marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

Fatal Attraction

Here comes the last rattle on the snake. Hillary Clinton will sweep the West Virginia primary and... and... and who knows? hillfatal.jpg Isn't it wonderful how she's the loser in the race for the Democratic nomination and yet she's all we're talking about? Instead of talking about the foolishness, say, of John McCain's free-market proposals to stop global warming (when it was the free market that got us here), we're instead asking What Will Hillary Do?

Nice work, if you can get it. Hillary must be proud of this hat trick. On the other hand...more and more people are talking about her as if he she's a whacko up on a high-story ledge. Former Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior was quoted Monday talking about Hillary as if she was about to jump. Or like she was ready to push the red button on the dynamite vest she's strutting around in. Bonior said we have all to calm down, not spook her and, instead, give her "some space" to make the decision on how and when to step back in through the skyscraper window. Maybe we should get her Mom to talk her down with a bullhorn. As reported by ABC News, one Democratic Congressman had a more pithy observation:
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn, an Obama supporter, compared Clinton to the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction" -- a spurned woman turned stalker who was apparently drowned in a bathtub only to jump up one more time to be shot dead. "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career and needs to move to the next step, which is helping elect the Democratic nominee," Cohen said during a local TV interview. He later apologized for his comments.
Meanwhile, Ben Smith of The Politico comes up with six different ways to get Hillary to bug off.  Option #4 (Kicking and Screaming) and Option #5 (a racial meltdown) sound like the most fun. Which one strikes your fancy?

77 Responses to “Fatal Attraction”

  1. Michael Balter Says:

    No worries, it will all be over soon. She needs to have her win in West Virginia (unless it isn’t by the large margin everyone is predicting?) and then she will come back off that ledge. The superdelegates have spoken, and it isn’t for her. And we need to let her express her inner Clinton:

  2. GM Roper Says:

    The Democrats have no one to blame Hillary on than themselves.

    Michael, your “inner Clinton” line is great!

  3. Michael Balter Says:

    Thanks GM. Check out my latest thoughts on Hillary, click on my name, my Web site URL now goes to my blog.

  4. Chileno Says:


  5. Bill Bradley Says:

    Actually, she’s not all we’re talking about.

    She’s done.

    As in done like dinner. :)

    It’s a late dinner from her standpoint. And we’ll see who cares about that.

  6. Bill Bradley Says:

    … Incidentally, cap and trade is the preferred mode on climate change. McCain’s problems are more complex than that. And we will get to them very shortly.

  7. reg Says:

    Marc – I have this nasty feeling you’re gonna miss her. She’s certainly swallowed your blog whole. And yes, Michael, you’re absolutely right in that Obama embodies a better balance of the positive traditionally “male” and traditionally “female” qualities that we should be looking for in a contemporary leader than Clinton does. The range of apt movie stereotypes used to lampoon Clinton are telling. It started out with “Election” which was kind of cute and funny with the annoying, nerdy bundle of ambiton. Now we’re dealing with “Fatal Attraction” and that “Hillary’s Downfall” video on Youtube – which is the funniest parody of the season, sad to say. I’ve never liked her and I’ve never hated her. (I’ve actually found Bill Clinton far more interesting and sympathetic in the depth of his character flaws, which have always been so obvious I never felt betrayed or shocked by the guy.) But this election cycle put me on the side of folks who simply get creeped out at the sight of her. Thankfully, it’s over. We’ll all be better off if we just treat it as such.

  8. bob williams Says:

    Testing. One two three. Testing

  9. Woody Says:

    Drive Clinton to Fort Marcy Park and give her a gun. She’ll know what to do.

  10. reg Says:

    Carville calls it for Obama.

    No can we please get him and his bitter scold of a wife off of Meet the Press ?

  11. Woody Says:

    There is a new choice for President for people who aren’t satisfied with the current status of candidates.
    “Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr said on Monday that he will run for president as a Libertarian…. As a Georgia congressman between 1995 and 2003, Barr was a stalwart conservative and one of the leaders of the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton.”

  12. reg Says:

    Bill B – Kevin Drum has a good post up on why McCain’s version of cap and trade is remarkably lame and short of the mark.

  13. Woody Says:

    Bumper Sticker: I wish Hillary married O.J.

  14. jcummings Says:

    Hillary will remain in public life, her supporters will congregate in airports and rail terminals selling books about how the British family runs the world’s drug trade, while she does time for fraud.

  15. jcummings Says:

    Should be British Royal family.

    Yes, Hillary’s supporters are like LaRouchies, except perhaps more racist.

  16. reg Says:

    I’m getting reminded of why I’ve defended Hillary against some of her more crazed detractors…

  17. jcummings Says:

    Why is that?

    Hillary is indefensible, perhaps, but my issue is with her supporters, who – with some exception – are the most reactionary, delusional bunch of people one has ever encountered.

  18. Randy Paul Says:


    Bob Barr worked for the ACLU.

  19. reg Says:

    As I said, I’m getting reminded of why I’ve defended Hillary against some of her more crazed detractors.

  20. ryan rayston Says:

    I wonder why a woman, who’s a multimillionaire, is fundraising from hard working people who cannot afford gas (remember them?), but will take their money to repay her campaign debt. Is is just me, or does that sound like massive Clintonesque skullduggery?

  21. jcummings Says:

    Why reg?

  22. reg Says:


  23. jcummings Says:

    Aside from Paul Krugman, can you point out to me a single “still standing” supporter of HRC, particularly her own “netroots” that is not apeshit crazy?

  24. jcummings Says:

    go to or


  25. Michael Balter Says:

    I’ve got a 7th way to add to Ben Smith’s list. How about if she doesn’t win W. Virginia by anywhere near the 25% her campaign is predicting?

    Just an idea.

  26. reg Says:

    There are a lot of nutty Hillary supporters – but I don’t believe that the 49% or whatever of Democrats who voted for her or supported her are the most delusional, reactionary people on the planet. Many of them are presumably “still standing.” They’re totally lame maybe. Short on “the vision thing.” Overcome by faux nostalgia – even a touch of Clinton-era Stockholm Syndrome that’s infected a lot of Democrats. But not the core of what’s wrong with the country. I’ll reserve that judgement for those who are still stuck on the GOP. People like Jeralyn Merrit and Taylor Marsh are pretty much totally nuts and remarkably bitter – but I don’t think they’re reactionary in the sense of “ultra-right” so much as mired in extreme and retrograde gender politics.

  27. reg Says:

    Apologies to John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, et al – Hillary and Barack didn’t split 100% of the Dem primary vote as I inferred.

  28. reg Says:

    MB – whatever happens in West Virginia tonite, Obama is certain to do better with fellow Dems than John McCain who only won 1% of the WVa GOP caucus vote back in February.

  29. reg Says:

    That looks like it’s in error – McCain had a whopping 16% but released his caucus people to shift to Huckabee in order to deny Romney a victory. Still…16%.

  30. Michael Balter Says:

    Well, whatever Hillary gains in W. Va delegates tonight has been erased by what she lost in superdelegates the last three days. She’s been beat at her own game.

  31. reg Says:

    Obama’s campaigning today at a factory in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. That sort of says it all. Hillary’s history. The fight against McCain has begun in earnest.

  32. jcummings Says:

    The sites I referred to are reactionary. They concentrate almost exclusively on Muslimbaiting, Wrightbaiting, Redbaiting or a combination of the three.

  33. bob williams Says:

    Gee whiz. A lot of WV Dems don’t think much of Obama’s honesty.

  34. Andrea Hackett Says:

    If you’re all quite through patting yourselves smugly on the back and preparing for Obama’s presidency, I think you’d do well to pay attention to the exit polls. More than half the Democrats polled don’t trust Obama. He’s been losing steadily since the Rev. Wright affair (which I’m sure the participants in this blog attribute exclusively to white racisim). The fact is, voters in West Virginia came out in record numbers for Hillary despite the fact she was outspent 2-to-1, despite a relentless media barrage that she has no hope, and despite the fact that she was opposed by the governor. If Obama can’t win the swing states and can’t win blue collar white voters, he can’t win the general election. Period. And I don’t care how much you want to agree with each other or denigrate the Clintons or “Billary” or all the rest. Obama is a straight up loser. The black vote and the elitist left vote do not add up to victory. Even in a year when Republicans are running scared.

  35. Michael Balter Says:

    Yes, Obama has some problems with working class whites, largely because there is still a lot of racism in this country–particularly in states like West Virginia where some people still don’t know better. And Clinton has not hesitated to exploit racism among them–yes, not only deliberately exploit it but even try to turn that racist exploitation into some sort of a virtue. She has been COUNTING ON that racism to win, but she has fallen far short of the mark. Despicable. And despicable that folks like Andrea Hackett would be complicit in Clinton’s racist strategy.

  36. Michael Balter Says:

    Let me just add that the fact that Obama is clearly ahead of Clinton, and already has the nomination sewed up despite the fantasies of some, shows that the majority of Americans have moved past the kind of race-baiting that Clinton and her supporters have increasingly leaned on to keep her campaign alive. That is why Obama has such a good chance in November.

  37. evets Says:

    Andrea -

    He seems to be ahead in the polls against McCain. So it doesn’t look like his loss is a foregone conclusion. And there is the inconvenient fact that he’s won all these delegates in all these states.

    So I think we should let him run.

  38. Andrea Hackett Says:

    I strongly disagree. If anyone has introduced race into this process it’s Obama through his longtime personal association with Reverend Wright. And let’s not discount the fact that nine out of ten African-Americans support Obama. If nine out of ten whites supported Hillary the cries of racism would be deafening. As it is they’re deafening enough, but to her credit Hillary hasn’t capitalized on the race issue other than to cite polls which clearly show her leading among blue collar white voters. I don’t see her strategy racist at all. And as for my “complicity” in racism, I’ll let that comment speak for itself.

  39. Michael Balter Says:

    Clinton supporters can talk all they want, the campaign is over and Obama is the nominee. The only remaining question is whether they are going to support the nominee or allow McCain to win. Period.

  40. Andrea Hackett Says:

    I really believe, and maybe I’m wrong here, but I really believe Obama’s campaign must be viewed from two vantages: Before Reverend Wright and After Reverend Wright. After Reverend Wright he seems to have lost the support of crucial (and yes, white) blue collar voters. His overall delegate count, however, includes the Before Reverend Wright support he enjoyed among those voters. Now, do I think he’ll get the nomination? Yes. But do I believe his election is inevitable? No. Not unless he picks Hillary as his running mate and I’m not sure either one of them would agree to that.

  41. Michael Balter Says:

    Andrea, how do you explain North Carolina and Indiana? Those were post-Wright elections, and Clinton couldn’t squeak out more than 2 points difference in a state where Wright should have made a big difference according to your calculus. It seems to take a state with a LOT of racists for it to make a difference, and those are the states Clinton is crowing about. I would not be so proud of winning so big in West Virginia if I were her.

  42. Andrea Hackett Says:

    First off, you seem to be obsessed with racism. It seems any white person who opposes Obama is a racist in your eyes. Secondly, as far as North Carolina goes, Obama got 90 percent of the African-American vote. Now, I’m sure none of those votes were cast due to race because, after all, only white voters are racist. But he carried the state largely because of African-American voters. Thirdly, as to Indiana, Hillary WON in a state that Obama called a “tie-breaker.” To what do you attribute the fact that she made up so much ground if not the Rev. Wright affair?

  43. Andrea Hackett Says:

    Okay, well, Michael Balter seems to have left the room (not unlike Obama this evening), so I’ll ask you a question, evets. What poll shows Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton? The numbers I’ve seen show Hillary beating McCain by 7 to 9 points and Obama in a similar matchup winning by only 3 to 4 points.

  44. Dan O Says:

    Andrea – It’s probably best to not even respond to you, since it’s hard to know where to start. You’ve let your devotion to Hillary (nothing wrong with that at all), obscure the facts. There is no scenario left where Hillary becomes the nominee. Obama has done everything he can to transcend racial pandering and has engaged the topic in an unprecedented way for a national politician. Hillary, and her husband, have done just the opposite, relying on a sad tradition of scare mongering on race. And the fact that Obama captures 80-90% of the black vote is not an indication of racism, but rather the recognition amongst black voters that this is a historic moment.

    I’m not being sarcastic when I say this: It sucks to lose. It can be downright devastating. In the end though, I suspect you’ll come around when the time is right.

  45. Michael Balter Says:

    I’m still around. What Dan O said. Indeed, nothing more needs to be said.

  46. Jim R Says:

    I don’t think it is the white, black, or female working class voters Obama has to worry so much about in a general election.

    To date, it has been, and will continue to be, the radical name calling left, I don’t need to mention names – we and they know who they are -some more infamous than others, that will continue to separate middle of the road voters Obama is going to need to win.

    You just can’t stop them, thank god. They are religiously righteous adult children.

  47. evets Says:

    Andrea -

    Fact is, after the worst of the Wright stuff, she had a 7 point lead (or so) across polls in Indiana and he closed the gap to nearly 0 in a matter of days.

    If you’re really looking for a VP candidate who’d neutralize any queasiness over Wright or Obama’s alien pigmentation, then Hillary is about the last person you’d choose. You’d take someone like Jim Webb, who’d bring a lot to the table vis a vis McCain and would also appeal much more naturally and viscerally than truck-stop Hillary to these blue collar voters you claim will never go for Obama.

    Pure pragmatism would argue against Hillary for VP. Unless of course folks like you make it clear that without her on the ticket they’ll refuse to vote for Obama out of spite.

  48. Randy Paul Says:

    Dig a little deeperAndrea:

    In North Carolina, 81 percent of voters queried in CNN exit polling said the economic recession has affected them — with 46 percent saying they have been affected “a great deal.” Fifty-two percent of the poll’s 1,717 respondents said they think Obama is better suited to improve the economy, compared with 42 percent who favored Clinton.

    Among voters who said they have been affected by the economy, Obama took 55 percent of the vote, compared with 41 percent for Clinton.

    The 2000 census had NC at 22% African-American. There had to have been pretty signifcant white tunrout for Obama to have won that big.

  49. Michael Balter Says:

    Clinton and her supporters have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain why Obama’s edge in delegates, superdelegates, popular vote, and states won doesn’t really mean anything. It’s not an honest argument anymore, more a blatant attempt to deny victory to a candidate who has won fair and square and played by the groundrules everyone agreed upon ahead of time.

  50. evets Says:

    “The numbers I’ve seen show Hillary beating McCain by 7 to 9 points and Obama in a similar matchup winning by only 3 to 4 points.”

    As of today there’s about a percentage point difference in their matchups with McCain (they both beat him). That gap has wavered back and forth over time, definitely tilted in Hillarys’ favor when Obama went through his worst patch a few weeks ago and narrowed in Obama’s favor since then, just as the national Democratic polls have shown his lead over her expanding in the last couple of weeks. I expect this trend to continue.

    He’s also consistently managed to move voters in his direction as he’s introduced himself to them, which he’ll be doing on a large scale in the general.

  51. Jim R Says:

    Fact is, it is not color or gender or calss politics at all that is going to defeat Obama.

    It t is becoming increasingly clear it is going to be the shared far left politics of his past associations and present supporters.

  52. Michael Balter Says:

    If Obama sticks to the political positions he has already staked out, he will win. If he starts flip-flopping like Gore and Kerry did, he’s toast. That’s why he needs support starting right now, and why Clinton’s grandstanding is so destructive. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for letting Clinton hang herself.

  53. Michael Balter Says:

    That’s funny, Jim R and Andrea, Childers won handily in Mississippi even though the Republicans did their best to link him to Obama. Times change, and you can’t count on racism nor fears of “left” politics as much as you once could.

    May 14, 2008
    Democrat Wins House Seat in Mississippi

    COFFEEVILLE, Miss. — Democrats scored a remarkable upset victory on Tuesday in a special Congressional election in this conservative Southern district, sending a clear signal of national problems ahead for Republicans in the fall.

    Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.

    The seat had been in Republican hands since 1995, and the district, largely rural and stretching across the northern top of Mississippi, had been considered one of the safest in the country for President Bush’s party, as he won here with 62 percent of the vote in 2004.

    Having lost a similar Congressional race this month in Louisiana, Republicans had worked desperately to win this contest, sending Vice President Dick Cheney to campaign for Mr. Davis, along with Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas; President Bush and Senator John McCain recorded telephone messages that were sent to voters throughout the district.

    Merle Black, a Southern politics expert at Emory University, called a Democratic victory potentially “a huge upset, and an indication of a terrible year ahead for the Republicans.” He added, “In theory, this should be an easy win for them.”

    Mimicking a strategy that proved successful in 2006, Democrats ran staunch conservatives in both this and the Louisiana race, forcing their Republican opponents to attack national party figures as surrogates.

    Mr. Davis had been hoping for a large turnout in his home of DeSoto County, where roughly 15 percent of the district’s voters live, and which is solidly Republican and mostly white. But a last-minute appearance for him by Mr. Cheney on Monday apparently failed to rally his base sufficiently; indeed a modest room at a local convention center was hardly packed.

    “There are indications that the normal Republican turnout is just not there,” Mr. Black said. “If they can’t win up there, where are you going to win?”

    Both Mississippi candidates depicted themselves as down-the-line conservatives on social issues, and there was little difference between them on abortion and gun rights: staunchly against the first, and for the second.

    But the Republican strategy of trying to link Mr. Childers to more liberal national Democratic figures fell short, as it did in Louisiana. Indeed, voters here were bombarded by advertisements equating Mr. Childers with Senator Barack Obama, a tactic intended to turn conservative whites away from Mr. Childers and which some politicians said played on white racial resentments. Mr. Childers, for his part, fiercely resisted the connection, calling himself over and over a “Mississippi Democrat.”

    The defeat is certain to put a damper on plans by Congressional Republican plans to roll out their new policy agenda this week in an effort to turn around their fortunes.

    Several House Republicans, who were already scheduled to meet on Wednesday, have said privately they do not see a wholesale leadership shake-up or an overhaul of their campaign operation as a strong option, given that the election is just six months away. But they are likely to consider some changes in response to the Mississippi defeat. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich warned his onetime House colleagues last week that they need a major shift to forestall heavy losses in November.

    When Mr. Childers is sworn in, the House will have 236 Democrats to 199 Republicans.

    In the end, tying the Democrat to the black presidential candidate may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout across the district _ heavier than in an initial vote three weeks ago when Mr. Childers came within 400 votes of winning.

    “I like what Childers was saying — he was more truthful and down to earth,” said Mary Shelton, an African-American who had just cast her vote for the Democrat at the Yalobusha County courthouse here.

    And Mr. Childers’s association with the party that might nominate Mr. Obama didn’t hurt either. “We need a change, we really do,” Ms. Shelton said.

    Mr. Childers won Yalobusha on Tuesday, having lost it in the April vote. And even in this district, it is not difficult to find conservative voters dissatisfied with the administration in Washington. “There’s a lot of people that are mad at Bush,” said Jim Jennings, a retired businessman, sitting at a table with Republican voters at a barbecue restaurant in DeSoto County.

    Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the party was disappointed and needed to be better prepared to deal with conservative Democratic candidates, but warned that time is short.

    “The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general,” he said on Tuesday night. “Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for.”

    Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington.

  54. Andrea Hackett Says:

    It’s all so clear cut with this crowd. Clinton is polling above 65 percent with women, seniors, non-college educated, and (racist) white voters. But there’s nothing to worry about. Obama will win them all over. Hell, he doesn’t even need Hillary on the ticket. Florida and Michigan will forgive him. Voters in swing states will suddenly come to their senses. People without health insurance will realize they really don’t need it. Working men and women like me will fall in line. It’s all so simple.

    So, go ahead. Elect your “historic” candidate. But don’t look to Hillary’s supporters for votes. If she’s not on the ticket in 2008 we’ll just sit this one out. And wait for 2012.

  55. Michael Balter Says:

    Who is that “we” you’re talking about, Andrea? With McCain in office, Roe v. Wade is a dead duck, and I don’t think the women of America are interested in seeing that happen. As I said on one of my blog posts, like it or not your best friend right now is a Black man. Enough with the bullshit.

  56. Mia T Says:

    “[L]et’s not discount the fact that nine out of ten African-Americans support Obama. If nine out of ten whites supported Hillary the cries of racism would be deafening. As it is they’re deafening enough, but to her credit Hillary hasn’t capitalized on the race issue…” — Andrea Hackett

    The clintons are demonstrable racists. Look at clinton history*. Look at the gestalt of this race. And then consider the context of her statement last week, namely West Virginia. (YouTube: hillary: ‘Vote white!’ (clinton racism goes overt))

    Before SC, hillary was winning the black vote. After Obama’s win in virtually all-white Iowa, the clintons understood blacks would conclude that Obama could actually win the whole thing and would move to him en masse.

    Their answer was to offset this gain with the white vote by painting him black and polarizing the electorate racially. That’s what the clinton SC race card was all about.

    The clintons’ despicable scheme worked only with the ignorant, uninformed, misinformed, disinformed, credulous subset of white Ds: aka ‘hillary’s base.’ The ‘elites’ were appalled.

    hillary’s racist scheme was always obvious, but at least at the beginning she tried to be subtle. (YouTube – hillary: ‘SPADE WORK’ (clinton racist code words))

    But as she became more desperate, ‘subtle’ became too risky and her moves became increasingly blatant and vulgar.


    * clinton history of racism

    You can start with the fact that when the “first black president” and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.

    Conversely, the clintons’ refinement of the DNC drag and drop is, arguably, one of the more insidious and repugnant applications of their special brand of race-hate politics.

    Calculating a black man’s worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

    But it is even worse.

    Listen to Randall Robinson in the following video. (Indeed, listen to bill clinton in that video.) Listen… watch… about Rwanda. Only one conclusion is possible: A clinton legacy of lynching.
    (YouTube: ‘Destroying Obama (clinton legacy of lynching update)’)

  57. Dan O Says:

    OK, Andrea, I’ve decided there is something wrong with your devotion to Hillary–it’s pathological.

    Nader voters were hoping to send a message to the party that the right leaning, corporate sponsored sell-out of the working class would not be tolerated any longer. Some people feel strongly that this was misguided, and yet there was a serious political purpose behind it.

    Please tell me what purpose you stand for, what influence you hope to have with this stand: If she’s not on the ticket in 2008 we’ll just sit this one out. And wait for 2012.

  58. Jim R Says:

    So you have a female voter standing up alone here for her democratic candidate in a primary that has not ended being totally disrespected and belittled by fellow democrats who prefer theirs.

    And she is the pathological supporter? At least she isn’t rude, crass, name calling, and alienating to her fellow party members. Give me pathological.

  59. jcummings Says:

    Andrea, did you know that Obama is controlled by International Dionysian Freemasonic Muslim Christian Weathermen?

  60. reg Says:

    JR: “At least she isn’t rude, crass, name calling, and alienating to her fellow party members. Give me pathological.”

    Andrea: “Obama is a straight up loser. The black vote and the elitist left vote do not add up to victory….If she’s not on the ticket in 2008 we’ll just sit this one out. And wait for 2012.”

    The truth is that the Clinton camp injected race into this forthrightly when Bill first dismissively compared Obama to Jesse (If Bill is as smart as he likes to think he is about politics, he’d know that there was absolutely no comparison between the SC primary that Jackson won and Obama’s win in 2008. Jesse ran essentially unopposed by the frontrunners, among other major differences.) And Clintonites can complain about the black vote all they want, but Obama had to win black voters away from Hillary. The Congressional Black Caucus is split, so black people aren’t following some old line politicians like sheep. When blacks lined up 80% behind the Clintons in previous polls or election cycles, they weren’t dismissed. In addition, Hillary and her supporters have blatantly played the “gender” card as well. There are groups of her supporters for whom the primary rationale is gender (Emily’s List, NOW, old-school feminists like Steinem and Jong). There’s really no other argument for Hillary among these folks.

    Andreas’ also full of shit in her statistical claims – in Indiana Hillary got 52% of the women’s vote, in North Carolina she got 45% and in Pennsylvania – her strongest recent state – she got 59%. I have no idea where she gets her fantastical 65% figure. But then I have no idea where she gets a lot of her “ammo.”

    If Andrea wants to sit this election out and play spoiler for 2012 because Hillary didn’t win the nomination – or more to the point, isn’t being handed it despite her loss on the ground, by the rules she agreed to and supported going in – I don’t know what to say that could be construed as polite. The bitterness and sense of entitlement of this wing of HIilary supporters knows no bounds. It’s inconceivable to imagine the Obama campaign following a similiar path were the numbers turned equally to Hillary’s advantage. The gracious concession would have happened a while back. And if folks think that this kind of seige mentality – which really is a rerun of the old Clinton psychology under threat of impeachment and not a rational mindset in the context of a Democratic primary contest where voters are deciding the process as it proceeds – is a positive trait for a prospective President they’re kidding themselves. It’s George Bush all over again.

    Andrea can also take the charges of “elitism” against Obama voters and shove it up her ass. The Clinton campaign is a case study in the old politics of elites. You’d be hardpressed to find a more perfect coalition of retread political hacks, old-school femiinist groups representing upper-class white women, union bureaucrats who work from the top down and can’t organize shit, and Beltway cynics. Tired…and not as powerful as they assumed they were when they went into this thing.

    Also, current polls show Obama and Clinton doing about the same against McCain – one of the most recent I’ve seen has Obama doing better and one has Hillary doiing better, but the differences are nil in the context of these polling samples. So that just doesn’t hold water. Unless, of course, Andrea and those of like mind WANT it to come true. WANT four more years of Bush-like policies so that Hillary can get another shot in 2012. Now THAT’s pathological. I’ve said since day one of this race that if Hillary won it, I’d vote for her although I didn’t much like her. If she manages to steal the nomination, which I doubt, I’d still probably vote for her. That folks on the other side of the Democratic primary can’t deal with a fair win by their opponent and continue to denigrate him speaks volumes.

    I don’t know what’s more disturbing – the fake “facts”, the dismissiveness toward African-Americans or the “take my ball and go home” attitude.

    I can guarantee you that if Hillary had managed to be consistently ahead and sew up the nomination according to any rational set of expectations and dherence to the rules and the voice of the voters, I’d be making my peace with the prospect simply on the basis of how destructive a McCain administration looks to be. (And I’d be catching shit for it here.) I had no idea going into this thing that the Clinton crowd – from top to bottom – were so irrational. I knew she went into this thing assuming she owned the nomination, but I didn’t think her supporters were so mired in a sense of entitlement. Nor did I suspect that her team was so politically incompetent – which is a BIG warning sign as regards which camp can win the general. So come down off the ledge Andrea. The Democrats have their best candidate in my memory – one who, as the Mississippi congressional win shows – won’t weaken the Democratic party like the Clintons did when they had their last shot. Hillary blew it when she voted to authorize the Iraq war. She deserved to lose on that failure of leadership and judgement – an act of cowardice really that defined her candidacy in the minds of many grass-roots Democrats.

  61. Dan O Says:

    Jim R –

    Could you patronize Andrea any more? What does her sex have to do with this? She showed up to argue the merits of her candidate and expressed the view that she would rather implode this election than support a rival Democrat. She is expressing noxious and irrational views (and is by extension probably voting for war with Iran), views that I called, and continue to call, pathological for that reason. She seems to be able to handle herself just fine, and doesn’t need a man to come to her rescue.

    And incidentally, she’s the one who showed up here and in other threads with the pugnacious attitude, playing awfully loose with the facts. “Isn’t alienating to her fellow party members”? This kind of makes me think you have not been reading her comments with her apocalyptic sense of betrayal, and her intention to napalm-vote the process just to have another shot at 2012. This is cult of personality stuff, and suggests Andrea has a lack of belief in the core values of the Democratic party. Getting Hillary in is far more important than better health care coverage, defending unions…..oh, you know the list.

    I’ve never seen a more graceless pack of sore heads. Some of the Hillary crowd seems intent on sitting in the corner with their frowny face on.

    I’ve only heard women express their intention to choose the napalm scenario over Obama. Even Carville claims to have an undated check written out for Obama. There is an interesting intersection of racism and sexism at play here that’s hard to untangle. But Andrea’s refusal to play ball is an analogue to her derisive attitude toward black voters voting in large blocks for Obama.

    By the way, I predict that any potential loss of the moron element of the southern Democratic vote due to Obama’s color or the fer’un sounding name, will be more than offset by excited young voters, and massive numbers of newly enfranchised black voters. And despite Andrea’s threats, most Hillary supporters will move over to Obama. Those that do not can help pad Bob Barr’s numbers as he siphons off just enough Republican votes to ensure that McCain cannot win.

  62. Jim R Says:

    I classic leftwing mode, you let emotion do your thinking. If you’re so confident of an Obama win, and I think you should be, why are you guys behaving as if you’re not confident.

    You’re going to need the Andreas when the primary is over, and I’m guessing there are a lot of Andreas reading here in the background not appreciating one damn bit the over-the-top attacks on her. It is just political stupidity coupled with lack of the confidence you claim to have.

    I am a man, different, and proud to admit it. If a bunch of men ganging up on a woman doesn’t raise a natural instinct in you to defend her, or at the very least not join in, then I would say your manhood has been successfully compromised by a re-education indoctrination regime at a leftwing University, sorry that was redundant, to the detriment of women, men, society, and your common sense.

  63. reg Says:

    So glad, Jim, to see that you don’t let your emotion do your thinking. The next time I hear a woman in pure attack mode utter something totally false or nutty, I’ll just nod and say, “That’s cute.”

  64. reg Says:

    “What poll shows Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton?”

    Quinnipiac 5/14 – but like all of the current polling on this, the difference is statistically insignificant, a point or two. Therefore, you’ve got no argument on this. (Of course, it’s the only argument anyone in a position to shift the nomination to Hillary actually cares about.)

    But, yeah, let’s go with the person who’s got the highest negatives of any of the candidates by far, who had an incredible lead among all Democrats, including African-Americans, started out with a major fundraising advantage, and who had the biggest draw – and supposedly best political mind – in the Democratic party out stumping for her every day on solidly Democratic turf and couldn’t beat the skinny, black guy with the funny name who nobody had heard of a couple of years ago. That sounds right to me.

  65. Andrea Hackett Says:

    It’s no wonder this blog is never frequented by women, or anyone new for that matter. It appears to consist of seven or eight old sixties professors patting themselves on the back for their misogynist views. Come on, Marc. You can do better than this group.

  66. jcummings Says:


    You’ve got a lot of chutzpah talking about misogynist, when you’re the one threatening to vote against the Democrats, thus against women, if your cult-leader Lyndon LaRouche…er…Hillary Clinton is not the candidate.

  67. reg Says:

    That was quite an effective comeback, Andrea. Tossing the “misogynist” thing in was particularly powerful.

  68. Dan O Says:

    Oh come on Andrea. I don’t like your views, I think they are nutty. You would probably say the same about me. Fine. I gave what I think are rational arguments for why those views don’t float. I said nothing about your sex, and in fact defended you against a fellow here who thinks you need the kid-glove treatment and can’t handle the rough and tumble (which you clearly can).

    Misogyny would be Jim R’s view, that you need some sort of special protection in an exchange of arguments.

    Jim R: I want Andrea on board, and predicted she would move in that direction, but she has categorically stated that she will not. That’s not my fault, or reg’s fault, or Balter’s fault, or anyone else’s beside Andrea’s.

    And you might want to define “attacking” a little more carefully. Arguments on a blog don’t quite rise to the on-the-street scenario you seem to be imagining in your Tarzan rope-swinging fanatasy.

  69. evets Says:

    Andrea -

    You may want to look at this data, concerning Hillary, Obama, McCain and white voters

  70. evets Says:

    ‘That’s not my fault, or reg’s fault, or Balter’s fault, or anyone else’s beside Andrea’s.’

    I blame Jim R.

  71. Randy Paul Says:

    It appears to consist of seven or eight old sixties professors patting themselves on the back for their misogynist views

    As one of the few people who post here who was actually able to vote for Hillary Clinton for senate and takes great pride in the fact that he hasn’t, I can assure you Andrea that you do not know what you are talking about.

    When Pat Moynihan announced that he was retiring from the senate, the first name mentioned to run for the Democrats was indeed a woman: Representative Nita Lowey, a native New Yorker and six term representative who had served the state of New York for years, managed to rid congress of the wacky Joe DioGuardi and viewed the senate as a place to serve the citizens of her state, not as a stepping stone to the presidency.

    In any event, Senator Schumer decided to drop Hillary Clinton’s name and the resultiing hype overwhelmed Rep. Lowey’s chances, much to the loss of New York.

    So, if calling me a misogynist gives you the warm tinglies, Andrea, have at it. I’ll be content in knowing just how thoroughly full of shit you are.

  72. Jim R Says:

    “…in your Tarzan rope-swinging fanatasy.”

    Actually it’s pipe-smoking Popeye that’s my hero. Don’t make me have to eat my spinach.”

    “So, if calling me a misogynist gives you the warm tinglies, Andrea, have at it. I’ll be content in knowing just how thoroughly full of shit you are.”

    I think you guys have given the girls a very good insight into the direction their party has turned. She is pushed into a tough decision in November. Correct it by sitting out, or punish it by switching to the respectful and common sense one.

    Nice job boys. Welcome Andrea.

  73. Randy Paul Says:


    You undoubtedly have a reading comprehension problem. I took Andrea to task for calling me a misogynist for speaking ill of Hillary, whereas I showed her that I supported someone other than Hillary for the senate seat Clinton currently holds.

    If she thinks that makes me misogynist, she’s seriously wrong. If you had a shred of intellectually honesty in you, you’d acknowledge that.

  74. Randy Paul Says:

    Make that someone other than Hillary who also happened to be a woman.

  75. Jim R Says:

    I found a shred, and I acknowledge that.

    It’s not the argument Randy. It’s the method.

  76. Randy Paul Says:

    Let me put it this way, if the fact that someone opposes Hillary Clinton for president makes them misogynist is an acceptable method of arguing, then calling someone full of shit – and providing backup for that argument – for having made such an unfounded sweeping generalization should also be an acceptable method of arguing.

  77. Gerald Samberg Says:

    Good post. Cheers!