9 Comments:

• I hear you, brother. Right now, I feel like calling up the Obama campaign and asking, "Hey guys, what's the PLAN here? Because if you don't have one, I've got a few ideas..."

  By  Margaret, at 1:32 PM  

• I think they're very reticent to go on a full-bore offensive against Clinton, because a big part of Obama's appeal is that he's not the same old sort of politician. Also, if he gets really tough, he could fall into the absurd "angry black man" media stereotype.
  
  Having said that, I think that we're coming very close to the day where Obama won't have a choice. Clinton has decided that the only way to win is to destroy Barack Obama's reputation. To survive, Obama either has to figure out a way to make it backfire, or he has to respond in kind.

  By  Arbitrista, at 1:58 PM  

• I don't think he has to get nasty to get critical. Like, why doesn't he or his surrogates SERIOUSLY challenge her on her foreign policy "experience"? Yeah, yeah, we all get the "judgment" line, but call her out on all this "experience" she's claiming. Or remind people of the partisan craziness of the 90s, and how the CLintons were right in the middle of that. I dunno. I'm a political junkie, and *I'm* tired of this primary campaign season!

  By  Margaret, at 2:33 PM  

• Me too. It's hard to watch these things from a distance, to have strong opinions about what your preferred candidate should or shouldn't do, and not be able to contribute in any meaningful way. Hey, at least you helped get Obama off the ground in the first place?

  By  Arbitrista, at 2:45 PM  

• Yeah, but now I am left wondering why the rest of the country can't be as sensible as IOWA. Which is like, something I never thought I'd say in a million yrs.
  
  Sigh. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do if Hill gets the nom. I was sick of the Clintons after about 1994.

  By  Margaret, at 3:59 PM  

• I'm telling you- if Hillary is the nominee, I am voting for Ralph Nader! She is stooping to the lowest blows and putting John McCain above Obama? (the comments about who is best-suited for commander-in-chief). What can she be thinking? I am fed up!

  By  Addy N., at 7:22 PM  

• I can't see her getting the nomination or getting out until it's too obvious. I'm not happy with the situation, but at least people are interested and voting.

  By  Belle, at 5:53 PM  

• I disagree with Addy about voting for Nader, who is a knowing Republican spoiler... but I do agree that it is deeply disturbing that Clinton herself seemed to play that game of "either me or the Republican". Supporters are one thing; Candidates are quite another, and it's a bit too reminiscent of Joe Lieberman's actions--a key Clinton ally of old--for comfort.
  
  I also can help but ask myself whether Obama would still be in the race were things reversed. Honestly, I really, really doubt it. Were Clinton not still the beneficiary of her old Machine-driven inevitability, I think this would be long over. As it is, too many people have too much invested in a Clinton presidency to let her go unless forced kicking and screaming, no matter what happens.
  
  And considering how ridiculously poor a job the Democratic Machine generally does, I'm almost inclined to support whomever they don't.

  By  Demosthenes, at 2:33 AM  

• I don't know if there was ever a "machine-driven inevitability." There really isn't much of a machine in the Democratic Party, unless you're referring to the fundraising apparatus. I think the real reason that Clinton has managed to come so far despite a very, very bad February is a) dynastic loyalty in the party, and b) the fact that a lot of people want a woman president. Which is what makes Geraldine Ferraro's comment particularly bizarre.

  By  Arbitrista, at 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment
<< Home