Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Does Aspirin (and Hillary Clinton Supporters) Work?
Hillary Clinton is well on her way to becoming the most reviled politician in the country. Not because she's resisting establishmentarian calls to step aside and let Prince Obama stride toward coronation − hell, I'd keep competing too, if I was that close to the mechanical rabbit. No, it's more that she will leave no faux-populist-bullshit-hardhat-Scranton-antitrade-what's-an-economist-Pabst-in-my-lunchbucket-Obama=Jesse stone unturned in her (and her husband's) quest to debase each and every molecule in their bodies, and snuff out every last positive memory we might have had of the way the federal government managed its affairs in the 1990s (when we, meaning me, never really liked her to begin with, and never voted for her husband).
The latest from Hitlery:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Yes, there is. When mincing little twerps like Paul Begala posit this rancid crew of Beltway power-mongers as the too-legit-to-quit anti-"egghead" faction representing the vast non-latte-drinking values of Real America, it's almost enough to make a guy pine for the authenticity of John Edwards.
I sincerely hope Hillary takes it all the way to the convention, even if that means I won't be able to watch cable TV for a few months. Few prospects would delight me more than seeing the Clintons stand up on a national stage in front of the political party they've long dominated and then get showered with richly deserved boos.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.8.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Beautiful. Thanks for putting a smile on my mug on this June
gloomy or a morning in So Cal.
BTW, a rat dared trespass yesterday, he was summarily executed and
eaten by the old fat gray cat on the garage floor.
jasno|5.8.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Yeah, it's nice for a few days between the cold winds and the
blasting heat.
Am I the only one who watches Hillary and is convinced she's
completely, bat-shit insane? Something about the crazy look in her
eye...
|5.8.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Anyone who wants the presidency this much should be barred from politics for life.
|5.8.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I'm wondering when she is going to finally start flying the confederate flag at her rallies. Can't be long.
|5.8.08 @ 12:52PM|#
If Hillery gets the Dem nomination, the party loses the
presidential race and is damaged in all of the close house and
senate races. It will be perceived as illegitimate, the power
brokers overruling the will of the people. That won't exactly
energize the Democratic base.
So why is she still doing this?
|5.8.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Poor Hillary has spent her entire life running for president, and now the prize is just...out...of...reach...
|5.8.08 @ 1:04PM|#
So why is she still doing this?
Because she feels entitled to it. To her this is her destiny. If
only those stupid voters would get with the program.
And the Clintons don't know when to just go away
Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 1:05PM|#
The tighter this is, the better chance of the Clintons doing
something really fucking insane because it's just so
close.
Please please please...
|5.8.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Her crashing and burning like this should be a lesson to all
current and future politicians that if you do want to be President
someday, it's probably a good idea to actually sound like you
believe the bullshit coming out of your mouth.
Everything she says sounds (and is) so calculated. Say what you
will about the intelligence of most people, but even dumb people
can perceive honesty and authenticity.
Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Coup attempt, led by Gen. Clark?
I would prefer something even more entertaining: her pulling a Joe
Lieberman and going third party.
It'll never happen but man would it rock.
|5.8.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Unless you're in the Klan, why would any Democrat vote for her? Why? I simply do not get it. I think Obama is a bad candidate, too, but he's not Hillary bad. She's got to be the most inept candidate to remain in the race this long, ever.
|5.8.08 @ 1:21PM|#
When mincing little twerps like Paul Begala posit this
rancid crew of Beltway power-mongers as the too-legit-to-quit
anti-"egghead" faction representing the vast non-latte-drinking
values of Real America, it's almost enough to make a guy pine for
the authenticity of John Edwards.
Take that, Weigal!
In the halcyon daze of Clintonia mkI, people used to ridicule my
fevered ranting about Hillary's Joan-of-Arc stare.
Toldja so toldja so!!1!
|5.8.08 @ 1:29PM|#
On Tuesday night, we mentioned the dustup between two
Democratic pundits, Ms. Brazile and Mr. Begala, who engaged in a
prime-time debate about the coalitions being built by Mr. Obama or
Mrs. Clinton.
A Brazile/Begala deathmatch? That just sounds too good to be true.
Let it be a draw, with both collapsing into a heap at the
end!
I would pay real money to watch those 2 scum suckers hurt each
other.
Rimfax|5.8.08 @ 1:38PM|#
...then get showered with richly deserved boos.
I was anticipating something more like MC Frontalot's "Yellow Laser
Beams".
|5.8.08 @ 1:40PM|#
At this point Hillary reminds me of Gov. Lepetomane (Mel Brooks)
in Blazing Saddles, when he first meets the proposed new sheriff of
Rock Ridge (Cleavon Little):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzI3k39Cfw
This is what her campaign has come down to. Too bad it is not
funny.
The Democratic Republican|5.8.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Welch bringing out the fangs -- I love it!
By the way, Welch, I appreciate your stand on journalistic ethics
vis journalists disclosing their presidential votes. Not sure I'd
want to make it legally binding, but when you say that you never
voted for someone, at least I can go to your webpage and verify it
against what you've posted.
Rhywun|5.8.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Everything she says sounds (and is) so
calculated.
Yeah, except for the part about how she's got a lock on the White
vote and those are the folks she needs to win. It's hard to believe
that went through any kind of filter.
|5.8.08 @ 2:02PM|#
If we think about this, though, every argument for Hillary to
step aside could just as easily be thrown back at Obama:
- "She's behind in pledged delegates!" - well, he's behind in
superdelegates.
- "The popular vote!..." is too close to call at this point.
- "Electability!"...every poll I've seen shows her up on McCain
more than Obama is.
So why isn't all of God and Creation calling on the Empty Suit to
walk off the field?
|5.8.08 @ 2:22PM|#
""She's behind in pledged delegates!" - well, he's behind in
superdelegates."
The superdelegates are very unlikely to go against the popular vote
or reverse the pledged delegate count, so the fact that she has
more (although her lead has been and by all accounts will continue
to steadily decline) doesn't seem nearly as important as the
pledged delegates or popular vote.
""The popular vote!..." is too close to call at this point."
As long as you only count the states that are supposed to count
under DNC's rules, she has essentially no chance of catching him in
the popular vote; the remaining states just aren't big enough.
That's especially true after he gained close to 200,000 more votes
than her on Tuesday. Even if you include Florida, which one could
at least make a somewhat plausible argument for since they were at
least both on the ballot, it would be very hard for her. There's no
way Michigan can fairly be included since he wasn't even on the
ballot, so counts that include MI aren't worth much.
""Electability!"...every poll I've seen shows her up on McCain more
than Obama is."
From what I've seen they're more of a mixed bag. For example, a
poll in the NY Times earlier this week had him comparing more
favorably to McCain that Clinton did (you'd think it would be easy
for me to find on their website, but for some reason I
can't...).
|5.8.08 @ 2:26PM|#
So why isn't all of God and Creation calling on the Empty
Suit to walk off the field?
I'll take a stab at IDing the crucial difference between the
candidates. Hillary should have won the Democtaic nomination in a
cakewalk. She held almost every advantage.
Name Recognition ✓
Party Contacts ✓
Money ✓
Big name endorsements ✓
National campaign experience ✓
The womens vote ✓
Successful ex-president stumping for her ✓
Obama's advantages -
Skilled oratory ✓
The black vote ✓
Hillary Clinton has blown a campaign with all of her advantages.
She FAILS. Barack Obama has overcome his difficulties. He
passes.
|5.8.08 @ 2:32PM|#
It's hard to believe that went through any kind of
filter.
HRC is proving once and for all that you need to have somoene on
your staff whose job it is to vet egrigiously stupid statements,
such as this one, and her many other stunners. You get to have a
buzzer or a taser or something. (which would be grand: "My fellow
Americans, if elected I will rebuild our heartland, rid us of the
money-grubbers and UUULNNNNG" -- collapses to the floor
ZAP...tickticktickticktick--)
Thankfully for us, she doesn't have one of these or she's just
locked him/her in the cellar for the duration.
|5.8.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Obama's advantages -
Skilled oratory ✓
The black vote ✓
The latter wasn't even necessarily true in the beginning. Bill was
famously the "first Black president," and Hillary was at least
immensely popular in the black community in New York. Last fall
Obama wasn't doing very well with blacks in the polls; there was a
spate of articles wondering whether he was "too white."
This latter meme became part of a joke in The Wire, where the
corrupt legislator got off at trial partly because of a speech on
the stand where he implied the prosecutor was not authentically "of
the neighborhood" by purposefully mispronouncing his name as
"Obama."
|5.8.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Hillary Clinton has blown a campaign with all of her
advantages. She FAILS. Barack Obama has overcome his difficulties.
He passes.
Although her failure has more to do with the arcane-to-bizarre
Democratic method of dispensing delegates than it does anything
else.
Under almost any scenario other than the one prescribed by the Dem
rules, with their disproportionate awarding of delegates to some
districts, their awarding of some delegates by election and others
by caucus, etc., Hillary would have wrapped this up months
ago.
Of course, that's all counterfactual. But I wouldn't confuse your
man your man being on top because of bizarre and arcane rules, with
your man being on top because he is innately superior.
Something for Dems to ponder - the general is winner-take-all in
all but two states.I f even Ohio, Texas, and California were
winner-take-all states for Dem primaries, this race would have been
over, with Hillary the winner. Replay the Dem primary with general
election rules, and Obama gets blown out early.
|5.8.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Although her failure has more to do with the
arcane-to-bizarre Democratic method of dispensing delegates than it
does anything else.
Why is proportional allocation more "arcane-to-bizarre" than
winner-take-all? I'd argue it makes more sense than awarding all
the delegates from a particular state to the winner of that state,
regardless of whether they won it by 5 points or 50 points.
If the Republicans didn't operate under the arcane-to-bizarre
winner-take-all method, McCain wouldn't have run away with the
race, and furthermore, Ron Paul would have had a much better shot
at accumulating enough delegates to affect the race.
|5.8.08 @ 2:48PM|#
I think Mr. Dean was directing his ire more at the less-democratic superdelegates than at proportional allocation of delegates.
Colin Clout|5.8.08 @ 2:54PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Well, those were the rules and all the campaigns knew those were
the rules. So, the question is, why wasn't the Clinton campaign
prepared for those twelve states that followed Super Tuesday? At
the very least they didn't seem to be prepared.
|5.8.08 @ 2:54PM|#
I dunno, Pro Lib, he says this:
Under almost any scenario other than the one prescribed by the
Dem rules, with their disproportionate awarding of delegates to
some districts, their awarding of some delegates by election and
others by caucus, etc., Hillary would have wrapped this up months
ago.
Doesn't mention superdelegates.
Colin Clout|5.8.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Brian24,
I've heard a number of commentators state that he "earned" the
overwhelming support he has gotten from the black community.
|5.8.08 @ 2:56PM|#
So, Matt Welch, are you saying you don't like Hillary? I
couldn't tell...
Also, I don't think it's very valid to say "under different [e.g.
winner-take-all] rules, the popular vote totals would have resulted
in a Clinton lead by now" because if those had been the understood
rules, both candidates would have campaigned much differently.
Maybe if the strategies had been different, some of the same voters
would have still voted the same way, but some wouldn't have. Obama
would have concentrated his proven get-out-the-vote ability in the
states with the most delegates to award. I'm not saying he'd still
be leading by the same # of delegates or more, or even that he'd
necessarily be leading at all, but it doesn't make sense to take
the popular votes that resulted partially from one set of rules and
apply a different set of rules to them. I think the Obama camp has
shown itself to be the shrewder, more politically effective one, in
addition to perhaps having the candidate whose style and brand are
more advantageous to this Democratic Party's particular
delegate-awarding scheme.
|5.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Why does she do it? - read - why does she engage in the democratic electoral process? I realize many of you would have preferred that no one run against Obama. Especially not a woman, and especially, especially not a strong woman. It's called democracy. Get one. Deal with it.
Grandmaster|5.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Of course, that's all counterfactual. But I wouldn't confuse
your man your man being on top because of bizarre and arcane rules,
with your man being on top because he is innately
superior.
Exactly right! It's like a game of chess. The champion of a chess
tournament didn't win because he was innately superior, but because
of bizarre and arcane rules. I mean, come on, a knight moving in a
weird L shape? Everyone knows knights charge in a straight line.
Don't get me started on allowing pawns to become queens b/c of some
arbitrary line they cross.
|5.8.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Especially not a woman, and especially, especially not a
strong woman.
I'm cool with a woman prez. Just not this one.
Here's hoping Oregonians trolls can understand that concept.
Kisses.
|5.8.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Pull your head out of your ass, Vic. This discussion has nothing
to do with her being a woman, or a strong woman, or whatever other
bullshit strawman you'd like to make up. It has to do with the fact
that 1) she's being even more of a shameless panderer than most
presidential candidates, and 2) she has no realistic shot at the
nomination, except through a mechanism that will be perceived as
overturning the popular will of voting Democrats (meaning that she
would then have a huge handicap in the general election); and even
that chance is vanishingly small.
Obviously she still formally has a chance to win; realistically,
she doesn't. If you think people pointing out that fairly obvious
reality are being broadly critical of her "engag[ing] in the
democratic electoral process," you're an idiot. Deal with that.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.8.08 @ 3:43PM|#
.......especially not THAT a strong
woman.
Fixed.
Throw, say, Virginia Postrel into the presidential race, then we
can talk turkey.
Invisible Finger|5.8.08 @ 3:48PM|#
she will leave no
faux-populist-bullshit-hardhat-Scranton-antitrade-what's-an-economist-Pabst-in-my-lunchbucket-Obama=Jesse
stone unturned
Yeah, wotta idiot. Yer not supposed to do that shit until AFTER you
get elected.
|5.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Is it being "strong" to change your views as the wind blows? I have a somewhat different definition when I think of strength.
|5.8.08 @ 4:23PM|#
The rules committee for the Democratic party can't bring
themselves to award delegates on a winner-take-all basis because
they're ideologically committed to changing to the national popular
vote method of electing the president, since that would negate the
electoral advantage enjoyed by small, rural, largely Republican
states.
But, even if they switched to a winner-take-all strategy for
awarding delegates, the ability to win the popular vote among the
Democratic primary voters does not necessarily translate into the
ability to win said state in the general election. A Democrat who
took Utah's Democratic primary in a huge blowout will still get
their ass handed to them in Utah in the general election.
archie bunker|5.8.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Man, I don't know about you guys, but all the middle aged ladies
I know are dying to have a woman president, and all the younger
folks are dying for a black one.
Perhaps this will be a big break in the dems crazy glued
coalition?
|5.8.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I realize many of you would have preferred that no one run
against Obama. Especially not a woman, and especially, especially
not a strong woman. It's called democracy. Get one. Deal with
it.
Goddammit, Vic... you're embarrassing us.
1) I don't think anyone here hates Hillary because she doesn't have
her genitals mounted on the exterior of her body.
2) I don't think anyone here hates Hillary because she's
"strong."
3) I think there are plenty of perfectly valid,
non-sexist/-racist/-ageist reasons to hate Hillary. And Obama. And
McCain.
So if you've just got to tell off the libertarian living in your
head, please do so in the privacy of your own home and leave the
rest of us out of it.
KTHXBYE
duster|5.8.08 @ 5:25PM|#
it's more that she will leave no
faux-populist-bullshit-hardhat-Scranton-antitrade-what's-an-economist-Pabst-in-my-lunchbucket-Obama=Jesse
stone unturned...
It's because she wants to WIN.
As long as no one gets a picture of her windsurfing she should be
fine.
|5.8.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Why is proportional allocation more "arcane-to-bizarre" than
winner-take-all?
Its not just allocation by congressional district. Under the Dem
rules, some districts get more delegates than others, if they have
a history of giving Dem candidates big margins. Whatever happened
to "one man, one vote"?
And in some states, only a fraction of the delegates are awarded
according to the primary, with other delegates awarded under a
caucus system. Whatever happened to "count every vote"?
I think "arcane" and "bizarre" are good descriptors.
So, the question is, why wasn't the Clinton campaign prepared
for those twelve states that followed Super Tuesday?
No idea. Of course, those states were also won by Obama while
everyone was still all misty-eyed about him, before he had any real
scrutiny at all. I wonder if he would still have win them all if
their elections were held today.
The rules committee for the Democratic party can't bring
themselves to award delegates on a winner-take-all basis
That doesn't explain the extra delegates to some districts, or the
mixed caucus/primary states.
Well, those were the rules and all the campaigns knew those
were the rules.
I know, that why I said its all counterfactual. Its also food for
thought.
|5.8.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Whatever happened to "one man, one vote"?
Uhmm...when did one man one vote apply to how parties select their
nominees?
Up until the late 60's there werent even primaries to speak of --
just party leaders in a back room picking the nominee. The whole
idea of letting voters decide the parties nominee was anathema
until pretty recent times.
What exactly are you arguing RC ? That one set of arbitrary rules
is inherently superior to another. The party can set whatever rules
they want -- so long as they are clearly defined up front and don't
change during the process.
Granted, there are some weird rules, but personally I find winner
take all is a terrible way to allocate delegate. 50% + 1 gets 100%
of the delegates? How is that superior?
|5.8.08 @ 7:50PM|#
"when we, meaning me, never really liked her to begin with, and
never voted for her husband"
While I have always been critical of the Clintons, it was this
publication that introduced me to the reality that libertarians
only vote for anti-free market corporatists, corporate welfare
supporters, and anti-constitutional types. When they vote that
is.
I so hope what you have taught me is false, but I'm afraid it's
true.
|5.8.08 @ 8:12PM|#
I so hope what you have taught me is false, but I'm afraid
it's true.
If this is what you've learned, you've been sleeping through class,
pal. How could you possibly know who "libertarians" vote for?
Sorry, but you fail the course. Your work is sloppy and incomplete
and I'm recommending you for academic probation. You can't come
back here until next semester.
Mad Max|5.8.08 @ 8:19PM|#
"Hitlery"
Pre-Godwinned! That means we can go nuts.
They're all National Socialists! Hillary is Ilse Koch without the
charm! McCain wants to unleash the campaign-finance Gestapo! Obama
wants to empower the jackbooted SS brutes of the ATF!
zoltan|5.8.08 @ 9:21PM|#
What about the lysine contingency? We could put that into
effect.
At first I thought this was a dorky fantasy series reference. I
then Googled it and am sadly mistaken. I'm so embarrassed.
|5.9.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever run a big organization...except their campaigns. And starting with every advantage, Hillary screwed up her campaign (not just on message, but also on administration, money management, etc.) while Obama has run a very efficient organization (he could have done even better on message, I think, but thats another story). So, OF THESE TWO, who is more competent to run the US govt?
Phil Fry|5.9.08 @ 7:09PM|#
I've been trying to label Paul Begala for almost 20 years. With "mincing little twerp", I can now stand down, mission accomplished. Thank you Matt.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245