Well I’m not the only one that thinks the process needs a bit of an overhaul. What you sort of miss is that it is precisely in a contest as close as this that the idiosyncrasies of the process can cause such havoc. Florida would not be an issue if the party had a central power structure that could exert power of the States. But that’s not how it works at the moment.

“The sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan were A-OK by the Clinton camp, until they became politically inconvenient and on and on and on…”

Yes, just as it doesn’t suit Obama to have them counted – for the time being. Either way its pretty much politics as usual from both sides

“But please keep bleating about the misogynistic right-wing punditocracy.”

It will be my pleasure although I’m more disappointed that liberals are doing this.

“I guess you’ve drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid that goalposts are made to be shifted.”

It’s a close race, the rules are a bit crazy, people can argue over the goal posts. I don’t see a problem with that.

If Obama wins, as he’s most likely to, he’ll have been the most favoured by the idiosyncrasies of the process, and I don’t have a problem with that. But despite all the hype, he is winning by the slimmest of margins and may very well have less of the popular vote than Hillary in the end. He is also the weaker candidate against McCain. That’s the reality. For all of the Great Uniter rhetoric – he’s just squeaking through.

So I don’t know where the quite extraordinary animosity towards Clinton comes from. It’s certainly not justified on the basis of policy differences – they are relatively small.

Oh, What’s not surprising is that right wing arseholes like Sullivan have jumped on this but that liberal pundits have as well. The jerk circle of the male pundocracy.

NeilM:

Bitter, much? I keep forgetting that Saint Hillary bears no accountability for her own words (which in this case I found more weird and tone-deaf than sinister), let alone anything that happens in her own campaign. And might I add, Neil, that you might not approve of the Democratic primary rules but they’re the ones Clinton agreed to live by when she entered the race. I just find it farcical the way she’s tried to wrap herself in the moral authority of the civil rights and suffrage movements — which to me is self-evidently absurd. She and her proxies are comparing the 2008 Florida primary to the outcome of the 2000 election, and I’ve challenged you elsewhere to explain how any sane equivalence can be drawn and you’ve failed to do so. The popular vote didn’t matter when she was ahead in the delegate count. Caucuses were undemocratic, until she started winning a few. The sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan were A-OK by the Clinton camp, until they became politically inconvenient and on and on and on…

I’ve always said it’s healthy for any political party when senior leadership roles aren’t filled by coronations, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight the Clinton camp shouldn’t have brought into the whole ‘inevitability’ meme the media was peddling. But please keep bleating about the misogynistic right-wing punditocracy. I guess you’ve drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid that goalposts are made to be shifted.

Multiple post overload!!!!

didn’t.read.one.word

I don’t know how you feel about wasting your own time Niel but you’re also wasting ours.

Drudge took a few words from a 20 minute interview, took them competely out of context – and the media feeding frenzy then ensued. What’s not surprising is that right wing arseholes like Sullivan have jumped on this but that liberal pundits have as well. The jerk circle of the male pundocracy.

It reminds me of the non-story of Michelle Obama and her “proud of the US” comments. The Right jumped on her for that. That really is where the level of political analysis is at.

wot, like being more likely to beat McCain come Nov?

You don’t like her Craig, but facts are facts, she’s got 1/2 the Dem party behind her. Her support base remains strong and very loyal, she’s still wining primaries by big margins. She’s doing worse in the pledeged delegate count than she should be because the Dems have a fucked selection process. She could possibly come out with more of the popular vote than Obama.

Why should she drop out?

On a human level, I can understand why Clinton doesn’t want to quit — but I just wish she’d bow out with a little dignity and good grace. The self-justifications are growing more absurd and desperate by the day, and if nothing else you’ve got to wonder whether she’s doing her chances of winning a senior leadership role or plum committee assignments in the next Senate no good at all.

should be – he does better in the less well attended causcases.

the link for the delegates per voter point is -

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/25/5473/21652

As Clinton and the voters of Florida and Michigan have every right to do. That is not breaking the rules – the rules explicitly allow for this to be put before the Rules Committee. The DNC can change its mind and voters can lobby for it to do so. That this gets called “breaking the rules” is silly. But if you take exception to this then maybe you could take a look at home Obama first got elected to the Illinois senate – legalistic challenges to knock his Dem opponents off the ballot. And he particularly went for an older more experienced black woman. Things haven’t changed much.

“Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.”

Oh yes he has. Axelrod explicitly stated this – I don’t have a problem with them trying that one on, it’s just politics but it’s completely absurd for Hillary to be accused of racism when she is arguing that to win in Nov the Dems do need the working class vote. You can read more about the issue here – http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/25/154246/238

“Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal.”

Then I suppose Obama’s “lies” were no small deal either. I’m a little more generous to both – I think “lies” far too harsh.

“Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.”

Yeah a bit over heated – but then people can also judge Obama by his not wanting those votes counted unless it suites him. Does that not warrant a little bit of outrage?

It’s completely understandable that conservatives want to demonise Hillary but why liberals should want to is a complete mystery. If the objective is for the Dems to win in Nov then Clinton has to be taken seriously. She consistently does better against McCain than Obama in the Gallup tracking poll – http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx

And if you look at an analysis of Obama’s voting base the degree of surety that he’s the one to beat McCain is a bit misplaced –

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal.html

(An interesting point to note is that Obama gets more pledged delegates per voter – he does better in the less well attended primaries. In short, this contest is a tie. But if you think Obama is winning then he’s winning by the slimmest of margins. Obama’s supporters demonise Hillary and her supporters at their peril).

As Clinton and the voters of Florida and Michigan have every right to do. That is not breaking the rules – the rules explicitly allow for this to be put before the Rules Committee. The DNC can change its mind and voters can lobby for it to do so. That this gets called “breaking the rules” is silly. But if you take exception to this then maybe you could take a look at home Obama first got elected to the Illinois senate – legalistic challenges to knock his Dem opponents off the ballot. And he particularly went for an older more experienced black woman. Things haven’t changed much.

“Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.”

Oh yes he has. Axelrod explicitly stated this – I don’t have a problem with them trying that one on, it’s just politics but it’s completely absurd for Hillary to be accused of racism when she’s arguing that to win in Nov the Dems do need the working class vote. You can read more about the issue here – http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/25/154246/238

“Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal.”

Then I suppose Obama’s “lies” were no small deal either. I’m a little more generous to both – I think “lies” far too harsh.

“Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.”

Yeah a bit over heated – but then people can also judge Obama by his not wanting those votes counted unless it suites him. Does that not warrant a little bit of outrage?

It’s completely understandable that conservatives want to demonise Hillary but why liberals should want to is a complete mystery. If the objective is for the Dems to win in Nov then Clinton has to be taken seriously. She consistently does better against McCain than Obama in the Gallup tracking poll – http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx

And if you look at an analysis of Obama’s voting base the degree of surety that he’s the one to beat McCain is a bit misplaced –

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal.html

(An interesting point to note is that Obama gets more pledged delegates per voter – he does better in the less well attended primaries. In short, this contest is a tie. But if you think Obama is winning then he’s winning by the slimmest of margins. Obama’s supporters demonise Hillary and her supporters at their peril).

“her dog-whistle racist appeal to “white Americans”, ”
NeilM – complete BS. She emphasised workers at a time when Obama was making a case that he didn’t need them.
+ Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.

“her claims of dodging sniper-fire at Tuzla”
NeilM – on the same level as Obama’s embellishment of the Kennedy family’s involvement in his family getting to the US. Big deal.
+ Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal. They were a critical part of Clinton’s claim to being “experienced”.

“her equating her campaign to the civil rights and suffrage campaign”
NeilM – no idea what you’re talking about. Many women have supported Hillary because she’s a woman, because of the symbolism. Can’t see the problem.
+ Hillary Clinton made the claims on 21 May 2008. Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.

And we had the UK by-election result on Friday afternoon.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30069_Media_Hyperventilating_Over_Hillary_Ignored_Mrs._Obama

I, too, think that far too much is being read into this, but in typical fashion the Obamarites will distort any statement by anybody in pursuit of their claim. The NYT is not a non-partisan source either.

The Clintons really do take the lust for power to new heights (or is it depths?)

- she’s made some strategic mistakes and which will cost her the nomination.

“her attempt to overturn the DNC rules (which she herself helped estalish) regarding Florida and Michigan’

- she’s done nothing of the sort, you don’t understand the process.

“her dog-whistle racist appeal to “white Americans”, ”

- complete BS. She emphasised workers at a time when Obama was making a case that he didn’t need them.

“her claims of dodging sniper-fire at Tuzla”

- on the same level as Obama’s embellishment of the Kennedy family’s involvement in his family getting to the US. Big deal.

“her equating her campaign to the civil rights and suffrage campaign”

- no idea what you’re talking about. Many women have supported Hillary because she’s a woman, because of the symbolism. Can’t see the problem.