Well, she already acts like one, so at least she finally said it.
Clinton called her base of support “broader and deeper” than Obama’s, and said, “At the end of the day, that’s what it should be about for Democrats. You know, it is who can better win. And I’ve won the big states. I’ve won the states that we have to anchor. If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.”
Ah, but you see Senator Clinton, you made the mistake of running for the nomination of the Democratic party.
You also made the mistake of agreeing to the Democratic rules, which did things like oust Florida and Michigan from the process. Why did you agree? Because Obama, Edwards, Richardson, et al, were so far beneath you that you assumed you could win even if the process were decided by a Donkey Kong tournament.
Look, I can agree that the nomination process is clearly in need of an overhaul, but, like the American government itself, we’re currently stuck with it.
If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.”
Entitlement issues much?
If, if, if. If.
If. If.
Could B. Obama or someone sympathetic to him with a bullhorn please run with this? Pronto?
If by “broader and deeper” she means “older and crankier”, then yeah I’d agree.
Wow. Way to strip out all the context, OW. When Clinton said that, she was in the middle of explaining why she hadn’t yet dropped out. Her answer was: Our party has a process that isn’t finished yet, and I’m still close behind Obama. So close, in fact, that under the other party’s rules, I woulda won already.
Not to mention the FACT that the Republican Party’s winner-take-all rules are, like, the way the REAL world runs in November.
No weird caucuses or GOP activists looking to make trouble or Florida and Michigan to tip the scales then.
Hillary’s more prepared, and she’s 100% right.
But if Democrats were operating under winner-take-all Republican rules, then all the other candidates would have campaigned differently. Her excuse is so silly.
The overall problem is that her campaign has been so incompetent. Would she staff the White House and the Cabinet as poorly as she staffed the campaign, squander money on nothing, and stiff small businesses across the country out of what they’re owed?
I’ll vote for her over McCain, but I won’t be happy about it. I don’t think I have the energy to volunteer days and days like I did for Kerry for the less-worse candidate again.
Her excuse is so silly.
Context!
She’s not making an excuse. She’s not “wishing” she was a Republican. She was explaining why she’s still in the race!
Sheesh!
Caucuses are weird now? You get dumber daily.
But if Democrats were operating under winner-take-all Republican rules, then all the other candidates would have campaigned differently.
How, exactly? It’s (sorry Edwards) been a two person race since Iowa. What would either of the candidates done differently other than Hillary saving a couple of bucks in Illinois and Obama saving a few sheckles by avoiding NY?
Wellstone:
How is Hillary prepared? She can’t even run a real campaign against an opponent that is more than symbolic(Don’t give me she has been vetted by two runs for her Senate seat. Once Mr. 9/11 dropped out back in 2000, her two opponents were nothing more than placeholders, kinda like the Republican in the CT Senate race in 2006). She expected the primary to be a coronation and got her ass kicked by some young whipper snapper(Yes, that last bit is snark. The part about Hillary getting her ass kicked is not).
“Caucuses are weird now? You get dumber daily.”
Oliver, he still has a way to go to match you.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a party we’d have!
What’s funny is that she assumes that Obama would have dropped out of the race by now instead of nipping at her heels all the way to the nomination. Why assume that Obama wouldn’t do what she’s doing now? Why wouldn’t he take it to the convention?
Please superdelegates, bring an end to this absurdity soon. She’s making a fool of the Democratic Party.
Ollie, dumber is as dumber does. That was dumber.
Caucuses ARE weird. Have you seen caucuses? I spent a good deal of time watching some on C-SPAN, which broadcast live from a couple caucuses this season.
In one, it was like watching a mad game of musical chairs. People had sticks with signs on them with their candidate’s name, and the voters, who came in all shapes and sizes and dress and color, would move around and sit under or around the different signs all through the night. They would horse-trade with each other, because if one candidate didn’t have enough people under his sign, he was considered “not viable”, and his followers would be ordered to disperse top other locales.
Some groups were chanting, others had one loudmouth after another holding forth, some had earnest thirty-somethings practically on their knees begging for people to join or caucus with them. It was chaotic, loud, boisterous, and strange. After a time, someone would come with a clipboard and count heads, and people would get up and rush to where they thought they SHOULD be, or where they wanted to be counted.
The people with the most passion and conviction usually carried the day, not the most prepared or the wisest or the most intelligent.
Hmm.. that kind of explains Obama’s lead in these things, doesn’t it…
The funniest part for me was one night when they showed a Republican caucus. It was orderly, and quiet, and people were given a place on a speakers’ list and a chance at the Microphone to address the group. Lots of guys in shirt and tie, gals with perfect hair and pearls. Then they handed out ballots, and each wrote down, in secret, who they wanted to choose. The captain then, in an orderly fashion, called out the totals.
I was reminded of Will Rogers’ famous saying: “I don’t belong to any organized party, atall. I’m a Democrat!”.
The people with the most passion and conviction usually carried the day, not the most prepared or the wisest or the most intelligent.
Hmm.. that kind of explains Obama’s lead in these things, doesn’t it…
That is funny, in an ironic sort of way.
“The people with the most passion and conviction usually carried the day, not the most prepared or the wisest or the most intelligent.
Hmm.. that kind of explains Obama’s lead in these things, doesn’t it…”
And responses like that explain why Clinton is losing. And she is losing. You act like Clinton has won the nomination.
Clinton lost the nomination because she thought she could rely on big wins in big states and ignore most races. Obama campaigned everywhere, which is what you need to do to win in November.
“Not to mention the FACT that the Republican Party’s winner-take-all rules are, like, the way the REAL world runs in November.”
You use this reasoning here…
But previously you said, “At the end of the Primary process June 3, Hillary and Obama will likely be 1-3% apart in pledged delegate count and popular vote. A virtual tie.”
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/05/01/former-dnc-chair-joe-andrew-joins-the-judas-squad/#comments
So clearly you are changing your spin depending on the circumstances.
Why is that?
Oliver, how do you reconcile being an Obama supporter with working for such an organization where the folks at the top at least, are down the line pro-Clinton?
The people with the most passion and conviction usually carried the day, not the most prepared or the wisest or the most intelligent.
Hmm.. that kind of explains Obama’s lead in these things, doesn’t it.
And your attitude, Wellstone, continues to show why Hillary fell behind…because you can announce with a straight face that passionate people of conviction cannot also have preparedness, wisdom, or intelligence.
Which is funny, because you previously claimed that Obama’s support was coming mostly from elitist collegians.
Caucuses are, I agree, strange beasts. But as I mentioned above, they’re the game that was being played, and the game that was agreed to by all parties. If Hillary had been as convincing a case as you think, and if her supporters had been as passionate or committed to her as Obama’s were about him, then she would win caucuses left and right, and neither you–nor she–would be acting as though the people who participated in them are worthy of contempt. The constant need to denigrate the voters is another one of those Penn strategies that blew up, rightly, in Hillary’s face.
Spider, that was an absolutely perfect analysis. Kudos to you, sir.
Wellstone:
If caucuses are Teh Suck!!, how did Bill Clinton manage to win in 1992?
Heh, speaking of her being a Republican, now she’s trying to run against the Congressional Democrats on the stupid gas tax holiday. That should really endear her to them in their capacity as superdelegates. D’oh!
By the way, isn’t it disgusting that someone would soil the name of the great Paul Wellstone by using it to troll for this Republican piece of trash?
Wow. Way to strip out all the context, OW.
He had to, Quaker, otherwise the facts wouldn’t have fit his headline.
I have to agree somewhat with Oliver’s take on her statement here. This is much like the support she threw to McCain when she touted their Commander in Chief credentials over Obama’s speech (though not nearly as blatant). Here she seems to be clearly implying that she is staying in the race because the Democratic system is broken, unlike the obviously superior Republican system where she would have already been crowned the winner. Really, why bring up the Republican nomination process to buttress your credibility as a Dem candidate? Hillary seems to be saying here that she already has won, it’s just that some troublesome Dems haven’t figured it out yet. In the larger context of her campaign’s ongoing contempt for any voter/grassroots group/official/process that dares to turn away from her, that seems to be precisely the message she is sending.
To answer C.S.:
Please show me where there is spin or contradiction between my two statements:
1. The GOP’s system is closer to the reality of the system in the November GE than the Dem system.
2. The Dem system has brought us to this point: At the end of the Primary process June 3, Hillary and Obama will likely be 1-3% apart in pledged delegate count and popular vote. A virtual tie.”
C.S>:
Clinton is not losing. The contest is still under way.
She may be behind at this point in some metrics favored by Obama supporters, but she is ahead in many other metrics that are equally as valid.
To use a football analogy, which I like to use on this site, I feel like it’s the beginning of the fourth quarter, and she is behind a touchdown. But she has the ball, she’s scored big TD’s the last three times she had the ball, while O’s settled for a field goal and a couple of 3-and-out..
She’s ahead in energy, momentum, and drive, her offensive line is getting stronger and surging, pushing the Obama defensive line back with each snap, and she has found weaknesses to exploit in Obama’s game plan and in his secondary. Her defensive line is much better since she fired the coordinator, she has beaten Obama to the ball several times in the last couple weeks.
She will win Indiana going away, contest well in NC, win Kentucky, WV, and Puerto Rico HUGE, and we will come to June 3 with a possible popular vote lead or virtual tie, but one candidate, Hillary will finish with a demonstrated ability to finish strong, to make the big plays in the clutch, a refuse-to-lose attitude, spunk, grit, momentum, and stamina.
Morning Joe Scarborough said this morning that Hillary is the first Dem in a long time that has understood how simple, down-to-earth pocketbook issues like a gas tax holiday has been the place where Republicans have handed Dems bloody noses for years, as Dems turned up their Liberal noses, they were getting clipped with uppercuts.
Hillary gets it. She snatched the issue away from McCain and left him looking like a foolish, taxpayer-funded deficits old man, while she looked strong, capable, and looking out for you.
Obama ’s stance is more crebral, more long-term, more correct in the academic sense.
I know which one carries more impact, which one counters McCain better, which one people will root for. And it ain’t Obama.
By the way, isn’t it disgusting that someone would soil the name of the great Paul Wellstone by using it to troll for this Republican piece of trash?
Spider: “…Which is funny, because you previously claimed that Obama’s support was coming mostly from elitist collegians…”
Are you saying elitist collegians can’t be passionate and full of conviction? I think they are (CODE PINK, PETA), but I also think they can be out-of-touch.
Calvin Jones: If caucuses are teh suck!! how did Bill clinton win them in 1992.
It was the Economy, stupid. Bill found a way to speak to Americans in a language they understood.
Hillary has had a little trouble doing that to now, but I saw her on O’Reilly last night, and she was all over loud and clear.
“Virtual tie” is a suspect phrase, Wellstone. To continue your football analogy, I’d point out that losing the game by one point is still losing the game. As for:
a refuse-to-lose attitude, spunk, grit, momentum, and stamina.
Things she would never have had to the chance to display if she had ever been in the lead.
I’ll give you this…she certainly demonstrated the will to do anything, anything, to get her way, be it fearmongering “3 AM” ads or raising the specters of Farrakhan and Hamas in connection to her opponent. About the only thing she didn’t do was claim outright that Obama was a secret Muslim…as far as she knows.
I’ll still vote for her, as I said. But I’ll know that I’m looking forward to four more years of politics-as-usual, all spinning wheels and covered asses, and I will have no faith in her ability to change course on the previous administration’s terrorist fighting tactics. After all, torture policies are also an example of being willing to do anything, anything, to win.
she’s scored big TD’s the last three times she had the ball, while O’s settled for a field goal and a couple of 3-and-out..
Alaska - 74%
Colorado - 67%
DC - 75%
Idaho - 80%
Hawaii - 76%
Kansas - 74%
Maryland - 60%
Minnesota - 66%
Mississippi - 61%
North Dakota - 61%
Virginia - 64%
Washington state - 68%
Wyoming - 61%
I would hardly call those a couple of field goals.
If caucuses are Teh Suck!!, how did Bill Clinton manage to win in 1992?
Oh, Calvin, that is so pre-9/11 thinking.
but I saw her on O’Reilly last night, and she was all over loud and clear.
Am I the only one bothered by that? I saw parts of it too. They were both yukking it up about how fucking rich they were.
Haha, funny stuff.
First Murdoch, then Scaife, now Bill-O. Should we expect an endorsement for from Focus on the Family anytime soon?
It bothers me.
Yes, Duros, but for those states the game was actually what we call soccer, not “real” American football. In the states that matter, we were playing grid-iron, so Obama only scores one point but Clinton always scored 6.
a refuse-to-lose attitude, spunk, grit, momentum, and stamina.
One more thing and then I’ll shut up. For a while.
I was thinking about this this morning. When she was first lady, championing health care reform, where exactly was that grit and determination? She spearheaded a reform package, it got smacked down and we never heard about it again. For 7 years. Where was that “I’ll never stop working for the little guy” that we hear so much now?
Good to see that Oliver’s fondness for misleading out of context quoting does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats. Way to be evenhanded OW!
Are you saying elitist collegians can’t be passionate and full of conviction?
No, I was saying that you seemed to indicate that passionate people of conviction were not necessarily intelligent. But the college-educated do not immediately spring to mind when one talks about unintelligent people.
Maybe you didn’t mean to say what you wrote, because after all, you find passionate people of conviction from all educational and class backgrounds. If you did mean it as you wrote it, then my point stands–you think that people who voted for Obama in the caucuses were passionate and convicted but not intelligent. I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you to go to hell.
Oliver, how do you reconcile being an Obama supporter with working for such an organization where the folks at the top at least, are down the line pro-Clinton?
Please look at the url and name of this site.
By the way, Clinton is losing. It’s close and whatnot but she is losing and she will lose.
“Morning Joe Scarborough said this morning that Hillary is the first Dem in a long time that has understood how simple, down-to-earth pocketbook issues like a gas tax holiday has been the place where Republicans have handed Dems bloody noses for years, as Dems turned up their Liberal noses, they were getting clipped with uppercuts.
Hillary gets it. She snatched the issue away from McCain and left him looking like a foolish, taxpayer-funded deficits old man, while she looked strong, capable, and looking out for you.”
Wow Wellstone, Joe Scarborough that’s quite an endorsement. Any news on getting that Sean Hannity nod? How about Glenn Beck and Michael Savage? If Hillary keeps running to the right of McCain she might get Tom Tancredo’s endorsement too!!!!11!@!!
Hillary gets it.
Yes, carrots and sticks. Bright shiny objects flashed in the faces of the populace. And if you send me $19.95, I’ll share my secrets to getting rich NOW.*
*hint: it involves getting dummies to send you $19.95.
Steve LaBonne:
I do believe your name means “Chambermaid” in French.
Now get on your knees and wash the floors you soiled here.
I’m sure Senator Wellstone would have been proud of your scintillating wit(lessness). Not to mention that your elitism is showing. You want to be careful with that- contradicts one of your candidate’s dishonest talking points.
See, ’stone, now you’re just bein a dick.
Also, avoid speaking French. It gives the GOP a way to attack you for…speaking French.
You guys may not think that Hillary’s outstanding performance on two nights of Bill O’ was a big deal, but I bet you there are a lot of McCain people right now desperately rooting for Obama to win.
Hillary will take voters from McCain. Saw it clearly last night, no question.
Lessee how Obama “teh Precious” does against Russert on Sunday, K? He was a creampuff to Wallace last weekend. Then I want to see him take on and beat O’Reilly head-to-head like Hillary did. Kirsten Powers today in the NY Post said how Obama complained that Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulos were so mean to him: Then Hillary goes fearless into Bill O’ Reilly!
Like him or not (I think he is lowlife scum) O’Reilly has by far the highest-rated show on cable news. Every night.
For the Hillary show, close to 3.7 MILLION people tuned in, over a 700% increase to his usual audience!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_wednesday_apr_30_83864.asp?disqus_reply=405068#comment-405068
Duros, look up. See who started up.
I will defend myself by whatever means necessary, even (especially?) if it involves French.
“…Obama complained that Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulos were so mean to him…”
No, he complained they asked him inane questions.
“…Obama complained that Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulos were so mean to him…”
No, he complained they asked him inane questions.
Look, can’t we all just agree to leave him alone and let him eat waffle in peace?
eat *his* waffle…
This is good stuff.
What’s tough is growing up as a black child with a single white mom.
What’s easy is calling your opponent an elitist who doesn’t understand ‘real America’. We believe that we are all real Americans.
What’s tough is deciding to campaign for President against a field of eight seasoned, talented politicians when you are the newcomer.
What’s easy is do what you are told by party insiders. That it was someone else’s turn and to wait till next time. We can’t wait our turn because the last time we checked the Constitution of the United States of America, there was no provision for turns.
What’s tough is beating all but one of your opponents out of the race. (So far.)
What’s tough is to build a community organization in every state in America and in every territory and with Americans abroad too.
What’s easy is to not bother with half the states and when you lose, claim that they don’t matter.
What’s tough is to do the work of understanding the tiny details of every single caucus state far in advance and to organize people to participate.
What’s easy is to complain, after you lose, that caucuses are really not fair because everyone can’t have time to come.
What’s tough is to reach out across party, racial, ethnic, age, educational and gender lines and include everyone in the campaign.
What’s easy is to cut up, divide, and denigrate the opposition. It’s often what others call “being tough.”
What’s tough is to out-fundraise all your opponents, to raise more money than any single campaign in the history of American politics.
What’s easy is to complain that you are being outspent 3 to 1. Complaining is often called being tough by the other side.
What’s toughis calling the other side to congratulate them when we lose.
What’s easy is to have someone else do the call or have a press release the next day.
What’s tough is getting 1.5 million individual donors averaging less than $100 each to the campaign.
What’s easy is to round up the BIG MONEY guys and twist arms and get the special interests of lobbyists and PACS to foot the bill. And then claim that they “represent” the ordinary folks.
What’s tough is to tell truth to power. To tell people what needs to be told not what they might want to hear. That’s tough.
What’s easy is to keep reinventing your message to fit the time and place. You notice that after a while everyone was running on change.
What’s tough is accepting all Americans as they are, with all our diversity and all of our differences, we have more in common than the opposition believes.
What’s easy is to carve out the folks who are different from you and denigrate their beliefs.
What’s tough is facing down the media frenzy about your ex-pastor by addressing the underlying issue of race in America. It would have been easy to just denounce and bail out.
What’s easy is sitting on the other side swiping away, fanning the flames. The people reporting want a fight! It’s good for ratings. When we say we won’t play the game, then that’s the new story. We won’t play because we are out to change politics. They say we aren’t tough because we won’t mudsling back. Too bad. That’s too easy.
What’s tough is bowling.
What’s easy is basketball. I thought I’d toss that in.
What’s tough is showing our patriotism as we each individually choose. No one owns the one true way to be patriotic. No person or political party owns patriotism. We will not attack our opponents’ patriotism.
What’s easy is to attack your opponent’s patriotism for the way they dress, or speak, or for the people in their lives. It would be easy to dig up every detail of our opponents’ daily dress and look for the missing lapel pin.
If you choose to run a campaign based on tearing down the opposition instead of lifting up the nation, then that is how you will govern. You will resort to divide and conquer tactics with an eye to the next election. You will vilify the opposition party and ignore their input and devalue their good ideas.
Lessee how Obama “teh Precious” does against Russert on Sunday, K? He was a creampuff to Wallace last weekend. Then I want to see him take on and beat O’Reilly head-to-head like Hillary did. Kirsten Powers today in the NY Post said how Obama complained that Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulos were so mean to him: Then Hillary goes fearless into Bill O’ Reilly!
Jesus. You just want a blood bath, is that it? You think she “took on and beat” O’Reilly? From what I saw, they were this close to grabbing some Glenlivet together and singing “Danny Boy” arm in arm.
Why is it important to you that the candidate of choice be such confrontational tool? Didn’t your grandma ever tell you “you catch more flies with honey..”?
This is not WWE. There is no cage match. This is politics. This is about tact and diplomacy and doing things differently than we are used to.
Duros, look up. See who started up.
I will defend myself by whatever means necessary, even (especially?) if it involves French.
Yup, I see that. You’re still bein a dick. And when you start insulting the French, you pretty much give yourself away.
Lessee, a couple of days ago you parroted a Hannity talking point, today you are pointing approvingly to Joe Scar and using French-iness derogatorily.
You might be a conservative.
Do you remember Clinton’s interview with Wallace? Remember how pissed off he got? I don’t blame him, I was glad to see Chris Wallace get tossed around for that. But do you remember the media reaction afterwards? “Clinton Unhinged!!!111!!” “OMG, HE SO CRAZY!”
Obama doesn’t need that. Enough scaredy cats already see him as a scary black dude. And he doesn’t have to. He is a genuinely nice guy who can debate with people who disagree with him with grace.
Grace in a President. I miss that.
Bill Clinton’s interview, I mean.
So when do you Hill-Losers deny evolution because the “college educated elites who support Obama” have embraced it?
And if you are so stupid that you do not understand what a caucus is and how it works — it is a Native American word for the process by which consensus decision is reached by the tribe — then you are too ignorant to even have a voting right in this election.
Thanks Oliver. Good post.