Nipping it in the Bud, Part II
Posted on March 5, 2008 Posted by John Scalzi 79 Comments
Dear Barack Obama supporters:
Please stop complaining that Hillary Clinton has the temerity to win the popular vote from time to time and won’t just die. If you want to play the inevitability game here, go back six months and review who was the inevitable Democratic candidate at that point. Hint: It wasn’t Barack Obama.
Please also remember that your man is in a contest with a Clinton, and Clintons don’t stop coming. It’s embarrassing you have to be reminded of this at this late point.
And in sum: This is what you get for huffing your own fumes. Please get some fresh air and come back in when you are rational and not foamy.
Thank you for your attention once more.
P.S. This applies to Clinton supporters too.
Not really. They’re not the ones all foamy and whiny today. On balance I think Clinton supporters are happy that she just keeps coming.
So, yeah. Please don’t try to pre-empt what I said into something completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Thanks.
I expect Obama-camp will blame Canada.
We didn’t mean to screw with your primaries. Really we didn’t.
Did you guys want any of that softwood lumber?
Perhaps not today, John, but they have been over the last several weeks. It would be nice if both side could avoid acting that way, but obviously that won’t be happening.
Yes, well. I do try to keep my advice in discrete chunks.
One thing I did think to put in, but didn’t, was that the Obamaites now get to know what it’s like to live the Clinton supporter nightmare.
There’s an ugly road up ahead, and right now the Obama campaign seems to have its blinker on.
If they make that turn into Uglytown, it’s gonna be real hard for some of us to keep standing up for the guy. I thought the whole point of this campaign was to take the high road. Now McCain has that luxury, and if Obama lets the Clinton campaign goad him into getting dirty, he’s going to lose every damn one of those swing voters who got behind him on the promise of positivity and optimism. He may keep his delegate lead, sure, but he’s primed the people for a positive theme that McCain would be happy to claim for himself. If he spends too much time in the mud he’s gonna get crushed in November.
Careful, Obama. Stay on target. Staaay on target.
Never take that turn into Uglytown. The bathrooms are a nightmare.
But as others have noted, Obama is from Chicago. He can probably go bare-knuckle if he has to.
What are you watching or reading that made you post this?
The thing of it is, there’s no real call for whining. Nothing has changed as a result of Clinton’s victories – because of the way the Democratic party apportions delegates, she gained maybe 2-4 in the total delegate count compared to Obama. So they’re pretty much at the same place today as yesterday: Obama up in the delegate count by a little over 100.
My wife predicted Clinton would win both Ohio and Texas, and thinks it’s a bad thing. Not that Clinton would make an awful president (even though she is an avowed Obama supporter), but she thinks the prolonged nomination fight will make it easier for McCain and the Republicans to pull out a win in November. I don’t necessarily agree – any Dem nominee is going to have to be ready to face the Republican Noise Machine in the fall, and a prolonged (and increasingly dirty) nomination fight is good practice for the eventual nominee. Plus, with the Republican nom now wrapped up, the story is the Democrats, and will be for the forseeable future. While the increasing negativity is a bit of a drawback (and I’m sure the media will pump that up, since its an easy, juicy story), the continuing exposure to Democratic ideas on the economy, health care, et. al. is a net Good Thing for the Dems.
That being said (and with the caveat that I, myself, support Obama): the cult of hero worship that surrounds the esteemed junior Senator from Illinois is annoying. Yep, he sure can inspire with his words, and I believe he has a better chance at bringing change to Washington than Clinton, but he’s a just a guy, at the end of the day. A relatively untested legislator. A good candidate, to be sure, but if Clinton wins the nomination, it’s not the end of the world.
I look at it like this: either way, at the end of the process, the Democratic party is making history with their eventual nominee. And the fact that this is really No Big Deal – why shouldn’t one of the major party nominees for president be a woman or a black man? – is probably the most inspiring thing to come out of this election, no matter the outcome.
Maybe there’s hope for us yet.
I have no doubt the guy can be brutal. That makes the fact that he’s been so aboveboard so far even more impressive. The problem is, I know a lot of folks — especially Republicans — who have been contemplating an Obama vote in November almost exclusively based on his honor and character. Hopefully I’m just worrying too much.
I really would so love to be able to vote for someone I genuinely admire. And no, VP ain’t gonna cut it.
He might be better off at this stage just focusing on McCain, pretending he’s already sewn it up. I could see being ignored sending Clinton into a fit.
Lots of blog posts.
From the general tone lately John, is it safe to assume you are not a Obama supporter? Have you endorsed a candidate? I don’t recall you being shy about who you liked or didn’t like in the past. Just saying… *shrug*
One of the Washington Post columnists had an excellent suggestion: Obama as POTUS and Clinton as his chief of staff. Then you’d see some stuff getting done.
Hmm…seems like a sensitve area has been touched upon.
Sounds like a great thread for Whateveresque as well..
I like Barack Obama just fine. Some of his supporters could do with a hosing down.
Here’s some fresh air for Democrats, and especially twitchy Obama supporters: mind the turnout.
In Ohio, Obama all-by-himself got (rounding here from NYT numbers) 976,000 votes to McCain’s 633,000. Overall, 2,218,000 Democrats voted (with 3 candidates) to 1,056,000 Republicans (with 5 candidates).
In the Texas primary (caucus excluded) Obama got 1,355,000 to McCain’s 707, 622. Totals: 2,857,000 Democrats to 1,381,000 Republicans. To emphasize: Second-place Obama got nearly the same number of votes as all eight Republican candidates, plus “other.”
Whatever happens, I think the momentum is not with either candidate — it’s with the voters.
Thanks John, guess I missed that post.
Manny: Another suggestion I’ve read is for Obama to offer Clinton a post on the Supreme Court. I could see her being one heck of a justice.
it’s no self-pimp, but I read this this morning and think it bears sharing – and it’s OT!
What’s with the anonymous posters today? Something broken on the website, or is it just that time of the month for annoying asshattery?
I’ve been a cautious supporter of Obama. Although to point the numbers in Jeff’s post, the thing I’m worried about is those republican numbers jumping in the general election.
Would you care about a primary with just one major frontrunner? Or are you going to vote in November when it really, usually, unless overturned by the US Supreme Court, counts?
It’s going to be a lot closer of a contest than most people think, no matter who gets the nod from the democratic party. Some dedicated party people will follow the devil into hell should he be running under their banner, which is exactly what we saw in the last election.
Well, thank God for ralph Nader. I’d hate to waste my vote.
Hillary long ago removed her political soul, placed it in an leaden amulet graven with runes strange and fell, and secured that amulet in the heart of a massive fortress filled with traps of fiendish cunning and the screams of vanquished Republican legislators, all guarded by seven diabolist sorcerers from Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors and legions of flesh-eating zombies grown from George Stephanopolous’s DNA.
Consequently, she is impervious to conventional political weapons. Even silver and enchanted-grade political weapons (the Staff of Lesbian Rumors +5 and Power Word: Kill NAFTA) inflict only minimal damage upon her undead political standing.
Therefore Obama’s only hope is to assemble a well-balanced party from a local tavern (preferably including a skilled rogue, a cleric with the Extra Turning feat, and a mage of no less than 12th level) and to storm the fortress and shatter the cursed amulet before Hillary devours the souls of the Superdelegates and uses their imprisoned life forces to ascend to Demilich status.
Well, first of all, wah. That takes care of the whiny part. The foamy part will come from the Molson Canadian I plan to have later.
Now, then, yes, fellow Obama supporters, time to get pragmatic. As I said before, unicorns will not magically appear under an Obama Administration, nor will beer flow from every public fountain.
Anyway, everyone knows Bush blew the unicorn research budget on Iraq and whoopie cushions to stick under the chairs of Jacques Chirac, Mahmoud Ahmedinejab, and Hugo Chavez at the UN.
@ #21 jm
Considering the recent passing of Gary Gygax, I think your assessment of the Democrat primaries is both insightful and appropriate.
John, I don’t think the analogy is all that applicable — the “inevitability game” means something quite different when it refers to actual delegates in the bag rather than pre-campaign spin.
The fact is Hillary cannot overcome her delegate deficit now unless she wins overwhelming majorities, something like 70-30, in all the rest of the states. Even with her wins last night, the delegate split from those four states is being reported as 185-173 with 12 left to count mostly from the Obama-friendly Texas caucus phase.
I would find it wonderful for the candidates to keep campaigning and honestly, fairly, constructively making their case. But I have a problem with Hillary spending the next few months doing McCain’s work for him by making the same arguments that Obama would be unprepared to serve as commander-in-chief — compared to what military experience of hers? — an argument likely to hurt either of them in the general election against Captain (Ret.) McCain.
I thought the whole point of this campaign was to take the high road.
The point is to win. Taking the high road is a method.
The thing of it is, there’s no real call for whining. Nothing has changed as a result of Clinton’s victories – because of the way the Democratic party apportions delegates, she gained maybe 2-4 in the total delegate count compared to Obama.
That’s not quite true… there are now 370 fewer delegates from which to make up that 100 delegate gap. That is, she has to get 350 out of about 600 instead of 550 out of a little less than 1000.
My wife predicted Clinton would win both Ohio and Texas, and thinks it’s a bad thing.
Bad for the Democratic party? I don’t think so. While the points you mentioned play into it, with all of these hotly contested primaries and caucuses, the campaigns roll into town and establish party infrastructure. Precinct captains, phone banks, donor lists, get out the vote apparatus, lots and lots of volunteers. This is happening in many of the reddest states that haven’t seen any Democratic party activity in decades, as the voter turnout numbers show. This same infrastructure can also be used for local and statewide elections. As long as people are excited about the contest, this sort of thing will continue.
John – the blue was much easier on the eyes than this pink I am trying to look at now.
It’s not pink, it’s red. And I like it. That said, I’ll no doubt swap it out at some point when I decide to put up a new banner picture. I would expect in a week or two.
There was a lot more at stake for the dems. Of course their turnout will be much higher.
McCain getting the nomination this morning was big, but public perception undoubtably was that he was going to get it anyway. Definetly not the atmosphere for the dems for the time being.
“… nor will beer flow from every public fountain.”
WHAT??? Now what reason do I have to vote?
The nomination system that each party uses lends itself to manipulation. You have to have a certain number of delegates to be the nominee, not just a simply 50%+1 majority and thus it’s possible to win a majority of delegates but fall short of the number needed to nominate. The inclusion of super delegates exacerbates this and is fundamentally anti-democratic… but it’s what we have, so…
Had Obama won both Ohio and Texas convincingly I think the pressure on Clinton to drop out would have become significant… but now we have a situation where neither candidate can realistically gain enough delegates to nominate via popular vote/caucus. What the Dems need to keep in mind is that the point is NOT to nominate a certain person (Clinton OR Obama) but to take the White House. Current polls show Obama beating McCain while Clinton loses to him. If that’s still true when the convention takes place it will be very interesting to see how the superdelegates react. If Obama maintains an overall popular lead but the supers break for Clinton, I think that will doom the Dems. People who would come out for Obama will feel like they’ve just been told that the Dems don’t care about their opinion and will thus stay home. Hillary’s negatives will cause some moderates to swing to McCain.
I agree that it’s silly for Obama supporters to act offended at Clinton’s win but the stench of arrogance and entitlement from the Clinton camp is pretty strong too. I keep getting the feeling that they will do ANYTHING to nominate her even if it hurts the chances of them defeating McCain (not that they see the connection – reality gets distorted when you’re inside a camp).
jm @21 — Thanks for that!
In general, I’d agree with Scalzi’s point. But in specific, I wanna do some whining.
Intra-party rivalry is fine. Stirs people up, maybe gets more attention for both Clinton and Obama. And it’s what’s supposed to happen. Dems have two good candidates, it’s okay that it’s hard to pick between them.
But “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002” is uncalled for. Is Clinton angling for the Republican VP slot?
I laughed my ass off at some guy on NBC this morning, talking about the Clinton tenacity. He was all, “The Clintons don’t stop, man. Even if you think you’ve won, they’ll be waiting at your car when it’s time to go home. Oh they are not going down without a fight.” (Not a direct quote; just my recollection of the sentiment.)
It was just the mental image of H and B straight-thuggin’ with a baseball bat and a determined glare that had me in stitches.
It’s turning out to be one hell of a race, eh?
It’s not pink, it’s red.
Dude, SRSLY? It’s pink.
“unicorns will not magically appear under an Obama Administration”
See, this is why I supported and volunteered for Edwards. All of his volunteers were going to get unicorns if he got the nomination. And every American was gonna get a phoenix if he got elected.
I woulda settled for a pony.
jm@21 – Thanks for that. Best laugh I’ve had all day.
rick@30 – “Current polls show Obama beating McCain while Clinton loses to him.” Since when should we start believing the polls? Virtually every poll in this whole race has been off a minimum of 5-10 points. The only thing that the polls tell us reliably is that we shouldn’t trust the polls. Do I think that Obama has a better chance than Clinton of beating McCain? Absolutely. I want to see that contest, too. A Clinton v McCain race wouldn’t be nearly as interesting or cut to the heart of our problems like a Obama v McCain race would.
Scalzi – I appreciate your sentiment, but remember we Obama supporters just experienced a major booboo. It hurts. A little crying will make it feel better. We’ll stop soon enough…
…like right about now as Hillary again throws the Dems under the bus by lauding McCain’s experience while denigrating Obama with her “gave a speech in 2002” line. Yeah. No more tears here. Just anger.
As a Hilary supporter, I am not thrilled with the praxis or ideology of either campaign. She looks disorganized and defensive at times; he looks like a walking commercial with no umph and the real whiff of lazy smugness we often hear called Clinton’s sin.
Obama wants the popular vote to decide, as long as it does not come from Florida. (I will give you Michigan; he was not on the ballot.) The “popular vote” includes caucuses and caucus hybrids. A black superdelegate cannot buck his state’s/constituency’s vote; Teddy can do whatever the hell he wants. Hilary wants the “bad” popular vote to count, even though she earlier agreed to it not counting. Didn’t all those voters realize their state apparatchiks were breaking the rules?
Obama is the populist groundswell candidate; that is why poor, uneducated people don’t vote for him. Didn’t all those internet blogs, student rallies and union boss directives reach them with the au fait zeitgeist. (Maybe the poor can rebuild society after the constant media acid rain has rotted away the last of our elite’s brain cells and I count myself among the future zombies; just think when HD kicks in next year, a whole underclass may be deprived of Deal or No Deal.)
The rules: proportional here/winner take all there. Hillary likes superdelegates, I mean Obama likes superdelegates, I mean Hilary…
It gives me intense visceral pain to say that the Republicans actually have a nominating system that is transparent and “democratic” compared to us. If Obama wins, I am going to feel like the media pushed him down our throats like the coverage for Bush’s 2000 post-election campaign. If Hilary wins, I am going to hear all this garbage about corruption and no real change; so let’s have Bush Lite for the next four years because we obviously cannot back the “establishment” candidate.
A month ago, I would have been happy with either winning. Good grief!
There’s no evidence that she’s ever had anyone killed. Those charges were investigated and dropped.
Beyond that, I can’t think of anything she hasn’t proven herself capable of in pursuit of her agenda.
Being surprised at this shows a willful disregard of the last sixteen years of US history.
By the way, let us say a prayer for the poor people of Pennsylvania, who now have to put up with a full seven weeks of what will undoubtedly be one of the loudest and nastiest campaigns in living memory.
It’s so pink the person in the cubicle next to me thought I was looking at Popsugar.com
I would advise all Obama-ites to take a deep breath and read Jonathon Alter’s column today on Hillary’s mathematical chances. And then go to Slate and read how most Democratic primaries are settled far later than this. This helped me and now all I have to complain about is how girly Scalzi’s site looks like.
I don’t know what any of you are talking about. It’s massive, arterial, blood-clot red.
(employs Jedi hand wave)
Is there similarity to the campaign of H. Ross Perot and Obama? (i.e. people liked Perot in the beginning, but the more they got to know, the more that they realized a lack of depth)
We don’t know enough about Obama right now and there is a lot race left — 1st the nomination and then the election. The more we get to see will the rhetoric show substance, or will it show a lack of depth.
I am hopeful, but skeptical.
and now all I have to complain about is how girly Scalzi’s site looks like.
I wasn’t complaining about the girly, just the eye strain it’s giving me compared to the old blue. I DO like the banner picture. When John said “it’s red,” I just figured my monitor was off – after all, work owns this one and I can’t do much to it.
It is red. It just has a lot of white between the red bits.
Pink, with no foam. Might be an IE thing?
Kerry, ignore Scalzi’s Jedi hand wave. This site is pink, pink, pink.
And yeah, it’s hurting my eyes too, but if I turn off “view graphics,” that helps a bit. Though my headache isn’t helping any.
Scalzi’s right — it’s not pink. The bridesmaids’ dresses at my wedding were this color. It’s called “Dusty Rose.”
Ugh! It’s PINK!
Of course the topic is a machine politician from Chicago, so there may be a causal relationship there…
Hhmm… (Squinting real hard.) It’s pink and red and orange and purple. Oh, with a little yellow, white, grey and black. And violet. And… about every color except green.
Obama supporter here, not particularly foamy, just annoyed that the races are much further apart and less important from here on, yet the dueling campaigns will continue at likely the same volume level with little but scraps left on the table.
Despite her wins tonight (impressive though they are considering what Obama’s done since Super Tuesday), the delegate math is very much against her, and three more months of this could seriously damage the eventual nominee’s chances.
The thing of it is, there’s no real call for whining. Nothing has changed as a result of Clinton’s victories
It is now virtually impossible for either candidate to get to the convention with enough delgates to win outright.
Clinton has now won enough big states (counted by electoral votes) to make the Superdelegates wary of just jumping on the Obama band wagon. Their task, after all, is to try to get the most electable candidate nominated when there is a lack of clear direction.
Jeff Hentosz @ 16
Here’s some fresh air for Democrats, and especially twitchy Obama supporters: mind the turnout.
Don’t mean a thing if you don’t get that swing (voters)
bryan @ 24
The fact is Hillary cannot overcome her delegate deficit now unless she wins overwhelming majorities, something like 70-30, in all the rest of the states.
It don’t matter. See above and rick gregory @ 30
Kirk @ 43
We don’t know enough about Obama right now and there is a lot race left — 1st the nomination and then the election.
Oh we will very soon now.
And what’s worse, Obama is dissing the media while McCain is couring them.
Regarding the colors: Whatever, I come here for the words. The colors are relatively muted anyway.
Everything I’m seeing says a hard-fought race down to the wire.
Er, Obama’s walking away with a net delegate gain from Texas. It would have been nice for him to win the primary vote, but I think the state did pretty good for Obama, all things considered.
Dave@40…Thanks for the condolences. I can’t speak for everybody here in Pennsylvania, but I was pretty tired of the campaign months ago. Sigh. Seven more weeks is enough to make me want to bang my head in my desk drawer.
And I’m not sure I see the problem with Hillary’s pointing out Obama’s lack of experience. Wassamatta with that?
Nate: Obama supports a revote in Florida and Michigan.
You do realize he didn’t campaign in FL at all, right?
I personally think that a campaign into June would be fine thing.
First, the goings on in the Democratic Party would be in the news all the time; no money at all would have to be spent to get in the media.
John Mccain, he only gets in the news for the wrong reasons.
As for the mud that is being slung; ain’t nothing. You want mud look at South Carolina in 2000; the guy who claimed his opponent was insane and had fathered an illegitimate black child went on to win a rather close election. Remember that which does not kill you makes you strong.
I think Hillary (or Barack Obama for that matter) would be doing the party a disservice if they kept up a challenge to the convention when they were behind in pledged delegates. However keeping things going until June if there is still a realistic chance of winning the nomination is lots of pluses and very few minuses.
P.S. There is a slim but realistic chance that Canada will call and have a federal election complete with a change in government in the time it takes you Americans to decide who gets to run for president. If I were normal I would prefer our system; not being normal, but a serious, grade “A” political junkie I prefer your system.
Well, I guess I am a foaming Obama supporter. I am sick of the Clinton campaign dirty tricks and veiled accusations, breaking deals and party rules (FL and MN) and leaking lies to try to make Obama look bad (“he wants to be sworn in on a Koran!!”). I can’t believe her chutzpah (“I won 12 more delegates than you! That is a massive victory and shows that everybody really wants me! Maybe you can be my VP if you play nice.”) It is my intention to vote for him in November. However, if Hillary and her gang manage to steal the nomination, I will be forced to abandon the democrats altogether and vote for McCain.
#55 it’s a lot like the kettle and the pot jokes. Who is she to talk about experience especially looking at her senate record.
@37 – Yes, the polls aren’t perfect. But all they’re an indicator that, right now, Obama is more likely to beat McCain than is Clinton. If neither Obama nor Clinton have hit the threshold to nominate and the Dem superdelegates are looking at who to nominate vote for they’re going to need to ask themselves who is more likely to win in November. Of course, they COULD ask themselves which candidate will help ME the most… but then they need to remember that a losing candidate isn’t in a position to help anyone.
I actually like the fact that the campaign is taking awhile – this is what primaries SHOULD do vs the standard course of everyone who doesn’t place 1 or 2 in Iowa, MH or S Carolina dropping out and ceding the nomination to the person who strings together 3 wins.
BTW, John, why is your site pink? Relaxing color, but…
You’re generalizing, John. Instead of addressing “Barack Obama supporters,” you should be addressing “Loudmouth Obama Supporters Whining on the Internet.”
Exit Polls: Obama Supporters Aren’t Cultish
All I want is for the two of them to go and film a commercial together. One where they take turns talking, finishing each other’s sentences, and tell the American people what they need to hear.
“Yes, we’re both fighting, tooth and nail, for the Democratic nomination. But no matter which one of us wins, you’d better damned well get out there and vote for that person. Because the alternative is not worth considering.”
Thank you, Jas. I would love to see that commercial. Mind you, it ain’t gonna happen, but it would be a great one to see.
It boggles my mind that 25% of Clinton supporters amd 10% of Obama supporters would rather vote for McCain than the other Democratic candidate, should that candidate win the nomination. I do not trust McCain as far as I could throw him. And considering I have a bad back and bad shoulders, I couldn’t throw him very far.
Another suggestion I’ve read is for Obama to offer Clinton a post on the Supreme Court. I could see her being one heck of a justice.
Making promises of that sort is actually illegal, as it’s deemed to be a form of vote buying. For the same reason, presidential candidates can’t say, “So-and-so will be in my Cabinet.”
(Not that it would necessarily be so terrible if a candidate did that — you can’t actually buy a federal election with one vote, and presumably any marginal badness associated with vote buying would be far outweighed by the voters’ legitimate interest in knowing whom a candidate would appoint to important posts. But under long-standing federal law, it does happen to be illegal for a candidate to say who they would appoint as president.)
Well, we know where Obama went to kindergarten. How much more do we need to know?
In contrast, we know nothing about Senator Clinton’s kindergarten experience. Shameful.
It’s true that the Clintons don’t stop coming. Especially on dresses.
I have been busy with a sick kid, and haven’t been here in a few days… Thanks for this John, you made my day. It is sooo true! Hilary is a pitbull… and I LIKE that.
Okay, I’m blind so I shouldn’t comment on this but I will. I use RGB color numbers a lot to determine color. (How geeky is it that I have some memorized?) Anyway, I say it is pink. Definately in the number range that causes my brain to say pink. Not red. Pink.
The background is red. . .light red. . . but red nonetheless.
Okay, OT. I’m currently on the fence because, at this point, the Democratic candidates that I favored have dropped out. That’s the problem with living in Pennsylvania. It should be an interesting seven weeks, though.
It may BE red, but it LOOKS pink.
I don’t know what any of you are talking about. It’s massive, arterial, blood-clot red.
(employs Jedi hand wave)
Well, maybe, if that blood happens to come from Jedi SugarBuns bleeding out into a big bowl of fresh cream.
Dude. It’s pink.
“It’s massive, arterial, blood-clot red.”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not seeing the whining out there, but regardless, I’ve lost the faith…. the man who publicly calls it red, when it’s pink has lost all executive judgment. No longer fit for presidential posts, I say. This said, however, his Ohioan support for Obama may be evidence Scalzi is indeed color blind.
I’ll bite : its ….light blue on my monitor. Or did M. Scalzi just happen to change it this morning ?
Having said that, I’d like to point out a bit of recent French history as a counterpoint, or a parallel, or parable, to the debate.
Granted, we French have no history of primaries. But this year, our Democrats (the Socialiists) had at least 3 candidates they couldn’t choose from, so they primaried it … long and protracted battle which our Hillary (Segolène Royal) and our Bill (François Hollande, no really, they where together, and he was Party Boss to boot) won. After tiring the whole country with empty retoric, and fighting it out nastily in public.
In the end, even though everyone was tired of our own Republican president’s 10 year tenure (the UMP and Jacques Chirac), at the general election his easily nominated, wildly differently styled, successor (Nicolas Sarkozy) won the presidency hands down.
So my prediction is this: Hillary will win the nomination, loose the election to John McCain, she will then divorce Bill, McCain will divorce his wife and remary Tyra Banks.
I can’t believe we got all the way to comment number 66 before someone mentioned the egregious pun in John’s post. If I’m not mistaken, slipping that in (heh) was the entire reason he wrote this entry.
Arterial, blood-clot red? I’ll grant you that it’s not that far off from the color of Klingon blood in Star Trek VI. So, you know, maybe on some planets this color is “arterial.” But it’s not red. Red is a primary color. This thing on my monitor is pastel. Could be pink, could be dusty rose.
John, are you having monitor problems again?
I’ve just dropped a grab of this page (from IE) into PhotoShop, and the numbers for the background are:
Darker stripes – R = 239, G = 214, B = 210
Lighter stripes – R = 245, G = 222, B = 216
Both have a 12% saturation.
Conclusion? Obama supporters would say that it’s clearly red, and the B and G channels should concede before they make the page look bad; while Clinton supporters would argue that it’s basically grey, and even a tiny swing could push it over into cyan.
Of course, the real litmus test is to ask an 8 year-old boy if he’d be prepared to wear something that colour. I don’t have the equipment for that experiment right now (time difference, school hours etc) but I’m pretty sure it would come out as, “Err! Pink! No!”
To JS; thanks for reminding people that this is a contest and not a cakewalk. Obama will thank Hillary for being such a meany later when the GOP fires up the old noise machine.
Eek! So, people kept whining about the pink header, so our host replaced the old quiet, classy blue background by a sickly pinkish hue, that’s it?
Way to go, people. Way to go.
Now excuse me, I’m gonna wash my eyeballs. They hurt. ><