home

The New Obama Strategy: Clinton Should Stay In The Race

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:26:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The Obama camp got smart:

As she endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid Monday morning, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar rebuked fellow Democrats who are pressuring New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to cede the party's nomination. "I believe that Sen. Clinton should remain in this race," Klobuchar told reporters in a conference call announcing her decision to back Obama. "I don't agree with some of my colleagues' comments this week.

Ok. At least someone has some good sense in the Obama camp. More so than that displayed by some Obama supporters.

Update TL: Comments now closed.

< Double Standards: Part 1 Million One | Florida: Big Increase in Ex-Offender Voting Requests >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The New Obama Strategy: Clinton Should Stay In The Race | 185 comments (185 topical)
    will be interesting to track (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    how many of those telling her to get out are men, and how many of those not doing so are women.

    That's what it sounds like, all right (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy just exude "white male establishment," so they were really the wrong people to do this.

    Parent
    not to mention (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST
    certain prominent bloggers...

    Parent
    I almost broke the TeeVee with Leahy (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:47:11 PM EST
    He was such the wrong man to do it. And the way he said it, I almost hurled a glass at his image.

    Parent
    Yeh, Leahy sounded SO weary of women (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    who just won't get out of the way and go back where they belong.  I could not believe his "tone," in Michelle Obama's terms -- the sort of tone that could keep me from voting for a Dem for the first time.  

    I also almost threw something at the tv, seriously -- I finally only threw a wadded-up piece of paper, but it didn't give me much sense of satisfaction.:-)

    I wonder how many tv's across the country narrowly escaped destruction because of Leahy last week.

    Parent

    Keep rolled up socks handy (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    That's what we did for live blogging of FDA/USDA  updates during the pet food recalls. It saved breaking things and holes in walls. And if you have a dog, toss tennis balls, lol!~

    Parent
    Actually, I had two cats (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    sicken during that and die -- both of stomach problems.  It was the end of an era, as we had gotten them in 1992 and named them Bill and Al.

    I've had such a distrust of pet food since, for my new kitten, and am checking constantly for any word of warning.  My vet feels the same, saw a lot of pets die of sudden, inexplicable stomach problems.  He calls it poisoning, and I won't soon forget it was brought to us by conservative deregulation and defunding of much that the FDA used to do. . . .

    Parent

    I'm so sorry :( (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    ugh, that's just horrible. I was online with lots of people who were going through it. I had already been a raw feeder for 5 yrs because of my dog's needs (Dals need a certain diet), so I escaped it. I have 5 cats. Hope your enjoying your new kitten  :) You know about http://itchmoforums.com/index.php  ? they have good info and stay on top of any food problems.

    I learned to distrust more than pet food during that time. I cleared my kitchen out of everything and started over from scratch. And I was a pretty much no processed food person to start with.

    One reason I support Hillary is her tougher stands on food and Import safety. She always brings up pet food when discussing the issue. The others, nope.

    Parent

    Thanks, Just Thanks (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    Nice for Obama to give his permission for Hillary to stay in.  

    Parent
    And in such (none / 0) (#105)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:00:27 PM EST
    a patronising way, as well. . .

    Parent
    Leahy supports women's rights (none / 0) (#193)
    by angie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    as long as they stay in the kitchen. /snark

    Parent
    I think they may have succeeded... (none / 0) (#170)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:08:01 PM EST
    ...the "Clinton should get out" storyline may have actually succeeded, at least partially. It appears that more and more people think Obama's nomination is going to happen one way or the other.  That may be driving the Gallup poll numbers in part (that along with sniper-gate and the growing number of superdelegates committing or about the commit to Obama).

    So, while this Obama supporter thinks Clinton should stay in (and maybe actually be making Obama a better GE candidate), the surrogates may have helped shift the tide back toward Obama by suggesting that she leave.

    Okay, go on, pile on.  Tell me this was an extremely partisan post, delusional, whatever.  I expect it here. :)

    Parent

    I've never seen people pile on (none / 0) (#173)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    to a reasonable post like yours at this website.

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#177)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    I think you are right.

    And it makes me so angry.

    Tactics like this may help him with the nomination, but they are being short sighted. They are not thinking about Clinton supporters like myself who they will need to win the general election.

    Also...never count a Clinton out until she counts herself out....

    Parent

    I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:35:10 PM EST
    Maybe I'm naive, but I don't take these comments as sexist.  I just think some of these people believe they have an opportunity to control the party for the first time in years.

    What I think is really interesting is how tone deaf some of them seem to be.  This race is too close for some of the grandstanding I'm witnessing.  Each of these candidates will need the other's supporters when the nomination is finalized - not to mention some of these states yet to primary or caucus - and yet some of these supposedly experienced pols have completely overlooked those important facts.

    Parent

    I don't know that Leahy (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    intended to be sexist, but when the white male establishment comes out in full force to tell the little lady to get out of the man's way so he can win without having to do any more earning, well, that outs a certain spin on things - particularly to women who've had to deal with these kinds of attitudes in their own lives.

    You mix that up with so many of the other comments about Clinton (her knees, her pants suits, her insistence on - gasp - winning, etc) and it develops into a pattern.

    In addition, it's counterproductive.  The harder they push the idea that she's being uppity by standing in the man's way, the more she'll dig in and refuse to leave.  She can't allow people, particularly possible future constituents, to think she's being bullied out of the race.  It indicates weakness, which we all know is anathema in a female candidate for any office.

    I'm willing to bet that if the situations were reversed, Obama's supporters would take great umbrage at the idea that a candidate so close in numbers with a valid, albeit small, chance still at the nomination should bow out before the race was actually over just to make it easier on the opposition.  I imagine they qould be quite put out.

    Parent

    "outs" a certain spin = (none / 0) (#101)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:54:07 PM EST
    "puts" a certain spin.

    Darned spellchecker...

    Parent

    Would Leahy's words be off if HRC was a man? (none / 0) (#153)
    by pluege on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
    If you make HRC a man, can you still assess Leahy as somehow biased, or just carrying water for his guy. If the words and tone are acceptable with HRC a man, then its not sexist, and the accusation of Leahy as sexist is unwarranted.

    Parent
    As I noted (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    I don't believe Leahy necessarily intended to be sexist.  The problem is the pattern of comments over time, not any one comment in isolation.

    And if Leahy and Clinton were both men, no it would not be the same.  Of course, if Clinton were a man, no one would be complaining about her entering a race with the intention to win it.

    Parent

    I disagree with this premise (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    Context matters greatly, and current understanding of the binary categories of man and woman are vastly different, informed by radically different histories. I don't think you can conflate the two in the example you've offered. In a post-gender (or perhaps gender-equal) society, your point would be quite valid; however, we have not reached such a point.

    While I prefer to think Leahy never intended to be sexist, his language is sexist because of a context he cannot control. It doesn't look good to have a man telling a woman to give up. You can claim that it's just as likely he would say it to a man, but we don't have that luxury of speculation: he didn't, he can't. We have only the context now, with this example. This candidacy is a historical one, tied intimately with concerns of gender. It just doesn't look good to tell her to step aside. Many of us (men and women) have been trained to recognize how typically sexist that sentiment appears, no matter the motivation (for even the most sincere motivations can be wrong).

    On the flipside, if everyone pushed Hillary along solely because she was a woman, it would be equally troubling because it stills speaks to an intense focus on gender. At its core, it is still sexism--only in different garb.

    This is the plight of all -isms: you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. We're living in an era when these concerns are so prevalent because conventional identities are eroding while new ones are emerging. And we aren't quite sure what to do about it. If we make it to a point in social development when the isms vanish, then you're point will be well-taken and claims of sexism, racism, etc. will seem antiquated. But, as a whole society, we have not reached that point. No matter how often Maureen Dowd tells us we have.

    Parent

    now I know why I liked it here (none / 0) (#176)
    by bjorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:15:59 PM EST
    lots to learn.  This is a very thoughtful post.  Why aren't there any real scholarly, intelligent feminists out there being asked to comment on the race?  Why isn't there someone providing this kind of macro perspective to what is happening?  Can't MSNBC or CNN find someone? Or is there one and I have been missing her? I thought at first Rachel Maddow might be able to go there, but she falls short too often, and most of the time she doesn't even try.  We could make so much progress if we just had this kind of commentary all over the place.  It was really enlightening for me to listen to Dwight Hopkins on Fresh Air today.  He provided me with a lot of context for Rev Wright and the Black church.  It sucks that tv news has stayed away from this kind of insightful commentary.

    Parent
    It's a sad state of affairs, to be sure. (none / 0) (#187)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:38:57 PM EST
    Intellectual apathy has much to do with it, and our culture conditions for it: instant soundbyte news, fast food, SparkNotes, etc. These elements reveal an underlying phenomenon of quick, already digested information.

    People don't like to have fundamental ideas of the world altered. Reasonably so, it's frightening to have to change our worldviews. Or, more tragically, they don't like to acknowledge their role in a global society. That is, they prefer to think of themselves solely as individuals. And that is patently untrue: we might be individuals, but our individuality is irrelevant without a context of others.

    The sad thing is, if people do offer comments, they are usually dismissed as elitist or condescending. Talking down to, instead of trying to open a new dialogue. Change is long and hard, and it certainly isn't marketable. That's why we don't see it on television! :(

    Parent

    well thanks for (none / 0) (#196)
    by bjorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    taking the time to do it here! I can't get enough.

    Parent
    fair point, but.. (none / 0) (#156)
    by bjorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    did he tell Kennedy to get out in 1980 when he was losing to Carter?  Just wondering.  I don't think we know if Leahy would have said it to a man in this situation.  If you see the race as close, as I do, then it was wrong-headed if not sexist.

    Parent
    Have McCaskill and Sibelius (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:52:24 PM EST
    weighed in?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#31)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:55:08 PM EST
    they both went oddly silent, along with Kennedy, after the Wright stuff broke...

    Except for that one interview McCaskill did with a small Missouri newspaper when she put her foot in her mouth about Barack finally not presenting himself as a victim or something. From the article in the paper, it seemed she was taking some heat from her constituents.

    Parent

    Howard Dean (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:24:17 PM EST
    A woman? Who knew.

    Parent
    Dean's response was reasonable (none / 0) (#146)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    and on-target, as far as I'm concerned.  Clinton has every right to stay in the race until and unless she decides to get out, and doesn't need anyone's permission to do so.  

    Having surrogates tell her she's being a bad Dorothy by actually remaining a contender is patronizing, at best.

    Dean's comments were a welcome change from the narrative.  They were, however, long overdue and somewhat in contrast to his request for an end on July 1.

    Parent

    Permission? (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    It is more a thing of support, and support for the Democratic party.
    As BTD points out over and over Leadeship has to be neutral.

    And then there is Pelosi... cough cough.

    Parent

    Dean's comment didn't smack of permission (none / 0) (#163)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:44 PM EST
    The way those who said "welcome" and "can" did.  As I recall, he stated the no one but the candidate can tell the candidate when to leave.  That's fair, gender neutral, unbiased language, favoring no one candidate over any other.

    I've no problem whatsoever with Dean's statement as I read it.

    I'm not sure if you're trying to goad me into having a problem, or just checking my feminist credentials to see if I pass the written.

    Pelosi's comments were not the same as Dean's, and were not candidate-neutral.  She is not candidate neutral, and while I'd prefer if DNC leadership remained so, I'd rather they declare than feign otherwise.

    Parent

    No Not Goading (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    IMO the first question is more about spinning than about sexism.

     

    Parent

    My apologies then (none / 0) (#185)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM EST
    I'm not yet familiar with all of the personalities here.  Sorry if I misconstrued.

    As to spinning, Dean's comments may well have contained a spin component.  I'll refrain from speculating on his intentions, however, so long as his actual comments remain neutral.

    Pelosi's have not been that (neutral).  She has clearly espoused the Obama line while refusing to declare the obvious - that she supports Obama.  If she's going to support him, which is absolutely her prerogative, I'd prefer she didn't cloak it in some faux mantle of impartiality.  Particularly when said mantle is threadbare and badly in need of mending.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Let's weigh her ambtion vs divisiveness to run (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:05:17 AM EST
    ... and see which of those rotten, MONSTROUS qualities is worse and exceeds the other.

    Clearly this ongoing debate is what's delayed the bigots who have been late to the misogynist glee club.

    How in a bunch the tighties get, gnashing and clenching about that darn woman going after an office without permission (an office for which she believes herself capable and qualified -- and can back up with serious cred.)

    I've known how much social fossils hate it when the wrong people bring to life the rights we've been "given" on paper, and should apparently be held demurely on our laps like the Party favors they're meant to be.

    But jeez we were invited. Why do the tighties lose it when we come out from behind the volunteers' positions and actually dance?

    Parent

    Slightly off topic (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    ...but rumor has it that Nancy P. is on Good Morning America encouraging Clinton to get out in not so many words citing the need for unity and her lack of funding...

    I Love How Eager Dem Leaders Are (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    to throw their credibility out the window.  Because it's not like there may be issues out there, say two large states with delegations at risk, that might need facilitating by independent leaders.  Of course, first we'd have to find some leaders in the Democratic party...

    Parent
    But don't you see... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by sumac on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:29:03 PM EST
    if Hillary would just drop out then Pelosi and Co. don't have to worry about disenfranchisement and delegations at risk. We all get a pony. It's a win-win...until we lose in Novemeber.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#154)
    by pluege on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:06:52 PM EST
    Where the hell are we going to find "leaders" in the Democratic Party? The current ones all flunk.

    Parent
    A lottery perhaps? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:42:00 PM EST
    then put them thru a battery of psych tests, to weed out crooks, slackers, power trippers, enablers, and, well I better stop there.

    Parent
    tomorrow AM (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    saw the promo for it this afternoon. I won't be up that early, I'll catch it later online  ;)

    Parent
    If it is true (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    Nancy P will hit a new low with me...not that she cares what I or any other Clinton supporter thinks.

    And to think I teared up when she was sworn in. What a huge disappointment she has turned out to be...

    Parent

    It's true (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    ABC news just showed a preview. She was saying Hillary needed to get out basically because she can't pay her medical bills and such.

    I thought the campaign said they did pay those bills?

    Pelosi is a stain on the democratic brand...

    Parent

    Medical Bills? (none / 0) (#16)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    They had unpaid medical bills? What?

    Parent
    More interesting than (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    the fact that their payments were late, all have been paid off and it will be reflected on March's filing, is the amount they pay for medical insurance and the amount of people the campaign's insurance covers.

    They cover all workers, their spouses or partners and children, across the board with no exceptions.

    Parent

    She's paying her staff's medical insurance?! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    she is their employeer. They use Aetna Healthcare and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield.

    The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children -- and that wasn't interrupted by any lag in payments to insurance providers, said Jay Carson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.

    Parent

    But are they contributing? (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    the employees that is, like the normal employee health plans?

    Parent
    Next media frenzy (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    Huff Post, Politico etc.  :  Man, the snide remarks about her being a deadbeat, that is why she wants healthcare.   Now they don't want her to quit, they are saying she cannot manage so that proves it.  UGH.  

    Parent
    What is up with Pelosi? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:54:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah so prefers that Hillary quit and her (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    ..campaign workers have no insurance? Sounds about typical for Pelosi.

    Parent
    Maybe Pelosi could pass a law (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:19:40 PM EST
    or something so everybody has access to health care.

    Parent
    I did too (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39:08 PM EST
    and yes, she is a huge disappointment.

    Thankfully, when I move back to CA, it won't be to her district again.

    Parent

    Huge (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    disappointmentas has been Donna Brazile.

    They are "frosting my cookies" lately!


    Parent

    I have been lurking at Taylor Marsh's site...... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    ....just to read the hilarious responses that Donna Brazille has been sending to angry Hillary supporters that are emailing her. If those responses are real, Donna is losing it.

    Parent
    Anyone would lose it (none / 0) (#53)
    by bumblebums on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    in a hail of deranged emails from Taylor Marsh harpies.

    Parent
    I know but.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:12:56 PM EST
    ...I'm amazed that she's actually answering them. It's kind of like they are using their powers for good, not evil, if they are pestering Donna.

    Parent
    I find it weird (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    that Donna Brazile bothers to answer the emails anyway...doesn't she have better things to do?  Like get her facts straight before she goes on TV?

    Parent
    She comes across as (none / 0) (#113)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    particularly thin-skinned and boy-oh-boy (or should it be girl-oh-girl?) as not much of a politician!

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    has been going on for awhile. Many Hillary supporters (myself not included, I don't have the time or the energy to get into it with Donna) have emailed her and she always seems to write back...generally very rude...in one posted email she said she was tired of defending the Clintons. Ha.

    Parent
    Nice misogyny there (none / 0) (#75)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    Harpy | Har"py |
     (haumr"py^), n.; pl. Harpies (-pi^z). F.
       harpie, L. harpyia, Gr. "a`rpyia, from the root of "arpa`zein to snatch, to seize. Cf. Rapacious.

        1. (Gr. Myth.) A fabulous winged monster, ravenous and filthy, having the face of a woman and the body of a vulture, with long claws, and the face pale with hunger.

    Parent

    She seems to be... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    ...short on principle and all about 'unity' - you know, let's not do up any articles of impeachment because someone might get upset...

    Parent
    Ditto -- I used a video of her presiding (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    at the SoTU in a history class to show students how history was happening in their lifetimes.  I fear that she is the disappointment of my lifetime -- but may my students see better leaders than ours today.

    Parent
    What really ticks me off (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    is that the Democrats can't get the time of day with the media when they need it to counter the Republicans over an important bill or a confirmation.  But when it comes to trashing another Democrat, they can't give enough of them enough time.  And I am not dumb enough to lay all the blame on the media, the Democrats are just as complicit in accepting the opportunities too.  

    Parent
    I actually attended the SOTU last year (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:02:49 PM EST
    just so I could witness the first woman speaker to preside over the event. I have to say, it was worth it. When she took the podium and the gavel the whole place broke into wild applause, Repubs too. It was a pretty powerful thing to behold.

    But her latest actions vis-a-vis the campaign have really soured me on her.

    Why can't the electeds just keep out of it until all the votes are cast?

    Parent

    Back to Work, Nancy (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:29:09 PM EST
    Doesn't she have a war to end?

    Parent
    And Obama supporters everywhere... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:31:34 PM EST
    ...are throwing their backs out as they contort themselves into the new "Clinton should stay in" position.

    I guess we are supposed to magically (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    forget all the drumbeating for her to step out, eh?

    Not gonna happen.

    Parent

    We have always been at war with Eastasia. . . (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:37:16 PM EST


    Parent
    DiaNem (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Gabriele Droz on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    I don't post here too much (read a lot though), but your comments always crack me up.  Thanks for the laughs.

    Parent
    Ditto -- and same way I feel at seeing (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    the good Gabriele Droz here, btw.  But we need Kathy back to get us really rolling through paragraphs full.  DianeM is more droll, and I enjoy it, too.:-)

    Parent
    Obama wants her to stay in the race (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:10:14 PM EST
    Obama has always wanted her to stay in the race.
    </Ministry of Truth>

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#115)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd Say It's Because She's a Woman (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:32:27 PM EST
    and so unlike a lot of Obama supporters cough*DoddLeahyKosMarshallOlbermann*cough she sees the dynamics at work in the calls for Clinton to drop out.  

    I'd say that, except that wouldn't explain Donna Brazile.  Of course, Donna Brazile is a democratic leader who has tried to hold the party together by threatening to quit the party, so I'm not sure anything explains Ms. Brazile.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    I resented Klobuchar's statement that Obama will take the "vinegar" out of politics...

    I would say as of late he has added a WHOLE lot of vinegar. She should just listen to his campaign's recent conference call calling Clinton a liar and saying she has a character gap to hear some Vinegar...so she can play nice while taking her digs at Clinton, but I will not be fooled.

    Politics Without Vinegar = Capitulation (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:48 PM EST
    At least that's what it's meant for the past eight years.  

    Parent
    Don't know (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    he seems to be replacing all that vinegar with p*ss.

    Parent
    She knows that the Unity Shtick plays (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:34:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeh, it's "Minnesota nice" to the max (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    so it works with Klobuchar's constituency, yah, youbetcha.  It just won't work with Republicans.

    Parent
    Is that what she has been doing? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    Unifying the country? Is that why we are still in Iraq and she would not go for impeachment? I too am disappointed in Nancy. She started out with promise and then fizzled out. And Leahy, he comes out strong all the time and then whimpers back to his corner. All I can say is that someone in DC must have pictures because my party's elders and people in control have gone bonkers. So many of us were for Dean, they gave us Kerry. So many of us were for Edwards, they gave us Obama. They were DC outsiders too but then the DC insiders choose Obama and that made it right. Heh. Yeah, outsider, right. We only think we have a say in the decision.  

    Parent
    Leahy (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    should go Cheney himself.  Kerry can go with him.  these clowns are absolute cowards who can't stand up to a republican minority and a president with a 28% approval rating.  jeez they're a bunch of losers.


    Parent
    Pretty funny (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    that they think they can badger Hillary Clinton into becoming a quitter!

    As the kids say, "Yeah, right!  Like THAT'S gonna happen!"

    Parent

    Hillary should DEFINITELY stay in (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by maritza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    If she goes on a roll she could win the whole thing.  

    If Hillary doesn't than she just makes Obama a better general election candidate for he is getting battle tested.

    Good sense? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Chimster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    "At least someone has some good sense in the Obama camp." I'd agree that the Obama campaign is now using good sense by claiming she should stay in the race. But common sense tells us that the Obama Campaign doesn't want her to stay in it (big primaries coming up look good for HRC).

    So, the new Obama campaign stance comes across as insincere and politically motivated, which may not be a bad thing, but when you preach a new type of politics, this one's easy see to see through.

    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:27 PM EST
    Since Clinton is calling them out on it:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_primaries

        "My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting," she told CBS affiliate KTVQ in Billings, Mont. "That's just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don't you?"

    Parent

    Avoiding the Voters (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    Yes, Hillary should remind everyone in the upcoming primaries that Obama would prefer that they not vote at all.

    Parent
    Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Chimster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    should acquire video/audio snippets of every Obama supporter, endorser, media talking head, and whoever else said Hillary should drop out now and make it into a montage video. This way we have a good resource of the people who don't want all the votes counted.

    Parent
    Media Bias (none / 0) (#82)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    FWIW, Lou Dobbs did about 20 minutes tonight on the anti-Clinton bias in the media.

    Parent
    This is a switch (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    "Clinton almost certainly will end the primary season narrowly trailing Obama in the popular vote and among pledged delegates unless the nullified primaries in Florida and Michigan are counted -- an unlikely scenario at best."

    what about everyone who is saying he has an "insurmountable" lead and other types of descriptions? heh, maybe the dialougue is changing a bit?

    Parent

    think he'd stall the process and SUE ?! (none / 0) (#155)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:08:33 PM EST
    its possible.He has the gall.

    Parent
    It should never have been (none / 0) (#166)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    See realpolitics.com. A post by Jay Cost demonstrates that when Michigan and Florida are counted and given projections of upcoming primaries Clinton wins the popular vote.

    His inclusion of Michigan gives Obama the maximum benefit of the doubt vis a vis the Uncommitted vote and Clinton still comes out the popular vote winner.

    It would be intersting to break out of that the Democrats only vote (exit polls would be necessary in open and caucus states).  I'm sure that Clinton would win that one possibly even without Florida and Michigan.


    Parent

    On some blogs (none / 0) (#180)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:25:13 PM EST
    My DD for example...Clinton is actually ahead in delegate count as well when Florida and Michigan are included. I believe she is ahead in dlegate count by one delegate.

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    While I think his new strategy is to embrace every PA cliche, which is such a cliched thing to do, I think shutting up dropping out is good.

    Also, I think his common man approach might be working. I don`t know.
    But if he keeps it close in PA or upsets her there, I think he will have done all he needs to do to get the nomination.

    bowls like a girl... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by bjorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    Morning Joe doesn't think the comman man thing is working because Obama "bowls like a little girl."  I have to admit I thought the same thing when I saw the tape of him bowling. I laughed out loud because he was so much like a ballerina or something.  If he wins, he has my vote, but I think Joe is right, stay away from it if you can't make it look real.

    Parent
    Where is the tape of Obama bowling? (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:46 PM EST
    As a longtime bowler, I really want to see that!

    Parent
    youtube (none / 0) (#131)
    by bjorn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    just put in "Barack Bowling"

    Parent
    Just watched.. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:29:56 PM EST
    Why oh why does he remind me of Bush?  

    Parent
    Uhhh (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:37:57 PM EST
    Too much Kool Aid?  It has been known to cause hallucinations.

    Parent
    Nope... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    wrong again

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#139)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    I just watched it. And it was hilarious!

    Parent
    How will Obama straddle (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    the Steelers Eagles dilemma?

    Parent
    Two options (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    1. He'll show up in a Steagles throwback jersey.  (The Steagles were a merged team that played during WW II due to a lack of players.)

    2. He'll dodge them both and support the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers of the AFL2 (indoor league).


    Parent
    Suddenly figure out it's (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM EST
    baseball season?

    Parent
    Obama attracts big crowds (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:03:26 PM EST
    but can he win against McCain?
    I just don't think he can and "rolling the dice" seems an appropriate warning.


    Parent
    Oh I am sure he will not win the GE. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    But thats hardly the point. Getting the nomination seemingly has little to do with that. Obama supporters just want to chastise Clinton and shame her into leaving the race.

    Parent
    Where are you getting that from? (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    Believe me, you are speaking to the wrong Obama supporters. I will give you a little insight, we want him to win the GE. I could care less about chastising or shaming Clinton. For a long time, I supported her.

    Parent
    Not all Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    I'm talking about Leahy, Dodd, Richardson and Pelosi.

    They are trying to punch Clinton in the face when she is down.

    Parent

    Regardless (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    I liked both -- well, all of the top three -- candidates at first, but now I really think Obama is a liability in the GE.

    Parent
    I know you want Obama to win the general (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    but he's never convinced me he can.
    How do you present Obama's "winning strategy" against McCain to potential voters?

    Parent
    In general (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by themomcat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    polls have been done that support Sen. Clinton's remaining in the race to the convention. I know this is a OT but I've been watching Lou Dobbs, which I rarely do and he had a poll (I know, unscientific) that asked if there was a media bias against Clinton and for Obama. The results as of 1955 hrs: Yes 73%, No 27%. I guess that the general public has their own idea about the campaigns and, obviously, little voice in the mainstream corporate media.

    But I'm sure (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by suisser on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    I heard Klobuchar say that Clinton was "welcome" to stay in the race during an interview on NPR this evening.  Really dislike that "welcome to stay" bit.

    That's exactly what you heard - (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:14:38 PM EST
    I heard it played on XM Radio - POTUS 08 - this afternoon, and she definitely said "welcome to stay," and it bothered me to hear her say it - as if this is Obama's party and Clinton is just some party-crasher.

    The arrogance that emanates from the Obama campaign and its surrogates has "transformed" me from someone who once said I would happily vote for whichever of the Democrats got the nomination, to someone who may have to be have help touching the screen if Obama's name is the one on the ballot.

    Parent

    That's how Obma said it too, right? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    She was welcome to stay as long as she wants and as long as her supporters wanted to support her or something like that. I found it to be condescending, but that's nothing new from him.

    Parent
    "Welcome"??? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    Yikes!  If I talked to my wife like that, I'd be sleeping on the front lawn.  (And this time of year in Rochester, that's really chilly.)


    Parent
    BTD or Jeralyn, can you post about this? (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:26 PM EST
    To say that Clinton is "welcome to stay" is the height of condescension.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#114)
    by bumblebums on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    'the sky will open .. celestial choirs will be singing ... magic wand ... just words ... fairytale'

    Parent
    How Big of Her (none / 0) (#167)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Does anyone else feel that Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST
    Does anyone else feel that Hillary is going to launch a full-frontal attack on Obama after a week or so of playing the victim.
    I think it might be a good thing, even if she does lose, to see how he copes with it. I have a feeling that she is going to find a way to really decapitate  him and I think if she can, she should.

    Just to be fair, (none / 0) (#96)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    this is v. funny.

    Parent
    Castration fantasies? (none / 0) (#118)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:08:38 PM EST
    I think that is hilarious.
    No I just think there should be an all out attack. He can do the same, whoever comes out victorious will be stronger. Its just an opinion.

    Also I think it would be great if Clinton came out and said that there should be 3 measures for victory: Delegate count, popular vote and electoral vote. Whoever wins 2 out of the 3 should be the winner.
    Catch: Pop. vote has to count FL and MI. Otherwise go to the convention and duke it out.

    Parent

    Well, there is always (none / 0) (#124)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    the notorious "Clinton Nutcracker"

    Parent
    Hillary attacks Obama hourly (none / 0) (#137)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    Haven't you read the diary titles on pro-Obama sites?
    She can't say "vote for me" without Obama supporters twisting her remarks into something totally outlandish and claiming it's a "full-frontal attack" on Obama.


    Parent
    Right now (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:01:32 PM EST
    Clinton has the upper hand in this "voting" brouhaha.  

    Obama will have no legitimacy whatever if Florida and Michigan don't count.  So, by fighting this revote, he is cutting off his own hand.

    Plus, I'm glad he's playing Daddy, by giving her permission to stay in the race.  "Yes, Hillary, you can stay out to play a little while longer."

     This is really pissing off Hillary voters - condescending as it is too.

    Hey, Barack you are doing a really good job ...keep it up.  Guess he's a "uniter" in the Dubya mold.

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:02:53 PM EST
    ... I think the sun should rise tomorrow.

    Hillary Clinton is staying in whether these folks like it or not. You might as well try to get points for appearing generous about it.

    Oh, she varied from the script: (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    She's supposed to say Clinton CAN stay in the race.
    Much better!

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    who the hell made her the decider??? Honestly, these people are soooo condescending. Don't worry Hillary, you can keep playing to be the leader of the free world for as long as you like...a pat on the head would be appropriate...

    Parent
    I don't think it's about sexism, although that (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by WillBFair on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    probably helps. It's that Obama is the weaker candidate and will be more easily crippled in office. For now, we have an ace in the hole: that most people know the war is a mistake. But that won't be enough for Obama to deliver on his feel good rhetoric. Once Hillary is out of the way, the smears will start. And once the war is settled, we'll loose congress. Obama will have been wasting time on his stupid promises, and we'll loose the presidency. This will be the second time the far left has royally screwed us dry. It's not clear if the party will recover in our lifetime.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    I'm with you on this. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:18:27 PM EST
    I think BO is going to have a great deal of trouble in the general, between being a relative lightweight, to the "Wright stuff" -- McCain's surrogates will CLOBBER him on patriotism -- to his "me too" approach to policy.  I just don't think that Unity Pony is going to fly. Er, um, block that metaphor!

    Parent
    Maybe not about sexism (none / 0) (#165)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM EST
    But sexism is playing as significant a role as racism.
    Anything that even hints at racism has worked to Obama's advantage while any suggestion that sexism is in play is totally scoffed at.
    That makes me pretty mad.

    Parent
    a new strategy on Obama team's part... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Scott on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    It's not a surprise that they seem so generous in their explanations that Hillary should stay in the race.  Why?  because they see how people come to her defense when attacked in that sort of manner.  I noticed a bit of better press toward her when she seemed to be the underdog the past few days.  They can't have that so it's change the strategy for them.  

    AS long as she stays in this race it's going to expose him as being the FRAUD he is before the convention!  Now that the Tony Rezko trial is back in full swing ... the Obama people are going to sweat bullets at what might come out of it the next one to two months as it takes place.  It's amazing for how American everyone on his team makes him to be, that he would use the African American community as pawns to get what he wants... the sad part is though that the African American community either doesn't mind or they don't get it.    
    I'm a McCain Democrat in '08  if Obama is the nominee!  I have no problem giving him my vote if my candidate Mrs. Clinton is screwed out of the nomination.  

    Do you really think it helps (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by bumblebums on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    to flounce off in a snit?

    I thought enabling nutball Republicans was frowned upon.

    Yeah! Four more years!

    Parent

    let's see (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    nutball republican in McCain or nutball democrat in Obama.   yep, gonna be the nutball McCain.


    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ROK on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    What if she loses fair and square?

    Parent
    Well, then, (none / 0) (#141)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:33:45 PM EST
    So be it.  Same for Obama.  Level playing field.

    Parent
    Then... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ROK on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    I guess the discussion now is how can both camps agree that the field is level.

    Parent
    There is no such thing as (none / 0) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    "fair and square" for Hillary.  The DNC is against her, the punditocracy is against her.  

    Both have always been so.  And both do it unashamedly.

    And both hand Obama a pillow on a daily basis

    If she loses, it won't be a fair loss.  

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#174)
    by ROK on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    That kind of comment is why Obama can't "win" because her supporters think that she was cheated.

    Parent
    It's funny to see (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    the number of people lately who can attack BTD personally but are incapable of engaging any of the arguments he puts forward.

    Must be bad habits acquired elsewhere in the blogosphere.

    Maybe in your mind, but not ... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    ... in the minds of 99.99% of actual voters.

    Parent
    Since I live in Montana I can attest (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    to the fact, that this area is hugely sexist and probably will go to Obama for that reason...sad...

    How (none / 0) (#72)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    many Democrats in Montana?

    How many delegates?

    Is it a caucus?

    Parent

    Yeah I think its a caucus....we have two (none / 0) (#161)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:24:52 PM EST
    senators and a gov. that are all democratic but they are mostly republican in this state and it will definately go republican in the fall IMHO...

    Parent
    The MT Republicans had a caucus-- (none / 0) (#195)
    by eleanora on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:04:35 PM EST
    Romney won, which was hilarious because former MT Sen Burns who got pushed out in 04 was famously supposed to win it for McCain.

    But the MT Dems get a primary, IDKY. We vote on June 3rd for 16 delegates to the national convention. Gov Schweitzer and Sens Baucus and Tester are all Dem supers, but they've said they're not supporting anyone until the convention.

    The latest poll was in mid-December 07 [link]:  Clinton 29%, Edwards 19%, Obama 17%. We're just starting to pay close attention to the primary, so a new poll would be really helpful if we're lucky. I don't think Kerry ever came here.

    Bill Clinton is hitting central Montana tomorrow, Havre, Great Falls, Helena, Butte; Hillary and Obama will both be in Butte for a dinner on April 5th-then Obama has a fundraiser in Missoula on the same day, Hillary on April 6th. Montanans are pretty hyped up about getting so much attention, usually we get an airport appearance by the nominees once or twice before the election.

    Montana last went Dem for Pres in 92, but narrowly for Dole 96 and Bush after. Important issues here are farm policies (Bill Clinton's are fondly remembered), clean coal energy (Hillary's big push in WY was well-received), gun control (big, big issue), Real ID act (we hate it), and the economy, the economy, the economy. McCain is very popular here, but the Iraq war and inroads on civil liberties are not. A strong Dem campaign based on the economy and competent government could at least keep us close in Nov, IMO.

    Parent

    "OH (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    Hillary , you can stay out and play a little while longer."

    "Thanks, daddy!"

    What a fine misogynistic comment you have made! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    Congratulations!

    Oh yeah and Holtzman and politics...how did that work out?

    Parent

    So it's impossible for her to be her own woman? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:42:21 PM EST
    What does that have anything to do with the original comment, which addresses the condescending (and somewhat anxious) tone from the Obama campaign and their surrogates for Clinton to leave the race?  The race is tied, for crying out loud and yet calling on her--the first serious woman candidate--to leave is ridiculous!

    Honestly, what does your comment have anything to provide, but callousness?  How was it even safer for her to make her decision (Yes, it was hers alone to make; she is no one's puppet, not even her husband's)?  My God, Bill Clinton isn't just her husband, but the father of her child.  Don't you think that had any role in her deciding to stay with him?

    Jesus!

    Parent

    Now now. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:49:19 PM EST
    Your latte is getting you over-excited.

    Parent
    Don't be so hard on yourself. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Masochist? hurting yourself may not be fun (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Please... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Chimster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    don't hold back, now...

    Parent
    You are really (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    the sort of Obama supporter that supporters of Hillary love.  Can we get you to go on CNN or MSNBC?

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    No, it's the value of your condescending attitude to drive voters to Hillary.  Keep it up, she needs all the help she can get right now.  

    Parent
    Right. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    As a woman from about the same generation ( just a few years younger), I know we ALL had to make our own decisions.  I made mine, and broke a couple of engagements when it became clear that the old career/marriage thing was not going to work out (I'm in academics, with only about 4 jobs in my field the year I got out of grad school).  So I question NO woman's choices from that time, just as I don't question men's choices about what they did about Viet Nam/draft!

    Parent
    What? Elizabeth Holtzman (none / 0) (#199)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:53:50 PM EST
    is and always was single as I recall...

    What was your point again?  "Never wavered?"  At what?  She ran for US Senate at least twice...unlike Hillary, she lost both times.

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    isn't the smartest thing for them to just shut up and stop talking about it?  Maybe Sen. Klobuchar is just doing damage control...but it undermines the gravity of their campaigning efforts in what are certainly states that Obama has not yet convinced should vote for him, in the primary or in the fall.  Obama hasn't been winning moderate and conversative Dems, and there are a lot of those.  

    Plus the Obama campaign carping on Hillary for still being in the race makes them seem like...run of the mill politicans, and irrelevant.  Those elite Dems.  It is an image problem.

    Damage control?! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    Maybe Sen. Klobuchar is just doing damage control

    If he's supposed to be doing damage control, he's inept. He should have more tact, and not be creating yet more controversy with his patronizing remarks about Clinton being "welcome to stay" in the race. Unless he is deliberately trying to make himself the focus of the story.

    Parent

    She... (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    and Sen. Klobuchar's gender does matter at this moment as far as public image goes.  Frankly it does seem Obama would want his respected female surrogates to take a greater role at this moment, esp if he continues losing the female vote in such numbers.

    Parent
    New Clinton strategy: encourage as many (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    Obama surrogates as possible to make comments about whether she should be allowed to stay in the race.
    Too early to tell if this new strategy is working yet.

    Polling must have told Obama to stop (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:02:44 PM EST
    telling HRC to quit.  As far as I'm concerned he's damaged goods now.

    Permission to stay in the race (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    At first I liked when I heard that Senator Obama said that Hillary should stay in the race as long as she wants. But then several friends--men and women-- pointed out to me that Hillary Clinton does not need Obama's permission to stay in the race. One person said "who died and made him the king so that he can give her the blessing to stay in the race". Frankly, at first I did not think so but now I think that it fits  the pattern of Obama and his campaign's attempt  to belittle HRC and women in general. In Northeastern PA voters  are now  "mad"--partcularly as they watch CNN's calender of drop outs of other candidates. I hope this turns into a good margin of victory for her on April 22.

    Parent
    Hahaha...Dan Abrams is on (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM EST
    On Pelosi, Dean, Leahy:  "The Democrats have created a flawed primary system that apparently, they have come to despise!"

    Omg (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    he has a Romney guy on in this panel??!!  Derrr...

    Parent
    Perceived Sexism versus actual sexism (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
      I don't doubt that many voters have sexist reasons for opposing Senator Clinton, even in the Democratic Primary.  And I don't doubt that Senator Clinton's public image is fashioned the way it is, in part, because women have a harder time in politics, which is dominated by men and where glass ceilings are very real.

     But I also think that some supporters of Senator Clinton see sexism where none exists, just as some supporters of Senator Obama see racism where none exists.  For instance, the fairy tale comment...I was fuming at President Clinton for that, but not because I thought it was racist.  I was fuming at him for using race the way he did to minimize Senator Obama's win in SC (a more recent, non-racial example was available to him, Senator Edwards' 2004 win, but he didn't bother with that one).  But with that one exception I don't see race baiting as much as I see baseless attacks on Senator Obama and, most tellingly, his supporters, attacks that rarely if ever come from Senator Clinton herself, but from her supporters and assistants.

     The problem is that Senator Clinton's gender is wrapped up with the incessant debates about sexual mores, gender roles, lies and alleged lies, secrecy, political calculation and overall intrigue that hovered over Washington for eight long years. Senator Clinton was a unique first lady, and I think many people see those attacks when they're watching debates (i.e., a perception that the other candidates were ganging up on her), listening to the media memes and reflecting on their own experiences with the glass ceiling and double standards that govern our ideas of appropriate gender roles.  Because those issues were dominant in the 90s.  

     You know who was implicitly endorsing sexism?  Senator McCain, who chuckled at that annoying question from a female Republican.  We would all do better to keep focused on that unpleasant fact.  

    you made a good case (none / 0) (#168)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:01:42 PM EST
    I think you made a good case that sexism is playing a large role in this race and is hurting HRC.

    Sexism is subtle. Terms used to characterize a female competitor are different than for male competitors.
    The Clinton's have impeccable credentials with regard to race equality. To accuse them of racism is ludicrous. One needs to want to see it to see it.

    <<The problem is that Senator Clinton's gender is wrapped up with the incessant debates about sexual mores, gender roles, lies and alleged lies, secrecy, political calculation and overall intrigue that hovered over Washington for eight long years.>>

    This is a gender bias problem in my opinion. We as a society perceive women who manipulate in a completely different light than we see men who "work the system". Female- bad. Male-good.

    A right wing talking point that resonated with the sexists who remain alive was that HRC was co-president. In fact, she did play a far more powerful role than any first lady in history. That should be to her credit, but for some, it is the opposite.

    I wish both dems would go after McSame. Starting now.


    Parent

    And it would start all over again with (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    Michelle if she chooses to have a part. Hillary broke some ice, but it will take several strong women as FLs, or maybe a female President to break it.

    Parent
    Hmmm . . . (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM EST
    "listening to the media memes and reflecting on their own experiences with the glass ceiling and double standards that govern our ideas of appropriate gender roles.  Because those issues were dominant in the 90s."

    but not much has changed since the 90's. And maybe it's not so much reflecting experiences, as understanding the intent. I don't go flying off the handle at every little perceived intent, and some stuff I let 'slide' as just stupid (on the part of the person delivering it). But I gotta tell ya, I didn't realize exactly how acceptable sexism still was until this campaign. In some cases it just seems to be oozing from the woodwork. I wrote off my experiences as 'isolated few' until now. Just thought I had the bad luck of working for sexist A-holes. But that goes hand in hand with my glass full attitude towards life. OOPS!

    And yes, McCain will endorse sexism. But that doesn't mean I'm going to train my sights on just him. The media, certain campaigns and their supporters, etc are still promoting sexism. Sorry, it's even worse when they are Dems/Progressives/Libs. Let me know when everyone starts screaming sexism as loud as they scream racism, cause I sure ain't hearin' it.

    Parent

    The media... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM EST
    ...has certainly been unfair in its depictions of Senator Clinton in some respects (laughter, lines from aging, unflattering pictures, etc.).  And the attacks on her as First Lady were often sexist.  

     That being said, I don't see sexism coming from the Obama campaign.  They don't need to engage in it, and Senator Obama knows he can't engage in it (and I don't think he has any desire to engage in it).  

     And while we can debate the SC comments by President Clinton, even if it wasn't intended to diminish his SC win as race-based (which I think it was), it gave weight to the race meme.  To her credit Senator Clinton tried to contain it, but it was too late.  

    Parent

    Funny salutation and nom de plume (none / 0) (#34)
    by Munibond on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    but I think that BTD has been upfront about ideologically tepid and largely strategic nature of his position.

    Seems to be... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    ...a foreign concept to avoid hero worship and take a dispassionate and realistic view of the candidates.

    Parent
    BWAH HAH HAH HAH (none / 0) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    Sorry, I lost control of myself there. It almost sounded like you were trying to steer the conversation away from the obvious duplicity of your hero. That could never happen though, because a) Obama supporters never do that, because b) Obama would never be duplicitous.

    Ahem.

    The Fix is In (none / 0) (#111)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    Pelosi makes the San Jose News

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8739024

    I can't wait to see how gracefully the (none / 0) (#127)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    Obama people come to the defense of Chelsea.
    shudder

    Like they did last time? (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
    Don't hold your breath Mark.

    Parent
    How about this: (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    "Chelsea may not answer questions about Bill's relation with Monica Lewinsky, if she so chooses.
    It's entirely up to her".

    Parent
    Pleasantly (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:47:00 PM EST
    surprised to hear Jamal Simmons, just on Larry King, say that Chelsea was right to give the answer she gave.  He also said that no child should have to answer a question like that but most impressive was this - "I hope that is the last we see of that video".  

    Parent
    I give him points for that (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by kiosan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    I've been waiting for one of the punditacracy to note that maybe, just maybe, it was inappropriate (just plain rude) to ask Chelsea about her father's infidelities.

    Granted, she's a big girl and on the campaign trail for her mom, but some things just escape the bounds of common decency, no matter how you spin them.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#152)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:02:48 PM EST
     That's never a fair question for the couple's children, whatever their age. At least not from the media.

    I would also go so far as to say she can ignore the press as much as she wants.  They were never kind to her when her father was in office.  I will say, whatever misgivings I have about the Clintons, they appear to have been excellent parents.

    Parent

    He's actually said some of the fairest (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    stuff in defense of the Clintons. Not afraid to jump in and correct BS and actually come off as sincere. He commented on something the other day (her being told to quit?) and I can't remember what he said, but he once again struck me as speaking straight up.


    Parent
    Amy Klobuchar (none / 0) (#172)
    by ConcordiaDem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
    Rocks... while she is still a young senator you can expect to see her serving for quite a while... Having met her on a few occasions and frequently volunteering for her campaign here in minnesota i was disappointed to see another great progressive going to the Obama Camp... But, showing her minnesota smarts i think it was a good move for her to say HRC should stay in!

    I agree with Klobuchar... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    ...and to show how welcome Hillary is to stay in the race, I'll kick her $50 before the month ends at midnight.

    Please don't give such advice (none / 0) (#198)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    This is in relation to Sara F's comments regarding Dawn Davenport's offer to donate $50 to HRC's campaign. This is a site  for intelligent discussion. If you cannot take part in  an intelligent discussion or provide some new information, don't think about writing commnts that really don't mean anything. Posting here is not a right, but a privilege. This is a site for both Clinton and Obama supporters and other neutral people to join in the discussion. I come to this site not to post at every chance I get, but rather to read other people's thoughtful comments and to be informed. Don't waste my time (because I have to look at your posts) or space here.

    Parent
    Thanks for sharing, SaraF (none / 0) (#200)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:58:37 PM EST
    Your pettiness has been duly noted.

    Parent
    To say that her (none / 0) (#182)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:27:05 PM EST
    chances are nil is to show that you have no understanding of how this all actually works.

    Barack (none / 0) (#192)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    Clearly does not believe his nomination is a foregone conclusion or his campaign wouldn't waste so much energy attacking her.

    But keep it up. The ridiculous and rude comments made by Obama supporters to bully Hillary out of the race reflect poorly on your candidate and make it far less likely that Clinton supporters like myself will bother to vote for him the general.

    He hasn't earned my vote, and you certainly don't help his cause any. What good is the nomination if you can't win the general election?

    And if you are so sure that he will win, why don't you let us Clinton supporters exist in our state of false hope and go find something better to do...

    Parent

    it is in fact a close race (none / 0) (#183)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    and while it will take a very good run in the remaining primaries, I wouldn't be so certain of the nomination if I were for Obama.

    The Obama camp changes tune? OR- (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mrwirez on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    playing us Clinton supporters like a fiddle? This wave of Hillary should get out -out -out. THEN Monday they almost all say stay. Obama comes out like "the statesman" and says Hillary should stay in as long as she wants or can...... Really?

    I noticed Ed Schultz has changed his (Clinton HATE) talk show somewhat. He is Mr. Fu*king a$$hole Friday on Larry King along with Stephanie Miller, and Monday is all giggles with Terry McCauliffe. Now he is talking about Hillary staying in until all states vote..... The head Obamabots must have put a little oil in the squeaky spots.  I also think Ed is a BIG baby.

    They are playing us I tell ya!

    The New Obama Strategy: Clinton Should Stay In The Race | 185 comments (185 topical)