« Madame ? | Main | Romeo et Juliette »

February 09, 2008

Comments

Alix

You went to the caucus? Cool!!You need to say more about it--people are really confused about caucuses...

Arunkumar

Mortimer: You can keep making these semntaetts that only an idiot can support Hillary or only someone who doesn't care about ethics can support Hillary, but that's not going to win over anyone who doesn't already agree with you. 1. It should be rather easy to check the thread and see that I never claimed you were an idiot.2. The argument for Hillary's candidacy hinges not on whether Obama supporters can persuade you to switch to Obama, but rather on whether Hillary has a viable argument to make to the superdelegates, including her own, at least some of which may flee her in the absence of a few upsets (e.g., a blowout in Indiana and North Carolina) and a collapse by Obama (e.g., it is discovered he has seven other wives in Indonesia). Given 1, you should interpret my question as a sincere challenge to a non-idiot who loves ethics and cares about the Democratic Party: what is the argument that you envision Hillary will put forth to the superdelegates that justifies (to you) your support of her candidacy?It, frankly, only makes the Obama support seem more cultish. You don't see Clinton's supporters making those kinds of semntaetts in reverse, and they would be equally justified given the Wright controversy and the likelihood that Obama won't be able to win in the general now.1. Claiming that most Democrats who voted are cult members blatantly contradicts your statement that Clinton supporters do not make such semntaetts in reverse.2. In any event, prominent Clinton supporters (other than you) do make such comments in reverse, and far worse ones. To highlight at least three prominent examples: Taylor Marsh, TalkLeft, and Jerome Armstrong at MyDD.3. As for your sketch of an argument against an Obama candidacy, it doesn't really fit the facts. David Brooks has recently called for Hillary Clinton to drop out, and when asked by Matt Lauer why Hillary should do so given the Wright controversy, Brooks explains that the polling data shows the controversy simply hasn't had the deleterious impact Clinton supporters would wish. It has more or less evaporated, as far as the polls show. Given the statement by the Republican nominee in an interview with Sean Hannity that Obama simply doesn't share Wright's views (not to mention Mike Huckabee chastising the media for blowing the issue out of proportion), I think Obama has sufficient cover in his video archives. As for the notion that Obama now can't win, that's about as well-founded as your doubt that Obama supporters aren't being called by the Clinton team (i.e., it's a bare assertion without any factual support). I imagine that Obama will have a much easier time dispatching with John McCain when he doesn't have Hillary Clinton reiterating McCain's talking points, praising John McCain's national security credentials, and distracting attention from John McCain's weaknesses. The idea that Obama's superior poll numbers against McCain would not return once Hillary Clinton is no longer serving as McCain's attack-dog is rank speculation. I see no reason to believe that superdelegates will find it convincing. Why do you think otherwise?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)