Andrew Malcolm: A Steaming Pile of Stupid

In the past I’ve referred to the Los Angeles Times’ Andrew Malcolm as “one of the worst professional polibloggers,” but after today I’m just handing Laura Bush’s former press secretary the gold and calling it official.  He is without a doubt the worst. Today Malcolm in the Muddle aimed his rapidly leaking brain pan in the direction of George Stephanopoulos’ post about John Edwards’ campaign staffers “doomsday” strategy and burped up the following:

One need not be a political novelist to imagine how history might differ had those suspicious aides acted immediately, allowing anti-Obama Democrats to coalesce behind Hillary Clinton before Barack Obama won the party’s Iowa caucuses. Clinton finished third there. Edwards was runner-up, his best showing. She went on to win New Hampshire, which would have given her considerable momentum moving on.

No, you wouldn’t have to be a political novelist to imagine that, just a blithering idiot.  There isn’t a shred of evidence to support that argument unless you consider the fact-free mewling of delusional deadenders to be credible sources of information.

First let’s look at an Associated Press article from January 12, 2009:

Indeed, Edwards voters in Iowa favored Obama over Clinton as their second choice by a nearly two-to-one margin in caucus-night surveys. And Edwards supporters in New Hampshire reported they had a far more favorable impression of Obama than of Clinton, according election-night surveys there. [...]

A mid-December survey of voters nationally conducted for the AP and Yahoo News found that Edwards supporters split about evenly between Clinton and Obama when asked which candidate would be their second choice. Clinton and Obama each were the second choices of about 27 percent of Edwards supporters. Another 28 percent were unsure who would be their second choice, and the rest were thinly scattered among other candidates.

And then there’s this 8/11/08 Britannica Blog post from David P. Redlawsk, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa and Director of the University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll:

In light of the announcement by John Edwards that he had an affair in 2006 and lied about it, the Hillary Clinton forces are now suggesting that if Edwards had been forced out of the race before it really got going, she, not Barack Obama, would have won Iowa and thus (presumably) the nomination. Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communication director during the campaign said as much to ABC News in a story released today. [...]

Finally, as a political scientist, I actually have some data that speaks directly to this and clearly argues against Wolfson’s claims. I carried out a project in cooperation with both the Republican and Democratic parties to place a survey in every precinct in Iowa – all 1784 of them. The Chair of each caucus was directed to give this pencil and paper survey to one randomly selected person just before the caucus began. Among many other things, we asked Democrats: “If the candidate you now support is not viable, what will you do?” In response 82% of Edwards supporters said they would support another candidate (18% said they would not; they would simply leave). When we asked which candidate they would then support, 32% said Clinton and 51% said Obama (the remainder picked other candidates).

Wolfson’s claim that two-thirds of Edwards supporters would have supported Clinton is just not supported in data collected directly from those who actually participated in the caucuses. Had Edwards not been running, and if nothing else had changed (despite what I just wrote above) my data suggest that Obama would have ended up even further ahead of Clinton than he was. Of the 1784 precincts that were to hand out the survey, I received back 81% of them, an incredibly high response rate, so I am quite confident in the data.

Edwards didn’t ruin it for Hillary in Iowa. Her incompetent campaign staff, including Wolfson, did. End of story. [Malcolm link via Wonkette]

RELATED: Joe Trippi is pretty angry about Stephanopoulos’ post.  He left this comment there:

I said it yesterday and I just twittered a response again today: Complete BS — fantasyland — not true.

Posted by: Joe Trippi | May 11, 2009 3:08:14 PM

Sure enough, he did Twitter about it:

image

HELLO LG&M READERS: Welcome. There was a follow-up post here.

Posted by Kevin K. on 05/11/09 at 01:58 PM • Permalink

Categories: NewsPoliticsBarack ObamaElection '08Hillary ClintonPoliblogsPUMAsSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Yeah, that’s fucking stupid.  There weren’t a significant number of “anti-Obama Democrats” in Iowa, aside from people who liked Hillary and therefore didn’t like Obama.  The only real “anti” block among Democrats was anti-Hillary.

The HRC candicacy must never die!  If Zombie HRC/myiq2Xu 2012: Undead and Willing to Sleep with Older Women!

The woman-lynching N-word cheated by running against Hillary when everyone knew it was her turn!

There. That should handle it.

I’m drawing a blank here—-I know Malcolm’s the “if you’re homeless, how’d you get a cell phone?” guy, but he followed that up with something even more egregious (and way worse than the one referred to here—-this is bad, but it falls well within standard wanking parameters). Anybody know what I’m thinking of?

BTW, Kevin, thanks for the compliment on that Somerby thread downblog. I’d forgotten about that Hitchhiker’s Guide analogy, so you saved me the trouble of coming up with something else to describe the dipshittery of Nelson and Bayh et al.

What Redlawsk’s “data” conveniently disregards is the fact that Hillary was the obvious, inevitable choice of the Democratic party; the only candidate in the Dem primary who was qualified—and I daresay the only one worthy—to hold the office of the President; and—bottom line—as the one true and noble representative of the 52% of the American electorate comprising the powerless, minority voting bloc of repressed, forgotten females who are treated worse than Negroes even though they are God’s default design for the human species, mathematically incapable of not winning…no matter how many primary voters or Party delegates drank the stupid-juice and supported Obama instead.

Even if all the available “evidence” points to the contrary, only a totally-in-denial hypnotized Obot could reject the inescapable truth that Hillary, did, in fact, win the nomination; that whatever Obama does, she would have done something different and fabulously, brilliantly better; and that John Edwards screwing around on his wife is a degenerate act that killed America, while all of Bill Clinton’s indiscriminate wick-wetting only made Hillary stronger and more Presidential.

I enjoy reading this blog and I have nothing but respect for the front-pagers. However, it smells of desperation that you would waste your readers’ time, at this late date, with flimsy what-ifs and masturbatory woulda-coulda-shoulda post-mortems on the subject of why Obama lost.

Right now, this country is in a world of shit, and you might serve your audience best by helping the rest of us help Hillary to set things right.

I should point out that I do think that Edwards was really stupid and vain to stay in the race when he knew he had this albatross around his neck, and though I generally like Elizabeth, I think she was wrong not to tell him he had to drop out. (If they wanted to save face, they certainly had plenty of “family issues” they could have used for cover.) What’s worse is that I suspect he’d frame it as some self-serving “if I left the race, no one would have been speaking for the other America!” kind of thing.

Which might be a half-way decent argument if he’d ever shown any backbone on populist issues while in the Senate.

I dunno—I just never really trusted that guy. Even when he was saying what seemed to be all the right things.

But yeah, the evidence is clear that his supporters weren’t automatically going to vote for Hillary. Of course, Hillary and her gang thought “none of the above” in Michigan clearly spelled “Clinton,” too.

BTW, Kevin, thanks for the compliment on that Somerby thread downblog. I’d forgotten about that Hitchhiker’s Guide analogy, so you saved me the trouble of coming up with something else to describe the dipshittery of Nelson and Bayh et al.

It was my pleasure.  It was a wonderful comment.  Great having you weigh in here.

We are all PUMAs now.

And imagine further what would have happened if giant radioactive termites had declared Clinton their queen, eaten Edwards invaded Florida and and gibber fleeble drool. Also.

Jesus Christ on a crooked crutch, I know I’m not the world’s greatest political junkie but Hillary Clinton is now working for Barack Obama and seems quite happy about it. Give. It. A. Rest. Seriously, even if this hot steaming pile of nonsense could be proven, then what? Are you going to ask for a do over?

No, I’m not at all jealous because some people can wipe their ass and get paid for what winds up on the tp and I’m not one of them.

What HTP said.  ;-)

If only Hillz had cried in Iowa and the started playing those 3am un-emotional decision maker ads simultaneously, then things would have worked out for her.

There was just another article today showing that the majority of Edwards voters would have gone to Obama over Hillary:

Earlier Edwards Withdrawal Would Not Have Helped Clinton

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/11/earlier _edwards_withdrawal_would_not_have_helped_clinton.html

Comment by G on 05/12/09 at 12:36 AM

I dunno—I just never really trusted that guy. Even when he was saying what seemed to be all the right things.

Same here. He has always red-lined my Phone-E-Detector. I remember getting into quite a spirited discussion with an Edwards-supporting friend about it prior to the FL primaries. Of course, I’m far too gracious to say, “I told you so.” Nyah.

Betty, I think the most frustrating thing I found in arguing with both Edwards and Clinton supporters is that most of them said that Obama was an empty suit, didn’t have a record, etc. So I’d ask them to discuss the legislative record of their candidate of choice (both voted for the war and the Patriot Act, Edwards supported bankruptcy reform bills that didn’t provide relief for families with big medical expenses—really nice, huh?) I’d ask them to point out specific legislation that either Edwards or Clinton had backed in the Senate that would provide insight into their leadership agenda. And I’d try to point out some of the stuff Obama worked on in the Illinois senate (criminal justice stuff like videotaping interrogations of suspects in capital cases), and his U.S. Senate bills on loose nukes, lobbyist reform, etc. But still I heard “oh, he just makes good speeches,” blah blah blah. I mean, if they didn’t like him, fine. But my distrust for Edwards was at least rooted in the fact that he never showed any inclination to go to the mat for the working poor when he was in the Senate.

The truth is, none of the top three had the kind of deep background and experience that Richardson, Dodd, or Biden had, and none of them were anywhere near as liberal and progressive as Kucinich. So to my mind, arguments based on “experience” were specious, and if we looked at the records, Obama was at least as attractive as Edwards or Clinton, but if you really wanted an unapologetic liberal fighter, then Kucinich was your guy. Unless you wanted to talk electability—and then different metrics came into play.

So given that the top three were pretty identical in terms of experience (with Obama actually having had more years as a legislator than HRC or Edwards) and positions, yeah, it was sometimes hard for me to wonder if the virulent opposition to Obama and his supporters was rooted in something else.

What an amazing display of stupid these nutters keep performing. As for NoQuarter calling anyone amoral - they really do have a cheek.

This is amoral and SusanKKK approves of it.

  Comment by politicalidentitycrisis | 2009-04-27 00:18:57
  I think it would be very apropos for the swine flu to hit DC, especially if The One were to get the swine flu. Yes, very apropos.
  Reply to this comment

  Comment by FLDemFem | 2009-04-27 00:50:38
  Washington DC is primarily populated by black people. Most of them do not have health insurance, or adequate health care. If the swine flu were to hit DC in large numbers, it would be devastating. It is quite possible that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would die. Obummer wouldn’t be in town, he would go to Camp David. Or not step off the grounds of the White House. He wouldn’t be exposed. But it’s nice of you not to think of that and wish something like this on the premier black city in the country. For political reasons, of course. Never mind the human toll, as long as Obummer feels bad, that’s what really counts, right?
  Reply to this comment

  Comment by politicalidentitycrisis | 2009-04-27 08:35:19
  As a matter of fact, yes! Most of DC voted for him if I remember correctly. A natural cleansing of the stupid people who are destroying the country, if not the world. Nature takes care of things…so F!@# you!
  Reply to this comment
   

  Comment by beebop | 2009-04-27 08:45:28
  Did it not occur to you that congress meets in DC? No. Didn’t think so. You just want to make this all about your agenda, right? Well. If they all got sick the ridiculous Democrap agenda might slow its roll for a day or two so that PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE CRAP THEY VOTE FOR!!!!!!!
  That’s why I think it should hit DC. You good with that?

Edwards was a non-factor in terms of votes but his early policies pushed the field left.  Edwards dropping out in 2008 doesn’t help Clinton.  If you are going all “What if…” Edwards not being a candidate at all may have helped Clinton somewhat in the fall of 2007 since it wouldn’t have been 2 on 1 at some of those debates.  Maybe Clinton gets some netroots support if she is the one first out of the box with her healthcare plan.  What really would have helped HRC was opposing the Iraq fiasco, not hiring Penn, and running on a campaign them other than ‘inevitable’

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main