« Will Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again? | Main | There is Power in a Union »

August 31, 2008



I have lived in Chicago and I have lived in New York, and I swear to you, I don't care what anyone says....the cockroaches in Chicago are as big as small dogs and they eat EVERYTHING, including their own. You can hear them at night conspiring, plotting, eating, it's really quite horrible.

One thing about Chicago cockroaches though, they absolutely cannot stand the light, (unlike New York roaches, which just carry on business as usual).

Thing is, who is bringing the light and how bright is it?

John Petty

Haven't you heard, gormen? It's "the city that works."


Hey, now, I've lived in Chicago for 20 years and there's no way we have the roach AND rat problems NYC has. Politics is another story... But John, you can't lay all the blame on our city. Obama has always played dirty, even by Chicago standards. There was, and still is, a lot of bad blood over his betrayal of Alice Palmer in 1995. And that's WITHIN the Democratic party on the south side.

And, besides, Obama is not the brains behind the campaign -- it's David Axelrod, who, I might add, was born and raised in NYC.

All that being said, I love New York, too. My daughter is at NYU and I visit her every chance I get.

John Petty

Yes, I know. Chicago is one of my favorite cities. I'm not dissing the place. I even like the Democratic Party there. I just wonder if their tactics aren't a little one-dimensional.


Get off it, John. Who else but a very generous BO would give the most sore of all losers one evening and her husband another during a four-day convention? If this convention was anything, it was Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, all the way and oh, right, we probably should also vote for a nominee and surprise! it's not a Clinton who has the most votes.

What defeated Hillary was not Obama, it was she herself, acting as though the nomination was hers by right and who was that whipper-snapper trying to take it away from her? I'm sorry, that's not how I understand the democratic process! And the damage she has done by insisting, even months after it had become clear that she would never, ever come up with the necessary votes to obtain the nomination, to stay in the race, with comments that now are fodder to the Republican Ad machine, is inexcusable! If McCain wins this November, she and her husband will have played a significant part in his win, and there is something very wrong with that!

John Petty

Hi Steph,

You're quite wrong. He HAD to allow Hillary to speak. There would have been an uproar if he hadn't. And please, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. They dissed Jimmy Carter, but they couldn't diss Bill.

That "inevitability" business was a media creation. Hillary herself never said that. (By saying that, you're telling me that you've bought hook-line-and-sinker into the Obama talking points.)

As for not getting out, hey, it's hard to get out when you keep winning primaries. Let's see: She won the most votes, and all the big states except IL. And she thought she had a right to campaign? Nobody told Ted Kennedy or Gary Hart or Jesse Jackson to "get out, you can't win" even though Hillary had far more delegates than they ever did.

And please, John McCain may be old but he's not stupid. Gosh, would he have ever thought of the experience argument if Hillary hadn't mentioned it.

I see that the Obama campaign is already preparing the ground to blame Hillary if they lose.

John Petty

Oops, that last comment came off a titch more aggrieved than I really am. We're on the same side! I want Obama to win.

Re-read the original post with that in mind. Frankly, in the month of August, and even before that, back into May and June, the Obama campaign has made several ham-handed mistakes.

Meanwhile, McCain has made two very shrewd moves--the "celebrity" thing, and Palin. I don't like that.

Still, I do have to caution you on believing your own propaganda. Fact is: Obama has done nothing for Hillary or her supporters, while she has done everything he asked of her, and more.


"Get off it, John. Who else but a very generous BO would give the most sore of all losers one evening and her husband another"

I know this cannot be serious. "generous"?

Clinton won nine of the last fourteen primaries and neither candidate had the required number of delegates. With Florida and Michigan put back in play the difference was a mere 149 or so. That there was no real roll call vote is NOT the democratic process, whether you know it or not. Traditionally the "second place" candidate at the very least gets a whack at the VP slot, Clinton was not even vetted. If you remember, it took Bradley three months to concede to Gore, after which he made ONE begrudging speech on Gore's behalf and the press are still in love with Bradley. Hillary Clinton campaigns her heart out for Obama while he goes on vacation, makes an inspiring speech on his behalf and still you cannot let it go. Obama won - enough with the CDS.

Redrabbit: It was an analogy, it was 1968,I came from England, had never, ever, seen a cockroach (and they were HUGE) - I loved Chicago and I still do. John, yes, "it works" if you do not look at the underbelly too closely, which was my point.

Sorry, I know you know that was my point.

John Petty

Stephanie, take note!


Hey John,

There I dug all the way back to my Middle School nickname and you still knew who I was?! Cool. Or did you see my e-mail address?

I sure hope I didn't/don't fall hook, line, and sinker to the Obama Media Talking Points. Especially since I try to follow not just the US version of the Presidential race but also to keep somewhat informed about the rest of the globe. The European papers were (and many still are) aghast that anyone but Hillary would or could be considered for the job. (That's the media, not necessarily the population.) The discussions in my own family, living in four countries, are intense. But in the last 22 year in which I have been in this country, I believe that this is the second time that I feel a distinct shift towards something new, fresh and unconventional in the political scene. I wonder why they both followed a Bush Presidency? Then, in 1992, Bill was the man of the future, now the Clintons (both of them) are the past of the Democratic Party. Hillary will always be associated with the 90s (not her fault, but a fact of life) while those of us who consider the current situation bankrupt (in more ways than one) are looking for something different.

Besides that, when Hillary felt the pressure, she panicked. To prove experience, she talked about a sniper-fire mission in Bosnia; when that didn't work, she accused Obama of amounting to no more than one speech -- and everytime I see that ad I cringe and hope you do, too, coming from our own ranks. After eight years of knee-yerk reactive politics, I don't want any more of it if I have a choice.

I have always heard that Democrats, when they are not defeated by the Republicans, like to defeat themselves. I hope this constantly having to acknowledge/nod to one Clinton or another doesn't prove the point.

Oh, and PS: I'm not worried about Palin. I think she will self-destruct. To be under constant scrutiny, with nothing private or confidential anymore, takes more practice than 18 months as Governor of a sparsely populated State could or would provide. I even wonder if she'll make it till November. (then again, I have, on occasion, been wrong before...)

John Petty

You look at it differently than I. First of all, all that "hopey-changiness" is a schtick. Obama knows that, for him to win, he has to be a non-threatening black man. Therefore, I don't take it too seriously.

We have a partisan system. You can't just melt that away with your "multicultural awesomeness," as one person has said.

Secondly, for me the big thing is that the Republicans have failed as a party and they should be defeated as a party. Only Hillary was aiming for a party victory. (Obama can barely bring himself to call himself a Democrat. For me, the best part of his speech was when he said, "We Democrats." Finally! I thought.)

I would not say the Clintons are the past. Hillary got half the votes, more than Obama. They both got rapturous receptions at the convention. If they were the past, nobody would care what they said or when they said it.


Yeti: You should be worried about Palin. In Republican circles, McCain is considered "too liberal" none of them thought he had a prayer until the Palin pick. I have heard all over the blogs about Alaska being a "small state" sparsely populated, (please see if you must pdiddy's new pro-Obama video). I know I'm a bit foreign, but I always thought that Alaska was the largest state, oil rich and populated by a very diverse group of people and, regardless of length of service, a Governorship is EXECUTIVE SERVICE, something which Obama does not have, although he has said that running a campaign for 18 months IS executive service (something that his campaign manager, and staff of 250 may or may not agree with), it does not make it so.

The massive over reaction of the "democrats", the press and the blogs to Sarah Palin is exactly what the Republicans needed. To take the politics of personal destruction to Republican turf, where they, not us, are masters of the game, is a monumental tactical blunder. Before The New Coalition, when grown ups were in charge, this was common knowledge. The democrats are a fractious rabble, always have been and are proud to be so. The Republicans, on the other hand, will rally round in lock-step when one of their own is attacked from the outside.
Our leaders did not do that for Hillary, Obama did not do that for Hillary and now we will have the Republicans show us how civilized people behave and how demonizing a pregnant teenager is abhorrent. Palin is not going to self-destruct, one simply does not govern the largest state, populated by mostly men, take on your own party's corruption, raise oil company taxes, get an 80% approval rating, have four children and self-destruct because a bunch of football hooligans slander your family.

BTW - I don't have hard evidence to support this, but I personally doubt that Hillary Clinton is capable of panic.

Several high ranking military officials have confirmed, over and over, that Senator Clinton was told that she "may" come under fire should she go to Bosnia. That her anecdotal exaggeration was turned into a round the clock orgy of proof that she was a liar, was reminiscent of the horror they inflicted on Gore.

Saying that Obama was running on "a speech" was absolutely true. If you disagree, please cite something that he WAS running on (and leave out everything where he has since completely reversed himself).

My point here, I suppose is that peeing on 52% of the electorate once, was stupid, doing it again, is political suicide.

There's not long to go, better shore up our own base, before trashing the republican VP choice, although I fear, it's too late.


Gormenghast: The simple fact that it took less than three days to point out the first skeleton in Gov. Palin's closet is proof enough that the scrutiny she's experienced so far is nothing compared to what she's in for in the future. And of course Alaska is a large state -- that was my point. It's sparsely populated which means you leave your neighbors alone. That's a luxury she and her family don't have anymore.


Obama "gave" Clinton's "husband" a night at the convention because he was the last Democratic president, and enormously popular.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lectionary Posts