Hard to see from this Wisconsin exit poll just what Hillary hopes to build on - she wins narrowly among white women and the over 65-set and has no obvious strength anywhere else. And cheap shot artists will wonder whether it is old white women that carry the two aforementioned demographics for Hillary.
Rural voters went 53-45 for Obama; urbanites went for him 62-35.
Hillary split high school grads 49-49 and lost every other educational group.
Folks who thought the economy was "poor" (35 % of respondents) went for Hillary by a whooping 50-47; groups with a brighter view backed the Baritone.
Ethnically, the electorate was about 8% black and 4% Latino.
I have no doubt she will soldier on, but why bother? And why bother us?
I have no doubt she will soldier on, but why bother?
She's not dead yet. Besides, this is all just garlic and holy water, with assorted crosses hung up about the place . . . won't stop a determined blood-sucker. Somebody get a stake.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
It really strikes me how shamelessly Obama is playing to the "cult." Seems to be working great for him so far, but that's among Democrats, who are digging it up for reasons that the rest of the country may not share. It seems pretty clear that this will be his general election strategy. But as people watch this show over the course of months, won't some of the converts on the margins begin to wonder where's the beef? Maybe (though I wouldn't put huge sums on it) McCain's experience and age will begin to stand out glaringly to an increasing number of voters. Strikes me that Obama's is a somewhat risky general election strategy, but I guess he has to dance with the girl that brung him. I fear he's going to look more demogogic with every passing month, even (or precisely!) if he wins.
Posted by: Jaymac | February 19, 2008 at 11:27 PM
reports are 9% of Democrat voters were Republicans. That just happens to be approx the margin Obama won by. Do you think Republivans were trying to shovel the dirt on top of the Clinton casket? I find it quite possible. We will fight the general later, lets make sure the Clintons are locked out of the WH first!
Posted by: GMax | February 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM
The most important question posed by tonight's events is, what in the hell has happened to Pat Caddell? Remember the Captain Ahab lightning-bolt grey streak through his otherwise unfortunate goatee? Gone, evidently in favor of one of those horrid male grooming things. But far more important, I think the poor fellow is now sporting some sort of toupee. God's teeth! And he used to be my Most Respected Democrat.
Solid evidence that in fact the Dems are in a downward spiral...
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 12:04 AM
You know, I have a finer appreciation for not watching cable news now more than ever.
Posted by: hit and run | February 20, 2008 at 12:23 AM
She has been preordained godammit!!! She will never quit. As her Yoda Yogi Berra notes "it's not over until it's over".
If there is a will there is a way; you can be assured that Hillary is working all the angles and will continue to do so until Denver.
Posted by: invernessie | February 20, 2008 at 12:32 AM
How can we get those shipments of garlic and hawthorn stakes from Wisconsin to Ohio and Texas?
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM
She has been preordained godammit!!! She will never quit. As her Yoda Yogi Berra notes "it's not over until it's over".
If there is a will there is a way; you can be assured that Hillary is working all the angles and will continue to do so until Denver.
please. Let's pray this is so.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 20, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Yup, she's automatically giving up +/-10% of the PA delegates because her campaign failed to file a full slate of delegates.
Her campaign spokespersons admit they have little clue as to how TX delegates are elected.
Here is the smartest woman in the world who thought she could wrap things up by super Tuesday and never have to worry about such trivialities as PA and TX.
Now all that is left is for her to try and steal it.
Hillary, I know you can do it. I believe in you. Don't. Stop. Thinking about tomorrow. Whoops, wrong thread...
Posted by: hit and run | February 20, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I had a thought a while back and well heck I'm going to air it.
Remember in '04 there were rumors that "some" dems - Clinton insiders - did not want Kerry to win. A Kerry win would FUBAR Hillary and working on anti-america strategy in the 2nd Bush presidency would clinch it for Hillary?
Remember that scene in the Kerry campaign documentary when Kerry pulls the lamest - "Bush owns a "wood" company" retardation?
In the documentary you see Hillary giving Terry Maculiffe (sp) the evil eye and Terry squirms uncomfortably - you could see in her eyes it was "Jeez Terry, we don't want him to win, but we also don't want him to embarrass us, what have you been doing????"
Anyway, looks like all the Clinton/DNC strateegery was/is all Fubar and while Obama is ripping Hillary to shreds now, me thinks the dem primary is all about DEM Clinton hate.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 20, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Hillary barely campaigned for Kerry and Bill minimally more. Payback is Hell.
==============
Posted by: kim | February 20, 2008 at 04:46 AM
Yeah, that Kerry was really retarded. Thank god we were spared having a dorky president.
Posted by: obsessed | February 20, 2008 at 04:47 AM
i thought that clinton harpooned kerry during convention - introducing him as the war hero who answered the call while he [clinton] and gw stayed out. followed up of course with kerrys "reporting for duty".
Posted by: east one | February 20, 2008 at 07:40 AM
-
Hillarymandias
I met a pollster from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand, one in Texas...., one near Canton,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose brow, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The electorate that mocked them, and the press that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Hillarymandias,
Look on my resume and campaign fundraising, ye fellow Democrats, and despair!
Nothing else remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away. Heh.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 20, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Top,
I agree with you - and who would have thunk it? All these idiots defending that criminal for 8 years while harboring all this resentment. What a bunch of lemmings.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Frankly I am stunned by the results in Wisconsin. I have been all over the State and my inlaws have lived in central and western Wisconsin and kept a sailboat on Lake Ponchartrain. Even Green Bay went for Obama. I dont know how she recovers from this. Voters ( Even Democrats ) can see the wheels coming off. They will jump ship in Ohio and maybe even in Texas.
Does she hang around the Senate for 5 more years and occasionally vote on something or will it soon enough be Senator Spitzer while she is off to Majorca with Huma close by?
Posted by: GMax | February 20, 2008 at 08:58 AM
Bumperstickerist:
Impressive. Really. TM should promote that to the front page.
I think Shelley (along with the other poets of his tribe) would likely be Obama supporters. They were of the right demographic.
I can see Byron doing the campaign biography and Hillary inspiring Mary Shelley to write "Bride of Frankenstein".
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 20, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Byron was an R--I'd bet on it.
Posted by: glasater | February 20, 2008 at 09:32 AM
My business partner told me she watched Obama's speech last night with her wife. She said the stuff he said scared them both, but she thought it was a "wonderful" speech.
So maybe we are all jaded by having seen so much of him.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 09:37 AM
It was a boring, long-winded speech filled with liberal bull. I predict he won't wear well. The halo will fade. Reality will cause the "dream" to crash. There aren't enough "rich people" to fund 10% of the pipedreams he is spouting. These crowds are like religious revival meeting crowds. I say "scary" is accurate. But I just can't believe he can stand up to reality. And Americans are hopeful people, yes, but they are also quite realistic.
Posted by: bio mom | February 20, 2008 at 09:44 AM
People hate Bush. Hell, when's the last time he got mentioned on this blog?
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 at 09:56 AM
"And things aren't looking good for Hillary. Like a lot of women in Washington, I think she's just starting to realize she may have slept with Bill Clinton for nothing." --Jay Leno
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Is that a post-writer's strike line for Jay?
Posted by: michaelt | February 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM
where's clarice?
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Wretchard today echoes my thoughts when he questions whether Obama may not be another McGovern. There are obvious differences, but also some similarities...
Following up, Steve Sailer has more on Michelle Obama's vision of America. He has found additional material from her senior thesis. While we have to acknowledge that her views may have changed somewhat, the nation might have been better off some years ago if it had paid closer attention to another presidential candidate's remarks at the close of her own college career. Anyway, there's some interesting material here:
Mrs. Obama as an Ivy League Schoolgirl.
Sailer includes in that blog a link to his own article. Obama is an interesting but clearly troubled man:
Obama's Identity Crisis.
Lucianne hosted a discussion of MO's now famous speech. An insightful remark IMO is:
I know few public figures are truly normal people, but it seems to me that some psychological baggage is more dangerous in a president than other more typical baggage of the sort most of us have. This election year the candidates seem to be overflowing with psychological baggage.
Posted by: anduril | February 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Writing back in March, 2007, Sailer opined:
That was more or less the common wisdom at the time, but something has changed. Michelle Obama's speeches must resonate with someone, or she probably wouldn't be delivering those speeches. Like the Clintons, the Obamas may be more of a team than we are used to seeing in the WH.
Posted by: anduril | February 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Michelle Obama's speeches must resonate with someone
The resent America crowd loves them I suspect.
When I went thru it, I felt it was my fight for individualism in the face of a powerful entrenched machine. At some point I realized that individualism was on the other side and the entrenched machine was what I had been rooting for.
It's an odd phenomina of American politics.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I'm here MayBee..was away for the holiday and now am a bit under the weather..
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Jim Miller has a very good post up on why he voted for McCain yesterday. It's worth a read and some thought.
I don't care for McCain and I wouldn't mind the opportunity to tell him why to his face but he has my vote in November. I'll be looking at the Senate and House seats that are in contention to determine where my monetary contributions will be most effective but McCain will definitely have my vote.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Michelle Obama's speeches must resonate with someone
You have forgotten that Moveon has endorsed him? Because they liked the warm fuzzy feelings of peace, hope and glorious change?
Anyone thinks she just misspoke needs a cruise through Kosland or the DUmp. Her comments are just cleaned up for public comsumption, otherwise the speeches are written daily at those sites.
Posted by: GMax | February 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
and gw stayed out
Is this meme ever gonna die?
GW the 1st was shot down in WWII.
GW was in the Texas Air National Gaurd.
JFNKerry was in the NAVAL RESERVE.
Some people need to get over some things.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 10:46 AM
People hate Bush. Hell, when's the last time he got mentioned on this blog?
Hell, we realize he is not running for president in 08. Something the left hasn't caught up with yet.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM
No, Gmax, I haven't forgotten, but the resonance some people get from Michelle's speeches is not warm fuzziness. As the commenter at Lucianne remarked: "There seem to be some unresolved anger issues here." There are a variety of things that could be said about that, but none make it less worrisome. So, it seems Barack dispenses the warm fuzziness, and Michelle something else. And I do totally agree that none of this is unscripted--but I don't think it written daily at those sites. I think her comments come from the heart, and that's what's so troubling.
Posted by: anduril | February 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
This is a morning made for reflecting on how Sidney Blumenthal is feeling right now. Short months ago he was savoring the prospect of eight years as the uber-insider at the elbow of the world's most powerful woman. Now the most important event in his future is the mandatory three days in a New Hampshire jail for aggravated DUI. It's enough to make a fellow beat his wife.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Sometimes, that situation is enough to make wives beat husbands, OT.
============
Posted by: kim | February 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
If you typically vote republican, how in hell can you be supporting Obama?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
The Vile Harridan is now sporting an all-time low mark of 19.2 at Tradesports, and the sweet, acrid stench of putrefaction is swirling around the campaign.
There is a site run by somebody named Taylor Marsh that is peopled by Hillary supporters, and I'll guarantee ya those folks are furious at Obama--promising to quit the Democratic party, vote for McCain, etc. Oh what joy!
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Just a somewhat related comment:
In all of the punditry about how surprising it is that Bill Clinton, the "super campaigner," is not being effective, I've not seen a single observation of the fact that Bill made his reputation BEFORE the InterNet was a significant part of the polical landscape. This is the first time that he and the Hildabeast have been in a major campaign subject to InterNet scrutiny,
I believe that's part of the reason for the "image change," though how much, I don't claim to know.
Great discussion as always.
Posted by: Ralph | February 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM
If you typically vote republican, how in hell can you be supporting Obama?
Easy, to get rid of Hillary in the primaries.
It's kind of a way to say thank you to the blue states for McCain.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Bumper
Re : Hillarymandias
Very clever! Apparently, it even hits the correct demographic. ;)
You could take this far.
Lets see…..
One could use St Crispian's day speech for "100 Years War" McCain?
“I Have a Dream” for Obama?
The humor possibilities.....
Posted by: TexasToast | February 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM
One could use St Crispian's day speech for "100 Years War" McCain?
Monty Python's "Run Away" makes a good sound byte for the Dems in general.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
NH jail? Hmmmm. Too bad it couldn't be a major metro holding pen for three days.
Posted by: anduril | February 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Easy, to get rid of Hillary in the primaries.
There is a difference in voting for him and supporting him, or to me anyway. I just can't get it around my head how a republican could support someone as far left as Obama is. Maybe someone in the Evan Bayh mode, or even Jim Webb. But Obama?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I'm with Pofarmer. It all makes me think of Churchill's story about the guy who got a telegram saying "YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW HAS DIED IN BRAZIL STOP PLEASE WIRE INSTRUCTIONS." He answered "EMBALM CREMATE AND BURY AT SEA STOP TAKE NO CHANCES."
It might be more fun to beat her in the general, but I don't want to run the risk.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Tell me the truth--Did you ever at the beginning of this primary season, envision this Clinton slap down? I admit I didn't.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Sue, who is the Republican who's supporting Obama?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Did you ever at the beginning of this primary season, envision this Clinton slap down?
Hell no. I bet a $100 last August she would be their nominee. I can't believe I'm going to have to pay up. Sweetest $100 I ever spent.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 11:38 AM
GW was in the Texas Air National Guard.
... flying combat air patrols in the F-102, a noted widowmaker. I worked it out when this flap was going strong and your odds of getting killed flying F-102 patrols in CONUS were a helluva sight worse (like about 1 in 5 for a career pilot) than the odds against a REMF photographer in Saigon at the same time.
But no, this one won't die, because they don't actually care it's a lie.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Sue, who is the Republican who's supporting Obama?
I don't know them personally. They were being interviewed going into the Obama rally in Dallas.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I think this is actually like Mitterand and now Chirac --- they couldn't afford to stop politicking because when they lost their government immunity, they were risking jail.
Hillary and Bill can't afford to give up on this campaign because if they becomes losers, they'll also lose their Teflon immunity, and the whole house of cards will collapse.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
OT
But I was at the SAC museum outside Omaha Nebraska over the weekend. They had an F-102 on display, with the engine there also. They also had a B-58 Hustler there, with an engine beside it. The B-58 ran 4, the F-4 Phantom ran 2 of the same engine. After seeing that, it's obvious why the F-4 was such a great aircraft. When you see those engines, then the aircraft, it's just like, WOW!!!!!!!
Wish they would have had an F-4 and an F-102 on display side by side, but they don't have an F-4 displayed, it's coming though.
Probably the best collection of "Cold War" aircraft a guy could find in one place.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Hell no. I bet a $100 last August she would be their nominee. I can't believe I'm going to have to pay up. Sweetest $100 I ever spent.
I've got $50 against it being Hillary vs Romney and Hillary winning. I'm waiting for Hillary to actually get out of the race before I collect.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM
clarice—
No. I'm dumbfounded by how thoroughly his campaign has outperformed hers at, seemingly, every level during the past couple of months.
Posted by: Patrick Tyson | February 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Hillary and Bill can't afford to give up on this campaign because if they becomes losers, they'll also lose their Teflon immunity, and the whole house of cards will collapse.
Ya mean somebody might actually start looking into all the shifty stuff surrounding those two?
Man, what a bonus.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM
No, Clarice--never in a million years.
Charlie, think of how much Bubba's value as an influence peddler has dropped. This pair's entire life has been about seeking the presidency, and now it's just about over. What will they do? Teddy Kennedy gave it a shot in 1980, lost, and became very content to be a career Senator. Can anyone see Hillary doing that? It's very hard for me to imagine it.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Charlie, you may have something there. Yesterday's WSJ had a fine piece on Bill's FALN commutations--something utterly outrageous and way underreported--by that gal Burlingame whose brother was murdered on 9/11.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Hillary and Bill can't afford to give up on this campaign because if they becomes losers, they'll also lose their Teflon immunity, and the whole house of cards will collapse.
But then we'll never get to see those "papers" squirreled away in the Clinton library;-)
Posted by: glasater | February 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
It sure would be fun to see them both end up in jail.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM
You just have to ask the right questions in the right way to pin Obama down. Me from yesterday, asking about Michelle:
Obama's response to my request?
Thank you, Senator.
And good for you, Michelle. Admit it. Own it. Live with it out in the open.
We have a Cynicists Support Group that meets at 7pm on Thursdays at my house. You are most certainly welcome to join us. You will want to sign up to either bring a salad or dessert.
Oh, and don't bring Hopey McHoperson, either.
Posted by: hit and run | February 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM
"It sure would be fun to see them both end up in jail."
Sharing a cell for a no parole life sentence.
Odds are that BHO is going to take a hit that could put him in jail first though. "Down" doesn't necessarily go with "out" when Clinton's are the subject.
I've been wondering about how many of the Superdelegates have been around long enough to have had an FBI file opened prior to 1993. Certainly not the majority and possibly only a small but significant fraction.
I think I'll wait until the PA primary in April before I start humming the Ding Dong song.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Well, she'll always be a Yankees fan and named after Sir Edmund.
I heard her speak yesterday on the cable news and I had to turn off the TV. I couldn't take four years of her screeching. Waterboard me instead. Please.
Posted by: MarkD | February 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM
... flying combat air patrols in the F-102, a noted widowmaker.
I'd caution against using this as an argument, as the 102 was statistically rather safe compared to most of its "century" brethren. I suspect your bottom line is right, but the 102 could not legitimately be claimed as a widowmaker.
It sure would be fun to see them both end up in jail.
I'd be ecstatic just seeing them and their ilk out of American politics. (Not that there aren't plenty of scoundrels to take their places.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Maybe she could try to join the Marine Corps again.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Larry Kudlow:
"Please allow me a dose of hardened market realism concerning Obama's landslide victory in Wisconsin. The race is over. Hillary is finished. The Clinton Restoration is over. President Bill Clinton's political invincibility is over. Hillary's electability is over."
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I must say this all is sobering--no one, not even the most highly regarded pundits--predicted this . I didn't think she was a shoo-in but I never imagined this.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I'm here MayBee..was away for the holiday and now am a bit under the weather..
Oh good, you're here. Feel better, missy.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Clarice: I never thought it would come to pass either, but I did fear that it could. At the time my fears were greatest -- early in our side's own primary selection of candidates -- I was very troubled about going up against the Obamamessaiah. I even wrote here that I wanted it to be us (our side) that brought her down and finished her off, rather than Obama.
I think it would have been more "just" and infinitely more satisfying.
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I think I figured out why Hildabeast's campaign is falling apart. Terry MacAuliffe and the vile couple front-ended the primaries, raised $120 mm and figured that it would be all over on Super Tuesday. But it wasn't. They spent all of that dough. That's why she lent her campaign the $5 million. They hadn't planned on conpetitive races past Super Tuesday, so they're not running ads, they haven't a clue about how the TX primary is structured and they screwed up getting delegates in PA. They're playing catch up with no hope of success. Sweet.
Posted by: LindaK | February 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I think I figured out why Hildabeast's campaign is falling apart. Terry MacAuliffe and the vile couple front-ended the primaries, raised $120 mm and figured that it would be all over on Super Tuesday. But it wasn't. That's why she lent her campaign the $5 million. They hadn't planned on conpetitive races past Super Tuesday, so they're not running ads, they haven't a clue about how the TX primary is structured and they screwed up getting delegates in PA. Sweet.
Posted by: LindaK | February 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I've watched my husband, who really has been a big Clinton fan, become totally disenchanted with them as a couple and Bill in particular. That's not to say he wouldn't vote for Hillary, because he would if she's the nominee.
You notice we never hear people talk about Bill's personal magnetism anymore, about how seductive it is to be near him. That's gone.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 01:03 PM
LindaK,
I might add that nobody expected the Dean hookup with Andy Stern to produce results this quickly. The very effective strategy of running Blue Dogs in 2006 (plus the utter incompetence of the Reps in policing quasi corrupt House members) has shifted allegiance within the party.
The Clinton's and McAuliffe never did a dman thing for the Democrat Party and now the Party is returning the favor.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 01:07 PM
I am happy to start singing Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. This Rudy Guiliani strategy was never going to work. Somebody get the hook.
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2008 at 01:24 PM
RW's loss in the Iowa caucus showed that she was vulnerable.
She seemingly should have had everything going for her. Experience, ethnicity, regional identity, organizational prowess, money, and a format that should have guaranteed success if her organization could deliver the goods.
Result:
A stunning loss.
And the world saw that all of those apparent strengths were insufficient.
And she started morphing into her true RW character after that.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 20, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Rush says her only chance is for Bill to be caught cheating with a very young woman again--it's her only achievement:Victimhood.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 01:51 PM
This is a fascinating item about the origins of the Clinton meltdown:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/OPINION02/802200308/-1/OPINION
The short version is, Patti Solis Doyle had no idea what she was doing, and Hillary was way too slow to realize it.
And brother, MayBee, are you ever right on the money. When the smoke finally clears, a great deal is going to be written about Bill Clinton's disastrous loss of stature (and I will cherish every word of it). I just wonder if he realizes yet what is happening to him.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Jake Tapper:
"This morning brings the news that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a new website where they are announcing how they are officially preparing to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed."
The site urges that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 02:14 PM
The short version is, Patti Solis Doyle had no idea what she was doing, and Hillary was way too slow to realize it.
It seems like Maggie Williams didn't excel in rehabilitation either since the loss in Wisconsin was far greater than expected.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 02:17 PM
I just wonder if he realizes yet what is happening to him.
I think he might. It's why he seems so angry.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Rick B-
True enough, RW's intraparty support has been less than stellar. Not only has Obama captured a lot of the union endorsements that the Clintons figured that they could count on, but he's gotten a lot more of his Senate colleagues on his side than she does. Patty Murray's in her camp. But I think that the Clintons were so sure of their blitzkreig inevitability that there was no plan B. Still as someone else pointed out there's not enough garlic and holy water in this world to repel the repellent one.
Posted by: LindaK | February 20, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Rush has been talking about BHO's use of elements from the Edwards campaign and the Patrick campaign. The common factor is David Axelrod, apparently. The difference is that BHO caught fire whereas Edwards didn't--BHO fits the role that Axelrod constructs better than a trial lawyer with Breck Girl hair.
Posted by: anduril | February 20, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Posted by: cathyf | February 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Sue, who is the Republican who's supporting Obama?
I don't know them personally. They were being interviewed going into the Obama rally in Dallas.
Posted by: kaz | February 20, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Oops, hit post instead of preview, sorry.
What I meant to add was that this seems to be a subset meme in the press. I don't have time to hit sources and link right now, but how many of these 'Republican upset with GOP, going to vote Democratic' do we see in a given election cycle? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the press seems to have an inside line on all of the disgruntled R's waiting to be quoted and they never find a complementary 'D' whose had it with the shape of the donkey party until after the elction, if at all.
The memory is slightly hazy, but I seem to recall one case in particular in '04 where the reputed Republican had been a donor to Dems in the past.
Posted by: kaz | February 20, 2008 at 03:22 PM
kaz,
I hope you are right.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 03:26 PM
May I suggest a word of caution regarding Clinton post-mortems and obit pieces?
I am old enough to remember in 1962, a defeated Nixon looked the press in the eye and said, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore".
What delicious irony that after Texas and Ohio, the last remaining role model for the Hillabeast to grasp on to would be 'Tricky Dick'?
I could live with that.
Posted by: Publius | February 20, 2008 at 04:36 PM
She now says Puerto Rico will put her over the top.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html>PR
Maybe.
Maybe with the votes of Fla and MI added..oh, and now her campaign is claiming that pledged delegates aren't really "bound".
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 04:45 PM
heh. That sounds like this:
Navin R. Johnson: Well I'm gonna to go then. And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this.
[picks up an ashtray]
Navin R. Johnson: And that's it and that's the only thing I need, is this. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp and that's all I need. And that's all I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one - I need this. The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches, for sure. And this. And that's all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair.
[walking outside]
Navin R. Johnson: And I don't need one other thing, except my dog.
[dog barks]
Navin R. Johnson: I don't need my dog.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 04:49 PM
I'd caution against using this as an argument, as the 102 was statistically rather safe compared to most of its "century" brethren. I suspect your bottom line is right, but the 102 could not legitimately be claimed as a widowmaker.
Cecil, dude, you're talking about a plane that has a fatality rate of 10^5 hours; in other words, a pilot had a nominal 50-50 chance of dying if they accumulated 5000 hours, and most of those would be fatalities in the early part. Was it as bad as an F-106, no. Was it known as a widowmaker by people who flew it? I've heard too many people say it over the years before the Bush flap to doubt it.
The thing about your table at the reference (which is very useful, honestly) is that you're saying that it was the least bad of five notable pilot killers. By way of comparison, current generation fighters have airframe failure rates of about 10^6, and fatality rates of about 10^7 hours; general aviation planes about 10^9 hours, and commercial airliners about 10^10 hours.
Might as well say that bubonic plague isn't a killer because rabies is much worse.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2008 at 04:59 PM
The Clintons are masters of spin, here is how it will work:
If Obama wins, they will say that Clinton could have won too and could get a lot more done due to experience...
If Obama looses to McCain, then they will claim that Clinton could have beat him, due to experience...
dbp
Posted by: David | February 20, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Well lets assume for a second a a very close race between Obama and McCain. I dont really believe that, but I am willing to concede that there are external uncontrollable events which could stack the deck in one directions or another. Lets assume the hill that McCain has to climb is just too steep and he falls short.
Do the Blue dog Democrats in the House just nod and smile and walk the plank for the liberal program after liberal program he wants. I dont see it. And absent that happening or a veto proof majority in the Senate happening, President Obama will spend his time losing the war in Iraq and speecifying.
NOw I still maintain the liberals when known, dont get elected in the US for National office. Period.
Posted by: GMax | February 20, 2008 at 05:45 PM
"I suspect that if you did the calculation comparing 2 years flying F-102's to 3.5 months skippering a swiftboat you'd find much the same thing..."
I seriously doubt that. According to Adm. Zumwalt, 75% of the Swift sailors were killed or wounded in the course of a one-year tour. I have no idea how long it would take to accumulate 5,000 hours in an F-102, but I assume it would take a number of years.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Cecil, dude, you're talking about a plane that has a fatality rate of 10^5 hours; in other words, a pilot had a nominal 50-50 chance of dying if they accumulated 5000 hours, and most of those would be fatalities in the early part.
Actually, those are class A (strike, major, or significant injury) mishaps . . . most are not fatal. Most guys don't accumulate 5000 hours in a career, but if they did, it'd be about a 50:50 of having a major mishap (most commonly an ejection). 102 mishap rate was about 10^4, fatality about 10^5 (which would be a 5% chance in a 5000 hour career).
The thing about your table at the reference (which is very useful, honestly) is that you're saying that it was the least bad of five notable pilot killers.
Yes, the century series had a bad rep in general for being difficult to fly (the F-4 was a significant improvement). But "widowmaker" means precisely "worse than its contemporaries"; which is obviously inapt for the 102.
By way of comparison, current generation fighters have airframe failure rates of about 10^6 . . .
The Harrier (which I flew for about half my career) had a major mishap rate that fluctuated between the 102's and the 105's numbers. (Admittedly all the others are much safer.) And yes, we buried a lot more from peacetime mishaps than from enemy action.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 07:19 PM
Wow Cecil--You flew the Harrier!! What an awesome aircraft.
Years ago I was privileged to fly my plane into Fairchild AFB and got to watch a Harrier demonstration close up and personal from the tower. It was truly a thrill to see that aircraft take off--both ways it could do it.
Posted by: glasater | February 21, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Yep, and it was a lot of fun (when it worked right). Unfortunately, it had a rather poor track record safety-wise (there are some basic errors in the story, but overall it's pretty fair) . . . and several of these guys were good friends.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 21, 2008 at 06:12 PM
Cecil--Just in case you come back here--thank you so much for those wonderful links.
I cannot imagine what it would take to control that aircraft.
What stories of the men who lost their lives flying the Harrier. They were all "nuggets".
Posted by: glasater | February 22, 2008 at 03:21 AM
CT, check out:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/3.44.html
======================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2008 at 04:12 AM