MyDD :: Contradictions

Contradictions

by lizardbox, Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST

Profiles in contradiction:

Then: It'll all be over by February 5th.
Now: Let them vote!

Then: It's all about the delegates
Now: The delegates are no good measure. It's all about the voters

Then: MI doesn't count
Now: SEAT MICHIGAN!

more...

Then: The superdelegates should exercise their better judgment
Now: The superdelegates should give people a chance to vote

Then: He's not experienced
Now: Okay, he can be the nominee, but she has to be his VP

Then: All votes must be counted!
Now: Unless they're in IA, NV, ME, and WA

Then: He's not experienced
And: He has a speech, and don't forget about him failing to pass the threshold
Later: He can be VP
Much Later: She has to be his VP

I'm done being nice. Senator Clinton lost. She cannot win. There is nothing you can say or do to make her win barring some disaster to befall Senator Obama, which I'm sure will come as good news to many should it happen, God forbid. The fact that you celebrate a little boy selling his bike and video game to help a campaign that is as dysfunctional as the government that it hopes to inherit is pathetic.

To see some pointing to polls as an indication of the stronger candidate and a measure by which we select the nominee is absolute madness. This is where I draw the line. Who cares about your skewed and dishonest popular vote arguments? Who cares about your polls? Who cares about your electability standards? Who cares? You lost. May be your candidate should've ran a better campaign from the start and spent your money wisely. She had the backing. She had the resources. She had the machine. She had the superdelegates.

The country is ready to move on. Get with the program.

Tags: Clinton, Obama, Contradictions, Two Legs Good (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

Amen (2.00 / 2)

What foolishness is this? To use the Clinton standard, we'd have the whole pool of initial Dem contenders wandering around, hoping that a miracle would happen to give THEM the nomination.

Go Richardson!

by PhilFR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:32:40 PM EST

Exactly who's outspending whom? (2.00 / 1)

Obama outspends Clinton 3:1 in PA and gets his ass handed to him.

Obama outspends Clinton 2:1 in WV and gets his ass handed to him.

Obama outspends Clinton by $500,000 in KY and get his ass handed to him.

A Democratic candidate has not won the presidency since 1916 (nineteen-freakin'-sixteen) without winning WV!

Obama's victory map for the GE is based upon a "profound sea-change" for the electorate, which is wishful thinking backed by a smidgeon of fact...at best.

Clinton's victory map for the GE is based upon sound, historical analytics and well-researched political science.

NJ, PA, OH and FL are in play in "real life," if Obama wins the nomination, despite that campaign's discounting of those states as either "sure things" or unnecessary to his victory.

Exactly who's kidding whom here?

This is NOT about a primary. It's about the GE!

by bobswern on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:34:28 PM EST

Re: Exactly who's outspending whom? (2.00 / 4)

Clinton's victory map for the GE is based upon sound, historical analytics and well-researched political science.

Based on her victory map for the primary, I wouldn't put too much stock in that.

by PhilFR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly who's outspending whom? (2.00 / 3)

You're right it is about the G.E. and in case you haven't noticed hillary isn't in that campaign. It's now all about the back and forth between McCain and Obama. They don't even mention hillary.

by venician on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Truth About "They." (2.00 / 1)

Well, just because "they" don't talk about it doesn't mean "they" know what they're talking about!

So, because it's on TV it must be true? Or, because the blogosphere is filled with a huge majority of Obama supporters, unlike the election results which SOMETIMES mirror actual Democratic voter sentiment-- because it's the CW on TV and online--then it must be true, right?

Sorry, but it's just not the truth.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton has received more DEMOCRATIC votes in the DEMOCRATIC Primary than any candidate in U.S. History.

"They" don't seem to like to talk about that too much. That takes nothing away from the reality that it is the truth, despite what "they" might say.

by bobswern on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Truth About "They." (2.00 / 3)

Awesome. The next time we have a primary where you have to win the most DEMOCRATIC votes, Senator Clinton should definitely run. May be she can become president of the DEMOCRATS one day

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Truth About "They." (none / 0)

Sorry, that's Howard Dean's job. And with the exception of FL and MI, he's doing pretty well imo.

by PhilFR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Truth About "They." (none / 0)

Too bad we DEMOCRATIC votes in DEMOCRATIC primaries are not the way we choose our nominee.

by PhilFR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats voting for a DEMOCRATIC... (2.00 / 1)

...PARTY nominee! Now there's a concept worth fighting for, IMHO. Imagine that, a primary candidate that actually wins the primary because the greater amount of registered Party members actually voted for that candidate!

What a wonderful concept!

by bobswern on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe in 2012 (2.00 / 1)

But not this year. Those goalposts don't move.

by PhilFR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats voting for a DEMOCRATIC... (2.00 / 1)

Once again, you're trying to change the rules mid-game. Stop whining about a process that all candidates were very well aware of before they signed on. And if they weren't, then, tough

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "rules" of the game... (none / 0)

...are implicitly flexible, as is self-evident by the very existence of SuperDelegates, and by the reality that, on a national level and on a state-by-state level, the internal power structure of our Party does whatever the hell they damn well please, whenever the hell they please, no matter how they might candy-coat it at any given point in time.

This is truth.

The rules of the game say that all delegate votes are up for grabs, all the time. The concept of "pledged" delegates is a myth. Just ask the pledged delegates that were elected as Clinton supporters that are now stating they're going to vote for Obama. Just ask all the Obama supporters that were up in arms, just weeks ago, about the concept of Clinton actually trying to coerce them into switching their votes. (Oooops! Better not ask those Obama supporters about that, huh? Then they'd have to admit to some pretty gross hypocrisy. And, we can't have that, can we?)

by bobswern on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody is arguing about the role of delegates (2.00 / 2)

we know they're not bound to a candidate by rule. We know they vote in August. We know superdelegates can change their mind. We know all of this. But you bring this up as though the delegates are flooding to Senator Clinton. Not the case. Everyone seems to forget that superdelegates are not stupid to buy into the bullshit arguments about the popular votes.

If the polls are the indicator of who's supposed to be our nominee, then f**k it, next election let's save us some money, and ask SUSA to pick our nominee for us. Even better, ARG!

I'm not sure how else to explain this to you but YOUR. CANDIDATE. LOST

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

so your argument is? (2.00 / 3)

that nothing that's happened in the past 5 months matters? the pledged delegates who switched were roundly condemned by Obama supporters and Obama does not acknowledge them in his delegate count.

by JJE on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats voting for a DEMOCRATIC... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sold. If a candidate can generate enthusiasm from those not (yet) in the party, and that enthusiasm can be used to further our goals, we win.

You may be making an intellectually honest argument. Senator Clinton is not. She has consistently changed her definition of victory as it suits her.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats voting for a DEMOCRATIC... (none / 0)

So people in Virginia, Washington, and other states where there is no party registration shouldn't get a say?

Why are you trying to disenfranchise people in those states?

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:32:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He won. Money well spent. nt (2.00 / 1)

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NOT (2.00 / 1)

Clinton Disbursements for April: $29 Million
Obama Disbursements for April: $32 Million

Oh, and let's not forget all the services rendered to the Clinton campaign that are yet to be paid for. That's 3 to 1 alright!

A Democratic candidate has not won the presidency since 1916 (nineteen-freakin'-sixteen) without winning WV!

Awesome! A Female or Black Democratic candidate has not won the presidency since... NEVER! So what's your point again?

And this is about the GE, but to play in the GE, you have to win the primary, not just show up and with a arrogant sense of entitlement and inevitability and expect the nomination to be handed to you.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly who's outspending whom? (1.80 / 5)

WV? The reason the GE winner always wins WV is that by the time WV votes, the nominee is usually set and therefore wins WV.

Ugh.

If I could write diaries (and for some reason, it won't let me, though I can HR- any ideas?), I'd write one about how useless that argument truly is.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly who's outspending whom? (2.00 / 1)

tarheel74, why did you TR that comment? Because it expressed a dissenting view?

Why don't you post why ihaveseenenough is wrong?

"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08

by obscurant on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ratings abuse. (none / 0)

Yeah, I've had to uprate several inappropriate TRs/HRs from tarheel74 tonight.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly who's outspending whom? (none / 0)

I've just read this morning on Huffington Post that Obama spent $4.5 million more than he got in donations in April resulting in only one win of the three states! He spent $36.5 million and could only win 1 state!!!! What does it say about his chances in November?

by suzieg on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The spin makes me dizzy! (2.00 / 1)

So many goalposts, so little time...

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:58 PM EST

Re: Contradictions (1.00 / 4)

She can rename Appalachia "Clintonland" and be president of it, I guess.

by DeskHack on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM EST

Re: Contradictions (2.00 / 1)

yes HRC can become president of appalachia as it now includes CA, NY, NJ, MA, TX, PA, OH - what else am i missing?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:32:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (2.00 / 1)

Michigan and florida.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:44:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (2.00 / 1)

Yep, contradictions.

Look who REALLY will 'say anything to win'.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST

Any quoting Rahm Emanuel... (none / 0)

...in their signature here, while simultaneously speaking up for "the will of the people" in the Democratic Party has little or no idea of just how truly ironic that is.

Rahm Emanuel cares as much about the will of the people in the Democratic Party as...

...come to think of it, I don't think there is anyone in the Democratic Party's power structure that could care less about "the will of the people" in our Party.

This is backed up by reams of recent historical fact, too.

by bobswern on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:06 AM EST

That is a quintessential contradiction! n/t (none / 0)

by bobswern on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:53 AM EST

Re: Contradictions (1.50 / 2)

Sure let Obama be the nominee but like the person whose campaign he emulates from 2000, he will be an illegitimate nominee, not the choice of the Democratic people, just like that person is not the choice of the US people even though he won the electoral college votes.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:19 AM EST

Re: Contradictions (none / 0)

Yes. Compare Obama to Bush if you must. But let's not forget who:

Voted for the AUMF
Used Bin Laden in an ad
Warned of "Obliterating Iran"
Set their surrogates loose to praise Fox Noise as fair and balanced.

By "US people" do you mean to say "U.S. Americans"?

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (none / 0)

Ouch! As John Adams said:

"Facts are stubborn things."

by PhilFR on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (1.50 / 2)

1. AUMF: read Chuck Hagel's new book before you say anything more. Hagel is the most outspoken critic of the war but he voted for it because he thought that it was to be used only as a last recourse. Read what Hans Blix said, that without the threat of the AUMF Iraq would have never allowed inspectors in. The war was a breach of trust. It is easy for Obama to oppose the AUMF then when he was not in Senate but even he said on MTP that had he been in the Senate he would have voted like Kerry Edwards Hagel Clinton and all those other senators you do not mention.

2. Bin Laden is a threat and if a half a second blip makes you wet your pants then you have a problem. The scariest thing is Pakistan recently signed a peace treaty in essence seceding the NWFP to the Taliban/al Qaeeda...Obama has not answer to that.

3. Obliterating Iran. If the correct answer to the question "what will you do if Iran against our most trusted ally in the middle east?" is I will sit down and have tea with them then I don't want such a leader. Read today's NYT op-ed about JFK an his ill advised no condition talks with Kruschev.

4. Like it or not most people agree that Fox has been more fair and balanced to both campaigns this primary season....who will they praise instead? MSNBC where one shithead makes death threats against her and another dickhead insinuates her daughter to be a whore or maybe the birdbrain who said that she is senator because people felt sorry for her? Or CNN where Donna Brazile is given an open platform to race-bait?

Sorry it takes courage to be president. Clinton showed courage by taking on Fox News on their own turf and she netted OH, PA, TX, WV, KY, IN, RI and all Obama could manage was either manufacture fake racial controversies through his minions or attribute all his losses to racism.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (1.00 / 0)

addendum the Iran question was: "what will you do if Iran used nuclear weapons against our most trusted ally in the middle east?"

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons (none / 0)

Secondly, why is it okay for our "most trusted ally in the middle east" to have nuclear weapons?

Here's my question: "in light of the Iraq war and the lies and misrepresentations that lead to it and caused it, how would you vote on a bill that would open avenues to the president to attack another nation?"

Your candidate's response: YEA on Kyl-Lieberman

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:08:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran does not have nuclear weapons (2.00 / 1)

Again little knowledge is dangerous....ever heard of Iran Counterproliferation Act that Obama co-sponsored which basically had the same language as KL if not more bellicose? Obama ducked KL because he had neither the courage to vote yes nor did he have the guts to vote no. He took the politically expedient route and voted "present"(or rather absent).

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

71 senators sponsored it (none / 0)

I'm going to read the whole thing. If in fact it does parrot KL then both Obama and Clinton should be lambasted for this.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 71 senators sponsored it (2.00 / 1)

This bill preceded KL by many months.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:43:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 71 senators sponsored it (none / 0)

Yes. I know that. I still stand by my statement. If the bill does leave an opening for this president (or the next) to arbitrarily attack Iran, then Obama and Clinton (and everyone else who voted for it) should be held accountable.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (2.00 / 1)

1) Bullshit. Go watch Clinton's little get together with code pink. Go read her AIPAC address. I would provide links but I will not extend a courtesy to you that you refused me.

2) You think I'm complaining because I'm afraid of seeing Bin Laden in an ad? If that's how you think, then it is you who has the problem.

3) "Obliterating Iran"... that's the kind of talk that raises the gas price on the middle class families that your candidate cares so damn much about. That's the kind of cowboy diplomacy that we have all complained about up until you folks decided that our stance is the exact opposite of what Obama just said. He's got it right, you and your candidate and the Republicans got it wrong. We talk to people. Peace is brought about by talking to people.

4) Sweet. Senator Clinton with all her might and courage, lost because the media wasn't fair to her. Especially in February when she lost 11 in a row and the media was just a bunch of assholes that pushed her out of the race

It takes courage to be president indeed. Courage to go on Fox. Shit, let's make Lanny Davis president then. Or the body language lady from the factor.

As for the "fake racial controversies", one, what the hell are you talking about, two, "Hard working Americans. White Americans".

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (1.00 / 0)

1) read the AIPAC address of Obama. Also watch Hillary's speech and read what Hagel has to say. Dismissing what is true as bullshit only shows that you are spouting propaganda.

2) if you are not afraid of Bin Laden in the ad then why complain about it?

3)Gas prices is increased by OPEC....Iran has little clout over OPEC and we don't get gas from them. If the answer to Iran's bellicose talk is to prostate ourselves in front of them then we might as well seclude ourselves in isolation and abandon all our allies.

4) Senator Clinton lost 11 small states most of which will never ever vote Democrat and then she went on to win 7 big states that Democrats have won the last time we were in the WH

No I am talking about Obama's middle finger, I am talking about him sending his minions to post a doctored video of Paul Kantor, I am talking about him drumming up a fake controversy based on a photo circulated by Drudge of all people....oh yeah he has a long track record of manufacturing fake and salacious race based controversies before ever primary involving a big AA population.

Finally I don't think it is my duty to post links because these links are out there and can be googled but you believe in propaganda and regurgitating jaded talking points when all facts are to the contrary.

oh and BTW "hard working Americans and white Americans" that in itself is faking a racial controversy. She apologized for it but that happens to be the how the land lies in the Southern states Obama won (your 11 in a row). The majority of Democratic white voters went to Clinton. Why? Because people are tired of being called racists if they do not like or want to vote the anointed messiah. But then according to Obama and his minions anyone who does not vote for him be they white, hispanic, oriental, indian, are all racists.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (none / 0)

2) if you are not afraid of Bin Laden in the ad then why complain about it?

If you don't know then I am afraid I cannot answer this question for you. This is the sorry-ass state that Senator Clinton put people in.

3)Gas prices is increased by OPEC....Iran has little clout over OPEC and we don't get gas from them. If the answer to Iran's bellicose talk is to prostate ourselves in front of them then we might as well seclude ourselves in isolation and abandon all our allies.

Allies? What allies? Ever time conflict is proposed (i.e. I obliterate you) gas prices might go up. The price of oil if tied to stability in the regions of exporting nations.

4) Senator Clinton lost 11 small states most of which will never ever vote Democrat and then she went on to win 7 big states that Democrats have won the last time we were in the WH

What you win in a primary doesn't dictate what you win in GE. If that were the case, then Clinton and McCain would win FL, CA, and NY in the general election.

No I am talking about Obama's middle finger, I am talking about him sending his minions to post a doctored video of Paul Kantor, I am talking about him drumming up a fake controversy based on a photo circulated by Drudge of all people....oh yeah he has a long track record of manufacturing fake and salacious race based controversies before ever primary involving a big AA population.

Obama sent "his minions" to post a video of Kantor?

Alright, sorry I'm done. I don't do well with conspiracy theories. You seem to be okay with it as long as it serves your candidate. I suggest you vote for McCain. Very well aligned with him given your talking points.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (none / 0)

and he spent $36.5 million and could only pull off one victory out of three in a democratic primary with all the demographics going for him in 2 states! He has a big problem!

by suzieg on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradictions (2.00 / 3)

Interesting.

Obama has the nomination nearly wrapped up. I think his supporters "doth protest too much."

My friend and I discussed this on the phone today. There's a deep insecurity in Obama supporters about the magnitude or certainty of his win. Like they have to keep telling themselves and everybody else, "he's won! he's won! he's won!"

If it were that cemented a notion though, it wouldn't require daily reiteration and affirmation.

"Yes, Stuart Smalley, you are beautiful."

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.

by BPK80 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:34:30 AM EST

Re: Contradictions (none / 0)

I agree with this post, but I'd recommend using actual quotes from the Clinton campaign to make your points. They're definitely available and make a truly damning case.

by Mainer Mary on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM EST

Sorry (none / 0)

but I'm beyond doing that. The simple fact that such quotes are "definitely available" is one more reason that I'm done with Clinton.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:40:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Hillary Hate Diary (none / 0)

Read it before. Wasn't impressed then. Not impressed now.

What are you going to do for material after the primaries are over?

Another Clintonista against John McCain

by psychodrew on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:55:25 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.