Corrente

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

Pennsylvania primary open thread

[Via alert reader amberglow, the official returns.]

Have at it...

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Today we can expect a low pressure OFB, with a high pressure haka starting around 8pm EST.

The forecast shows a very intense WWTSBQ starting tommorrow, with a 80% chance of high whines and facial precipitation. There will be isolated incidents of panties in a twist all over Left Blogistan.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Remind every Hillary supporter in Pennsylvania to vote today. Make it possible for them to get to the polls. And let their voting machines work.

Amen.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Please delete my comment if it's inappropriate. But it IS what I'm thinking.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Hillary by more than 12% : >

All talking heads dismissing it--and also dismissing the millions Obama threw into PA, and ignoring that he still can't close the deal in big must-win states.

blogtopus's picture
Submitted by blogtopus on

-- OBAMA WOULD HAVE WON IF HE'D HAD TWO MORE WEEKS!

-- OBAMA LOSS BY 15% A VICTORY FOR DEMS!

-- CHELSEA CLINTON: WHY WE MUST DESTROY HER NOW

Submitted by lambert on

Hilarious.

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

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

Shove over in your foxhole, I'm joining you!

If you're there, God, please listen to katiebird.

Awomen!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

After reading that Crooks and Liars piece, I'm beginning to think that almost no current "progressive" bloggers understand deterrence theory.

When Clinton was talking about extending the security umbrella in the Middle East, she was suggesting it as a way to prevent war, not advocating aggression against Iran. What Clinton is proposing is to develop a security agreement with Middle East countries, including but not limited to Israel, that, in the event Iran developed nuclear weapons, the U.S. would essentially promise countries that sign onto the agreement that the U.S. and other world powers (perhaps NATO, Clinton stressed the need to bring in other allies) would massively retaliate against Iran if Iran attacked any member of the agreement. The reasons for this are twofold - to deter Iran from developing nukes (what's the point of having them if you can't use them to bully others) and, in the case it developed nukes, to deter any attack not only on Israel but also on other countries in the region. This last part is key to keep other countries from starting up their own nuclear programs to defend themselves from Iran. As much fun as the Sunni-Shiite fighting has been, imagine how much more fun it will be with nuclear weapons!

The other thing that's interesting to note is that her answer presumes the U.S. would not attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. It's essentially her answer to the One Percent Doctrine - you don't have to attack countries that pose a 1% threat, you can form alliances and security umbrellas to address the threat instead.

Saying Iran doesn't yet have nukes is not a response to her proposal since her proposal is about discouraging Iran and other Middle Eastern countries from developing them and also doesn't preclude other diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing nukes.

Now maybe her proposal would work and maybe it wouldn't, but it's actually a proposal to use alliances and the threat of hard power to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is not advocating war with Iran, it's trying to stop it. Although I also confess confusion as to how anyone can think it's controversial to say that a nuclear attack on Israel, a U.S. ally, will result in retaliation by the U.S. Of course it will, Obama himself has said that.

Agree or disagree with it - and I'd love to hear a serious discussion that doesn't misrepresent the proposal as some sort of call for war against Iran - there's nothing radical about this proposal, it's consistent with the nuclear deterrence theory the U.S. used throughout the cold war. And while I expect to hear bloggers attack her over it, I don't think Obama will on the substance. It's very close to the statements he himself has made.

See Big Tent Democrat's post for more discussion of the policy proposal - http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/22/...

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

concur with BDBlue.

A discussion about whether or not Iran does or does not have an operational nuclear development program was not the question asked.

Had Olbermann really wanted to get into that discussion, he could have.

He didn't.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

Carry on, unslanted...

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

willyjsimmons: Comment section is a hoot!

You're right about that. I posted this there.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

for asking her what flavor is the kool-aid.

Just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Although the "official" position of C&L is neutral, they are OFB.

After the last debate, they ran at least 11 front page stories criticizing ABC and not one mentioning that Hillary won.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

BDB, what does the OFB really understand? They argue and rail against some things like dog whistling S.S., but find it perfectly acceptable if Obama does it. Either they needed Obama to tell them what to think or they are just vomitously cynical. Same with .

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

(insert topic here)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Most certainly a mix.

Of course what Clinton said is sensible and consistent with American policy - and in the best interests of much if not most of the world - since WWII. But understanding that, and condensing it into a few column inches or a 30-second news show blip or a snarky blog comment isn't easy; you'd actually have to know what you're talking about.

Most commentators, MSM or otherwise, have only a superficial knowledge of the topics they report on - if that. They have to look elsewhere for interpretation. Among those who are knowledgeable are Clinton haters, left and right, who twist everything she says into a negative - truth be damned. Those lies, always short and pointed, get picked up by the vast echo chamber of the highly vocal ignorant and are repeated endlessly until they become perceived as truth.

Compare BDB's thoughtful analysis to

CLINTON THREATENS IRAN
WITH NUCLEAR ATTACK

for immediacy of effect. That's why Shiva Nataraja has to always keep one foot on Apasmara, lest ignorance rule the world.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

And the focus on her 'laugh' is really good.

LOL...

they're even debating Nader in there.

LMBAO X infinity!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

it's bad. If Oh! bama says it, it's good, it's great, it's magnificent!

Even if he says what she just said, because he says it more eloquently, more nuanced, more . . . oops, I just jizzed in my pants.

/snark

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

link

Obama claims Bill Clinton is making stuff up...

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Unless you're Obama and then it will become whatever he wants it to become--"G", "F" or that Prince symbol--and the OFB will say it over and over until it becomes so.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

UPDATE: (Nicole) Although Olbermann acknowledged that the limited time frame from which he was working hampered his ability to ask follow up questions, the fact that he allowed Clinton without pause to continue with her aggressive statements against Iran based on false allegations of a restarted nuclear weapons program (which he also mentioned after the interview was contradicted by the intelligence) is really unacceptable, especially after giving George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson a hard time for their debate moderation.

I guess when you run out of people who aren’t cheering, you go after the ones who aren’t cheering loudly enough.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

is either slow on the moderation side or they aren't posting my comment that contained a partial list of Obama'c corp. bundlers/S amts. and link to Open Secrets to his Top Contributors.

Is it what I said?

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

...list of Obama’s corp. bundlers/$ amts... fumble fingers today.

Submitted by lambert on

Tsk.

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I think the OFB are making a mistake pushing this meme.

It puts Clinton out in front of the news, the issue isn't going to be imflammatory to most people and Oh! bama doesn't have anything to offer in it's place.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

ggggchapelhill's picture
Submitted by ggggchapelhill on

I was banned from their comments when, in an article that paid tribute to KO for standing up to the evil HRC, I pointed out that he regularly mocked teenage boys about their sexuality (sanjaya), and was fixated on the sex lives of young "celebutants" spears and hilton. Of course it wasn't because I was offensive or anything, it was because I was "off topic" Real progressive site they got there....and KO? he's just an asshole

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

wants to keep their OFB uninformed about Barry's corp. bundlers. But maybe it's just sluggish site thingie to be fair...M'yeah.

Thanks for the heads up, ggggchapelhill.

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

I stand corrected. C&L posted the list, link.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

is that they are bad unless they are lobbyists that support him. No controversy or need for further discussion. Why does the real reality based community like to bother the OFB with facts when assumptions and definitions can be changed on a whim to clear Obama?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

First, Clinton's position isn't all that substantively different than Obama's, she's just given more detail.

Second, it makes Obama look weak on defense and national security (which I think is unfair to him, frankly). Because what they are attacking Clinton for is saying that the U.S. would respond swiftly and harshly to a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. I would suggest that most Americans do not want a president who would not respond swiftly and harshly to a nuclear attack on an ally. It's one thing to say that AIPAC has too much influence over American policy towards Israel, it's another to suggest Israel is on its own if it gets nuked. And by criticizing Clinton for stating the obvious - Israel would not be on its own - they are implicitly suggesting Obama would not use military force in such a situation. Which is crap, of course he would, but that's not how it appears. (And the anti-semetic crap spewed in some of the comment threads is depressing.)

It's this kind of crap that makes Dems look weak on national security. When it's not a matter of weak or strong, it's a matter of sane or insane. Clinton and Obama = sane. Bush and McCain = insane.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

fiver @ 171:

myiq2xu @ 163:

Jeebus, KO is a kool-aid drinker and y'all are ready to throw him under the bus too!

I guess when you run out of people who aren't cheering, you go after the ones who aren't cheering loudly enough.

I don't think Olberman was thrown under the bus. In any case, at least the Obama supporters haven't welcomed the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter onto their bus.

Clinton becomes more Bush-like with each primary. But even Bush never went so far as to guarantee assured destruction on behalf of a non-allied state. Think our actual allies in NATO would approve?

LOL - the Oborg are so predictable. Push a button, they recite the programmed response. Just like a kids toy.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Submitted by lambert on

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

Submitted by lambert on

MyDD.

The Obama 527 Formerly Known As Daily Kos.

We heard it after NH. Nothing came of it.

We heard it after NV. Nothing came of it. Zip, zilch, nada.

Why would we believe what the OFB now? (So stupid, too. Whenever they make unproven accusations of election theft that don't prove out, they poison the media well for the general, when we know the Republicans do it. Idiots.)

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

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Are U.S. allies? Wow, the Bush years has hurt us more internationally than I realized.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Bush pulled our (permanent) bases from Saudi Arabia at their command--and they're supposed to be an allied state. We would do anything for them.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

was capitulating with Republicans while skewering lifelong Democrats if their name is Clinton or the support the former. Their comment would be funny if it wasn't so vomitously cynical.

I hope they can all fit on their ever shrinking bus.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Going on under all of this. Starting with the idea that Israel is not an ally of the United States. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be, being an ally doesn't mean you agree with everything the other country does. Jesus.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

(at HuffPost, no less) -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostro... -- "... While it may be possible many years from now to return to the good old "gentlemanly" days of politics that I keep hearing about but have never personally experienced, right now, a Democrat must fight like a Republican if he or she expects to win. Hillary meets that standard. Obama has proven that he does not. ..."

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Via Talk Left, the Obama campaign pre-spins:

The Bar for Clinton in Pennsylvania. With all eyes on today’s contest, one thing is clear: Pennsylvania is considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and by rights she should win big. She has family roots in the state, she has the support of the Democratic establishment—including Governor Rendell’s extensive network—and former President Clinton is fondly remembered.

[SNIP]

The Race Beyond Tonight

Tonight’s outcome is unlikely to change the dynamic of this lengthy primary. Fully three quarters of the remaining delegates will be selected in states other than Pennsylvania. While there are 158 delegates at stake in today’s primary, there are 157 up for grabs in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries two weeks from today. We expect that by tomorrow morning, the overall structure of the race will remain unchanged—except for the fact that there will be 158 delegates off the table.

Our strategy has always been to gain as many delegates as possible—an important point to remember going forward. If this race had focused on the popular vote, we would have campaigned non-stop in California, for example, and run up our numbers even higher in Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois. But we focused on delegates because, simply, delegates decide the Democratic nominee.

Allow me to translate:

We expect to get beaten tonight and it doesn't mean anything even though Obama outspent Hillary and had seven weeks to win over Pennsylvania voters. This was always Hillary's state. So automatic delegates there's simply no reason for that shiver that ran up your spine tonight about Obama's electability.

Although a big win tonight by Clinton might eat away at (or even erase if Florida and Michigan are counted) our popular vote lead, no worries there either. Votes - and voters - don't matter, pledged delegates do. So you can expect more calls for Clinton to drop out immediately after she wins Pennsylvania. That might seem counter-intuitive, but that's because you think votes matter when they don't. And, oh yeah, those other big states like California where she also kicked us hard, we didn't try very hard to win any of those so no need for the automatic delegates to worry their little heads over it.

I'm guessing they don't think it will be close. And I'm hoping they're right.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"Remember, if Sen. Clinton? wins today, it's because she's a piece of crap and should drop out. If Sen. Obama? wins today, its because Sen. Clinton is a piece of crap and she should drop out. See, it's so easy - just as easy as it was in the last 7 years when the operative comparison was between Republicans and Democrats!" -- http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

is a TARDIS -- there's room for everyone!

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Can I join then, just to prove that there ARE atheists in foxholes! :-)

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Absolutely.

I am so nervous -- I'd love to have a full house here.

Submitted by lambert on

Every lawyer, make your way to the wet bar in the Executive Lounge Of The Mighty Corrente Building. It's up the marble stairs, through the lobby, past the Gobelin tapestries, and immediately to the left of The Department Of How Stupid Do They Think We Are? Tell the bartender, Geoff, that the guy from the tiny room under the stairs sent you. If you want to get in the back room, the password is "Specimen Jar."

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

has a guide to punditocracy.

Worth the look while we wait.

My favorite part:

MEGAN McARDLE (The Atlantic Online; meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)

ORIENTATION: Lipstick libertarian

TONE: Self-referential

FUN FACT: Very concerned with diet; talks at length about her experience of vegetarianism and veganism, while denouncing the veggie-vegan dogma of “free-lance preachers in the hemp shoes.”

CANDIDATE: Obama, for the moment

STUPID/EVIL RATIO: 60/40

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0816,a-...

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

Among first time voters, 60 percent went for Obama while only 38 percent went for Clinton. That discrepancy could keep the race close.

But in good news for Clinton, among voters who decided in the last week, she bests Obama by 16 points, 58 percent to 42 percent

A long night. WKJM on why the undecided numbers could be good news.

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Tweety looks unhappy.

Armando's guessing Tweety doesn't like what the EP's show.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Submitted by lambert on

A-w-w-w-w-w!

BTD.

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

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

keeps crashing my other computer's browser.

Did someone screw up a comment post?

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he hates it whenever anyone mentions "not closing the deal".

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

you should make it a separate post by itself--it's a keeper.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

but without the Clintons to obsess about, he'd have nothing at all to say except for drooling and shivering over Republican "tough guys" (and Obama, for now).

Submitted by lambert on

I started a new one here. Bring your drinks!

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

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

tweety just declared the whole race over...he's such an ass.