Alex Blaze

Hillary Clinton marches on

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 05, 2008 9:20 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ohio, primary, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island yesterday and closed the gap between her and Senator Obama by about a dozen delegates, and Obama won the popular vote in the state of Vermont. Congratulations to both campaigns.

There's been some chatter about a combined Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket lately or calling for Clinton to drop out because people are fearing the party is divided, Republicans are regrouping faster than Democrats, and Democrats will lose to John McCain in November because of all this chaos. Frankly it's hard to see all that much to the argument; it seems to have little foundation in fact and to be based in a narrative that any protracted political conflict means disunity. And disunity means people fighting in the street. And that means everything goes down the tubes.

This thing won't be over until it's over, and looking for an easy way out now makes me question our ability to stay in this for the long fight, the fight that goes beyond Obama or Clinton or Democrats or Republicans or any specific legislation, but goes straight to enacting, legislatively, culturally, and through other means, our vision for a queer-affirming and otherwise free and equal society.

And, as a queer boy, I'm particularly at odds with any argument that starts with a desperation to end conflict, to see both sides of an argument as moral and utilitarian equals, and to find a happy middle in a conflict where it's more than likely that one side is simply better based on whatever criteria one wants to use.

This primary season hasn't been going all that late, as Slate reminds us:

The calls to wrap up the Democratic primary race show a similar amnesia. To suggest that March 5 marks a late date in the calendar ignores the duration of primary seasons past. Indeed, were Hillary Clinton to have pulled out of the race this week, Obama would have actually clinched a contested race for the party's nomination earlier than almost any other Democrat since the current primary system took shape--the sole exception being John Kerry four years ago. Fighting all the way through the primaries, in other words, is perfectly normal.

And it hasn't been all that bitter, as Howard Dean reminds us:

I can't imagine that what we're seeing now between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, yes, is anything but a--a tea party compared to what the general election's going to be like in the fall.[...]

Chris, four years ago, my opponents got together and had a political action committee, all four of which contributors contributed to the thing, which morphed me into Osama bin Laden. So this is pattycake. This is a tough campaign between two well--well-spoken, smart people, either of whom is capable of being president of the United States. But this is not, by and large, out of bounds.

Sure, the campaign will probably get a bit meaner as we head on into Pennsylvania (the new State that Will Decide Everything), but there's little evidence that this is materially hurting the party, especially since fund-raising and voter turnout for Democrats is higher than it's ever been, and most of Clinton's and Obama's supporters will be quite happy with voting for the other candidate over John "Ten thousand more years" McCain.

In fact, that this primary is taking so long can be great for the Democrats. McCain's getting a bit of attention right now because of GWB's endorsement today (thanks, Mr. President!), but let's face it: the show's over there with the two engaging political celebrities discussing policy and duking it out. Once one of them drops out, McCain's going to take center stage again, and there's something to be said for the spotlight staying on the Democrats.

Also, the fact that both Clinton and Obama might win this thing makes it harder for Republicans to start attacking. From Digby:

There is no shortage of money, both candidates provide some fascination to the media and until the party decides, they will remain moving targets for the Republicans. After all, they can't settle on a narrative until one of the candidates is chosen. One of the upsides of the two candidates we have is that while they are very similar on policy, traditional GOP attacks will have to be tailored differently. If McCain is forced to campaign against them on the issues, which is what they have in common, he loses. On the issues, Democrats win.

And add in the fact that Democratic positions on important issues like health care and the war are simply more popular right now, that each Democrat has done much better in fundraising than any Republican presidential contender, and that John McCain is more corrupt than the politicians his campaign finance bill was supposed rein in. The question isn't whether a Democrat will take the White House or not, the question is will they do anything with it once they're there.

So I'm thinking about where this narrative, that the party will crumble down because Clinton's staying in, is coming from. And I can't stop thinking about how often people with less investment in the material outcome of the political process, like rich pundits, tend to ignore the real impacts of policy-making in favor of meta. Since the outcome isn't going to affect them, why not chatter away about how the feelings of divisiveness are so awful, since it's not like people are divided for any good reason anyway?

I always cringe at calls to meet others half-way when it comes to policy-making because that always seems to favor those in power. One side can always go off the deep-end, making "half-way" what they wanted in the first place. Getting caught up in the meta of where "half-way" is just lets people off the hook when it comes to making their arguments.

But I suppose that my distaste for this form of compromise (definitely not all compromise) is informed by the knowledge that leftward change is itself not a compromise. It's demanding justice, equality, freedom, and socio-economic security and in the process pissing people off who benefit from the absence of those ideals. It involves anger, rancor, discord, hurt feelings, heated arguments, and a lack of compromise. Some people won't get what they want since they want too much for themselves at the expense of others and they'll just have to deal.

Neither Obama nor Clinton are in favor of that kind of change (and I also understand that many of the calls for her to drop out are coming from people who just want to see Obama win as soon as possible, but not all), but if we're not willing to accept the low level of discord in this Democratic primary season, I've got to wonder if we're ready for any sort of substantive change at all.

The narrative we were fed in the 2000 elections, as Digby points out at the link above, that started with "the hysterical notion that if the election wasn't decided immediately that the streets would run with blood and the nation would fall into chaos" and "ended up creating the illusion that deadlines were more important than the principle of counting all the votes," has partly effected this aversion to continuing the primary season until at least all states have had a chance to vote (hey, my home state of Indiana still hasn't had its primary!). 2000 was all meta, meta, meta, and it didn't end up helping the left one bit in this country.

Keeping politics focused on real issues is one of the most powerful ways I can imagine at this point to move the country in a leftward direction, and there has to be more willingness to put up with a fight and to see that, sometimes, one side is simply correct and there is no compromise possible.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Alex as Sherlock Holmes used to say "The game is afoot!" The contest will not be over untill somebody blinks or the last superdelegate casts there vote at the convention. As I always say Politics is a contact sport with no rules! I have been watching this regularly since Goldwater ran against LBJ its always the same they say "This is the meanest campaign ever" etc etc. So let the game carry on it's now 3rd quarter and 5 yards to go for first down. 4th quarter will be the general election.
Stay tuned film at 11:00!

Actually, by most reports, including the Clinton and Obama websites, Obama is still ahead by over 100 delegates.

But, I do agree that the long drawn out process is good. It gives more people a chance to participate, and makes the candidates up their game, and makes them have to explain where they stand.

I disagree with the statement that the primary season is usually this long. Most candidates are crowned by the party long before now, whether they have the needed delegates or not.

What a great post! As always, Alex, you provide astute commentary, but in this instance your words have definitely halted my own knee jerk reaction to last night's results.

To be clear, I didn't walk away thinking, "God, I wish Hillary would just drop it so Obama can win." But I did think, "Wow, I really don't want this thing to drag on and help the Republican cause," and "You know, I could be down with a Clinton-Obama ticket -- and, shocking to some, a ticket with Clinton on top."

You make excellent points about the necessity of engagement and conflict in meaningful politics, and I 100% "Here, Here!" your analysis of the pundits. I would add one thing, however, which is that there's a difference between wanting one of the candidates to drop out now so the "real" election can begin and toying with the idea of the two of them announcing that they're running together.

Like you said, they're very similar on policy and most Democrats are happy to vote for both. Why not combine that power by coming out publicly now, on a high point, and saying, "Look, it's clear that Democratic and many Independent voters want the both of us to run and win in November. So both of us will run AND win in November -- together."

Which still leaves the question of who's on top of the ticket, but as an Obama supporter generally, let me say that my knee jerk reaction to this is put to Hillary at the fore. Go figure, we Obama supporters are not all groupies to the end :)

Hillary has some loyal supporters, but her nomination would draw Republicans to the polls in numbers never before experienced. There is a deep seated emotional hatred for Clinton. Many who experience that hatred admit that it cannot be rationally justified. No matter that her political platform is almost identical to that of Obama. Hillary's staunch supporters have marginally backed her against Obama in the primaries. Many of those who voted for Obama will not support Clinton in the big race. Almost everyone who supports Clinton would support Obama. Frankly, all that is just politics and it kind of gets me sick.

Either way, whoever wins, whoever loses - our community is still going to have to fight tooth and nail for equality. No one is going to hand it to us. No matter who we support, they will not fulfill their promises. The LGBT will have to continue demanding equality at every level, fight in the courts, in the media, and on the streets. No one is going to do it for us.

I am sick of injustice and inequity. I hope the rest of you are just as sick of it as I am. We are the ones, and the time is what it has always been. The time is now. We have a lot of work to do. Neither Clinton or Obama will do it for us.

My take on this is that, Clinton, and the skeletons in her closet, are pretty much all out in the open. Whitewater? Old hat. The Rose Law firm? Been there done that, investigated to the nth degree. Her opponents can try and bring up the old ghosts, but all she has to say is that it is old news.

Obama now, who knows? He is starting to take some hits on the scandle fall out with the guy in Chicago, what else is there out there that the repugs can dig up and use against him?

This is going to be a very nasty race, no matter who gets the nod for the democrats. The repubbies are trying to keep their priviliged position so they can continue to push their corprotacracy on us. I know Hilliary can take the hit. Who Knows about Obama.

Clinton or Obama, neither support full equality. Support for Civil Unions is just another way of saying that we are second class. You want Clinton? Fine. If she wins the democratic nomination, I will vote for her. Still, there is only one thing of which I am certain. Clinton supports Clinton. Exclusively. I think we all deserve better. I don't definitively know that Obama will be any better, but I am willing to bet on him. I am confident he can take the heat. As a community, what do we really have to lose? Either way, we are still going to have to do all the real work. You can't depend on politicians to do the right thing.

Cadence~ I meant that she closed the difference of about a hundred by about 12, that is it's ~100 - ~12, which if I remember my rules of significant figures correctly, is ~100. And of course none of this is complete and written in stone.

I think more important than the usual length of the season is that the rules were created to draw it out this long. That is, some states are still having their primary. They're supposed to mean something, and if we didn't want it to go through June, then perhaps we should revamp that system.

Dustin~ Thanks! I like your posts too!

You're right, they're two different arguments, that she should drop and that she should team up with BO. But I think a lot of the "Team up" rhetoric, like that Unity group, is centered around the idea that them further campaigning is a bad thing, making it a separate but similar conclusion to the same set of observations and belief that this whole thing should be as Kumbaya as possible.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | March 6, 2008 2:37 AM

In spite of the hype and hoopla there are NO substantive differences between Obama, Billery and McCain and more importantly, between their parties.

They all agree the war will have to go on for years. McCain says 100 years, Clintons wants to nuke Iran and dementedly, Obama wants to attack a nuclear power, Pakistan. Their bipartisan economic policies created the financial chaos that’s steadily corroding our standard of living. Their parties voted for DOMA and DADT in huge majorities and they haven’t lifted a finger repeal them. They were silent when Democrat Barney Frank and his Republicans allies gutted ENDA and dropped it and the hate crimes bill into the waste basket. They all pander to bigots, although Clintons and McCain’s bigots’ way outnumber and out hate those of Obama.

After the election we’ll get four more years of Bush Stout from Clinton or McCain or four years of Bush Lite from Obama. However, this next rendition of the political soap opera “As the Stomach Turns” won’t be like the others. We’re in a dangerous situation created by their war, their pandering to bigotry and their economic policies. These questions require real answers, not just campaign lies. After next January, when people find out that the next in a long line of ‘lesser evils’ not only has no answers but is stabbing us in the back they’ll be hell to pay.

I am sorry to say that I agree with you, Bill. The next president is not going to be the "Messiah".

We are in an unjust war created by lies, the Constitution has been gutted, religious sponsored hatred for all diversity is world wide and creating a backlash for even more hatred, the economy is sliding towards a precipice, and the global ecostructure is in serious danger. On the bright side, we have plasma screen televisions and high speed internet. We can watch all the tragedy in high definition, and blog about how horrible it is. At least until the power goes out. Cheers. Like Hillary says, "this ones for you." We had all better take notice and get serious or there isn't going to be a United States or even a world for our grandchildren.

Here are my feelings on this...

Having two Democractic candidates fighting so diligently for the Presidency isn't a bad thing.

We can say, without a doubt, that this has been the most covered and watched election process by all media sources.

Democrats are seeing ground breaking numbers at the polls...since when is running out of ballots really a bad thing?

Will Clinton surpass Obama in the delegate race, stastically possible, but highly unlikely.

Two Democratic candidates taking on one Republican candidate is better for the Democrats (just look at Dean's quotes with Democrats attacking him). A full court press on McCain should start now, not later.

Is it frustrating for those that have chosen their candidate or voted in an early primary state, absolutely. But it doesnt mean we aren't still watching election coverage.

Finally, the next President won't be a Messiah, and no person ever will be for every cause. But, lets be certain on one thing, Obama or Clinton will be a better choice than McCain.

Michael Bedwell | March 6, 2008 11:59 AM

Dustin, before you and Alex get a room :- ) can I buy you dinner for your magnanimity? For all my criticism of Obama, a joint ticket would be electoral bliss. Some less objective Obamaites support the same thing but with their hero on top when strategically it makes more sense for the older person to be on top so that the younger one has a better chance as a still viable candidate for Prez in 2016. Hillary would be 68 then—a year older than Prick Cheney is now and look how choosing him as VP ended up for the Repugs. They had to start from scratch for a Prez candidate. Yes, Cheney's health [don't tell me it's his heart—he has no heart] was the greater issue but the odds are that a 68-year old Sen. Clinton would have more health issues than Obama who would be 55, as I recall, in 2016.

As for the seething hatred of Sen. Clinton just waiting to burst and drown us all—that's more myth than reality if for no other reason than that there are 17 MILLION more registered Democrats than Republicans, more Dems than Independents. And millions of Dems have already demonstrated their eagerness for her to be President.

As for "defections"—I have been very afraid of Obama supporters bailing, too, if Sen. Clinton got the nomination. But if a [shocking to me] Pew Research Center poll from the end of February is right, among registered Democrats versus Independents, the reverse is true. I hope neither candidate’s supporters would be so stupid, but…..

QUOTE: “The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.”

It is extraordinary to me that some here who have consitently trashed Senator Obama now write of the "bliss" of having him on a national ticket. If he is as vile as you have portrayed him as, why would you want him on the ticket ? There must be a legion of others you consider more worthy in every way.

Also, the conclusion that Clinton gained a dozen pledged delegates as a result of the primaries and caucus on Tuesday is likely an overstatement.
She probably got less than half that amount, perhaps only four. Her victories in this regard on Tuesday were more symbolic than substantive. Her likely losses in Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday will only put her further behind in the pledged delegate totals.

Michael Bedwell | March 6, 2008 1:17 PM

Dearly Beloved,

Trying to pull defeat from the jaws of victory?

Once again your Obama Zombie Blinders make you see things that aren't there. This "some" wrote that a combined ticket would be "bliss" primarily because I, unlike you apparently, want more than anything that is an option to defeat the Repugs. The combination of Sen. Clinton's supporters and Obama's supporters would, it is reasonable to presume, guarantee that. It does not suggest that I feel any less strongly that, outside of a combined ticket, Obama is an inferior option to Sen. Clinton.

Perhaps you have missed the several times in several places that I have written that I beleive that Obama at his worst is better than any Repug at his best. Just as I have said that I would vote for him in the general election, even without a combined ticket.

Dearly Beloved, can you say the same? Could you put the importance of defeating the Republicans, of preventing them from stacking the Supreme Court for decades with more troglodytes, above your infatuation with Obama and vote for Sen. Clinton in the general election?


As usual your arguments are based on statistics that can be challenged. You sound like one of those television commentators who always seem to make the wrong predictions.

As far as the seething hatred, don't under estimate it. Trust me, I will vote for Clinton if she is the democratic candidate. But don't forget that the republicans - backing an idiot like Bush - won the past two elections. Don't forget the Clinton "pardons". Don't forget that Hillary always caters to whoever might do her the most good. She denounced abortion as a "horrible choice". She defends DOMA. She supported the war. She was silent in the ENDA debacle. She is the consumate politician, and everyone in the world knows it. That is what fuels the "irrational hatred". Deep down, everyone knows she is nothing more than a political whore. Everyone. Even using that term is a dis-service to sex workers. Obama can thank "Hillary hatred" for his own present success. He is just the lesser of two evils. If I do vote for Clinton, I know that I am going to regret it. The repugs are praying that Hillary wins. Personally, I will do anything to get the taste of the Bush administration out of my mouth. Even hate myself and vote for Clinton.

I worked for a non-profit with the mission of promoting continued education to high school students that were not geared for college. In New York City. The mission affected the Senator's constituents. She never returned correspondence. Her office never even acknowledged receipt. We were working to help the underprivileged. There wasn't enough money or votes or political gain to justify her to give our organization the courtesy of a simple reply. Zero. That is Hillary Clinton.

In the end, I just end up thinking about Truman Capote's unfinished novel, Answered Prayers. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. And there really are more tears for the prayers that are answered.

Voting for Clinton, if she does become the nominee , is by no means an automatic thing for me or many others who find her win-at-any-costs, stoop to any depth, style repugnant. For us, Clinton is little better than Rove in her way of doing business. If one is willing to do and say almost anything to win, I believe one has already lost. I originally had reservations about Obama and was not sure whether he or Clinton would be the better nominee. But as I have observed the racist, divisive, smear campaign run by the Clintons and simultaneously observed the dignity, moderation, and genuine hopefulness with which Obama has responded , I have become convinced that I must support him as the best hope for bringing our country together and moving on from the divisions and acrimony of the Clinton / Bush years. With Obama I have glimpsed hope for something truly new. With Clinton I have only been reminded of the old, ugly way of doing business. Her positions on certain issues are better than the " Repugs " but her core values and instincts are no better. For many of us character counts and the Clintons have both failed that test.

Michael Bedwell | March 6, 2008 6:27 PM

Only because I have a low tolerance for nonsense do I waste the time to say to you, JERINDC, that "EVERYONE" who "knows" that Sen. Clinton is a "political whore" must include those MILLIONS upon MILLIONS that have been voting for her over any other candidate for the past several months. Feel free to explain that.

Dearly Beloved, thank you for having the honesty to admit you might be willing to help the Repugs win. As for your libel—"the racist, divisive, smear campaign run by the Clintons"—better, smarter men and women with platinum credentials in the black civil rights movement disagree with you such as Cong. John Lewis.

But the more important reason I write again is:

There's been a lot of talk in this campaign about "grassroots." There's more and more talk of the benefits of a combined H&O ticket. Some have said one or the other of them would never agree, but I've not seen anyone say it is a bad idea.

This morning's bombing in NYC, no matter how unrelated it will probably turn out to be to "organized terrorists," reminds us of the kinds of things that could happen between now and November to convert a doddering old warmonger like McCain into someone the majority of voters, regardless of any present support for a Democrat, think is the best person to "protect us."

I respectfully urge each of you to start e-mailing both the Clinton and Obama camps, as well as the DNC, and demanding a joint ticket. You can state your preference for which would be better "on top," but the important thing is the two together—combining their unique strengths and huge groups of supporters to defeat anything that Fate and the Rovians might throw at us.

Here are some e-mail/contact addresses:

You have nothing to lose but a few minutes of your time—and a new world to gain.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." - Gandhi


I am horrified that you would connect Clinton in any way to the words of Gandhi or Dr. King. These men were willing to sacrifice their own lives for the greater good. Hillary Clinton will be more appropriately noted for her willingness to sacrifice the lives of others to serve her own blind ambition.

As far as the millions who have supported Clinton, I can only defend them as ignorant. She has managed to convince them of her sincerity, in spite of her conspicuous absence of that virtue. As I stated previously, she is the consummate politician. In simpler words, an accomplished liar. Is that enough of an explanation?

Obama and Clinton? I believe that would be political suicide for Obama. Comparable to Anakin Skywalker surrendering to the "dark side". Momentarily expedient but overwhelmingly devastating.

Don't believe me, believe me. I won't convince anyone who wants to believe otherwise. I won't even try. I will say this. Hillary has been described by close - and mutual - friends, as an "ice queen" and "evil." LOL Don't ask for names. It was stated in complete confidence. Almost frightened confidence. You will just have to take my word for it. I have no reason to lie. In fact, it may prove to be dangerous. At least I have done my part; I did not remain conspicuously and appallingly silent. Finally, I will repeat myself. Be careful what you wish for. It may come true.

For those who have not read the excellent endorsement piece on Obama in this week's "Rolling Stone" here is the link :

A few lines from "A New Hope" are especially relevant to our current discussion :

"Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles. He recognizes that running for president is an opportunity to inspire an entire nation. All this was made clearer by the contrast with Hillary Clinton, a capable and personable senator who has run the kind of campaign that reminds us of what makes us so discouraged about our politics. Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn't count for much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack. "

I encourage everyone to read the thoughtful and eleoquent endorsement in full.

Also, since John Lewis had been invoked to deflect criticism of Clinton's clearly racist, divisive, smear campaign it must be noted that Lewis has withdrawn his endorsement of Clinton and now pledges his support and convention vote to Senator Obama. In crossing over to support Obama Lewis used language not unlike that used by "Rolling Stone":

"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming...Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary. It's a movement. It's a spiritual event .It's amazing what's happening...I support his candidacy for president and will cast my vote for Sen. Obama as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention. Sometimes, you have to be on the right side of history ... Obama represents something different, something new. But he also represents a long line of individuals who come around from time to time who carry the aspirations of the people ".

Michael Bedwell | March 7, 2008 8:53 PM

"Hillary Clinton will be more appropriately noted for her willingness to sacrifice the lives of others to serve her own blind ambition."

Oh, yeh, I forgot: she killed Vince Foster AND Martin Luther King.

"As far as the millions who have supported Clinton, I can only defend them as ignorant." Paging Bil Browning. How does calling me and Sara Whitman and Jerame and others "ignorant" fit into the revised site rules? Seriously.

UNBELOVED COMMUNITY: Strange that you simultaneously suggest that civil rights icon Cong. John Lewis was dishonest in his denouncing Admiral Obama’s Swift Boat campaign against Sen. Clinton while praising his good sense in now endorsing the race baiter from Illinois. And, as always, there's more behind your spin [really, you should start signing your egregious epistles "Rev. Maytag"] than your cherry-picked facts tell.

1. Lewis has NOT withdrawn his condemnation of the Obama campaign’s race card playing tournament.

2. Cong. Lewis is concerned about more than being on the "right side of history"—he's understandably concerned about being on the same side of those he depends on to reeelect him this year:

“Lewis came under intense pressure to get behind Obama after his constituents supported the Illinois senator roughly 3-to-1 in Georgia's Feb. 5 primary.....His change of heart follows a similar move by Rep. David Scott, a black Democrat who represents a neighboring district. It also comes a week after the Rev. Markel Hutchins, a young Atlanta minister, announced he would challenge Lewis in the Democratic congressional primary this summer.

Hutchins, 30, has seized on Lewis' waffling in the presidential contest as evidence that the 68-year-old congressman is out of touch. ‘Today's announcement by Representative Lewis was clearly prompted by political expediency’, Hutchins said Wednesday. ‘It is time for a change. It is time to send somebody to Congress who is actually willing to represent the district’."

SOURCE: Associated Press/


Ignorant is not an insult. It is a adjective used to describe someone who lacks knowledge. And I am equally certain you are aware of it. You aren't stupid. Misguided perhaps, but not stupid.

You expend a lot of energy defending whatever position you happen to espouse. You are the "Michael Myers" of Bilerico. You won't die, you always come back. The only difference being you try to kill ideas or opinions rather than people.

It is all unnecessary. You are right on many subjects; at least to the point that I agree with you. I would however suggest that you are not always correct. You might listen to and examine the opinions of others as something real to be considered, rather than something that you must dutifully destroy. Destruction is not always ignorant, but it certainly can be. Lighten up, and be well...

Goddammit, Michael Bedwell, I stopped reading this thread a couple days ago when it turned from a discussion the way media narratives make the right win even when it loses to a fight between Obama and Clinton supporters.

But, in your role as TBP's own Dwight Schrute, you mentioned the comments policy and I have to show up again (you know, I don't just write incredibly insightful commentary; I moderate comments, too).

Ummm, BC's comment wasn't personal and wasn't an attack. She said Clinton supporters in general were ignorant of her history. There's really nothing there. Actually, after skimming the comments, I'm kinda surprised that you're the one talking about the level of conversation when you're calling BC "unbeloved community," said jerindc was talkin' "nonsense," and used a Maytag metaphor, which will probably annoyingly show up three times a week till the election in November (I think we should add "overuse of once-clever expressions" to the TOS).

On a different note:

Some have said one or the other of them would never agree, but I've not seen anyone say it is a bad idea.

K, I will.

Obama picking Clinton as his VP would be dumb. While they're not that far away on policy issues, they're running pretty different campaigns. Obama, pretty much from the start, tried to define himself as the anti-Clinton. So nominating Clinton wouldn't just betray his supporters who hate her, but picking someone from Washington's #2 family also would muddy his message of not being a Washington insider, get him attacked as a flip-flopper, blah blah blah.

Clinton's going to need someone with more foreign policy experience than she since that's going to be where McCain will attack (does he have anything else?) and someone who won't steal the spotlight from her when she's on the campaign trail (Say whatever we want about either of them, the press likes him better, and they pretty much like anyone better than Hillary). Plus she's insulted Obama enough at this point to once again be flip-flopping, muddying her message, etc.

I don't think Obama finds himself in the same lock on foreign policy, mainly because he hasn't tried to sell himself as a fopo guru like Clinton has, instead just anti-war.

I think they each need to pick someone to augment their style instead of each other, which just doesn't gel for me. They're each going to get most of the other's supporters anyway, considering the hobgoblin running in the GOP lane. And they each have enough star power to push the whole thing themselves.

So I'll put my choices out there: Obama should pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. She's popular, won in Kansas on a socially liberal platform, midwestern, a definite rising star in the party as the chair of the Dem Gov's Association, has already endorsed Obama, and can capture back some people who wanted to see a woman in a position of power should Obama win.

Clinton should pick NM Gov. Richardson, who has more fopo cred than McCain or Clinton (or Obama, for that matter), is an accomplished governor, and he's a long-time Clintonite. Total Washington insider, proving her point that they're better than everyone else. I'm not going to say that he could help get the "hispanic" vote, whatever that means, since they never went for him in the first place, but I think there are a lot of people who'd appreciate stump speeches in Spanish.


I agree that Gov Richardson would make an outstanding VP pick - FOR OBAMA . Richardson was my first choice in this campaign and I regret that he did not catch on as I believe he should have. He is both highly qualified and quite progressive. He is certainly an ally of the LGBTQ community . He would bring heft and dept of experience - both domestic and international - to Obama and help much with the challenge Obama has had getting traction in the Hispanic community. And, as Alex says, Richardson has longstanding Clinton connections - which should help to pull all of us together once Obama secures the nomination. For me an Obama / Richardson ticket would be the real "dream ticket".

Oy gevalt! Alex Blaze is the energizer bunny!