In Hillary’s defense, it DOES work…

When it comes to my preference for Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic nomination, I refuse to take a back seat to those worthies on the editorial board of The New York Times. However, I must protest that their urgent yearning for Hope and Change caused them to ignore rather obvious realities earlier this week:

    The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
    Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

When you say "Voters are getting tired of it," you mean you are getting tired of it, as am I. (Sure, you can say Obama still leads nationally poll, but "national" doesn’t count until November, and even then it’s state by state.) And yes, it’s demeaning, but this is politics, ya know.

And you’ve gotta hand it to the lady: It does work. It certainly did on Tuesday, anyway.

39 thoughts on “In Hillary’s defense, it DOES work…

  1. Brad Warthen

    …I guess the difference here (and you can see it at the end of that second quoted paragraph) is that the NYT considers it really, really important that a Democrat win the election.
    I’m more detached because I’d be happy with McCain. As I keep saying, this is a win-win year for me.
    I still wish she’d stop, though. But she’s not gonna. Because in her values system, it works.

    Reply
  2. Joshua

    Did it work for her, or is the spin working for her? He cut into her lead in her own territory. Even the nominee can’t win every state.

    Reply
  3. bill

    I’ve got the apolitical blues
    And that’s the meanest blues of all
    Apolitical blues
    And that’s the meanest blues of all
    I don’t care if it’s John Wayne
    I just don’t wanna talk to him now
    Lowell George

    Reply
  4. Mike Cakora

    Didn’t the New York Times endorse Hillary back in January? Why yes, it did.

    The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

    But I guess a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    Reply
  5. Richard L. Wolfe

    Brad, If I were you I start lowering my unbridled enthusiasm for Obama and McCain about now. When one of them gets elected everytime one of them ” missteps or misspeaks, ” you are going to have to hear about it, unless you shut down the blog. Just some unsolicited advice from a friend.

    Reply
  6. Dum Spiro Spero

    When party politics becomes an issue in a single party there is a problem with the system. When a Democratic nominee will most probably be decided by superdelegates, who are not obliged to follow any popular choice but can make their own decision for the “popular good,” there is a problem with the system. When an entire presidential election (later on down the road) can have a totally unexpected outcome because of faithless electors in the Electoral College, there is a problem with the system.
    I was under the impression that this country was founded on laws, not men. I was also under the impression that we are a democracy not an oligarchy, because when there is the possibility that four concurrent presidential administrations could be controlled by just two families there is no other word but oligarchy to describe it. My constant prayers rest with the fate of the nation, and the ultimate prevalence of rational thought.

    Reply
  7. Dum Spiro Spero

    When you’re indebted to the wonderful state that has had a critical role in molding and forming your ideas of home and American life, what better motto to adopt than that of said state? There is much to be said for the motto as so much in the history of our state and nation has been based on hope alone, from the fragility of the first settlers on our shores to the prayers that kept our nation together in its most trying times. “While I breathe, I hope,” is an undeniably powerful credo for everyday life. Also, any reference to Latin phrases makes you sound much smarter…
    Animis Opibusque Parati, for example (motto of the Palmetto Regiment)

    Reply
  8. Randy E

    “little minds”, Mike Cak? Such pettiness. Obama has had more democrats vote for him in a primary than anyone in history. To dismiss this reflects some veiled feelings on your part rather than any valid analysis.
    Brad, the Clintons’ attack dog politics can hardly be considered effective because of Tuesday’s results as you state. She had a 20+ lead. Despite her support of the Pennsylvania political machine, “bittergate”, Wright, ABC journalistic malpractice and McCain attacks Obama whittled the lead down to 9.
    As far as McCain being a “win-win” for you, I guess you are giving him a pass in regards to the Hagee issue. He admits in his ABC interview that it was probably a “mistake” to pursue Hagee (probably because he considers your Faith a cult, Brad) but mere seconds later McCain claims he’s “glad” to have his endorsement.
    McCain also confuses the two Muslim sects and doesn’t remember two days later that he suggested tearing down the 9th ward in New Orleans. I guess you are forgiving all this as senior moments.

    Reply
  9. david

    My favorite phrase in latin comes from the the cadre of Landing Signal Officers in the US Navy. These are the guys who train naval aviators to land their airplanes on carrier decks, and their latin credo is:
    “Rectum non bustus”
    Gotta admit, this has a certain urgent and primal ring to it that certainly applies to everyday life. Not sure it is really and truly “latin” in the textbook sense, however.
    My other fave latin adage is:
    Factum Dictum
    My how I wish we had more people speaking truth this year as we head into November. I applaud the North Carolina Republican Party for standing up for right against John F’ing McCain and running political ads that speak the truth and take the fight to B. Hussein Obama. David

    Reply
  10. david

    Testy aren’t we? Shouting racism at people and making ad hominem attacks is the last refuge of small minds. The above two posters apparently resort to these tactics as a first refuge, which really implies weak intellect.
    Be that as it may…
    My question to you two nitwits would be the same question I have for J. F’ing McCain, which is this:
    What exactly is racist about the NC Republican Party ad?
    It ties two NC democrat candidates for governor to their endorsement of B. Hussein Obama and then asks NC voters to consider those endorsements in light of Obamas’ close and unrepentant friendship with a terrorist and his twenty year relationship with his mentor, Jeremiah “GD America” Wright. That isn’t racist, and racism isn’t the problem that you two nitwit democrat toadies have with it either. Your problem with it is that it points to the stark truth about Obama, which is that he either agrees with their vitriol and dangerous behaviour (no matter what he may say to the contrary), or that he hasn’t got either the courage or the sense to trash them and repudiate them.
    Either way, one thing can definitely be said: It must really suck to be a liberal democrat these days, when the two clowns who will ostensibly be at the top of your loon-town ticket are horribly damaged goods. I may not like McCain, but it doesn’t seem to me that he’s going to have very much trouble with either of your presidential hopefuls. David

    Reply
  11. david

    That is, of course, assuming McCain doesn’t continue to be an idiot.
    McCain ought to be applauding the NC Republican Party, and he ought to be taking notes for ways in which he can campaign once the democrat bloodbath is over and either Hillary or Hussein are nominated. Instead, in true McCain fashion, he’s condemning the ad and demanding that it not be aired. Further, he’s going around demanding that Hussein apologize for this, that and the other.
    Please.
    Can we just have a good old campaign in which your opponents’ record is picked apart and exposed for its’ weaknesses and hypocrisies? And where you, Senator McCain, articulate your vision for this country and tell us why the other guys’ vision is wrong? Without apologizing or asking for an apology?
    As I said, I have absolutely no use for this old skinbag. David

    Reply
  12. Dum Spiro Spero

    So now Hillary Clinton would like a Lincoln-Douglas type debate with Barack Obama? She is losing in the delegate count and has run out of fingers and toes to count the number of debates which have already occurred, but she still wants more? Her desperation is about as alluring as taking a bath in a septic tank. Politics in this country became a mud-slinging, name-calling, petulant schoolyard fight way back in the 1790s when the emerging Democratic-Republicans went up against the Federalists – AND IT HASN’T STOPPED SINCE.
    I hope to breathe a sigh of relief in the near future when Howard Dean does one positive thing as DNC Chairman and reigns in the superdelegates to cast their votes. Only then will we be free of this childish display, which Hillary Clinton’s political team so irreverently points out to be “democracy in action.”

    Reply
  13. Dum Spiro Spero

    Why invoke The Great Emancipator though as a white woman (wife of the “First Black President”) who is running against an African-American man from Illinois (the “Land of Lincoln”)? It is too ridiculous to even comment on. If I were Barack Obama I would just say, “Relax psycho. No more debates. The superdeleg….I mean, the people will decide.”

    Reply
  14. Dum Spiro Spero

    Mr. Muller your ultra-conservative anger is too evident. If you’re worried about the taxes you have to pay, remember that while you might be paying them to help someone you don’t care about, you are also paying them so that you may live in this country. If you’re worried about a weakened national security, think about the dearth of diplomatic foreign policy this country has endured for the past eight years while thousands of worthy Americans have lost their lives. If you’re worried about an African-American man or a white woman becoming president, think about the fact that it is about time someone else has had a chance to run things. If you’re worried about gay people having rights, know that people have been gay for thousands of years and that it isn’t some new corrupt thing. If you’re worried about universal health care, why don’t you write your elected officials to have your opinion known?
    Personally I’m worried about the polarizing ignorance of the neo-cons. I’m not even a Democrat, but at least I can open my eyes and ears long enough to see their point of view.

    Reply
  15. david

    Let’s see.
    Got the anti-conservative zinger in there.
    Check.
    Pro-tax boiler plate?
    Check.
    Thinly veiled anti-Bush/anti-war rant.
    Check, and check.
    Support Obama because he’s black and it’s his turn.
    Check.
    Pro gay rights/ “gays are normal just like us”/universal health care…
    Check, check and check-a-rooney.
    Wow Dum. You may not be a democrat, but congratulations! No matter what you choose to call yourself, you’re a flaming liberal who would blend in very nicely indeed with the Rocky Horror Picture Show that is the left fringe of the Democrat Party. Just thought that might be worth pointing out, because you enjoy calling conservatives names, but apparently want to avoid being so categorized yourself. I think the descriptor “ultra” could very correctly be applied to your brand of liberal gobble-de-gook. David

    Reply
  16. Dum Spiro Spero

    How easy is it to find scripts from Rush Limbaugh’s show to read your talking points from David? Have some ideas of your own, and then we can talk. I am an officer in the United States Army, a Lutheran Sunday School teacher, and a proud citizen of the Palmetto State. Yet, you probably thought I was burning the flag as I typed my entry above.
    The problem is that ignorance has plagued our state for too long, and has been called conservatism instead. Nothing that I wrote above was in support of a liberal agenda, only an acknowledgement that you can understand the other side’s ideas without labeling them “Socialist” or “cast members from the Rocky Horror Picture Show.” It is virulent partisanship like yours David that is tearing this country apart more than anything.

    Reply
  17. david

    That’s how I roll Dum.
    And I am particularly enjoying the fact that my points hit home with you. You just couldn’t resist the jab about Rush, could you? This cheap little ploy indicates pretty clearly to me that either your arguements, or your ability to make your arguements, or both are fatally weak.
    I do embrace partisanship, because I believe that we are engaged in a war of opposing ideas about how this country ought to be led and steered.
    Further, I don’t think that being “broad minded” and “understanding” of the other sides’ ideas are necessarily good things if I am convinced (as I most definitely am) that the other sides’ ideas are horribly wrong and ultimately destructive to this country. I don’t want to “understand” them or make nice with them, I want to defeat them.
    By the way, I can wave the red, white and blue as well as you can. I am a retired Naval Officer, Baptist Sunday School teacher and am also Palmetto born and bred.
    So what?
    It’s all about right and wrong ideas, and the direction this country will be taken by our new president. You’re right, I took the opportunity to characterize you as a loony liberal because that is pretty much what I thought you were doing to Lee as a conservative. That kind of stuff is fun, but it gets us off the point: This country is in the fight of its’ life, and naturally people who have differing ideas about how to ensure it survives as the best experiment in freedom ever devised by man are going to be animated and unrelenting. So color me unrelenting and unapologetic. David

    Reply
  18. Dum Spiro Spero

    David, if you read your first response to me as opposed to your second you would clearly see that in the second you were much less caustic and shared more constructive ideas. I applaud the fact that you embrace your personal beliefs, and I agree that this country is in a fight for its life (it has been from the beginning). Unrelenting and unapologetic is fine, but nothing will get done in this country without cooperation. It is rare that one party controls every branch of the government, so it is in our best interests to reach across the aisle when possible.
    Rush Limbaugh is one of the most entertaining individuals I’ve ever listened to, and I was not criticizing him (just you because everything you wrote reminded me of his show). Lampooning the political beliefs of others is fun as well. Lastly, Go Army, Beat Navy (West Point really needs some new recruiting tactics – that’s why I’m a Clemson fan first and foremost)!

    Reply
  19. Mike Cakora

    Many of us who will not support Obama or Clinton do so because, as Lee so aptly put it, they are socialists or as close to that belief system as one can be in American politics today. Obama’s voting record ranks him as the most liberal member of the Senate, surpassing even the senior senator from Taxachusetts, a remarkable accomplishment.
    The junior senator form New York ain’t far behind voting-wise and has promised to take away Exxon-Mobil’s profits. Perhaps she doesn’t realize that those profits enabled Exxon-Mobil to pay $30B in taxes for 2007 (a 41% tax rate); that company paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of US taxpayers did. (Details here.) It takes a lot of chutzpah to penalize such success.
    Federal spending has been rolling along at around 19% of GDP. These folks, and even McCain to some extent, want to boost that percentage, necessitating tax increases. Folks like Lee and I think that even 19% is too much. But more on that some other time.
    With the Dem’s candidates it’s not an issue of race and gender, but of philosophy, and I just don’t like folks who take from hard-workers and give to the indolent. That’s why one of the top five leaders of the 20th century in my book and probably Lee’s is Margaret Thatcher, not because of her gender, but because of what she believed and what she did.

    Reply
  20. david

    And you may have noticed that I did not deny your insinuation about my using Rushs’ talking points.
    The reason I didn’t deny it was NOT that I really am a Rush sycophant and you nailed it. I didn’t deny your insinuation because I am not under any burden or obligation to deny or defend against silliness like this, which is routinely tossed out by the other side just to see if it sticks, and that has no basis whatsoever in fact. I may have never heard of Rush Limbaugh until you brought him up, for all you know.
    My points are my own, springing from my deeply held beliefs.
    If I happen to sound like Rush…well…good for him. Because I am right, and that puts him in good company. David

    Reply
  21. david

    Mike, exactly so.
    People like bud, Randy and other shallow-thinking liberals never cease to amaze me. As for the damage that the democrat presidential hopefuls have vowed to do to oil companies, the things liberals support must derive either from complete ignorance or from devious intent. It is this simple:
    First, corporations do NOT pay taxes, people do. Any confiscation of profits or increase in taxes upon oil corporations undertaken by Clinton will be viewed by the corporations as business expenses, and these expenses must and WILL be passed along in the form of higher prices paid by consumers at the pump. Some of the reasons fuel prices are so high right now resolve to nothing more than that the federal regulations and liberal hamstringing of the industry translate directly into monetary expenses to the companies that they in turn must pass to the consumer. No more complicated than that. Hillary knows this, but rhetoric is cheap and what better time than now to demonize this industry?
    Second, many on the left attempt the demonize the oil companies because they post quarterly profits in the billions. This demonization completely discounts or conveniently ignores the fact that the oil industry is tremendously capital intensive. It takes many billions of dollars to explore, develop and extract crude oil from the ground in meaningful and profitable quantities. It takes profits to keep these huge companies going in the bust times (ever notice that no one complains when oil companies make nothing and go out of business?) It takes attractive profits to lure the huge amounts of investment dollars necessary for oil companies to capitalize, upgrade, streamline operations and remain profitable and competitive. It also takes billions of dollars to keep up with and meet the ever-tightening web of regulation and red-tape imposed on the companies by tree huggers and federal bureaucrats.
    Every time I fill up with gasoline that costs me $3.50 a gallon and should be costing me about a buck eighty, I remember to put the blame squarely where it belongs: At the feet of liberals. David

    Reply
  22. bud

    It takes many billions of dollars to explore, develop and extract crude oil from the ground in meaningful and profitable quantities.
    Every time I fill up with gasoline that costs me $3.50 a gallon and should be costing me about a buck eighty, I remember to put the blame squarely where it belongs: At the feet of liberals.
    -David
    These 2 statements are completely incompatible. If it costs billions to explore for oil that has to passed along to the consumer. That would make for a much higher price than “a buck eighty”. But if it makes you feel better to blame liberals for the $150 you spend for a tank of diesel fuel for your 4 x 4 turbo diesel monster truck go ahead. While I’m filling my Prius with about $25 of regular I’ll reflect on the sad state of affairs you’re in. I’ll shed a tear for the indulgence that has come home to roost. I’ll consider how lucky I am to have a brain to understand that the world’s supply of oil is finite and that whoever is in charge will have to deal with ever growing shortages of crude oil. But one thing I won’t do is pout about how unfair life is. I’ll leave that to you owners of Hummers and Excursions. You can whine all you like but your guys, oil men one and all, have been in charge and this is where we are. Not because of some liberal regulations that restrict drilling. Heck, we’re drilling like crazy and our oil resources won’t allow any further drilling in mile deep oceans or -50 degree arctic tundra. Those areas cannot make up for the vast resources we’ve squandered in our mad dash to build on every square inch of farm land 30 or more miles for the various central districts of America.
    Because, as I liberal, I understand how silly it is to blame a group of people that have had no real power for 8 years. But rather that get angry I’ll simply reflect. Reflect on how really irrelevant and naive the right wing blame mongers have become. How out of touch with the realities of the world’s economy and the earth’s geography. Whoever wins the White House will be faced with the same reality: an increasing shortage of crude all available to fuel the worlds machines. That reality will necessitate higher prices from now on. So get used to Suburban owners. Get used to 4, 5 and eventually $10/gallon gasoline. It’s coming regardless of what you say or how much you whine. But if it makes you feel better go right ahead and blame us liberals. I’ll simply laugh on my way to the bank.

    Reply
  23. Lee Muller

    Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate for 1.5 years, and the tax increases on working people began immediately, along with soaring gas prices and a sliding stock market.
    Smart people don’t wait to be the last ones into the lifeboat when socialistic Democrats are at the helm.

    Reply
  24. david

    bud, I don’t know what all the liberal gobble-de-gook you posted means because I don’t pay much attention to your loon-acy. However, I did notice the last line or two of your screed.
    I would simply suggest this: If we DO end up with fuel at $5 or $10 a gallon in the near future, it’s going result in a general economic crash because fuel costs affect nearly all other prices. I believe this will lead to a general backlash against the liberal obstructionism and the needlessly obstreperous enviro-wingnuts like you who put the country in this position, because people whose quality of life has been destroyed are going to realize that you jerks and obstructionists on the left never really had any alternatives. They’ll also realize that the policies that you supported were the direct cause of the fall.
    I think the upshot will be that the counrty lurches to the right again, which would ultimately be a good thing, albeit a little late, as the damage will have been done. In the meantime, I intend to do what I can to see it doesn’t happen. David

    Reply
  25. david

    Lee, are you manning the lifeboats? Or are you going to stay on the ship, bail it out and plug the leaks? David

    Reply
  26. bud

    David, how exactly would you explain the $3.50 a gallon gasoline prices? You keep blaming liberals but you don’t clarify the mechanism for how they did this. Since liberals were not in control of any branch of government during the years leading up to the big price increases this claim would seem bogus.
    The fact is, this is a situation where the laws of supply and demand are at work. As the world’s thirst for oil increases it puts a huge strain on the oil producers to keep up. The U.S. has drilled far more oil wells in the last decade than any other country. These wells have been drilled in highly promising areas especially in Montana, South Dakota, the Gulf of Mexico and in other places. The U.S. has also invested heavily in enhanced recovery techniques. And, as David points out, all of this take money and lots of it.
    The results have been impressive. We have greatly increased production rates in the Montana/South Dakota areas. We’re pumping oil out of the North Slope for far longer than was ever anticipated in the late 1970s. There are some very promising finds in the Gulf. And many older fields in Texas have been given a new lease on life with the latest recovery techniques. Coupled with the extremely high oil prices the U.S. succeeded in reversing, temporarily, the 38 year long decline in U.S. oil production in 2007.
    But all this effort has required a huge investment in equipment and skilled labor, both of which are in extremely short supply at the moment. Any effort to bring oil from the ANWAR or Atlantic coastal shelf will require an immense increase in both human and equipment resources. And what will that bring? Given the costs we can still expect higher prices. Right now the cheapest source of oil is to import it from the Persian Gulf.
    And to what end? Eventually these oil fields will peak and decline just like the North Slope fields. The short term leveling off of the U.S. decline will turn south again and oil prices will go higher still. There is no escaping the supply/demand quandry from the supply side. We can only escape by attacking the demand side. How? By driving smaller cars, fewer miles. And by developing alternative sources of energy to power our homes and vehicles.
    The increase in gasoline prices is inevitable. Sure, there will be some price cuts along the way. We may see sub-$3/gallon gasoline again. But the upward trend is certain unless we drastically reduce demand.

    Reply
  27. Randy E

    People like bud, Randy and other shallow-thinking liberals never cease to amaze me. – David
    …gasoline that costs me $3.50 a gallon …put the blame squarely where it belongs: At the feet of liberals. – David
    David, try consulting your local conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, like I, the “shallow thinker” did:
    Gas prices starting sky rocketing in 2002, when the REPUBLICANS controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
    David, I drink your milkshake!

    Reply
  28. Randy E

    bud, it had to be “shallow thinking liberals” who caused David to pay $3.50 at the pump. After all, gas prices have nothing to do with complete upheaval in the Middle East caused by a “war” (or threatening a 3rd war by bombing Iran) or by subsidizing Big Oil with millions of dollars while turning a blind eye to alternative energy.
    I think Nader is to blame for Global Warming (if it exists). I think Feingold is behind this whole Jack Abramoff scandal as well.

    Reply
  29. Lee Muller

    david,
    I am manning my lifeboat.
    The goal of every working American should be to move themselves to having no earned income, which will get them out from under payroll taxes. That gives them 17.6% more money to invest each year, enough to make a million dollars for someone with a modest income.
    They should also strive to move out of dollar-denominated savings, because Congress is expanding the money supply at a rate of 15% annually, debasing the purchasing power.
    Talented young people should be encouraged to leave states like SC, which have punitive tax codes, for states like Tennessee, Florida and Texas, where they can save enough money off state taxes to start an investment nest egg which will be worth $500,000 to $3,000,000 over their lifetime.

    Reply
  30. bud

    I have an idea. Why don’t we encourage everyone to borrow money and buy a great big house. After all, haven’t we been told for years by conservatives that housing prices always increase? Whoops, I guess that hasn’t worked out so well lately.
    Or, we could invest in the stock market. Over the past 8-1/3 years the DOW has gone from 11,700 to 12,800. That would be about 1% per year. Adusting for inflation that would be come to about a -2%/year. Well, maybe that’s not such a surefire money maker (at least while Republicans are in charge).
    Ok, so explain to me again how easy it is for an investor to make piles of money in this economy? All the tried and true methods have not worked out so well. On the other hand, my mother has drawn significant Social Security checkes for the past 14 years now. Compared to the amount she’s put in to the system her return has been phenomenol, probably 20-30%/year. And if I retire tommorow from the State with 30 years I can recoup what I put in in about 4 years. Not bad.
    Fact is, everything is risky. To suggest that a person can automatically invest in some sort of retirement plan and be ensured that it will earn a great return is an excercise in ignoring the facts and the history of investing.

    Reply
  31. Lee Muller

    “This economy” is one of state and local governments jacking up taxes to consume the federal tax cuts, which destroyed corporate profits, lowered returns and stock prices.
    Cut government, including college tuition and public school spending, back to bring it in line with family income increases since 1970, and economic growth would skyrocket.
    Pile on more Obama and Hillary taxes and we will be in a recession right after the election, as professional investors continue to flee the stock market and hide their savings overseas.

    Reply
  32. Lee Muller

    bud claims he is a state government employee, looking forward to milking a lavish retirement system to which he contributed almost nothing. No surprise there.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.