Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

I like this woman

vastleft's picture
0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Will be if they report the standing ovation at the end. WaPo's Chris Cilizza (sp?) didn't.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...and I think that the debate is going to help Clinton with voters on March 4.

One of the things that REALLY piss me off is the gasbags constant refrain of "we've heard this all before" (followed by "it hasn't work"). Well, the people in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont haven't heard it before, because they weren't focussed on the nomination until very recently, and haven't been covering 18 previous debates.

For these voters, this is the first time they are getting to see Clinton and Obama (relatively) unfiltered. And what these voters saw was a Hillary Clinton that was smart, competent, and prepared. And if first impressions are important, the contrast between Clinton and Obama in the first segment was stunning (Obama recovered in the second segment, but was the damage done?). And if last impressions are important, Clinton wiped the floor with Obama, who basically said "well, y'know, I've never had to face a crisis in my public life, so who knows how I'll react" contrasted with Clinton's "everyone knows what I've been through -- and that I may be bloodied, but I sure as hell still standing and fighting the good fight".

And, in fact, Clinton's message HAS worked -- if you look at the list of states she won on Super Tuesday, its astonishing how well she did in states that could matter in November. Her campaign has always been focussed on November -- including big wins in Massachusetts and Arizona that would have been in play if Romney rather than McCain had emerged as the GOP nominee after ST.

Obama's guerilla campaign of putting a lot of effort into states that won't matter in November denied Clinton the momentum she needed going into the next week -- and its clear that her campaign made a major miscalculation in not doing more advance campaigning in states where she should have been competitive like Maryland, Maine, and Wisconsin.

On Super Tuesday, Hillary showed us how she'll win in November. If this was a game of Risk, Hillary would be holding a well defended North America and have five cards in her hand, and Obama would have a poorly defended Africa and Australia and a lot more of territories in Asia and Europe with one army on them -- after cashing in his cards.

And anyone who knows Risk knows that it doesn't matter if you hold two poorly defended small continent and a whole bunch of territories that don't really matter -- what matters is that one well defended stronghold.

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

The close wasn't bad. The first 75% of it made me cringe. Typical pandering, typical story-telling tactic.

Also, the "called by my faith" line was superfluous. Who knows, it's probably election gold, but shit like that turns me off every time.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Not my cuppa communion blood, either, though I prefer it in passing than on a brochure.

I haven't seen her do any fingerpointing about religion (unlike her worthy opponent), so I grin and bear it as I do when even Mr. Reason plays the God card in his Nobel speech.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

From Ambinder, but I doubt that many people read him, but at least it's there.

And at the right time... at the end... earning one of the only standing ovations in the 40-plus hours of debates.

He said that he thought Clinton gave Obama and the party a huge gift last night by not saying something he thinks she believes - that Obama is not ready to be CinC.

See here - http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch...

and here

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch...

Of course, I did not go over to Crazy Andy's blog. One of the worst things about Obama getting the nomination would be the reaction from guys like Andrew Sullivan. He'll be just as happy as when we invaded Iraq!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Also via Marc Ambinder, the Obama campaign is not thrilled with the focus on Hillary's closing (see http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch...).

The more I think about this moment, the more I can understand why Obama's folks are unhappy about it. In this one moment, Clinton not only hints at her experience, but also assures Democrats and Americans that she knows this campaign isn't about her and so isn't going to go do something destructive if she gets to the point where she can't win. Yet, it's the opposite of the "concession" speech that Olbermann (has he always been this much of an asshole?) and others try to portray it as because what that acknowledgement ultimately shows is leadership - that she's going to put what's best for the country ahead of what's best for her. What better qualification is there for president?

Now, if someone would only put a YouTube video together contrasting her answer with all of the Obama folks' threats of another 1968 convention (yes, Axelrod did raise that), the arm twisting of AA super delegates, the threats not to support Clinton in the general, etc. It would be pretty clear, pretty fast I think that one of these candidates is more willing to put her country and party above herself than the other.

And, Paul, if you read this, while I generally don't hold much stock in GE matchups this far out, I'd love to hear what you think about what the latest SUSA polls show regarding those big key states you love to talk about. As BTD points out, Obama does better than Clinton in a lot of states (and after his weeks of glowing press coverage that's not surprising), but still seems to have problems in Ohio and Massachusetts (where he's within the margin of error against McCain, wtf?). (See http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/22/... and http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx). He does run a bit better in Virginia and a lot better in Oregon, but that doesn't lessne my concern about some of the other big states.

And, lambert, maybe the kids are going to be alright (if I can steal a boomerism), via Talk Left, the Univeristy of Texas paper endorsed Hillary Clinton (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/22/...). Not only that, but apparently not all the young 'uns (and not so young 'uns because some of my Gex X peers, like me, are rapidly approaching 40) don't want to put you on an ice flow. Among the reasons for the endorsement:

Her outline for a universal health care system is thorough and sound, while Obama unfairly exploits the resounding term "universal" in terms of his plan, which is voluntary and wouldn't actually serve America in its entirety (like Social Security, policy can only be universal if it is mandatory).

Submitted by lambert on

Knock me over with a feather.

UPDATE Check the editorial. This has got to sting:

But during Thursday's debate, Obama made a major gaffe in incorrectly stating that he had received endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas. We may not be considered a "major" paper to many, but we represent a crucial constituency of close to 50,000 young and enthusiastic voters, and we've been scrutinizing every move of the candidates leading up to today's endorsement. Sure, Obama took many under his spell when he graced our city with his presence early in his campaign, but we think he prematurely considered his work in Austin done.

I'm hoping/believing that there are fewer voters where Obama has really closed the sale than we might think. Notice that on UHC, the Daily Texan really calls Obama out. Excellent.

UPDATE Hilariously, or not, here's the first comment from an extremely not fanatical Obama ______ er:

This is one of the most idiotic editorials I have ever read. ...

Feelin the Unity!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

And, Paul, if you read this, while I generally don’t hold much stock in GE matchups this far out, I’d love to hear what you think about what the latest SUSA polls show regarding those big key states you love to talk about. As BTD points out, Obama does better than Clinton in a lot of states (and after his weeks of glowing press coverage that’s not surprising), but still seems to have problems in Ohio and Massachusetts (where he’s within the margin of error against McCain, wtf?). (See http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/22/… and http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a…). He does run a bit better in Virginia and a lot better in Oregon, but that doesn’t lessne my concern about some of the other big states.

I give no credence at all to GE polls this far from November. And that goes double with any GE poll that mentions McCain, because no effort was made in the GOP primary to tie McCain to Bush -- and that isn't gonna happen in the GE. And it goes triple for any GE poll that mentions Obama, because he hasn't really defined himself, and the GOP smear machine is going to attack him in ways that he can't even imagine.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I totally agree. I think electability is a completely ridiculous argument, one designed by the media to get their own candidate chosen. Although I honestly cannot understand after weeks and weeks of the media anointing him as the second coming how Obama could be within the margin of error in Massachusetts. And it does worry me because, while I think Hillary has had a terrible streak of press, Obama is unlikely to get coverage like this again. Admittedly, McCain is also due for a fall.

And I admit I asked you my question probably more out of frustration than anything else because this dynamic makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Folks are going in and voting based on the one thing they don't - and can't - know. Honestly, I'd rather hear them say Obama is inspiring, it's not policy, but at least it appears to be based on some truth they are or have experienced as opposed to their prognostication abilities, which if history is any kind, are pretty lousy, at least among democrats.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I'd say that what you are seeing in massachusetts is a reflection of a couple of things...

1) only 34% of voters in the 2004 GE identified themselves as "liberals" -- while that's among the highest "liberal" count in the country, it still leaves 45% Moderate and 21% conservative.

2) The Obama campaign didn't pay much attention to Massachusetts, counting on Patrick's "machine" to do the job. The Clinton campaign did pay attention, because of their focus on November (Romney was a strong contender right up until Super-Tuesday, and had he been the nominee, MA would have been in play.) And Clinton won in MA by over 12 points.

3) Clinton ran as a moderate. And McCain maintains his reputation as a "maverick" and a "moderate-conservative" because few people focussed on the GOP race. And Obama is still pretty much an ideological cypher...

4) Obama is closely associated with Patrick, who isn't getting high marks as governor.

That's why these polls don't matter -- Obama will win handily in Massachusetts, regardless of what they say right now, because no one has really focussed on the actual choices, and when the GE campaign gets into swing, MA will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.