I wrote about Senator Clinton’s campaign the other day, showing how I think she’s jumped the shark. Well, author and blogger (and cool guy) John Scalzi hits the nail in the head, and that nail should be the last one in the coffin of Clinton’s campaign. I fear it won’t be, though; as I said she is running on nothing else but ego now, and I’m worried that even if the DNC tries to move her, she still won’t budge. After all, she’s still claiming she has momentum or come-up-from-behindedness or some other manufactured spin.
Sigh. What happened to the strong candidate who had such great things to say about science? Let’s hope that Obama picks up that mantle, if need be.
P.S. After writing this, I found out that Lawrence O’Donnell at HuffPo talked to a senior Clinton campaign official who hinted she’ll drop out in a month or so. Interesting. Money quote: "Nothing [the official] said indicated that he actually expected the superdelegates to move to Hillary in the week after the final election. The Clinton campaign has not lost its grip on reality. Yes, Clinton spokespersons publicly seem to be lost on gravity-free planet Clinton, but privately they know the end is near."
May 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Yeah they know the end is near, but it makes you wonder what her reasons are for staying in.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I was fairly undecided between her and Obama. She lost me when she started going off about “elitists”. We have been dealing with one idiot president who makes decisions and decides policy by watching Fox News just a little too much, I can’t go through that again. I really can’t.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I doubt that Obama will be the “science” candidate. He might be better than McCain, but I’m not at all expecting Obama to be a rational candidate either. I’m so irked that this is the best that we could muster. Is this the best that we can find in our country to lead it? If that’s the case, then it really is time to get out of here while the getting is good.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Exaclty, Val…
If she knows she’s going to give up the fight “in a month or two”, why continue to do damage to the party she supposedly supports by continuing to cause a rift and not allowing Obama to focus on campaigning against McCain? Seems like such action would be needless and couter-productive for all involved. Maybe I’m being vapidly naive, but I can’t believe that even an ego-maniac like Hillary would intentionally hurt the Democratic party while knowing full well she intends to give up the chase.
Which leads me to believe that perhaps this bit of “information” may not be 100% accurate. Not trying to question you or doubt you, BA… but it doesn’t really add up to me… I’m skeptical…
May 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
To me the money quote is “gravity-free planet Clinton”. I laughed my fanny off!
May 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Also, I feel if Clinton really did have dignity (and class) she would bow out now. Especially when you look at the cold hard delegate numbers. It doesn’t matter if you support her or not…even if she wins the next primary, she can’t overcome Obama’s lead.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Was I the only one watching the Daily Show last week when Howard Dean explicitly said he was going to let her get the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated, basically letting her steal the election? The latest Democratic talking point is that a McCain presidency would be “Bush’s Third Term” but it seems to me that Clinton is behaving way more like Bush than McCain ever has.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
So she’s going to quit as soon as she’s mathematically eliminated. Hardly a noble gesture. I guess the alternative is take it to the convention and complain about Michigan and Florida.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
How badly does she want to be president? Bad enough to hope McCain beats Obama so that she has a shot at running in 4 years. If Obama wins she’d have to wait for 8 years.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Michigan and Florida shouldn’t count, because many didn’t bother voting because they knew the primaries wouldn’t count. If they are going to count Michigan and Florida then they need to rerun the primaries there.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“So she’s going to quit as soon as she’s mathematically eliminated. Hardly a noble gesture.”
But isn’t it the point that that isn’t possible? She can’t overtake Obama without the superdelegates, but he can’t get the needed number without them either.
He advanced his lead last night from what I have read by a mere 4 delegates.
Sure, he has more of the popular vote not counting Florida and Michigan, and more delegates, but not the necessary number.
When have the Clintons been known to quit or do the noble thing?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Y’all–it’s Hillary, one of the shrewdest political players to come down the pike in the last 30 years or so. She is not going to give up that easy; she feels that this was her presidency, and then this Obama guy comes along and messes up the dream.
Remember–Denver is still 3 months away. i think she is going to do everything she can to get the FL and MI delegates seated (can you imagine the Democratic party “disenfranchising” those voters?).
It’s also possible that she genuinely feels she will be a stronger general election candidate than Obama, a feeling that many within the party share.
And Obama as the “science” candidate? Puhleeze. As I have said before, he’s got a lot of anti-science baggage to deal with.
As Ricky would say, he’s got a lot of splainin’ to do.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@David:
‘can you imagine the Democratic party “disenfranchising” those voters?’
Yes (that’s not to say they *will*, but they might). Look, they disenfranchised themselves by breaking the rules and holding their primaries early. They don’t like it? Tough. Next time, maybe they’ll follow the party rules.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’m for Obama for a wide variety of reasons. Links to his science statements have been posted here before. Though he hasn’t said much about science, he favors stem cell research and otherwise tends to see science in terms of education. He hasn’t addressed funding issues, as in NASA projects or many other scientific areas. He thinks global warming is real.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Look, they disenfranchised themselves by breaking the rules and holding their primaries early.”
The state parties did that, not the voters.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
@Brett–
I agree. The whole primary system is so arcane. Why didn’t Howard Dean do something about this?
Why is this country so beholden to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire?
I don’t know–maybe something like a BCS of early primaries would work, rotating the early voting dates around different states.
It will be an interesting 3 months.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Why don’t both parties just hold all of their primaries on the same day? They could also close all of their primaries to registered party members only. And make them winner take all primaries, not caucuses. Wouldn’t this solve all of their problems?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Andrew, you weren’t the only one watching - but you seem to be the only one who heard what you claim to have heard.
I heard Howard Dean say he was going to find a way to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan so that those states’ voices could be heard at the convention. However, even if the majority of them went to Hillary, it won’t make the difference.
There’s no secret agenda here. You’re just being paranoid.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I am staggered at the people on this board who claim to know exactly what Hillary Clinton is thinking. Wouldn’t have expected to see so many telepaths on a science board.
As far as the real world, I won’t be voting for any of the candidates. But I can’t see why Clinton should be expected drop out now…it really is going to come down to the super delegates, I expect; and they are still up in the air.
I will admit to a perverse amusement at the blind, unthinking hatred Clinton inspires in some otherwise intelligent people. That’s entertainment.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The woman is basically dishonest. She even wears blue contact lenses.
Bet on the filly. Clunk.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
A dishonest politician, how can that be./sarcism
May 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Everyone who wears colored contact lenses is dishonest. Got it.
Was Reagan dishonest when he dyed his hair? Just looking for the parameters here.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
No being a politician or former speech writer and now have a documentary out makes you dishonest.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
@davidlpf–
You are talking about AlGore, right?
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk . . .
May 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
How about “Every voice deserves to be heard”.
In North Carolina, our primaries are so late in the game that most every presidential election this lament fills the air: “Why won’t the big kids let us play? Our vote does not matter. Our choice is made for us by someone else. Our voice is not heard.”
This year, we got to participate, and it was exciting, and exhilarating to actually matter. What amazes me is how many North Carolinians have now taken up the call of “She should just shut up and quit. The race is over.”
I guess we’re big kids now, and since we can play, it’s our turn to bully the little kids that come behind.
Dr. BA, you know I love you. But in this, I disagree vehemently.
The race is over when the final vote is cast, and not one second before.
Kisses, but sour ones today. Not even a little bit of tongue.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Why all the obsession with forcing Hils out of the race (aside from the Pavlovian hate response she seems to inspire in so many people)? Do you think Obama can’t win on his own? In a way, I’m glad Hils is showing dogged determination; I’ve been frustrated with the Democratic party’s habit of rolling over and playing dead in the face of opposition. She’s not my favorite candidate, but at least she’s showing a little backbone. The democrats should be happy that someone in their ranks is actually willing to fight for something. But oh no, an ambitious lady lawdy lawdy, I do believe I have the vapors!
May 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Robbie,
True, and I was over-simplifying the situation. The point I was trying to make is that the article says she will quit June 15, and the last primaries are June 3, so she just won’t fight it at the convention.
It already might be too late. Yesterday an on-line CNN poll asked “If your nominee doesn’t win the nomination, how will you vote?” Not vote in the election, and vote for McCain were the top two choices, with ‘vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is’, came third.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Chip,
Oh he absolutely did discuss NASA’s funding.
He wants to slash it, and that was discussed on this very blog.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
If the primaries in the remaining states aren’t supposed to matter, why have them? Let the people have their say. If the primary season is too long, why penalize Florida and Michigan for voting early? The Florida Democrats didn’t even make that choice themselves. So let’s have everyone have a chance to vote and then see where things stand.
Politicians are politicians. Campaigns are campaigns. They’ll say a lot of stuff they haven’t thought through. Voters will tell pollsters things they haven’t thought through, too. When voters listen to the issues and vote six months from now, will lifelong Democrats really vote for McCain rather than the candidate who has essentially the same platform as their preferred candidate?
I was pleased to hear Clinton talk about investing in energy research and emphasizing science education. I’ll hope that Obama takes a similar tack. God knows we need people who respect and appreciate science even if they don’t understand it.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Erm… Quick back-of-the-envelope: assuming fl.us and mi.us are seated, she gets the gap narrowed by what, about 40 from the former and 20-odd from the latter? IIRC, the current gap should be considerably more than that, so could somebody explain to this dumb furriner what the hell is getting everyone so excited about those? Innumeracy?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The Aussie papers today are saying Hils is finished but she is hanging on to angle for the VP nomination.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I agree with what a lot of political junkies have said- it’s actually good for the party if she stays in…for now. The Kentucky primary is coming up and polls indicate she has a huge lead. It would kick things off on a sour note for Obama if he lost a primary where he was uncontested.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 am
The Democrats seem determined to lose this one… again. McCain can’t win it, but the Democrats can certainly lose it. And between the implicit racism (Barack Obama is the lucky ‘black candidate’) and the Clintons’ adopting Karl Rove’s entire playbook, every day this goes on makes it harder for any Democrat to win.
I wouldn’t have had a problem with a long, positive campaign, but Hillary Clinton has consistently taken the low road. I’ve always stuck up for her, but no longer. I can see that she’s a Republican at heart. Last year, I would have been happy enough with any Democratic candidate. Not any more.
On the other hand, I’ve become a huge Obama fan. I like the way this guy thinks (and the fact that he DOES think). Of course, I disagree with him sometimes. So what? He’s not going to be manipulating scientific reports to get what he wants, and he’ll listen to reason. And he panders somewhat less than most politicians (ALL do it, though - it’s the nature of the job). At this point, that sounds really good.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:44 am
“I will admit to a perverse amusement at the blind, unthinking hatred Clinton inspires in some otherwise intelligent people. That’s entertainment.”
The same can be said for Pres. Bush and Fox News haters.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Sorry, Calculus, I have not seen the level of blind hatred displayed for either. As a matter of fact, I am stunned by how much people will tolerate from Bush when they would have killed Bill or Hillary for the same thing.
Case in point: Bush and Cheney’s friends at Halliburton get billions and billions in no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq (often before the specific sites had even been bombed), then relocate to Dubai to avoid paying federal tax on the handouts.
I mean, my God! Can you even imagine what would have happened to Bill Clinton if he had done that?!?!? They would have dragged his lifeless body down Pennsylvania Avenue.
And that’s just one example. Don’t even get me started on the fact that gas was a $1.43 when Bush took office.
Of course, if you are getting your news from Fox you wouldn’t know any of this; I must make allowances.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Wait, wait–lol—
Then the rest of the post is about BLIND HATRED for Bush and FoxNews!
Do you really think W controls gas prices? Or is it the Congress? Didn’t Pelosi promise 2 years ago that Congress was going to lower the price at the pump? What did gas cost in 2006 when she took over the House?
Stop. Just stop. It hurts to laugh . . .
May 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Calculus:
My distaste for Bush and Fox News does not fall under the category of “blind and unthinking hate”. On the contrary, it is quite well informed by the last eight years of incompetence, deception, cronyism, outright fraud, blatant disregard of evidence-based thinking, and utter contempt for American values.
As for Clinton: I think two things are keeping her in the race right now. Sheer arrogance and pride, and a determination to appear strong enough to run again in 2012.
As for Obama’s science policies, I found a pretty good breakdown of them on the Popular Mechanics site. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4236740.html
I’m not so crazy about his support for ethanol fuel. I really think that bubble will burst soon. If I remember the numbers right, I heard that the amount of corn it takes to make one gallon of ethanol gasoline could feed a person for a year. Whoever decided to put food in our gas tanks should be tried for crimes against humanity. With a worldwide food shortage, I think this trend is going to go away really quick.
But Obama seems reasonable for the most part, and I support him above anybody else. No one’s perfect, you’ve gotta go with who you agree with the most.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
David,
No, I don’t think Bush and Cheney control oil prices. On the other hand, they have done NOTHING to help. Nothing.
We elect 2 oil men to the White House and we should be surprised?
Talk about laughable. Exxon/Mobil just posted the 2nd largest corporate profits in the history of mankind…and they still get federal tax breaks. And people like you want to believe that the price increase is because of higher crude prices.
Btw, the Democrats aren’t doing anything either, other than meaningless posturing.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Thanks for recognizing that NOBODY IN EITHER PARTY IS DOING ANYTHING about the price of gas.
Please don’t presume you know anything (’people like you”) about me. I realize that this is not a typical supply and demand issue. Gas pricing is a complicated function that involves OPEC policies, speculators/investors, corporate profit margins, etc. and has little to do with the leaders of our political parties, except in our lack of a coherent energy policy. No–it’s not about 2 oil men in the White House. Surprise!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
<- from florida. NASA person. So you know my bias.
Hillary can run to the end for all I care. That’s dandy. I hope she tries to do it in a more clean way now that it’s become apparent that it would take a miracle for her to get the nomination (as I said in another thread, 70/30 on everything from here out). If I were her I’d be worried about the waste of money, but that’s her call, not mine.
Seating florida/michigan delegates: In michigan obama wasn’t on the ticket because, well, there was no contest there so the local population just sorta made it up as they went along. You absolutely cannot use that vote to seat delegates.
In florida there’s little doubt that droves of people didn’t vote because we were all told it didn’t count. I’m one of them. It was a local decision that should have been cleared with the democratic party before we did it. I don’t agree with the decision to strip our delegates, but that’s a decision that was made before voting, and likely effected voting results (If you were a college student, and they make up a good portion of the dem voters here, would you skip class to vote if it didn’t matter? how about applying for absentee balloting, or driving back to a registered county, or settling the “vote out of district” paperwork?).
Even so, if you count florida as is: it swings the delegates by 35 (she picks up 105, he gets 70, the rest go to Edwards and Kucinich). She’s still in a huge hole.
I’m hoping she’s using this time to help mend the party. Though, frankly her “full speed to the white house” speech sounded a bit like “let’s just keep on’ drivin” thelma and louise style.
Summary: If you don’t mind spending the money Hillary, keep going. Just don’t ruin Obama’s chances of beating McCain in november.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:25 am
There is only one good thing I can say about the Bush Administration: They managed to jack up oil prices so high (and presumably permanently) that now alternative energy tech. is a cost effective approach. I recall the Arab oil embargo of 1973 ALMOST did the same, but then the prices came back down, people started driving 90 miles an hour again and buying tanks. Alternative energy generation as cost effective fell by the way and 30 years later we’re just starting to do what we should have already done.
Go George!!!
I am an Obama supporter for two major reasons:
1) He’s smart enough to know he doesn’t know everything and will listen to advice from people more knowledgeable that him.
2) He has great personality and presence (something Al Gore could have used in 2000), which will aid him in the contest with McCAin. ie, he’s electable,,,
GAry 7
May 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
David,
OPEC? Please. I tell you again, Exxon/Mobil just posted the 2nd highest profits of any corporation in the history of mankind. Got it? It’s called windfall profits.
This is about greed and the fact that, as far as our anti-trust laws, the fox is guarding the henhouse (pun intentional).
It has everything to do with 2 oil men in the White House…as well as an entire federal government, both parties, that has been bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Daffy, you are pretty daffy.
“Exxon/Mobil just posted the 2nd highest profits of any corporation in the history of mankind.”
Their profit margin is like 8%, which isn’t outrageous at all. They paid $30 Billion dollars in taxes in 2007.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
note also that refineries are soaking up a good chunk of the higher costs, which they won’t do forever. If they weren’t we’d be paying ~5.50-6.00/gallon right now.
Realistically this was inevitable. We’ve known we would be coming to these higher prices (admittedly not this high yet), and it would have been the “right” thing for the .gov to fund some tech study to help offset the prices by reducing demand later down the road. Or even passing a couple basic laws that would force manufacturers to step their game up a bit. Instead we promoted a society of trucks and SUVs, vetoed every standards bill that came across the desk, and cut funding from energy research. Go team.
Things will get worse before they get better. I really feel sorry for whoever inherits this mess (that’s us, really, but the political party in power in the next few years will get a good chunk of the blame).
May 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
“and it would have been the “right” thing for the .gov to fund some tech study to help offset the prices by reducing demand later down the road.”
Demand will never go down. How about the government getting out of the way and allowing some drilling?
May 8th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“Exxon Mobil’s profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. The new economy? Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion….However, profit margins across industries vary greatly based not on how well each business is doing but how capital- or labor-intensive it is. Oil is among the most capital-intensive. But look at the oil industry’s profits compared with shareholder equity it has available for investment. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent analysis of the oil industry’s performance, released just last month, showed oil industry return on equity of 27 percent—about 10 points higher than that of other manufacturers. And it has been higher throughout this recent era of high world oil prices, just as it was back during the oil shock that hit in 1980.”
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html
May 8th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Yeah, it’s definitely not OPEC. It’s those greedy capitalists.
But Daffy–you have to dig deeper, if you don’t want to be labeled as a naive dilettante.
It’s really a cabal of the Illuminati, in conjunction with the Rothschilds and the Bilderbergers. I’m pretty sure the British royal family has a say in this, too (just ask Dodi Fayed!). I mean the clues are EVERYWHERE, MAN!
So–after you check this out, get back to us, ‘kay?
May 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
David,
I said nothing about conspiracies…you did.
Good old fashioned human greed doesn’t require a conspiracy, especially when there are so many apologists ready to make excuses for that greed.
Have a day.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
An odd thought here, but with the Democratic primary race being so close and so contested, the news has been very focused on the remarks of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They’ve been given a huge percentage of airtime while Senator McCain is largely ignored - and this is in a part of the election cycle that would otherwise be pretty quiet.
Further, Clinton has been raising funds from large donors, and Obama from small donors. Regardless of who receives the nomination, they’ll both be able to tap the donor base of the other for the general election.
Then there’s the tendency of both Democratic candidates to repeatedly ramp up the rhetoric enough to catch the media’s attention and then to scale it back when it starts to look like it’s going to cause problems for the party.
This (like Buchannon’s Republican takeover and deconstruction of the Reform party) is starting to look to me like a carefully constructed strategy.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
@Daffy
You’ve got to stop. Because you DID say:
But that’s not a conspiracy.
Have a great day!
May 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
No, David, it is not.
It has EVERYTHING to do with campaign finance reform. Spare me the Limbaughesque straw men.
It’s very simple (I’ll use small words for you): politicians of both parties are loyal to their corporate sponsors more than they are the voters.
Got it? Nothing will be done to seriously enforce our anti-trust laws until we have real campaign finance reform. Why would it?
No iluminati, space aliens, or anything else you want to claim I said. Simple campaign finance reform.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“Nothing will be done to seriously enforce our anti-trust laws until we have real campaign finance reform.”
Our anti-trust laws are hardly laws at all. Just vague descriptions begging to be interpreted by whomever however they please.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
@Daffy–
You should check out the definition of conspiracy; they even use small words that I could understand!
I didn’t claim that you said anything; you did, however, give a pretty good description of a conspiracy. I was lamely trying to use humor to expand on that idea.
I certainly agree that we need some sort of campaign finance reform (not just McCain-Feingold). And some teeth in our anti-trust laws. And some better government accountability. And a huge reduction in our bureaucracy. And … and…
…a better class of candidates to lead this country.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“I certainly agree that we need some sort of campaign finance reform (not just McCain-Feingold). And some teeth in our anti-trust laws. And some better government accountability. And a huge reduction in our bureaucracy. And … and…
…a better class of candidates to lead this country.”
Then why are we arguing?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
No need to argue. But your original post was a mini-rant about BushCheneyHaiburtonFoxNews, and the price of gas when W took office. It just seemed one-sided, that’s all.
I’m glad we can agree that improvements are needed all around, and that we can have this kind of snappy, witty, repartee.
Respeck.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am
David,
Trust me, when the next president gets in I will very likely be ranting against that person as well. These people need watching, otherwise we get…well, we get what we currently have.
Do I have authority issues? Yup.