Ohio! Texas! California! NewYork! Florida!The Obamamaniacs will surely renew their shrieking over super delegates, and how they must represent the will of the people. I would like to remind my angry friends that the popular vote is at a statistical dead heat, and fully half of democratic primary voters have pulled the lever for Hillary Clinton. The will of the people is not yet clear-- deal with it.
Rock stars win the Big States. Sister is a rock star!
"Hillary Clinton is a fighter for change. Senator Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a motivational speaker. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the Fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be swiftboated into oblivion."Stephen Schlesinger--Huffington Post
37 comments:
"What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a motivational speaker"
YES! Boy, our party is pretty divided tho. LOLOL! The kid Lance, in that commericial wearing the striped shirt is cute.
I will take Obama or Clinton over McCain any day, but I prefer Clinton hands down and am most pleased with the outcome of this most important Tuesday we just had. WOW! I really thought Oprah, I MEAN, OBAMA was gonna kick tha Hillard's ass for good, but not so!
She hangeth on man! YEEHA!
Oh I hope she pulls through. If that dreadful Obama wins it really will show that America is truly blinded by style over substance... can you name ONE SINGLE POLICY the guy stands for? And this one voter said "his charisma will stand him in good stead dealing with international leaders" as if! They will respect a Hillary a zillion times more than an Obama ... I just wish she could have a bigger lead I can't handle the stress and I'm not even American
The Hills are alive with the sound of Clinton!!!!!
Hey gledwood--I can infact name EVERY single policy the man stands for. The reason you can't is because he doesn't spend much time speaking about them. One has to dig a little to research his positions because his oratory is about something else.
His positions are almost identical to Hillary's.Go to his web site if you really want to know what they are. The difference is she has been working on her positions for decades and he has been only "talking" about his positions, and for not very long.
I agree with you in terms of each candidates ability to deal with world leaders...that's Hillary's game. He is out of his league on that one!
Hillary is going to "swiftboat" the opposition.....
The Post called it. She is nothing more than a power hungry republican with a chip on her shoulder and a lot of unethical tactics up her pantsuit sleeve. I hope that the U.S. does not have to endure another Clinton presidency: it will be an absolute disaster, and we can all be assured that when it is over Jeb Bush will walk right on in.
Marc Cooper - Huffingtonpost.com
It's 3 a.m. and Hillary's Dreaming
Posted March 5, 2008 | 01:38 AM (EST)
To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.
For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.
After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.
Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.
She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).
Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?
"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."
Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.
Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.
The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."
Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.
low-moon is a twat.
zacko is a gaping twat. efen twat doesn't even know what the word comment means. it doesn't mean quote. obama's people are dumb fucks.
twats
love ya,
queen of the hill
Jeffrey, your guy has his figures wrong.
THIS IS THE MATH:
1) The difference in the popular vote between the two candidates is less than 1/2 of 1 percent.
2) The difference in delegates as of today is less than 2 percent.
They are virtually even. NEITHER CANDIDATE CAN GET ENOUGH DELEGATES THROUGH TRADITIONAL MEASURES for the nomination. If Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (both are Super Delegates) vote for Obama, as they have promised, then they are going against the will of their constituents, the people of Massachussetts, who voted for Hillary. Answer this question: Do you support that? Is that dirty politics? It's an interesting paradox.
I never said that either candidate could get enough delegates to secure the nomination - I am saying that it's statistically impossible for Hillary to catch and/or overtake Obama. There are only TWO WAYS she can win the nomination. #1 is to sway the superdelegates (have them go against the will of the people), and #2 is to cause a ruckus at the convention, which will be terrible for the Democartic party. Plus, I think it's your math that off my friend. The will of the people IS clear - 1,000,000 more have voted for Obama so far, with more to come.
I really must apologize to you - I'm a political junkie, and once you let genie out of the bottle, she ain't going back in. ;-)
P.S. - that is a REAL intelligent quote by "queen of the hill" (clearly a Clinton supporter). *WINK*
Again you have not answered the question Jeffrey. Is it o.k, in your opinion, for Kennedy and Kerry to go against the will of the people of Massachussetts? It' s a fair question if you are going to condem Hillary for asking Super Delegates to do the same thing. I am curious how you justify THAT criticism of her.
This is the math: 10,876,624 votes for Barack Obama, 10,246,199 votes for Hillary. Out of almost 22 million votes cast that is about a 600,000 vote difference or less than 2%. These are the facts.
You once asked on your site how Hillary supporters defend her vote on Iraq. I answered the question, I don't defend it. It was wrong. Can you give an answer that is just as honest?
Keep it going boys, I'm fascinated by all of this banter.
TRULY.
You are missing the point, and I'm tired of debating it all. As a critical theorist, I have to ask WHOSE FACTS are you referring to? YOUR facts are NOT my facts, and cannot be considered truth (especially since you provide no source for them). Why don't your "facts" square with Time or CNN or Newseek, etc?
We will never agree.
I condemn Hillary because she was against influencing the superdelegates before she was for it (which is so Hillary) - and her switch in feeling about that process is to be expected from a centrist, DLC supported democrat who is playing politics as usual. The "facts" are that Hillary cannot gain enough delegates (legitimately) in the remaining contests to overtake Barack. Period. Her net gain after last night, including Texas, was negligable. She touts her "experience" yet can not even describe what that "experience" is, and for her to play the fear card (the red phone ad) is just so sad - because it's exactly what Bush has done the last 6-7 years. It is so Joe Lieberman, and against McCain, Hillary will fall victim to the same attack. Hillary has ZERO experience compared to Johnnie - no better than Obama in the general election there - and at least Obama was against the war from the start.
I hope Obama does go negative - because Lord knows the Clintons have more baggage than anyone, and lets re-focus the debate on decades of that - if that is what it takes. I just donated another $1000 to Obama, so let's get nasty.
All this being said, you know I am not attacking you, right? I like you. It's not personal, it's politics. Or, is all politics personal?
My figures came from "Real Clear Politics"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
The margin is actually much slimmer than I posted because those numbers did not include last nights victories.
I asked you a simple question-- Twice. I would think a CRITICAL THEORIST would jump at the chance to answer such a direct question. I won't ask again. I can only assume the answer is too painful to share.
I find it also interesting, how quickly you have abandoned "the new politics" of Barack Obama as soon as it got hot in the kitchen. I'll quote you:" I hope Obama does go negative...so lets get nasty"
How inspiring.
kisses
xoxoxoxo
You have also never addressed several of my questions these last weeks...SEVERAL. If Obama doesn't get the nomination I can't, in good conscience, support Hillary. I'll forever doubt her politics and methods (READ: I WON'T VOTE). Oh, and I think you misunderstand the point of critical theory - we could go on tit for tat forever, and it's pointless - Hillary cannot democratically secure enough delegates to overcome Obama's lead - she would have had to win 60% of the vote (at least) in all remaining contests (including last nights) and she did not and will not (I can come up with multiple polls that dispute the numbers at the link you reference - the thing about being a statistician is that I can deconstruct anything numerical). If Hillary had a clear chance of overtaking Obama, do you think she would be pushing the envelope so much? No. Oh, and, personally. I never said anything about Obama not playing hardball - I'm vicious, and if that's what Hillary wants that is what we should give her - there are PLENTY of skeletons to drag out! Apparently the "high road" means nothing to Hillary or her supporters - if they can write off her war vote, they can write off anything.
blah blah blah...so much noise and yet are you really saying anything? You just keep repeating your self.The only thing new that you have said here is that you will either not vote at all, or vote for McCain should Clinton get the nomination. Just yesterday you said that you would support Hillary if she got the nomination. So changeable. So eratic. So angry.
Your assertion that I have not addressed a single ,let alone several, of your questions is bullshit. I have asked you direct questions, that you have avoided answering. When you have asked me direct question, I have responded. I fear no question my friend. I am not a Clinton apologist, I am a realist.
YES WE WILL!
I love you, M-Filer! ;-)
And I'm done talking about politics with you.
I'm bored.
Want to be my running mate?
hahahaha
You're both bitches.
Lemme f*ck u both.
Anon,
Go fuck yourself.
M-filer. I think you won that one. I hate Hillary but you are very armed with the facts and argue you'r points with them as opposed to emotion. Anytime anyone says they "are done" it means they've been beaten. Maybe you should be a critical theorist while others should just reamin critical.
You probably want to change your headline so it's truthful...Hil did not win Texas...Obama will end up with three or so more delegates. ;-)
Oh, and she "won" florida - though it neither matters nor counts. Just for the record - since Hil is fond of touting records.
oh I am sorry, I thought you were bored. Now, would your comment be a "subjective fact", or a "fact-fact". Once again it seems you want to have it both ways. Do you get bored when the words you hear aren't coming from your own subjective mouth?
oh please let Obama just drop dead. Then Hillary can get in the easy way (long as the FBI don't nail her on forensics...)
Gledwood!
LOLOLOLOLOL!
F*CK OPRAH!
MADONNA FOR PRESIDENT INSTEAD.
If Hillary does get the nomination I would look for a long list of dead bodies strewn throughout hte DNC........ hidden as apparent suicides.......
GLEDWOOD IS BRILLIANT!
In what can only be described as karma, the girl in Hillary Clinton's "Red Phone Ad" supports BARACK OBAMA. Seems the Clinton campaign was in such a rush to use fear as a weapon to win Ohio they never bothered to do their research! I am so happy this girl lives right here in Washington State!
----
By ELISA HAHN / KING 5 News/ Seattle
BONNEY LAKE, Wash. – The political ad that sparked nationwide controversy turns out to have a surprising local connection.
One of the actors in the Hillary Clinton ad was shocked to see herself, especially because she's a fierce supporter of Barack Obama.
The so-called "red-phone ad" played a big role in Clinton's win in Texas, suggesting Barack Obama is too inexperienced to handle a national crisis.
But the young girl starring in the ad will actually be voting age next month and says she's no fan of Hillary Clinton.
Read more here.
---
Oh, and Dean don't pull that "sister" stuff on me - you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing. Your question has been asked and answered. In addition, what you want me to do is BESIDE THE POINT. To answer your question AGAIN, though, - I advocate that the Superdelegates vote for the candidate who has the MOST VOTES (i.e. - support the popular vote), since Superdelegates have NOTHING to do with their respective states per se. Your logic is fuzzy.
PER the DNC: "Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party.
Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
I was bored - but I got over it. I have a bit of ADHD, which means that I tend to lose interest and then get it back. Ya know? Anyhoo - continuing our ever so lively political banter (which, in truth, I do enjoy), here is a question for you: why won't Hillary release her tax returns? And, don't give me the campaign's stock reply...give me a REAL explanation that makes logical sense and is supported by the facts many people are so fond of relying upon...
Damnit, time for my chai tea so I can sit back and continue on with this one. Why post anymore? This post alone generates so much attention on its own! HAHA!
And by the way, to make my meaningless life more interesting...
This "X-Static Process" song by M is amazing. Gorgeous. OMG. It takes me to another place, way fucking rad.
Sorry, I had to rant, since it's playing on my i-Tunes as I write this. Very underrated, this AMERICAN LIFE album.
Well praise Jesus...Zacko answered the question! And I didn't even have to read everything he has ever written to find it out. He just simply answered! Two days later, and after copying verbatim the definition of "Super Delegate" from Wikipedia.
Well, for sure you are correct about at least one thing: Super Delegates are free to vote for who ever they choose. That's the bottom line. I understand that you believe they should follow the will of the people, that will being expressed by the popular vote, not state by state, but in total. O.K, fine. I'll accept that. There are a lot of people who believe Super Delegates should support the candidate that the People of their State or region voted for. Again, it really doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks about this because they (the Super Delegates) can do as they please. Those are the rules.
About those tax returns... I think you meant to ask why Hillary won't release her returns NOW. I have no fuck'in clue. I don't fuck'in care either. Now see, I answered the question directly and with my own voice. No stock answer here.
WAT: X-STATIC PROCESS is gorgeous. More and more I look at "American Life" in ways I never did when it was released. More fondly now.
Obama is up 600,000 in the popular vote, possibly more as some states haven't released the popular vote. there is a great calm, sane and rational post here
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/184226/0219/795/473137
Oh I can't believe Obama won the last nowheresville ~ Vermont? or somewhere?? ~ why can't HILLARY pick up loads and loads this is so unfair. JUST when America gets the chance of a thunking heavyweight COMPETENT woman president some puffy lightweight half-WHITE "African-(NOT!!)-American" scarily style over substance nasty like Obama has to come along and piss all over her strawberries I cannot BELIEVE this. I know that bastard's gonna win now and it will be WORSE for America WORST all round and poor Hillary will never get another chance let's organize mass suicide for when the last full votes thing come in
RE: rebuttal - your post on my blog.
----
I think that answer is a TOTAL cop out - and it's straight from the Clinton camp's book o' crap. WHAT is valid about it - if she has NO MORE EXPERIENCE than he does? I guess it's a valid criticism of her then, too. Cool. Sounds more like hypocrisy to me.
Post a Comment