Bob Novak: Clinton Isn’t Dead
March 6th, 2008 at 01:22pm Matt Margolis
According to Bob Novak, “a showdown in Denver may be unavoidable.”
Such a showdown would reveal the consequences of eight years of Democratic procedural decisions that made no sense save for the premise that Hillary Clinton, as she expected, would be handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. That the convention will be held unusually late raises the prospect of not knowing the identity of the Democratic nominee until shortly before Labor Day. The decision to deprive Michigan and Florida of delegates because their primaries were scheduled too early cannot stand in a contested convention. That Hillary Clinton’s candidacy still lives forces Democrats to cope with their mistakes.
UPDATE: Charles Hurt: Only Gore Can Stop A Meltdown.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
34 Comments
1. Hillary Clinton Chronicle&hellip | March 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
[...] Another fellow blogger placed an observative post today on Bob Novak: Clinton Isnâ [...]
2. SteaM | March 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Al Gore!!!!
Why do you guys obsess about him? Hatred?
3. plainjane | March 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Hey Bob, have you outted any CIA operatives lately? Why any one gives this person the time of day is beyond me.
4. SEW | March 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sen.-bill-nelson-paints-florida-train-wreck-scenario-2008-03-06.html
Thank you Howard Dean, Nancy, and all others for disenfranchising Florida and Michigan. Scream again Howie.
5. Piggy | March 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Why is it that right wingers always know what Democrats are going to do?
And what Democrat in their right mind would speak with Novakula?
6. SEW | March 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“Why is it that right wingers always know what Democrats are going to do?”
Watch the movie Dumb and Dumber, then one can’t be off by much.
7. Joe | March 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
SEW — Scream again Howie
Ha! I bet that was really funny in your mind.
Is that the best you have to make fun of him?
Matt… Al Gore??? You people are way too freaky.
I can’t wait to come back here on Nov 5th to see the comments on the outcome of the election.
8. SEW | March 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“I can?t wait to come back here on Nov 5th”
Awesome Joe. Can’t wait for your next asinine post— Nov 5. Have a nice vacation.
9. Rich | March 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Off topic- Matt and Mark, can we have a thread on the dwindling U.S. casualties? One full weak into this month and zero dead from comabat. Not exactly the Battle of the Bulge out there.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
10. Joe | March 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
SEW, you haven’t gotten rid of me that easily.
I come out to this site for one reason only… to see what the crazy righties say and how they twist and bend on a daily basis.
I love to see the seething hatred you and all out here have for anyone that isn’t “with you”.
11. CuriousGeorge | March 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Hey Bob, have you outted any CIA operatives lately? Why any one gives this person the time of day is beyond me.
Ya got your facts wrong, cow–it was Dick Armitage who outed famed desk-jockey Valerie “Cowlerie” Plame-Wilson.
And, btw, cow, “anyone” is one word. Dumb cow…
12. Joe | March 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
keefer, you seem to have a weird infatuation with cows.
13. SEW | March 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“seething hatred” Oh, Joe what about your other favorites on the left, like racist, homophobe. But steaM is with you in #2. Hatred?
How is Gitmo going?
How are the impeachment efforts of BusHitler/Cheney going?
How is the ozone hole doing?
How is the acid rain deal coming along?
How is Y2K going?
How is ending the Iraq war going?
How is the Iraq Civil War going?
How is ‘this war is lost’ going?
How is the ‘quagmire’ going?
How are the cold blooded Hadita marine murderers doing?
How did the recount vote of the 4 counties of disenfranchised Florida voters turn out?
How is the primary vote count in Michigan and Florida going?
How are the polar ice caps doing?
Lost any polar bears?
Seething hatred? No Joe, we are humored by you guys. Thanks.
14. SteaM | March 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
SEW,
I think I know where you are going with all of that but I’m not sure.
Let me try to understand.
Are you upset that we are pointing out hatred, sexism, and racism on the right (rush limbaugh for example) that blinds people from reality so you point out the hatred from the left in the form of those topics you listed?
If so then you are only listing issues that exist in reality. Not non-existent non-issues like whether Al Gore’s weight matters or whether Obama’s middle name matters.
The only reason George Bush wasn’t impeached was because in doing so we would need to impeach ourselves as The People who failed to choose a competent leader… twice. Or at least that and the Republcian congress would never allow it to happen becausethey are party over country.
15. CuriousGeorge | March 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
StreaMMM, you don’t listen to Limbaugh; you draw your conclusions based on what MMFA tells you. Lemming…
16. js | March 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
But she is dead.
You can see it in her face.
She is like the wicked witch of the north!!
17. Matt Margolis | March 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
the reason there was no impeachment is because there hasn’t been any impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration. It is as simple and true as that. The far left has been obsessing over impeachment since Bush took office, and they have consistently been unable to find anything.
18. Gaijin | March 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
If it does go all the way to Denver, that will be the only way the GOP can win. I will agree that the super delegate system, like the Electoral College, is very undemocratic. If Hillary gets crowned at the convention, while Obama has more pledged delegates, I believe it could cause many young and first time voters to stay home in November. Why show up to vote if you already did once and the party threw your vote in the trash? I hope that whoever has the most pledge delegates after all the primaries and caususes will be the nominee. I never underestimate the Dems ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
19. Ricorun | March 6th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Bob Novak: Clinton Isn’t Dead
I hadn’t realized Novak was still alive. I take it he is. He is, right? Either way, I guess someone needs to explain to me why we should take his word for anything.
20. Rich | March 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Looks like some hippie anti-war protesters are the ones that bombed the recruiting center in New York. Gee I din’t see that coming.
21. Michael | March 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Obama will never agree to a redo in Michigan and Florida and will take the DC to court if they try it. His argument will be, “I followed the rules imposed by the DNC, so now they must be forced to follow the same rules.” Clinton’s “disenfranchisement” argument is a bunch of hooey. The states were warned yet they moved their primary dates anyway, knowing what would happen to their delegates. Clinton will lose that argument in court.
22. Michael | March 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
And then there’s this:
23. Almiranta | March 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
It’s very odd to be in the position of defending Hillary, but I keep seeing chickens coming home to roost.
First there is the mess regarding the bizarre setup for the Dem primaries and delegates.
And the poor woman is reaping what she sowed, back in the day when to merely ask a question about a Clinton was (shrill whine escalating into siren…..) an ATTTTTAAAAAAACCCCKKKKK!!!!!!!!!
Now she is asking relevant questions about Obama, and finding herself accused of—you guessed it, ATTACKING him. Now, I have been watching this pretty closely, and I haven’t see an actual attack on BO—but Hillary has asked some relevant questions. I suppose there is a sense of fairness in seeing that it is true, what goes around comes around, but I keep waiting for the former Clintonistas to realize how flexible their standards are, and how weird it is to be going after Hillary in exactly the same way they used to go after anyone who questioned her.
In the same vein, poor pathetic Joe is falling for the same old same old—to disagree is to HATE, to ask questions about obvious problems is to ATTACK, and so on.
It seems that these days, to be a Lib is to sign on for permanent membership in the Designated Victim Club.
Joey, if you can’t stand the heat of having sincere questions asked, of having relevant points made, then you should just get yourself back to wherever it is where you never have to face the slightest hint of conflict or disagreement. But that place AIN’T politics.
And jane is just, well, jane. So out of touch, so steeped in misery, so desperate to find something—ANYTHING—to bitch about, she has actually tried to resurrect the tired old Plame Blame Game. And, as usual, she is totally off base.
24. Dennis | March 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Matt, in post 17 you say “the reason there was no impeachment is because there hasn’t [sic] been any impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration.”
If an impartial tribunal could be convened against the Bush administration you would quickly be disabused of that notion. In fact Dennis Kucenich brought articles of impeachment against Mr. Cheney in the House last year, and articles of impeachment could just as easily be brought against Mr. Bush.
But the problems of impeachment are many. Congress largely ignored Kucenich for two reasons: a.) Bush loyalists hold too many seats in both the House and Senate to successfully impeach any member of his administration, and b.) the gratuitous impeachment of Bill Clinton caused the nation to lose its stomach for the remedy of impeachment. Impeachment is a painful, protracted process that disrupts the ordinary business of governance and opens the dirty laundry of the nation to the eyes of the world. Not many Americans want to go through that kind of unpleasantness again, even if the Bush administration were proven irrefutably to deserve it.
And there is another unmentioned factor: no matter how much Democrats in Congress and the public at large deplore the Bush administration’s crimes, dishonesties and Constitutional infractions, Democrats as a group aren’t much interested in punishing others. If I may generalize, Republicans in recent decades have been the party of punishment, seeking to criminalize more kinds of behavior and taking a hard line with offenders. They tend toward maximum penalties. Democrats are generally less punitive and do not enjoy inflicting suffering on others. These are the main reasons you have not seen any serious move toward impeachment.
On the other hand, a tribunal in the Hague remains a distinct possibility for members of the Bush administration, even after they have left office. In that venue there would be no taint of partisanship; charges would address war crimes and breaches of international law.
25. Matt Margolis | March 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Dennis. you are absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. You may think that cutting taxes, defending America, and basically anything conservative is an impeachable offense, but it’s not. In your entire ridiculous rant, you gave not a single example of any impeachable offense.
Look, get over it… Most congressional Democrats understand that there is no basis for impeachment and that’s why they never seriously pursued it.
And for the record, Bill Clinton actually broke the law.
26. Christian Wright | March 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Clinton is toast.
There is no possible why she can win the remaining states by the margins she needs to win.
All she wants to do now is bloody Obama and endorse McCain so when Obama loses the election she can say, “Told you so. I should have been the nominee.”
I see why the Republicans hate the Clintons.
Now I hate them too.
27. Dennis | March 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Matt, settle down. Cutting taxes, defending America, and basically anything conservative are NOT impeachable offenses, and no serious person would contend they are.
You make huge uncritical inferences - esentially logical fallacies - in offering those generalities to represent the very specific illegalities indulged in by the Bush administration.
Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. The Supreme Court ruled that Geneva Conventions apply to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. There seems to be little question that Geneva Conventions were violated by the administration - otherwise why would Bush press Congress to pass a law retroactively granting immunity for violating them?
I will not bore you with a laundry list of other specific impeachable offenses, but suffice it to say lying to Congress (many times, over various issues, from the actual cost of the Medicare program to Iraq war issues), taking the nation to war on false premises, warrantless wiretapping, politicizing the DOJ are all items that could easily end in impeachment. Remember that the Monica affair was not impeachable in itself, but eventually led to impeachment when Clinton lied about his involvement under oath.
If Bush had to take the stand over any of the above, I suspect he would fare no better than Clinton did, legally speaking. The difference is that the issues in which Bush is embroiled are far graver, and touch on Constitutional principles as well as universally recognized tenets of international law.
But like I said, Bush won’t be impeached. We know it ain’t gonna happen. But his legal jeopardy will not end when he leaves the White House. The Hague is still a possibility.
28. Tractatus | March 7th, 2008 at 12:26 am
the reason there was no impeachment is because there hasn’t been any impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration.
Actually, the reason there has been no impeachment is because Bush is hugely unpopular and, as such, is a huge albatross around the neck of the GOP, and the Democrats chose not to do the GOP the favor of removing that albatross.
Nice caterwaul (and attempted distraction) about how anybody to the left of you hates all things conservative, but you are aware that your buddy Mark Noonan thinks anybody liberal cannot possibly be right about anything anywhere at any time, yes? Seeing as how you typically have trouble connecting the dots, I’ll connect them for you: Mark routinely exhibits the exact behavior you tried to pin on Dennis.
29. Almiranta | March 7th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Dennis and Tract, you are absolutely obsessed with your BDS, and it would be funny if it were not so sad.
Dennis, while you are piously invoking the Geneva Convention, you are simply ignoring the facts which make your comments totally irrelevant. Try going back and seeing who is covered by said Convention. It’s been proved, over and over and over again, that terrorists who are not in a declared war, not in uniform, not representing a signatory to the Convention, are simply not included in its protections. But you keep listening to Ranty Rhodes and her ilk, and regurgitating the garbage you are fed, and you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
I often see commentary on this blog, and often make comments myself, about the vast differences between the garden variety liberal, or Democrat, and the radical rabid irrational far Left Liberal. There is a great deal of respect for those who are simply to the left of center, when and if that position reflects a true philosophical stance based on issues.
It’s when you rabid Lefties can’t mount any discussion at all without veering off into your totally irrational, totally hate-driven, totally fact-deficient rants that you lose the right to claim respect.
And I guarantee you, there is a huge difference between not respecting a position and hating the person who holds it.
And quitcher bitchin’ about, for instance, your whine that conservatives don’t think liberals are right. Duh. If we thought liberals were right, we’d be liberals, you moe-ron.
The fact you Libs simply cannot grasp is that the conservative position is based on analysis of facts, and the radical Liberal position is based on emotion—as far as I can see, negative emotion, but emotion none the less. So we simply don’t hate you. We often find you annoying, when you persist in barging into conservative blogs, uninvited, to drop your little stink bombs of hyper-emotional loathing, but we don’t care enough about you to hate you. It would be like having to work up a big focused HATRED of that mosquito buzzing around. It just doesn’t work that way.
You guys come here, you make stupid statements, you persist in making them over and over again no matter how often you are proven wrong, and then you whimper about not getting any respect.
Hint: Stick to your own kind. You are totally qualified to win approval over there.
30. Dennis | March 7th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Almiranta, you said: “It’s been proved, over and over and over again, that terrorists who are not in a declared war, not in uniform, not representing a signatory to the Convention, are simply not included in its protections.”
On June 29, 2006 the Supreme Court found that Mr. Bush did NOT have authority to set up war crimes tribunals and that those commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions. Moreover the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, specifically the Third and also article 3 of the Fourth convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to ALL detainees in the War on Terror.
Those are pure facts, ma’am.
The Bush administration had previously decided on its own counsel that the Third Geneva Convention does not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban, and only applies to uniformed soldiers of a recognized government. You are stuck right there with Mr. Bush in no-man’s land. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned your position, not me.
You say, “You rabid Lefties can’t mount any discussion at all without veering off into your totally irrational, totally hate-driven, totally fact-deficient rants,” and the next moment you deny all negative emotions and claim the rational high ground.
You can’t have it both ways. Not only are your facts wrong, but surely after characterizing anyone in such vitriolic terms you don’t expect your own claims of logic to be taken seriously. Somthing is deeply amiss in your saurian brain.
31. plainjane | March 7th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Looks like some hippie anti-war protesters are the ones that bombed the recruiting center in New York. Gee I din’t see that coming.20. Rich | March 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You sure it was not the Timothy McVeigh wing of the Republican party?
32. CuriousGeorge | March 7th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Congress largely ignored Kucenich for two reasons:
No, Dennis; Congress ignored Kucinich for one reason–he’s a kook!
33. Tractatus | March 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
conservatives don’t think liberals are right. Duh. If we thought liberals were right, we’d be liberals, you moe-ron.
Not at all what I said. Brush up on your reading comprehension skills, moe-ronic ‘Ranty. I pointed out how Mark has this so-stupid-it’s-funny belief that a liberal cannot possibly be right about anything, anywhere, at any time by mere fact that they’re liberal in his eyes. The world proves him wrong about that every day, yet he clings to that view like a security blanket. Not only that, he maintains a strict willful ignorance and stupidity in order to maintain that view in the face of a reality that proves it wrong.
the conservative position is based on analysis of facts and the radical Liberal position is based on emotion
You reveal this statement to be a lie pretty much every time you post, seeing as how your rants are long on hysterical emotion and projection and largely fact-deficient (you share Noonan’s affliction of being unable to parse the difference between your beliefs and actual facts). I look forward to your screeching reply that will only prove my point.
34. Kahn | March 8th, 2008 at 1:31 am
plainjane,
Sure - that must be it. I personally think it was an insomniac nun with an upset stomach. Maybe a sleepwalker - thought he or she was making a cake and was actually mixing black powder. (No less absurd than your idea.)
http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8482917?source=email
We see how your side “supports the troops.”
I never did understand the justification when Cambridge Mass. refused to let the Boy Scouts collect soap and other sundries for the troops though? Heck, maybe it was BECAUSE it was the Scouts. Liberals hate them also.
Meanwhile, I see your party is willing to disenfranchise millions? I know it’s your right. I just don’t understand the reason? Why was it so bad that these people went early?
But you’re free to defend it or whatever. I don’t care. I’m sure they’ll forget all about it by November.