Login HereOBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?
I'm sure this will open up another round of "What Barack Obama really meant," but the most charitable explanation is that many independent voters who would support him will vote for a Republican before they'll vote for Hillary Clinton. Olbermann called it "impending political cannibalism," and it just did not sound good, especially when juxtaposed with Clinton's statement today:
As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the white house starting in January 2009.
To be fair, Edwards makes the "electability" argument all the time and I'm not wild about it there either, but Obama is taking it one step further and suggesting that some of his supporters objectively will never vote for Hillary Clinton. "Some people" won't vote for her because she's a woman and some won't vote for Barack Obama because he's an African American and so the "electability" argument is always going to have a nasty, unspoken dog whistle to it in this race. Which is all the more reason for any Democratic candidate, when they're making that argument, to say that they'll do everything in their power to get their supporters to line up behind the eventual nominee, no matter the outcome.
Because we've been down the other road before, where everybody who doesn't win takes their marbles and goes home. And it wasn't good.
(h/t scarce for the video)
Share This 
Spotlight
Wahoo!
Cannabalism
Jane!
I hate this shit.
This year more than ever in modern times it is imperative that following the primaries we ALL support the candidate. WHICHEVER candidate.
If a Republican takes the Oath of Office in 2009, I am not confident that the United States will ever recover. We need extensive reform and repair to the infrastructure of Federal governance, to say nothing of the restoration of the Bill of Rights, and the removal of corporate influence over Congress.
Say what you will, in a result oriented world, Obama sure looks like he’s running the best campaign …
I agree.
We need to spend less time on
American IdolThe Presidential races, and more time on issues we can motivate toward meaningful change.{{{{Jane}}}}
I saw that 3 hours ago and it’s still bothering me…
This is really bad blood and it’s only the beginning…
Not good…
HRC is drop jaw pissing me off. Edwards showed a lot of class on KO.
Hear Hear !!!
… any plans of coming to Toronto, ET ?
And I heard Hillary say that whomever the democratic candidate is, we will all get behind him/her. What a difference.
Bon Soir, Ma Cheri!
CT, nice to see ya on the tubes again. how many days were you without tubes?
I must confess that while I may ultimately grit hard on the bullet and pull the lever for Hillary Clinton, I am finding it more and more difficult to do so.
This is really making me question whether I must stand with party even at the expense of voting for someone I may not want to see as President.
Yes, I understand the dangers of a McCain Presidency, and the potentially comedically apocalyptic dangers of a Mitt Romney Presidency, and I will never vote for either.
But goddamn. If the Clintons are good at anything, it is testing my party loyalties. And testing them hard.
5 looong agonizing days… *g*
Interesting. I’m feeling the same way about Obama. I find his emerginly evident hubris like nails on a blackboard. And his empty-suitness.
I’m putting off or rescheduling any concert appearances outside of Alaska until after the November elections, so I can put a lot of time, energy and presence into getting Don Young and Ted Stevens defeated.
I dunno. I first supported Edwards ’cause of the “electability thing.” Nobody’s come along that convinced me not to support him anymore. this is something that ahs to be talked about and dealt with. I’m tired of losing Presidential elections and I think Hillary is the least electable of the Dem candidates. Although i thibk she’ll still win.
This is probbaly gonna get analyzed to the point opf making me take another sabattical from the campaign. There’s no there there. Obama didn’t say much of anything. He asks a legitimate question. Now can we move on?
Obama’s making an electability argument–maybe not a very good one–but this seems within bounds.
In that endeavor our great hope & fondest wishes are with you.
hey ted, i agree with wholeheartedly.
gee, ct, that’s a long time with no !!!’s
H. Clinton will never, ever get a vote or support from me, or others who remember how Bill Clinton ravaged his labor and environmental supporters.
Thanks for NAFTA and media consolidation, Bill!
As the great David Brower said:
an original founder of the Sierra Club, that” President Clinton has done more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years.”
from his renunciation of voting for the least worst at
http://www.earthisland.org/eij.....urnalID=57
won’t fall for that again, oi vey.
Predicting election results is not a science. Anyone who claims to know which of the three dems is more electable is fooling themselves, IMHO.
Every time I start to like either Hill or Barack they open their pie holes and I change my mind.
Alaska’s gain … our loss … we’ll see you on November 8th then ?!! *g*
the more they snipe at each other, edwards looks better and better*
*usual caveat, not made up my mind, etc.
There is some evidence to rely on. In the last Gallup poll Hillary Clinton had a 46% unfavorable rating.
I agree that the electability argument is not one I want to hear from any of the candidates.
It is not a forgone conclusion that all the animosity towards HRC is a matter of gender. She has the second most polarizing surname in Amarican politics as well.
I am voting for the Demogratic candidate in November, but I have to admit that neither of the two front-runners has shown me anything that I will be particularly passionate about.
In 2004 I couldn’t help agreeing with the picture of Kerry7 and Edwards under the sign “We can do better” and agreeing in a way not intended by the friggin genius who came up with the slogan.
The effin Avis of politics.
The question is: How do we get ‘our’ candidates to stop leading the circular firing squad so effectivly. Do we just stop listening?
The Elko NV votes went to his head. He also had a bad time on the “Today”. Show
True, CT. Why are you short-changing the exclamation points? Lost all of your excitement after being down?
Even tho I’m an Edwards fan I know that there is a definitely a possibility that I will have to choice between either Hillary or Barack….
Gawd help me…
What can I say?
This sniping and maneuvering is not going to go away, even after Super Tuesday. All that is going to change is the intended target.
I personally don’t care for Clinton or Obama either one and I am really pissed off that Edwards is getting the bums rush by the media. Either way, I am sick to death of the never ending prostate exam with a rusty hammer that has been getting rougher by the day.
I am voting Democrat no matter who ends up on top of the heap. There is no alternative to that.
Marcel Marceau for President
Butr her unfavorability isn’t going up, and Obama’s would.
Jane…you’re right that other candidates veil the same statements in their remarks. But this is pretty explicit, and suggests that he would not work to bring his supporters to the eventual nominee if he doesn’t win.
And I’ve seen this site filled with the same logic by supporters of each of the candidates…usually made on personal grounds that they won’t vote for X if Y doesn’t win. I even read one letter to the editor today from someone who claimed to be a “liberal” saying that “Hillary is Republican-lite, and I’m going to vote for McCain if she is nominated”….Huh! You’d vote for a guy willing to keep us in Iraq for 100 years, whose ideas about healthcare is “private sector” and who doesn’t support anything but cuts in corporate taxes as an economic stimulus?
I have my issues with ALL the Democratic candidates, and am critical of all their stances on different issues. And I think that all want to be President (other than Kucinich, Gravel and perhaps Dodd) just a little too much. These are people with big egos, not just big ideas.
I’ve spent some time going over their legislative histories and been disappointed. I’m not to happy with their employment records, or their supporters and contributors.
But I realize that short of running myself no one is going to have precisely the same values as I, and I probably could not perfectly vets who donates or makes statements in my stead. And I just imagine how people could manipulate my past.
So despite my issues with these candidates, many of their policies and their supporters, I’m going to weigh who will be better (not best, because I’m not running)…BETTER for the country. I don’t wan’t another Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush, sorry!
Jane, I love you and respect you but please, read a blog here and there because there is a tidal wave of angry democrats, myself included, who are flat out done with the Clintons and their act. Black, white, latino/a, male, female, young, old, Obama supporters and Edwards supporters alike.
busted, i would say you nailed the bottom line but that rusty hammer still has me saying ouch
I’m really freakin’ tired of people who say they won’t vote for one of the three Dem candidates in the General election. Especially when they say it is because of particular issues that the Republicans are 1,000,000 times worse with. It’s not rational. Voting is strategy. It’s not some sort of spiritual affirmation of the candidate.
Go find your own playground to play in, please.
Is that an upswing rating because I think I’ve heard even more unfavorable ratings than that regarding Hillary….
Let’s be clear: if Mitt Romney is the nominee, then a 19th Century oak chiffaobe is more electable than him. Presidents on 24 are more three-dimensional and less cartoonish compared to Willard. Electability will not be an issue if he is the nominee.
But if it is McCain/Lieberman (mark my words), then there’s trouble in River City, kids.
I think that after the “Twin Clinton Attack” that has been waged on Obama, a lot of blacks believe that they have been duped by the Clintons and their supporters.
Its the same old same old about being good enough to push or pull the wagon, but not being good enough to ride in it.
That’s actually really funny.
Go Diane!
If you don’t like Democratic candidate X, consider that your alternative will be Republican candidate Y. You may not get everything you want from X, but you will get NOTHING you want from Y. Nothing.
The ship of State is listing hard to starboard and shipping water. You can choose which side of the ship to stand on, or you can hide in the bilge. Your choice.
I also saw all three candidates give their statement this evening and had a different reaction. Ideally, all DEMs and many Indys will support the Democratic nominee. However, Hillary and Edwards were stating a hopeful wish and Obama was making a truthful observation. No candidate can guarantee that their primary supporters will fall in line behind the nominee. Who is most electable and who can bring along the largest share of the Democratic Party and the Indys is a crucial question that needs to be addressed. I particularly thought Hillary was being arrogant when she clearly asserted that all DEMs would fall in line. That is simply not true, especially for her with her high negatives. Anyone that reads the blogs knows that ‘anybody but Hillary” is a frequent theme. Should Bloomberg enter the race if she is the nominee, the race is further complicated. We all want a DEM Administration, but counting on enough DEMs and Indys to support Hillary should be carefully analyzed.
So you’ll support a Republican candidate instead? I can read all the blogs in the world and never reach that conclusion.
I’m not saying there aren’t other reasons to oppose her, but because there is a lot of mysogyny and racism leading people to these decisions people have to be careful when making that argument that they aren’t unleashing dog whistle stuff.
I received an e-mail from an organization asking me to contact my senators and ask them to oppose telecom immunity. It included an e-mail to my senators for me to sign, which the organization would deliver to them. I decided to edit the pre-written e-mail and spice up the language a bit to emphasize the points I thought were important. Here is what I wrote:
“I am another one of your constituents opposed to immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law and violated our privacy rights while helping the Bush administration illegally spy on millions of American citizens.
You know all the details about the telecoms’ involvement in the National Security Agency’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. No doubt you have also heard arguments for and against immunity for the telecommunications companies.
I hope you have thought long and hard about the news reports detailing how some of the telecommunications companies cut off their wiretapping services when the government failed to pay its bills on time. This is a sure sign that their true motivation was profits, not protecting the nation.
I want to let you know that your constituents care deeply about the Constitution and are outraged when their privacy rights are violated — either by the government or by entities working with the government. When such violations occur, every entity involved should be expected to explain its actions in court. If you do not defend this principle, you are undermining the document that serves as the foundation of our nation.
So tell me, Senator: will you stand up to defend our Constitution, or cave in to the corrupt interests of the profit-motivated telecom companies while also shielding the lawbreakers in the Bush administration from the criminal liability that discovery in telecom lawsuits would surely expose? Please choose, instead, to support the Constitution and your country by opposing immunity for the telecommunications companies for their illegal acts.
(signed, neurophius)
Sure, but what matters is the dynamics of the campaign, how each candidate campaigns, and if you want to focus on negatives, what their negatives will be on November 2nd. It’s an unknown.
excellent letter, neuro
Didn’t sound like a statement of fact to me. Sounded like a petulant child who would pick up his marbles & sulk off to home.
Let’s see…
All Gooper candidates are completely insane, save one, and he’s a brain-donor…
Versus Hil, Barack, John…
There is a difference, Ralph.
He’s obviously embracing a tactic that succeeded for his mentor Sen Short Ride [I-Lieberman].
But hey - the Chicago machine pols have a long history of success
at the pollsin seeking office.Sen Suited Smile [D-Rezko’s side yard] is blessed with an abundence of “results oriented” advisors.
yep
Rather amusing, eh? At least the NSA is still recording’em…! ;-)
Me too. Obama is by far my least favorite but if he is the nominee, I will “pull the lever” with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. Ruin to the Thug Party!!
Good for you!
What happened to unity?
Hey Kirk, how’re you doing ?
Obama has popped off a few times like that now.
The other really bad one was the ‘likeable enough’ comment to Hillary.
Doesn’t sound hopeful to me.
-G
Back to the circular firing squad.
Obama made the electabiltiy argument inartfully. Instead of saying “I’m more electable in the general” he appeared to be saying “don’t vote for Hillary in the general.” But let’s face it, with Hillary Clinton, electability is an enormous consideration. She’s not going to win 60% in November. Alot of independent are not going to vote for her. There’s Clinton fatigue…etc.
Ditto my 63
Maybe you ought to read FDL.
Jane and other progressives boosted Ned Lamont to a primary win over JoeLie only to have Bubba and HRC give it back to JoeLie in the general.
Jane nailed it and she’s holding all three candidates to the identical standard:
Can’t really talk regarding other folks here but…
Just because I’m not in love with some of the other Dems on the potential prez dance card doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote for them if push comes to shove…
The very thought of McCain or Romney as a potentially serious consideration is beyond ridiculous…
I live in solid blue Maryland, which will go for Obama, Clinton, or Edwards no matter what. So I have a little luxury in knowing that my Presidential vote will not hold significant sway.
With that in mind, if Hillary and the disconcertingly more and more vocal former President keep up with their current anything-to-win strategy, I may take solace in writing in the Democrat I want to hold the office.
Who knows. What I do know is that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and wins the general, then I am going to place every radio I own up on e-bay and clear every blog bookmark I have, because we are in for four or eight more years of the kind of House Divided nonsense bullsh*t we heard from the Right. It will make the 1990s look like a goddamned meeting of the local Optimists Club.
As we speak, right now, somewhere in the world, Matt Drudge is genitally engorged at the prospect of another Clinton presidency, as is Jonah Goldberg. And yes, they may in fact be in the same room, together, enjoying the…uh, the moment.
I’m in the camp of thinking Obama’s remarks are being overinterpreted — he’s saying he can get Republicans and independents to vote for him, whereas the “polarizing” Hillary won’t.
He’s having to be blatant about it, and about calling Clinton a liar, because… well, because Super Venti Tuesday is coming up, and he needs to make up a 10-15% gap in the polls nationwide.
Of course, Barack’s still being naive (or deceptive) to pretend that the same people who helped make the Clintons “polarizing” aren’t licking their chops to do the same thing to him if he’s nominated.
Hey! Nobody told me Rumsfeld left the Pentagon.
This was one of the major themes in one of Rumsfeld’s first post-Pentagon public comments at a conference today on network centric warfare sponsored by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. According to Rumsfeld, the United States is losing the war of ideas in the Muslim world, and the answer to that, in part, is through the creation of this new government agency.
Another missed opportunity for the Democratic Leaderchimps.
-G
My motto is any D candidate is better than any R candidate. I don’t vote for R’s any more.
I think his ego is such that he actually believes the Republicans will vote for him. Appearing on the CBN, sending out Christian messaging campaign packets, Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell; I would like to know what David Axelrod is smoking.
Who is most electable and who can bring along the largest share of the Democratic Party and the Indys is a crucial question that needs to be addressed.
Addressed how? There’s no objective measurement of such a thing. At most, there are only two categories: “Electables” like the top three and obviously “unelectables” like Gravel. But beyond that, it’s just a bunch of pointless squabbling among Democratic voters. Any of the top three could win or lose.
I will vote for whoever takes the strongest stand regarding FISA and other constitutional issues, because I think that corrupt congressional leadership and the executive branch are de facto destroying the constitution, or at least setting very dangerous precedents. So, looks like that will be Edwards, given that Dodd is out.
Regarding the Democraic presidential nominee… whatever. Any one of them would be a thousands times better than any possbiel GOP candidate. I never have, and do not know understand the personality cult aspect of presidental politics. I hate it. I will turn the channel when a ‘presidential historian’ shows up to nincompoop away on TV, that is how strong my aversion is.
For me, congress is vital. That is the most important race. We need an aggressive congress with many more and much better Democrats, who will kick out Reid and Pelosi and restore constitutional government.
Even the best president cannot fix the mess the current scum have gotten us into. It is simply impossible -not even within their ability to do so. Congress congress congress! That is what is important.
Any Dem is fine. And rather than ‘analyzing’ Clintons supposed negatives, more important to persuade your friends and family about the extreme danger presented by any one of the GOP candidates.
I think US voters should think more about platforms of ideas plans and proposals, and less about personality driven presidential politics, which I think is dangerous narcissstic nonsense, and contributes to liberal and progressive difficulties in elections.
Okay, does that mean these wiretappings could be traced from the ATT bill that wasn’t paid for?…..
After all the circular firing is done, who do want putting someone in the Supreme Court.. Any of the Democrats or any of the Republicans.
It’s a simple question.
-G
P.S. John Gibson is a dick.
Just ask Alice Palmer.
Sounds ominous to me, COG rules might be advanced around November… 8-(
Hi backatcha, petro - I’m well amidst the rain and cold.
How are you up in that lovely democracy?
Exactly
I guess I worry that Obama always seem to have so much explaining to do… my initial reaction with this and the Reagan/party of ideas, etc. is just a gut-felt, “ICK!”
Excellent question… I wonder…?!
Well, sadly enough, I think that, objectionable as it may be, he’s up against that odious e-mail smear campaign and he has to convince a lot of low oxygen brains that he’s a Christian and not a head chopping Muslim.
It is pathtetic, but I am sure that is forwardmost in their minds with such egregious stuff.
-G
It’s cold outside but we’re well stocked with heating fluids … *g*
I agree with Jane that any Dem is better than any Repug, I just wish you had better choices … hint to Al Gore …
I do not think the location of the wiretap could be traced back from a non-paid bill (I could be wrong) but I think we could certainly get a count of the number of wiretaps not paid out of each billing office and then extrapolate that number to other billing offices that did not have wiretaps service cut off.
he’s saying he can get Republicans and independents to vote for him, whereas the “polarizing” Hillary won’t.
He can do it without using Republican talking points, even if those talking points are true!
Ding!
If people want to make the choice that feels best, I’m all for it - when buying sex toys.
On candidates, I care about policies, not personality and frisson.
(Besides, I wouldn’t wannna sleep with a Senator anyway. They’re all skanky. Blergh. Lobbyist cooties.)
Howie at Downwithtyranny is a respected, high traffic blogger, who is often linked to approvingly by your Alpha frontpagers here at FDL.
yet he has said things like
http://downwithtyranny.blogspo.....crats.html
which is what I am saying. It is tripe to say you have to eat some rancid DLC meat, because the (R) offering is more rancid. As good mainstream American consumers, you know better than this, you have lots of choices in all markets except politics. They don’t own you, and they certainly won’t represent your interests much better than the (R)’s.
If H. Clinton launches a nuclear first strike against Iran, I wouldn’t want to have a vote for her on my conscience.
Second that.
I read his “hope” book. He’s actually kind of charming when he talks about his own background (didn’t read his memoir), and he’s certainly glib. As a graduate of a (girl’s) Ivy League, I’m used to that sort of thing, so am not impressed. (Simiarly Hillary, who often impresses other people with how smart she is.)
Hard to articulate what I find missing in Obama. Let’s try “soul.” Though that doesn’t quite capture it, there is some lack of passion evident in his kumbayah message. I don’t want an ideologue’s passion, either. But just don’t find anything there.
I also have a strong visceral dislike for Obama, for completely inarticulable reasons. But I am old enough to know that when I tag someone as a bad guy, I am almost always right. I have a sinking feeling that if Obama is the next prez, we will have many many regrets.
Petro, from your keyboard to Al’s ears.
Clinton had actually the only approval ratings over 50% back in September. No candidate had such high figures since. Her disapproval ratings were also high then. But these haven’t changed very much.
Other candidates had lower approval ratings and bigger question-marks….but also lower disapproval ratings. This was simply because a) not as many people knew about them, and b) fewer people had any strong feelings for or against them.
As the campaigns have trundled on the disapprovals for Obama and Edwards have increased. Obamas support has increased, but his disapprovals have too. Edwards has pretty much stayed the same, with a slight increase in disapproval, mainly from the previous undecideds. Hillary has lost support, while her dislikes remained high.
I suspect the latter was due to drift from previous soft supporters who went to other candidates, and might return. And there is likely a 10% group in this bunch who say they won’t support Obama or Clinton that will not vote FOR any of the Republicans.
In a sense that brings the dislikes down for Clinton and Obama as these folks are not going to jump TO the opponent in the General election. Sadly, this is why the “battle is in the middle” over those that might vote FOR you and NOT for a Republican candidate. That person is a +1/-1. A progressive who might be lost is a +1/0. The same is true whether the individual is a independent or Democrat. Thus if McCain can with over a voter from an Edwards, Obama, or Clinton it’s a loss for the Democrat and a net win for him. But if he loses a fundamentalist, it’s not a gain for the Democrats but simply a loss of a vote.
Obama will nominate a Supreme who will vote with the majority, in the interest of bipartisanship.
We, progressives, got one fricking U.S. Senator, Chris Dodd, to stand up against retroactive immunity.
We have to scratch and claw at the grass roots level. That’s where we can have the greatest impact.
We’re not going to get a Presidential candidate who is progressive. We’ll be making significant progress if the next President doesn’t try to further destroy the Constitution and also appoints reasonably sane Federal and SC judges.
Such a fine orator on some occasions, such a verbal stumblebum on others …
Mind, I’m yet another of the many around here who in this Nov. election would vote for a real live yellow dog on the Democratic line over any available Republican, let alone any of the actual candidates. That’s because I regard the situation of the country to be that dire, and the Republican party to be materially responsible for that fact. I just wish all of the Democratic candidates could agree on the same principle above all else, and try to motivate their followers likewise.
Please, lets keep our eyes on the prize. The White House. We in this home will vote for the nominee of our party (Democratic) and will support that nominee with all our might. Regardless of who that nominee is.
Goodnight. ;0)
Visual cortex bleach, STAT!
g’nite kiddo
Just because the bills weren’t paid doesn’t preclude the fact the intended ‘wires’ weren’t recorded by NSA, if the FBI was shut off, it doesn’t mean the NSA was…