Saturday, April 26, 2008

You May Have to Just Get Over It



I've been keeping my powder dry about Hillary's big win in Pennsylvania, but last night on "Real Time with Bill Mahar," Bill nailed it when he said Hillary shouldn't even consider stepping down because the margins of victory between her and Obama are too slim for her to quit.
His guest Arianna Huffington, whom I usually love, said, "She has no right to say the things she says about Obama."
Au contraire, my Greek siren.
As Americans, we all have the right to say any goddamn thing we want about anyone. In turn, we must face the consequences of our words.
For Huffington to display such righteous indignation tells me her political astuteness is a few bubbles off plumb when it comes to her blind devotion to Obama.
In politics, all's fair. Obama has hurled barbs at Hillary, and vice versa.
Huffington is still fuming over Hillary's "It's 3 a.m. in America" ad.
For God's sake, doesn't she realize that the ad was so effective it's triggered thousands of transparent "the lady doth protest too much" reactions?
Sorry, Obama Claymates, but sleeping next to a two-term president for eight years does provide a candidate some valuable insight into what being president entails.
Who among us thinks Hillary would crumble under pressure if that call came in at 3 a.m.? The ad was about her toughness under pressure- it was not an indictment of freshman Senator Obama's lack of experience.
People sure are touchy about Obama's weaknesses.

I am too, but for different reasons.
Can this guy win the general election when he's lost all the Big State primaries?
Can this overly sensitive guy survive the mega-ton media battle the GOP will mount against him when he hasn't weathered the heat from Camp Hillary?

It's 3 a.m. in America, and I'll bet Hillary's not awake, pouting about what Obama said about her.

14 comments:

BrettinPDX said...

My dear Zip..... You know I have loved and respected you for yea these many, many years. And I shall continue to do so....

I have 'sat' quietly by as this primary season has unfolded, choosing early on to support whatever could beat the repugnicans this November. (If not for the urgency of the Supreme Court, I actually might have enjoyed watching McSame deal with all the shit which the idiot-boy and his ilk have wreaked upon us for seven and one-half years.) And as a resident of the Beaver State -- Oregon does not vote until May 20! -- I have had the opportunity to relax and watch how it all plays out prior to mailing in my ballot. Initially, I probably was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton (in spite of significant pressure from a San Antonio relative who shall remain anonymous, AND a deep concern regarding Bubba's return to the White House). However, I am increasingly alarmed by the 'power at any price' tactics of the Clinton campaign, particularly in light of the mathematical inevitability of Mr. Obama's nomination. As a Libra, I am deeply offended by the Clinton campaign's argument to seat both the Florida and Michigan delegations. While your observation that Obama has not bested Mrs. Clinton in some of the largest electoral states' primaries, it does not necessarily follow that he will not win them in a general election. I would also point out that, while little-mentioned by the punditocracy, Mrs. Clinton's single-digit win in Pennsylvania is due in very large part to the support of the political patronage system associated with Governor Rendell and the mayors of both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Additionally, the media will continue to remain silent on the very real issue of racism throughout Appalachia -- the reality of which will certainly manifest itself in the upcoming primary results in western North Carolina, most of Kentucky and all of West Virginia. At this point in time, the reality is that the Clinton machine cannot win this nomination without laying waste to the Democratic Party. I believe Mr. Obama's nomination is inevitable and the sooner we all accept that fact and coalesce behind him and other Democratic candidates 'down ticket', the sooner we can ensure that our national nightmare at the hands of the repugnican party comes to an end.

karenzipdrive said...

Brett, I think the biggest fallacy in all this is in thinking Hillary has somehow managed to destroy the Democratic party by campaigning to lead it to the Whitehouse.
Many distinguised national polls put her ahead in the popular vote.
Not punditry, just fact.
The blood thirsty media has said more about people voting against Obama than voting for Hillary.
We have to cut through all the crap and decide which candidate better serves our needs.
Hillary was an active liberal when Obama was still eating beans n' franks in his grandma's kitchen.
Plus, Bill Clinton and his advisors can help her and her advisors solve some of the nation's horrendous economic problems.
She's not out yet.

CLD said...

As a Libra and a Floridian, I am deeply offended by the DNC and Obama's argument not to seat both the Florida and Michigan delegations.

And "Bubba's return to the White House" is a sexist statement. He is not the one running for president; Hillary is. You don't see folks fretting about Michelle Obama possibly taking up residence.

Obama will not win the larger states in the general; especially since he's shown he can't even win them in the primaries. The states he has won are states that normally go "red" in the general.

Clinton has every right to stay in the race and continue her campaign. The bullshit line that she will ruin the party is just that: bullshit. The only ones whining about it are Obama, his followers and the media.

Those still on the fence and Clinton supporters know that true democracy lies with allowing this to play out the way it needs to. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

Be glad that for once, many states will be able to have their primaries mean something. Hopefully, Florida and Michigan voters who acted in good faith will be able to have theirs mean something as well.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Had Obama won in Michigan and Florida, seating those delegates would have become a necessity of the highest order.
We want a candidate who can take the big states AND the red states, and I fear that Obama ain't it.

Zoey & Me said...

I agree with your post, said same myself but there's a problem saying it out loud cuz Bama supporters really think this guys the Messiah. A little overblown image for me to wrap my arms around. I think all ya gonna get is a guy who gives good speeches. Not someone who has the savvy to put America back to work; draw down the troops; deal with the economy; and do something about health care and our veterans. Those are areas he has no expertise in but hey, voters want someone who can give a good speech.

BrettinPDX said...

The DNC made it crystal clear to both Michigan and Florida that, should they choose to move their primaries forward this year, their delegations would not be seated. All the candidates understood and agreed with that, including Mrs. Clinton. To change the rules after the fact, as the Clinton campaign is desperately attempting to do, is bullshit.

The only candidates on the Michigan primary ballot were HRC and Dennis Kucinich...and even then, "Uncommitted" received a whopping 40% of the vote!

You got a problem with that, cld, then please address your concerns to Florida state party officials.

As far as your accusation that my concern regarding Bubba's return to the White House is sexist, I would remind you that he was the President for 8 years. Michele Obama was not!

Your next paragraph, sharing the November 4 results ("Obama will not win the larger states in the general") clearly informs us all that you are the Oracle of Delphi....why even bother with an election?

I have not yet voted. But those rabid supporters of Mrs. Clinton who dismiss Mr. Obama's primary victories as insignificant "red states" or "caucauses", or his "whining" or of media favoritism, etc, do not impress me as reasons to caste a vote for her.

And unlike both Florida and Texas, I have always voted (by design) in a reliably BLUE state: many years in New York and now Oregon.

karenzipdrive said...

Ahh.
I see now that Hillary is pulling ahead, the Obamanistas are getting a bit shrill.
Brett, you're on AOL like me so I can only assume you've seen the recent Associated Press/Ipsos polls that put Hillary ahead of McCain in the general election, but Obama is way the hell behind McCain.
In a straw poll among Democrats, 69% are for Hillary and only 31% are for Obama.
Obama's shown some real problems with being pissy and thin skinned, and his Reverend Wright (which I'll be posting separately about later)has really been fucking up things lately for Obama.
You guys may have to accept the fact that Obama's golden aura has been tarnished and people are starting not to like him as much as they did initially.

It's okay, kiddos, my candidate was circling the drain herself not too long ago and I'm here to tell you- you'll survive.

CLD said...

The rules said nothing about what the candidate could or couldn't do. Google is your friend, brett.

Obama and Edwards removed themselves from Michigan's ballot; stupid move in order to kiss DNC butt. However, it was not necessary, and it was their choice.

Regardless of how you and your state vote, everyone has the right to have their votes count. Period.

Even if the DNC made the "rules" about the primaries, the voters did not make the choice to move the dates. The republican-controlled state legislatures did. Do you want to punish good, American voters for that?

Again, the only ones whining about this are Obama, his followers and the media. Why don't you want all the votes to count, brett?

dguzman said...

CLD makes a good point that the voters of FL and MI did not vote to move their primaries--it was the state Dem committees who made that bonehead decision. As such, punish those committees, not the voters of those states. Their votes should count, their delegates should count.

Karen, I love your blog--you always pump me up about Hillary's chances. Too many other sites are just all Obama, all the time.

Go Hillary!

karenzipdrive said...

With friends like Wright, Obama's chances are slimming way down.
I take no joy in his downward spiral, but I think Hillary still is the superior candidate and I think others may be seeing her the same way now that some of Obama's baggage has fallen open and exposed some pretty nasty laundry.
But at least now people definitely think he may be "Black enough."

Anonymous said...

Zip, you lost me at Hillary"...sleeping next to a two-term president..."

BrettinPDX said...

My initial comment to this post was intended primarily as a personal, and I thought objective, observation regarding the 2008 Democratic Primary process to date (N.B. my self-identification as "a supporter of Mrs. Clinton"). Having majored in PoliSci and having supported Democratic candidates and issues throughout my adult life, I was under the apparently false assumption that I could contribute to the conversation regarding our nominating process. Within the span of two days, my impressions have been labeled sexist, whining, shrill, and characterized by bullshit reasoning; I have seemingly been dubbed an Obamanista and in support of voter suppression.

I concluded those previous comments with the statement, "At this point in time, the reality is that the Clinton machine cannot win this nomination without laying waste to the Democratic Party."

I rest my case.

karenzipdrive said...

Brett, you are always welcome to make comments here. You may not always like the responses you get, but you are always welcome to respond to them as well.

Anon, having eight years of access and proximity to a successful president is an asset for any candidate.
Hillary and Bill may not have sexual heat in their marriage, but most believe they have great conversations.

CLD said...

For those who still seem to have a problem in seeing the "Bill in the White House" argument as sexist [and moot]:

http://pizzadiavola.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/feminism-101-hillary-rodham-clinton-is-not-bill-clinton/

Sorry for the long link, zippy. :)

And Brett, no one called you shrill.