April 24, 2008

"Why can't Clinton close the deal?"

Kos asks. Well, yeah. But why can't Obama close the deal?

I keep hearing about this "deal" and the unconsummated closing of it. This damned "deal" meme is everywhere. But there is no overarching national mind that is dithering over what decision to make. It's not like a seller and a buyer who can't come to terms. Individual voters have made their decisions, and it happens that neither candidate is preferred by enough voters to overcome the reservation of power that the party leaders have made for themselves. Deal with it.

94 comments:

AlphaLiberal said...

Caution: Trying to make sense out of pundit mindless is dangerous to your mental health.

Put another way, the pundit herd is a-stampeding. Can't be stopped. Deal or no deal.

AlphaLiberal said...

mindless = mindlessness

Long week already.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Doesn't the term "close the deal" imply that you could be close to reaching one? I don't see the logic in applying that to Clinton, when she's behind. There's an incentive to vote for Obama if you don't have a strong preference, because he is close to reaching the nomination and you might think it's important to rally behind the likely winner.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Doesn't the term "close the deal" imply that you could be close to reaching one?

It's just the new catch phrase. Kinda how Cheney gave 'gravitas' to Bush. I don't think they mean to imply there is some kind of back room deal with Hillary but rather why Obama can't 'close the deal' with enough voters to end this.

Sloanasaurus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
P. Rich said...

The whole Clinton-Obama argument is irrational, which I suppose is par for Dem "debate". Who won which states is irrelevant, because either candidate will be running against a Republican in the general election. How painfully obvious is that? Sheesh.

Sloanasaurus said...

don't see the logic in applying that to Clinton, when she's behind.

Except she is no longer behind. Hillary is now ahead in the popular vote. Obama is ahead in the pledged delegates.

There is no rule for the super delegates as to which one to throw their votes to. Should you throw your votes to the one with the pledged delegate lead or the one with the popular vote lead?

Normally, in Democratic party speak, the person with the most popular votes should be the winner.

This is going to the convention.

gophermomeh said...

If nothing else, they're impressing me with their stamina...

Ron said...

Why is it that people blather on about having a National Discussion (whatever that means) and then when we really do have one, they get all twitchy like they have to run to catch a bus or something!

Let it play out, see if either one can make a convincing case, or failing that, spew the most bile on the other candidate; it's a Grand Old Tradition!

somefeller said...

One of the reasons for the popularity of the "close the deal" phrase is the general seeping in of business-world slang into mainstream slang. There's more than a few phrases (or, to be more accurate, cliches) that I've heard coming from the mouths of business people and corporate lawyers that find their way into regular language after awhile, particularly among yuppie males. This delightful Onion article provides some examples of this sort of thing, though the topic of the piece is about something else altogether.

Back to Obama vs. Clinton. One can't compare the two regarding the "close the deal" concept. Obama's supporters have been hyping him as this transformational, messianic figure who can unite the country and sweep the Republicans aside in a tsunami of Obama goodness. Hillary's supporters have never been prone to such expansive rhetoric about her, and the key point of analysis is: if Obama is such a unique and transformative figure for national politics, why can't he get his own party behind him?

That isn't a critique of whether he would be a good President or a good candidate in general, but it is a critique that's invited by the hype that Obama's operated under. Maybe someone in his campaign needs to do a soup-to-nuts review of the optics of his candidacy and the metrics under which he's been judged. (Heh.)

vbspurs said...

Doesn't the term "close the deal" imply that you could be close to reaching one?

Because Kos is anti-Hillary, and putting the emphasis on her INABILITY to close the deal makes her look floundering and weak.

If Hillary had stepped down one month ago, Obama would've already gone on one or two Meet Up with Foreign Leaders tours. He would've been greeted to a phalanx of red carpets and honour guards, a political version of the Cannes Film Festival.

But he can't because Missy here can't close the deal.

Obama supporters must be absolutely livid.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

OT: Blogger is acting up. I posted a longish reply on the Ayers thread, but the posts are trickling in.

I'm not sure if I should repost or what, but since the above post went through, it's starting to work again.

Cheers,
Victoria

Ann Althouse said...

Go ahead and repost. You can delete later if it doubles up on you.

AlphaLiberal said...

I am loving this headline:
McCain Votes Against Equal Pay: Women Need "Education And Training"

somefeller said...

Oh, this is nice. What's the top-rated reader diary on Daily Kos right now entitled? They Don't Get It: We Win Even If Obama Loses in November

So, "we" win even if our party loses, I guess because the youth vote will be with us forever or something like that. Amateurs. Morons. Unbelievable. And people ask why I'm a Hillary supporter in this primary season.

MadisonMan said...

Isn't Kos pro-Obama? Is there a difference between listening to anti-Hillary! screeds/screams from KOS vs. those from RNC? Shouldn't they be taken with the same grano solis?

MagicalPat said...

The super delegates could end this today, but they don't, which tells me one of the following:
1)They want more input from the voters.
2) They are holding out for the best offers from Hillary or Obama.
3) They are so afraid of offending the loser and their voters that they are waiting for one of them to make a huge mistake so they can't be blamed for their decision.

Simon said...

Chris - I disagree to the extent that if you're a Democrat without a strong preference between Obama and Clinton, the most rational course is to rally behind whichever candidate seems most likely to prevail in the fall. The difficulty is figuring out which one that is.

former law student said...

But why can't Obama close the deal?

I'm going with that 37 he bowled in seven frames.

It occurs to me that this election most closely resembles 1968. The incumbent who got us enmeshed in an unending war is leaving. The kids, inspired by an ultraliberal candidate, come out in force. The party picks a candidate based seemingly on their being "next in line." Disappointed, the kids stay home and the Republicans win.

AlphaLiberal said...

Actually, Obama is ahead in the popular vote, unless you're a Clintonista and count MI and FL, where no-one else campaigned, per the rules.


Billary wants to change the rules after the play has begun to advantage themselves. I'll bet it's irritating to play board games with them.

garage mahal said...

Ann!!!

Stop! Right there.

Lord Kos said Hillary can't win. I know he has spoken on this already! I cannot believe you question Lord Kos when he has bestowed upon all us his superior knowledge and wit!

AlphaLiberal said...

This election resembles 2008. That's it. Elections are like fingerprints. No two are the same.

Sloanasaurus said...

What Obama desperatly needs is a third party candidate to run. Someone to peel away the white working class votes he is going to lose.

bearbee said...

Except she is no longer behind. Hillary is now ahead in the popular vote.

I guess it depends on who is
counting what:

Clinton says she leads in popular vote

Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.

Obama didn't even have his name on the Michigan ballot, so he received no votes from that contest.


If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million.

former law student said...

unless you're a Clintonista and count MI and FL, where no-one else campaigned

Clintonistas hate democracy. They prefer elections where they're the only candidates, and nominations where superdelegates ignore the candidates with the most pledged delegates, states, and freely chosen votes, in order to pick the number two gal. The only victories that count are in states where voting blocks favor Hillary: older women and racist whites.

Roger J. said...

"close the deal," "it is what it is," "nuance," "gravitas"........just the latest catch word or phrase phrase that gets picked up by the herd that is American punditry.

Roger J. said...

FLS: the kids always stay home--in the words of the democratic sage, James Carville, theres a word for those who are relying on the youth vote: "loser."

Although I will say that I havent seen this near-cultic following that Obama has since America almost came clean with Gene (McCarthy, not Autry)

Jeremy said...

Just because the DNC said they wouldn't count delegates doesn't mean that the MI and FL votes shouldn't count towards a popular vote count. Hillary is right that she technically had more people vote for her than Obama. But given what others said and the fact that lots of states caucused and didn't count individual votes, it's just that that metric is meaningless - not that it's not true.

Sloanasaurus said...

Actually, Obama is ahead in the popular vote, unless you're a Clintonista and count MI and FL, where no-one else campaigned, per the rules.

Rules? Unbelievable. You have to count those votes. Those people voted, You can't just dismiss their votes because the Florida legislature moved up the date.

The votes are what they are. Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. More people have voted for her than Obama. That is the truth.

Besides, Obama supporters know that today Clinton would win Florida by 750,000 votes compared to the 250,000 she won by in January, which is why Obama doesn't want a revote.

Jeremy said...

fls-
What do you have against older women and white racists? They don't get a say in your democracy?

Sloanasaurus said...

But given what others said and the fact that lots of states caucused and didn't count individual votes

But Clinton won the votes in all the big Democratic states. Obama won most of his delagates in republican states. Clinton is more legitimately the popular vote winner among democrat primary voters.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sloan:
Obama supporters know that today Clinton would win Florida by 750,000 votes compared to the 250,000 she won by in January, which is why Obama doesn't want a revote.

Reading other peoples' minds with that tinfoil hat, are you?

do try and pay closer attention to the news before you spout off. "It's better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."

Richard Dolan said...

Big deal.
Seal the deal.
Deal the deck, and play the hand you're dealt.
Deal with it.
Close the deal.
No deal.

So many agendas, each spinning away wildly around its own worn out deal-ism.

SGT Ted said...

I sure do loves me some schadenfruede.

Original Mike said...

AlphaLiberal said: Billary wants to change the rules after the play has begun to advantage themselves.

But they're Democrats. It's what they do. The only thing I find surprising that it's ocurring in Florida again. What are the odds of that?

Original Mike said...

SGT Ted: I'm enjoying this vote counting argument so much, I actually feel a little guilty.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sloan, regurgitating false talking points:
But Clinton won the votes in all the big Democratic states.
Except for Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland (population is big), Colorado. And a few others.

Except for this, it's "all."

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"Billary wants to change the rules after the play has begun to advantage themselves."

And Obama supporters don't want to change the rules after play has begun, in regard to the obligations vel non of the superdelegates?

Sloanasaurus said...

do try and pay closer attention to the news before you spout off. "It's better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."

This is a nonsensical response.

Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. If Florida and Michigan were held again today she would drastically increase her vote lead.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Two Lightweight boxers with a chance at the championship. "The Contender" plans for a knockout in the early rounds and focuses entirely on that.

No strategy beyond Round 4. "The Kid" takes the punishment and holds almost even on points. In Rounds 5 through 8 he lands blow after blow, combination after combination, unblocked punch after punch.

Now toward the end of the fight the contender pours everything into an attempted knockout. It's "The Contender's" only chance, because the kid is way ahead on points, but (s)he's desperately tired and weak. The blows land, but without effect, and "The Kid" doesn't have to score a knockout.

Simply surviving the final rounds is enough for a shot at the championship.

former law student said...

[older women and white racists] don't get a say in your democracy?

Sure they do. But not a disproportionate say.

Pogo said...

Re: close the deal

What a tiresomely overused phrase. Makes me think of businessmen describing their female conquests.

Original Mike said...

Since the "popular vote" is considered to be such a potent talisman, it seems like the right thing to do is revote MI and FL. I would think Hillary could make a "principaled stand" over the issue.

bearbee said...

[older women and white racists] don't get a say in your democracy?

Sure they do. But not a disproportionate say.


I assume the same for non-white racists?

1jpb said...

Rush claims that he started the "why can't BO close the deal" talk. He suggests that HRC folks picked up the idea by listening to his show.

This seems plausible.

The new found cooperation between the right and HRC is triangulation on a whole new level. As was the situation with the Newt-Bill years; it looks like the right wants to control the debate and issues, while Clinton is satisfied to do whatever it takes to eke out electoral survival.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sloan tries to win arguments by tiresome repetition:
Clinton is ahead in the popular vote.

You understand that the Democratic Party makes the rules for the Democratic primary, not you?

Obama, soon to be President Obama, is ahead in the popular vote.

garage mahal said...

Actually, Obama is ahead in the popular vote, unless you're a Clintonista and count MI and FL, where no-one else campaigned, per the rules.

Actually Precious did campaign in FL, violating a pledge he signed by running TV ads all over FL to the tune of 1 million dollars, and still got thumped. I know you won't hear that from Olberbama, and at the sweat-houses like the Daily Obama and Americablog, but it's true if you want to look it up. Nothing elitist about blocking re-votes and ignoring two states and millions of voters that didn't vote for you!

Here is an interesting read, note the smiling candidate on the right. Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon.

Doh!

John Stodder said...

"Path-dependent" is the term Megan McCardle used to describe the presidential primary process and she's right.

She was describing the way in which purely arbitrary contingencies brought John McCain the nomination. If you shuffled the deck and held the primaries in a different order, she suggested, another candidate might have won. Or the kind of stalemate afflicting the Democrats might have occured.

That's why I'm not impressed by the high-horse arguments denigrating HRC for sticking to her campaign because of "the math."
Sure, the math is what it is. But Obama's lead is not so clearly a reflection of the party rank and file's preferences. The 10-point HRC victory is one hint that the process might have delivered Obama to the precipice of victory, not the voters.

And, Hillary's point is, the process is not over. Just as the way Obama cleared the field for himself early in the process was unexpected, so is what's happening now -- and what might happen in the future.

Republicans are lining up behind a candidate that a lot of them don't like, because he secured a win via their process. Whenever Obama or Hillary reaches the same point, even if it's not til August, the Democratic Party will do the same, if they want to have a chance of winning.

It's not about closing the deal. The race has been essentially a tie for over a month. What is suggestive to me, however, is that most of Obama's wins came early and Hillary's are happening now. That, plus where she's winning should give objective Democrats a reason to pause and to want this race to follow it's complete course until one has clearly beaten the other.

My personal view is that Obama won a lot of early primaries and caucuses for the same reason he won over people like me. He was Mary Poppins, except he seemed absolutely real and authentic. But the fantasy didn't survive scrutiny, and now we're all seeing him more clearly. I daresay not everyone who voted for Obama in February would repeat that vote now. But since there's no going back, we have to depend on the wisdom of voters in the states still ahead. Path-dependent.

Sloanasaurus said...

You understand that the Democratic Party makes the rules for the Democratic primary, not you?
Obama, soon to be President Obama, is ahead in the popular vote.


There are no democratic party rules on how to count the popular vote. They rules only address seating delagates.

The popular vote is what it is, and Clinton is ahead. Obama can try to spin it anyway he wants, but the fact is Clinton has had more voters cast votes for her than Obama in all the primaries combined.

Clinton has the popular support, Obama does not.

Moreover, every spin by Obama on this comes with a respin. Everyone knows that if revotes wer held today in all these elections, Clinton's votes would go up and Obama's would go down.

former law student said...

The white racists are a bigger voting block. From the NYT:

The results in Pennsylvania suggest that problems exist. A poll of Democratic voters conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press found that Mrs. Clinton drew 63 percent of the white vote while Mr. Obama drew 90 percent of the black vote, mirroring a pattern in many other states. More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.

AlphaLiberal said...

Obama didn't campaign in those states, Sloan, as he followed the rules. There wasn't an electoral contest.

garage mahal said...

And here is a handy True or False guide regarding the DNC and the state delegations from Larry Johnson's blog.

former law student said...

yes garage -- it's technically impossible for CNN to black out a national ad so it doesn't run in the state of Florida. From the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau blog:

Posted January 21, 2008 5:47 PM
The Swamp

by John McCormick, updated

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. – As Sen. Barack Obama started running a biographical ad nationwide on cable television Monday, it was quickly criticized by his leading Democratic primary challenger.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign charges that Obama violated a pledge to not campaign in Florida, after the state decided last year to move up its primary to next week in violation Democratic National Committee rules.

Whether it was a true violation remains murky. The pledge was something promoted last year by state party leaders in early voting states, not the DNC.

"Clearly the Obama campaign has decided not to fulfill that pledge," former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Clinton campaign supporter, said in a conference call with reporters.

Obama's campaign responded by saying that it is not possible to make a nationwide cable ad buy that does not include Florida.

“For that reason we consulted with … South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

In an Obama conference call this evening, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler called the Clinton charge "silly and a bit of an exaggeration."

Campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has no plans to campaign in Florida.

"We made a commitment to the early states," he said. "The second point is there are no delegates at stake, so we will not be campaigning in Florida."

John Stodder said...

More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.

63 percent of 18 percent is roughly 12 percent -- Obama's share of the race-matters-to-me voters -- leaving just 6 percent of the Democratic voters who won't support Obama because of race.

That's a number to celebrate, not deplore. I bet most of the voters in that 6 percent are older voters. Racism is on its way out.

What do you think that number would have been as recently as 20 years ago? 15 percent? 20?

AlphaLiberal said...

former law student:

Did they say what percent of Republican voters cared about the race of the candidate?

garage mahal said...

FLS
Obama's ads appeared in FL. Hillary's did not. Your link is just spin from Obama and proves nothing. Sorry.

bearbee said...

The white racists are a bigger voting block. From the NYT:

The results in Pennsylvania suggest that problems exist. A poll of Democratic voters conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press found that Mrs. Clinton drew 63 percent of the white vote while Mr. Obama drew 90 percent of the black vote, mirroring a pattern in many other states. More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.


So how does that work.....10% of black voters are non-racist and 37% of the white voter are non-racist?

PoliShifter said...

Why can't Hillary 'close the deal'?

Because there is not enough pledged delegates left for her to overtake Obama.

Why can't Obama 'close the deal'?

Because he needs more Super Delegates to push him over 2024. Obama can't obtain 2024 without superdelegates.

But the main reason why the deal isn't closed?

Because the media is loving every dollar of it keeping it alive and well.

The race is over. It's been over. Everyone knows it.

The Hillary Camp is praying for some sort of major Obama gaffe that will cause all the Super Delegates to flood to her. That's her last best hope.

The odds are not in her favor.

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama didn't campaign in those states, Sloan, as he followed the rules. There wasn't an electoral contest.

Following or not following the rules is the worst argument I have ever heard from a Democrat. Democrats don't give a crap about election rules. The Democrat line is what is the intention of the voter, not what the rules are. We know from Florida and Michigan the intention of the voter and that was for Clinton.

Besides, it's the super delegates who will decide. And it would be foolish of them not to consider the voters in Michigan and Florida, two swing states they desperately need to win the presidency.

Sloanasaurus said...

The race is over. It's been over. Everyone knows it.

It's not over. Clinton is leading in the popular vote.

Roger J. said...

Do I sense an emerging meme from the Obama folks is that to vote against him (if you are a person of pallor) is prima facie evidence of racism? Sure looks like it to me. This is just going to a charming general election after the democratic bloodletting in Denver. Clearly at least 50% of democratic heads are going to explode no matter who the dem nominee is.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Why is it okay for Nancy Pelosi to say, "I'm not one of those who thinks that that's a good ticket," about Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama on Larry King? What if that ended up being the ticket anyway, after she said that? She irks me.

wgh said...

To be fair, he didn't ask why... he answered why.

Revenant said...

63 percent of 18 percent is roughly 12 percent -- Obama's share of the race-matters-to-me voters -- leaving just 6 percent of the Democratic voters who won't support Obama because of race.

More importantly, the poll doesn't break up that 18% by race or explain how race matters. If 12% of the electorate both cares about race and is willing to support Obama, isn't it entirely possible that those voters are supporting Obama *because* he's black?

In fact, 12% is approximately the percentage of the Pennsylvania electorate that both (a) is black and (b) voted for Obama. Hm!

Revenant said...

Why is it okay for Nancy Pelosi to say, "I'm not one of those who thinks that that's a good ticket," about Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama on Larry King? What if that ended up being the ticket anyway, after she said that?

Maybe she knows that neither ticket is going to happen and is trying to manage public expectations.

John Stodder said...

Aren't Michigan and Florida two different cases?

In Michigan, Clinton was on the ballot, not Obama. To count those votes now would be manifestly unfair to Obama.

In Florida, Clinton and Obama were on the ballot and neither campaigned there. However, thanks to CNN, Fox and other national media outlets, Florida voters can be said to have formed an impression of all the candidates, on a level playing field (i.e. no in person campaigning, no ads). I know, there will be quibbles about Obama's cable ad and Hillary's drop-by at a fundraiser, but basically, Florida's total is a fair reflection of what Florida Dems thought on the day of that primary.

My verdict. Florida should count. Michigan should be done over and/or done via caucus.

I realize that makes me a typical Dem -- vowing to punish a wrongdoer and then not following through. Eh. The punishment did not fit the crime. The way the Reeps dealt with these miscreant states was the right way. Go ahead and have a campaign, but penalize each state's delegate count.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The race is over. It's been over. Everyone knows it.

It's this kind of defeatist attitude that make me think of that icon of days gone by who uttered these words:

"Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!"

Bluto Blutarsky

Ann Althouse said...

Hillary followed the rules too.

Jeremy said...

More importantly, isn't saying "It's over" roughly the same thing as saying "Mission Accomplished"? Just asking!

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

Otter: I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Senator-to-be Bluto Blutarsky: We're just the guys to do it.

vbspurs said...

Big deal.
Seal the deal.
Deal the deck, and play the hand you're dealt.
Deal with it.
Close the deal.
No deal.

So many agendas, each spinning away wildly around its own worn out deal-ism.


Fantastic.

If she would only label her Presidency, "Deal a Meal" à la "New Deal", she would unite all the fatties in coach, too!

Cheers,
Victoria

Seven Machos said...

It all hit me last night, people. There's no malice involved, no trying to sabotage on the part of Clinton.

She is simply angling to win the total popular vote. If she can do that then, like a good lawyer, she can use the hated precedent of the contested 2000 election make the highly persuasive case to Democrats that the winner of the popular vote should be the winner.

That's her strategy. It's a good one.

Seven Machos said...

Hoosier -- Let's not forget that Bluto went on to be a Democratic senator in Ohio.

titusyoumustloveme said...

I had 4 tortellinis, a hint of olive oil and a dash of parmesan for dindin tonight. I also had a mini salad with mesclun greens, one tomato and a mushroom-no dressing.

What did my fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine have for dindin?

I am great, thanks for asking.

former law student said...

garage -- I'm not going to talk about Hillary's 16 year national name recognition advantage over Barack. But the ad ran two weeks before Super Tuesday, and even CNN had headed a photo of Osama Bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri, with the words "Where's Obama?"

You can see Obama's January CNN ad here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/obamas-national-ad/

titusyoumustloveme said...

I went to the park near my fabulous loft today-with the rare clumbers of course.

A guy who was playing basketball shirtless came up to us and started talking to me about my exotic, expensive, unusual and exceptionally beautiful dogs. He was pretty hot and told me his "wife" wants to get a dog and wanted to know where he could purchase a clumber. I told him there were only approximately 270 registered in the country and the waiting list can be years-but in a nice way because he was hot. I wasn't bitchy or anything. He was wearing white basketball shorts but I didn't mind because I could see his hog hanging in them and it looked hot.

He then proceeded to ask me where I work, live, work out, do for "fun" etc while continuing to remind me he had a wife. No one ever is this friendly in my hood. I was suspicious. He asked my name 3 times.

I was like bitch this is way too much conversation. Either we find an alley or leave me be.

I kept looking at his flat stomach and told him he looked good because he did.

But then I left. I was feeling uncomfortable talking to someone for that long.

titusyoumustloveme said...

The entire episode with that guy became way too intimate.

And what about all the "wife" comments?

My boyfriend whom I met one night while in Madison calls me constantly. He is kind of hot but I can't understand him very well on the phone because he is Rican and hasn't mastered English too well-I love that.

titusyoumustloveme said...

My Rican boyfriend from Madison calls me Papi.

I don't know how I feel about that.

That means I am the old one.

titusyoumustloveme said...

I leave tomorrow for my cross country road trip.

I am nervous. I hope I don't get beat up or hung from a tree or on a fence.

Remember I am very passive. I never make the first move. I am the shy one who is pursued so I won't get in any trouble-I hope.

The rare clumbers and I are mostly staying at Marriott on the trip because they allow dogs and give the dogs a big doggy care package.

I am packing lots of tankeys. I have all the gyms mapped out I will be working out in along the way.

Some of them are cruisy but AYOR.

titusyoumustloveme said...

Samson and Delilah is on TCM. The guys are hot in this movie but not as hot as the movie 300.

300 was like a gay porn movie.

Simon said...

garage mahal said...
"Nothing elitist about blocking re-votes and ignoring two states and millions of voters that didn't vote for you!"

Plus, if y'all nominate him, our ad in Florida practically writes itself - "eight months ago, Barack Obama didn't want your votes to count. Now he's asking for your vote. Send Barack Obama a message: vote McCain" or similar.

John Stodder said...
"My personal view is that Obama won a lot of early primaries and caucuses ... But the fantasy didn't survive scrutiny, and now we're all seeing him more clearly. I daresay not everyone who voted for Obama in February would repeat that vote now. But since there's no going back, we have to depend on the wisdom of voters in the states still ahead."

That's right. This primary is going to be the leading rebuttal point against moving to a one-day national primary.

Not long ago, someone (not me!) asked Ann if she'd had second thoughts about voting for Obama in light of what's come out, and curiosity outweighing diplomacy, I would like to politely renew that question.


PoliShifter said...
"The Hillary Camp is praying for some sort of major Obama gaffe that will cause all the Super Delegates to flood to her."

Not an unrealistic prospect since he keeps giving her minor and quasi-major gaffes. The longer she stays in, the more information voters have about Obamal, and (results suggest) the less they like him. That's a major problem for a party that wants to win in the fall, since if Obama bests Clinton, the voters are going to get months and months more information about Obama and his numbers are going to go down and down.

Roger J. said...
"Do I sense an emerging meme from the Obama folks is that to vote against him (if you are a person of pallor) is prima facie evidence of racism?"

You sure do. They have two answers to every critism: either to declare it a matter of race (e.g. Wrightgate) or to claim it's a distraction from the issues people want to talk about (e.g. debategate).

Trooper York said...

Tonight I am grilling steaks with a side of fresh corn on the cob and a cold salad of potato and string beans in an oil and balsamic vingearette dressing. A nice bottle of sangiovese and fig ice cream for desert. Also, a cigar.

Close the deal has a strictly sexual connotation. Hillary can't close the deal cause it ain't closing time. She will never close the deal until closing time.

Fen said...

Do I sense an emerging meme from the Obama folks is that to vote against him (if you are a person of pallor) is prima facie evidence of racism?

Even worse, just imagine four years of the Obama Cult playing their race card everytime you have a good faith disagreement about his policies.

AlphaLiberal and Mort are good representives of that vitriolic faction. And I thought the Ron Paul goons were bad.

Simon said...

Trooper, in about six weeks, we will be getting fresh corn on the cob (among other things) - and I don't mean "fresh from the farmer's market fresh," I mean fresh as in walked outside and picked it off the plant fresh! :p

Trooper York said...

Cool Simon, the only thing I have growing in my garden is figs, and they won't be ready until the fall. I stopped planting vegtables because of the freakin' squirrels that eat everything. Now it's just lot's of roses and my fig tree. I envy you. (Well the fresh corn, not the soul deadening small town life, but ya got to take the good with the bad, and put butter on it).

titusyoumustloveme said...

That sounds fabulous Trooper. Now I am hungry.

Simon said...

Trooper, I had thought that figs liked a Mediterranean climate - you can grow those in New York?

I'm giving some serious thought to trying to grow tea this season - it's apparently well-suited to Indiana's climate and might be interesting.

Lastly, as to small town vs. big city, to each their own. I hate big cities and can't imagine ever wanting to live in one. New York is my idea of Hell on Earth.

titusyoumustloveme said...

Simon, as someone who has lived in a small city and now lives in a big city I have to tell you it is fabulous.

Imagine a million titus's running around your hood.

The possibilities are endless...

Revenant said...

Do I sense an emerging meme from the Obama folks is that to vote against him (if you are a person of pallor) is prima facie evidence of racism

Emerging? We're been hearing that since Obama lost New Hampshire.

Nichevo said...

Simon, I think teas are usually grown at altitude, but not sure why - and as always, YMMV. What varieties would you try to cultivate?

former law student said...

simon, my father-in-law kept a fig tree growing in Michigan for many years. He would bend the trunk down to the ground, and mound the top of the tree with a huge amount of mulch, to keep it from freezing.

ballyfager said...

Sloanasauras,

Your sophistry is as irritating as the Clintons themselves. If you couldn't see through the Clintons in 1992 that's one thing, if you can't see through them now you're hopeless.

stylinchicxoxo said...

the bottom line is that it is time for the Democratic party to pick on or the other, otherwise, neither one of them will simply stand a chance against McCain. Ever day that Obama & Clinton are competing against each other is one day given to McCain. It will continue to become easier for him to win. It is time to decide on a candidate and to focus on that one candidate if we really want the next president to be a Democrat.