Thursday, May 22, 2008

Show her the money


It's becoming apparent that Barack Obama's biggest challenge right now - bigger even than charting a course for the November election - is finding a way to get Hillary Clinton to just go away. With all plausible paths to the Democratic nomination cut off, Clinton has been reduced to clutching at crazy scenarios or hoping that Obama gets hit by a UPS truck. But she's no quitter, and she'll be the first to tell you that as she downs a shot, shoots a squirrel or does whatever else is necessary to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the American electorate. And now, the word on the political street is that Clinton just might want to be Obama's running mate. In fact, Karen Tumulty reports on Time.com that Bill Clinton thinks his wife deserves the spot and, according to a Clinton friend, "is pushing real hard for this to happen." If Obama is smart - and he appears to be a bright fellow - he will run as far away from Clinton as possible when it comes time to pick a partner for the Democratic ticket. The central problem is that Hillary Clinton's negatives outweigh her positives. She might very well attract more female voters and rural white voters to the Democratic ticket, but polls show that a great many people, Democrats included, just don't like her and don't trust her. Just the kind of person you want as a running mate. Plus, you get Bill as part of the package. Talk about baggage. He's the Marley's ghost of modern American politics. Clinton seems to suggest that only she can deliver the type of blue-collar voters Obama will need in November. That's false on its face, but it also avoids the fact that with or without Hillary, the Democrats have little hope of winning in places like West Virginia and Kentucky, where racism helped Clinton roll up huge margins in recent primaries. Those folks might like Hillary, but Obama will still be black in November. And when Hillary recently touted her support among "hard-working Americans, white Americans," that should have been the death knell for any consideration of her for the vice presidential slot. Some names suggested as running mates for Obama include Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton backer who could deliver an important state come November, and former Sen. Sam Nunn, shown above, who once ran the Armed Services Committee and could prop up the ticket on national security issues. Obama is going to win the key Democratic states with or without Clinton. That includes her "home" state of New York. And there are signs that he will be at least competitive in a number of states where Democrats haven't done well in years. It all boils down to Clinton most likely being more of a drag on the ticket than a benefit. There are rumblings that the Clinton camp might want Obama to help her pay off her campaign debts. The Clintons have put $11 million of their own money into the race and reportedly are $20 million in the hole. If that's all it takes for Obama to be rid of the Clintons, he should agree immediately, even if he has to take out a personal loan.

Labels:

28 Comments:

Blogger Tracy J. said...

Why do you people(Pennsylavians) have to keep saying that West Virginia is a racist state? It could just be that they voted for the "best" of the two evils. I personally can't believe that the primary went the way it did, voting for Hillary is like throwing away your vote at this point. Quite frankly there are no candidates, democrat or republican, worth voting for, but just because she won in WV does not mean that the state is racist. A lot of people still like Bill Clinton and I think a lot of her backers are voting for her in order to get him back, as if he hasn't done enough to this country what with the whole NAFTA thing. I'm beginning to think that all of you people that keep calling us racists are really the ones that are the racists. Please try to refrain from offending the few West Virginia readers that you have, you really can't afford to lose anymore readers than you already have over the recent years.

May 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I think the reason we think they are racist is because 1 out 4 Hillary voters said that race influenced their vote... When 25% of a state's voters explicitly say they voted for a candidate because that candidate is white... Well, you know... calls 'em as I sees 'em.

-Ellipses

May 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I pray that voters who are sick of the Bush era will vote Democratic even if Hillary is not the nominee. How stupid and spiteful can you be by sticking out your lower lip and not voting for the Democratic candidate just because "my guy/girl" didn't win?

May 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a better path for Hillary, if she's tired of the Senate, would be to run for Governor of New York in 2010. There's talk that Michael Bloomberg is interested in running, and it's likely that Andrew Cuomo will too. The combination of those three shold keep the NY Daily News and the NY Post more than thoroughly occupied.

--Brad Hundt

May 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Geez... I think that a race between McCain and Obama presents America with two equally fine choices for President. I will vote for one, but will be just as happy if the other wins.

-Ellipses

May 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

From my observation, two of the major candidates for president (Obama and McCain) and some who have fallen by the wayside have conducted themselves with dignity and decency, and one has not. Guess who that one is? Also, I'm in no way suggesting that everyone in West Virginia is a racist. But as Ellipses pointed out, the exit polling showed that there sure are a lot of them there.

May 22, 2008 at 1:25 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I just thought of something... I am sure just about everyone has seen the collage of a bunch of pictures of President Bush in the midst of different facial expressions... and next to each one of the pictures is a photograph of an ape or monkey with the same expression. It's really funny... Barack Obama has some facial features that would lend itself well to a similar photoshop exercise... relatively low brow, protruding ears, wide-julia roberts like smile... and you know if I ever made that picture... the call of racism would be deafening. Now, since I think that racism is basically a form of social retardation, it's obvious to assume that I wouldn't have a racial motivation for making the picture... It's a shame, really... when we have to discard cheap comic relief because of the assumption that it is racist. Of course, none of this has happened... but I just saw a picture of Barack and thought... you know, he looks just as much like a monkey as George Bush does in all those pictures. And for BRIEF moment... I thought, wow! That sounds very racist of the dotted one...

-Ellipses

May 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

About the only people one can get away with making fun of these days are fat, white people like me.

May 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

C'mon Brant... there HAS to be someone else... Ever since the Ginger episode of south park, red hair is a target... I am a recovering ginger.

-Ellipses

May 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM  
Blogger Tracy J. said...

Well, my entire family is from WV and we weren't in the poll so I have to wonder just how many people were actully polled in the first place. I have seen research that states,in the small print, the number of respondants in the poll. If the poll regarding the race issue only questioned four people or if only four people responded then you would come up with the same answer. However, that in no way, is an fair sampling of the population of the state. I know how statistics are done and most can be manipulated in ways that will reflect the answers you want. My bigger gripe is that you people have such a low opinion of West Virginans that I have read offensive comments numerous times just in the last week. Look around your own area you have just as many inbred, racist idoiots right here in good ole PA as there are anywhere else in the country. Give us a break already.
As for the election,I would never vote for someone based on their skin color and quite frankly either Obama or McCain will be an improvement over what we currently have. I personally won't know who I am voting for until much closer to the November elections.

May 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree completely that the methodology of these polls should be questioned more than the poll results... Given the population of West Virginia, you would want to do roughly 2 thousand interviews to have a margin of error of +/-3% and 95 degree of confidence.

-Ellipses

May 22, 2008 at 5:22 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Nobody is suggesting that even the majority of West Virginians are racist, just that based on the exit polling, it seems there is a significant percentage of racially biased voters. And that makes West Virginia an unfriendly state toward an Obama candidacy and a state that would be unlikely to go his way in November. Hence, he'll probably not waste many resources there. I checked on the polling procedures, and about 1,500 people were polled, giving the exit poll a margin of error of about plus or minus 4 percent. Finally, I have no personal enmity toward West Virginia or its people. I misspent much of my late teenage years at the fine drinking establishments in Valley Grove and made many great friends there. I went to college in West Virginia, and I worked there for several years.

May 22, 2008 at 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack has problems in most of the mid west according to Zogby's polling and in Applachia. But a great deal of it has to do with Barack's own statements and stances towards the lifestyle of these areas. To blame it on racism and avoid the other issues is both unfair and quite frankly a bit childish.

May 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

What's really childish, and stupid, is to totally ignore the existence of racism in the electorate.

May 23, 2008 at 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, Pennsylvania also voted for Clinton. AND your governor said Pennsylvanians wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black. If you are going to list the states in which Obama's race was a factor in the election, don't forget Pennsylvania.

Yes, race is a polarizing issue for those who care about it. It is an unfortunate fact of modern day politics it isn't the candidate's issues that are being looked at.

Perhaps more people voted who otherwise wouldn't because they are racist and Obama is black. Again, it is very unfortunate that people let foolish, insignficant things like color effect their thinking, but it's plausible the racists came out to vote against Obama.

It does not mean the majority of West Virginians are racist or even the majority of those who voted are racist. Again, those exit polls provide hard numbers, but aren't necessarily accurate.

Also, it is disingenuous of you to act like you don't understand why you upset people by constantly pairing the term "racisim" with West Virginia. Even if you don't say outright you believe it to be a racist state, the implication is there.

May 23, 2008 at 9:48 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Not a single person has said that the majority of any state was racist. The percentages quoted were 20% (Indiana) and 25% (West Virginia)... There are a LOT of inbred redneck racists in Pennsylvania. In fact, 5% say race was the most important factor in their vote while 14% say that it was one of several important factors... So, 19% of Pennsylvanians considered race to be an important factor. I honestly DO NOT UNDERSTAND why this discussion upsets West Virginians... unless those who are getting upset are too dense to understand what we are saying... So, if you want fuel for your fire... forget about West Virginia being a disproportionately more racist state... but it is also below average based on average IQ...

Below average= WV, KY, TN, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, OK, NM, AZ, NV, CA.

-Ellipses


PA Exit Poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226004/

IQ by State: http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/061022_iq.htm

May 23, 2008 at 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well put and another reason it is "childish" to put keep bringing it up. In addition, Obama is more than willing to use the race card to his advantage time and time again. When anyone challenges him, it becomes "racism" the easy out for him. His defenders (you included) use racism to avoid discussing the problems of his character, his background and how that might effect his policies. Given my own family moved to this area 80 years ago from West Virginia, I must tell you that as usual I find your comments to be as insensitive as those that you accuse others of. But I guess it is ok to insult those that disagree with your political choice.

May 23, 2008 at 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ellipses,

You do the same as Brant, pointing towards racism in your blog and pointing out the percentage and implying that it is higher. You are attempting to paint any state or group that opposes Obama as racist. Cut the crap. It is a game and one that quite frankly most Americans are tired of watching.

May 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Anonymous... I don't have a dog in this race... I have said that I will be perfectly happy with either McCain or Obama... What we (or at least I) am trying to point out is... we haven't come nearly as far as we thought on the issue of race... when you have a state with 25% of people who SAY that the race of the candidate is "Very Important"... we aren't "implying" that its important... they are SAYING that race is "very important" in deciding who they will vote for. It is an affront to intelligent thought that in 2008, there are this many retarded people deciding the direction and leadership of our country.

-Ellipses

May 23, 2008 at 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racism in America is an undercurrent that, over time, both blacks and whites have come to live with. Only when something as high profile as a presidential race comes along do we start to notice. If Obama is nominated and loses. we'll hear about racism for a while, then we'll fall asleep again until the next black candidate appears.

May 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton has the right to pursue her candidacy to the convention just as much as Gary Hart did or any other man would. I agree that women are still treated as second class citizens in the job market and elsewhere. But I am tired of hearing women complain that Hillary isn't being treated fairly because she's a woman, or that she will lose the nomination just because she is female. From what I see, many voters simply don't like Hillary. And the number of people who may not vote for Obama because he is black probably outweighs those who will not vote for Hillary because she is female.

Sexism is extreme in politics. If women want to see just how far it can be carried, they have only to wait until a woman is elected president, then watch the helluva time she has getting the men in Washington to work with her.

This is a great country, but in race and gender relations, we are woefully mired in the 19th century.

May 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another silly comment, "We are mired in the 19th Century". Indefensible in a historic sense as it ignores the progress made, like the right to vote, the ending of slavery and so on. Typical political propaganda designed to make a point rather than tell the truth

May 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, we don't have black men and women tending the white man's fields anymore. But how equal are blacks in terms of education, housing and employment?

So, women have the vote. How equal are they in terms of payscale? Why is it that in more than 200 years of American political history, only one woman has appeared on a major political party presidential ticket?

That's the truth. It has taken politics to bring to light again.

We like our blacks and our females to be kept in neatly defined roles roles so we can trot them out every few years to say how much they have progressed.

May 23, 2008 at 8:09 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

This just in: I read on the AP wire that Hillary Clinton, in defending her staying in the race, said, essentially, "Hey, look what happened in 1968 when Bobby Kennedy got assassinated." Jeez. What next? Will she offer the Israeli prime minister a ham sandwich?

May 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

There are two words that come to mind... One is an inflammatory word in regards to women... the other is downright explosive :-)

-Ellipses

May 24, 2008 at 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand what Clinton was saying, and she was telling the truth --anything could happen. It was a stupid thing to say, but in today's politics, any slight slip of the tongue is going to be hammered by both the media and the opponent. She's done her share of jumping on Obama's slips. Works both ways.

May 26, 2008 at 9:47 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

I think there has been too much made of Hillary's comments, just as I think too much was made of Obama's and McCain's preacher problems. But Hillary has one helluva case of foot in mouth disease, and it just keeps getting worse. And, as usual, her remarks about the primary campaigns going into June when RFK and her husband were running were exercises in half-truths and non-truths. For instance, she remarked that her husband didn't clinch the nomination until winning the California primary in June. Technically, that was true, but at that point, it was clear that he was the party's nominee, and all the other major candidates (unlike Hillary this year) recognized that and dropped out. So the California victory, while it did put Bill Clinton over the top for the nomination, was nothing more than a formality.

May 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, if we're going to start holding politicians accountable for everything they say, there will be no candidates.

May 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home