The senator is upset because the GOP has used his wife’s comment about being proud of America “for the first time” as fodder for a commercial. He said attacks on his wife should be out of bounds.
On the one hand, I can sympathize. On this board, attacks on my family is the one boundary I ask participants not to cross.
On the other hand, he’s basically asking for a free pass for Mrs. Obama who is out stumping for her husband, on the road and on TV talk shows. This is presidential politics, and it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen. Her phrasing was monumentally dumb when she said it, and even though she endeavored to clarify (i.e, regret and rephrase) her remarks, that doesn’t make them any less a legit target for critics. It isn’t as if, for instance, the GOP dug into her background and discovered she was on antidepressants or something and was saying, “Do you want a medicated woman in the White House?” These were public statements made in a public forum, and that makes them fair game. If Obama wants his wife off limits, then keep her out of the spotlight. But if she’s willingly in the spotlight, then sorry, Senator, but she’s just going to have to endure the glare.
PAD
• 
@Christine: “If Obama cannot handle the multi-tasking of fighting two ‘fights’ in a campaign, how could he handle the job of president that has a thousand jobs running at once?”
You’re comparing apples and oranges, I’m afraid. The president can get away with delegating more in office than on the campaign trail. Think about it — what would people think if Obama’s “press secretary” had to answer McCain’s latest attack because the candidate himself was too busy?
There’s no logic in measuring Obama by an unrealistic and unreasonable yardstick. Two battles is more than one. It’s simple arithmetic that puts Obama at a disadvantage, and not a deficiency on his part.
@Christine: “On the other hand, if he handles both of the ‘fights’ gracefully, it could inspire more confidence in those that have their doubts about him.”
That’s a lovely thought in the abstract. The reality is much different. Many who are on the fence now might be scared away from McCain if his gaffes — and he’s made many, many more than Obama — weren’t lost in the din of this idiotic primary battle being waged by shrill and selfish Clinton.
Have y’all heard the latest, by the way? If Florida and Michigan receive an unfavorable ruling from the Democratic Party Rules Committee, she’d support an appeal ON THE CONVENTION FLOOR. She has abandoned any claim she might have had to the high ground and revealed herself for what she is: narcissistic and power-hungry beyond measure. I used to believe that the Hillary-haters had a distorted view of the woman, and that their perceptions were fueled more by their own biases than reality. I’ve changed my mind. While being self-serving isn’t unique to the Clintons, they’ve taken it to a level all their own. They are the pond scum of politics and I’ll never think a kind thought about either of them again unless Hillary drinks a shot of “Come to Your Senses” and stops this before the Democratic party implodes.
Have y’all heard the latest, by the way? If Florida and Michigan receive an unfavorable ruling from the Democratic Party Rules Committee, she’d support an appeal ON THE CONVENTION FLOOR.
I was just going to mention something about that myself.
PAD, since you asked some time ago upthread, this is where I would say “gone on too long” becomes less fuzzy. She’s now no longer about being the better candidate — this argument reeks of “if I can’t win, I’ll make dámņëd sure Obama can’t either.”
It hurts the party and it hurts the process, which in my view damages the outcome.
She’s a smart woman and she ran a good race, but at this point She Is Done. If the only way she can get the nomination is to effectively take her ball and go home, then she will not win the general election. If *I’d* consider not voting for her in this race, it’s not happening.
TWL
She’s either looking at the long game, trying to be the heroine of Florida and Michigan for a possible 2012 run or–and this doesn’t get tossed around much but ought to be considered–she’s looking for leverage in getting an agreement to help out with that 31 million dollar debt.
Look at it from the Clinton’s point of view and keep in mind that, like virtually all politicians, they think the world more or less revolves around them. This has been a failure of almost incalcuable cost. There’s the money of course and money has been a problem for them in the past. Sure, they cleaned up the last few years but this campaign has probably put a serious dent in the value of a Clinton speech. Bill saw this as a way to vindicate the injury of being bookended by Bush presidencies; instead he now sees his own reputation sullied, with many former defenders now saying they see what the Clinton foes were talking about. Their power in the party, once formidable, is now broken.
This hurts. You don’t have to like them and sure, a lot of what happened was self inflicted. And the worst is yet to come. When she finally drops out, assuming Obama does not give her the VP nod, she becomes invisible, just another Senator (albeit, one who now has to go back and work with a bunch of guys who no longer have any fear of her). And soon enough even her fiercest allies in the feminist movement will begin to turn on her for losing the best chance they have had for getting a woman president.
So while she may be doing the party no good at this point it’s hard to see what more she has to lose. Time for Obama to maybe throw a life preserver her way, give her a dignified exit and some plum assignment in his administration–hëll, promise her the next Supreme Court position, she’d probably jump at that.
If he can finesse this his chances of election go up to the 80% range, in my opinion.
Bill, I’m not so sure this will hurt the Clintons financially. Most of their recent money has come from book deals. If they were getting $10 million checks for books before, I’ll bet book companies are cutting off body parts to get the book that Hillary will write after this.
As for Hillary going all the way to the convention, I’m not convinced. Mitt Romney said he was going to fight all the way to the Republican convention and he said that a week before he dropped out. In fact, a lot of politicians say that before they drop out. Many of them probably believe it, too. They have to say they’ll fight to the convention, because any hint of quitting sooner means they’ve essentially already given up.
Hillary and her people have said they’ll fight to the convention, but they’ve also said many times that they’ll fight, “until there is a nominee.” In other words, the Rules Committee is going to set a magic number on May 31st (somewhere between 2025 and 2210) and Obama will hit it on June 4th with the help of a bunch of super delegates. He might even hit it before that. Once he has hit that number, she’ll be able to say she fought until the end.
I don’t know about that, Jason. The Clinton brand has very likely taken a hit in even the eyes of some of their former publishers. A book by Bill Clinton, former POTUS and beloved idol of the left, was almost guaranteed to be like printing money. A book by Hillary Clinton, former put upon First Lady, New York Senator and “sure thing” future presidential candidate, was seen as almost the money press that Bill’s name was. Now they’re both damaged goods.
Yeah, they may limp back into the good graces of a number of party power players and supporters since politics is a weird game, but they’re not coming out of this what they were in the eyes of many only one short year ago. If Obama fails in his bid this November, they’ll be in even worse shape as every finger that can point will be pointing the blame in her direction. Like I said before; that may not be 100% reasonable, but when did reason have anything to do with groups of people as a whole looking to find a scapegoat?
Her best hope is for an olive branch if she drops out. Obama offering her the AG post or the next SCOTUS vacancy or having enough people, however unlikely, convince Obama that she is his needed VP pick. Politics has had stranger comeback stories, but this feels too much like it’s her last ride as a true power player and Bill’s last days as an “elder statesman” of the party. And the sad thing for them is that they could have avoided this by just playing the smarter game that many expected them to play this last year. This was her election to lose and, when she lost it, it then became her legacy to solidify or destroy. Right now, I think she’s damaged it a lot. Her actions in the next six months will determine if she destroys it completely or not.
Thank you for the kind words, Jerome. As for your view of this flap, to each their own. I do not find it relevant, since A. She’s not running for President, and B. I prefer to consider the various possibilities that exist when attempting to interpret observed events, and figure that Michelle Obama’s statement can be explained in ways that are far less nefarious than the media or the right wingers would prefer I do. I try to adhere to this whether it pertains to political figures I both like and do not like.
I do not buy the “guilt by association” theory, as I find it to be a very ominous, slippery “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon”-type slope that can lead anyone to justify all sorts of tenuous connections between just about any ol’ candidate and any shady individual or group (The Bush family and Nazis; The Bush Family and the bin Laden family; the Clintons and their jailed friends; etc) that eventually can become so that it degenerates into McCarthyesque silliness.
Regarding the three consequences you suggested, I truly wonder whether these effects are not only the case, but actually cause anyone who had decided to vote for Obama or might have voted for him to change their mind. Were there really that many undecideds so affected by this. I don’t know if there were, but speaking only for myself, the only one that holds true for me is the third, which as aforementioned, is explainable. I certainly do not regret voting for Obama in the New Jersey primary, and it will not affect my vote in November. That’s just me. 🙂
Tim Lynch,
Good to debate you again. Without further adieu:
“She’s no longer about being the better candidate – this argument reeks of “if I can’t win,I’ll make dámņëd sure Obama can’t either'”.
See, I buy this to a point. There is a part of me that believes that Clinton is hoping Obama loses in the general if he gets the nomination this year. It gives her a better shot in 2012, and that’s the Clinton way.
But, in all honesty, I believe two things:
1.) Hillary truly will take this to the convention, ESPECIALLY if Michigan and Florida decisions come out anywhere near her favor. If they don’t, I still fully expect she will take this to the floor of the convention. I believe she believes she is the best candidate to win a general election, and two landslide, 30+ point victories in the last couple weeks don’t do anything to dispel that, in her mind I’m certain. And if other scandals or controversies erupt or Obama’s sheen gets chipped to a significant degree, she’s there to pick up the pieces.
2.) Which leads me to, a columnist I looked at recently stated that while it may seem Hillary may simply be damaging Obama, her – and Bill’s – belief is that Homer Simpson could run against McCain this year and become president. This infuriates them if the opportunity is truly forever lost, but it also explains why they don’t fear being blamed for an Obama loss.
If he can’t win with all the favorable media coverage he has gotten, with all the money he has raised, with almost 80% of the country believing (rightly or wrongly) that we are going in the right direction; with a President despised by his party and unable to use the bully pulpit to Obama’s disadvantage (yet) and with a nominee despised by much of the Republican base.
Well, if he can’t win with all that going for him, then he’ll have to do a lot of explaining and not blame Hillary.
And again, feel this “drawn-out” campaign has sustained excitement, media coverage and interest, registerd millions of new voters and got them interested in the process earlier AND kept the fundraising pump going. It has also partialy inoculated Obama (or Hillary) from attacks from the GOP because we have now heard some of them already.
HonestlyTim Lynch,
Good to debate you again. Without further adieu:
“She’s no longer about being the better candidate – this argument reeks of “if I can’t win,I’ll make dámņëd sure Obama can’t either'”.
See, I buy this to a point. There is a part of me that believes that Clinton is hoping Obama loses in the general if he gets the nomination this year. It gives her a better shot in 2012, and that’s the Clinton way.
But, in all honesty, I believe two things:
1.) Hillary truly will take this to the convention, ESPECIALLY if Michigan and Florida decisions come out anywhere near her favor. If they don’t, I still fully expect she will take this to the floor of the convention. I believe she believes she is the best candidate to win a general election, and two landslide, 30+ point victories in the last couple weeks don’t do anything to dispel that, in her mind I’m certain. And if other scandals or controversies erupt or Obama’s sheen gets chipped to a significant degree, she’s there to pick up the pieces.
2.) Which leads me to, a columnist I looked at recently stated that while it may seem Hillary may simply be damaging Obama, her – and Bill’s – belief is that Homer Simpson could run against McCain this year and become president. This infuriates them if the opportunity is truly forever lost, but it also explains why they don’t fear being blamed for an Obama loss.
If he can’t win with all the favorable media coverage he has gotten, with all the money he has raised, with almost 80% of the country believing (rightly or wrongly) that we are going in the right direction; with a President despised by his party and unable to use the bully pulpit to Obama’s disadvantage (yet) and with a nominee despised by much of the Republican base.
Well, if he can’t win with all that going for him, then he’ll have to do a lot of explaining and not blame Hillary.
And again, feel this “drawn-out” campaign has sustained excitement, media coverage and interest, registerd millions of new voters and got them interested in the process earlier AND kept the fundraising pump going. It has also partialy inoculated Obama (or Hillary) from attacks from the GOP because we have now heard some of them already.
Honestly< I wish Romney AND Thompson had still been in the race last month, while Obama and Hillary smoozed with steelworkers in Pittsburgh, diner owners in Scranton and patrons of Philly cheesesteak shops. Meanwhile, McCain has mostly been ignored. I realy wish the candidates I prefer were strnegthening their arguments and gaining more exposure the way the Democrats have been. I truly feel the long campaign has had the opposite effect most people think it has
I obviously meant “wrong” direction above.
I realy wish the candidates I prefer were strnegthening their arguments and gaining more exposure the way the Democrats have been. I truly feel the long campaign has had the opposite effect most people think it has
If I thought that the effect really was that the eventual nominee had strengthened their arguments, I’d totally agree with this. Given some of the issues that have come up, however (both from the Clintons and from others), it’s looking to me less like honing arguments and more like sowing the ground with salt.
I’m also not sure that McCain being ignored is a net plus for the Democrats. He’s made some major-league gaffes in the last couple of months that are far more significant than, say, Obama’s lapels, but they’ve gotten little to no media attention. Now, those may come up eventually, but so far it’s not at all obvious to me that McCain is coming out the loser by being ignored.
I think we can all agree that we’ll be happy once the Democrats’ race is finally settled, especially if the focus actually turns to real issues.
And Bill, you’re not the only one to suggest a SCOTUS vacancy for Clinton — there was an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post about that yesterday. I think it’s an intriguing idea, and way better than the VP spot. Never give the VP spot to someone who wants the job more than you do: as Babylon 5 watchers remember, that rarely ends well. 🙂
TWL
PAD, since you asked some time ago upthread, this is where I would say “gone on too long” becomes less fuzzy. She’s now no longer about being the better candidate — this argument reeks of “if I can’t win, I’ll make dámņëd sure Obama can’t either.”
Isn’t it also possible that she just sincerely believes that she has a better chance of beating McCain in November than Obama does?
Not that I believe she does, as I’ve already made clear. But I’m not sure why it’s necessary to ascribe to her the most negative of motivations. She may truly think that in the end she’s helping the party, not hurting it. It’s not as if she’s saying, “If I don’t get the nomination, I will run as a third party independent.”
PAD
If Obama loses and Florida and Michigan are part of the reasons, Hillary will be able to, maybe even rightly, claim that she tried to tell them that they couldn’t treat those voters badly and she just wasn’t listened to. If he wins and Florida and Michigan go to him she can take credit. So her fighting for a rules change may make sense–so long as she realizes that it will not change the ultimate outcome, which, barring a sudden scandle that nobody expects at this late date, seems written in stone.
Isn’t it also possible that she just sincerely believes that she has a better chance of beating McCain in November than Obama does?
Until yesterday, I’d have said yes. With a quote like this, though?
“If Democrats send a message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won’t even listen to you.”
That’s Clinton making the Republicans’ arguments FOR them if she doesn’t get the nomination. No, it’s not saying that she’ll go independent, but it’s effectively suggesting that voters in FL and MI should.
That’s the only real reason I’m definitely attributing negative motivations by now.
TWL
Tim, it’s a given that McCain will make that argument–he needs no suggestion from Hillary to do so.
Any time you point out an opponent’s weakness you can be said to be doing the other side’s work for them. When Obama points out Hillary’s vulnerability on the Iraq vote he is making a point that republicans will–but what is he supposed to do? There has to be a reason to vote for A over B.
Now you can argue that the choice has been made and any further attacks on Obama are counterproductive but it can also be argued that Hillary is correct that Florida and Michigan are too important to insult–especially from the party that has made so much hay about ‘every vote should be counted”. Punish the idiots in charge of the state branch of the party for causing all this trouble but figure out some way that saves face (without changing the outcome–Obama may have been naive to think Hillary would also follow the rules but he shouldn’t be punished for that mistake.)
Some have suggested they do a re-vote. Obama would have to be insane to agree to that. he can’t risk the chance that she pulls off two more lopsided victories in two such critical states, even if the math doesn’t allow for her to get the nomination out of it. It isn’t often that the winning candidate limps into the convention after losing the last few states by margins like we saw in KY and WV. I think it’s just a bump in the road for Obama and just another indication of how nuts this election has been so far but he has no reason to tempt fate.
“If Democrats send a message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won’t even listen to you.”
That’s Clinton making the Republicans’ arguments FOR them if she doesn’t get the nomination. No, it’s not saying that she’ll go independent, but it’s effectively suggesting that voters in FL and MI should.
No, it’s not. Predicting what someone will say isn’t the same as embracing the notion yourself. That’s just basic debating tactics: Knowing the opposition’s argument and, hopefully, coming up with a counter to them. She can’t very well say, “Florida and Michigan should be counted so that I can get back in the game.” So instead she puts forward an argument that–at least she hopes–comes across as something other than self-serving: Count these votes because otherwise the voters will feel disenfranchised and go running to the GOP.
PAD
Jerry Chandler: “I don’t know about that, Jason. The Clinton brand has very likely taken a hit in even the eyes of some of their former publishers. A book by Bill Clinton, former POTUS and beloved idol of the left, was almost guaranteed to be like printing money. A book by Hillary Clinton, former put upon First Lady, New York Senator and “sure thing” future presidential candidate, was seen as almost the money press that Bill’s name was. Now they’re both damaged goods.”
See, I think it works the opposite from that. Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush were former Presidents when they wrote their memoirs. So was Reagan when he left office with the highest approval rating of any retiring President. Yet they didn’t get $60 for writing a couple of books.
Bill Clinton, beloved former POTUS didn’t get all that money. Bill Clinton, beloved former POTUS who *cheated on his wife in the white house* got all that money. Hillary Clinton is the same way, overcoming personal tragedy is what made people care about her and her book.
So the Clinton’s personal reputations suffered? As far as book people are concerned, great! Tragedy sells.
Take a look at Hillary’s rallies. Those people don’t care about setbacks. She still has tremendous support. Judging by the rising number of her supporters who say they’ll never vote for Obama, her people seem to be getting more fervent than ever. More and more her supporters are claiming that the media is out to get them and Barack Obama treated her unfairly. If she writes about this campaign and fits the word ‘sexism’ into the title of her next book, she could make up the entire campaign debt in one go.
So don’t worry about the financial cost of this campaign to the Clintons. Right now they’re $80 million dollars ahead of where they were when Bill left office. They’d *like* to have back the money she’s loaned herself, but they’ll be fine if it doesn’t happen.
@Tim Lynch: “That’s the only real reason I’m definitely attributing negative motivations by now.”
I got there a little ahead of you because Ms. Clinton has been pursuing a very divisive strategy for weeks that came to an ugly head in Kentucky. In exit polls in that state, 1 in 5 voters said race was “important” in deciding their vote, and 90 percent of them voted for Clinton. Clinton has turned her back on her long history of fighting for civil rights by pursuing racially divisive strategies: playing up “bittergate” and the Rev. Wright scandal, for example.
It’s what prompted David Gergen to suggest that Clinton should consider making a Ross Perot-like “if you hate, I don’t want your vote” speech. It would allow her to come out of this on a high note. Doesn’t look like it’s gonna happen, though.
@Bill Mulligan: “Tim, it’s a given that McCain will make that argument–he needs no suggestion from Hillary to do so.”
Bill, you’re missing the point. It’s more damaging for that message to come from Clinton. The Democrats could dismiss it as partisan rancor from McCain, after all.
@PAD: “But I’m not sure why it’s necessary to ascribe to her the most negative of motivations.”
Given her actions, it’s hard not to do so. You could barely fit a sheet of paper edgewise between her and Obama when it comes to their stand on most issues. Yet Clinton is pursuing a scorched earth strategy that is sabotaging the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House. She’s putting herself above the principles and positions she claims to hold so dear.
@PAD: “So instead she puts forward an argument that–at least she hopes–comes across as something other than self-serving: Count these votes because otherwise the voters will feel disenfranchised and go running to the GOP.”
I’m afraid that doesn’t wash. Clinton publicly supported the DNC’s decision not to count Florida and Michigan until she realized she needed them.
And the fact that she’s carrying the banner of “count these votes or lose them in the general election” is exacerbating the problem. She could just as easily tell the voters in those states the truth: that when it comes to public policy, she and Obama are infinitely closer than either of them are to McCain. So if you agree with her positions, it’s better to vote Democrat no matter what happens. That would be classy and the mark of a true leader. It appears neither of those things is very Hillary Clinton.
As I said, for years I was one of her defenders. But enough is too much.
Right now they’re $80 million dollars ahead of where they were when Bill left office.
Minus the taxes on that 80 million, the millions they’ve thrown away on the campaign and supporting a very expensive style of living…I’m not saying they’re hurting or anything but the point is, they spent that money to come out weaker, less liked, less influential, historically sullied…not a great return on the investment.
You won’t see them, in the words of Harlan Ellison, sitting out on the street with a tin cup, but this was one hëll of a hit, in ways that money may not assuage.
Predicting what someone will say isn’t the same as embracing the notion yourself. That’s just basic debating tactics: Knowing the opposition’s argument and, hopefully, coming up with a counter to them.
Certainly true, but saying that the opposition will present it as a COMPELLING argument (her words) suggests that she is in fact embracing the notion herself. If she was simply predicting it, presumably she would be offering some sort of counter to it. So far, she’s not — she’s using the argument to her own advantage, not blunting it.
She’s smarter than this, and I wish that at the moment she was better than this.
Punish the idiots in charge of the state branch of the party for causing all this trouble but figure out some way that saves face.
I seem to recall that the Obama camp has already offered at least two ways out — a 50/50 split was one of them. So far the Clinton campaign has said “our way or no way,” despite the fact that the original penalty was embraced (and suggested, I think) by members of her own campaign.
Can we say “not helpful”?
TWL
Did anybody notice how much emphasis the Clinton camp put on Kentucky? How they trumpeted and crowed over winning Kentucky? Kentucky, a pretty much useless state when it comes to the electoral vote this fall?
It was because of the news cycle. Kentucky’s polls closed 3 hours before the polls in Oregon. That way the Clinton camp got all the positive conversation they could get for 3 hours before the Oregon results could be talked about. And at that point, many working people in the Eastern and Central time zones were going to bed, so all they heard was how great Clinton did on Tuesday.
My preferred public servant to campaign in 2008 was Chuck Hagel, R-NE, to balance out the congress with a member of the adversarial party. He’s been the party-maverick McCain only takes credit for being. But the republicans are too soft-headed and detached from reality to do anything except obstruct him in a virtually united front controlled from the top down. There’s no defense against their lennie-like relentlessness.
No, what they have is what’s left over from the taxes on $100m, which is $80m. (Nice rate, hanh? And they paid on the high end of their income range.)
Hillary can cover what’s been borrowed. She’s still getting huge returns in the primaries, and sticking it out is perfectly reasonable. Wanting Hillary out seems to be a control issue — even if it’s in establishing that the situation can be controlled at all. Tim Russert is pìššëd because he says it’s over, and she won’t lie down. Good for her.
A quote from an ABC News piece earlier today, by the way:
“It’s clear,” Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, “this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot.”
So in other words, she herself maintained that Michigan’s election was “not going to count for anything” — but now she insists that it should.
I really don’t think that’s her considering herself the better candidate. I think that’s picking and choosing what votes you want to count.
TWL
Thinking further, Hillary is the best candidate for president. The thing I said about Hagel balancing out congress as a member of the adversarial party? Letting the president’s party lose control of congress in the first mid-term is what Bill did to usher in good times. Hillary knows to do the same thing, plus she knows to establish healthcare reform before then. Ðámņ, what a golden opportunity missed.
It’s an understatement to say maybe he knows something I don’t know, but I don’t see how keeping those two branches the same party won’t be Obama’s downfall.
Bill Myers wrote:
That’s a lovely thought in the abstract. The reality is much different. Many who are on the fence now might be scared away from McCain if his gaffes — and he’s made many, many more than Obama — weren’t lost in the din of this idiotic primary battle being waged by shrill and selfish Clinton.
Not so abstract as I (and others I’ve spoken to offline) are not Obama supporters. There is something about him that rubs us the wrong way – kinda like Bush does – and please do not suggest it is his race as we are a mixed group. Frankly, I hope we are wrong, but the feeling is there.
BTW, calling Clinton shrill and selfish won’t win us over either.
-And-
You could barely fit a sheet of paper edgewise between her and Obama when it comes to their stand on most issues.
True, however they are two different people with different backgrounds. Taking stands on issues and making campaign promises are expected. It’s how much a voter believes that the candidate can/will accomplish that swings the tide.
According to Hillary, their after tax income for the time reported was $57,157,297. It ain’t 80 million but it ain’t chicken feed either. Even if she has to eat the 31 million her campaign owes they won’t be thrown out on the streets. And yeah, I’d love to read what is sure to be one hëll of a bitter payback book by her (Bill seems to detached from reality to be of much interest. Had they muzzled him better and maybe answered that immigrant license question better, who knows what might have been.).
@Christine: “Not so abstract as I (and others I’ve spoken to offline) are not Obama supporters.”
What I meant by “abstract” was the idea that Obama simply needs to multitask in order to run two campaigns simultaneously and still be an effective candidate. It sounds nice in the abstract but doesn’t work out in reality. It doesn’t matter how many people believe it — it remains unrealistic.
@Christine: “There is something about him that rubs us the wrong way – kinda like Bush does – and please do not suggest it is his race as we are a mixed group.”
I wouldn’t suggest that. The only reason I brought up Kentucky is that many voters there acknowledged race played a roll in their vote.
@Christine: “BTW, calling Clinton shrill and selfish won’t win us over either.”
You misunderstand my intent. I am not campaigning for Obama. I am simply trying to express my beliefs in the same manner you are. If someone finds my arguments persuasive, great. If not, that’s what democracy is all about.
“According to Hillary, their after tax income for the time reported was $57,157,297. It ain’t 80 million but it ain’t chicken feed either. Even if she has to eat the 31 million her campaign owes they won’t be thrown out on the streets. ”
You’re right, I should have double checked the $80 million number. By the way, her campaign owes $21 million, not $31 million. And only $11.46 million of that is her own money, so that’s all she really has to eat.
It’s not even sure that she’ll have to eat any of it. There was a news article awhile back that outlined how she has tens of millions contributed to her run for the general election. She can’t use that to pay off primary debts, but she *can* transfer it into her Senate 2012 campaign. She has to get permission from the contributors to do that, but there are good odds that a fair number of them would okay it. She can also transfer her primary debt to her Senate 2012 campaign. It’s tricky and probably not her favorite strategy, but it is an option.
Plus, even thought there are rules saying that she has to pay off the debts by certain dates, those rules apparently aren’t enforced very much. I’ve heard that many candidates continue fund raising past those dates.
The point: Political financing makes my head throb. I’ve lost the capacity to make a better point than that.
By the way, her campaign owes $21 million, not $31 million.
that’s what I get for relying on the LA Times (what was I thinking???)
from today: Due to a mathematical error, the $11.4 million she had previously loaned herself was counted twice, producing an incorrect total of nearly $31 million.
And they wonder why newspapers are dying…
“And they wonder why newspapers are dying… ”
Absolutely. An internet site could have just changed the original article and said, “Mistake? What mistake?”
@Bill Mulligan: “And they wonder why newspapers are dying…”
Unfortunately, the same — or worse — level of inaccuracy doesn’t seem to give people pause with respect to electronic media.
Bill Mulligan: “And they wonder why newspapers are dying…”
I’ve always hated that line. Republicans and conservative talk show guys always use it to imply that newspapers are liberal, inaccurate or in some other way untrustworthy and on their last knees because of it. Thing is, while it’s true that the numbers are down, it ignores the fact that newspapers don’t live in a hermetically sealed bubble. Reading as a whole is declining and almost every print media is declining. It’s the rare book like Harry Potter that bucks that trend, but most sales figures I see show reading to be down everywhere, not just with newspapers.
Poor Bill Mulligan. He makes an off-hand, throw-away remark and we all pounce on it like sharks in the midst of a feeding frenzy.
He must feel like he’s running for president.
On Michigan and Florida:
I don’t know about Florida, but my understanding is that it’s now too late in Michigan to do a re-vote, even if Clinton and Obama both agreed to it.
To my way of thinking, if the Michigan votes are counted, they should give the votes for Clinton to Clinton; and the votes for “uncommitted” (neither Obama nor Edwards had their names on the ballot) to Obama. Yes, some of those “uncommitted” votes might have been by Edwards supporters who would never have voted for either Clinton or Obama; but as Edwards is no longer in the race, giving the “uncommitted” votes to Obama seems the fairest option.
(I don’t know who was and wasn’t on the ballot in Florida, but the same suggestion would apply there if they also had a candidate’s name/uncommitted set up)
I’m not sure about the whole idea of a re-vote, unless there was a problem with the actual voting machines, leaving the results in doubt. But having a “do-over” because the state Democratic Party flaunted the rules? That’s something else. That’s like Frieda wanting more than three strikes when she’s at bat because she has naturally curly hair.
Or maybe it was Lucy who wanted extra strikes for various reasons of her own.
Anyway, to my way of thinking the best options (and none of them are ideal) are to either not count the Michigan and Florida votes, or (in the case of Michigan at least) render unto Clinton what is Clinton’s and render unto Obama’s what is Uncommitted’s.
Jerry, regarding the decline in reading, there’s a piece in the may issue of The Writer about the recently released NEA report, “To Read or Not to Read”, which finds, among other things, that the percentage of 17-year-olds who read for pleasure has decreased from 31 percent in 1984 to 22 percent today.
The report also finds that 38 percent of employers rate high school graduates deficient in reading skills; and 72 percent rate them deficient in writing skills.
It also found that youths between 15 and 24 read an average of seven minutes per day for pleasure. The Writer piece suggest that the so-called “Harry Potter effect” was apparently weaker than expected.
The report itself can be found at http://www.nea.gov/research/research/researchreports_chrono.html.
I trust it’ll state how many employers they surveyed to get those statistics. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, its when a news article or broadcast says something like “90 percent of voters surveyed approve/disapprove of the President”, but don’t say how many people they talked to. Was it 2.5 million? 10,000? 2,000? 500? 10? If the latter, that “90 percent” comes to nine people.
On a related note, four years ago, the NEA came out with the Reading at Risk study, which reported on a sampling of more 17,000 adults 18 or older in 2002. Participants were asked whether, during the previous twelve months, they had read any novels, short stories, plays, or poetry in their leisure time.
The study found that less than half of the half of the adult American population (46.7 percent) reads literature, a decline from 54 percent in 1992 and 56.9 percent in 1982.
It can be found in a PDF format at nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf.
For myself, I know I don’t read as much as I used to, but that’s in part because there doesn’t seem to be as much time, with work and all. At least when I was a kid, I got a lot of reading done during summer vacation.
Ironically, there are times when I’m reading that I feel I should be writing instead. So I’ll stop reading and start writing.
And truth be known, the ability to watch stuff on DVD is another distraction we didn’t have to contend with all that long ago.
Still, I continue to enjoy reading, even if I’m not reading as much as I used to. What I really need to do is catch up on the books I’ve already bought and then buy more (and/or check them out of the library).
Rick
“The Writer piece suggest that the so-called “Harry Potter effect” was apparently weaker than expected.”
I didn’t think that Harry was going to cause other books to sell better and wasn’t saying that. I was pointing to Harry as the rare book that sells like hotcakes.
The Bush administration has recently tried to undermine the RIF program. Reading Is Fundamental has been around in one form or another for decades.
To my way of thinking, if the Michigan votes are counted, they should give the votes for Clinton to Clinton; and the votes for “uncommitted” (neither Obama nor Edwards had their names on the ballot) to Obama. Yes, some of those “uncommitted” votes might have been by Edwards supporters who would never have voted for either Clinton or Obama; but as Edwards is no longer in the race, giving the “uncommitted” votes to Obama seems the fairest option.
Particularly since Edwards has now endorsed Obama. I think that would be a reasonable compromise — any bets on whether either camp would accept it?
TWL
“– any bets on whether either camp would accept it?”
I wouldn’t and I doubt Obama will either. What’s to say that people who would have voted for Obama or Edwards as their #1 pick didn’t vote Hillary as their #2 choice rather than vote uncommitted?
There’s no way to know what either state’s results would have been if everyone was on the ballot in Michigan and if everyone hadn’t been told that the Florida vote wouldn’t count. Florida is a tainted vote and Michigan is a nightmare. There is no “fair” way to give them to anyone that won’t tick off a pretty good portion of the Democratic voters.
Do they count reading on the internet as reading? I read more now than ever before but it’s mostly online. Seems to me it’s all the same, letters into words and all that.
I don’t read as many books as I used to and the ones I do are almost always non-fiction. When they say “reading for pleasure” does it have to be fiction?
As for newspapers dying I meant no partisan point, other than my prejudice against mediocrity. Most newspapers I’ve read lately fail to impress. I don’t even mind the partisanship–I can enjoy bias just not cut rate bias. the quality of writing is poor (or maybe the editors are slicing the quality right out) and the level of good investigative skills seems to be diminishing. Maybe too many of the good inquiring minds are going into forensic criminology.
It’s a rare time that I read a piece and am impressed. More likely, it’ll intrigue me enough to maybe look up the info myself. Increasingly I find the papers “breaking” news that I thought was common knowledge.
And their science reporting is awful. Awful. Has been for a long time. I’m hardly more than a dilettante at best in most of the scientific fields but some of the bonehead mistakes they make are troubling.
And hey Jerry, it isn’t just conservatives who bìŧçh about media bias. It used to be, sure, and liberals would always poo poo the idea, claiming that the media was in it to make money and would never allow bias to interfere with that. That meme changed at some point and now it’s that sure the media is biased–biased for conservatives! Even NPR gets nagged for their conservative bias. Well, at least conservatives and liberals agree on the main point, even if they quibble on the details.
(And I don’t mean to say that all are bad or even the bad ones are bad all of the time. But personally I don’t feel the need to read newspapares nearly as much as I once did.)
”When they say “reading for pleasure” does it have to be fiction?”
I just finished reading, and then rereading, A Lion’s Tale: Around the World in Spandex the other week. I considered it reading for pleasure and it’s not listed as fiction. Strange as hëll and funny in an odd way at points, but not fiction.
”And hey Jerry, it isn’t just conservatives who bìŧçh about media bias.”
I worded that badly before. I was pointing out that the “newspaper circulation/sales is down” line gets used a lot by conservative radio and TV guys, but I should have mentioned that it has been getting play elsewhere lately. Everyone and their brother finds their reason for slagging on a newspaper and then throws that line out there while ignoring the fact that every example of the printed medias are dropping in circulation figures. Even the rare magazine that sells in heavy numbers is either devoted to naked/semi-naked women, video games or TV and movies and is more for looking at than reading. I just find that line dumb anymore.
”That meme changed at some point and now it’s that sure the media is biased–biased for conservatives! Even NPR gets nagged for their conservative bias. Well, at least conservatives and liberals agree on the main point, even if they quibble on the details.”
Yeah, I’ve seen and heard some of that of late as well. I was channel surfing my XM a few months back and came across lunatic fringe nutjob and idiot extraordinaire Randi Rhodes attacking NPR for doing a “friendly” and “conservatively biased” interview with a Republican presidential candidate’s spokesman. It was basically biased it seems because NPR never asked why the guy’s boss was Satan reborn or why having solders die for oil and corporate profits makes all conservatives happy. It was almost as funny as when she stated some months later, after her rather less than amicable separation for Air America, that Hillary’s corporate friends at Air America and MSNBC wouldn’t allow people to say negative things about Hillary and if anyone did they got the hammer dropped on them. It only got funnier when, in between clips of Olbermann, Maddow and others saying negative things about Hillary on MSNBC, her callers where all telling her how right she was.
Air America certainly achieved one of it’s goals. It became the Left’s equivalent to guys like Rush and Sean. The most mindless from each side tune in-in droves to all of ‘em.
” (And I don’t mean to say that all are bad or even the bad ones are bad all of the time. But personally I don’t feel the need to read newspapares nearly as much as I once did.)”
Since you can read so much of what they’ll cover online and get more details about it; I doubt that most people do either. I don’t and most of the people I know who used to get three or four papers just get one these days and do most of their news reading online. I actually like online reading better when it comes to news anyhow since I can read a news blip that says that so-and-so said F, G and H and then find a link and see the actual speech or find a full transcript to see how A-E and I-Z changes the meaning behind F, G and H from the way it was presented in the news.
The problem I am seeing, especially in the smaller newspapers, is that their information is just not timely enough. The larger newspapers have cut their staffs to the minimum, and they can’t cover half of what is happening now. Toledo, Ohio, is a medium sized market. I have often seen articles in that paper that were covered on the television news the day or night before, and covered online 2 or 3 days before that.
If it is true that newspaper circulation is down very sharply over the last several decades (and it is true), then “And they wonder why newspapers are dying” is merely a statement of fact, rather than some sort of provocation. I don’t doubt that many newspaper executives have made poor choices, but for the most part it isn’t a question of left versus right. The left-oriented papers are appalled at Republican thinking. The right-oriented papers dismiss any Democratic initiatives. So long as the News Corporation exists, the trend will probably be toward increasingly conservative newspapers and magazines. Neither the right nor the left is reading newspapers at the rate both once did.
So, the latest salvo is McCain criticizing Obama’s lack of military service.
*sigh*
Today’s newspapers are tomorrow’s fish and chip wrappers. Yes, I know it’s an old saying.
Bill Mulligan: To my way of thinking, reading for pleasure isn’t limited to fiction, but something you enjoy reading, rather than something you have to read.
If the NEA has a different criterion, I’m sure it’s mentioned in one of the two reports I cited.
Jerry: With regard to the “Harry Potter effect”, I probably would have mentioned it (since it was in the article) even if you hadn’t brought Harry up at all.
You asked, “What’s to say that people who would have voted for Obama or Edwards as their #1 pick didn’t vote Hillary as their #2 choice rather than vote uncommitted?”
The Michigan Democratic primary had two… um… names on the ballot: Clinton and “Uncommitted.” You didn’t get to put down your first and second pick. Some individual cities, such as the Detroit suburb of Ferndale, are experimenting with that sort of set-up, called instant run-off voting, for their municipal elections. But it’s not happening on a state-wide basis. Not yet, at any rate.
So again, short of not counting the Michigan votes at all, the best option (to me, at least) is to give Clinton the votes she got and to give Obama the “uncommitted” votes. Yes, there might be some “uncommitted” voters who’d never vote for Obama in any circumstances. They can either sit out the general election or vote for McCain.
And if we’d have ended up with the same (probable) general election contest between Obama and McCain had Michigan’s primary not been screwed up and all the candidates’ name had been on the ballot, someone who didn’t vote for Obama could still not vote for him in November.
The whole thing is a mess, but I think not counting Michigan’s primary votes at all is a worse choice than the option I suggested.
Rick
“The Michigan Democratic primary had two… um… names on the ballot: Clinton and “Uncommitted.” You didn’t get to put down your first and second pick.”
That’s still open to the problem that I mentioned. Let’s say you wanted to vote Obama. You got there and the only choice you had was Hillary and uncommitted. Rather than vote yourself as uncommitted, you choose to vote for Hillary since she was your second choice after Obama. You now have a vote that would have been Obama’s being given to Hillary since you voted for your second choice candidate rather than vote uncommitted. The same might be true of any voter who wanted to vote for any of the other candidates over Hillary.
Can I say for sure that this took place? No. But it’s a safe bet that some good percentage of the people did do that. That being the case, giving Hillary the delegates based on “her” votes likely inflates the number of delegates that she would have gotten had anyone else been on the ballot.
You can’t fairly seat Michigan or Florida’s delegates. One was completely screwed up and the other could be argued to be tainted by the news reports of the vote not counting. Actually, both have that problem since Michigan’s voters would have been hearing that before the vote took place as well.
Personally, I’d love to see them avoid all of this garbage by setting the system up so that we get a good series of strong debates through mid-May and then we have all the states vote on the same night like in the real election. You get rid of this stupid garbage of some states’ voting become pointless wastes of time, you get rid of issues like these two states “breaking the rules” since you don’t have anyone going first or last (barring time zone issues) and you get rid of the flip-floppers and bandwagon jumpers who keep changing their vote based on who won the last primary.
Giving Obama the uncommitted votes doesn’t seem viable to me. I agree that most of them were probably wanting to vote for him but the fact is, they didn’t get the chance.
So the party that has made considerable political hay out of “counting every vote” and protesting “rigged” elections (though complaints about electronic voting sure died down when the results went their way) now faces either just tossing out a bunch of votes completely or just deciding that candidate A is who the uncommitted voters really wanted. What a mess.
I say, just split the numbers between the remaining candidates and sit them. Hillary won’t like it but unless she manages to get enough votes in Puerto Rico to snatch a majority I don’t see her having the pull to do anything about it. If the stories are true that she has asked and been denied the VP spot her only plan at this point seems to be to keep her powder dry, concede nothing and hope for a scandal. Pretty slim odds but better than nothing, I guess.
Why don’t they just have a re-vote?
“Why don’t they just have a re-vote?”
Money back then and money and time at this point.
The re-vote has been discussed, but the state won’t pay for it, and the Michigan Democratic Party won’t pay for it, so it’s not going to happen.
Bill Mulligan: “If the stories are true that she has asked and been denied the VP spot”
They’re not. Both sides are already debunking the rumor:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1057433.aspx
As for the delegates in Michigan, you’re right that we don’t know that all the uncommitteds would have gone for Obama. However, we don’t know that all of Hillary’s votes would have gone for her, either. Exit polling from that night shows that if all three names had been on the ticket, then she would have still won, but with significantly less votes than what she got. So it’s *all* messed up.
Really, compromising by giving Obama the uncommitteds and then cutting everything in half is fair enough. Not fair, but fair enough. He’ll still be far in the lead, Edwards will then throw his 11 half-delegates from Florida to Obama making him more in the lead, and the people of MI and FL will feel useful again. Compromises never make anyone completely happy, so this one will be as much of a success as any good compromise can be.