Oh, that bitch Hillary Clinton, she sure burns my britches. Why, she’s actually going to have her name put in nomination at the DNC! That means clearly, she’s trying to destroy the party, unlike, say, Ted Kennedy, who did the same thing in 1980, or Jesse Jackson, who did the same thing in 1984 and 1988, or Jerry Brown, who got votes in 1992, or…well, anyhow, it’s evil when Hillary does it. And we all know her goal is to destroy the party from within, right?
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are working on a deal to give her some votes in the roll call for the Democratic presidential nomination, but quickly end the divided balloting in unanimous consent for Obama.
Democratic officials involved in the negotiations said Monday the idea is that at the start of the state-by-state vote for the presidential nomination Wednesday night, delegates would cast their votes for Clinton or Obama.
But the voting would be cut off after a couple of states, the officials said, perhaps ending with New York, when Clinton herself would call for unanimous backing for Obama from the convention floor. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity while the deal was being finalized.
Wow. She really is Lady Macbeth, isn’t she? Meanwhile, I’m sure she and John McCain are probably behind that ridiculous new McCain ad where he attacks Obama for passing over her for the vice presidency, right?
“I just want to make it absolutely clear — we cannot afford four more years of President Bush’s failed policies,” she said. “I am looking forward to being at the White House when President Obama signs quality, affordable health care for every American.”
[…]
Clinton mocked a Republican advertisement using some of her criticisms of Obama during the nominating duel.
“I am Hillary Clinton and I do not approve that message,” she said, earning a standing ovation from a New York crowd waving blue signs saying “Hillary Made History.”
Why, it’s almost as if she isn’t trying to sabotage the Obama campaign. But I’m sure she is. Everyone knows Hillary is pure evil, and a little thing like facts will never get in the way of that.
It looks like you intended to quote something at the end, but didn’t. Also the link attached to the name “Barack Obama” in the first blockquote is broken.
Perhaps it’s these slipups, or maybe it’s just my obtuse Britishness, but I’m really not getting your point here. I understand your statement
to be rhetorical irony. This is the position of your hypothetical opponent which you are rebutting.
But who is this opponent. Are you saying that the AP article from MSNBC is expressing this view? If so, then I’m not seeing it. From what I read of that article, Clinton and Obama are cooperating with a view to unifying (or at least, to give a semblance of unity) to the DP.
Alternatively, maybe you cited the article in rebuttal of your hypothetical opponent, but I’m still left wondering who that opponent is. Who is portraying Clinton as such an evil witch?
Daran, you’d have to be willfully obtuse not to see the “Hillary Clinton is destroying the party” meme is the one the MSM has latched on to, despite no evidence for the proposition.
I think this is dangerous territory for Obama. History has not been kind to candidates who went thru bruising primaries. Jackson and Brown where just vanity candidates, but Kenndy really did hurt Carter (as Reagan did Ford).
And the Clinton’s have more power, privilege, and a sense of entitlement than all the above mentioned candidates at the time of the primary (with the possible exception of Kennedy). Most dangerously, Bubba is still playing the race card on Obama. Thus, without prompting, Bubba again accused the Obama camp of labling him a racist, a devastating charge coming from a fellow democrat to his party’s first black nominee.
Bubba knows he has Obama between a rock and a hard place. What’s Obama to do? If he defends Clinton’s accusers his hopes of uniting his party, and subsequently winning the election, are dashed. If he attacks them he ends up “admitting” that Clinton’s accusers, and by extension himself (since he benefited), are Sharptonesque, touching the very third rail he has so deftly avoided despite his political opponents repeatedly baiting him to touch it. Both are losing cards.
Meanwhile, Bubba all but said Obama is not ready to be President. Hillary writes an op-ed in the NYTimes saying we need new leadership without mentioning Obama. Wolfson is on FoxNews calling Obama a race-baiter. Wolfson also confirms the bad blood is real, not just a media creation. Clinton advisers are skipping Obama’s speech. Polls show him losing baby-boomer women and if one goes the clinton blogesphere, one sees rumours so vicious they rival anything coming out of the VRWC.
The extent to which the clintons are behind this will probably remain as much a political mystery as to whether bush knew about the McCain black baby smear. But one things for sure, its in their best interest to keep the party divided. Obama must lose the general in order for them to reclaim their party, power, and arguably reputation.
This is precisely why party insiders wanted Clinton to quit the race when it became obvious she couldn’t win. The Clintons scorched earth policy has given McCain cover to launch all sorts of attacks on Obama, and even have dems defend him when he does it–b/c they originated from the Clintons. Obama as race baiter, as not fit to be commander in chief, as sexist, as fairy tale anti-war hero, as man with messiah-complex, as lacking substance, as out of touch with hard working white Americans, and finally as election steeler who lost the popular vote.
All these charges are false and incendiary, and coming from a republican they could easily be dismissed as part of the, well, VRWC. But with clinton supporters still steaming and thus sympathetic to the charges, losing independents is a real possibility. Sadly, Obama must waste time unifying his party this week, a tall task with two powerful democrats still out to get him. But in what has been an campaign full of historic precedents, one should not lose sight of the fact that Obama was able to achieve one precedent the entire VRWC could not: defeat the Clintons.
Now he needs to put them away, as diplomatically as possible,
Nope, Manju, sorry — I’m not buying that Clinton is trying to backstab Obama, any more than I believe Obama has not been duly deferential to Hillary. People are spending so much time reading tea leaves trying to find reasons to be upset that they’re not actually looking at what’s going on. And what’s going on is that Clinton’s going to be the one moving for Obama to be nominated by acclimation — which is not, repeat, not something you do if you hate someone. If you hate someone…well, go back and look at Teddy and Jimmy in 1980. That’s hate. This isn’t even mild dislike.
I already conceded my possible obtuseness.
But it’s not willful. I really, truly, Scouts Honour, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, do not see that meme in the MSN story. It certainly says that some of Clinton’s supporters are bitter, but everything it said about Clinton was to the effect that she was doing everything she could to smooth things over and help the party to unify. Additionally it makes the point that it’s in her interest to do so.
Are you sure that it isn’t you who has latched onto the idea that the MSN is promulgating this meme, despite no evidence for the proposition?
So what did you folks think of the speech? I thought she gave a hell of a speech. Of course, I didn’t actually believe stuff like “McCain doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work”, but what the hell – it was bound to be a partisan speech in that respect, so let that pass. If her main objective was to convince her supporters that they need to get out there and work and vote for Obama, I think she did a great job.
But then, I wasn’t one of her supporters and I have no current intention to vote for Obama again, so I’m curious to hear what those among you who support either of those two candidates think.
RonF-
As an Obama supporter (after Edwards dropped out, thank Odin), I pretty much agree with you. I thought her speech was fabulous. It was strong, sounded sincere, and not just urged her supporters to vote for Obama, but explained WHY they should very well. My favorite line was when she asked her supporters, “Was it all about me?”, a great challenge to anyone who thinks they are supporting women’s issues and Clinton’s values by voting for McCain. The only weak part in my opinion were the direct attacks on McCain. They were well written and I agreed with them, but they were the only parts of her speech that seemed “performed” to me, like she needed a better acting coach for those lines. But all of the positive parts of her speech, which was the vast majority, came across as both strong and sincere.
Oh, but you really should.
—Myca
Apparently McCain opposed the bill because it was completely open-ended with no statue of limitations at all, would have also permitted 3rd parties to get involved and other technical issues – problems that should have been fixed if this bill was intended to get things done as opposed to creating a political talking point for electioneering purposes.
I fully agree with the overall idea. If someone is being discriminated in this fashion, each paycheck SHOULD be a separate violation and start a new clock. This woman and all else in her shoes have been/are being dealt an injustice. That’s actually one reason why I’m suspicious about this bill. I find it hard to otherwise understand why nearly half of both the House and the Senate would oppose it.
I’d also be interested in knowing what McCain’s overall record is on this issue, rather than making a judgement based on his vote on one bill that he has voted on over a 26-year career in the Federal legislature.
Finally, I love this one:
Since Congress can change laws, it’s reasonable for the court to make cautious, narrow readings in statutory cases in the knowledge that they aren’t necessarily preserving ancient prejudices in amber forever. Just change the law!
Interesting to see a liberal commentator argue this. I wonder what his position was on the 2nd Amendment Miller case. Or Roe v. Wade? Did he press for a cautious, narrow reading in those?
Ron you cut out the first part of that quote:
I’ve added the bolding to emphasize that it’s not an argument a liberal commenter made. It’s him summarizing a conservative argument.
In regards to McCain’s record on pay equality, are you aware of anything he’s done on that front at all? If he found the bill imperfect, did he introduce amendments to fix it, introduce a competing bill, or do anything at all in service of pay equality? Has he ever?
If someone does zilch in service of pay equity, consistently opposes the efforts of others, and tells “a 14-year old girl that he didn’t think protections for equal pay would do ‘”anything to help the rights of women,'” well, no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that he thinks it’s OK to oppose equal pay for equal work.
—Myca
I had taken that to mean that he was agreeing with the conservative commentator. If you want to make that argument, O.K. – but I was not trying to change the character of the quote by leaving that out.
Good question. I don’t know. I agree that the question is valid and that McCain should be called to account for his vote on this bill. But I’m also saying that I’m not going to consider the case closed on McCain’s attitudes towards equal pay for equal work based on one bill he’s seen over the last 26 years. That seems to be what the Democratic party is asking me to do, though.
Now, if the Democratic party sees it to their advantage to bring up all the bills pertaining to equal pay for equal work that McCain has voted on, I’m sure they’ll do it. If they do, I’ll take a look at it and the Republican rejoinder (if there is one, and if there isn’t that will be telling).
As far as I know, the Lily Ledbetter Act is the only significant equal pay legislation that has come before the Senate since McCain became a Senator. Both the original equal pay act and the pregnancy nondiscrimination act of 1978 happened before McCain joined the Congress.
So you’re essentially saying that it’s unfair to judge McCain’s policy preferences on this issue based on how he voted when he had a chance.
I could understand your argument if the Ledbetter act had been folded into an omnibus bill or something, but IIRC it was fairly clean legislation, and the excuses not to vote for it — especially in light of the lack of any credible alternatives or amendments offered — are tissue-thin.
As luck would have it, Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly just talked about this today. He linked to a piece by Adam Jentleson at The Wonk Room:
So … yeah. Nobody’s basing their opinion that John McCain thinks it’s okay for women to be paid less than men on one vote. They’re basing it on his actual legislative history.
The Republican rejoinder?
Yeah. I’m sure he does.
I support “the concept” of magic flying unicorns, and I promise to produce them about 10 minutes after John McCain produces pay equity.
—Myca