Thursday, March 06, 2008
Back to the Future
So where is the Democratic Party nomination headed? I suspect we have a draw folks. Without one or the other dropping, or them agreeing to team up, neither is likely to achieve the required delegate count prior to the nominating convention. And in a brokered convention with superdelegate involvement, I think Hillary wins. There will be vitriolic rhetoric from Obama supporters (as I am expecting in the comments). There will be borderline violent demonstrations at the convention.
It will make good TV. Don't say we didn't warn you.
18 Comments:
By 
honestpartisan, at
Thu Mar 06, 01:49:00 PM:
The "NAFTAgate" controversy is bogus. There's no there there with the Rezko controversy, either.
By 
, at
Thu Mar 06, 02:28:00 PM:
CP: I think you make some good points in the second paragraph. If a brokered convention gives Hilary Clinton the nod, there will be a significant amount of publicly vented anger. Big blocs of Democrats will bail and not support her in the fall -- they'll stay home, support Nader or even vote for McCain. Many in the middle who were undecided will swing for McCain -- he's a vote for certainty, especially if what were to result from the Democratic convention is analogous to '68.
The Centrist
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Mar 06, 03:01:00 PM:
In March of 2006 I had dinner in Washington DC with Tigerhawk and then co-blooger Cassandra. The 2008 democratic primaries was a topic of conversation, and if I recall correctly I predicted it would a "shit-show."
I think I underestimated to what degree by several orders of magnitude.
The democrats' problem is exacerbated by the fact that their convention is not until late August, which means there will be plenty of time in advance of the convention for the lawyers to fight over who wins the Florida primary do-over called for by Howard Dean. It will particularly amusing to see one side or another cite the precedent of Gore v. Bush to support their legal position.
A shit-show indeed.
By antithaca, at
Thu Mar 06, 03:09:00 PM:
"The "NAFTAgate" controversy is bogus. "
Sure, maybe. Except for the fact that Obama denied any meeting between his campaign and the Canadian goverment had taken place. Which was, er, a lie.
By , at
Thu Mar 06, 03:44:00 PM:
There will a good possibility of Discord in Denver. While one should not live in the past, one can sometimes draw parallels between the past and present. I cannot help be reminded of the 1968 Democratic Contention in Chicago. Who can forget that timeless Mayor Daley classic in reaction to conflict at the Convention: “The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”
The CSN&Y song Chicago reminds one of some of the current Obama supporters.
We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... if you believe in justice
It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom
It's dying ... let a man live his own life
It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door..
From the bottom of the ocean
To the mountains on the moon
Won't you please come to Chicago
No one else can take your place
Another parallel is that Obama is from Chicago, well experienced in the ways of Chicago politics, and Daley’s son is Mayor. Yes, there are parallels in history.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 06, 04:01:00 PM:
Honest (or is it dishonest?) Partisan: I am amused by you. Rezko buys the adjoining "garden" / yard, which can only be accessed through Obama's house for "full price" while Obama buys the house at a discount to the ask - and you say this nothing nefarious. That's hilarious. Rezko subsidized the purchase of BO's house. Period. Obama even referred to his judgment in this situation as "boneheaded." His quote.
So please. Get over it. Just another Chico pol my friend. And let's not bother with his lie over the Nafta thing. Just go to youtube and watch the video of his presser. Touchy touchy now, wasn't he?
Just another pol. Simply less mileage on the model.
And off we go to Denver.
By , at
Thu Mar 06, 04:22:00 PM:
As has been more intelligently said elsewhere, I echo here, that whoever the Democrat nominee is eventually, will have to battle it out with the "runner-up", thus providing the McCain campaign with tons of statements and fodder for the General Election come September. The two Democrat candidates will have to say all sorts of semi-preposterous things to sway the different factions of the Democrat Party, rather than court the undecided "moderates" of no party allegiance.
Prediction: Either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama will name a presumptive "running mate" to gain the upper hand with the "Super Delegates" (those delegates that can nominate a president in a single vote!), perhaps MUCH sooner that any of us think. April 1?
If neither of them name a running mate by , say June, then you may guess that a "fusion" ticket of Clinton-Obama is in the works.
The drama may also be postponed by a "do-over" in Michigan and Florida. Heh.
-David
By honestpartisan, at
Thu Mar 06, 04:35:00 PM:
CP, I don't think that Obama's beyond reproach on a number of things (I don't like his health care plan, the "Harry and Louise" flyer, his vote for coal subsidies, to knock off a few examples), but come on -- the controversies you talk about are ridiculous and manufactured, the kind of thing you could find on just about anybody if you dug hard enough.
By , at
Thu Mar 06, 05:09:00 PM:
But that's exactly the point. From the OP:
"Senator Obama is just another politician "like the rest of 'em."
It's not a huge deal; it's just shady dealings typical of the political class. But I promise you, the fact that Obama is tainted by such things comes as an unpleasant shock to his true believers, and it stains his aura as a messianic deliverer of justice and harmony. It also makes him a liar.
I know I know, "big surprise, he's a politician." But a lot of his support is because he's promised to be new and different. Fresh face, new blood, untainted by Washington. Only it turns out that he's tainted by Chicago instead, and isn't all that new and different after all...
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Mar 06, 05:21:00 PM:
HP, the Carpetbagger Report link is actually non-responsive. Nobody thinks that the sellers offered a discount in the transaction per se, so it is easy to deny. The issue is whether there was an untrackable transfer of value in the separate purchase of the yard by the Rezkos, a yard which was accessible only through the Obama household property and which Obama's gardener mowed. From the written descriptions of the deal, it seems wholly implausible that the seller would have bifurcated the yard and the house unless he was dealing with colluding buyers. Your link does not deal with that question, and the straight denial is not clear.
By Diane Wilson, at
Thu Mar 06, 05:44:00 PM:
There are lots of other things that are going to come back and bite Obama:
Rezko getting state jobs for Obama's staffers.
His voting record in the Illinois legislature.
His record of complete non-accomplishment and partisanship in the Senate, which is utterly opposite what he promises to deliver as President.
His displays of "cowboy unilateralism" such as promising to pull out of NAFTA and to invade Pakistan. (This is how we improve America's image around the world.)
His aloofness from the press.
His wife's outspoken and arrogant contempt for America.
Going negative on Hillary, which will completely undercut his primary selling points of "hope" and being a "different kind of politician."
The Democrats now have two leading contenders, both of them very damaged and inferior candidates, and neither one of them with a majority of delegates. It's going to be interesting, watching the Democratic Party try to squirm out of this one, but there's no place for them to go.
By honestpartisan, at
Thu Mar 06, 10:01:00 PM:
[T]he Carpetbagger Report link is actually non-responsive.
Non-responsive to what? The original post says that the Rezko prosecution will prove something untoward. The Carpetbagger Report rebuts that point.
The issue is whether there was an untrackable transfer of value in the separate purchase of the yard by the Rezkos, a yard which was accessible only through the Obama household property and which Obama's gardener mowed. From the written descriptions of the deal, it seems wholly implausible that the seller would have bifurcated the yard and the house unless he was dealing with colluding buyers.
I love the way we all have to become aficionados of scandal trivia like this (although, to be fair, the left has done lots of scandal-mongering as well). The implication of all this stuff is that the Rezkos, in effect, gave Obamas something of value, presumably in return for some political influence or favoritism. Now, that may be true of campaign contributions that Rezko gave to Obama, but the facts of the real estate deal don't bear that out. According to Bloomberg, the Obamas upped their bids for the property in question from $1.3 million to $1.65 million on Jan. 23, when the bid was accepted. At the same time, Rita Rezko bought the adjoining lot for $625,000, then later sold a sixth of it to the Obamas for $104,500 and sold the rest for $575,000 to someone named Michael Sreenan.
Rather than transferring money from themselves to the Obamas, the Rezkos made a modest profit. So even if they were colluding, what's the problem here? At worst, the Rezkos facilitated the Obamas' purchase of the house. None of this has anything to do with criminal charges brought against Rezko, although admittedly campaign contributions (which Obama has since returned) could become part of the prosecution.
So really, what's the point of bringing this up? The proposition that Obama is something ethereal is a straw man rather than a proposition ostensibly in need of rebuttal. I suspect that it's more about an attempt to smear him as having done something illegal, although the facts don't support that.
By Unknown, at
Thu Mar 06, 10:02:00 PM:
RE the dhimmis: Split another 20 mil between the two of them to battle it out to the wire with neither winning - delicious!
Algor called in to mediate and solves problem by nominating himself - double delicious!!
Whichever one wins the nomination, they are liable to be so financially, mentally and physically exhausted, that campaigning to the end will be difficult. Also, McC has almost no homework to do for the big race as these two try to destroy each other, and give him all the ammo he needs - and the MSM, unwittingly, will help him by printing every last tidbit they are fed by the two campaigns - triple delicious!!!
TommyO
By Jim in Virginia, at
Thu Mar 06, 10:11:00 PM:
New York Post: Only Al Gore can stop a meltdown
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03062008/news/columnists/only_gore_can_stop_a_meltdown_100624.htm
Polls a couple months ago said over 40% of the electorate would not vote for Hillary Clinton. Obama is not ready for primetime, and Michelle won't take kindly to a campaign staffer telling her "Shush!". As for the superdelegates: Plunkitt said an honest politician was one who stayed bought. How do you enforce a promise made in April for a convention in August?
Denver will be fun to watch.
By , at
Thu Mar 06, 11:09:00 PM:
Obama got a clear price break from colluding buyers. Rezko toured the property jointly with Obama. Paid over market price for the "garden" which matched the lowered price Obama got.
One problem. Rezko did not have the money to pay for the property. Neither did the buyer of record his wife. So, Nadhmi Auichi, Saddam's BAGMAN sent Rezko the money. To buy the property.
WHAT DEALS did Rezko and Obama make with SADDAM'S BAGMAN to buy that house? I'd like to know.
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 06, 11:59:00 PM:
I guess this is a way of splitting the difference between TH and HP, but the larger problem I have with Rezko/Obama is not the real estate deal per se (in which the dollars are frankly pretty small in terms of the alleged transfer of value), but the fact that Obama and Rezko were more than passing acquaintances (but apparently not close friends). For a guy with his intellectual horsepower who knew he would run for POTUS relatively soon, he exercised poor judgment in hanging around a guy that dirty for more than a minute (it's bad judgment even if Obama didn't know that Rezko had shady dealings at the time -- don't do a transaction like that unless you are sure your co-purchaser, who is also a campaign contributor, is Mother frickin' Theresa; in fact, even then, don't do it with a contributor, no matter how saintly -- that's why he admits it was "boneheaded"). It's kind of like the Bill Clinton (or for that matter, Gary Hart) issue -- you know he's smart, and it boggles the mind that he would be so reckless with bimbos, owners of troubled S&Ls, etc. These guys know the rules of the game -- stay clean while in office, don't spend time or enter into business transactions with people who are not beyond reproach, don't give the other side any ammunition, because it will get dug up (OPPO people make their quasi-sleazy living doing just that). Is that standard too high for politicians coming out of big city or state machines? Was Robert Penn Warren right when he had Wille Stark say, "Jack, there's something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption," and "You know, Judge, dirt's a funny thing. Some of it rubs off on everybody."?
By honestpartisan, at
Fri Mar 07, 12:04:00 AM:
By , at
Fri Mar 07, 12:17:00 AM:
REPEAL NAFTA,REPEAL NAFTA,REPEAL NAFTA SQUAWK SQUAWK
