... As we all know, money talks and the Clinton donors are leveraging their donations to settle this dispute in a way that can help their candidate:
Quote:
Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do....
Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.
...
Whomod could you kinda see where if a person has donated so much to the DNC & then not have their votes count, they would be a little pissed? Obama may end up being the democratic nominee of the 48 states that got to count but McCain will be the winner of the 50 state general election.
I said it privately to another of the Democrats here:
The Democrats have screwed themselves. They changed the rules, and whether they stick to excluding Florida and Michigan primary votes, or arrange some compromise, or have another primary in both states, not matter what neither Hillary or Obama will recognize the result as legitimate if either one loses, and their supporters will be pissed off and reject the result as well.
Obama's people will call it "racist".
Hillary's people will say it was done in a way that favors Obama.
The only possible cure is to have a Hillary/Obama ticket, or an Obama/Hillary ticket. And frankly, I see peace in the Middle East as more likely.
I think your right WB. I started out being excited about my party's prospects for the general election but I would be really surprised if my party wins this election. Then again the GOP was doomed to losing a couple of months ago as well as McCain. My feeling right now is this will be one of those elections with results similar to Dukakis & Mondale. We'll win a couple of states but the majority of them will be won by McCain.
Whomod could you kinda see where if a person has donated so much to the DNC & then not have their votes count, they would be a little pissed?
This may be the first time I've defended Howard Dean and/or the DNC on anything, but why should a donor be pissed at them?
Dean and the DNC, with the agreement of both the Clinton and Obama camps, set the rules for the primary. Dean didn't break those rules. The DNC didn't break them. The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan did....with full knowledge of the effect of doing so.
Now, are Dean and the DNC supposed to reward that?
If the donors should be pissed at anyone it's the people in those states that chose to break the rules, not the people charged with enforcing them.
Hilary and Obama are candidates, they aren't god. If you donate to your political party and then they decide your vote doesn't count for the primary, you have every right to ask for a refund. It doesn't matter who made the "deal". Don't support a party that doesn't want your vote counted.
We are talking about people who have donated to the DNC not having their votes counted by the DNC,wanting their money back have you lost the frame of the discussion?
We are talking about people who have donated to the DNC not having their votes counted by the DNC,wanting their money back have you lost the frame of the discussion?
I understand that.
I also understand your comment about the candidates not being god.
I only questioned if the donors were, by adopting the position you described, the ones who were putting their candidates ahead of the process.
Obama & Clinton didn't really have a whole lot of choice when it came to agreeing with the rules. If they didn't agree to & play by the rules set by the DNC then they would be subject to the same treatment Florida & Michigan got. Stripping of delegates.
These people didn't give their money to the republican controlled congress in Florida, they gave it to the dem party. It's the party who isn't recognizing their election or their votes. People are just kidding themselves if they think this isn't going to cost the dem party in the general election. I won't support a party if the nominee ends up being picked because votes were not counted.
But that's only because not counting the votes hurts Hillary and helps Obama. And you've already made your preference for Hillary clear as well as the possibility of supporting McCain over Obama.
But that's only because not counting the votes hurts Hillary and helps Obama. And you've already made your preference for Hillary clear as well as the possibility of supporting McCain over Obama.
So this really doesn't affect your vote, does it?
Not counting votes is a fundamental issue though that will effect the party beyond just voting for either Obama or Hillary in November. I believe you will have people walk away if this isn't resolved with redo elections.
Sure I won't be voting for Obama, but I'm not angry with him. However I might end up being angry at what I considered my party if they nominate someone based on results from 48 states instead of 50.
Okay, she didn't really say that. But it's what Pelosi just did to Hillary. From AP:
Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."....
In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.
"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
It's time for Hillary to stop this nonsense and concede. She can't win. But she can sure as hell take the rest of us down with her. And she is.
Okay, she didn't really say that. But it's what Pelosi just did to Hillary. From AP:
Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."....
In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.
"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
It's time for Hillary to stop this nonsense and concede. She can't win. But she can sure as hell take the rest of us down with her. And she is.
Why would Hillary concede? She's probably going to clean Obama's clock in the next primary & has a good chance at regaining the popular vote. It won't matter if Obama has a couple of extra pledged delegates to the superdelegates.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2008-03-167:55 PM.
Whomod could you kinda see where if a person has donated so much to the DNC & then not have their votes count, they would be a little pissed?
This may be the first time I've defended Howard Dean and/or the DNC on anything, but why should a donor be pissed at them?
Dean and the DNC, with the agreement of both the Clinton and Obama camps, set the rules for the primary. Dean didn't break those rules. The DNC didn't break them. The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan did....with full knowledge of the effect of doing so.
Now, are Dean and the DNC supposed to reward that?
If the donors should be pissed at anyone it's the people in those states that chose to break the rules, not the people charged with enforcing them.
Okay, she didn't really say that. But it's what Pelosi just did to Hillary. From AP:
Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."....
In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.
"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
It's time for Hillary to stop this nonsense and concede. She can't win. But she can sure as hell take the rest of us down with her. And she is.
Why would Hillary concede? She's probably going to clean Obama's clock in the next primary & has a good chance at regaining the popular vote. It won't matter if Obama has a couple of extra pledged delegates to the superdelegates.
Her track record thus far really hasn't shown that. And PA is pretty much expected to go to her so the only surprise would be if Obama upsets her there or if she wins by a small percentage rather than a large one. Just like Ohio, you can't really crow about momentum if you were already expected to win there.
Whomod could you kinda see where if a person has donated so much to the DNC & then not have their votes count, they would be a little pissed?
This may be the first time I've defended Howard Dean and/or the DNC on anything, but why should a donor be pissed at them?
Dean and the DNC, with the agreement of both the Clinton and Obama camps, set the rules for the primary. Dean didn't break those rules. The DNC didn't break them. The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan did....with full knowledge of the effect of doing so.
Now, are Dean and the DNC supposed to reward that?
If the donors should be pissed at anyone it's the people in those states that chose to break the rules, not the people charged with enforcing them.
Thank you!
The rules also let superdelegates vote for whoever they want. Yet Obama supporters say they would be upset if that were to happen. Seems funny that you can throw away elections on the one hand & not expect people to get upset but if it hurts your guy your ready to cry foul. I think it comes down to both ways are going to piss people off.
Florida Dems Abandon Mail-In Vote Plan: Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats on Monday abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.
Florida Dems Abandon Mail-In Vote Plan: Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats on Monday abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.
Sorry, cunt.
And, by "cunt," I mean MEM, not Hillary.
I didn't reallize that we've reached that point in our relationship for pet names
This certainley hasn't been a boring election! I can't see the party not seating the Florida delegates but Obama supporters can get pretty angry so I guess the suspense builds.
I said it privately to another of the Democrats here:
The Democrats have screwed themselves. They changed the rules, and whether they stick to excluding Florida and Michigan primary votes, or arrange some compromise, or have another primary in both states, not matter what neither Hillary or Obama will recognize the result as legitimate if either one loses, and their supporters will be pissed off and reject the result as well.
Obama's people will call it "racist".
Hillary's people will say it was done in a way that favors Obama.
The only possible cure is to have a Hillary/Obama ticket, or an Obama/Hillary ticket. And frankly, I see peace in the Middle East as more likely.
Florida's not having another Democratic Primary is the right choice. Any further changing of the rules will just de-legitimize the result, whichever way it falls.
The only problem is, I don't think a decision by the delegates at the DNC convention will be looked at by whoever loses (Hillary or Obama) as a legitimate decision either. Increasingly, I dislike Obama as a posturing liar who tries to hide his true record. I hope his candidacy implodes, and leaves Hillary as the last woman standing. That would be a result that eliminates questions of legitimacy or favoritism, and lets it clearly fall one way or the other.
I said it privately to another of the Democrats here:
The Democrats have screwed themselves. They changed the rules, and whether they stick to excluding Florida and Michigan primary votes, or arrange some compromise, or have another primary in both states, not matter what neither Hillary or Obama will recognize the result as legitimate if either one loses, and their supporters will be pissed off and reject the result as well.
Obama's people will call it "racist".
Hillary's people will say it was done in a way that favors Obama.
The only possible cure is to have a Hillary/Obama ticket, or an Obama/Hillary ticket. And frankly, I see peace in the Middle East as more likely.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I think your right WB. I started out being excited about my party's prospects for the general election but I would be really surprised if my party wins this election. Then again the GOP was doomed to losing a couple of months ago as well as McCain. My feeling right now is this will be one of those elections with results similar to Dukakis & Mondale. We'll win a couple of states but the majority of them will be won by McCain.
If it's any consolation, M E M, I'm just as discouraged by McCain being the last man standing in the Republican primaries.
I think McCain is a straight shooter and an honest candidate, but that he's just gotten it wrong on a few key issues.
In 2000, I was very enthusiastic about McCain until he was leveraged aside. But since then, he has enacted McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform (which has only expanded and complicated campaign finance), praised NAFTA as "good for our country" despite its gutting us of high-paying jobs, self-reliance and industrial capacity. And advocated amnesty for illegals (that fortunately failed last year) which would have similarly complicated immigration and border security.
The electable visionaries and experienced candidates on both sides (Biden, Dodd, Richardson among the Democrats; and Romney, Brown, Gingrich and perhaps one or two others among the Republicans) are now gone from the race. And what we have left are the same two dysfunctional parties, with just the slightest veneer of offering something new. All beholden to special interests, for the ability to compete with the enormous money poured into all the competing campaigns they have to remain on a par with.
Again the question for me is: Who will deal with the financial, economic, international trade, industrial and military problems that are on the precipice of destroying us?
I'm not convinced that any of these candidates, Rep, Dem, or Independent, are up to the job.
It's a really good packet on how Hillary only won Texas on account of Rush Limbaugh.
Originally Posted By: transcript
In the Democratic race for the presidential nomination this year, a new voting bloc is starting to have an impact: Republicans. And now there are allegations that GOP voters are trying to create mischief. It‘s quite a turn from a month ago, when most Republicans said they were voting in the Democratic primaries because they were inspired by Barack Obama.
HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster has the news story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hello, Columbus.
DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In his campaign speeches, it‘s something Barack Obama talks about every day, Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries.
OBAMA: Whenever I shake hands with folks afterwards, they whisper to me. They say, “Barack, I‘m a Republican.”
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: “But I support you.”
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I say, “Thank you.”
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: “Why are we whispering?”
(LAUGHTER)
SHUSTER: According to “The Boston Globe,” in the January and February Democratic primaries, Obama attracted, on average, 57 percent of self-identified Republicans, compared to about 25 percent for Hillary Clinton.
But, this month, things changed. And a lot of people are pointing to one man, Rush Limbaugh.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. I—this is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHUSTER: At the time of Limbaugh‘s remarks, John McCain had practically wrapped up the Republican nomination, and Barack Obama had reeled off 11 straight Democratic victories.
That‘s when the Clinton campaign launched its kitchen-sink strategy, and Limbaugh launched his vote-for-Hillary strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”)
LIMBAUGH: I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They‘re in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It‘s fascinating to watch.
And it‘s all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yes, I‘m—I‘m
asking people to cross over, and if they can stomach it. I know it‘s
a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton. But it will sustain this soap opera. And it‘s something I think we need. It would be fun, too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHUSTER: Did it work? In Texas and Ohio, Republican turnout in the Democratic primaries was more than twice the share of earlier primaries. And, unlike earlier contests among Republicans, Clinton drew even with Obama.
Approximately 119,000 Texas Republicans voted for her, in a state where Clinton‘s overall margin of victory over Obama was about 101,000. In other words, Republicans helped turn a virtual draw into a slight Clinton victory.
“The Boston Globe” quoted the Republican chairman of Madison County, Texas, John Taylor—quote—“Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could.”
The Republican chair in Montgomery County, Texas, Walter Wilkerson, also recognized Republicans voting in the Democratic race—quote—
“These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”
A week ago, Republicans also turned out in big numbers in Mississippi. Twelve percent of all the Democratic ballots were cast by Republicans, the highest percentage of any Democratic primary so far.
OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you.
SHUSTER: While Obama won Mississippi in a landslide, Republicans favored Clinton 3-1, swelling her vote totals and costing Obama, according to analysts, a few delegates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”)
LIMBAUGH: I want the funeral music to play at some point for the Clintons, but not this early.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHUSTER: The next big Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is a closed contest, meaning registered Democrats only.
But Republican tactical voting is still a potential factor in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico. And conservatives who identify themselves as independents can vote in North Carolina and West Virginia.
(on camera): That means, out of the nine remaining Democratic contests, conservatives could cause mischief in five of them. The question is, will it make any difference or not?
It's a really good packet on how Hillary only won Texas on account of Rush Limbaugh.
Actually, in the end, I think Obama DID get more delegates out of TX than Hillary did.
But, yeah, I've mentioned the Rush factor before, as well as my disapproval of same. Though it tends to prove something I've told MEM before, namely, that a lot of conservatives think Hillary would be easier to beat in November than Obama.
The support of superdelegates could land Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic nomination for president, but a new poll suggests most voters would be unhappy with that outcome and some likely would punish her in the general election.
By a 55-37 percent margin, Democrats and left-leaning independents surveyed for a USA Today/Gallup poll over the weekend said a Clinton win through the help of superdelegates would be "unfair" and "flawed."
One in five said they would not vote for Clinton in November if that's how she won the nomination.
More than a quarter of self-identified Clinton supporters and 77 percent of Obama supporters deemed such an outcome unfair.
The support of superdelegates could land Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic nomination for president, but a new poll suggests most voters would be unhappy with that outcome and some likely would punish her in the general election.
By a 55-37 percent margin, Democrats and left-leaning independents surveyed for a USA Today/Gallup poll over the weekend said a Clinton win through the help of superdelegates would be "unfair" and "flawed."
One in five said they would not vote for Clinton in November if that's how she won the nomination.
More than a quarter of self-identified Clinton supporters and 77 percent of Obama supporters deemed such an outcome unfair.
Since neither candidate can win without the help of superdelegates the poll seems poorly worded. In any case I would agree if at the end of the day, Obama had the most delegates & the popular vote it wouldn't go well for the party nor be a good win for Hillary. However if Hillary wins the popular vote it won't matter if Obama has a couple more delegates than her. Superdelegates would be voting against what the majority wanted to support Obama.
Without a rule-change to include votes from Michigan and Florida, Obama will inevitably have more votes than Hillary. Even though his is the more wounded candidacy at this point (Rev. Wright, close association with the indicted Tony Rezko, Obama's insincerity regarding NAFTA in communication with the Canadian government, and lying to American voters, his evasive voting record, etc.)
But none of the Dems will be man enough to deny the nomination to the first viable african-American candidate, who has the highest share of delegates. And risk being labelled a racist.
The Washington Post reports a major security breach involving Barack Obama's passport...This is not good. We know how much we can trust anyone who works for George Bush. NOT AT ALL.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I also recall Hillary's people had a history of getting into confidential FBI records. Are you sure, given that Hillary has more to lose vis a vis Obama than a guy who isn't running, that HER people didn't reach out to these employees?
A State Department official in charge of the department during two of the three breaches into the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama has a direct tie to Bill and Hillary Clinton and department officials are investigating whether she furnished information to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Maura Harty was in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama's passport. Former President Bill Clinton appointed her to an ambassadorship during his Presidency.
Harty retired last month from the State Department. She joined the State Department in 2002 after serving as ambassador to Paraguay for two years of Bill Clinton's Presidential term. Sources within the State Department told Capitol Hill Blue this morning that revelations of the first two passport breaches surfaced only after Harty left her State Department job.
Bloggers on both the left and right are reporting that the Clintons may have been cozier with Obama's racist minister than once thought.
It's not really significant that a President had his picture taken with someone like Wright. They've had pictures taken with tousands of people. What is worth noting is that it's Obama who's been peddling these photos. Nice epilogue to his speach on race
Without a rule-change to include votes from Michigan and Florida, Obama will inevitably have more votes than Hillary. Even though his is the more wounded candidacy at this point (Rev. Wright, close association with the indicted Tony Rezko, Obama's insincerity regarding NAFTA in communication with the Canadian government, and lying to American voters, his evasive voting record, etc.)
But none of the Dems will be man enough to deny the nomination to the first viable african-American candidate, who has the highest share of delegates. And risk being labelled a racist.
Although Hillary's wagon isn't far behind.
I wouldn't be to sure on that. Hillary still has more superdelegates in her corner that don't seem to be afraid of being labelled racist. However, I do get the feeling that the leaders in my party will try to pressure the superdelegates to give it to Obama. These are the same old windbags that when Obama talks about needing change comes to my mind.
Without a rule-change to include votes from Michigan and Florida, Obama will inevitably have more votes than Hillary. Even though his is the more wounded candidacy at this point (Rev. Wright, close association with the indicted Tony Rezko, Obama's insincerity regarding NAFTA in communication with the Canadian government, and lying to American voters, his evasive voting record, etc.)
But none of the Dems will be man enough to deny the nomination to the first viable african-American candidate, who has the highest share of delegates. And risk being labelled a racist.
Although Hillary's wagon isn't far behind.
I wouldn't be to sure on that. Hillary still has more superdelegates in her corner that don't seem to be afraid of being labelled racist. However, I do get the feeling that the leaders in my party will try to pressure the superdelegates to give it to Obama. These are the same old windbags that when Obama talks about needing change comes to my mind.
Honestly dude. No one is worrying about the superdelegates being labeled "racist". That's all concoction and continuation of trying to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate" and thus the guy who instantly screams "racism" on YOUR part I think.
The worry is that Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary and thus Hillary trying to swing the super delegates to her side would in effect nullify what so far has been a pretty democratic process, with backroom deals among party bosses in smoky rooms.
It's certainly disappointing to see you going to that black man=cries of racism route though. Especially considering Obama is just as much white as he is black.
By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 3/21/08 1:32 PM EST
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.
In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe...
I don't think many Hillary supporters in Florida & Mich. feel it's been a very democratic process. BTW Whomod would you feel Obama was cheated if he had more pledged delegates but Hillary ended up having the popular vote?
The problem with the argument is that Obama leads in this category, too, and the available evidence suggests he’s also unlikely to relinquish this advantage.... For the record, Senator Obama came out of the Mississippi primary with an advantage of 99,000 votes over Senator Clinton, more than I had predicted based on his edge in Alabama. That puts his margin in the nationwide popular vote — by a measure that includes Florida but not Michigan — at more than 500,000...it will take a colossal victory, almost 60%, for Clinton to get a 200,000 vote edge out of Pennsylvania. And if she does that, there is no plausible scheme under which she could pick up the remaining 300,000 votes to gain even the dubious moral claim of an edge in the popular vote
If we include Florida... Obama still has a 400,000 vote lead. If we include Florida and Michigan... Obama still leads, though by a modest 80,000-vote margin.
But here’s a twist — the RCP [popular vote] totals don’t include the popular votes from Iowa, Nevada, Washington state, and Maine, three of which Obama won by wide margins. (In other words, his sizable popular vote lead is even bigger than it appears.)
Yeah there's alot of Obama supporters who want to declare that Hillary can't win mathmatically. Her lead in PA keeps growing though & she's now beating Obama in national polls since the Wright ordeal. Huge landslide wins for her are not out of the question. And if she doesn't quite make it but it's clear that voters changed their mind about Obama, well I don't think it's quite in the bag for him either.
Yeah there's alot of Obama supporters who want to declare that Hillary can't win mathmatically. Her lead in PA keeps growing though & she's now beating Obama in national polls since the Wright ordeal. Huge landslide wins for her are not out of the question. And if she doesn't quite make it but it's clear that voters changed their mind about Obama, well I don't think it's quite in the bag for him either.
It doesn't matter. Everyone knows she's going to win PA. that is not some "proof" of her having a chance. It's just more proof that even if she does well, she still can't catch up to Obama's delegate count.
I swear your incessant spin makes me feel like if i'm chatting with Mark Penn or Bill Clinton!
The only thing people are waiting for is for the rest of the big Democrats to support Obama as Richardson just did and thus pressure her to drop out of the race and stop trying to sabotage the Democratic Party out of petulance..
and oh, ....'The Fact Checker' at The Washington Post catches Hillary outright lying about her trip to Bosnia .
100% outright lie. She claimed that there was no welcoming ceremony because it was too dangerous, sniper fire was everywhere, she had to run for cover.
Not so much.
In the photo below, Hillary heroically strangles a Bosnian sniper who was about to play checkers with Chelsea. Seriously, read the caption, which quotes Hillary's description of the scene, then check out the photo of the actual scene.
She's doing pretty much what all First Ladies do. But to her, she's Mata Hari living a life of intrigue and danger on missions for The United States on behalf of her husband.
That’s the message out of the Clinton campaign today. On a conference call with reporters Saturday, campaign aides responded to an article posted on politico.com that states that “Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning” the nomination. The article also quotes an anonymous “important Clinton adviser” as saying privately that Clinton has no more than a ten percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama.
“Sen. Clinton has been counted out many times in this campaign,” said communications director Howard Wolfson.
Wolfson said he had no idea who the unnamed “important Clinton advisor” was, but said that the ten percent comment did not reflect sentiment within the campaign.
“There are ten states yet to come. We have millions more Americans who are going to weigh in and express their preferences,” he said.
I wrote a post Friday about the Washington Post's evisceration of the claims Hillary Clinton made on March 17th about her 1996 trip to Bosnia vs. what really happened in 1996. She earned "four Pinnochios" from the Post because her version of what happened "is simply not credible."
From the Clinton campaign, we've been hearing a fictional re-write of the trip to Bosnia to burnish her foreign policy cred. Here is how, less than one week ago, Hillary described the harrowing trip:
Quote:
"I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia... we came in in an evasive maneuver... I remember landing under sniper fire... there was no greeting ceremony... we ran with our heads down, we basically were told to run to our cars... there was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, we basically were told to run to our cars, that is what happened."
Yeah... not so much.
A campaign aide to Clinton, Lissa Muscatine, did write and send her version of the trip to the Washington Post and it was added at 6:45 pm to the article on Friday. Unfortunately for Hillary, Muscatine's version is not quite the same as Hillary's - there was no recollection of the welcoming ceremony actually being canceled, nor of them being forced under fire to run to their cars with their heads down (in fact, video footage, as you shall see, shows no head-down running, but rather, Hillary and company being greeted by an eight-year old child bearing flowers).
Instead, this episode has undermined her credibility. Now, you can see for yourself what happened in Tuzla when Hillary landed -- and the JedReport has prepared the trailer for "Hillary in Tuzla: The Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire":
