-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/the-race-baiter-won-the-ohio-rhode-island-and-texas-primaries/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/remember-what-about-math.html
If you find yourself in a debate with a Clinton supporter. If you find yourself disoriented because of all of the Clinton spin. Just stop . . . take a deep breath . . . and ask . . .
WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?
It's as simple as that folks. Ask that question and DEMAND that they give you a plausible game plan wherein Hillary can comeback and take the delegate lead without:
1. Seating the MI and FL delegates after the DNC specifically said that they would not count; and
2. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people.
If they can't do that, then DEMAND that they tell you EXACTLY why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race knowing that every attack she makes from here forward will do no more than add ammunition for the Republican party.
Beware! You will be called a "hater." You will be called arrogant. Don't be swayed. At the end of the theatrics and philosophical talk about "swing states," and "big states," just ask, "WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?"
And if someone should create some outlandish (although mathematically possible) scenario. Get it in writing. Send it to every news outlet you know. And DEMAND that the media hold her to that standard!
Stop moving the goal posts! Do NOT let her steal this!
The good news: Hillary's still not going to win the nomination. The bad news: this drags on for 7 more weeks, and it gets so vicious that Obama is mortally wounded going into November.
It's time to fight fire with fire. Hillary's lesbian affair with a staffer is just the tip of the corrupt iceberg.
Again, I don't really care about these things. Politics should be above this, but if she is going to fight like she did against Obama, then this is "fair game."
With superdelegates there's a gap of 40, but Obama supposedly has 50 ready to roll out. I have no idea how many the Clinton's supposedly has.
Keep in mind that Clinton was polling ahead in all these states, so there's "Comeback" no matter how much the campaign and the media spin it. She went from a 25+ point lead two weeks ago in all 4 states, to winning these states by 4 - 18 pts (depending on poll and state).
Even if the DNC agrees to seat the FL and MI delegates, the Clinton's can't touch Obama delegate-wise.
Of course, the spin from the Clinton's campaign tonight is that delegates don't count (along with black voters, activists, caucus-goers and states they lost), so we'll see if they ever decide to peek their heads into reality for a moment.
so, he still has momentum but it's slowed slightly.
I thought Barack could have done a better job responding to her assertions of experience and "ready on day one", the white house records etc. He really let her get away with a lot and it hasn't helped him. He seems to shy away from confrontation but there is a time for everything and the time for confronting her is long past.
This is going to get uglier and uglier and may cost democrats the general election.
..why would you be chastised by your fellow bloggers??
The other thing is, and it pains me to say this in a way b/c it's almost too big a pill to swallow: The "subtler" provocations floated by the Clintonistas have to be let slide. Because part of their intended consequence is: exactly what happens here - they draw a reaction, the word gets around, and you end up doing the Clintons' work for them. Simple as that. Kerry didn't respond, but Kerry could have, because Kerry didn't have to worry about being the Angry Irish Man. Obama does have to worry. Let. The. Shit. Slide. Don't give them what they want. The "doctored photo" is a prime example. You put stuff that really is, by and large, way too subtle to be visible outside the community out on the clothesline like this, it gets around and it only hurts Barack's chances. Dirty fact of life. Adjust, b/c it's going to get worse. Barack is winning because he is a visionary leader. Stay on offense. Pay the thunder no mind.
He outspent Hillary and had the momentum and backing and money of unions and moveon.org and he couldn't close the deal.
Bill Kristol said "I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear" to "puncture" Obama's "wave of euphoria." And Clinton took that recommendation: red phone, Rezko & NAFTA hypocrisy. And -surprise- it worked! Late deciders broke for Clinton in yesterday's primaries. Chalk up another grand day for unreconstructed politics as usual. Makes you proud to be a Democrat, don't it?
Pay the thunder no mind.
Because I have some responsibility as one of the main bloggers, and for the Jack and Jill Politics ' rep'. I have to maintain some professionalism.
What I wanted to call her would be fit only for sailors.
That would be nice.... except why would she ask for a revote when everybody is talking about how in her victory speech she counted off Michigan and Florida as states she's already won? She and her supporters really do believe that Michigan and Florida were the 'will of the people'.
I don't believe she wants a revote. She wants 'as-is'.
(And by the way, Rikyrah, I see where a Clintonista True Believer troll rated you for saying that out of 12 family members who are Democrats only two would vote for Hillary if she were on a merged ticket with Obama. Or maybe it was the fact you called her a heifer LOL that's alright. I've taken to calling her Heifer Rotten Crime-toon myself when I've got that not so fresh feeling. Heh. The Clintonistas continuing to push that b.s. remind me of the lady who was all too happy for King Solomon to cut the baby in half after she killed her own baby by rolling over it then stole her co-wife's baby afterwards.)
She's LOST support. She hasn't cakewalked anywhere, not even 'the majority of those who said race mattered in their vote voted for Clinton' Ohio!
you Clintonistas trip me out. This campaign season was supposed to be done by Super Tuesday. Instead, Obama kicked ass in Iowa, barely lost New Hampshire and Nevada, won 12 in a row, and is STILL viable in Rhode Island and Ohio and Texas (let alone winning Vermont) in spite of 'losing'.... those were all states that Hillary was supposed to run away with. She's barely got a 4 percentage lead in Texas.
And remember, she was ready to write off Texas as unimportant when the poll numbers and Texas' crazy delegate system told her she couldn't win! Wonder what she's going to say now? Flip flopping (word deleted).
So at the end of the day, Hillary is one delegate closer to Obama--wow, Obama still has a 133 delegate lead.
My personal prediction after some thought: extreme pressure from the party on Hillary to drop out. Good fund-raising numbers from Obama, and a wave of Super Delegates standing behind him. Wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. Hillary drops out Tuesday night--deciding not to burn every bridge she has in the end.
I think we should have fought harder on the experience and commander-in-chief issues.
And, she's only getting started with the trash since she knows that it worked.
I don't know how he can fight her runnning a positive campaign.
I wan't someone to ask for the tax returns. Why is she getting a free ride on the tax returns.
now what to think of a candidate who has to hide not only her tax info but even her hubby?
that woman knows no limits. she is extra double phony.
that woman gives me the creeps.
Someone mentioned positive media-I don't think that's going to happen. He could never get praise even though he wasn't supposed to make it past Iowa.
I think the only thing that's going to help him is if the voters make a really loud noise to the DNC about HRC and let them know that that they will not support her in a general. I know I will die and go to hell before I vote for her.
1. Barack Obama has won Texas, hands-down, unequivocally. Do NOT let media spin confuse you here. Texas is a hybrid primary-caucus-- both count toward the delegate total and calculation. Both are challenges for the candidates. And in this hybrid, it's Obama who has prevailed.
2. The delegate count basically will not budge. In fact, Obama might even *gain* a delegate or two. Cleveland ballots have been late in being counted, and along with the win in Vermont, this gives Obama a clear majority of the states, of the popular vote, and an insurmountable lead in the delegates.
Hillary needed to win these states by perhaps 20% or so. She failed miserably. It's over. It'll be even more obvious next week.
On how this dragged-out contest affects the general election, that's anybody's guess.
On the one hand, McCain does benefit in some ways from a drawn-out fight. Obama unquestionably is going to win the delegates-- the issue now is, how long it will take for him to be declared the winner?
OTOH, a long primary process isn't necessarily a disaster. This gives Obama the chance to rev up his campaign early. Pennsylvania is a key swing state, and Obama will be campaigning early on there and attracting voters. So this may work to our advantage. We'll see.
As for Hillary Clinton-- well, with all the racism, negativity and damage they're doing to the country and the people, Bill and Hillary are obviously in the express lane for Hell when they mercifully pass from this earth. It would just be nice if the demons would rise up a little earlier to drag them both down.
Roger Simon nailed it in his column the other day...where he talks about her playing victim and victimizer...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8809.html
Now the real dance begins. We'll see how tough Obama and company are. He has to play to win and learn how to close her out in the big states. He was playing not to lose the last 48 hours. If she wins PA, he's in big trouble.
I don't think the media is siding with anyone. They love conflict because it sells. And that's what a prolonged primary means for them. They could care less who wins. She's just doing a better of playing on that.
This is about to get even bloodier. She's stopped his momentum in the minds of public and the media. Don't expect her to stop piling on Obama. She'll risk alienating the black vote if it means getting the nomination. She thinks that you'll come back to her in the general. The problem with her strategy is this. No serious presidential candidate has ever had negatives as high her's. When you have almost half the country saying that they don't like you and won't vote for you...And you're running against a decorated war hero...And you just ran a bloody, no-holds barred campaign against a very popular, good challenger where you just alienated the loyal members of the party...well, you know where this is going. You'll get change alright, just not the type you envisioned.
If she wins, her only hope of beating McCain is to put him on the ticket. And if he's smart, he'll say no. She loses in the general she's done. She's damaged good. He loses, he goes back to the Senate, beefs up his resume and waits until 2012 to get another shot at McCain.
Don't forget, Goldwater's defeat laid the groundwork for Reagan.
If she win's the nomination, I wonder what kind of step n' fetchit ads she'll be putting out to pander to the Black vote...
Obama didn't handle that too well. That economic adviser should've been FIRED.
No, I disagree-- why would he be? Obama still has an enormous delegate lead and popular vote lead, and he likely will after Pennsylvania as well, win or lose.
DM, while I agree with most of you say here, I'm warning you here that you're falling right into the trap that the HRC people want to set for us-- you are letting the HRC team define the benchmarks here and define the media contests, rather than allowing the Obama camp to.
This is about controlling the media message and framing the contests as much as anything else.
So what if Hillary were to win in Pennsylvania? Obama has won other critical bellwether, Swing States: Missouri, Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, Wisconsin especially.
The best tactic in fact, is to keep expectations low, to do everything possible *not* to portray Pennsylvania as a firewall-- an important state, but a state just like all the rest, equal to all the rest-- and then just leave it right there.
I've been chiding many of my fellow Obama volunteers about this and they're finally starting to catch on. Don't let the HRC team define the benchmarks.
Obama has already won a majority of the states, and has a practically insurmountable lead in popular votes and among the delegates. That's what matters, and that's what Obama needs to emphasize.
I don't know if anyone noticed by Clinton had a lot of help with her bash Barack campaign from the MSM. . . .
You can't seriously make a case for Obama being bashed in the media more than Clinton. She has been vilified from the beginning, far beyond anything I've seen in my long life.
http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/pol/593518172.html
Y'all, we seriously have to start slamming egg into Hillary's face. Go to her rallies, hold up signs demanding that she release her tax returns and the Clinton library, get ugly if needed be. Even if Obama runs a clean campaign-- we should be perfectly happy to help do the dirty work. Because if Hillary wants to play dirty, she'll get it thrown back at her more nastily than she could imagine.
But he is going to have to stiffen up and fight. It will be interesting to see if he has it in him. I hope he does, but I'm not certain he's the fighter we're going to need to take on McCain.
It seems everyone here is forgetting that the real enemy, the one that is destroying our country and the world, is the republican party.
If he can't toughen up and take on Hillary Clinton, he is not going to win against that vicious, man eating machine of the Republicans which has, most frighteningly, complete control of the media.
The Clinton campaign has been basically all about lies, innuendoes, vicious rumors and dirty campaigning, which up to now, Obama has avoided.
I think that Obama still should avoid it.
But we shouldn't.
I say, if the Clinton campaign wants to pull this crap, we should be as vicious as we can possibly be with the innuendos and the whispering campaigns. We still have to be smart about it, and it has to be outside Obama's campaign.
But if the Clinton campaign is going to spread around a picture of Obama in African dress while on a state visit to East Africa-- well, it's obvious how they're playing to people's racism.
So we need to be just as brutal to her, albeit focusing particularly *on* her, not on any kind of stupid identity politics.
527 ads can be helpful. But we need to go in with both barrels blazing-- hit her hard on her tax returns, on the Clinton library and on other matters.
um . . . could you really get more vicious than it is already?
it is a sad day indeed when democrats turn on democrats a la karl rove. pathetic.
this is what democrats do. we form a circle, grab our guns and fire while the real enemy laughs and skips away with the prize.
don't let it happen with this election. it is too important. it is too important for reasons of the supreme court, for the federal courts that bush has been decimating for eight long years.
if you believe that all of us lesser beings: blacks, native americans, hispanics, women, all of the rest, are actually equal to the power people, we cannot lose this election, no matter what.
it pays to remember that in all of this anguish over who's going to win the democratic nomination.
if you can do nothing else, think "the courts the courts THE COURTS," hold your nose, and vote for the democrat.
Texas is composed of a Primary and A Caucus. A win is the combination of both. The truth is OBAMA won TX. With the delegate count from the primary plus the caucus. OBAMA WON TEXAS. Stop the erroneous spin.
I've decided that if Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, I will start a PAC called "Sit Out the Vote". It's purpose is to get as many people to:
1. Not vote at all (I wouldn't recommend this), or
2. Vote for McCain, or
3. Vote for Nader
I know people will say that's shooting yourself in the foot, but I was touched by something my 62-year old mother said last night. She said that she's never had the person she wanted in office (except Clinton). Every four years she goes and votes and accepts whoever becomes president--that's the way life is, she says. Until last night, I deluded myself into thinking that blacks had a stronger voice in media and politics. We don't. But we can.
Blacks have been dumped on far too long. We need to take control of our vote--even if it means losing. If we do this, then democrats will have to pander to us as much as they do to Latinos and white female voters. It will be a painful four years, but we've got to fight back. If we don't, we will be telling our children 20 years from now we never got the candidate we wanted--that's the way life is.
And a painful four years doesn't even begin to describe what will happen under four more years of Republican control. It will be the end of this country.
The one time he strayed from being positive, he "tried to have it both ways" on NAFTA, and that didn't go so well.
I say, let Barack be Barack, and if the Democratic Party prefers the evil Clinton to the decent Obama, we should act like self-respecting adults and not vote for Clinton in the general.
Deal or no deal?
THANK YOU!
That's what I was about to write. Hillary Clinton won the PRIMARY portion of Texas. Texas is TWO parts.
If Obama wins the caucus by more then 3 points he WON Texas. Stop letting CLintonistas set the discourse. Last night will be a SPLIT decision when all the votes are tallied.
Clintonistas wanna talk smack remind them tat of the last 15 races Clinton ONLY WON TWO!
And another thing. I greatly respect you, Rita, but do you really think Clinton is going to pack the courts with judges who believe in issues important to blacks like Affirmative Action? As a woman, I'm assured of my reproductive rights with Clinton, but what else? She's not going to address the disparity of black men in prison in comparison to white men. She's not going to work to reinstate to those black men their right to vote. Who was the last liberal Supreme Court Justice? I just don't buy that argument that a democrat will be less bad. Do we not remember Clinton #1 and three-strikes-and-you're-out or the Welfare Reform Act?
And if anything else, look at Clinton's voting block in NJ, NY, CA, TX, and OH--conservative white democrats. She will cater to them, not us. Nothing will change. And Clinton by her own admission a few days ago compared herself to John McCain. So I say let's vote for John McCain!
There will be a deal before the covention. Obama will take the VP slot and will begin to comfort his supporters and convince them to get on board.
I'm not going to be scared into voting for that race-baiting heiifer under any circumstances.
That's what Harold Ickes said in essence ' you Darkies have nowhere else to go'.
Sorry, but, we do.
So, it will be bad times.
Like Black folk aren't used to bad times.
I agree with Jonathan's take regarding Barack's strategy going forward. The media and the rest of the white American Idol electorate wants to see this contest devolve into Jerry Springer-type entertainment. Doing so, (a) takes attention away from the issues on which Barack is superior; (b) it drags the contest down to the gutter where the Clintons are superior; and (c) if Barack were to go "street" on Clinton, it would provide plausible deniability for those who those who've suddenly had their "oh-shit-a-Black-guy's-gonna-be-president" panic attack.
Barack has to stay the course in terms of class and statesman ship, but he does need to flood--really flood--the media with content. He needs to start reaching out to the Black and Brown network correspondents and start providing them with scoops, agendas, comments. What's happened is that the MSM -- and we know who that really is -- have taken offense to Obama's confidence and occasional dismissiveness, and had essentially cut him off for almost a week. The only real play that he got was the whole Canadian thing that ended up being a nothin-burger. But by filling the airwaves, they'll have no plausible excuse that he's got nothing to say. And if he's reaching out to Black and Brown network correspondents, he's got a better chance of getting his message out. And I don't think that CNN, ABC or CBS wants to be accused of squelching their Black correspondents. Not at this time.
And finally, I think we gotta rely MUCH less on the delegate lead. If the Klintons can continue to play dirty and win dirty, then they're going to insist that an argument can be made; that the delegates might say one thing, but the voters have said something else. And if they were to arrive at the convention on a winning streak, she'd have an argument.
I'd say, the focus needs to be back on dominance. Be more aggressive, but stay out of the mud.
Klinton's in no position to offer any deals.
Nice try.
The '3 am call' ad was pandering to white female voters (security moms, I guess) with its scenario of some nebulous fear that only the Great White Hope can save us from.
Anyway, if Clinton steals the nomination, I think we'd be better served to vote for Barack Obama as a write-in come November rather than vote for McCain.
blaming Obama's loss on "race-baiting" by the Clintons when it's been the Obama camp and surrogates who've been race-baiting to the hilt from day one, characterizing Bill Clinton's "kid" and "fairy tale" remarks "racist". Yeah, sure, idiots.
This as the entire country continues to watch blacks demonstrate overt racism by voting an embarrassing 9 to 1 in favor of the black guy. This from the community that points the "racist" finger at every other ethnic group in the country 24/7/365. F'ing hypocrites.
Go read Sean Wilentz's article
"How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."
Obama has benefited from his race at every step since the start of the campaign. A white person trying to run for president with the same position on issues and same experience (1/2 term as a senator) would have been laughed out of the country.
I have given Obama the benefit of the doubt so far. But, I really believe he needs to be stronger on challenging her on the issues. If she says 35 years experience - it is not dirty politics to demand she show proof of that experience by releasing her records. If she accuses him with Rezko - it's not dirty to demand she release her past tax returns. If she says 'change' - it's not dirty to bring up her past scandals.
Why does he keep saying she has a "fine record"...why does he keep complimenting her? I know he doesn't want to create the impression of the big black man beating up on the little white damsel, but he's got to figure out a clever way of responding strongly.
He cannot continue to play the perpetual nice-guy...wryly chuckling good-naturedly when responding to her latest attack. He's got to set his jaw, and look stern and speak sternly, and show that he will not be trifled with.
..and yeah, he did win Vermont AND Texas!!!
Go Obama!
Forget it. That's the attitude of absolutely everyone in my household, my friends and my block. We would sit out the election, vote for the Greens or Cynthia McKinney or write in a name-- or, in fact, many of us would vote for John McCain.
With all due respect, I consider your pleadings on the basis of Supreme Court justices to be rather naive.
Whatever crumbs and morsels we'd get with a couple Supreme Court justices, Hillary would do far, far more damage-- lasting damage-- to minorities and African-Americans in particular.
The reason: The message would be that a white candidate like Hillary could run despicable, hateful, racist political campaigns against even an accomplished minority candidate such as Obama, sound the doggy-whistle and whip up the worst prejudices among Whites and Latinos against Blacks-- and yet, if we were to still vote for her, we'd be sending the message that this would be OK, that they could commit such disgusting racism against us and not suffer a price at the ballot box.
I'm sorry, but that's not naive. There must be a price for such behavior, a terrible, horrific price for white candidates who engage in such tactics, and the only way to ensure that this message is sent and repeated, loud and clear, would be for Hillary to lose in 2008. And to lose very big, and very ugly, to John McCain.
I'm not worried about McCain with regard to Supreme Court appointments. For one thing, we'll have a heavily Democratic Senate, and they'll reject any conservative justices and demand a compromise on a moderate. McCain himself has stated that Alito is too conservative, and he's been inclined toward moderates such as David Souter. In fact, McCain's judicial adviser has been Warren Rudman, who was responsible for suggesting Souter to Bush.
McCain at least has had enough courage to stand up to the right wing, and he would appoint moderate justices to the court.
That's the one silver lining here in McCain's nomination-- he's hardly preferable, but in comparison, he's acceptable. He took on his own conservative wing on things like McCain-Feingold, he's teamed up with liberal Democrats in the Senate on many issues, not just Feingold but even Ted Kennedy.
IOW, if the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, all of us in our neighborhood will campaign hard for him.
But if it's Hillary, especially after this revolting, racist campaign, and especially with Obama winning the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the states, then we will never support her, and we will in fact work actively to ensure her defeat.
This is the only power we have to enforce ground rules in the electoral process. And we have to enforce them mercilessly.
This as the entire country continues to watch blacks demonstrate overt racism by voting an embarrassing 9 to 1 in favor of the black guy. This from the community that points the "racist" finger at every other ethnic group in the country 24/7/365. F'ing hypocrites.
-------
Would you characterize a 9 to 1 vote by African Americans in favour of a white candidate racist?
If you think this blog is lame then what is your purpose for being here?
Then a clip of an Obama interview comes on where he's talking about her citing her experience. He just doesn't look comfortable or confident in confronting her. He really needs to fight...not dirty, just fight!
Oh, there is going to be a fight, but it is going to be backstage . . . a place where Team Obama can break out the Iron Fist without drawing much backlash.
I think Obama needs to do NOTHING for the next 24 hours or so. Let the emotional high for the Clinton camp and the low for the Obama camp settle a bit.
Then he can come out Thursday and remind everyone that the pledged delegate contest is over.
He should and I think he will run up the score in places like WY AND MISSI but the real politics is going to be about locking down the superdelegates before PENN and I think he has a good chance of doing that.
As for going negative, I just don't think he should for two reasons:
1. He ain't real good at it.
2. Hil is real good at it.
Why play that game? Yes you could argue it worked in OH and TX, but hell Obama was behind 20 pts in those states weeks ago, to be some close at the end is a huge victory for the Obama campaign.
Last point. Yes, Hil wants to fight on to the convention. The question is does she have the money and manpower for the fight? I'm not sure she does.
Especially if this were to occur in the wake of Hillary's disgusting, disenfranchising, race-baiting campaign, and even more so with Obama winning the delegates, the popular vote and the states-- well, let's just say we would lose all respect for Obama.
He would show himself to be just another House Negro, one who pretends to stand up for himself but, even when attacked and smeared in the most racist way, and even if locked out from the nomination by a backroom-dealing maneuver-- he would just become the docile Negro again, licking the boots of the white massas. Then, Obama would be sending the worst message to minorities in this country (not to mention whites with a sense of justice)-- that it would be just fine to perpetrate the most reprehensible kind of racist campaign against minority candidates, even overturn the popular vote, since it would be forgiven.
Not only would we lose all respect for Obama-- we would utterly hate him, and actively work to bring down the ticket and make him suffer for it. It would, in short, utterly destroy his political career.
Besides, Obama would have nothing to gain by taking on the complacent, obedient House Negro role in such a fashion.
Hillary would lose to McCain anyway in 2008, and lose badly. And Obama would not gain any "goodwill" among the Democratic elders by taking a second fiddle spot under such circumstances-- he'd simply be considered a chump with no self-respect who wouldn't stand up for himself, who'd stand by and docilely capitulate in the wake of attempts to deny him leadership of the ticket in the wake of clear victories and accomplishments.
And thus, he wouldn't be taken seriously by the Democratic establishment, let alone the voters.
The Democratic elders-- the Kennedys among them-- are aware of and utterly appalled by the mudslinging campaign that Clinton has run. They know that the future is with Obama, not with the Clintons, and they would be perfectly happy to let McCain take out Clinton in the wake of this, to pave the way for Obama.
Better for Obama, under such circumstances, to gain respectful positions in the Senate, and/or to, for example, win the governorship of Illinois, for example.
"Deal or no deal?"
No deal. Oh, and here's another cup of cyanide-laced Koolaid for you, little kid. Just drink like the massa tells you to.
You're an idiot, for the reasons outlined above.
Obama would never take the running-mate slot-- it would be bad not only for his movement, and not only bad for the state of American politics (rewarding race-baiting, vote suppression and scaremongering), but it would be awful for Obama's political career.
He is smart enough to refuse such an offer. He wouldn't take any flak from the party elite-- they can see what's going on and they know how damaging Hillary has been to the Party and the country. They also know, considering the Clintons' history and the Clintons' current damaging campaign, how they utterly destroy prospects for other Democrats. They know how humiliating it would be to take second fiddle in the wake of running such a brilliant campaign and inspiring such a powerful movement, since as VP he'd be powerless-- it would be the Clintons with all their worst instincts and politics running the show, which the voters would not accept.
The Party elites, IOW, know that the best thing for the party long-term is to cultivate a young, impressive talent like Obama, and get rid of the narcissistic Clintons for good. If it takes a moderate Republican like McCain to take them out for good, so be it.
Besides, Dude-- with Obama winning a clear majority of the pledged delegates, the popular vote and the states, do you think he'd be enough of a lame, feeble, idiotic pushover to just stand aside complacently and docilely and take a second-fiddle spot to Hillary, in the wake of what clearly be reprehensible backroom dealing and a denial of the popular will in the primaries?
Again-- especially with Bill Clinton constantly lingering in the background-- Obama would fatally damage his own political career by taking a #2 spot following primaries in which he'd clearly prevailed. He would permanently be labeled a chump, and basically be politically ruined.
Again, best thing for Obama under such corrupt circumstances would be to politely but firmly decline the offer, giving a clever left-handed compliment like "Hillary is a strong enough candidate on her own and should be entitled to choose from, and then gain strength in the Senate, or win the Illinois governorship, with a view toward winning the Presidency in 2012.
I don't think this would be an issue. If Obama wins the pledged delegates-- not to mention the popular vote and the states-- the superdelegates would be committing political suicide by going against the will of the voters. Remember, most of them are elected officials, and they'd be relegated to a deep circle of Hell for corruptly going against the voters' wishes.
Also, especially with the Clintons' prior race-baiting, the appearance of this-- of power-endowed, corrupt white politicians conspiring in a smoky back room to deny the nomination to an African-American candidate who had won the popular mandate-- would be utter poison for the Democrats, and permanently destroy the Democratic coalition.
It would even inspire massive rage and urban riots on a scale that we haven't seen for almost 4 decades.
In short, the superdelegates are going to follow the lead of the pledged delegates. It's a very simple matter. The superdelegates are there, above all, to support a candidate early on and to try to bring a race to a close. But if the race continues, and a candidate clearly has more votes and delegates than the other-- an insurmountable advantage that Obama now has-- then the superdelegates are going to back Obama. They're not dumb people.
Think of the stones it would take from a super to ignore the guy who wins the delegates, pop vote and the most states.
90% of these supers are elected officials and when faced with a chance to make a safe choice (obama) or the controversial one (Clinton), I don't think they will stick their necks out like that.
Call me a cynic but you forget this is a primary! You are betting on both these candidates going nuclear...it's not going to happen.
First, neither Obama or Clinton will go into the convention with enough pledged delegates (forget supers). The supers hold the key. It is now out of the electorates hands.
I am not young and idealistic. I am a life-long Chicagoan and I know how a party machine works. It is no coincidence that Obama is the Senator from Illinois who cut his teeth in the backyard of Jesse Jackson, Harold Washington and the Daley's. It is no coicidence that Obama's path to a political career was paved by cut-throat party maneuvering. It is no coincidence that he was elevated to the national stage at the convention and introduced as a 'rising star.' It is no coincidence that he was virtually unopposed in his Senate run after a Republican Party scandal. There are no coincidences in Machine politics. They let him have a taste of "Turkish Delight" and now he's hooked.
Now, who does Obama owe (and someone ALWAYS owes someone in Machine politics) for his fast track political career? He OWES the Democrat Party. And now, unless he wants to be destroyed by the people he owes (Does the name REZKO ring a bell?). It is no coincidence that Rezko was brought to trial just as the primaries were heating up. Now, behind closed doors, he will be told to get in line and wait his turn. He will now EARN his seat at the table, take the VP slot and unite the Democrat Party or they will destroy him just as quickly as they made him.
Its the Chicago Way, the Democrat Machine Way.
And the date for Rezko was decided way in advance of his campaign. Remember Hillary was suppose to clinch this thing on super Tuesday
Amen. Like The Bag said yesterday, I will not co-sign on her b.s., either. I will not tell her that her b.s. is kosher, that it's acceptable, by voting for her. No. Fking. Way.
A vote for Hillary is not a vote for the platforms of the democratic party. It's a vote for Mudslinging, Racebaiting, Genderbaiting, Ends Justify the Means, Scorched Earth politics. Holding one's nose does not ignore the fact that you still have funk on you -- other people will smell it, even if you choose to ignore that you willingly chose to roll in stink. You will not be clean, you will just be in denial.
Where the fuck is the DNC's backbone? I am so pissed off at the Democratic party, but I will never fall in allegiance with the racist good old boy Repugs.
BTW, Obama will never be a veep for the Clintons. Whatever respect I had for The Clinton is dead and buried. I've been so disappointed with the Clinton Rovian closeted Republican tactics and for the DNC not ot call them on it, well, I am so done. No disgusted. I pray that all blacks become Third party and Independents because the DNC has not done it's job.
Obama was the best chance in 8 years we had to regaining our integrity and character and the DNC is dicking around with being "neutral". The Clintons have crossed the line this time and I am fucking done!
let's wait for a higher percentage, let's wait for the final count.
and if obama has won texas, he's won texas. let this not be ignored, let that woman not draw everybody into her parallel universe.
let's defend reality, at least.
clintonova: rhode island and ohio.
obama: vermont and texas.
that woman is OUT.
go, obama.
Oh yeah, and YES, HE WON TEXAS!
Up next? Wyoming and Mi-ss-i-ss-i-pp-i
(Ya'll know ya'll say it like that to spell it right...)
which he can definitely win.
Then, on April 22, the Keystone state of Pennsylvania.
Now, why in the world the MSM is calling PA the new Iowa, I will NEVER know...
I don't know about the rest of PA, but politics in Philadelphia is a rough and tumble business.
And black folks, white folks, all kinds of folks are ready to roll for Obama!
Yes, there will be trickery, starting with Ms. Ann's Phila campaign HQ in the same bldg as voter registration.
Last month, Gov. "Fast Eddie" Rendell extended the deadline for Clinton's delegate slate to be filed, citing emergency weather conditions. It was raining.
Changed the school district calendar for no school on April 22. Professional development day (on a Tuesday, yeah right...)
Come on over to PA. Call, Donate, or otherwise cheerlead.