Mar 05 2008

Divided Dems Heading For Crack-Up VI

Published by at 5:03 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

The stakes are high in presidential politics, so therefore the emotions are high too. And when your candidacy is built upon some near-religious hope in a sea-change, as Obama’s campaign is, then defeat is all the more crushing when Nirvana is taken away (even though it really never existed). Not to mention all the work and effort and hope….

And then it all comes crashing down because of politics as usual. What is the result – red hot anger. And as I said before, it will not be the candidates that cause the problem, it will be the red hot followers who through jibes and insults at those they think stole their dreams from them. And it is beginning quickly:

They’re both great candidates (as was John Edwards), and I confess that I have a hard time understanding the level of vitriol that the race has produced among supporters on both sides. I sure hope that all the doom and gloom talk is just talk, because anybody who’s seriously thinking about sitting out this election if their guy doesn’t win is being an idiot.

Nice ending their Kevin – respectful and mature. And what happened in response? Some comments are worth noting:

Kevin, read the post about Hillary being disgraceful, then this post again.

See the connection? Maybe this is why people will sit out the election if she wins the nomination this way. Still idiotic?

So I’m an idiot if I truly believe Obama is underprepared? Wow

Here is another sample from Democrat Underground:

For one ugly moment in this race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, cynicism, negativity and the politics of personal destruction won the day. It took three weeks of mud-throwing by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, combined with help by attacks from the likes of John McCain and Mike Huckabee and George W. Bush for Hillary Clinton to hold on to the shreds of a 20 point lead in the Texas Primary. Even that wasn’t enough for Hillary to eke out a victory in the Texas Caucus.

In contrast to the hope, vitality and vision of the Obama campaign, Hillary countered with fear, accusation and innuendo. Hillary crossed a very real line of touting the Republican nominee’s attributes over her Democratic opponent, an act that even longtime Clinton family supporter Paul Begala had to admit was a mistake during the CNN March 4th evening broadcast.

And the comments in response are telling it is just biting back and forth. Obama is wounded, as can be seen by the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll which has moved from a +8 for Obama to a + 4 for Clinton in the less than a week. That is a lot of movement and the Obama supporters only have one culprit they can blame – Team Clinton.

What will be really frustrating is the long span without any significant contests after next week while we wait for PA. It will be very hard for the supporters to keep their cools. I plan to hang out at left wing sites more and enjoy the implosion. For example here is someone at DailyKos muckraking Hillary to return the “kitchen sink” favor she did Obama. Some one pass the popcorn.

14 responses so far

14 Responses to “Divided Dems Heading For Crack-Up VI”

  1. crosspatch says:

    The dems can read it and weep. We have basically won. It is now just a matter of time. The killers will be coming to justice all through Bush’s last year in office … just has he promised he would do.

    Karachi, 4 March (AKI) – (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) – Hundreds of US troops will be involved in military operations in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas, according to a former head of the country’s powerful intelligence agency, ISI.

    “Seven hundred and fifty American commandoes will participate in upcoming military operations in the Pakistani tribal areas,” retired General Hamid Gul, former ISI director-general, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

    “I confirm this to you on the basis of my information that those American commandoes will be sent [to Pakistan] through private [security] contracting firms like Blackwater and they will supervise the whole operation,” said Gul referring to Blackwater, a private security firm that has been at the centre of a controversy over private contractors in Iraq.

    Once we are free to take the battle directly to the Taliban in their “home” territory, it is all but over. They are going to be too busy running and hiding to do much bombing in the rest of the world.

  2. Terrye says:

    They can say what they want about the Texas caucuses but 350,000 more people voted for Hillary last night. She not only won, she won with good margins. Will it be enough to counter Obama? I don’t know.

  3. Frogg says:

    Hillary is hinting at a joint ticket (with her on top); and Obama is saying “too soon to talk about a joint ticket”. Is it just me? I can’t see either of them being VP to the other.

  4. Frogg says:

    It’s Not About The Math

    By Taegan Goddard
    March 5, 2008

    As you listen to campaign strategists talk today about various delegate counts and make assumptions and projections on upcoming Democratic primaries, remember one thing: It’s not about the math, it’s about the politics.

    Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary because they made the math work for them. Pretending the nomination battle is like a precise mathematical formula ignores the messy political realities. As we noted yesterday, the nomination will be won through old-fashioned arm twisting and political persuasion.

    There are many still undetermined factors that can change the math quickly for either candidate:

    What do the superdelegates do?
    What about the add-on delegates that haven’t even been picked yet?
    What about Florida and Michigan?
    What about John Edwards’ delegates?

    Will Al Gore play the role of impartial party elder?
    In fact, the ultimate Democratic nominee may be determined through negotiation. As Craig Crawford notes, “They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not.”

  5. Terrye says:

    I think they will bring Michigan and Florida into it, and that might change things.

  6. WWS says:

    I think what’s going to turn out to be most significant is that Hillary won by going negative on Obama. Combine that with the fact that she’s still behind in delegates, and she not only will but has not choice BUT to go after him with every nasty attack she can muster. And he, in turn, can either sit there and take it (and lose) or he can ruin his image and attack her back.

    Lose-lose for dems, Win-Win for this country!

  7. VinceP1974 says:

    Why do folks keep forgetting about the Republicans who listened to Rush and others and voted for Hillary in Texas/Ohio?

  8. WWS says:

    Vince, because that was mostly hype. For all the talk about it, the best guess I’ve seen is that maybe 10,000 rep voters may have done that – with 2.8 million total dem votes cast in Texas, giving Hillary a victory margin of over 100,000 votes in Texas alone – and a bigger margin in Ohio – that number is negligible.

  9. VinceP1974 says:

    WWS: Where do you get your number from.

    I’ve been looking at various reports and here’s what I see:
    Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

  10. Soothsayer says:

    This Democratic crack-up AJ keeps hoping for just isn’t going to happen. On the contrary, latest numbers show the debate is GOOD for the Dems . . . and BAD for the Crazy Old Cootâ„¢. Latest Survey USA finds Obama within the margin of error against McCain in NEBRASKA . . . and trails McCain in Texas by only 1% point.

    If the election were held today, Obama would beat McCain 280-258. Course, it’s the Republicans who chose to drink the Jim Jones KoolAid by picking a senescent senior citizen to carry their banner. Just hope he has plenty of Dependsâ„¢ on the campaign trail.

  11. VinceP1974 says:

    Soothsayer: I say the Democrats are cracking up already… they can’t help themselves:

    Clinton calling someone a “Ken Starr” … that’s tantamont to calling someone the personification of Lucifer himself!

    Clinton Aide Compares Obama to Starr
    By NEDRA PICKLER – 2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday compared rival Sen. Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

    Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.

    “Our point here is to point out that after a campaign in which many of the questions that voters had in the closing days centered on concerns that they had over his state of preparedness to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he has chosen instead of addressing those issues to attack Senator Clinton,” Wolfson told reporters in a conference call. “They’ve announced that this is what they are going to do.

    “I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president. But perhaps that theory will be tested,” he said.

  12. momdear1 says:

    What happened to the rioters in the streets “if the super delagates voted for a candidate different from the one who got the most votes in the primary?” Or was that only supposed to take place if Hillary stole, bought, and/or blackmailed the super delages to vote for her? The last I heard Texas voters voted for Hillary but the Texas super delegates canceled that out by voting for Obama.

  13. Soothsayer says:

    You heard wrong, Mom. There are no “Texas super-delegates” – you’re referring to the Texas caucus system, probably. It has nothing to do with superdelegates, though.

  14. momdear1 says:

    Here’s a good one. From an article written by Paul R. Hollrah:

    Analys of a speech by Barrack Hussien Obma in a black church in Selma Alabama. This is the gist of the article. The Kennedy brothers, John and Bobby, sent planes to Africa and airlifted young Africans over to this country and gave them scholarships to study. His father, Barrack Obama Sr., got one of those tickets and came over to America where he met a woman who’s gggg grndfather had owned slaves . They looked at each other, and because they saw black women refusing to sit in the back of the bus and people willing to march over the bridge (Edmund Petus Bridge in Selma. AL) they had the courage to produce him.

    The only thing wrong with Obama’s claims is that he was conceived in 1960 and born in 1961. His father could not have come over on one of the Kennedy’s air lifts to take advantage of a Kennedy scholarship because Dwight Eisenhower was President at the time. In addition, His parents could not have been inspired by the civil rights marchers across the bridge because that didn’t take place until 1965, four years after he was born.

    Is this man, who just makes up stories and is obviously illiterate in the history of his own people, qualified to be president? Has anyone bothered to check and see if other things he has said are as historically inaccurate as the claims in this speech? Does he believe that Black Africans with wings built the pyramids and that white people killed all of them?

    Maybe we need to require our presidential candidates to pass that test that is now required of all high school graduates before they are given their diplomas. Anyone want to make odds on whether this idiot could pass it? Makes you wonder about those elite Ivy League Colleges that obviously affirmative actioned him thru to graduation.