Tag Archives: Clinton

Geraldine Ferraro: Off The Rails Even Before Today

As for the whole Geraldine Ferraro stuff, anyone who listened to NPR’s Talk of the Nation last Wednesday already knew that she has seriously gone off the rails.  If you want to listen to it, and I promise you it will hurt, it’s towards the end of the show.  Even the host, the usually unflappable Neal Conan, had no idea what do with her.

Cheers,
Charlie

Advertisements

Why Clinton Keeps Talking About Obama As VP

I was going to write this later today, but the Trailhead did it for me.  Why Clinton keeps talking about Obama as the Vice President, even though she’s losing the delegate count, the popular vote, and the state count:

Veep Shot

…Clinton knows she can’t win the pledged delegate count. (To learn why, see here.) So if she’s going to clinch the nomination, she will have to persuade superdelegates to vote for her—and overturn the pledged delegate outcome. Naturally, many superdelegates are uncomfortable with this scenario. But by floating the possibility of Obama as VP, she’s trying to ease their consciences…

In other news, Mike Huckabee says McCain would make a good Vice Presidential candidate under a Republican ticket headed by Huckabee.

Cheers,

Charlie

It’s 3:00 AM, Do You Know Who Your Supporters Are?

Today’s edition of the RumpusGoopus weblog:  Copyright infringement!  Anyway, I link to the XX Factor so much that I highly doubt they’d ever complain:

Out of the mouths of “safe and asleep” babes!

“It’s 3 am… who do you want answering the phone?” — Barack Obama, thank you!

Thus, at least, saith Casey Knowles, the young girl who features in the opening segment of Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous “red phone” ad. The footage used in the ad is eight years old; Casey, a former child actor, is now seventeen and an active Obama supporter. (She served as a precinct captain for Obama in the Washington State caucuses.)

Whoops!  The Clinton campaign made much political hay this week over the gaffes of various Obama campaign advisors. Now they have a gafflet (?) of their own.

And how does Casey (who will be old enough to vote in November) feel about finding herself used in a Clinton campaign ad? “I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad,” she suggests.

Mmm hmm.

-Rosa Brooks

Oh, but you can’t help but be amused by this.  But hey, for good measure (from Chip Bok):

 

crcbo080306.gif

Cheers,
Charlie

The Media Is Biased (or not) Because The Media Thinks The Media Is Biased (or not)

There has been a lot of which to comment on over the past few days.  The main issue being the media ironically picking up on the false Clinton rhetoric that the media loves Obama.  It’s not that the media is biased, it’s that the media loves a narrative line in which to get behind.  Clinton has been quite good at manipulating the media throughout this nomination process, and it hasn’t shown more so than in the last few days where, apparently, the media hates Clinton and loves Obama. 
 

Honestly, I haven’t read a pro-Obama story in days (with the exception of what ends this post), but mostly have seen nothing but “Clinton says X” or “The Media Hates Clinton™” articles.  And while all these stories have been rather pro-Clinton, I’m intellectually honest enough so that I can comprehend why some people might support Clinton, even though I disagree with them, without having to conjure up some conspiracy theory.

I don’t blame the bias, I blame the need for narrative.

Anyway, a story that actually covers the story:

Monger Me, Obama!: The mood in Texas

A very good account of the support of Obama.  While it unnecessarily tries to “even-out” the balance, it does succeed in shedding a lot of that “need to balance” in order to cover the story correctly.


Cheers,

Charlie

Universal Health Care or Mandatory Health Care?

There’s something that has been bugging me for quite a while now.  Ever since Massachusetts passed its “Universal Health Care” plan (and now picked up by Clinton), that is.  And the issue is this.  Since when did “Universal Health Care” become “Mandatory Health Care”?  When I, and I would believe most liberals, think of Universal Health Care, we think of a system whereby our tax dollars are used to fund health care for everyone.

 

The reason for the need of Universal Health Care is to make it available to those who want health coverage, but cannot afford it.  Mandating people get health care does not solve this problem.  It’s tantamount to “solving” homelessness by mandating that people get housing.  I fully admit that should everyone get health care, costs would go down some extent.  However, that does not outweigh the harm it would cause to those who cannot afford the insurance.

 

If we want Universal Health Care, let’s do it.  Let’s not mess around with mandates, but actually put into place a system whereby the government provides the health care funding. 

 

Cheers,

Charlie

Am I Still Desensitized to Clinton’s Negative Campaign?

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on being desensitized to Clinton’s antics.  They just became too repetitive, and too tiring to care about.  Every single one was as pointless and negative as the previous.  As such, of late I’ve taken a bit of a hiatus from writing about them.

But, oh my, has she upped the ante in the last few days.  It seems like every day she’s making outrageous claims, and each one is more outrageous than the previous.  I’ve still avoided writing about it.  And I will still.

However, one thing does need to be said.  I am truly struggling about what to do should Clinton win the nomination.  This looks exceedingly improbably since she basically has to win both Texas and Ohio by large margins.  As I write this post, as Obama has done with pretty much every state in which the people are given time to learn about him, he has closed the gap in Ohio, and is now slightly ahead in Texas.  Given that we still have a while until March 4, it should tighten up even more, if not go in Obama’s direction.  As such, it looks like Clinton doesn’t really stand a chance.

But my point is this, if she does win the election, her antics over the last few weeks has made it even harder to vote for her should she win the nomination.  In fact, ignoring Supreme Court nominations, I would be much more comfortable with a McCain Presidency than a Hillary Clinton Presidency.  She’s just too dirty and too absurd.  And let’s get this straight, I’m a liberal through-and-through, but I absolutely don’t want to vote for Clinton, especially given her campaign.  I’m starting to understand why Republicans hate her so much.

But then I have to figure in the Supreme Court.  Stevens is old, and while he might try to stay on the Court, who knows what will happen with his health.  I can stand four years of a McCain Presidency far easier than four years of a Clinton Presidency, but the Supreme Court has far more reaching effects than just four years. 

And there’s my dilemma.  It looks like I’m not going to have to deal with it, it looks like Obama will win, but Democrats, please keep this in mind.  If me, a liberal, is completely turned-off by Clinton, so much so that I might not vote for her, what does that say about independent voters?  Or even a lot of other Democratic voters?

Cheers,
Charlie

The Media Isn’t Against Clinton, Reality Is

Clinton campaign takes aim at press over coverage 

Again?!  Seriously?

The reason there’s a difference is because when Clinton attacks Obama, it’s usually a very cheap shot, and often completely untrue.  When Obama “attacks” (and I’m using the “attack” word here loosely.  A more appropriate word is “distinguish”), it’s usually true and not a cheap shot. 

Take a look at the latest complaints from the campaigns about each other.  Clinton complained about Obama being a liar and practicing dirty politics by him pointing out reasonable differences in policy (which were true).  Obama complains about the Clinton campaign trying to perpetuate the myth that Obama is Muslim (assuming the Clinton camp is responsible for the photo.  They did take a long time to deny sending it out today, and originally didn’t deny it.  They should have at least said it was wrong for the photo to be exploited in this way, but instead they took it as an opportunity to slam Obama).  Honestly, the media hasn’t done nearly enough to point out how negative of a campaign Hillary is running. 

Luckily, it appears America is figuring that out on their own.

Cheers,

Charlie