Interesting links and notes on updates to my main website.



[to search, use Blogger search in top bar]

Hillary Clinton will destroy the Democrats for a generation

Selfish much?

Hillary, I know you read the polls.
ONLY OLD PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU.

In what universe do you imagine that's a sustainable strategy for the Democratic party?
If you win, and November is the 71-year-old white man and you, the 60-year-old white woman, slinging dirt, you will turn away young voters in droves. You may turn an ENTIRE GENERATION OF VOTERS away, permanently.

Let's hear from your supporters

John Peterman, 85, a former Navy engineer, said he supported Mrs. Clinton because “the world is not ready for a black president.” His wife, Mary, 81, agreed with him.

New York Times - In Clinton vs. Obama, Age Is One of the Greatest Predictors

Yeah, there's the future of America, crusty old people WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE ALIVE IN NOVEMBER. A bunch of old boomer women who think a woman running something is a Big Deal. Everyone under the age of 40 has worked with and for women. It's 2008 people, women won that victory decades ago. Join the 21st freaking century.

I know politics is about ego, but jesus, step back and look at the big picture.
Obama runs and the youth vote belongs to the democrats for the next decade,
or you run, and young people stop voting for democrats at all.

And now that she's "won" Penn. by yet another margin so small as too be meaningless, with Obama STILL AHEAD IN DELEGATES, we're going to have to listen to her stupid, petty little campaign for months more.

Hey Hillary, I have a slogan for you:

Vote Hillary, Because Old White People Have Done Such A Great Job Of Running Things

Labels: demprimary2008, politics, rant

posted by Richard at 07:22 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)

if s/he has the lead, you must concede

I've been meaning to write this for a while, but a DKos posting gives me a hook to hang on.

Anyway the title is my main point.
If Obama has the lead, Hillary must concede.
This idea of going to the convention and fighting it out is retarded, it will harm the party. If he comes out of the Texas and Ohio contests with more elected delegates, then shake his hand, say good fight and drop out immediately.

Any other strategy with superdelegates and whatever bullshit to attack *Obama* will just end up undermining *the entire party*.

If he has the lead, you must concede.

I've found it interesting that, until the DKos post, I haven't seen anyone even raise the possibility that she might just gracefully exit and not go to some insane destructive bloody superfight.

Labels: demprimary2008, politics, rant

posted by Richard at 16:40 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)

i was wrong

See, it's not so hard to say.

I thought it would be Giuliani vs Clinton, and that Clinton would be destroyed by the same forces that relentlessly pursued her husband to impeachment.

Now it seems likely it's going to be either McCain or Romney, vs. Clinton or Obama.

McCain vs. Obama would be a very interesting matchup

It will be interesting to see what the Republicans do to deal with Huckabee's voters, the Evangelicals. Huckabee for VP?

The VP stakes are also high in the Democratic race. If Edwards comes on board as Obama's VP, will that put Obama over the top?

Labels: demprimary2008, politics

posted by Richard at 05:31 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)

stupid media horserace coverage continues

Dudes it's a convention, with delegates, stop reporting it like it's first-past-the-post.

Toronto Star - Clinton is big winner in Nevada - January 20, 2008

Big winner is she.
Let's have a look. I'm trying to use CNN's site, but it reports different numbers depending on what page you use. So here's as good as I can figure out

Clinton 51%. Number of delegates: 14
Obama 46%. Number of delegates: 14

She got 5% more and they have THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF DELEGATES.
How is that winning?

Let's look at her other big win in New Hampshire

Clinton 39%. Number of delegates: 9
Obama 37%. Number of delegates: 9

Yeah, 2% and THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF DELEGATES. What a huge win that was.

According to the media, if you "win" you get "momentum" (a concept with no objective basis in reality, invented by the media). When you have "momentum" it creates "expectations" (expectations which are also entirely invented by the media). What a load of shit.

You want a reality check? Well here are CNN's front page numbers (keeping in mind as I mentioned they have different numbers on different pages)



Yes, Hillary, the amazing winner, has FEWER DELEGATES THAN OBAMA.
Not only that, if Edwards caucuses with Obama, which would make sense, they collectively have WAY MORE DELEGATES.

Is the media retarded?

Labels: demprimary2008, politics, rant, united states

posted by Richard at 10:38 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)

are you experienced?

This has been bugging me about the "consensus narrative" too, so I'm glad someone took the time to write it up.

The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.—all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus.

Slate - Hillary's "Experience" Lie

via Digg

Labels: demprimary2008, politics, rant, united states

posted by Richard at 11:11 / permalink (post) | permalink (numeric)