Comments on: Momentum Or Not…

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:40:50 +0000

Thanks for the heads-up – just blogged it…

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:58:44 +0000

Mark, I assume by now that you’ve seen this piece from the Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:13:56 +0000

Dude, cool it. I am clearly not wishing harm to Senator Clinton. I thought the quote was funny because it’s obviously such a weird, insane thing to say. Do you really believe that either Jefferson or I wish death upon our political opponents? Maybe you do, as you reference my “history” here, but I assure that’s not the case. While we’re on the subject, remind me when I have ever wished harm on someone. It seems to me I’m the one usually pointing out that, contrary to the claims of the adolescent boys running our foreign policy machine, war and torture are maybe not the coolest things ever.

Let’s be perfectly clear: when I wish for something catastrophic to happen to her campaign, I don’t wish for something catastrophic to happen to her. Whatever her crimes against her party, she’s still a human being. I want her vanquished from the sphere of politics, never to return – but I also want her to live to a ripe old age among friends and family.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:04:30 +0000

Ryan, do you even remember your own comments?

Read your first one over again, real slow. Then maybe you will see what prompted mine.

You dislike Clinton, fine. But to 1. cite with approval a quote asking for death and then 2. wish for something “really catastrophic to happen to her campaign” is pretty bad.

Based on your history here, I don’t think it necessarily “obvious” that you are “not going that far”. Maybe her being hurt in a car accident would satisfy you instead?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:30:12 +0000

Bob: While I don’t know what prompted that, I can only assume that earning the ire of a knuckle-dragging moron like you means I’m on the right track.

TMS: I think the party unity reason is exactly the right reason for her to drop out. Obviously you and I disagree on this particular issue, but John McCain is a singularly dangerous Republican candidate and the Democrats are not going to beat him by screwing around and not picking a nominee until August. The media quite simply will not go after McCain for his lack of knowledge of domestic policy and will, in fact, continue to praise him as a foreign policy expert despite his knowing absolutely nothing about the Middle East. Hillary can’t win the nomination at this point, and the only thing she accomplishes by sticking around is kneecapping the eventual nominee (which is Obama, since – I repeat – she can’t win).

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:51:10 +0000

You may be right Ryan, Hillary’s negatives are very high (some say too high to be elected but, then, GWB’s were pretty high in ‘04). My argument would depend, in part, on whether Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are still big swing states in the general. The larger point is that this is still a very close race and there is no good reason, other than, I guess, party unity, for Hillary to drop out.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:39:20 +0000

Ryan is embarrassing to America and this blog.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:28:02 +0000

Clinton’s incessantly negative campaigning is clearly becoming counter-productive for the Democratic Party. My hope is that the party bigwigs — Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore (just kidding) — get together and endorse Obama en masse. That should clinch it for him and end the bloodshed.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:55:43 +0000

TMS: That’s the exact argument I find completely silly. There is no logical chain between “Hillary beat Barack here in the primary” and “McCain will beat Barack here in the general”. To argue otherwise is crazy.

Clinton will not win the popular vote. Won’t happen. Mark my words on this: she will not be the nominee. Of the remaining states, conventional wisdom will play out and she will win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia (and I guess Guam and Puerto Rico). Obama will still win North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. I know it’s fun to pretend that there’s been some kind of sea change and Clinton is “coming back”, but that’s nutty. She is in a worse position than she has ever been because the delegate gap continues to widen on her. She cannot win this unless Obama breaks some kind of law. Let’s quit kidding ourselves.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:07:27 +0000

Also, if you look at the primary/caucus results and list states won by Clinton and Obama and compare that to those that we can presume need to be won in November to win the Electoral vote, Hillary leads in many of the big, key states. The Democrats would be nuts not to take that into consideration.