Lovely morning...
...excuse me while I spoil it for our progressive lurkers.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (97) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hi, guys! Hope that you're not too hung over; after all, last night your candidate announced that he had won the nomination fight, and whether or not he has (or whether or not he is even sure of the basic details), it must have been an exciting time for you. And now you're probably all full of vim and vigor, ready to take on the GOP - but hold up for a second. There's still a small problem for you.
There's a lot of people who are now saying that Senator Hillary Clinton has to concede the nomination, now. Let us assume - assume - for the moment that this is correct; or, rather, that she will concede. Unfortunately for the Democrats, she would still have a weapon in that scenario: she can go quietly, or she can go out with guns blazing. The Democratic Party can't afford guns blazing at this point, so she can negotiate. And what is the absolute, rock-bottom, not negotiable thing that she'd need?
That's right: debt relief. Total debt relief.
Yeah, go get that aspirin now. I'd also recommend some water.
Read on.
This article guessed wrong on last night's events, but it does estimate the current campaign debt of the Clinton campaign as being between 20 and 40 million dollars (at least 10 of which is a loan from herself). Let us split the difference and use the number 30 million. That has to be paid off by somebody, and "somebody" would be Barack Obama. But where he get the money?
Three options:
1). He covers it himself. Even though he crested in April, he still has 37 million in the bank, as of May. He hands it over, she shakes his hand for the camera and smiles, and 30 million gets him what 230 million couldn't: her out of the race and out of the way. Easy as pie, right?
Except, of course, for two things. One, it'll wipe out his cash advantage at precisely the time where McCain's revenue generation is revving up. Two, it'll mean that every donor that ever gave money to the Obama campaign would have been financially better off if they had taken their total contribution, divided it by about nine, and sent the money directly to Hillary, with a note that this was to be used strictly for paying off debts. Put another way: the Obaman ROI was already miserable. This scenario sends it through the floor.
2). Get it from the Party. Why not? Why should Obama handle this personally? It's the Party's fault that the system's such a mess (and never mind his own role in manipulating that mess), so the Party can clean it up themselves. They can shovel out the cash to get her out of the way.
Except... the DNC, as of May, had 4.4 million in the bank (in fact, if Obama's really the nominee, Howard Dean needs him to pony up some money right now for the convention. The DSCC has 37.9 million on hand (NRSC has 19.4 million); the DCCC has 45.3 million (NRCC has 6.7 million). Even if you split the burden in half between those two groups, that means $15 million gone from each... and they're roughly at parity on monthly fundraising with their GOP equivalents, and the RNC has 41 million in the bank. Translation: getting rid of Clinton this way would negate the cash advantage that the Democratic Party currently enjoys.
3). Go to rich donors. This is the most likely scenario, of course. Find 60 people willing and able to shell out 500 grand apiece, flash the smile, turn on the charm, avoid a major gaffe, and the money is Hillary's. Barack Obama could get that done in a dinner, if the guest list is carefully designed, and it won't cost him more than a couple of million to put together. He's got the money for that, and he'd rather spend two than thirty. No problems, right?
Well. First off, those donors would now be effectively tapped out. After all, they shelled out 500 grand to save the Party; they've done their bit. Obama wants more from them after that, they're going to want something in exchange. Something that's worth the money that they've spent in addition to the money that they're being hit up for. And those will be the honest ones. The not-quite-so-honest ones will expect a quid pro quo for their favor to the candidate, once he's in office... and if he doesn't give it to them, they will turn his name to mud in Democratic circles. In other words, this scenario makes the supposedly People's candidate pre-beholden to even more of a large, shadowy group of rich Democrats than is normally the case; and if one man decides to step in and pay the whole thing... then my grudging, but sincere congratulations, George. I know that you've always wanted to just go out and buy a Presidential candidate.
So, let's recap. To make Hillary Clinton go away, Barack Obama needs to (at minimum) either: use his contributors' money to pay her off; erase the Party's money advantage to pay her off; go into debt with a bunch of plutocrats to pay her off; hand over title to his won soul to one guy (or, at best, a cartel) to pay her off; or maybe try to do all of this at once, because muddling up an already complicated situation is of course the hallmark of a true Democratic Party politician. You sure that you want this woman out of the race?
Have a nice morning.
Moe Lane
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "Nothing Is Over Until We Decide It Is!" — Comments (34) »
Lovely morning... 97 Comments (0 topical, 97 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Obama, for all intensive purposes, has won the Democratic primary. However, Hillary won't go away quietly. And, if Obama has to pay her to make her disappear, it will make both of them look bad. This talk of a so called, "dream-ticket" is not going to happen. I've spoken with several Clinton supporters, and all of which said that they will be voting for McCain in the fall, even if Hillary becomes Obama's running-mate. Why is this? I believe it is because they just can't stand Obama's policies - the very reason they chose to support Clinton over Obama in the first place.
That being said, McCain has problems of his own. He will have to pick a running-mate soon, and this will significantly affect his chances of getting in the White House. Mitt Romney would be a logical choice, and he may well indeed attract more conservative voters. However, Romney might turn McCain's moderate supporters off. Nevertheless, if Obama remains too liberal for moderates to tolerate, then they will still vote for McCain.
One thing is for certain - this will be a very close race, all the way up to November.
- Rhonan
I've spoken with several Clinton supporters, and all of which said that they will be voting for McCain in the fall, even if Hillary becomes Obama's running-mate. Why is this? I believe it is because they just can't stand Obama's policies
Which Obama policies are they opposed to?
If you take away the rhetoric and stylistic differences, and just look at Hillary's and Obama's policy stands objectively, they aren't that different. Except on Iran maybe. What's the big discriminator for these Hillary supporters?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Hello all, I'm one of those long time lurkers here at Red State and I'll take this opportunity to pop out my head and have a go.
I am a Democrat and was pulling for Hillary, I felt she best represented my moderate views...but she will not be the nominee. I can't understand why the Democratic party always nominates socialists for their candidates, it drives me crazy.
Now my choice is simple, scoot a bit more right or far far deep left, I will be reviving my Regan Democrat days, I will be voting for John McCain. Not because of a lesser than two evils but because McCain is my "Plan B" :)
ps. I lurk here at Red State because it is the most intelligent blog in the universe
Pup
Your party has left you behind yet again. Maybe it's time for you to leave your party behind.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
"I can't understand why the Democratic party always nominates socialists for their candidates, it drives me crazy."
Uh...because the democratic party is now the party of Marx...you have been usurped!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
The Party of Marx, that is...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
There is barely a hint of separation between Obama and Clinton on any policy issue. If Obama is a socialist, then so is Clinton. Of course, since most people don't know the difference between a socialt, communist, anarchist or vegetarian and use the term as a simple perjorative, I suppose you could use it as a valid description of Obama and not of Clinton.
Why don't you call him a racist, next?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Since my goal is not to convert him into an Obama supporter, I suppose I don't really care if he remains a disgruntled Clinton supporter. How you came to the conclusion that calling him a "racist" is the next logical argument to my comment is a mystery.
My bad, sorry: carry on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Not a physical one, mind you; but I try to keep track of folks that need to be kept track of.
All part of keeping it down to a dull roar.
Moe
PS: Before you ask; yes, starkly necessary.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Trust me, you'd know it if you were. I'm not what you'd call subtle about it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This tempts me to make it my goal to get on the list. But anyway, as to the diary, keep something in mind. Terry Mcwhatshisface was on Jon Stewart last night, and in talking to Stewart I got the distinct impression that he had no argument. He was just sitting there buying time (so the campaign can raise cash). He was not making an argument as to why Hillary should stay in, he was just sitting there acting all weird and stalling. This is indicative:
Stewart: How can you possibly justify staying in, considering that you have unequivocally lost and have no reasons?
Mcwhatshisface: first of all, we are going to win and Hillary will be the next President. But we have 18 million votes, HILLARY'S GOING ALL THE WAY. She is a fighter, she really fights, she is fighting for the people and that is what this campaign, nay, this fight, is about, it is about Hillary being a fighter.
Stewart: But you lost! It's over!
Terry Mcwhatshisface: WE'RE GONNA WIN!! FIGHTER!!! YEEARG-[head explodes]
No talk of the future, a path to the nomination, strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, etc. just some talking points, but remixed too many times like a bad techno song (raise your hand if you think that is redundant).
Obama can't give her the $$$, it is illegal, that is what I heard somewhere. Before you say what you are going to say, Obama isn't Rezko, he sat with journalists from the Tribune and Sun Times, one of which is conservative and dislikes him (I forget which) and they said he was good. Plus, he doesn't want to give her cash, and so even if he would do something illegal its illegality is a cover for not doing it, since he doesn't want to.
held a fundraiser at the home of an unrepentant weather underground terrorist. Do you think the super-delegates would change their mind and not vote for Obama as the nominee?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
whether or not it would, doesn't change the fact that I agree that she is in it to settle her debts. She can suspend the campaign and come back if a scandal kills Obama's viability. In that situation, she will prob be picked anyway...she does not need an active campaign (especially with her debt problems) to sit around and hope for scandal.
It kills me to say it, but I am worried about him being assassinated. I think the vast majority of the country has no more race qualms, but there are some messed up people out there. How many people think that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim trying to destroy the country from within? If it is one percent of one percent, and one percent of those people would actually act on it, then that is 300 people who would try something. Even forgetting that, when it comes to Presidents that possibility can never be counted out.
Ford, and Reagan.
Presidents and candiadates for same that were targets of assasination.
Are you worried about McCain being assasinated?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I understand what you are saying Shoo, but from my viewpoint I felt Clinton more centrist than Obama, who I consider too far to the left for my comfort level. As a retired Army 1SG I find myself indentifying with John McCain more and more each day and as a matter of fact the Republican Party...this is not a snap decision...this is a work in progress and is not a "Try" nice or otherwise. I do understand your caution.
Actually I have been struggling with my values with the Democratic Party for a long long time. I was socalized a Democrat in my family (they are all ardent Democrats) but I am no longer politically insulated as when I was on active duty.
I dunno, I think there is a change coming for me...
Pup
Even on Active Duty, I was never so insulated that what the Dems say and do with regards to the military wasn't clear to me. And even those who really did manage to not notice it all Have to be shocked by Congressman "They're cold-blooded killers, I say! Murderers" Murtha and Senator "Ah yes, those stupid troops who didn't do well in school" Kerry and what they're supporters have been screaming at the top of their lungs for the last 4 years...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Were the years of my service....majority of them Reagan/Bush years...good ones to be sure:)During the Clinton years I was in the 25th Inf Div (Woot! Tropic Lightning)and did the Haiti thing and soon after ROTC duty until retirement, as you can see I wasn't much affected by the Dems.
I'd have to say with your comment to Murtha nad Kerry, I can't agree more
And I repeat my invitation. Your party has left you behind. Leave them behind and go whole hog Republican. We welcome people with a conservative bent who used to be Democrats.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
So anyway, I'm a Real lurker- I know bazillions of Dems of different stripes and it's very rare to hear them actually complain about "socialists" since that's not our bogeyman- anyway, here's the point- We already know all this (about Hillary and the money) and there are more contingencies in general than this article is really allowing for. Yes it could be bad. I am So not worried about the money when it comes to Obama (I am rather worried about another kneecapping of the Democrat by the MSM, but anyway)- he just got the nomination and it's a whole new ballgame. McCain has been the presumptive nominee for ages and can't get more than a few hundred people to show up to anything.
Normally, I wouldn't post, but that faker lib needed a response and I thought the writer of the article might want to be more informed as to the attitudes of the liberal majority in general.
By the way: setting up an account for the express purpose of telling us that nuh-uhh, nothing bad's going to happen, you GOP poopyheads never quite works out the way that people seem to think that it works out. True indifference is hard to fake.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Uh.. whatever. Honestly trying to further communication about Dems' attitudes and knowledge. Cons always assume the worst about human nature. Okay, how's this- nice. speech. John. Go GOP!
"The better angels of our nature"
Click.
Hrm. Must not have reloaded after the last one: guess you get to stick around for a little while longer.
Free advice, though? Damp it down. If you've really lurked here for a while you know that you just got a free gift.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I say something nice and constructive.... and you say, pshaw, that's ersatz. I snark a bit (in a relatively nice way for the internet) and... "damp it down"? I am completely bewildered as to the point of the article- you wrote it for "progressive lurkers," right? But you don't care what we think about it... You write an article aimed at Dems then get mad at them for responding? I will only post in regards to such an article. If you can't handle it, then go ahead and ban me. I will get much more satisfaction from it than you will. Next time I post it will also be considerate and in response to an attempt at communication with liberals.
$75 if you were planning to wear a gimp suit. Normally it'd be $100/$150, but I'm discounting because the beta site's going live today.
In advance, of course.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You make a good point Moe.
However, assuming that Clinton plays the debt card (which wouldn't be surprising) and assuming those are Obama's only three options, why couldn't he use part of each option?
In my opinion, getting parts of the debt payoff from each option would do considerably less damage than tapping only one option.
...but 10 million from him puts him at rough parity with McCain, at least for the moment; 10 million from the DSCC and DCCC is 10 million that the RNC doesn't have to counter; and 10 million from donors is 20 people that now have a marker from Obama. Not all that much better, and the central problem for the Democrats remain: that 30 million would have to come from somewhere, and it probably would come from money already allocated for the election.
Good times, good times.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
that her debt is hers and hers alone? As a "new-tone" politician, couldn't he do this?
Seriously, what is she gonna do about it?
Could her supporters get any more pissed off than Saturday?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, British-American girl...
I totally see Moe's point below. But, how does he need her delgates for his VP pick?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, British-American girl...
Unless his delegates, including the ever-fickle superdelegates, are uniform in favor of his VP pick, Clinton might be able to control who gets elected VP.
So he needs her happy.
A contested VP vote raises the following question:
(1) How many Obama delegates would vote for Clinton as VP in an effort to heal the party against Barak's wishes
vs.
(2) How many Hillary delegates would against Clinton as VP in an effort to health the party against Hillary's wishes
I would love to see a fight on this, with the end result being Hillary being unsuccessful. That would be perfect.
Doesn't he have enough supers committed to him to rule her impotent on that issue?
Given the way the Dems have treated Hillary and annoited him, my guess is they would just tell her to go cry a river.
We'll see what she and Bubba can stir up.
I guess we need another round of popcorn, nachos, beer.....
And probably Prozac for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, British-American girl...
Whether he can *hold* those supers once Obama is nominated, and the VP is being selected, is an open question.
I would say he probably can hold her off, but it'd take work.
While it has been tradition for the delegates to rubber stamp the VP selection of the Presidential nominee, the Dem rules state that the delegates have the authority to nominate both the Pres and VP candidates. While I don't personally this will happen, it is possible for Obama to select a nominee and have the convention delegates override him and nominate and elect Clinton as the Dem VP candidate. I'm not sure how the rules work on our side, but according to several talking heads on TV last night, that's how the Dem process works.
It could just be a Clinton-backed candidate. If her delegates back her VP pick, and a few Obama superdelegates are swayed, then boom, he loses control of his own VP pick.
First of all, I don't think under democratic party rules that any delegate is actually "required" to vote for Obama for the Presidential slot. There is even less in the rules "requiring" them to vote for his VP choice.
Obama non-super-delegates have every right to vote for Hillary or a Hillary surrogate for the VP slot against Obama's urgings.
If Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius, will Hillary really have her own delegates get in the way of the first ever female veep? And if she tried, would they go along? How'd she explain that to people?
You seem to be politically astute, and I'm sure you know who Ferraro is. It's just that right now, the last thing on Hillary's mind is helping the Democrats set up any more potential "first evers".
Even so, I am thinking less of what she thinks and more of her ability to get votes for an alternate VP pick.
After going on about how her supporters are invisible and all, and given a lot of her support from women, who want to break THE glass ceiling, and since people say that said boomer women will be upset to see the young male win over the dues-paying older more experienced female...
that does not seem like a formula that will lead to a popular uprising in the party demanding that a boomer female governor be replaced by a Hillary surrogate (who would be male). Picking Sebelius would take the wind out of that emotional aspect of her potential argument, especially given Sebelius's views.
which maneuvered rather crudely to keep Hillary from becoming the first female President now finds itself in the delicate position of also trying to keep her from becoming the first female vice president. I don't see where picking Any Woman But Hillary is going to soothe the ruffled feathers of Hillary or her supporters.
Obama--and Michelle--can't possibly want her as his VP, but the party may need her there to have any chance of winning. I guess there will be alot of Elder Democrat Statesmen delivering inconvenient truths this Summer.
When you say "The Democratic Party" do you mean the rank and file or the people in charge? If the former, they didn't "maneuver crudely" they voted against her. If the latter, Obama won in pledged delegates, and won overall once the superdels caught up. If there were no superdels Obama'd've won awhile ago.
Obama won the popular vote in any tally that awards him more than 0 votes in Michigan. Whether or not it was right for Obama to take his name off the ballot doesn't change the fact that overall the people's choice was narrowly, but clearly, Obama.
Why any special worry about Obama, given Garfield and George Wallace?
see above
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I guess, it is always a concern, though it strikes me as less likely for McCain than for Obama, for the reason I said. Wallace would also strike me as more likely to be shot, and for that matter Lincoln. They strike me as people who would inspire hatred in others due to who they are/what they've done. I don't know enough about Garfield to say...
It is always a concern, but a bigger one for Obama I would guess. Bigger by how much I am not sure but considering that there are still active chapters of the KKK and other such groups, even if they don't have the influence they used to they still have the crazy...
There are motives to kill any president or candidate, and the pool of people that would do so to any one such person is relatively the same for any of them.
The leftist meme is that America is a racist nation.
Bull.
Hence the leftist crack up when it turned out that a leftist communist killed JFK instead of a right wing baptist hillbilly,
see this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_left_before_the_fa...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
owes its continued existence to the perpetuation of the murderous, racist, Klan-addled yokel stereotype.
When David Horowitz, pat Buchanan, ann coulter speak on college campi they have to have body guards due to past incidents of having objects thrown at them while on stage.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
and the media arm of the party. The trend in popular votes and state delegates was decidedly for Hillary by the end of the primaries, and the Rube Goldberg superstructure of Superdelegacy--I was wrong about that; Superdelagacy is intricate maneuvering--has done nothing but cloud the outcome for both candidates. The Florida/Nichigan debacles and the media swoon I would classfy as crude maneuvering, however.
WRT "Church's Chicken" Obama as the peoples' choice, Democrats generally consider a narrow victory over a Republican to be a clear mandate, but they are more circumspect about narrow victories in intra-party contests.
None of the above changes the fact that Hillary believes she has been burned by Democrat identity politics and fawning media coverage of Obama, and she still holds cards that Obama needs. By now, she harbors no romantic illusions about sacrificing For The Women to suit the needs of the People In Charge. She's already been stabbed in the back be the People In Charge of NOW, but she probably saw that shiv coming since they rolled over for Bill a decade ago.
A Sebelius ploy would be seen by her as a cheap trick and a transparent sop to her supporters.
FL/MI, and the media in general, I would describe as idiotic rather than crudely manuevering. I think they kept Hillary in for far longer than they would have kept anyone else. If the opposite was happening, by March 4 when it became clear Hillary was not going to make up the difference, if it were Obama the media would be pushing him out, proclaiming Hillary once again inevitable.
As for clear mandates, Republicans consider narrow victories over Democrats clear mandates. I am specifically thinking of 2004. And before you say that it is a bigger victory 'cuz he got a majority, I will quote what Neil Stevens said yesterday to me, which is that popular vote rises and falls 'cuz of third parties, which were lacking in '04.
(That doesn't change our big victory in '06, it is true there were 3rd parties effects but our percent over the Repubs was 7.9%, more than the 5.9% for the Repubs over Dems in '94).
Hillary lost because of the War, not because of identity politics. ID politics played a big role clearly, but without her war support there'd've been no room for an Obama run to gather steam. Obama did not gain the black vote until after winning in Iowa.
Why is he "Church's Chicken" Obama?
for the Sebelius gambit. We can go back and forth rehashing the primaries, but if Obama had crushed her decisively, we would not even be discussing debt retirement, suspended campaigns, convention theatrics, delegate negotiations, etc. because Hillary would have been kicked to the curb, and her supporters bluntly told to get back in line.
Obama is callow, weak and inexperienced. He is still afraid of her, and he has some questionable VP vetters(though they would make a great local Action News Team)who are wary of poking a wounded lioness with something like a Sebelius stick.
Church's Chicken is a Black-Owned fried chicken chain which had the slogan, "At Church's, we believe in the peoples' choice." Great chicken and cheap, too! I think they got hit pretty hard by Popeye's and Bojangle's.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Just kidding, but Zombie is correct in this respect. All of the polls before Iowa had Hillary Clinton winning the majority of support from black voters.
for Jesse Jackson, twice, I knew that those pre-Iowa polls in other states and nationally were wack! Jackson won a lot of states and he polled badly before Iowa too, and he lost Iowa.
Blacks would have voted overwhelmingly for Obama whether he won Iowa or not. Heck, they don't care that he sat in the pew of a racist church for 20 years. They care about his skin pigmentation.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Blacks would have voted overwhelmingly for Obama whether he won Iowa or not. Heck, they don't care that he sat in the pew of a racist church for 20 years. They care about his skin pigmentation.
Yup. And if someone white points that out, then THEY are the racist ones....
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
The funny part in all of this - well, there's a lot that's funny - is that it reminds us that, once again, progressives aren't very good at history. A candidate with Hillary's level of support is almost obligated to take it to the convention*; that the super-delegates are so desperate to end the primary season now gives her leverage.
Mind you, all of the above assumes that she quits.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*I know that this is hard for some of our Democratic colleagues to grasp, but by the rules of your own system Barack Obama is the worst Democratic primary campaigner in forty years. Even Fritz Mondale managed to wrap things up early.
You Rock!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, British-American girl...
off the roost.
Of course, the quality matters.
waiting
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
So, um, GC, what's this line for, again?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
yet again I am guilty of obscure references in my humour...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
"40 million American households not watching McCain are generally happier
than those people in households that do watch McCain."
THE THREAD IS NOT SO THIN.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
there has been a lot since I last was here so I'll do my best to try and respond to it all:
1) I did not call America a racist nation. That said, there are racists in America. Of course there are always motives to kill a President/candidate. But I think that anyone involved in the race stuff, about which there are a lot of hard feelings/people who adhere to certain beliefs to a degree to which they might be willing to kill (once again talking about a very small minority), is probably more vulnerable.
Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Secret Service. This was like 7 months before the Iowa Caucuses, over a year ago, that Obama was put under protection. These are the guys who are paid to figure out who is threatened and all. The "not based on any threat" thing could be the truth or could be an effort to keep people from panicking that Obama had received death threats or something.
2) "The KKK couldn't fit into a phone booth...." I don't know what this means, but there are still some, albeit a very small number of people, associated with the KKK and neo nazi groups and etc. David Duke comes to mind. He isn't the problem, it is some kid out there, surely there is one, who is 20 unemployed and hearts David Duke, and has too much time and a gun.
3)
academic left are ones that are inspired to hate/throw things
I think that capacity to hate is irrespective of location on political spectrum. I don't wanna get into a who-has-more-hate fight, bringing up examples of crazy people, etc. I went to see John McCain when he came to my school, back in 2007, and I threw nothing. I also went to my school's Terrorism Awareness Week event, but not to the one with Rick Santorum because I had work to do. I don't know if it was intentional, but it was scheduled for the same week as Muslim Culture week or something, as organized by the Muslim Student Union.
Some of the other kids at the Terrorism thing btw were "we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"-esque. But I did not throw anything, and Dan Pipes took no questions. I was in line to ask McCain a question but hadn't the chance.
4) I don't see the Church's Chicken connection, "we believe in the people's choice" has only one connection with Obama's slogan, "Change we can believe in" and that is the word believe, but that is a stretch to me. Sounds similar to the slogan of a million companies, standard marketing stuff.
5) So you are saying that the polls are dumb and black people really supported Obama the whole time. You gave no evidence, other than the fact that you supported Jesse Jackson once, so I am going with poll numbers. For the black vote in Iowa, unfortunately exit polls don't have a large enough sample size to say on something like that. The fact that Jesse Jackson did well after doing badly in polls doesn't change the fact that polls showed black support of Obama go up a lot after Iowa. My explanation is better I think than either that black people were lying or than that all polling firms are idiots. Of course early polls can only tell you so much, that is because as you get closer to elections more people tune in and things happen more quickly not because black people were lying about their support of Obama, or because polling outfits are staffed by idiots.
6) Two things: first
Yup. And if someone white points that out, then THEY are the racist ones....
I have heard a lot, a lot of people, in the media, in my own life, etc. point this out and not be called racist. You see it all the time in the media, pundits predicting Obama will get the black vote 'cuz he is black (at least back in the day ,before it went from the CW to plain fact. And when he wasn't winning the black vote people in the media expressed puzzlement over it. Said pundits were not called racist.
Second: Black people can vote for a black person, with race being a major factor, and not be racist. Racism is defined as believing that one race is superior to another. A black person can think, it would be good for this nation to have a black President, or that they want a role model for the kids, or that a black President will be more open to the struggles of black people in America. To respond to what y'all will say to that last one, there is much more clearly a more monolithic black struggle in the US, than there is a white struggle. If a white person was like 'candidate x will be receptive to the white struggle in the US' I would be like what are you talking about, white struggle? Whereas people here talk about the bad condition of many black communities in the US, though assigning different cause than do others.
can see:
1) We'll skip the strawman argument about "racist nation" that I didn't raise.
Your second sentence is what we call an "admission against interest" in the law, after which motions for summary judgment are granted. TRANSLATION: I won the argument. You lose.
But let's continue with he academic exercise for your edification and education, shall we?
"involved in the race stuff" is too vague to respond to and irrelevant in any event.
Paid to figure out whose assasination would cause them the most grief given the race baiters in this country.
Read this (The Whole thing - McWhorter is black and an Obama supporter btw) and then more later from GC:
relevant excerpt
A year and a half ago, often I was sweetly dismissed when I said that Barack Obama was possibly on his way to the White House and would certainly trounce Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
"You don't know what they'll do to him," they'd say. As often as not, the idea was that America could not seriously support a black man for its highest office.
I didn't get this. The America I live in today does not seem as deeply stamped by bigotry as these people seemed to think. It seemed as if, on this topic, I was talking to people who had woken up after 25 years and didn't know how the country had changed. Couldn't they see that this man's color was only going to help?
Well, here we are. Are there some bigots? Of course. Did they, or any purported instance of "racism" during the campaign, keep Barack Obama from the nomination?
His victory demonstrates the main platform of my race writing. The guiding question in everything I have ever written on race is: Why do so many people exaggerate about racism?
more later
soon
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
1) You said:
The leftist meme is that America is a racist nation.Bull.
This is why I said what I said.
2) The second sentence - to what are you refering? The second sentence of the post, or that bit. One of the following two: I did not call America a racist nation. That said, there are racists in America. Both of those are true, and neither undermines my argument. There can be racists in America without the country as a whole being racist. "Involved in the race stuff" - is vague, what I mean is Wallace and Lincoln had strong views on sensitive race-related issues (slavery/segregation) likely to provoke ire. Obama is put in that category by his race. But like I said, don't take my word take the word of the Secret Service. We can go back and forth 12 rounds but none of that changes the fact that the people in charge of protecting Presidents/candidates think Obama is worthy of extra protection.
As for what would cause them the most grief, you can have that interpretation but I think it is more likely that they are simply doing their jobs than that they have alterior motives, especially when you consider that they have a lot more info on this than we do (we speculate but they actually know about it all).
As for the article, note that I did not say that I was worried that Obama's race would cost him the victory in November. The thing about an assassination is that one person can do a lot of damage. Are racists a large percentage of the voting public? My guess would be no. But, does it take only one guy who is racist, violent, has a gun and time on his hands? Yes. There are still people in the KKK (what is left of it) and neo-nazi groups. Certainly not enough to have an effect on the popular vote in November, but that number is above 0 so it is enough to have someone from said groups try to kill Obama.
Wallace - a psycho
JFK - a communist
Lincoln - a confederacy sympathizer
Garfield and McKinley - psychos
RFK - a muslim terrorist
Reagan - psycho
Ford - psycho
Truman - psycho
seems non-racist ire provocations abound
Concerned about McCain now? Think maybe there is an agenda about all the Obama risk vs McCain risk? As if his life is more precious? Or as if America teams with racists.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
To me "Confederacy sympathizer" counts as a race thing. Lincoln's anti-slavey stand and his anti-confederacy stand were linked I would say. Make a probabilistic argument, I counted two guys assassinated with racial stuff abounding. 50% were killed by a guy with race-related motives. Of the non-racial people, there are 7 here and of the 7, 5 you attribute to psychos. So, if you make my list of race people and you are assassinated there is a 50% chance it was due to something you stand for. If you are another assassinated (or attempted assassinated) person then there is a 71% chance of it being due to a psycho. Point is, there is a statistical difference, and the reason it may not seem that way is because the "race guys" are a smaller group then the people in general.*
Plus, you could add in MLK for good measure...though didn't the guy who killed him insist he was innocent so it is hard to say for sure his motive?
*For a similar argument, anti-vaccine people will say something like "as many people with the measles vaccine get the measles as people without the measles vaccine, so it makes no difference if you get a vaccine." But the thing is, something like 99% of people get the vaccine...if .1% of people get the measles then if you get the vaccine you have a 0.05% chance of getting the measles, and if you do not get the vaccine you have a 5 percent chance of getting the measles - 100 times higher.
Another thing : my theory does not predict a race-based assassination for the vast majority of these people.
You think the Secret Service bases the number of agenst assigned based on race. If so, wouldn't it be embarrasing to have McCain killed by a psycho or Obama by a disguntled black that was disorganized by Obama in the community?
Let's move on. I can't convince you that McCain's life is threatened. So que sera sera.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Then I'll move on. First, I do think the McCain's life is threatened, at least it is to the same extent that it is for all candidates. And clearly he should have Secret Service protection. Second, maybe race but maybe also threats they have received chatter on various hate sites/hate groups etc.
anyway, whatevs.
robust debate makes us all wiser
you are worthy
I'm lou gossett and you are gere in officer and a gentleman
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Read some Superman comic books.
2 - Some kid out there, surely there is one...that loves Jodie Foster and so, obviously wants to kill Reagan.
see the point?
If not see Pres. Garfield, McKinley, Ford et al
3 - You said: "I think that capacity to hate is irrespective of location on political spectrum." Yet another admission. Thanks.
Name one liberal speaker on a college campus in the last 7 years that has been heckled off the stage or had objects thrown at them. I named three conservatives. There are more.
THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE YOU SAY OBAMA IS MORE LIKELY TO BE TARGET OF VIOLENCE. WITH NO PROOF.
4 - Bojangles is better.
5 - Pre-election polls prove nothing. There purpose is to predict. They were wrong. They were wrong when Jackson lost Iowa and went on to get 90+% of the black vote and when Obama won Iowa and went on the get same. Polls are samples. Election votes are the real thing.
Zombie, you see, SEEEEEE, I have lived through and participated in lots of these election cycles. There is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes
6 - totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
happy?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
1) I am aware of what a phone booth is.
2) There are no "I love Jodie Foster and so want to kill Reagan" fan clubs. but there are "I hate black people and their being in power is a danger to America [by which I* mean White America]" fan clubs, AKA the KKK and neo-nazi groups
3) Admission? You have all these ideas about what people on "the left" think, and then when I don't subscribe to them you treat it like you somehow tricked me into admitting some damning piece of evidence that destroys my entire argument. As for the speakers, I don't know because I don't keep track of such things - I can speak from personal experience. Of the speakers I have been to at my College, and I go to more Conservative ones than Liberal it seems, none have been heckled. I bet that if Ann Coulter came she would be protested (as was someone, I can't remember who, a Dem who came before '06 elections - here is a question - who is the Liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter? I bet they would be protested too).
As for having no proof. That is right I have no proof, who ever has proof about anything, except that a continuous function sends compact spaces to compact spaces or something else so mathematical. But I have evidence beyond my own reasoning, that is the Secret Service thing, and the fact that KKK type groups still exist albeit in smaller form.
4) there is a place, Crown Fried Chicken, 40th and Market, not sure if it is a chain or just one store, is good. But what is way good is the following three: Five Guys (unless you are allergic to peanuts), In-n-Out Burger (which is so far away, I have only been once), Chipotle.
5) They were not wrong. The pre-Iowa polls said Obama was doing alright w/blacks. post-Iowa polls said he was doing better. Both were right (as far as anyone can say, there is no way to say how Obama did among blacks in Iowa, and therefore no way of knowing if the pre-Iowa polls were off, except to say that I disagree with your characterization of polls)
The reason is this: polls say how the candidates are doing NOW. A poll comes out today saying Obama and McCain are tied at 46, it does not say "but McCain will be doing better in 2 months." The fact that a pre-Iowa poll did not predict that black support of Obama would go up after Iowa does not mean that that pre-Iowa poll is wrong that before Iowa Obama had less support. Maybe his black support rising was inevitable, but even in that case it would not change the fact that the pre-Iowa poll correctly said that pre-Iowa his support was low.
5) It mentions me in Ecclestiases?
6) This is unrelated to your 6 but I want to point out that I am of a different generation than the people you knew when you were a lib dem, as are many Obama supporters and many of the people who will be the backbone of the party in say 20 years. I find the culture wars/sixties fallout/baby boomer stuff/all this who is racist stuff to be all thououghly uninteresting, and I mean that about both sides. And I while I am on the subject I find the who-is-patriotic thing (particularly since it is aimed against my side) to be thoroughly irritating.
*I speaking as the KKK guy not me personally
Al Franken ?
Janeane Garofalo ?
Markos ?
Harry Reid ?
Nancy Pelosi ?
Cindy Sheehan ?
Keith Olberman ? \_These two aren't nearly as humorous
Chris Mathemws > /
Dan Rather >-- Much more funny but not intentionally
The list goes on. The difference is Ann is rejected by significant parts of the right (Not I, but others)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When you said: "Of course there are always motives to kill a President/candidate."
That was my whole point. Had nothing to do with what the LEFT thinks (but on that subject, since I was on the left in the dem party for 18 years until 2000, I think I am an authority on it. A whistleblower if you will. I know what they say and plot behind closed doors. I don't "imagine" it. I was part of the vile cabal. Part of the time I was an innocent like you. Then I woke up one day to a Clinton lie and saw myself as a front man for the kooks just like him. bleh) That you put "of course" is quite clever. Many a lawyer (see even GC) tries to downplay damning evidence, but I know how to stand facing the jury and bring home the point with raised eyebrows and wide eyes.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
irrelevant on this subject, eh? Yes, I thought so.
The "evidence" you claim is none. They made a publicity stunt out of his getting protection, that's all.
Never mistake what gets said loudest and most often with having any relation to facts in context.
What city are u n?
OK, SO THE PRE-IOWA POLLS THAT HILLARY AHEAD IN SC WERE RIGHT? NOT
There goes another bait and switch or can you not stay on subject due to a disability?
that was joke
But really man, the dems are claiming that blacks didn't decide to back Obama until he could prove he could get white votes and they cite the 2007 state polls as "proof."
You need to read Ecclesiastes and listen to Gamecock.
You have previously been acquitted on the charge of being unpatriotic. You cannot be tried twice due to the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
And thank God we have patriots like you in generation x, y or darwinmonkeyheir, because unpatriotic people like Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss and Ted Kennedy (see back channel communications with communists in the USSR in the 80s trying to sabotage Reagan's fight to win the Cold War) will always be a threat to our nation.
God bless you you ole dead man walking flag waver livin next door to Homer kid you!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
And that it's already a lost cause but I really hate to see Benedict Arnold being cast as a traitor.
He was a brilliant military commander who won several battles for the Revolution and was removed from his command and imprisoned for it. He was hounded and constantly criticized and insulted to such a degree that he said the hell with it and, unfortunately, let the door hit him where the pig bit him on the way out. He made 1 (count that, just 1) bad decision, and history has allowed that to completely erase all the good he did for this nation. We would have lost were it not for him. He saved the Northern War for the USA.
His betrayal was wrong, and hurts worse when you know all the good he did for this nation at its birth. But what hurts worse is this nation's betrayal of him.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
and tell Zombie not too waste too much time looking for deep meaning in the Church's Chicken reference. He said Obama was the people's choice, and that slogan floated up from the depths of my memories.
No hidden reference to Obama cravenly disavowing pastoral associations, change we can believe in, dark or white meat, or anything...just some obscure free association, I swear. I guess I should have left out the "Black-owned" descriptor, too;)
I love crossing the Savannah on I-20, because it's Bojangles time again. You've got it good in SC: Best state flag and Bojangles everywhere!
from that tree absorbed british canon balls leading to American victory in the Revolutionary War near Hilton Head
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I hope you're right.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.