TIME magazine’s Mark Halperin calls it Hillary Clinton’s “baldest” appeal to Florida and Michigan voters. Fernando Suarez of CBS News calls it a “desperate” ploy for attention to her cause to seat Florida and Michigan delegates. TNR’s Jonathan Chait calls it a “shocking gambit” and “simply incredible.” And of course Excitable Andy is gobsmacked/ nauseated/ heartsick at her “shameless” and “unconscionable” efforts; her poor losing is “so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology” that she cannot be considered by Obama for veep (as if).
Comparing the struggles of the voters in Florida and Michigan to those of abolitionists, suffragists and the current plight of Zimbabweans is indeed ridiculous hyperbole. But the equally hyperbolic reaction from people who have so much less at stake than Clinton is riotously amusing in its naiveté.
The spectre of Hillary Clinton as Jesse Jackson has been apparent for months. But go back to January and you will find lefty bloggers Jerome Armstrong and Chris Bowers reporting that sources in the DNC were admitting that Michigan and Florida would be seated. At the time, after quoting MI Rep. Coleman Young Jr., I noted:
The key term there is disenfranchised. Democrats still claim (albeit without evidence) that voters in Florida were disenfranchised in 2000. The DNC does not really want to be in the business of disenfranchising voters in Florida… and if it does not penalize Florida, fairness – and the desire to avoid antagonizing these voters in the general election – will demand that Michigan be seated also.
Moreover, as to Michigan, it was established at the time that Obama and other candidates removed their names from the ballot due to a political maneuver by Obama to keep the focus of the race on Iowa:
Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed — but only under condition of anonymity — that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
So, putting aside Clinton’s currently extreme rhetoric, the winning candidate now finds himself in the position of having to address these disputes without annoying the political establishments in Florida (a state Obama thinks is critical to the GOP) and Michigan (which is probably equally important for Obama to win). The current polling places Obama significantly behind in Florida and dead even in Michigan. He finds himself playing catch-up organizationally. He traded short-term advantage for a long-term headache.
That headache was exacerbated by the DNC, which chose to go beyond the standard sanction for moving a primary too close to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, stripping these delegations of all of their votes, instead of half. On the other hand, if the DNC always contemplated seating the delegations, eventually settling on the standard sanction looks more like a compromise. In the meantime, however, it has created a lot of unnecessary sturm and drang — not least among the pundit class which finds itself so deeply in the tank for Obama that it feels compelled to ignore the closeness of a race between evenly matched candidates and favor the harshest treatment for states Obama would like to win in a general election.
Next: Karl reveals how and why Barack Obama started the Great Chicago Fire.
He should’ve warmed his hands before trying to milk Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.
#2: LOL!
Sounds like a self-inflicted, politically naive move in Michigan. He knew he would get beat in FL. Keep up the good fight, Hillary. No more disenfranchisement of Florida voters !!!!!!!!!
http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/t100/index.jsp
5 and 2 really ain’t all that great, Lisa.
Ah, the sweet, gentle flapping sound of the identity politics chickens coming home to roost.
JD: Clinton Lover! (that’s worst than Jihadist!) You…(spittle flying) Voted for HER! I Utterly DENOUNCE YOU!!!!
TAKE THAT UMBRAGE_GIVER!
I shudder to think of how Olberdickface responded to this.
I heard Rush yesterday fanning the flames, encouraging Hillary to involve the Justice Department to ensure that Florida delegates were seated.
Democrats suing each other to get a few meaningless votes? Priceless!
Next, let’s see the superdelegates trot Al Gore back on stage, to ‘save the day’. Lucas, Spielberg, eat your skulls out. Can’t touch this.
Next: Karl calculates the probability that Obama is actually Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s love child.
While your laughing at those laughing at Hillary, explain their naiveté. Are they measurably dumber than you by rote of your proclamation as such? Seems rather naive to assume such elevation, especially seeing how you’re just one of many, many assumption-riddled opinion huffers.
yeah, I really she is the most conservative of the three recent candidates for President. Maybe a Max Rafferty moment will knock out Obama in the waning moments…but doubt it. (look back at Nixon’s career and remember uber conservative Rafferty’s attempt to take the Calif. Senate seat like ’68 or so….the press found out at the last minute that he was a draft dodger during WW2 while masquarading as the super patriot. Really no wonder, Newt and other conservatives have found her to be preferable as the Clinton’s have been the best thing for Conservatives ever in the last 20 years. And worst thing for Democrats since Carter. Narcissistic, and destructive (except for Clinton’s modest tax increases for the infrastructure that helped build the ‘biggest peacetime expansion’ in recent history middle ’90s_).
Go ☻bama!!! ☺bama, yeah!
And worst thing for Democrats since Carter.
Funny how the worst thing can happen to a Democrat is to actually get elected.
#5: You outdid me. Curse you!
thor, datadave, blowbama.
Really, Lisa? Remember “Obama’s Iowa Strategy”?
#10: While your laughing at those laughing at Hillary, explain their naiveté. Are they measurably dumber than you by rote of your proclamation as such? Seems rather naive to assume such elevation, especially seeing how you’re just one of many, many assumption-riddled opinion huffers.
What cracks me up is that Karl actually believes his shit. If he were like Rush, just admitting he was trying to inject as much bullshit into the fight as possible for his own amusement, I would respect him more. But his “outrage on behalf of sweet, dear Hillary” is laughable, at best.
Shorter Karl: Obama was devious and vile for playing by the rules. Now he is screwed, as well he should be.
#15: Yes, I do. I still don’t see how Michigan and Florida being disenfranchized his his fault.
Clearly not his fault, Lisa. At the same time, he cannot claim to have been victimized by not being on the ballot when it was his choice to take his name off of the ballot, strategically. Any votes they give him in Florida will be gifts. Personally, I just want them to disenfranchise 2 entire battleground states.
It’s a tough one. But the one thing that shines through, is that history will remember the Democrats under the Dean Regime as the dumbest bunch of cannibals since Gilligan’s Island.
Michigan only wanted to get their issues on the front page, because unless you don’t have cable in your cave, they are suffering the most from the idiot Democrat and Rino’s buying into the AGW and the Dems eschewing of personal responsibility in exchange for victimhood which has had a drastic effect on the housing and mortgage markets.
But Obama and Hillary told them early to stay in their place – their dark little closet and, if elected, maybe they would toss them a crumb or two. But until then, Michigan should be seen and not heard.
Oh, and you’ll get those fucking thermostats down to 68 up there in the UP, if you know what’s good for you. I’m telling you, be very careful. I would not turn your heat up if I were you.
/Prince Humperdink
Lisa, what would arguably be his fault, NOW, is to fail to recognize the results of a strategy that in hindsight, did not offer pure advantage. And to fail to recognize folks to took their petards to the polls, and troubled to vote.
Horrible writing but there’s a point in there somewhere. Kind of like a big lump of dog shit with a rich creamy filling.
Dang auto-sock inserter.
And “who”, not “to”, took their petards.
I was, of course, talking about my writing Sarah. It probably goes without saying, though.
I’ll put my helmet back on.
#18, 20: Agreed. I see your point. This debacle is not his fault. However, he should not go down the Yellowbrick Road of Delusional Victimhood.
they are suffering the most from the idiot Democrat and Rino’s buying into the AGW and the Dems eschewing of personal responsibility in exchange for victimhood which has had a drastic effect on the housing and mortgage markets.
You are so right. You know what? My Dem family members are still blaming it on Engler.
MayBee,
When you tell me I’m right, I get a thrill up my leg.
Check that, my “Oops I Crapped My Pants” are on “FULL”.
Nothing pleases me more than hearing about your crap-filled pants, alppu.
#28: LOL!
Than you future is so bright, you oughta wear something to protect your eyes from the UV rays.
Provided that your buying that accessory does not prohibit some German from updating his black-socks-and-sandal-collection. You do not want to piss off a European in you fit of joy.
r
Dangit, the software is swallowing my links again.
#16 Lisa — I’d watch that, if I were you. thor has the excuse of blind stupidity. You have no such handicap.
I gather from the tone of his writing that Karl doesn’t think either one of those people is fit to be President of Barry&Hill’s Lemonade Stand, but he is first and foremost a techwonk who is interested in analyzing the mechanics of the process. Reading a pro-Hillary, anti-Barack meaning into it is projectionist revisionism.
You should read Wikipedia’s articles on the United States presidential election, 1976 and the companion piece on the Democratic Party’s United_States presidential primaries 1976 before you pontificate. Wikipedia is generally undependable, but I was around while it was going on, and that’s pretty much how I remember it. In particular, the Time cover depicting the triumphant march up Fifth Avenue, with Carter’s smile leading the way like Rudolph’s nose, sticks in the mind. The parallels are striking. A new and untested selection procedure, an outsider who figured out how to take advantage of the unforeseen consequences of the technical details, and an oversized field of hopefuls diluting the advantages of the Establishment candidates…
For something a little more hopeychangey from your point of view, you might take a quick look at Wiki’s United States presidential election, 1852 as well. It would also be worth your while if you followed up by checking on the fortunes of the winner. Parallels, indeed.
It’s not apparent to me that Karl thinks even as highly of Hillary! as you do. Analyzing the way Obama is and has been taking advantage of The System in ways its inventors did not anticipate is not the same thing as being in the tank for anybody.
Regards,
Ric
Ric, get a job.
Why, thank you, thor. It’s always nice when people confirm my hypotheses out of their own experience.
Regards,
Ric
#33: I think you are reading way too much into my disagreement, Ric. I am not some wild-eyed Obama supporter. I don’t think Karl is supporting Clinton (now that would be true delusion) so much as trying to give the impression that Obama screwed her and the good people of Michigan and Florida. And I see nothing wrong with supporting her. She has been an oustanding public servant and there are just as many reasons to support her as ther are to angrily denounce her as a craven bitch. My opninion is that Karl is reaching into his asscrack for his “analysis” on this one. Karl writes plenty of outstanding analysis. But I think he is wrong here – and possibly doing the equivalent of shouting “Kick his ass! Come on, are you gonna take that shit?!” from the sidelines of an afterschool scuffle.
Obama screwed her and the good people of Michigan and Florida.
Obama screwed himself, and is now hoping the DNC will bail him out.
Ric,
The analogy with ’76 breaks dow a bit when you consider that Carter (like Clinton) had been subjected to at least a modicum of superficial scrutiny prior to annointment. Bubba is actually a bit closer in the sense that Carter wasn’t carrying the stink of corruption when he stepped on the stage. The media had to work a bit to convince the electorate that the Bubbastink was actually attar of roses. I don’t think there is enough ink or pixels to cover the stink from something dredged from the sewers of the Chicago machine.
But Lisa used the term “cockpunch” in a sentence, so I give her plenty of room.
How anyone reads this as pro-HRC is beyond me. I expect clelessnes from thor, but not Lisa. It’s anti-gobsmackedness.
I’m merely pointing out that: (a) HRC’s current idiocy was not only foreseeable, but foreseen by me months ago; and (b) the Sullys of the world are falling over themselves for O! so much that they are probably harming his ultimate interest in uniting his party behind him.
To Lisa’s #36,
I don’t think O! screwed HRC — he screwed himself by gaining a short-term advantage re MI. Or do you think O! would be doing worse in MI and FL now if he had campaigned there during the primaries?
#40: Karl: I never said it was pro-HRC. Dont be deliberately stupid. It is not an effective tool for getting your point across. They can get away with that on the Sunday talk shows but you can’t.
The DNC screwed the people of Michigan and Florida, and Obama is satisfied with the screwing because it benefits him. What Obama is not concerned about is the primary voters of Michigan and Florida.
We are watching political gamesmanship here, and yelling “kick his ass” from the sidelines is entirely appropriate.
I’m not calling you pro-HRC; I’m suggesting you badly misread my post.
MayBee,
I don’t think “Obama is satisfied with the screwing because it benefits him,” because it really does not benefit him… now. But his “friends” in the MSM are bent on stoking the resentments over it, which does not help O! at all.
because it really does not benefit him… now
Why? I think it benefits him until he has the nomination pinned to his chest.
#41: I think he did what all of the candidates agreed to do – refrain from campaigning in FL and MI. Yes, if he would have gone against the rules and campaigned in both of those places, he would have been doing great. But ALL of the candidates agreed that it the edict on MI and FL were fair and that they would abide by them. Only one decided to do something different (and call it “fundraising” rather than campaigning). That was a great strategy because that candidate was able to stick that in her pocket for later use. Believe me, we would not be talking about disinfranchised voters if she would have continued to stomp Edwards and Obama like she was doing at first. To try to take her maneuver – which was a very clever one – and somehow pull out of your ass that he was the one maneuvering is ridiculous.
Lisa,
I think the evidence is pretty clear that B.H.O. was maneuvering. Suppose for a moment that B.O.’s and Hillary’s positions are reversed. Suppose he won Mich and Flor. What would he be doing now, bending gracefully to the silly rules of the DNC and renouncing his votes? Or trying everything he could think of to get them credited?
“Go ☻bama”
Black face smiley…Racist!!
Lisa, the point is that both of them were “maneuvering”, just in different ways.
Obama’s strategy recalls Carter’s in ’76: there are a new set of rules, and he is taking advantage of them. Specifically, caucuses are (or were, at the time) easier for him to carry than straight elections, so he was perfectly willing to go along with abandoning FL and MI in order to pursue his preferred method. Clinton’s, on the other hand, is simple, old-fashioned hard-knuckled politics, perhaps a little easier to recognize and account for. That doesn’t mean that she is any more cynical or opportunistic than he is — it simply means that they have different interpretations of “opportunity”.
Complimenting an analysis that deprecates one, and going ballistic when a succeeding post points out defects in the other, says little or nothing about Karl, but a great deal about yourself.
Regards,
Ric
Only one decided to do something different (and call it “fundraising†rather than campaigning).
Didn’t he have a “national” ad buy that just happened to play in FL?
The “they didn’t campaign there!” argument is a loser, imo. Did you go to a Hillary or Obama rally? I sure didn’t see anyone spending much time glad handing in my area. Yet I was able to conjure up a decision on whom to vote for. I’ll bet you were, too.
We might not be talking about disenfranchisement if she’d stomped Edwards and Obama, but we can play the “if” game all day with different results. IF he thought he’d get the votes, Obama wouldn’t have blocked re-votes in MI and FL. IF he thought the votes as they stand wouldn’t hurt him, he would let the delegates be seated.
#48: sdferr….I would have to say the latter. And he would be getting a smacking like Hillary is getting.
He probably would have been crushed by now because he was just some also-ran at the time – he definitely did not have the kind of position in the party that The Hills had (and has). If he had made that kind of move and defied the DNC at that time, we would be saying right now “Remember that guy with the funny name who was running for prez…what was his name?”
#51: If your point is that they should run primaries now, I would agree. If they just take the delegates and split them, fine again. But to dole them out based on the “election” which was a farce – as there was no official DNC primary and only one candidate was on the MI ballot – is a bad idea.
“What would he be doing now”
Working his bare knuckles to the bone? He does have the Chicago machine tactics down pretty well and I’ve seen no evidence of scruples or principles being involved in any of his decisions. He’s a decent bookend to Clinton.
The dog ate my link –
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?page=1
He probably would have been crushed by now because he was just some also-ran at the time – he definitely did not have the kind of position in the party that The Hills had (and has).
The biggest surprise of this primary for me has been to see the number of people with strong positions in the party that have lined up to throw Hillary under the bus. Collectively, they seem to crush her position in the party.
If he had made that kind of move and defied the DNC at that time, we would be saying right now “Remember that guy with the funny name who was running for prez…what was his name?â€Â
You misunderestimate his talent for political calculation and manipulation. He hasn’t won an election without using the rules to have others disqualified (or using allies to have others humiliated).
It is an equally bad idea to give Baracky all of the votes that we cast for not-Hillary. Nobody is guaranteed to be on the ballot, and if Baracky was naive enough to think that taking his name off of a ballot in a battleground primary state was a good idea, then he should just deal with the consequences. The DNC is going to have to get creative to make everyone happy. His name was on the ballot in Florida, and he should get no more than the number that voted for him.
Rick – Amen.
You misunderestimate his talent for political calculation and manipulation. He hasn’t won an election without using the rules to have others disqualified (or using allies to have others humiliated)
Well said.
#51: If your point is that they should run primaries now, I would agree. If they just take the delegates and split them, fine again. But to dole them out based on the “election†which was a farce – as there was no official DNC primary and only one candidate was on the MI ballot – is a bad idea.
My main point is that it was a DNC screw up and it was always going to be a screw up and the fact that the DNC didn’t recognize it from the outset is pretty illustrative of why I don’t like the Democrats as a party (not that I love the Rep party either).
You can’t fairly do anything with the votes as they stand now, because the voters (and potential voters) were told they weren’t going to count. A re-vote would be a logistical nightmare. There is no answer, there was only prevention. So whatever the two candidates are saying now is going to be
a)unfair to the voters and
b)calculated to be what is best for them, politically.
There is no good answer or high principle. It is just politics.
#47 (and generally)
The only thing I fault O! for on any of this was taking his name off the MI ballot and encouraging others to do so, which was required by no one and ultimately too cute by half. Since Axelrod is publicly saying O! is willing to go “more than halfway” toward HRC on these issues, I’m pretty sure O! agrees.
As for the delegate allocation, O! has quietly been snagging the uncommitted delegates in MI, so the real advantage to him now is to reap the goodwill of FL & MI by appearing magnanimous, because he’ll still have pretty much the same delegate lead.
In general, anyone who thinks a successful politician “just does” anything is deluding himself, especially during a campaign. I would like to believe that they are just like normal people, too, and have scruples and shit, but I have learned as I have aged that it is not so.
The only thing I fault O! for on any of this was taking his name off the MI ballot and encouraging others to do so, which was required by no one and ultimately too cute by half.
Too cute, perhaps. As I said, I think he was purposefully making it impossible to count MI at some point in the future because he knew he’d lose Michigan.
#50: I am new around here, but I have always enjoyed how frank – and oftentimes a bit terse – the discussions are. Most of the people are actually pretty mature and don’t see a disagreement (even a bit of ribbing or eye rolling) as someone going “ballistic”.
But thanks, I will take that under advisement, and try to calm my wild histrionics.
#61: True cranky. I would not doubt he was damned glad not to have to spend money on states that he would likely have lost. But that is really not relevant now. He did the right thing even if it did work in his favor. To say now that one candidate playing by the rules and another candidate not playing by the rules are equivalent is, I think, erroneous.
Lisa, of course I’m overstating it — exaggeration for dramatic effect. Still, from the point of view of someone who doesn’t like either one of those people, though for different reasons, Karl’s posts look pretty evenhanded and technical. If it looks to you like Hillary! is getting hit and Obama a pass, or vice versa, I strongly suggest that it’s more in your perceptions based on favoritism for one or the other than it is in the post(s). Their maneuvers are different, and that lets partisans define one set as “just politics” and the other as vileness. Both are correct at one point or another, and both are equally wrong.
Regards,
Ric
#65: I understand your point. However, my disagreement with the premise of his statement is not that it is not “fair and balanced” who gives a crap whether it favors Hillary or Obama? I don’t know where I ever indicated that that mattered to me. I don’t share the right’s idea that every point someone makes has to be first vetted for whether it is favorable to one’s political viewpoint or not. I have, and always will, reject that bullshit.
I just think the whole premise is wrong (and I like I said, I think he doing a bit of gleeful egging on of this ridiculous primary squabbling). If the situation were reversed and he made the same analysis about Hillary Clinton, I would say the same thing.
Not that I would not be egging it on if it were Republicans doing the bickering. I would be jumping up and down and cackling like a monkey with a barrel full of bananas.
– Yomama is harking forth, with widespread media coverage, doing his VP selection dance. There are many ways of declaring victory.
– Lisa. If you posted that second line on a LeftBlog, you’d immediately be greeted with shouts of:
RACIST !!!!111eleventyone1111!!!!
– *chuckle*
#68: True dat.
– On topic, whether you believe that the events that have transpired were contrived manipulation, dumb luck, or lack there of, or the results of bad campaign decisions, and equally bad DNC decisions, is a bit immaterial at this point. At least to to anyone other than a dyed in the wool political historian.
– What is relevant remains the fact that the Dems as a group, DNC and candidates, and state machines, have dug a very deep hole that has no good answers, just limp attempts to recover the day.
– As I postulated yesterday, they are screwed if they do, and screwed if they don’t, but probably more screwed for a longer period of time, and with worse consequences, if they don’t. Things are going to be a mess at the convention just dealing with a mob of pissed off feminists, let along the delegations from two disenfranchised states. I think the hardest nosed of O’s followers have divined this, and that is why you see him scaling back his interference toward a resolution, not from any high minded altruism. One thing you can take to the bank. All politicians worship at the alter of self preservation, winning elections, and shit-tracking your opponent anytime its possible, and O comes out of a region infamous for leading the pack in skunk politics. Couple that with the Clintons track record, and what you’ve get is two very political animals, both capible of doing anything necessary to get elected.
– BTW, his position delegate wise will only be effected marginally if MI and FL are somehow properly distributed and seated. What has his non-afro in a twist is that she will probably exceed him in popular vote if normal primaries are run in those states, which is the lynch pin of her argument. I’m pretty sure thats why hes fought against that possibility, which of course is a parallel with the old “electoral college vs popular vote” debate.
– Fox is reporting that Rove has been subpoenad by the House concerning the AG firings. Apparently the media pressure surrounding the Farm bill debacle got to them.
#70, 71: Agreed. You make some very excellent points. No matter what action we take as a party, we are going to have some really pissed off people at the convention. I pray we don’t do a 68 redux, but I don’t hold out much hope.
And though really I like Obama, but I don’t think he is an innocent lamb being menaced by the she-Beast. They are just doing the nomination two-step now. His saintly gasping and pearl clutching in response to her assertion that those MI and FL delagates are hers is part of the game.
Crazy enough, but I just had a surreal watercooler discussion with a foaming, rabid Obamabot professor in which I used a bunch of Karl’s analysis to refute his wild eyed assertions that Hillary Clinton is an evil shrieking harpy – me arguing that they are both trying to out maneuver each other and that each took full advantage of the DNC’s stupid-assed decision. I prefer Obama, but I am totally okay with the Hills. They are not that much different on policy matters. And she is not doing anything evil and backdoor. She is just playing the game. So after arguing all morning about this shit, I end up using Karl’s very post to douse the flames of my incensed co-worker.
Sigh. I just I detest the idea of our party imploding because we are so stupid and overwrought that we vote against ourselves based on this freaky HillBama craziness. Sometimes I wonder if Democrats hate Democrats more than the opposition hates Democrats.
But I still like the Obizzay. I hope he wins.
– I think hes a likable guy. Given McDinosaur as punishment to the Conservatives, if I could be sure he’d do a Clinton, (minus the WH hyjinks), I would vote for him.
Big Bang Hunter (PYU) at #70:
I move that your third paragraph up there should be set aside for inclusion into the text of the objective history of this campaign.
I cannot articulate my further point; damn this brain fade thing.
1. It’s good to be good at process.
2. Hard work and discipline are important.
3. Winning an election does not equal being equipped to perform any particular task.
4. History is not over. There may not always be an America. Freedom is not free.
5. Governments do not produce.
6. The only mechanism that creates wealth is a just, free market place. And that wealth comes, for the most part, from the efforts of individuals, not groups.
7. Governments do not produce.
8. People in caves or palaces on other continents are much less able, or likely to threaten our lives, happiness, and liberties as are folks with jobs paid for with U.S. Treasury checks.
9.
I believe U.S. politics have transcended partisan differences. I’m officially scared of both of ’em, and will continue to be until the coming crisis shakes out the worst of the bunch.
– As an aside, a new poll shows Hill beating McCain in all three swing states, Florida, Ohio, and PA, while O! losses to him in Ohio and PA. Historically, no one has ever won the presidency without carrying at least two of those states. Yet more startling, her margins are much greater, 13 points in PA versus O’s 6, even in the two states O can carry.Couple that with the working class white vote/white women vote problems, and her arguments carry no small weight.
– Question is, will the Dems, ala Lisa’s voiced fears, go for ideology rather than the best chance to win. Politics versus prejudice, prejudice versus politics, which one will carry the day?
– Correction – “,13 points in Ohio to O’s winning margin of 6….”
– Correcting the correction – had it right the first time.
The Democrats’ judgment on “electability” has some historical context behind it.
Kerry.
Gore.
Dukakis.
Mondale.
I saw Obama on the news today getting in and out of a big-ass SUV. What kind of crazy foreign policy is that?
– McGehee – Where you been. Thats called nuance.
I think they’ve just been trying to lull the GOP into a false sense of security.
Judging by this year’s campaign, it’s working.