Powered by TypePad

« Obama Not Proud To be An American Abroad...Yet, Anyway | Main | One Pill Makes You Larger »

March 05, 2008


Appalled Moderate

I wonder what the tone of the stories is going to be in a couple of days.

Media had Hillary winning Super Tuesday, only to realize in a couple of days that she really hadn't and things did not look so swell.

Hillary really got very little for her victories, and I'm not sure our ADD media won't overplay that premature Vice Presidency suggestion into "Hillary thinks she's inevitable again". Plus, she's still annoying, and her husband is still in the running for worst presidential spouse ever.

Finally, Clinton is not loved in her party's estabishment. Not really. I don't think the superdelegates are looking for an excuse to select her.


"WaPo likens Obama to Hitler"

Hey they stole my trick. I said yesterday that Hillary should perhaps start subtley comparing Obama as a good speaker to other charismatic populist figures who got elected who didn't turn out so great (cough... Hitler).

But I will go ahead and start, and express outrage for my own Hitler comparison.


Hey we might as well be fair here and put in Hillary's middle name too. Curious to know what that is. That way they can all sound like serial killers.

(serial killers seem to always be known by 3 names, for those who don't get that)


I think Hillary's middle name is some innocuous white suburban thing like "Debbie" or such. (Too bad it's not "Bambi" or "Tawny" or something.) (It's probably not "that dreaded middle name," Wayne.)

It should be interesting, because whether they like her or not, I suspect most of the establishment Dems fear her, and if she opens Obama up like a cheap suit they may not see much choice but to support her.


Hillary's middle name is Diane. She was named after Diane Keaton. After her mother watched Ms. Keaton on an episode of Love American Style and loved the name.

Other Tom

Her maiden name was Hillary Diane Rodham (she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary and Daine Keaton).

I'd just like to think of McCain as Genghis Khan or General Sherman, laying waste to everything in sight. But he's too much the honorable gentleman.

We fascist hyenas are sorely lacking a George Soros or MoveOn.org. We need someone who can get vicious--and avoid campaign finance restrictions--without the can being tied to McCain's tail. Where is Richard Mellon Scaife when you need him?

Other Tom

Sue is just too quick for me...


I'll have to say HRC's projects an aura of entitlement that is geting under my skin. That, combined with the "kitchen sink", knocked me off the fence yesterday.

Someone said the math is such that the only way she can win at this point is to win "ugly". Apparently, she believes it.

Carville said the other day that the the only way the R's can win this year is if the D's find a way to lose. He also said that the D's were perfectly capable of doing just that.


I think it's funny that the only person on the campaign not complaining about how tough their life has been, is JSM.

What a bunch of whiners.



that is one of the smartest things Carville has said in a long while.


Yes, Hillary was named after Diane Keaton. Diane was named on or about January 5, 1946, and Hillary Diane was named on or about October 26, 1947.

Steven W.

The image comes to mind ... in the movie Animal House, chaos breaks out all over the streets and the character 'Flounder' exclaims, "THIS IS GREAT!" ROFLMAO :)


Sidney sounds awfully Australian, doesn't it?

Other Tom

As someone pointed out elsewhere on the web, all three candidates were surrounded by communists earlier in life. John McCain was the only one who fought back.


This is great! An election so stupid, with candidates so idiotic. it has our name written all over it..and I don't mean "specimen cup"
(Did you know in the paper supply business those cups and the smaller ones hospitals put your meds in are all called "souffle cups"..Don't know why.I had to get some paper versions for the party cupcakes because they're more elegant looking than regular cupcake cups.)


The only unity McCain will bring to this campaign is the unity between liberal Republicans and Republicans influenced easily by radio talk-show hosts.

Us real conservatives are without a candidate in this race. This year will be my first time not voting for the GOP candidate EVER. And...I know I'm not alone.

The GOP is a wake. I'm ready for a party!


Huck, we know it's you in that dashiki--You're not following anyone.


**FOOLING anyone**



I'm ready for a party!

I hear the Ronpaulians are looking for a few good men.


I saw where Hillary netted 4 delegates after all was said and done last night.

Thomas Collins

No need for WWII analogies. HRC vs. B_O stands on its own as a fine war. By the way, when does the mainstream media start discussing the unmentionable aspect of this contest, namely, that if the superdelegates go for HRC, many of B_O's supporters will feel that it was stolen from him (even if HRC wins Pennsylvania). HRC can crow all she wants about states with big electoral votes. B_O's supporters won't buy it.


How can Hillary Clinton claim to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary? She was born in 1947, when Sir Edmund was nothing but an obscure bee-keeper in New Zealand. He did not climb the Everest till 1953. If her parents were smitten with mountain-climbers, they would have been more likely to name her after George Leigh-Mallory, who perished in 1924 assaulting the Everest, and was thus widely romanticized. By 1947, Sir Edmund had not even been near the Himamlayas.


OK all you fact-checkers, we need to get to the bottom of this mountain of misinformation.

Soylent Red


Please -- The preferred nomenclature is: Paulistinian

Upon looking into the origin of Hillarity's middle name, I learned that up until 1968, HDRC was a pretty good egg, politically speaking.

It occurs to me that someone needs to engineer a "Darth Vader" moment for her. She would make a very powerful ally. Of course Darth Vader's conversion happened at the end of his career, so to speak...

Anyway, having not been around for the 1968 convention (but soon to make my glorious entrance), I'm looking forward to a good round of rioting and mayhem in Denver. Denver is the home to a lot of mushy headed rent-a-rioters,the convention will fall in the intemperate end of summer heat, and the political acrimony is percolating nicely.

So the stars appear to be aligning nicely for some groovy back to the future chaos, ironically from the set that glorifies the original incarnation.


OK, now, if you google 'source of Hillary Diane Rodham's name' you can find a hilarious freeper entry with a great picture of the babe.

Snopes is agnostic, Mum is mum, but supposedly thought 'Hillary Diane' sounded exotic.


McCain's veep:

Orrin hatch.





To quote Hayley Barbour, "if the Republicans dont carry Mississippi, they are not going to carry 5 States." He did so in dismissing the campaign having any interest in a Mississippi Governor on the ticket. One of those five states is Utah, so forget Hatch for the same reason.

Other Tom

Kim, the stuff about Sir Edmund and Diane Keaton is all a joke.

When she met Sir Edmund, Hillary told him she had been named for him. Fact-checkers quickly pointed out that when she was born he was an obscure bee-keeper in New Zealand, and no one had ever heard of him. So she claimed that her mother had always told her that's who she was named for. So the Diane Keaton stuff is just a little bit of piling on.

You go, Al-Ozarka--you'll show 'em! Next time, try to find a sutiably conservative candidate who can win a primary or two. There's no conservative alive who could carry the five states Haley Barbour is talking about, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to put a Democrat in the White House.

Patrick Tyson

Right now RCP has Clinton up 92-91 in Texas with 10 delegates still to be allocated. Whatever else, the Obama people know how the process works. He was the nominee three weeks ago, he's the nominee today and he'll be the nominee in August...unless, of course, something really extraordinary happens.


Touche, OT. Did you know you were named after Abe Lincoln?

Did you get the Santo stuff? The ugly old aviator was McCain's dad.


I think Barack Obama should state unequivocally that he will not accept a vice presidential nomination.

Otherwise, I suspect some super delegates might get the idea they can be the saviors of the party by forcing Hillary Clinton to choose Obama as her running mate in order to win their support.

Crew v1.0

John McCain-Rob Portman.


I still sort of like McCain-Steele -- For A Strong America.

Rick Ballard


That works especially well if RW really does turn BHO into a toad - and then steps on him. I don't see what he would add to the ticket that would help in OH or FL.

Other Tom

No, Kim, I was puzzled by the "ugly old aviator" stuff. Has to be his grandfather, Slew McCain--his father was a submariner. Where did the quote come from?

Funny, my mom always told me I was named for Teddy Kennedy.

Other Tom

RickB and vnjagvet, you're both talking about my absolute dream scenario: the blue-eyed white devils steal it for Hillary, Obama turns down the VP job, and McCain picks Steele or JC Watts. We can dream, can't we?

And I agree with Elliott wholeheartedly. Ruling it out in advance would be a great deterrent to the BEWD's, who would really be put in a box.

My guess is that, one way or another, she ends up with the nomination.


My reasoning:

That ticket would really rankle the oh-so-self-righteously politically correct liberals.

Assuming RW picks BHO for veep, you would have Steele who is a genuine African-American(someone whose ancestors were southern slaves) with executive experience running against a BHO, who is only of one-half African (but not African American) descent, and who has had zero executive experience.

On the merits, it seems like a pretty good ticket to me.


"Did you get the Santo stuff? The ugly old aviator was McCain's dad." Posted by: kim | March 05, 2008 at 06:52 PM

A hell of a ballplayer who belongs in the hall of fame, but I never gnu he flew or was old enough to father J S M.


"...McCain picks Steele or JC Watts." Posted by: Other Tom | March 05, 2008 at 08:28 PM Either would be an excellent candidate, VP or POTUS.


You guys keep bringing up Steele who I adore just to torture me...He is so bright and sensible and likeable..

Tom Maguire

Her maiden name was Hillary Diane Rodham (she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary and Daine Keaton).

I read that Hillary's mom wanted a name that paid tribute to Princess Diana without being too obvious. Or did Hillarity say that in an interview?

(I might be kidding here...)

At the risk of overthinging this (Too Late!) - in 1947 "Diane" was 18th on the list of popular female names; by 2004 it had dropped out of the top 100.

So one might ask, why look for a reason? Hillary is tougher, but maybe they were just going for something that picked up the "H" in dad's name "Hugh). And if you like the matching initials theory, her mom's name was Dorothy.

In 1947, the only female "H" name in the top 100 was "Helen", at 45.

So, they wanted as Initials "H" and "D"; the only obvious "H" was Helen, so they passed' they took the obvious "D" with Diane.

Tom Maguire

Hmm, other "D" names were Dorothy, Deborah, Darlene, Doris - a plethora.


Hillary seems like a pretty daring name for 1947. I could be wrong, but has anyone ever heard of another Hillary born in that era?

You can never overthink names, not to my mind, anyway. A totally fascinating subject. My daughters have very old fashioned and unpopular family names - I love looking at those Social Security name lists from way back.

Hmm, other "D" names were Dorothy, Deborah, Darlene, Doris - a plethora.

True, but Diane seems to "go" a lot better with Hillary than the others.



I was way behind yesterday and only just saw your posts on the snippy thread. Your "typical democrat" remark was hilarious and your speculation about Hillary's styling was quite intriguing.




Other Tom, you are right; it was his Grandfather. The quote is on p. 2 of 'Tales of the South Pacific', by James A. Michener. I thought you'd like it.

Wait until Obama's campaign figures out that McCain's Great Grandfather owned slaves.


Good heavens, I can't get anything right; it was his Great Great Grandfather. Too many Roman numerals in the family.


My guess is that McCain floats a VP name every 3 or 4 days from now until after the Dem conviention. That way he keeps the press interested in his campaign while the Dems fight it out, and he puts every possible VP candidate through the toughest vetting of all, the press, before he has to make a choice.


Thanks, Elliott. I think I misread JMH and Ann's fashion conversation, though - it was about Cindy McCain, right? I never saw those photos of her in yellow, I need to look.

Ken Hahn

Another difference with 1968 is that while GWB won't do much to prevent the Democrats from trying to steal the election, Lyndon Johnson actively helped the machine. A few thousand less dead voters in key states will be very helpful.

Cecil Turner

Hmm, other "D" names were Dorothy, Deborah, Darlene, Doris - a plethora.

Don't know why--as that was all just fiction--but I hear "Dorothy" is out of favor as a name for witches. And you probably ought to be a bit more sensitive on such a touchy subject.


Optimist- The glass is half full.
Pessimist- The glass is half empty
Engineer- The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Patrick Tyson

Obama has the upper hand so he has nothing to gain by ruling much of anything in or out at this point.


Oh, Clarice, I strongly agree with you about Steele. That man is going places -- sooner, rather than later, I hope. I am so glad and proud that he is on our side! He has everything on the ball, as far as I'm concerned.

And you know what? The first black President of the United States ought to be him!


Last night I wrote that I wondered whether we had just witnessed not so much Hillary's survival as Obama's implosion--coming at the end of a bad news week for BHO, it became apparent that Hillary had learned what it would take to beat him and was willing to do it. Maybe I'm wrong--we'll see.

Today Hugh Hewitt did an outstanding interview with Christopher Hitchens which goes into some of those points: Transcript. This reminds me of a Lyndon Johnson comment I read recently, to the effect that if someone is willing to do whatever it takes to win, they probably will. That's Hillary. Here are some excerpts, but the whole thing is well worth a read.

Can BHO stage a comeback?

HH: Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, they all urged Republicans to cross over and vote for her. I was on vacation last week, so I also left the walls at the wrong time. And they have no idea what they’ve unleashed, I don’t think. I think that she now will cudgel Obama. They will take him apart digit by digit. What do you think?


CH: He’s got to stop with all this stuff about how we’re all in agreement, and we’re all post-partisan, or we’re all post…he’s got to say look, the next thing you’ll hear is complete drivel, like politics is all about unity. Politics, by definition, is all about division. By definition, it’s about separation, about distinction. It’s appalling. That’s what I was trying to say in my Slate column, that we use the term politics of division as if division was a bad idea, when it’s the necessary idea. He has to say this woman should not be president of anywhere, let alone of our great United States.

HH: And do so in…

CH: And her flotations with power in the past are not experience, they are what a prosecuting counsel would call her past form, her previous convictions, the reasons why she shouldn’t be given another chance to degrade our republic.

HH: Do you see any possibility of him doing that?

CH: No.

HH: I agree.

CH: I don’t think he’s got the guts for it.

HH: I agree.

But what about delegate counts?

HH: What is John McCain’s best approach to the next, well, the Armageddon that is shaping up on the Democratic side? By the way, according to CNN, no one can win. They cannot win on the Democratic side without the superdelegates, which means it’s a brokered convention, because you never give up power until you get the deal sealed up. And Hillary’s got to cheat. She’s got to try and bring in Michigan and Florida.

CH: Ah, well, duly noted. I’ve been trying to get this on the air all day. Did you see her terrible speech in Ohio?

HH: Oh, yes. She said she’s going to cheat. That’s how…the short version.

CH: Well, she said we have won, she started by saying we’ve won already, and listed the states. She started with Florida. Play it to your audience. Five or six states, and then Michigan is thrown in. She has not won Florida or Michigan. Those delegates were quite rightly, and with her agreement, disallowed by the Democratic National Committee.

HH: Right, right.

CH: And what she was openly saying at the top of her voice is, ‘I am Harold Ickes. I know of no law except that of my own self interest.’ There’s no agreement, there’s no party deal, there’s no bending of the rules we won’t commit.

HH: Well…

CH: Get used to it. She’s already claiming the Florida and Michigan delegates in her column before she’s dared raise it with the DNC.

HH: I agree. It was nullification…

CH: This is like watching a putsch in progress.

HH: It was John Calhoun announcing that the Constitution did not matter, that he had reserved the right of nullification. And so they’re walking out. But that is cheating. There’s no other way to go about it. That is cheating.

CH: But it got recycled straight into every home by a media that’s suddenly deciding perhaps we’ve been unkind to her, doesn’t even dare to point out what is staring them in the face.

What's the bottom line?

HH: 20 seconds, who’s going to be the next president of the United States?

CH: Hillary Clinton.

HH: Oh…because of yesterday?

CH: No, no, I’ve feared it for a long time, and there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power.

HH: The Mummy is back.

CH: …people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end.

HH: Mordor. Christopher Hitchens, a pleasure. Thank you for joining us from Vanity Fair.

I left out the fairly frank discussion about Blacks and Hispanics. It seems to me that pretty soon Blacks will begin to realize that they are going to be the big political losers of the 21st century. By mid century they will be vastly out numbered by Hispanics, who feel that they've been denied their fair share of the racial spoils system by Blacks. Hispanics will know it's their turn, and both parties will be falling over themselves to build coalitions with Hispanics. Blacks will be left to pick up crumbs from under the table.


Well all this carping about with proportional representation will lead to a brokered convention in which you can be sure the CLintons will be playing with long, sharp knives.


GMax, you'd like Anduril's link. Obama's house and land deal is called 'dirty, dirty, dirty'.


One thing that CH does not take into account:

That McCain may be as ruthless in his own way as RW is in hers.

That temper and the ability and tenacity to survive both in a plane on an exploding carrier deck and years in a POW camp constitute a track record as well.

Oh, the next nine months will be interesting.

Other Tom

PTyson, I disagree. If Obama makes the unequivocal refusal to accept a VP slot, he puts the potato squarely on the fork of the superdelegates: if they give it to Hillary they very likely guarantee a losing ticket. And if he doesn't make such a preemptive refusal, he invites a backroom deal that screws him.

Cecil Turner
HH: Oh, yes. She said she’s going to cheat. That’s how…the short version.
That's an interesting conversation, but I'm not finding it terribly convincing. The polls have been suggesting Hillary would do about what she did last night, and those counting her out were mostly basing their view on hope, not data, and Hillary's big momentum shift is mostly the result of poor handicapping. (Okay, she beat the street, but only by a bit.) The bottom line is that this thing is too close to call, and has been for a while now.

Looking over the Dems' goofy nomination process, nominally there are 4047 delegates . . . 794 of which are superdelegates (or 798 casting 794 votes, since some abroad delegates get half a vote). If Michigan and Florida end up counting, those numbers will shift a bit (4414 and 843), and Hillary ends up much closer, but there's no qualitative difference in the process.

In order to secure nomination, a delegate has to amass 2024 delegates (2207.5 with MI and FL). And really, in order to "sew it up" prior to the convention, they'd have to be non-superdelegates (because those can change their mind at a whim, and report to no constituency besides their own view of party propriety). Thus a mathematically insurmountable lead amounts to ~800 at the end, whilst the current race is ~140 (Obama leading, with pledged superdelegates bringing it to ~100). More practically, an inarguable lead must account for the undeclared superdelegates, which for now is ~282. Just as there is no reasonably foreseeable outcome which will allow Hillary to pass Obama in hard delegate count, there is no reasonable scenario which will allow Obama to exceed the undeclared superdelegate margin, let alone achieve a mathematically insurmountable advantage. End result: this thing goes to the convention with Obama likely claiming a (meaningless) delegate lead.

At the convention, the only delegates with freedom to act are the superdelegates, who are charged with ensuring the party's competitiveness. They have to choose between a relatively known vetted quantity with high negatives, or a relative newbie with little experience but good oratorical skills. I think it's a coin-flip (with a slight advantage to Hillary after last night). At the end of that process, the winner has to contend with:

  • A split party and disaffected zealots for the other candidate;
  • A lack of funds from bruising primary battle;
  • An attractive protest vehicle (Nader);
  • An opponent with far better credentials.
A betting man would probably take Hillary in the primary, and McCain in the general.

Patrick Tyson


A backroom deal? Involving who?


Well, Gore if the world still believes CO2 is evil. Kerry if the party is crazy, and Dean if not. Are the Roniacs beating the drum for Dean, yet. No, not yet; too soon.

It's obvious Dean has not been pushing the Clinton candidacy. Obama's campaign has been pretty organized. Was this dark horse a stalking horse? I wish I didn't have to think what goes on in Democratic minds. It's offal.


Cecil--I think you laid it out well. At least I am in complete agreement with the scenario you have described.


Was this dark horse a stalking horse? I wish I didn't have to think what goes on in Democratic minds. It's offal.

I've wondered about this too. Considering the Dems that have been asked to give the SOTU rebuttal, I think maybe.
Tim Kaine was one of the first to endorse Obama and he did the rebuttal in 2006. Jim Webb I don't think has endorsed either way, though. Then Katherine Sebilius this year, who endorsed Obama the next day.

Appalled Moderate


Yours is not a bad analysis, though my betting man instincts still go with Obama. In the same way Obama is an unknown quantity with the general public, he is an unknown quantity with many of the superdelegates. Hillary, on the other hand, is a known quantity, and is not known in a good way. (I would bet that the people in Congress love her as much as Other Tom. They are likely also aware that Big Bill will serve a role much like Dick Cheney in a Ms. Clinton administration, and that is not good for their institutional perogatives.)

The main unknown with Hillary at this point is what's in those tax returns (and, given Bill, you can just bet there is something lucrative, but stinky). But that's a big, unvetted unknown.

With Hillary, you just know you will either win small or lose small. That's likely a good bet in a year like 2004 -- where minimizing the potential for large losses is a good strategy. In a year like 2008, with a recession either here, or advancing, and a general feeling of exhaustion with Republicans, it is a very poor bet. Obama's position would be very much like Reagan's in 1980 -- if he can offer up a solid performance that removes people's doubts about his experience, he'll win big.


if he can offer up a solid performance that removes people's doubts

Like adopting the Angelina Jolie position on Iraq. Use his street cred to say "I opposed the Iraq war but after the success of the surge it is clear that going forward the Iraqi people deserve government by elected representitives with an effective, uncorrupt security force and a growing economy. For now and the forseeable future those humanitarian goals require a US military presence to ensure stability."

Don't see that happening, in which case he lacks either integrity or brains.


What happens to John Edwards' delegates? Have they already been accounted for? If not, are there enough of them to tip the scales to either candidate?

Appalled Moderate

Edwards has about 26 delegates. It could be enough in this environment (and I could see his endorsement as having an effect in Pa with white males who are debating which prejudice to jettison)


The pledged delegates are not bound to their candidate. They can switch just as the super delegates can. This could be fun, fun, fun...


vnjagvet, I think it's inarguable, as you point out, that McCain has a definite mean streak. What he lacks, in CH and HH's estimate, is the total lack of scruples of either of the Clintons. We'll see.

Cecil, I think you have to take a couple more factors into account.

1. I think you're underestimating just how badly Obama was skunked in a crucial--repeat, crucial--state: OH. He won only 8 counties! Marie Cocco has the details packaged conveniently: Tough Math on the Democratic Side. HRC will be lobbying the supers with these arguments, and it should make a difference for those who are plugged into winning the WH after 8 years out.

2. PA. WHEN HRC wins PA it will further certify her as the candidate who can--if either can--win for the Dems in November and will give her Big MO: a major talking point with the super delegates to reinforce the above.

3. HRC will be willing to use the race card behind the scenes--Obama can't win because he loses the Hispanic vote, which is our future: she'll worry about losing blacks second, first is getting the nomination.

4. Nader is not an attractive protest candidate, for this reason: after 8 years of Bushitler, even the lunatic fringe of the Dems are not looking to register protest--they want a victory. Plus, Nader has been around too long, everyone knows his act, they know that he's helped but the GOP in the WH in the past, etc., etc.

5. I doubt that the general electorate will see the general election coming down to a credentials contest. In my view, they'll grant Hillary her (bogus) experience and move on to comparing personal character qualities. If his handlers can somehow keep McCain from shooting himself in the foot as he usually does, he's got a real good chance on this score. But there's a big potential problem...

6. If the economy hits a rough patch, as appears to be developing, all bets are off--except that the GOP will be blamed. I'm not an economist, but...I think Republicans may be whistling in the dark on this one.

Anyway, these are my talking points. A lot can still happen.

My brother heard on the radio that Axelrod is saying: bring it on--i.e., we'll go toe to toe with HRC on the corruption issues. However, this is an area in which BHO has to do the dirty work on his own. Hitch thinks he doesn't have the stomach for it. We're gonna find out soon. The lid is off Rezko, so this could really be a two edged sword. In addition, it could be argued that the Dems have already discounted the Clinton character issue.


On a slightly different, but equally important topic: Why the Fuss About Shari’a Law?

Appalled Moderate


If all Obama can do is talk about the scandals of the 90s, he should not waste his breath. But there are real issues now - presidential library donations, the tax returns, how do the Clintons, broke in 2000, have 5 million lying around to loan the campaign?

Also, you ignore the see saw media. Now's the time for them to re-notice the Clinton's problems and Hillary's fundamental yetch factor.


Here'sthe latest on Rezko and friends..It is a lot more breathless than evidentiary, however. I'd be surprised if much or anything somes out in thr trial re O ..http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25361


**Comes out****

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25361>Rezko Trial


This link from Steve Sailer's blog today: Extreme Self Confidence.


It will be interesting to see how the recruiting station bombing plays into all of this. It is a chance for Hil to point out Obama's friendship with unrepentent Weather Undergrounders and taint him as an extreemist, if she has the guts to do it. If this sort of thing becomes a regular occurance between now and November, my guess is that McCain wins in a landslide.


Some amazing stuff here: The Secret of Michelle Obama's Appeal.


Re: Rezko, Instapundit linked to an ABC web story that directly asks how Rezko could afford to buy the Obama plot of land (using that terminology). Tying Rezko's purchase directly to Obama means that he is losing this spin fight badly. The press just don't accept his claim that the two purchases were unrelated at the time. They will peck away at him until he confesses or he dies the death of a thousend cuts.


I am pretty certain that Spengler was once with the CIA.

Jim Webb I don't think has endorsed either way, though. Then Katherine Sebilius this year, who endorsed Obama the next day.

FWIW, my brother, a hardcore Dem, thinks Obama would pick either Webb or Sebelius for VP.


Ranger--the Rezko land deal is a lot less complicated than Whitewater and probably involved nothing in itself illegal on the part of the Obamas.
It was stupid not to simply admit what is obvious..the Obama's loved the house which they could barely afford (even with the U of Chic tripling Michelle's pay to a level absurd for her position); Rezko bought the land which the owners insisted be sold with the house . The problem is not so much with that..it's with the sale back to Obama of that tiny strip of land which made the million dollar lot useless.


For those of you following the Rezko-Obama land deal, I've been curious: what is a 1000-bottle wine cellar worth? Where is that wine now? Are the Obamas drinking their way through it, or has it been sold since the house was purchased?

I ask because there has been discussion of just how much Obama has gained financially by the deal. Granted we don't know the quality of the wine in question, but if the former owner/wine collector could be identified and researched, we might be able to get an idea.

Other Tom

The backroom deal would be among the superdelegates, who privately agree to tip the balance to HRC provided she picks O for VP. Remember, the convention is more than five months away. Obama's image and stature are certainly not going to improve in those five months, and are quite likely to erode. But if they don't arrange for him to get the VP pick, blacks desert the party on election day.



I completely agree that it was totally legal at least on Obama's part (thought there may have been some bank fraud involved in the loan to Rezko). The issue there is one of favoratism because of political connections. Rezko's decision ammounted to the equivilent of a $625,000 gift, in the form of land that Obama could use without paying for.

The real issue for Obama is the cover up. It is simply not credible for him to say there was no co-ordination between the two of them in the purchase. But, he has to say that or the implication of the gift become apparent, especially given that Rezko was already known to be under federal investigation for corruption at the time Obama came to him about the house in the first place.

Now, compound that with the hinky land deal to ensure Obama maintains control of that plot of land without having to pay for the entire thing, and it just gets worse, and worse for him.

Now, add to this the fact that this opens up the entire question of what exactly what his relationship with Rezko, and has he been honest about that. There are indications that Obama has parsed his answers very carefully to leave the impression he only met Rezko a handful of times in any given year, but the FBI undercover investigation has hinted that Obama was a frequent visitor to Rezko's office.


Yes, ranger.. The error was the sale back of the land..the other stuff, nada on a stick. I suppose he could have admitted right out that at the time he was naive and thought it was a fair exchange for that strip of land, but in retrospect, sees that it was not a sensible deal to have entered into and take steps to void it.
Pretending the entire thing was just happenstance makes him look like a liar and a crook.


For those of you following the Rezko-Obama land deal, I've been curious: what is a 1000-bottle wine cellar worth?

I doubt very much they left the wine. I suspect it just means there is room for 1000 bottles. If I'm wrong I might have to become a dirty democrat.


Pretending the entire thing was just happenstance makes him look like a liar and a crook.

Agree. That's why I was so surprised that's what he was going with. Then when he didn't disclose the fact that Rezko had toured the house with him....it just looks so bad that it is impossible to understand how he chose to take this path.
He could just hold a news conference right now and answer the easy questions. I don't see the downside.

Other Tom

Are we all agreed that Obamamania has peaked, and that it's all downhill from here on out?


You have my vote,OT.


I'll agree we may have hit a plateau. Downhill? I'm not so sure.
Besides, I'd still rather have him in the big Oval than the Hillarys.


He could just hold a news conference right now and answer the easy questions. I don't see the downside.

Posted by: MayBee | March 06, 2008 at 11:04 AM

At this point it is too late. He could have done that in the beginning, but it would have killed his entire 'I've got better judgement' argument by having to admit he asked a political fixer who was under investigation to help him buy his house. Now, it just gets worse because if he admits now what he concealed when the press first asked about it, he has to explain his second bad judgement call in the issue (not fessing up about it at first).

Obama has turned this into a Lose/Lose situation for himself. Either he suffers the death of a thousend cuts from the press or he admits his errors and puts his 'better judgement' claim at risk. And either way he starts to look more and more like just another pol.


Are we all agreed that Obamamania has peaked, and that it's all downhill from here on out?

Yeah, except for the true believers. And I expect riots on the streets when Hill gets the nomination. Knowing what I know now I would prefer Hill to Obama in the WH. We are at least familiar with her type of corruption. His is a whole different ilk.


OT - Hmmmm....another NYT journalist in bigg doodoo- James Risen?


Appalled Moderate


Your scenario puts up an interesting situation for Obama. Is he better served by refusing to run for VP, and waiting 4 or 8 years, or compete for attention with Big Bill in 4-8 years of Clinton disfunction? It really depends on whether he feels he is a depreciating asset or not.


Oh, I see, Jane. Thanks, that makes much more sense.

Cecil Turner

I left out the factors for the primary decision, but to my mind they all center around electability. Hillary has good arguments about big states (and especially battleground states like MI, FL, and OH, as they may well be deciders in the general). There's also the question of whether more voters will be disaffected by which choice, and to my mind the Black constituency is more of a captive audience than some of Hillary's favored demographics (especially the fogeys). I expect they'll have extensive polling data to base the decision on, but my inclination is that the youngsters get screwed because they don't turn out.

I make the scorecard something like:

  • Track record--Hillary (both experience and vetting);
  • Delegates--Obama;
  • Charisma--Obama;
  • Prospective vote garnering in critical districts--Hillary;
  • Overall popular vote--?????? (biggest unknown factor)
  • Disaffected zealots--Hillary (this may be the biggest issue, and it's also the hardest to quantify)
As above, I think the calculus goes slightly to Hillary, especially with the perceived momentum shift. Ironically, one of the main deciders is that the Dems dare not be seen as disenfranchising the MI and FL Dem voters for fear they'll shift. Hence the penalty the DNC assessed for early primaries actually makes them more important, not less. That, and my guess that they'll probably take the Black vote for granted, makes her the choice for the late-breaking superdelegates. But she needs a huge majority of them (or a rules change) to win. The one sure bet is that the convention is going to be very very ugly.

Rick Ballard

I'd say that BHO Fever has broken but that it definitely isn't the end for him. If we rewind the tape back to the first week in January we see RW triumphant in her preparation for ascension. Today, not so much.

BHO has plenty of money and an excellent set of political advisors who will be able to keep him in the game.

Until RW finally turns him into a toad, anyway.

I don't think that the general fear and loathing felt by party regulars towards Bubba and especially RW should be wholly discounted. That, coupled with Dean's personal antipathy plus the antipathy felt by the prog nutters may yet cause an engine failure on Broom One.

I just hope RW and BHO put up the kind of underhanded, unethical, morally depraved, vicious and foul battle that I know they are both capable of.

For months and months.


Time for super Michelle to come in claim she did this without telling Obama about all the mtgs because she needed it for the kids--paying 15k a year for a personal trainer--even after her U of Chic health plan outrageous salary hike was just not enough without some help and Mrs Rezko was so kind to volunteer to help out this young struggling c
family in this cruel cruel capitalist country.



I keep hearing it reported that as far as delegates are concerned it is impossible for Hillary to pull it out. Any comment on that report?

The comments to this entry are closed.