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

Obama: Hillary "has the right to continue to compete..."

From today's Inky. Gee, it's almost like Obama's giving her permission, isn't it? Generous of him. After all, she's likeable enough.

Change and transformation, my Sweet Aunt Fanny.

NOTE For linky goodness on Obama's latest ludicrous attempt to seize the high road, see Tennesse Guerilla Woman.

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

goes to Philly Inquirer.

And from Mr. Take the High Road, a summary of last week Obama campaign conference call, which was described at throwing the kitchen sink at Hillary -

For a guy who cannot lose (I know this because so many Very Important Bloggers and Pundits have told me Hillary cannot win), it seems odd he feels the need to 1) change his campaign tactics in Pennsylvania and 2) attack Hillary.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

He attacks her while he complains she's "just trying to tear me down."

Pot meet kettle. Did the reporter hit the Obama 8 question limit that prevented a follow up to that statement?

Submitted by lambert on

Here it is.

I cross-posted it over at Kos for him, but for some reason it just didn't make the recommended list....

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

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

I can't imagine why it wasn't recommended. It was brilliant.

mattd's picture
Submitted by mattd on

Disclaimer-not-that-it-will-help: I will vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general election over John McCain or any other candidate, but did not support either Clinton or Obama in the primary in my state.

Don't you find it just a wee bit difficult to reconcile disdain for "she has the right to compete" with your continuing " 'Why won't that stupid bitch quit?' watch" series? It would seem that the candidate who would benefit from Sen. Clinton withdrawing has just said, rather plainly, that he does not expect her to do so at this point. He's also said he doesn't like her style of campaigning, just as I believe Sen. Clinton has often said she doesn't care for Sen. Obama's campaigning. (I'm leaving surrogates for both sides out because these discussions tend to devolve into "Candidate A's surrogates said blah-blah-blah!" without getting into what Candidate B's surrogates said.)

I agree that the formulation "X has a right to Y" usually means "...but Y is wrong to express that right in this particular way," but nonetheless, it would seem that Sen. Obama just answered the "Why won't that stupid bitch quit" question himself, in the national media. He's obviously not going to say she should continue competing, as that's incredibly counterproductive, but he's not treating this thing as a done deal, and that's what you want the media to do as well, right? So didn't Sen. Obama just kind of make your point for you, except not in the language you would have chosen?


Submitted by lambert on

That's what's really going on.

Everybody knows she has the "right" to compete; that's just obvious.

So why say the obvious? Because of what's not said. Obama's not saying what all his surrogates are saying, because he doesn't have to -- that she's "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win,” and “playing politics with war." [to quote Hillary spokesperson Peter Daoau].

So, translation: "Hillary has the right to compete, [EVEN THOUGH she's divisive....]" and so on and so forth.

It's exactly like "You're likeable enough [EVEN THOUGH you're a bitch."]

Does that help? It's a multi-layered architecture.

[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

He can't get to the magic number with pledged delegates any more than Hillary can. That's why she has to lose, because he can't win. He's had three chances to win the nomination by knocking her out of the race and he's failed every time. Pennsylvania will be his fourth opportunity and, at least as of now, it looks like he will fail there, perhaps spectacularly. Unless, of course, he can convince Hillary to quit or suppress her voters, donors, and volunteers. It's also why he didn't want re-votes in MI and FL even though it would've provided another opportunity for him to win the nomination. He knows he couldn't win the nomination in those contests either.

Now, at some point, automatic delegates and other democrats might stop and ask themselves why they would nominate a candidate who cannot win a single big state primary other than his home state. All he needed was one - that's it - and with everything on his side since at least February 5th, money, press, etc., he's not going to get it. Not one. He can talk all he wants about how Ohio or Pennsylvania demographics favor Hillary, those are the demographics he's going to need in November. Not Mississippi, not Utah. There isn't going to be a caucus in November. It will not be enough to simply close the gap with McCain.

All the talk of the Math is designed to distract from the embarrassing truth that the guy so many pegged to usher in a new era of democratic politics, who was going to expand the base, cannot win the one thing that most resembles a general election contest - a democratic primary in a big state.

Submitted by lambert on

So thank him!

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

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

He barely squeaked out a win in MO, but even that was colored by the fact Republicans, gaming the primary, and Independents pushed him over the edge (Obama won 75% of the Republican vote; and 67% of the Independent vote). Even if one somehow believes that those Republicans truly wanted to vote for Obama in the GE, that will not be the case after Wright (Obama is rapidly losing the Independent vote; the hell Republicans will vote for him).

I still don't understand why Obama just needs to win one or two major GE states to prove himself when he's running with every advantage possible--money, hyper media bias, a demonized opponent, and misogyny (i.e. the man is running at his optimum performance level)--and yet he's still struggling. Anything less than Obama throttling Clinton shows how truly weak he is as a GE candidate.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

He’s had three chances to win the nomination by knocking her out of the race and he’s failed every time.

"Put. The Nomination. Down. You think I am fucking with you? I am not fucking with you. Nominations are for closers."

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Here are all of the states with 20 or more EVs:

California 55
Texas 34
New York 31
Florida 27
Illinois 21
Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20

The next state is Michigan with 17 (so, yes, as it currently stands, the Democratic party is apparently prepared to disenfranchise voters in 2 of the largest EV states - well done, democrats!). So Clinton has won every one of the big states except Obama's home state. Interestingly, Obama's margin of victory in Illinois accounts for 650,304 of his popular vote lead over Clinton since that was his margin of victory there. If you add back in her margin of victory in NY, which seems fair since that's the state she represents, then 332,827 votes of Obama's popular vote lead can be attributed to his margin of victory in his home state. In other words, if you take out their home states, Obama's popular vote lead would shrink by more than 300,000 votes. I have yet to decide if that's important or not.

Going back to large EV states, to be more generous to Obama, let's make it a top-10, which would give us all states with 15 or more EVs, and is really a top 11 since three states tie for 15. That list, along with the primary results to date, would look like:

California (55): 55-45 Clinton
Texas (34): 51-47 Clinton
New York (31): 56-40 Clinton
Florida (27): 50-33 Clinton
Illinois (21): 65-33 Obama
Pennsylvania (21): Not Yet Held
Ohio (20): 54-44 Clinton
Michigan (17): 55-40 Clinton (v. unc.)
Georgia (15): 66-31 Obama
New Jersey (15): 54-44 Clinton
North Carolina (15): Not Yet Held

The only state he has won other than his home state of Illinois was Georgia. Anyone think Democrats are going to carry Georgia in November? It's also not very representative demograpically of states Dems must win in November, including Georgia, because like so many Southern States, African Americans are over-represented in the democratic primary and for Georgia made up approximately 51% of the primary electorate (Clinton won the white vote and I'm sure some of that was racism, but Obama won the vote of people who thought the gender of the candidate was important, so he benefitted from sexism). If Obama's lucky, he might be able to add North Carolina to his list along with Georgia (that assumes the recent poll showing a statistical dead heat is an aberration).

All vote totals are from Georgia exit polling comes from CNN.

It is very difficult for me to believe that the Democrats are going to nominate someone who lost all those big states, most weren't even very close. Because, as you say Davidson, given all of the advantages Obama has had the last several months, he should've knocked Hillary out easily, not be losing by 15 in Pennsylvania polls.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I had no idea how much of a factor his home state has been in the popular vote count. God, it makes him that much weaker.

On the GE front: I must say how impressed I am that we have a Democratic candidate who has been ruthlessly demonized by the media--and the blogs--and yet is still pulling in strong numbers--and not just enough to compete but also to actually win. Against McCain. Incredible.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Particularly the idea that the later votes might be more significant because voters have seen more and learned more of the candidates.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

some are almost always Democratic no matter what--CA, NY is pretty much it and maybe IL, but they have tons and tons of delegates.

Most are swing states or usually incredibly close in general elections since 88--the rustbelt especially, incl. PA--and then there's FL.

It's incredibly close always, and with McCain, more rustbelt ("male") states are in play. Are the women and Hispanics Hillary brings out enough to compensate for losing white men, and are the African-Americans and new voters enough for Obama? They're both gonna lose white men, which us Dems have lost lately anyway.

The Clinton-hatred is definitely balanced by racism in terms of energizing the GOP base, i think, so that's a wash.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

that got peddled everywhere around the time of the Texas primary? There was only one problem, it wasn't true. (Via Avedon)

I have to agree with the letter writer, I've never seen so much hate aimed at a fellow democrat as I have the Clintons. Someday perhaps sociologists or psychiatrists will be able to explain how two people - whose political views are well inside the mainstream - can generate so much hate.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

they wanted him destroyed and did their best, but it failed, and there's that whole DC Village thing--"they came in here and trashed the place, and it's not their place" bla bla bla...

at the same time--the Clintons are the best thing that ever happened to the talking heads/media, and an endless source of what they consider "news" and they'r still completely obsessed with's sick, really.

Submitted by lambert on

BDB, you write:

whose political views are well inside the mainstream - can generate so much hate.

Er, who's generating the hate? Could it be... Those who profit from it? Naah...

[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

"... They are also hungry to win the White House and, in many cases, more committed to the success of the Democratic Party than to the fortunes of any specific candidate.

They surely will pause if polls two months from now show McCain with a sudden and sizable lead over Obama. ..." --

(of course, that's why i think so many have remained undecided so long--they're not sold on Obama either or on him as a closer.)