A DIARIST AT MYDD IMAGINES general-election attack ads against Obama.
For the first time I have developed some serious reservations about my long-held prediction that Obama will be the next US President.
The videos displayed at MyDD and elsewhere are, in a word, devastating. John McCain has pledge to run a “clean” campaign (whatever that means - he seems to have thought that the Swift Boat Vets were smear artists) - but that doesn’t mean others won’t flood the voter’s awareness with similar videos. And there is apparently plenty of fodder for such tactics.
So…I could be wrong. It may not be Obama. It might be Hillary, if the specter of Obama’s vulnerabilities causes the Dem superdelegates to hand the nomination to her and BJ.
One has to note that this is more evidence of how much the internet has changed the political sphere. Twenty years ago, we could have expected that a compliant liberal media would have suppressed any ads of the sort shown here. But the gatekeepers can no longer hold the gates, so efforts like these have far more influence than they might once have had.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE: MyDD has sent the video and post down the memory hole, so here’s the video itself:
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Bill,
I disagreed with you some weeks back, when you asserted that Hillary was done. I based my disagreement on team Hillary, rather than on anything untoward from Obama. However, I see a very unpleasant, yet somehow very entertaining, Democratic convention. Hillary will enter behind in pledged delegates, but having won the biggest states, plus some states that she could swing into the blue category come November. Also, Obama’s negatives will continue to build, due in no small part to the Innertubes, and many Dems might finally realize that Obama is unlikely to carry any of his won primary states in the general election. It could be the perfect political storm which allows Hillary to garner the nomination.
One final thought: I keep waiting for the other Obama shoe to drop. A lot of these negatives about Obama, including his hate whitey pastor, aren’t newly discovered. My guess is that team Clinton has more to leak between now and the convention.
You know what sucks, though? The fact that one of these two disasters are likely to become president. I still see McCain getting clubbed like a baby seal in November.
Yeah, me too. And BJ and the Bag would do a number on McCain far worse than anything B. Hussein Obama could dream up. Remember how McCain whined and puled about the (relatively mild) attack ads GWB hit him with in 2000? That was a walk in a sunny park compared to what the Clintons would unload on him this fall if they are the candidates - no matter how much bullshit McCain spouts about not running an attack campaign against Hillary.
And the liberal mainstream media will be right there doing everything possible to help them get it done.
I saw a reference to this before i saw instapundit’s, so it is making it’s way through the net.
I’m not so sure. Hillbilly, yea, probably. The messiah, I’m not so sure. In an earlier comment, I believe, I said the reps had figured out a way to elect hillbilly by nominating McCain. Not to be outdone, the dems figured out a way to elect McCain, nominate the messiah.
He’ll get clubbed, but the messiah may get a bigger club.
Twenty years ago, would that video have even gotten made? I dunno who actually put it together, but almost anyone with a computer today could put something like that together in less than an hour…
The Derb makes an excellent case that the next President will be Al Gore.
Yup. The Dems will unite behind a candidate not even a single one of them voted for in a primary.
From a commenter elsewhere on the same notion:
I predict that a large number of Jewish and other pro-Israel voters who ordinarily vote Democrat will vote for McCain, or stay home if it turns out Obama is the nominee. This probably doesn’t help McCain carry the day in places like New York, Connecticut or New Jersey, but it may very well tip the balance in Florida for him. Come late September, I have a feeling we’re going to hear a lot more about Reverend Wright and some choice quotes from Mrs. Obama.
McCain though is correct about one thing. If things are relatively calm in Iraq come November, his chances are pretty good. If not, he doesn’t stand a chance.
I think this badly underestimates the effect the economy is likely to have on the election.
Yup. The Dems will unite behind a candidate [Gore] not even a single one of them voted for in a primary.
I assume that’s irony. All right, I’ll submit my head for a tap with the clue stick. Why do you think they wouldn’t?
The only person who thinks Al Gore has a real chance is Al Gore.
Be real. The Democratic Party decides to pick a rich white male over a black man or a white woman? McCain wins like Nixon in 1972, in a walkover.
McCain’s temper has always been the final negative for me. Oh, I’ll vote for him, maybe, probably, but I’d much rather have someone who’s judgement I could trust.
I had assumed that, after a long and drawn-out nomination process, the Democrats would announce that their candidate for 2008 would be: Fred Thompson.
OK, not really. But I’ve seen about as much evidence for that as for Gore, and it’s a much more exciting plot twist.
The heart and soul of the Democrat ethos is a lust for pure democracy. For Democrats, the notion that the winner is the one with the most votes - even if it is only by one vote - is sacred.
And who is the holy symbol of that ethos? Al Gore, that’s who. It is near-biblical scripture among the Democrat faithful that Al Gore should have been president because he won the popular vote. The notion that the party would close ranks behind him over a black man and a woman, when he didn’t win a single vote is, well, ludicrous.
If many principled conservatives plan to sit out this contest rather than vote for a man they despise, John McCain (which is exactly what I am going to do), then why would you think principled Democrats would do any less in response to a non-voting, smoke-filled-room hostile takeover by a fat old white man?
Well, unless the opposition wins by the one vote.
I disagree. The heart and soul of the Democrat “ethos”, if you can call it that, is the lust for power. They will deploy any tactic or argument they think will help them gain or secure that power, with no regard to principle or logical consistency with their past positions. Democrats support pure democracy because and to the extent that it undermines principles that limit the government power they desire, but they’re perfectly willing to toss it out if pure democracy happens to be in their way. How else to explain their willingness to use the courts to overturn the results of initiatives with which they disagree, such as the California Civil Rights Initiative?
I was going to add some snark about “principled Democrats” but for this audience I think it can be taken as a given.
But they allow considerable, um, creativity in how they get those votes. I know because I live in Chicago!
The other shoe, perhaps?
Why do so many commenters on this thread seem to think that a Democrat, whichever one, has a lock on the November general election? I, for one, certainly don’t.
Seriously, if you have a non-snarky answer, I’d like to hear it.
Will, you need to familiarize yourself a bit more with the past postings on this blog. Your question has been answered a dozen times over, in lapidary detail.
In short: The base will not turn out for McCain, the MSM will heavily support whomever turns out to be the Dem candidate, and as the economy continues to head south, independents will vote for a real Democrat rather than a RINO version of one.
Oh - and snark is an integral part of this blog. Demanding a “non-snarky” answer is sort of asking for it.
I have to go with Kyle here:
“The heart and soul of the Democrat ethos is a lust for pure democracy.”
…misses the driving motivation by orders of magnitude.
McCain makes the true base of the Republican party plan on scrabble tournaments or catching up on good books instead of voting, true, along with loose talk of “let it fall apart”.
But when faced with the reality of Her Shrillness and Barry the Virulent Racist Marxist, I believe that in the end there will be enough turnout, with the Dem crossovers, to put away either Clinton or Obama - and it won’t be close.
Gore? What’s in it for him, except losing his home state TWICE in addition to attracting unwanted attention to his Global Warming fininancial scam.
This election season certainly does have important issues in the mix. Too bad we have a spectacularly weak crop of non-entities that have floated to the top this time around.
Left identity politics have coalesced this situation whereby the Democrats are incapable of voting on actual merits of candidates. Compounding the tragedy is the left leaning media picked Obama for their guy before they, like , investigated any facts about him.
How disinterested must you be to buy a Chicago pol at face value…geeze? How lazy?
Clinton’s single power factor? She’s Hillary Clinton, and has a whole house full of closets with other folks’ skeletons as well as her own…
You mention the war and the economy.
I propose that the great silent majority already knows which party, if not better at running either, at least won’t abandon the fight for surrender or socialism.
If McCain holds off until the summer to name a good veep, and can float a doable energy program that embraces nukes and responsibly opening our own feasible petroleum resources, it won’t matter who the Dems end up with.
The ethanol/food supply fiasco will be so sever by then that he’ll be able to step back from his AGW silliness, too.
If only Hillary could wrest the nomination from Obama. We could then win the house back. Of course, that is the open secret reason why Hillary will not win the nomination. Niether one of these guys is going to poll well in the “Blue Dog” districts that gave the Dems the majority. Those districts which were won at the height of antiwar sentiment, but are not normally Democrat. Time will tell, but I say the superdelegates would rather lose the WH than their own elections.
Just for background, I do read this blog, though seldom comment (here not for a good long time, elsewhere more recently but still rarely).
I’ve never agreed entirely with the idea that the base will not turn out for McCain, believing their distaste for McCain would in the long run be trumped by their loathing for the Clintons personally or what Obama represents. On the other hand, I did recognize the distinct possibility that it would happen.
There is something I consider an increasing possibility that would make both scenarios moot. I’m not strongly behind it, but toss it out for consideration.
Harking back to 1968, which I am old enough to recall, I see some definite parallels shaping up. If Clinton takes the Democratic nomination by whatever mechanism or machination - which I don’t think unlikely if she takes the next few big state primaries, the angry left wing of the party will publicly blow. It’s a distinct possibility that they will in any case if Obama is not chosen in early balloting. They’ll be in Denver in significant numbers. So will instant access MSM. If it happens, the dems lose the general election (unless McCain is found in bed with a live boy or dead girl).
Nor is morphing this scenario into opportunity if need be lost on the Clinton machine. In extremis, they could be inclined to make it so to discredit Obama utterly, accepting 4 years of redefining Hillary over 8 years in the wilderness.
Not to smash your lapidary efforts, but the small “i” independents have a lot to say in this election. The effort put into pandering to the Democratic base all has to be covered up before the election to garner the independent vote. If this goes to a convention, and with two strong people operating on their conviction that they are the uncrowned messiah (one Feminist, one Afro-American), this really could go the distance.
A note on the popular vote, Obama’s lead in the popular vote is something like 90% based on Illinois results, 60% of that is the Cook county machine running like a dragster. How well this translates in Wisconsin remains to be seen. I’m betting that even the social workers who got out the adult retarded vote in previous elections are pretty damned sick of the Cook county machine. Which brings up an interesting point, in a national general election, how many of Obama’s people publicly go to jail for vote-rigging attempts?
By the way, Bill, did you notice that Baen Webscriptions is providing books in Sony eBook and Mobipocket/Kindle format? Does your reader present in those formats? Can you still quit anytime you want?
All I’ve got to say is this: McCain needs to shape up PDQ. This country is already reeling from all the bullshit bullets of other Hate-America groups. I shudder to think what will come about if it looks like the Dems are going to win this presidential election. On the one hand, we have Hillary-& I wouldn’t trust her with a trashbag (I’m going to keep it short, since I know I’ll never stop ranting otherwise). Her list of flaws, dubious moral & political values, & childishness in the face of stress (recent comments sound a lot like ‘I’m rubber & you’re glue’) terrify me sometimes. Although I don’t like Obama much (he’s hardly different from Hillary policy-wise), Hillary will be an absolute disaster. Then we have Obama; & I’ve just mentioned what I think of him.
That being said, if it looks like the Dems are going to win, I’m going to start buying things that will be banned under them as quickly as possible-chiefly, an ‘assault pistol’ & a Barret sniper rifle. I’ve no doubt about the future of crime (among other things) under those two.
Bill, while you think that the base won’t turn out for McCain, I think that you underestimate the polarization that is taking place between the supporters of Obama and Clinton. They’re discovering that those Democrats on the other side are rude, nasty, spiteful people, and they don’t like the trash talk and abuse that they’re getting from them. (Republicans already knew this, of course.)
You think that they’re all going to unite behind one candidate, even if it goes to the convention in Denver. I think that there’s going to so much bitterness and hurt feelings on the part of those whose candidate lost (and feel that the nomination was “stolen” from their candidate, whichever one it is) that a significant portion of the Dem base will cast protest votes for Nader (or whoever), not go to the polls at all, or even vote for McCain. It may not be 20% of the loser’s supporters, but it may still be enough to tip the balance.
Also note that the election is still seven months away. Today’s bad economy may have improved by Election Day.
In short: The base will not turn out for McCain, the MSM will heavily support whomever turns out to be the Dem candidate, and as the economy continues to head south, independents will vote for a real Democrat rather than a RINO version of one.
That makes the “base” not the base, by definition. Once we’re willing to let the far side win, we’ve already pulled ourselves out of the currently available coalition that is our party, and we’re not the base, we’re a fringe party of our own.
Trying to start another party as you’ve done, Bill, is an honorable thing, and may even be the right thing to do. It’s been the right thing to do before. But we can’t simultaneously start over and consider ourselves the base of the party whose candidate we reject.
“For the first time I have developed some serious reservations about my long-held prediction that Obama will be the next US President”
Obama is finished - if he’s the nominee, the web will be overrun with videos like that on MYDD, and BHO’s “like a typical white person” remark will be the bump music on every talk radio show with more than 20 listeners. Not only will he not be the next president, I don’t even think he’ll get re-elected to the senate. Also, Democrats who think the Republican base won’t turn out for McCain need to dig out a Dem Party history book and look up the term “Yellow Dog”. Hint - it’s not about McCain.
Democrat…ethos…sacred notion…
You might want to consult your style guide, Bill. I don’t think those terms belong in the same clause.
I dunno, you may be right. There would be big trouble if Gore was handed the nomination. I can see a political cartoon captioned “standing up for women and minorities”, with Fatso Al smiling his pompous smile, with Hillary under one foot and Obama under the other.
But I’m sure, if the Democrats become convinced that neither Hillary nor Obama can beat McCain, the only reason they wouldn’t nominate Gore is if they were damn sure he couldn’t win either. And based on what I think I know about Democrat voters, they’d turn out for Gore if they had to. Ethics, sacred notions, rules, precedents and traditions mean nothing to them. A Democrat in the White House means everything.
We’ll find out soon enough.
Swiftboating = An Inconvenient Truth
Gee, Bill, interesting that the only snarky reply came from… you!
My reasons for believing as I do are simple:
1) Hillary will not get the nomination (I feel pretty certain about this). But even if she did, she would then lose in November, because so many people just flat-out despise her.
2) Obama has been significantly wounded by the Jeramiah Wright flap. I know the media template is “he’s weathered the storm, he’s stronger than ever now…” etc. etc. Baloney.
My wife, who was seriously considering supporting Obama, is a prototypical “swing voter.” As of two weeks ago she is firmly in the McCain camp.
Call me crazy, but I’m guessing she’s not the only one.
Obama is going to get the nomination no matter how well Hillary does from here on out.
Which is better for the Ds? A bunch of disgruntled Hillary supporters or blood in the streets. Now if Obama doesn’t get the nod the blood may not materialize.
However after listening to Wright and figuring he represents 25% of the black electorate do you think the supers want to roll the dice?
Can you say 1968 all over again? Denver is already going to have a lot of anti-war types. Do they want to add blacks to the mix?
No decision will be made on the nominee until the convention. The longer decision time is put off the better (relatively) for the party. It can’t be done in June. Despite the slow bleeding. The alternative is two broken legs. After the convention there will be one broken leg. Better. relatively.
Bingo. The question is will Hillary improve their chances or Obama? Tough call.
Hillary is better if blacks don’t riot. Who wants to roll the dice on that one?
Can we have a lot more snarky responses, please? The content here is so rehashed that it has become a paste. Gibes and taunts are the only recourse.
BTW the Jewish vote is GONE if Obama gets the nod.
Normally 75/25 D it is now 50/50 and the free fall hasn’t stopped.
NJ NY FL - 73 EVs. That is a big hole Wright there.
Where is the big O going to make it up, Wyoming?
My mom (88) is a yellow dog D. She plans to write in Hillary. I have my ear to the Jewish community. When the Wright stuff came out the scream was palpable. I got calls.
I do believe that this election will ultimately destroy both parties. Ds first. There will be a re-alignment. Has to be. The cracks were already showing in ‘04. They are now propagating at the speed of light.
Will, if you think that was snark, you really don’t know anything about this blog.
I deal in the real world. I’d bet that at least half of the potential electorate has no idea that there is even any dissension among Democrats, and by the time they do finally get around to picking somebody, a great deal of this will be dead and buried.
I’m minded of Bob Dole’s plaintive cry in 1996: “Where is the outrage?”
It’s buried beneath a pile of rational ignorance, wilful stupidity, blind partisanship, and just plain don’t give a damn.
You forget what a potent weapon for the Dems the MSM will be. I said that I had developed some reservations. I didn’t say that I believed Obama was toast. And my estimation that those potential videos are “devastating” may be an over-reaction on my part. It may well be that nobody will care, swept away in a wave of “Wow, the first Black President!” euphoria.
I still don’t see any way that McCain wins. You can quibble about who or what is the base, but many of you spouted the same thing in 2006 - oh, sure, the base will turn out, in the end they’ll have to stop the Democrats - and you got crushed. Because it didn’t turn out. And a Republican cannot win unless it does.
You first.
Bill,
Remember ‘04.
Re: ‘06 Corruption is bad. Racism is worse.
Right now the polls show the Big O doing better vs. McCain. I think the pollsters are cooking the books.
Bill -
The issue is not the electorate, nor is it really about November.
The wound the Democrats are going to inflict upon themselves is unavoidable, and in my opinion rises to the level of ritual suicide where the presidential election is concerned.
The oligarchs of the DNC must choose a candidate because the two candidates that have made it this far refuse to ackowledge defeat - nor for that matter, declare victory.
Nobody understands the rules the DNC put into place. Nobody can point at a number that bears more than a statistical relevance to the situation of “who wins?” because under the rules, nobody wins unless the Super Delegates say so.
And, alas, poor Yorick, who I don’t know from Adam, is absolutely dead on here:
“Time will tell, but I say the superdelegates would rather lose the WH than their own elections.“…
..which is what I have been saying for weeks.
They’ve already conceded the general. Talking about GORE???
I’ll tell you who is going to be incoherent for the next six months: MSM. They are going to realize very soon that the Narrative ™ is no longer what they wish it to be - neither politically, nor on the war. I even expect that just possibly our economy won’t completely collapse before November since both political parties have got to be coming to grips with just how bad it may well get and stop trying so hard to preventively pin the tail on the other side, thus hastening the meltdown.
Popcorn. Must make more POPCORN!
Will, it is obvious you wouldn’t recognize snark if it bit you in the ass. And I am being charitable :)
Iwonder…can anyone (besides Bill) identify the etymology of “snark?” Hint: “snicker-snack.”
The one feature (or bug) of 1968, the embodiment of the Chinese curse ‘may live in interesting times’, was that you couldn’t predict what would happen next. I agree, this year looks a lot like ‘68. I admire Bill for making his predictions, but the only one I’m willing to make is that the World Series will end within a week of the election.
As for snark, DP has sometimes seemed like snark central, but snark doesn’t grow on trees. A snarkalanche, like a thunderstorm, requires just the right conditions. This thread doesn’t qualify - too many posters take politics too seriously for a snarkalanche to form.
…but sometimes a snark turns out to be a Boojum…
I think what you’re really talking about, M., is that old conundrum about the Dems: Anybody far left enough to win the nomination is too far left to win the general, and vice versa.
But that can be trumped by a massive wave of “Throw the bums out,” and I think that is exactly what is going to happen to the last bum-held bastion, the White House. Especially since a significant portion of the bum’s normal support won’t be playing this year.
Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, as of 4/1/08:
McCain over Obama 47% to 41%.
McCain over Clinton 48% to 41%.
Unfavorable ratings:
Clinton - 55%
Obama - 50%
McCain - 41%
… and so on and so on. Look, I know the media will be humping Obama like Eliot Spitzer humps hookers (oooh, snark!) … and if McCain isn’t gonna fight dirty, he better have some surrogates surreptitiously doing it for him.
But I’m quite resolute in my belief that McCain has a 3-to-1 chance, or better, of being elected POTUS # 44.
The blogosphere is forever. However it goes, I’ll come back and repost this directly after the election.
His vorpal blade went snicker-snack.
I have mentioned this before here, Bill, my hide can go on the wall next to Will Cate’s. I don’t give McCain the long odds that Will does mine say maybe a little better than even, but from what I can deduce he will be the president.
If I’m wrong, I’ll humbly return on Nov. 5 to accept my thrashing….
“It’s a Snark!” was the sound that first came to their ears,
And seemed almost too good to be true.
Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:
Then the ominous words “It’s a Boo-”
Congratulations to the Lewis Carroll fans.
As much distaste as I have for McCain, I cannot imagine the messiah getting elected. But then, I seem unable to *think* like the average obamessiah supporter.
I do believe some polls are showing more support for obama than truly exists after the Wright Revelations.
Messiah, Wright Revalations, snark.
Barry, your mistake is assuming that the typical American voter pays as much attention as the typical Daily Pundit reader.
I think my larger problem is the inability to think in anyway, form, or fashion like those on the left. When I was younger I thought I understood them. Not anymore, I do not understand anything about them. I don’t mind misguided effort to improve things so much. I do mind the willful denial of how great this country truly is, particullarly by those with an education that should know better. Maybe they do know better, which makes it all the worse.
I am unable to understand anyone supporting Obama, after the Wright revelations, short of the most commited marxist socialists. It is certainly a fault, this lack of understanding, that colors my view of what will happen in this presidential race.
All I know is that I remember every election back to 1960, and I think this one is going to be the most interesting since that one.
That one turned out badly and I am afraid this one will too.
Obama’s supporters like to say he is the new JFK. But remember what JFK gave us. Bay of Pigs, Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the botched desegregation at Ol Miss, this list goes on and on. We’ve been living with the results of JFK’s administration for 50 years. I don’t want another weak, naive President, nor do I want a “true believer” with an authoritarian bent.
We are all living in interesting times.
Looks like MyDD has deleted the article; does anyone have a link to the video?
Talk about jumping in late. I think Bill’s viewpoint is skewed from living in SF. Here is why.
I have lived on the net for 12 years. I have seen it go from stories on the net for six months before they get a three line mention in the news, once; to I read something that breaks on the net at 3 PM and when I get home at 5:30 it was headline on the local news.
The net is driving things more, but how much depends on local politics. Living within the penumbra of DC, the locals pay more attention to the net.
Last week I went to Philly for a business show. The show was in downtown, in Chinatown. Everywhere were Obama stickers. It was strange until I realized that ‘Chinatown’ was a mixture of several Oriental immigrant cultures and old urban Black. Of course there were Obama stickers everywhere - much as La Guardia showed up for every St. Patricks Day parade. Politics and cover.
My parents (80s) are hard core democrats from the days when democrats stood for the little guy against big business. (No, I do not know when that was, but that is what they told me when I was younger).
When I told them this election we have a commie, a hard socialist and a soft socialist to choose from, they laughed. My mother asked me which was which. I asked if it mattered.
People are paying attention, and while there are a great many who are irrationally ignorant, the election will be decide by the hard core of each party who vote the straight ticket, even if satan is on it.
So, in SF, it looks like Obama or Hillary. In the red states, it looks like McCain.
On the net, it looks like we are all in big trouble.
I think another thing everyone is missing is, so Obama gets the nomination, what then? Do Bill and Hill help him during the campaign against McCain? Or do they have their eye on 2012? Bill is pissed, the party he saved is stabbing him in the back and he is going to do everything he can to fuck with them, and that means letting McCain win. I agree with Rasmussan, McCain is the luckiest man since Ringo Star.
I seem to be the only person in the blogosphere wondering when Hillary! is going to start using the contents of those stolen FBI files from 15 years ago to thrash superdelegates into line.
He saved the party? Only in his mind. He entered office with majorities in the House and Senate. When he left the White House (after setting up the loss of that branch as well) the Dems had nothing. Some savior.
As I recall, most of those files were, oddly enough, about Republicans. Not much help in a Democrat race.
Were all those names from the Clinton-stolen FBI files ever released? I don’t remember seeing a verified list. And are you certain there were only 900 of them?
It seems entirely in keeping with the Clintons’ persona that they’d have had no problem with compiling dirt on Democrats as well as Republicans.
As for Obama, should be become the nominee, there are gigantic swaths of the country that will have serious reservations about this Wright business, if nothing else. I grew up in KY and have family in OH, and it is clear to me that in much of the south and midwest and industrial states, including importantly FL/PA/OH/TN/MO and other swingers, he will have a very difficult time with a whole lot of people.
Perhaps people in the big cities (which Dems always win anyway) don’t regard this Black Liberation Theology crapola as being a big deal, but one hell of a lot of rural and semi-rurals do.
James, look at my comment #31 in off topic, the first link is the youtube video that was embedded in the MYDD page. The second is the link to MYDD page, now unavailable.
That’s what I meant. The Clinton’s think they saved the party and the party is stabbing them in the back by rejecting a third term for him. He seems to have a blow up every public appearance, which seem to be far and few between lately. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they have stuff on fellow dems as well. That’s how they operate.
It has generally been reported that the files dealt with Republicans, not Democrats. You can imagine all the stuff you want, but there is no indication or evidence that your imagination has any grounding in reality.
Oh, OK, reporters said it’s so.
I don’t know what I was thinking. I’m persuaded now.
Hello - hello -ello - ello - lo - just checking to see if the echo chamber is still working. Last time I was here many of you were in deep, deep denial about John McCain’s march to the GOP nomination. Well, I see that our host has, at long last, figured out what some of us have known for a long time - Obama is unelectable. What a dilemma. Who now will slay the hated McCain? I am amused to see that some here have turned a longing gaze to Hillary Clinton. Sorry, people, that’s not gonna work either. Hillary has no plausible route to win the presidency this time around. Oh, she has a small chance of taking the nomination, but in so doing would alienate the black vote (and a few other groups), preclude any chance of victory in the general, and be branded forever as a loser and a pariah in the party. Without blacks voting Democrat in the vicinity of 90%, the party simply ceases to be viable in large parts of the country. Do you really think they are going to risk that? Understand this - without a total Obama meltdown there is simply no way the superdelegates are going to give it to Hillary. She probably already knows this and is re-tooling for 2012. Her immediate goal now is to assure an Obama defeat - and as big a one as possible. As much as I would like it to, this will not go to the convention - it just isn’t in Hillary’s best interest. It would be the best scenario for the Republican party and on the surface they and Hillary would seem to have a common goal - the humiliating defeat of Barack Obama - but their goals are not exactly the same. Hillary must maintain her viability. Given his age and temperament, McCain is very likely to be either a one-termer or unpopular. After a huge defeat (and it WILL be huge) Obama will have the stink of death and be done as a national figure. The Clintons will step into the power vacuum and once again be the unquestioned leaders of the party. Hillary will have redeemed herself by bowing out to much fanfare and talk unity and such, probably in June or July. There will be much written about how she did the right thing, put the country ahead of her own ambitions, etc. The press will dust off their Clinton knee-pads and re-assume the position. In 2012, it will be all about not making the same mistake, the importance of party unity, and making sure the candidate if fully vetted ahead of time. Hillary will walk to the nomination. Bill Richardson and Bob Casey will pee on themselves a little every time they see her. And Bill Quick will be bitching that the Republican nominee is not pure enough, invoking shit sandwiches and whatnot. Unlike this time though, he may actually get his wish, since Hillary will be in pretty good position to win it all in 2012.
Hi, Shit Sandwich gobbler. How you doing?
I said I had reservations, but judging from the latest polling in Pennsy, there’s small reason for them.
Be sure and give President Obama a big, fat, brown-smeared grin as you set off to nominate Hillary as the next GOP candidate.
Dumbass.
You know what, Chester, ya moron? I don’t give a crap whether you’re persuaded or not. However, when you spout some huge load of blue-sky bullshit that contradicts the long-established record, it is incumbent on you to provide some sort of support beyond your own paranoid fantasies. I don’t expect that you are bright enough to understand that, though, so instead, why don’t you just fuck off and die?
Dumbass.
Now, that’s snarky.
Great! Snarkier still.
Daily Pundit: Bringing you the art of snark, 24/7…
Good God Almighty, what a clown you are. I had thought there was some sanity on this website, based on some of the links you get. Can you not be HALFWAY civil to someone with a contrary view?
You are relying on “reports.” Would those be from the same reporters who are telling us THIS WEEK for the 30th time that Bush was responsible for killing Kyoto in 19-f’in-97?
McCain will win and I’ll be back to rub it in your face in November. Remember my name.
Bye.
Looking into a mirror, are you?
Lots of sanity hereabouts - too bad you’ve chosen not to be a part of it. Just not too much patience here for the clueless (take another gaze in that full-length looking-glass)
Well, civil is as civil needs to be - in your case, not much civility required; sidelong-snarky comments tend to rule that out, ’specially when they’re made without any substance to back them.
“Contrary views” do call for at least minor substantiation, you know…
Hasta la vista, ya bozo - don’t let the doorknob snag in yer fundament.
Lame. Seriously.
Yawn. That would mean you’re important for some reason.
Not farking likely.
Actually, no. Neither seriously, nor (like you) hilariously.
Old, about half-blind and gradually going a bit deaf, maybe, but not lame at all.
See what I mean about hilariously?
McCain, it can be said, has a chance - whoever gets the Donks’ banner to carry can screw up badly enough; the whole Donk party can fall apart; anything can happen, anything might happen. At this point, though, it’s the Dems’ election to lose, not McCain’s to win - unless something changes rather extensively for the Dems before November, it’s odds-on that McCain loses.
Regardless of the outcome, though, you won’t be able to “rub it in” anyone’s face much around here, since no one much around here really cares.
Why? Do you have plans to become rich or famous/notorious or something sometime soon?
See you around, Chet…
Not.
Okay, I was wrong. A DP snarkalanche can occur in ANY thread. You just have to wait for the secret ingredient to show up.