) and the No Child Left Behind Act?

    Believe me, change is possible in Washington and it all starts at the top. As one of 100 Senators Obama would never be able to change the way politics is done. You can still bet your ass the President sets the tone, and affects the direction of change. We’ll be changing anyway, but after changes in the last 7 years, I just wish to have a good captain at the helm.

  60. Pingback: If Obama Had Said This | Comments from Left Field

  61. Grunes – if you read many of the comments, it’s not about what she said, it’s the fact that what she said is akin to something she’s attacked in the past.

    I also said I was going to ask one question before I thought about the question, which turned into four questions. I apologize or not sticking to my promise.

  62. You know why grunes is unable to pin down what she really means? Because for the first time in awhile, she is telling the truth. And that’s a strange thing for her. She seems a little at odds with it.

  63. Pingback: Anagram: Musical Elitism/Militia Muscles « Mikey the Rhino’s Great American Rantfest

  64. Mikeytherhino,

    In your blog, quoted above, you continue to display an amazing ability to draw broad (and incorrect) assumptions, and a lack of comprehension of context.

    You noted my statement about Obama revealing personal principle above pandering for political gain, by declining to disown Rev. Wright during his now famous race speech.

    Somehow from this you seem to conclude that Obama supports Wright’s statements, which is both false and completely loses my point.

    First of all, Obama clearly does not agree with Wright’s positions in even the remotest way. There is a huge difference between declining to disown a loved one on a personal level and embracing their views. I clearly recall my grandmother making racist statements in her lifetime. I loved my grandmother. I did not agree with nor endorse her viewpoints at all. Surely everyone has comparable experience. This is what Obama meant in the first place when he likened Wright to a wacky uncle.

    You said in your blog:

    “Onto Wright. Hmmm. I don’t have a problem with Him Hating White America. White America has Done some Insanely Evil things towards African Americans. But that Gives him No right to be a Racist.”

    This is seriously messed up thinking. First of all you have it totally backward. You SHOULD have a problem with him hating “white America”, yet he HAS the right to be a racist. You said the opposite.

    Secondly, “white America has done some insanely evil things” is an absurd statement. What is “white America” anyway? How can you throw an entire, and ambiguously defined, race under the bus like that? There is no “white America” and “black America”. There are racist Americans and non-racist Americans. Racists come in all colors and shades, as do non-racists. Isn’t it time we should be judging by the content of character and not the color of skin?

    “Defend Him all you Like.”

    I most certainly did not defend Wright, and neither did Obama.

    “This man Wright is a Racist. He can spout on about God and Love all he wants. It will not change the racist words he’s said.”

    No shit, Sherlock. I fully agree with your statement, and so does Obama.

    “Obama sticking with Him is Wrong. It is NOT ethical Courage to stand with Racism.”

    Yet again you make incorrect assumptions. I was not talking about ethical courage, but about POLITICAL courage. Declining to disown Wright as a loved one took political courage because it would certainly have a political cost. (Of course, Wright failed to accept that gracious lifeline, and continued to make an ass of himself, so now Obama has disowned not just the man’s statements, but the man himself. He could have done so in the first place. Politically, he should have done so. Clinton would have done so – strictly for lack of political courage).

    In your blog, you continue with your strawman arguments about ethical courage and your fallacious implications that Obama somehow endorses this guy’s rants. Then you summarize with this delusion:

    “You do not Right the Wrongs Of the world By standing with them, But by stomping On them.”

    What’s the delusion here? That your favorite candidate, Clinton, will stand on her high moral principles and stomp on the wrongs of the world.

    What dope are you smokin’, Rhino? Nobody is more ready to walk away from principles for political gain than a Clinton. By policy, she may be positioned to stomp on the wrongs (same is true for Obama), but when push comes to shove, she’ll do what she has always done – capitulate to corporate and power interests.

    “It is Not ethical Courage to Run for the Presidency and stand By a Man…”

    You betcha – and you’re endorsing the ultimate “Stand By Your Man” woman. Do you need to be reminded of examples?

  65. Woohoo, Rhinobreath quoted me, twice. Sure, he misinterpreted most of what I said. And oversimplified it in a way that makes him seem so … Republican. But that is typical of Clintonistas it seems. What they fail to understand is the more they act Rovian the more it makes us want to vote for anybody but Hillary. In fact it was Hillary’s own campaign practices that turned so many of us away from her campaign to others that were running. THAT’s how she lost her easy victory, at her own hand. And what kind of leader can’t even control their own campaign workers? Sad really.

  66. People like Rhinobreath remind me of the kid who just can’t stand to think he might not be on the winning team. So he has to make himself seem smarter than everyone on BOTH sides, pulling everything way out of whack, so that in the end he can say he knew all along Hillary/Obama was going to win — and can justifiably (in his own mind) place himself on the winning team.

    He’s like Exley.

  67. Zo – I had not posted to his blog because I had to post and go… but I’ve done so now.

    It’s always a bad sign when someone pops onto a blog for the first time and immediately starts making sweeping generalizations about the other participants, along with hit-and-run commentary and cheap shots about the group intellect.

    On TP, this was the province of the right wing kook fringe, but I agree with Shayne that I’ve observed the same kind of bombastic bile coming from the Hill-itary Hit Squad. I guess the key common characteristic is “kook fringe”.

  68. You wanna know what really bothers me?


    You Know everything.

    Or you think you do.

    Don’t Mind me, I’m annoyed.

    Wanna Know Why, Obama Backer?

    Read my latest post.

    And one More thing.

    F*** Obama.

    I’ll give rational explanations of my thoughts about your comment to me at a later date.


  69. I don’t care about being on the winning team.

    I’ve lost before.

    It happens.

    I can handle it. I handled Bush winning.

    I can handle Obama winning if it comes down to it.

    No worries.


  70. Am i kook in your eyes because i disagree with you or because I back Clinton?

    Just curious.

    Sigh…Rhinobreath…what are you ten years old? Jeez…


  71. I’m impressed by your objective and rational attitude.

    You begged for a debate, and then when your ass is handed to you, you get all truculent. That speaks volumes.

    Next move? Ban me from your blog, perhaps.

  72. No. And I am not finished Not by a long shot.

    And where was I Truculant? I’m just a Bit Tense and Overwrought. Like I said. Read my latest post.

    I am currently reliving a Bad day. It happens. I will get you a Rational response when I am capable of one.

    My Apologies for Not being able to better answer you.


  73. You have a good night as well.

    Thought I’d say a few more things while my brain is sort of fresh. When I said truculent, I was referring to the “fuck Obama” comment coupled with the “Obama Backer” business. The first is just nasty, and the second is reminiscent of the way Rush Limbaugh uses the word “liberal” like one might use “nazi”.

    I took a quick look at your blog post, which goes from 9-11 to Wright to Obama. I understand your progression of thinking. However, I also think it’s wrong and destructive. I do agree that Wright is an asshole for his 9-11 comments, just as the same is true of equally evil statements from Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and many others. The one thing all of these assholes have in common is religious fanaticism, which is the greatest single ongoing danger in the history of mankind.

    But the great leap to Obama hatred simply is not justifiable. For one thing makes the assumption that he heard the statements of Wright, although he claims otherwise. I have no reason not to believe him on that. For another, the fact is that religious leaders make outrageous statements every single day. Nobody should be accountable for it other than the people who make the statements. The world would be a better place if everyone distanced themselves from religion and its tangled web of irrationality, but that just isn’t going to happen in our lifetime.

    I’m not saying Obama is perfect. He is not. I was very annoyed with him earlier in the campaign when he did the seemingly required pandering to the “faith” crowd. However, given that all of the candidates do it, that itself cannot be a differentiating factor.

    Here are some reasons to prefer Obama to Clinton:

    – Obama clearly strives to be a uniter. Listen to him , read his speeches, and look at his record, and we see this consistently. Hillary, by contrast, is one of the most divisive politicians since… George Bush.

    – Obama has shown political courage, as I’ve stated previously. By contrast, Hillary showed cowardice and capitulation when we needed courage the most: when the Iraq war decision was being made.

    – Obama, so far as I can tell, has always been honest, or at least as honest as a politician on the stump can be. Hillary, by contrast, is an admitted liar. Where is your outrage over her knowing and intentional lying about sniper fire?

    – Obama has refrained from labeling Clinton as an elitist. Hillary, on the other hand, has spent tremendous effort in the reverse direction, despite the fact that she is the wealthiest candidate in the race, hasn’t been remotely close to a “common person” for at least 15 years, and has consistently been a whore for corporate interests.

    I could continue, but the point has been made, I hope. Perhaps after you’ve recovered from your bad day you can consider these ideas.

  74. Thank you, MsJoanne. 🙂

    Upon contemplation, I was a little hasty in saying Hillary hasn’t been remotely close to being a common person for at least 15 years. That was too generous. She was living in the Arkansas governor’s mansion nearly 30 years ago. Going further, she graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, before Obama even grew his pubes.


  75. I am back. And In Control. And I apologize to one and all for Being out of it. A man should never let his emotions get the better of him, But I did and I should not have. My Humblest Apologies.

    2 quick statements.

    1)I will not, Unless Hillary Concedes Defeat, Back Barack Obama.

    2)You will not, Unless Barack Concedes Defeat, Back Hillary.

    So does it not make sense to attempt to change My Mind, any more than It is for me to change yours.

    Another point. Does it make sense to make fun of or belittle either of the Candidates or Their supporters? I know I’ve done it, and you do as well. I for one would like to try to move this towards issues. I know I moved away from that, if I was ever there. Not sure too many people here were either.

    Issues. Like electability. Florida. Michigan. Super delegates. Health care. Iraq. Foreign Policy. You pick The Subject.

    Maybe I’m just worn out from all the Bickering and the “personality” arguments and I want to try to bring a Semblance of Sanity to the Discussion here. Which admittedly I made worse with an arguing style which is….well…how did you put it gorn…Truculent? And those damned “Broad Observations” of mine probably didn’t help either. 🙂

    But it is your Blog, so the Choice is yours.

    If you are done for the Night then we can pick up the thread tomorrow.

    Thank you and Good Night.


  76. worded stuff wrong. that’s what I get for posting On an empty stomach with no caffeine In my system at 3am.

    “So does it not make sense to attempt to change My Mind, any more than It is for me to change yours.” Should have read

    So it does not make sense to attempt to change My Mind, any more than It does for me to change yours.

  77. Well, it’s certainly past my bedtime, but as I will be booked up probably for the next couple of days I’ll give my two cents on your issues list.

    Electability – let’s be honest. All three candidates have electability issues. For Obama it’s racial and the fact that he has the shortest political resume. For Clinton it’s an abrasive personality and difficulty with the truth. For McCain it’s his age, his hawkish attitude, and his connection to the current regime. I see no inherent advantage for any of them. In the general election, it should come down to a referendum on whether or not moderates have had enough of Republicans and are ready to support a Democrat. An immoral and costly war and sick economy suggest either Democrat should have a clear edge. Perhaps a slight edge to Clinton only because she and her camp are as skilled at dirty politics as Rove and the right wing machine. Pretty sad statement about our political system, actually.

    Florida, Michigan – these cannot be counted as-is, period. In fact, it’s already been made clear that they won’t. You certainly cannot count Michigan as-is because Obama was not even on the ballot, and he followed the rules by not campaigning in either state. Not giving voice to the voters in those states is wrong, but pretending the outcome of those votes is representative of a real election is equally wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right. A straight re-vote would have been the best option, but this has been rejected already. I’m sure some resolution will be reached to give seats to those states in some fashion, but it will not happen in the quantity or proportion that Hillary desperately wants. No edge either way on this one.

    Super delegates – it is fantasy to think there will be a mass defection of Obama SDs to Clinton. Will not happen. On the contrary, after Tuesday’s primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, there may be more defections from Clinton to Obama. North Carolina is the last big prize on the board, and Obama will win it big. They will more or less split Indiana. Game over. Edge Obama.

    Health care – neither plan is particularly great, but both are better than the status quo. Hillary’s botching of healthcare under Bill’s early administration, with it’s turgid bureaucratic design, nearly derailed Bill’s presidency and is the primary element that fueled the Republican surge in Congress, leading ultimately to eight years of Dubya. Her plan still gives moderates a bad taste and will be an albatross for her in the general election. Republicans would also use the fear card about her plan forcing people to pay “even if they can’t afford it”. The right wing machine will paint her as a socialist or worse.No doubt they’ll try the same thing with an Obama nomination, but with perhaps less sticking power. Slight edge Obama.

    Iraq – Clinton loses here. She voted to permit this mess, costing thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and immeasurable loss of credibility on the international stage. Obama spoke out against it from the beginning. Big edge Obama. Huge.

    Foreign Policy – Either would be better than McCain, and either would be seen globally as an improvement over Bush. From what I can tell (having spoken to perhaps a couple dozen people in France, Germany, and UK), the general “street” opinion of our allies seems to prefer Obama. Edge Obama.

    From your list of issues, my assessment is the edge is for Obama. This is on top of the fact that he will head into the convention with more popular vote, more delegates, and more states.

    Hard to see what the argument is really about at this point.

    Your turn.

  78. Electability Issues: Obama: Agreed.
    Clinton: Agreed
    McCain: Agreed. Except for the Age thing. I do not believe that age is that much of a factor.

    Florida/Michigan: Disagree: Obama didn’t campaign, true, but Neither did Clinton or Edwards. “Not giving voice to the voters in those states is wrong, but pretending the outcome of those votes is representative of a real election is equally wrong.” Agree on point one. Why is it not repsresentative? Expand on this when you get a chance. Florida can be taken, in my mind, as is. We may just have to disagree on this one. Michigan need to be reworked. Like I’ve said before, Hillary got 55% of the Vote, she gets 55% of the Delegates. 45% of the Vote went to undecided or Kucinich or Gravel (where is he BTW) So Give that to Obama. It’s more then he would have gotten had he and edwards kept their names on the ticket Like Hillary did.

    Super Delegates: I agree there will be no mass defections. But I do not agree with your assessment otherwise. Obama will take North Carolina, but Not by the percentage I think is necessary to push Hillary out of The Contest. Hillary I think will win In Indiana.

    Health care: I actually Like Both candidates plans here. I did an exhaustive look at both of there Health care plan strategies, as well as there overall plans from their websites. If yer Interested in reading it is—> http://mikeytherhino.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/anagram-comparison-shoppingmorons-poaching-pips-part-4-finale/

    There are three other Parts that were done earlier that day, I’m sure you can find them.

    Iraq: Factually correct. Clinton did vote for it, and Obama has been against it from the Beginning. What I think matters here is what either one will do to End it. They both have essentially the same plan. No advantage either way. I initially did give the Edge to Obama here as well, but when the Samantha Power thing came out about Obama’s 16 month plan being less then genuine, and I saw that His plan and Hers were Identical, He Lost me. BTW, I Forget her precise wording, my apologies for Spinning this with the Words less then genuine.

    Foreign Policy: Agreed that either would be better then McTurkeyneck. This statement is odd to me “having spoken to perhaps a couple dozen people in France, Germany, and UK), the general “street” opinion of our allies seems to prefer Obama.” You can Imply, from a Few dozen People on the streets of three Nations that Obama is better? How High up the Chain of Command are these Friends of Yours? Are they necessarily representative of The Feelings Of the Governments Of said Nations? And if so, How did you ascertain that? I’m Not saying she will be better, but I need a Bit of clarification here.

    I think the Edge Goes to Clinton here.

    Your Turn.


  79. “Florida/Michigan: Disagree: Obama didn’t campaign, true, but Neither did Clinton or Edwards.”

    I don’t remember the details at this point, but my recollection is that Clinton did at least some campaigning. I’m willing to be corrected on that. However, consider that had she lost the vote in those states, she would be adamantly opposed to any effort to count them. She’s being opportunistic here, it’s as simple as that. I don’t blame her for doing it, but at the same time I’m not impressed by her proclamations that her only concern is voter disenfranchisement, particularly since accepting the vote as-is will disenfranchise many opposing voters as a result.

    “Why is it not repsresentative?”

    Two reasons. (1) Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Nobody could vote for him. There is no way that can be counted. (2) Without proper campaigning, where the candidates can spend time in those states meeting the voters, advertising their positions, etc., it seems clearly unreasonable to expect that the results are representative as-is. Throughout most of the states, Obama has tended to improve his position over time as voters have gotten to know him through his campaigning. You can look at the polling trends in each state in order to see that this generally has been true. In contrast, Clinton’s support has been strong but flatlined – no growth regardless of how much campaigning she does. This is probably because she was already so well known that people already had a strong idea if they liked her or not. She has a strong base, but not much upside, thus full-press campaigning in Michigan and Florida likely would have benefited Obama more than Clinton.

    “This statement is odd to me “having spoken to perhaps a couple dozen people in France, Germany, and UK), the general “street” opinion of our allies seems to prefer Obama.” You can Imply, from a Few dozen People on the streets of three Nations that Obama is better? How High up the Chain of Command are these Friends of Yours?”

    I don’t intend to imply any special knowledge here. I’m just saying that I spend a fair amount of time in Europe working with and for European companies, so I know quite a few Europeans. We often have lunch and dinner together, which naturally leads to lots of interesting conversations of a political nature. My observations, unscientific as they are, is that all of them prefer Dems to Reps, and all of them prefer Obama to Clinton. I used “street” in quotes, but I don’t mean, like, street people. These are middle and upper middle class professionals, well educated and engaged.Take it for what it’s worth. I also occasionally have a chat with a taxi driver, clerk at the market, etc. I have also witnessed very positive coverage of Obama in the European media.

    All of this may or may not represent majority opinion of Western Europeans – I’m not making any specific claims, just relaying my experience.

    However, I do believe that Obama’s life story is generally appealing internationally as it suggests he has a vision that is based on a diverse and tolerant world view, his nutty pastor notwithstanding. Half of his family is white, half is African. Obviously he is equally close and comfortable with both sides of his heritage. Anyone suggesting he hates whites is not making sense. He spent part of his youth in SE Asia. He’s been exposed to different faiths and cultures. He’s been exposed to the underbelly in Chicago yet also the elite at Harvard. He’s come from nothing to become an historical figure. I think it’s a story that produces respect and inspiration beyond the American borders – the rest of the world is keenly interested in who has his/her fingers on the US military, economic, and environmental buttons.

    Again, this isn’t scientific analysis, just my view of the zeitgeist.

  80. BTW, an example on Hillary’s flatlining in the polls:

    ABC News / Washington Post polls (national)

    January 16 – Clinton 41%, Obama 17%

    April 10 – Clinton 41%, Obama 51%

    This is the kind of trend I mean. Hillary doesn’t go up or down much from week to week, but the more Obama campaigns, the more he closes the gap and/or surpasses. Obama has been able to hang on through some difficult smear programs, while Clinton has not been able to extend her appeal. This makes me believe she has topped out, but he may still have upside. Certainly I think that would have been the case in Michigan and Florida had campaigning been going on there.

  81. “ Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Nobody could vote for him. There is no way that can be counted.” Whose fault is that? Obama’s. Clinton’s name was there. Obama had the Capacity to be there as well. The reasoning behind his decision are of no consequence, The simple fact of the matter is, is that he could have been there on the Ballot and he wasn’t, because he Chose not to be. His Fault and His alone. Why should Hillary Suffer for His Mistake?

    “Without proper campaigning, where the candidates can spend time in those states meeting the voters, advertising their positions, etc., it seems clearly unreasonable to expect that the results are representative as-is.” And here we all suffer for Having Howard Dean as our Party leader. There should have been some delegates available and campaigning made possible in some form. The Spanking That Dean gave those two States was Entirely Too Much. The Republican’s, damn them, did better here than we did. Some Delegates being seated is better than you and me and all of America Unhappy and Unsure of Michigan and Florida.

    How can a Vote “Of the People” Not be Representative “Of the People”? You really are reaching On this one. One Vote represents the Thoughts Of One person. The thoughts On who is the Best Candidate. How is That Not representative?

    “BTW, an example on Hillary’s flatlining in the polls:
    ABC News / Washington Post polls (national)
    January 16 – Clinton 41%, Obama 17%
    April 10 – Clinton 41%, Obama 51%”

    I am Currently Looking at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

    What I am seeing is That Both candidates, with the exception of the First few weeks of the Time you mentioned have had relatively steady Numbers, with Clinton’s Low of 39.7 percent on April 22nd and a high of 45.5% at the Ides of March, while Obama has a low of 33.3% January 15th and a High of 50.1% on April 22nd . …Thatpoll you mentioned had an Abnormally Low Polling Number for Obama , he usually pulled at least 8 points Higher than that. The last time
    that I look and see numbers that low for Obama are in a Marist Poll from November 6th 2007. The ABC News/Washington Post poll from January 8th of this year Has Obama down by 5% to Clinton, Not the 24% you suggest here. Click here to read it —> http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a1The08Race.pdf

    You’re thinking about Him picking up, and her flatlining is Less than real. Obama has been within a 17% window, from 33% to 50%, while Hillary has Fluctuated within a 6% window from 39% to 45% since the beginning of this year. If you Move up the Window of Opportunity to Super Tuesday, to pick a Date Arbitrarily, The fluctuation for Obama is even smaller, an 8% window. The difference when Put In that Context, Is not That large.

  82. OK rhino, have you asked yourself why the Republicans are so determined to get Hillary the nomination? And if somehow she does get the superdelegates to give her the nomination what happens then to the Democratic party. All those people who came out to vote and caucus for the first time in their lives who will now be disenfranchised, do you think they’ll ever vote for a Democrat again? And when Rove starts digging up the dirt on Hillary, you know like the death of Vince Foster and her lesbian lover and McCain wins the election, can we expect you to show up here and offer your apology for being complicit in the Republican rule over this country?

  83. “ Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Nobody could vote for him. There is no way that can be counted.” Whose fault is that? Obama’s.

    Well, no, it was the fact that it was stated clearly and unambigously upfront that these state’s primaries were in violation of DNC rules and would not be counted. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

    “Why should Hillary Suffer”?

    There is no ideal solution here, other than a revote which has already been rejected. Sorry, the situation is less than ideal, but that certainly isn’t Obama’s fault. Accept a compromise and move on.

    But don’t weep too much for Hillary’s “suffering”. As I said, if the situation were reversed you can bet your last dollar that she’d be screaming bloody murder to have the vote thrown out. You are kidding yourself if you think her concern is about the voters of MI and FL or the American Way. Her concern is all about Hillary and nothing more.

    “And here we all suffer for Having Howard Dean as our Party leader. There should have been some delegates available and campaigning made possible in some form.”

    Perhaps so. You can fire Howard Dean. You can fire the state party wonks. But you can’t fault the candidate for simply following the rules as designed.

    “You’re thinking about Him picking up, and her flatlining is Less than real. Obama has been within a 17% window, from 33% to 50%, while Hillary has Fluctuated within a 6% window from 39% to 45% since the beginning of this year.”

    A fluctuation between 39% and 45% is a statistical flatline. These polls generally have a margin of error +/- 3 percent (or more), so fluctuations within 6% fall within the statistical noise. Thus, you have unintentionally supported my point.

  84. Mikeytherhino, in case you’re still out there reading, I’d be interested in your interpretation of the following.

    It seems to me that the most striking characteristic of Clinton’s fan base is their seemingly inexhaustible ability to deny reality. It’s been fairly clear for some time (to her non-fans) that it is not possible for her to win the nomination. Yet, the fans seem to cover their eyes and ears while shouting “neener neener neener” and continuing the fight.

    This has been my impression, but I thought I’d take a closer look at the numbers to see if I was being hasty – to see if perhaps there was some rationality behind the Hope Hill.

    Obama presently has 1745 of the required 2025 delegates needed to win the nomination. Looking at the remaining primaries and superdelegates, even if Clinton were to win EVERY race by 10 points (55% – 45%) PLUS garner 55% of the remaining superdelegates, Obama would still end up with a delegate edge of 2049 to 1979. She cannot win.

    But wait, you say, what of Michigan and Florida? These two states should be counted as-is, say the Clintonistas, and therefore the bar should be raised for the delegate count to 2209 needed to win, rather than 2025 (and yes, folks, the press reports that Clinton really does want the bar to be raised this way – see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/2025-clinton-ca.html).

    Let’s be generous to Clinton and suggest that Michigan and Florida should be fully counted, and further that she should be awarded 60% of those delegates. That would give her 203 versus 135 for Obama. Can anyone claim this would not be excessively generous?

    Now, current polling puts Obama ahead in tomorrow’s North Carolina primary by 10% to 20%, depending on the poll. Let’s be generous and say he wins only by 6%.

    Indiana looks like a dead heat, but let’s be generous and assume Clinton takes Indiana by 4%. Further, let’s be generous and allow her to win every single remaining primary by 4%. Finally, let’s be generous and assume she will convince the majority of remaining superdelegates to support her, again by a 4% spread.

    Accomplishing any one of the above would be impressive. Accomplishing two would be surprising. But let’s be generous and assume she will accomplish ALL of them.

    The result of this astonishing string of victories would be a delegate count of Obama (2212) versus Clinton (2164).

    You read that right. Clinton could achieve the following…

    – DNC fully counts Michigan and Florida
    – DNC awards Clinton 60% of MI and FL delegates
    – Obama wins North Carolina by only 6%
    – Clinton wins every remaining contest by 4%
    – Clinton wins the remaining superdelegates by 4%

    … and she would still lose.

    I am curious to understand the twist of reasoning used by Clinton fans at this point to pretend as if she has any chance of victory?

    Mind you, I don’t need to understand Clinton’s reasoning. That’s clear enough. To her, it’s all about strengthening her personal position for the next four years. If she goes into the convention as a deal broker, she can extort significant power from the Democratic party and position herself for future elections.

    What I don’t understand, though, is the blindness over the eyes of the rabid Clinton fan base, who really are only playing into Republican hands.

  85. Well put Gorn. The superdelegates would have to overrule the will of the people and hand it to Hillary because they feel she’s more electable. They did that with John Kerry. That worked out real well didn’t it.

  86. To Gorn: My apologies for Not being around for a while. I have been busy on the Homefront. Life is more than Blogging, politics and commenting on it. Air Conditioners, Yard work, and Shopping, Oh My!

    Let us speak Of possibilities. Yes The Battle is Uphill, but even so, why give up until the fight is done? Until Barack Obama has that magic Number of Delegates there is No reason to Surrender the fight.

    And that’s where I, and others like me, can’t see you argument. Yes The Math is in Obama’s Favor. So what? If this thing goes to the Convention, and Hillary can Convince the Supers to go her way she can win. How can she convince them? By stating the two truths you cannot dismiss.

    1) That Obama can’t win the Blue Collar Democrats. He’s lost every Major Blue Collar state he’s run in, The Primary In Texas, The Ohio Primary, The Pennsylvania, etc,etc…

    She is strong and getting stronger.

    2) He is a Greater Liability to the Party then she is. The Stain from The Wright Fiasco has not, and Will not Come off. And Wright isn’t his Only Liability. Ayers. Farrakhan. You scare off the a great many more Voters with those three than Hillary and all the Sniper Fire that Bosnia could possibly muster! 🙂

    Two Powerful Arguments. and Just because YOU don’t think so, doesn’t mean others don’t.

    It’s a Fight, you don’t stop fighting until you have no fight left. You may want me to surrender, but I will not Be Bullied into it. I fight because I have the strength and the will to fight. I will Never, so long as that is True, Surrender.

    Shayne, will Of the People? Numbers are My friends here.
    I draw your attention to Lines 5 and 6. and If this doesn’t come out quite like It should I will provide a link.

    Popular Vote Total 14,421,557 49.2% 13,920,143 47.5% Obama +501,414 +1.7%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,755,641 49.3% 14,144,005 47.2% Obama +611,636 +2.1%

    Popular Vote (w/FL) 14,997,771 48.3% 14,791,129 47.6% Obama +206,642 +0.7%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,331,855 48.4% 15,014,991 47.4% Obama +316,864 +1.0%

    Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 14,997,771 47.4% 15,119,438 47.8% Clinton +121,667 +0.4%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,331,855 47.5% 15,343,300 47.5% Clinton +11,445 +0.03%


    The People are VERY Much Divided. You speak as If you have a Mandate.

    At best 2.1% more of the people have Picked Obama Over Hillary. And if you count ALL the states that have voted, Hillary has More, albeit only a very few more, Popular votes Overall Than Senator Obama.

    So you cannot argue “The Will of the People” here and have the argument hold water. Not by any stretch of the Imagination.


  87. mikeytherhino,

    Thanks for the fun discussion.

    “Yes The Battle is Uphill, but even so, why give up until the fight is done? Until Barack Obama has that magic Number of Delegates there is No reason to Surrender the fight.”

    I don’t argue with Clinton’s right to stay in the race. What I argue against is the use of gutter politics. If she can’t win “clean”, then she only does damage to the Democratic party. Fight the good fight, if you will, but stay on the high road. But what really puzzles me is not that Clinton hangs on. What puzzles me is the rabid denial of reality by her supporters.

    It’s like watching your football team, down by two touchdowns with 30 seconds on the clock, and the other team has the ball. On first down, the opponent runs for a first down, and the guys on your team make a routine tackle, then start hotdogging it like they achieved something important. I respect a team for continuing to play its best until the clock runs out, but for god’s sake behave like professionals. Be respectful of the competition that’s beating you and almost certainly is about to win the game. Don’t take cheap shots at them. Win it fair, lose it fair, but don’t be divisive.

    “I draw your attention to Lines 5 and 6. and If this doesn’t come out quite like It should I will provide a link.”

    So, what you have shown here is:

    – Obama is leading in the popular vote
    – Obama projects to lead after all states are done
    – Obama projects to lead counting all states where he was at least on the ballot (i.e., including Florida)
    – Clinton projects to lead only if the one state where Obama was not on the ballot (Michigan) is counted, and all the people who voted for “uncommitted” or stayed home, are totally disenfranchised and ignored; even so, she would still lose on delegate count

    Isn’t it time to acknowledge the desperation of this kind of thinking? Isn’t there a complete loss of dignity and integrity where the only way to win is via subterfuge?

    “If this thing goes to the Convention, and Hillary can Convince the Supers to go her way she can win.”

    True, if she can go to the convention and behind back doors make power deals to overturn the majority of states and majority of voters, she can win. In so doing, she would also destroy the Democratic party if not the nation if she were to succeed.

    Interesting, though, this backroom dealing is the only scenario where she can win. Doesn’t it bother you that she cannot win other than by subverting the rules and dismissing the decision of the voters?

    “Obama can’t win the Blue Collar Democrats.”

    That’s the Hillary talking point, but what is the objective proof? How elitist of you to think that these people will not vote for Obama over McCain. You yourself have admitted that in policy terms Obama and Clinton are largely indistinguishable, so why do you think “blue collar Democrats” will never vote for Obama? You mean to tell me they are incapable of looking past his shade of skin?

    “He’s lost every Major Blue Collar state he’s run in, The Primary In Texas, The Ohio Primary, The Pennsylvania, etc,etc…”

    Losing against a Democrat is not the same as losing against a Republican. BTW, they split the delegates in Texas, and neither one of them will beat a Republican there. Pennsylvania likely will vote Democratic in November no matter what. Same with California. In short, your extrapolation doesn’t hold water.

    “He is a Greater Liability to the Party then she is.”

    I think this is a case of “If I keep on saying it, it will become true”.

    “The Stain from The Wright Fiasco has not, and Will not Come off.”

    As if the Republican machine will ignore Clinton’s stains?

    First of all, the “Wright Fiasco” is a matter of manufactured outrage. I wonder why the Clintons and Roves have not been able to find any scandalous behavior to pin on Obama? The best they can do is try to scandalize by association.

    “And Wright isn’t his Only Liability. Ayers. Farrakhan.”

    See what I mean? Scandalize by association. Please indicate any evidence – any whatsoever – that Obama has any ideological connection to any of these three people?

    And if we’re going to play the guilt by association game, few have more skeletons than the Clintons, and the Republicans will not forget it.

    “You scare off the a great many more Voters with those three than Hillary and all the Sniper Fire that Bosnia could possibly muster!”

    This is more denial, to think that Obama knowing someone controversial is more damaging than Clinton’s being a liar. It’s absurd.

    My personal belief is that the Wright business will have little lasting significance. Had the Clinton’s smear merchants not brought it up now, the Republican smear merchants would have brought it out later. Better now than later.

    Bottom line, people who wouldn’t vote for Obama after Wright for the most part wouldn’t have voted for him before either. It merely provides a convenient beard for their bigotry.

  88. It’s depressing how quickly things change.

    I think at this point she has no longer has a realistic shot at winning the Nomination. She needed to be significantly stronger than she was on tuesday AND have that, and Wins further down the road convince the Supers to help her roll to the Nomination. That looks Impossible now.

    For all that I like her, she will have to admit soon that she will not be able to win the nomination.

    All my arguments fall to dust if the person I argue for can’t do it. And that is what has Happened.

    I don’t think Obama is The superior Opponent, but he has won, at least in my eyes. He would have to commit Some insanely odd form of political Suicide to lose now.

    Thank you for a Spirited Debate.

    She can’t win. Mister Obama Has My Vote



  89. Thank you to. I’m sure gorn will show up soon enough. I think the major disagreement we all had was that some of us thought this outcome was clear already and couldn’t understand why smearing Obama seemed like a good idea to any Democrat. None of us here supported Obama at the beginning of the primaries and moved towards him when our candidates dropped out of the race. Because we didn’t start out as loyal Clinton supporters we weren’t as hopeful or optimistic about her chances.

    The only important issue is to keep McCain out of the White House.

  90. mikeytherhino,

    Now is a good time to test the theory of “healing” that will have to happen between Clinton and Obama supporters over the next several weeks if the Democrats are to prevail in November.

    Early in this thread, some harsh words went back and forth, creating instant distrust. Now that we’ve had some fun and cool-headed debate and friendly conclusion, let’s work together toward a common goal. Please stay around as a welcome member of TheZoo and participate in other discussions. We have a mud pit for rhinos just past the Savannah exhibit and before you come to the Giant Panda enclosure.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s