The simple fact is: both Hillary and Obama (and McCain) have gaffs, inconsistencies, mis-statements, and outright lies they've said. And each has skeletons in their closet that, if explored, could destroy any one of their candidacies.
It ain't over till it's over.
As you can tell, Whomod wants it over now so that he can devote more time to trying to make McCain the worst thing ever. If he can ignore his own candidate's flaws though, what's it supposed to mean to me or anyone when he devotes so much time to others?
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and make me your whipping boy for your candidates train wreck of a campaign which you still refuse to acknowledge.
BTW, she looked pretty tired and defeated at todays hearings. Obama looked pretty chipper and energetic though.
I'm not making you the whipping boy though Whomod. You've stated a couple of times that if Hillary was out of the way then you would spend more time on McCain.
Btw it's fairly easy for a 60 yr old women to look tired, and yes Obama does play to the TV audience better (unless it involves talking technical things). That doesn't make him better though.
I'm not making you the whipping boy though Whomod. You've stated a couple of times that if Hillary was out of the way then you would spend more time on McCain.
Btw it's fairly easy for a 60 yr old women to look tired, and yes Obama does play to the TV audience better (unless it involves talking technical things). That doesn't make him better though.
Does Hillary look better when both her campaign manager and now her own husband were taking money to support a trade deal that Hillary claims she opposes?
You can't always control what your spouse does. However, given that Hillary and Bill tend to say "two for the price of one" whenever they think it's a convenient selling point, I don't see how one can't be suspicious when Bill does stuff like this.
Up your nose with a rubber hose.I honestly don't see how she'll control Bill unless there's some kind of shock collar involved and she has a great trigger finger.
It's a dog eat dog world & I'm wearing milkbone underwear.
Clinton Regains Ground In Pennsylvania Against Obama
(4/9/08) A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton regaining some ground she’d previously lost to Sen. Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary race.
Here are the results of our new poll:
Clinton 48% Obama 38% Undecided 13%*
*Results when rounded off may not add up to 100%
The survey was conducted April 8 among 661 likely registered voters in the April 22 Pennsylvania Democratic primary. The data have been weighted for age, race and gender.
InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery: “Sen. Clinton has made progress among both men and among all white voters. Her support among women also appears to be consolidating.
“My guess is that whatever damage she might have sustained by recent gaffs and media missteps have been largely discounted by the public. The race in Pennsylvania is clearly still fluid. But, at least for now, it’s tending back towards the result that was originally anticipated by most – a Clinton lead.
“Her big task now is to maintain a double-digit lead and expand on it; Obama’s is to force her back into a single-digit race. Clinton needs a resounding victory in Pennsylvania to relieve the pressure on her to quit the presidential race,” said Towery.
Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
That's an old story Whomod. I can post rehashes of Obama's relationships with Rezco & Obama's double talk about Nafta if you want to go that route. (remember that memo about Canada?)
At any rate, she's not & hasn't been silent for awhile & she's made alot of the right kind of enemies IMHO that make that time sitting on a Wallmart board forgivable.
That's an old story Whomod. I can post rehashes of Obama's relationships with Rezco & Obama's double talk about Nafta if you want to go that route. (remember that memo about Canada?)
At any rate, she's not & hasn't been silent for awhile & she's made alot of the right kind of enemies IMHO that make that time sitting on a Wallmart board forgivable.
Well that's not entirely true. It became 'current' again after the company that used to videotape Wal-Mat's corporate meetings decided to auction off the videos. So now we actually have video of hillary just sitting there and agreeing with some of the harsh union busting talk in those meetings.
What I notice about you is that you seem to bring up the same old stuff about Obama EVERY TIME while Hillary provides an almost daily amount of new material to question her judgement and veracity.
(Although, it's just enough to pay Mark Penn's bill)
At the end of February, the Clinton campaign owed a wide range of creditors $8.7 million dollars (including $2.5 million to Mark Penn's firm) -- "earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat." Now, that's a lot of debt considering the campaign only had $11.4 million available to spend at the end of February. Don't forget, there's still that $5 million loan. Tonight, Jed reports (with video) that UC Davis is considering legal action to collect the debt it is owed by the Clinton campaign.
Basically, at the end of February, the Clinton campaign was in the red. We've been told that the campaign raised "about $20 million" for March (my guess is that "about" means "under") and that "almost all" is for the primary. It's not unrealistic to imagine that the Clinton campaign spent "about" $20 million in March, if not more (and that doesn't include paying off all the massive debt from February). So cash is really tight.
That's why this influx of cash from the Elton John concert should be welcome news to all those small business owners being stiffed by the Clinton campaign. Get on the phone fast, though. You know the Clinton campaign is going to put that money right into t.v. ads. Also, be forewarned that Mark Penn is owed $2.5 million so all the proceeds from the concert could just end up in his pocket.
Sure, we know that the Clinton's earned $109 million over the past seven years. But unless she makes another big loan to the campaign, that's not going to help all those people who are owed money by the campaign. So act fast, creditors. Get to the Clinton campaign before Mark Penn swoops in and takes the whole Elton John haul.
Let's review the current situation: This thing is over. Clinton lost.
But then, a top Clinton surrogate writes an op-ed that attacks Obama in Wall Street Journal -- and it's pretty clear that the Clinton surrogate is just aiding and abetting John McCain. And, when you know that surrogate is the despicable Lanny Davis, it makes sense. In 2006, Davis, after all, one of Joe Lieberman's most vociferous supporters in 2006. Note again where Davis ran his op-ed: The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages. I guess if Hillary can cozy up to Richard Mellon Scaife, every other right wing venue is acceptable, too.
Reading the feigned concern of Davis about Rev. Wright, it's clear the guy has become a symbol of so much that is wrong with the Clinton campaign. Davis has been around the Clintons for too long -- and is too close to them -- for this op-ed to be anything but a Clinton campaign plant. Davis already wrote the same thing on Huffington Post. And, despite the best efforts of Hillary herself tried to make Rev. Wright the issue. It must drive the Clinton campaign crazy that, despite their best efforts, most Americans aren't caught up in the controversy about Rev. Wright.
Davis spent years defending Bill Clinton during the impeachment years. His act is so 1998. Davis might have done Hillary some good if he actually put his limited talents to use trying to dig her out of the on-going scandals and controversies that have wracked her campaign. But, that's not what the long-time Clintonistas do. They set out to attack and destroy their opponents. It's too late for Davis to stop Obama from getting the nomination, but he's willing to do whatever it takes to undermine Obama's campaign in the fall.
So Lanny Davis is aiding and abetting the GOP while Clinton's campaign is crumbling. He has the audacity to invoke concerns about "the Republican attack machine" while he's providing fodder. Unbelievable. I'd say it's a new low, but it's just a typical low.
After this campaign is finally over, there is a long list of Clinton surrogates who we should never have to see on t.v. again. Lanny Davis is right on the top of that list.
And it's the same outright lie the Clinton campaign has been repeating over and over, which means it's a talking point lie. Here is what Bill Clinton claimed today:
Quote:
"And, you know. I got tickled the other day. A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.
That's a lie. Hillary actually "misspoke" four times over four months. Then the campaign had their surrogates and press staff fan out in order to defend Hillary's lie as the truth. Now repeated members of the Clinton campaign have claimed that Hillary simply misspoke "once." It's a flat-out lie. They know it's a lie. But they seem to think that you're so stupid, you won't notice. Amazing. And what is he talking about "late at night"? Late at night? Uh, when was Hillary talking about Bosnia "late at night?" I mean, now we're not just lying, but getting into some real detailed lies. (Not to mention, so Bill is admitting that Hillary isn't really on her game "late at night." Does 3am count as "late at night"?)
Let's recap:
DECEMBER 29: Clinton That When She Went To Bosnia, "We Landed In One Of Those Corkscrew Landings And Ran Out Because They Said There Might Be Sniper Fire." Clinton, in Dubuque, Iowa on December 29, 2007, said "I was so honored to be able to travel around the world representing our country. You know, going to places that often times were, you know, not necessarily a place that a president could go. We used to say in the White House that if a place was too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the first lady. So, I had the time of my life. I was the first, you know, high- profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac. We got there and went to the base where our soldiers were and I went out to a lot of the forward operating bases to thank our young men and women in uniform and to thank the Europeans, including the Russians who were part of that effort." [CNN, 1/1/08]
FEBRUARY 29: Clinton Said That The Welcoming Ceremony In Bosnia "Had To Be Moved Inside Because Of Sniper Fire." "At the rally, she belittled the idea that Mr. Obama's 2002 speech 'at an antiwar rally' prepared him to serve as commander in chief. She said he was 'missing in action' on the recent Senate vote on Iran and as chairman of a subcommittee responsible for NATO policy in Afghanistan. Contrasting that with her own experience, she evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony 'had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.' She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was 'on the front lines' as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo." [NYT, 3/1/08]
MARCH 17: Clinton, Speaking About Her Trip To Bosnia, Said "I Remember Landing Under Sniper Fire. There Was Supposed To Be Some Kind Of A Greeting Ceremony At The Airport, But Instead We Just Ran With Our Heads Down To Get Into Vehicles To Get To Our Base." Clinton: "Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran's Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children." [Clinton speech (remarks as delivered), 3/17/08]
MARCH 17: Clinton That They Came In "In An Evasive Maneuver… There Was No Greeting Ceremony, And We Basically Were Told To Run To Our Cars. Now, That Is What Happened." "Just after the speech, Clinton reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it during a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base. 'Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests,' Clinton said. 'And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened.'" [AP, 3/25/08]
Wow. It's only been two weeks and already Bill Clinton thinks people forgot all the news footage of several instances of Hillary Clinton telling this lie.
You forget, G-man, that before this campaign, the Clintons were the demigods of the Democratic party.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Over at Newsbusters, Mark Finklestein makes a very good point:
There must be something about midnight. Because sometime between 11 PM and 3 AM, Hillary Clinton is transformed from a sleepy sexagenarian who can't keep her facts straight into a bold Commander-in-Chief dealing decisively with the crisis of the moment.
We all know about Hillary's 3 AM mastery. As for 11 PM, Bill Clinton went on the campaign trail in Indiana yesterday and chalked up his wife's problems with the truth of Tuzla to the senior moments that afflict people of her age at that time of night.
You forget, G-man, that before this campaign, the Clintons were the demigods of the Democratic party.
Well, i'd argue that Bill Clinton certainly was. Hillary Clinton has always been a polarizing figure in this country, even among Democrats, And certainly since she's been in the Senate and voted against the wishes of her constituency on the legislation that matters such as Iraq.
The shift even among women voters who because of femenist reasons were usually Hillary's strongest supporters has eroded significantly because of her tactics during this primary season.
Quote:
A new poll solely of women voters -- of all political stripes -- commissioned by Lifetime Meryl Streep is picked by a poll as best to portray Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a movie Networks shows that as the campaign has slogged on, her image has suffered among her gender.
The survey was conducted by two respected pollsters -- Kellyanne Conway (a Republican) and Celinda Lake (a Democrat). We talked to the polling director for the L.A. Times, Susan Pinkus, and she was struck by this finding: 26% of women polled said that since January, their opinion of Clinton had declined, compared with 15% who said it had improved.
So I don't think Obama's tactics or anyone else's but Hillary Clinton's (and her campaigns) is the cause of this erosion among people who used to look favorably towards her and Bill Clinton.
Now the one who is really being brought down by this primary is Bill. Like i said, Hillary has always been a polarizing figure, one of the main reasons I've always doubted her electability. But bill has always been a well respected and beloved figure in Democratic circles and even among the general public. His image, especially when he's bald face lying like I just pointed out last night certainly has taken a beating and many pundits have already noted that he's actually more of a hindrance rather than an asset to Hillary's campaign.
I'm sure he'll recover from this campaign though. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that people are rejecting the Clinton's right now just because...
People are rejecting them because right now, they're pretty contemptible. and Bill seems too involved in this race, almost as if he's the one seeking office. And Hillary of late has resorted to playing the victim. First on NPR the other day talking about double standards and then with Elton john calling the U.S. basically a bunch of misogynists.
Former president Bill Clinton is the latest to hand out a juicy fib -- circling back to Bosnia to cram four falsehoods into 23 words: His wife, he said, "one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995."
Where to start? If his telling is accurate, it depends on what the definition of "one time," "late at night," and "immediately apologized" is. (And it was 1996, not 1995.)
"Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at an event in Iowa on Dec. 29, and an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17," ABC's Sarah Amos and Eloise Harper report.
"Sen. Clinton wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board on March 24 and again apologizing the next day in Greensboro, N.C."
Politifact.com gave Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's handling of the matter the dreaded "pants on fire" designation.
ABC's Jake Tapper counts up a total of eight different misstatements/exaggerations in his telling of the tale on Thursday.
The AP is now on the story as well. This isn't good. It's also rather dumb. Bill Clinton has become a lightning rod for controversy. He's the last person the campaign should be using in public, for anything, let alone to push revisionist talking points that everyone knows aren't true. It's not clear who on the Clinton campaign came up with the bright idea to lie about Hillary's Bosnia lie, and claim that she only said it once, but it's not clear who's the bigger moron - the person who came up with the lie, or the person who agreed to say it.
Hillary Clinton has always been a polarizing figure in this country, even among Democrats
If anything, among the hard core Dems I've known, Hillary has always been, if anything, more popular than Bill. They saw her as the long suffering wife who had to sublimate her own progressive ambitions to allow Bill's career to thrive and look the other way while he canoodled interns in order to make sure that their political legacy was preserved.
"Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her," he said, "but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it."
Later in the day, the former president said that he has been ordered to hold his tongue, saying "Hillary called me and said 'You don't remember this. You weren't there, let me handle it.' I said, 'Yes ma'am.'"
I can understand a husband being overly protective about the wife
When, exactly, has Bill EVER been protective of his wife? I think a strong argument could be made that his various affairs have been anything but.
I just was talking about an example where Bill was being protective of Hillary. If you feel an affair somehow makes him incapable of ever defending his wife, you can have that opinion. I guess I've known enough married couples where things just are not so black & white.
and this piece on Hardball in regards to Bill's lie was VERY GOOD, VERY FACTUAL really detailed in outlining the lies as they happened. With video even....
and it makes the natural conclusion. If a 60 year odl Hillary is punchy at 11:00 PM and therefore not in a sharp state of mind according to Bill, how the fuck then, is she ready for that 3:00 AM phone call???
We're getting towards the end of the nomination process & the numbers are not looking so good for Obama...
Quote:
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.
Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent.
Yahoo!News It didn't take long to wipe out Obama's big lead. Hillary on the other hand is still beating McCain.
I can understand a husband being overly protective about the wife
When, exactly, has Bill EVER been protective of his wife? I think a strong argument could be made that his various affairs have been anything but.
I just was talking about an example where Bill was being protective of Hillary. If you feel an affair somehow makes him incapable of ever defending his wife, you can have that opinion. I guess I've known enough married couples where things just are not so black & white.
I don't know.
There's a theory that Bill isn't even being protective of her now, what with all the embarrassing gaffes he's been making about her candidacy.
In fact, some people think he's actually-subconsciously or otherwise-sabotaging her campaign (perhaps because he doesn't want his wife to erase his "legacy" by making him known less as a president in his own right and more as the "first male First Lady").
I can understand a husband being overly protective about the wife
When, exactly, has Bill EVER been protective of his wife? I think a strong argument could be made that his various affairs have been anything but.
I just was talking about an example where Bill was being protective of Hillary. If you feel an affair somehow makes him incapable of ever defending his wife, you can have that opinion. I guess I've known enough married couples where things just are not so black & white.
I don't know.
There's a theory that Bill isn't even being protective of her now, what with all the embarrassing gaffes he's been making about her candidacy.
In fact, some people think he's actually-subconsciously or otherwise-sabotaging her campaign (perhaps because he doesn't want his wife to erase his "legacy" by making him known less as a president in his own right and more as the "first male First Lady").
Nah. it's pretty well documented that when he became President he presented it as a twofer. This theory by "some people" seems more agenda driven character assasination.
Nah. it's pretty well documented that when he became President he presented it as a twofer.
I can believe he told that to Hillary (and others) but is it really beyond the realm of possibility that he was lying and/or just telling her what she wanted to hear?
Bill has always been a clever guy, no one can deny that. However, lately he's been making a lot of "gaffes" that hurt his wife's campaign. Given that he's normally an effective communicator you have to at least consider that he might be sabotaging her campaign, even if only subconciously.
And, in fact, today's press has storiesthat even some Clinton loyalists are starting to wonder about this:
Hillary Clinton ordered her husband Friday to keep his mouth shut and stop making excuses, which compounded her false claim that she landed "under sniper fire" on a goodwill trip to Bosnia as First Lady.
"He doesn't know when to shut up," a Clinton administration veteran groaned.
Loyalists and veterans of the Clinton White House were perplexed, comparing it to racial remarks Bill Clinton made during the South Carolina primary that hurt the campaign.
"Much of what he does baffles me. Sometimes I can't tell if he is trying to sabotage the campaign or is just off the range. I thought they had him on a short leash, but I guess not," said author and former Clinton White House aide Keith Boykin.
"My hope is it's just another short-lived distraction, but in any case, I don't know what he was thinking," added a Clinton backer.
We're getting towards the end of the nomination process & the numbers are not looking so good for Obama...
Quote:
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.
Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent.
Yahoo!News It didn't take long to wipe out Obama's big lead. Hillary on the other hand is still beating McCain.
what the hell are you talking about?? Obama needs only 33% of SuperDelegates to get nomination.
The reason every single top liberal blog and a lot of the base has had it with Hillary is because she already lost the nomination, she knows she already lost, and now is throwing a Hail Mary pass that threatens to divide our party and jeopardize our chances against John McCain in the fall. You have to wonder how well Hillary's staff is sleeping at night, knowing they lost this thing two months ago, and are now simply doing the Republicans' bidding. I suspect most Hillary staffers are good Democrats, simply doing their job. But at some point, your loyalty to the party, to the cause, needs to kick in. They're not just wasting their time, they're hurting their own party and all of us. And that's nothing to be proud of.
These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let’s go to the superdelegates.
At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top.
Getting 1/3rd of suerdelegates doesn't seem that hard as opposed to getting 2/3rds of them with a floundering campaign.
Nah. it's pretty well documented that when he became President he presented it as a twofer.
I can believe he told that to Hillary (and others) but is it really beyond the realm of possibility that he was lying and/or just telling her what she wanted to hear?
Bill has always been a clever guy, no one can deny that. However, lately he's been making a lot of "gaffes" that hurt his wife's campaign. Given that he's normally an effective communicator you have to at least consider that he might be sabotaging her campaign, even if only subconciously. ...
The two for one was a pretty public statement I believe & is reflective of how he treated Hillary in the White House. In fact it lead to many using that against them by portraying her as America's first unelected female president. And it's very hard to believe that he doesn't want back into the White House.
We're getting towards the end of the nomination process & the numbers are not looking so good for Obama...
Quote:
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.
Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent.
Yahoo!News It didn't take long to wipe out Obama's big lead. Hillary on the other hand is still beating McCain.
what the hell are you talking about?? Obama needs only 33% of SuperDelegates to get nomination.
The reason every single top liberal blog and a lot of the base has had it with Hillary is because she already lost the nomination, she knows she already lost, and now is throwing a Hail Mary pass that threatens to divide our party and jeopardize our chances against John McCain in the fall. You have to wonder how well Hillary's staff is sleeping at night, knowing they lost this thing two months ago, and are now simply doing the Republicans' bidding. I suspect most Hillary staffers are good Democrats, simply doing their job. But at some point, your loyalty to the party, to the cause, needs to kick in. They're not just wasting their time, they're hurting their own party and all of us. And that's nothing to be proud of.
These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let’s go to the superdelegates.
At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top.
Getting 1/3rd of suerdelegates doesn't seem that hard as opposed to getting 2/3rds of them with a floundering campaign.
Well let's hope the superdelegates get a hold of these poll numbers that show Obama's steep downhill slide into a tie with McCain while we still have Hillary beating McCain. Hope the PA voters take notice too.
BTW I'm not sure how the delegate thing works but I think you need so many pledged delegates to get over the top. We passed that point a while back where either of them can do that. Now it's a case of who has the most delegates total at convention time. If Hillary closes strong & is beating McCain while Obama isn't, the superdelegates wouldn't be doing their job picking the unelectable Obama.
We're getting towards the end of the nomination process & the numbers are not looking so good for Obama...
Quote:
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.
Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent.
Yahoo!News It didn't take long to wipe out Obama's big lead. Hillary on the other hand is still beating McCain.
what the hell are you talking about?? Obama needs only 33% of SuperDelegates to get nomination.
The reason every single top liberal blog and a lot of the base has had it with Hillary is because she already lost the nomination, she knows she already lost, and now is throwing a Hail Mary pass that threatens to divide our party and jeopardize our chances against John McCain in the fall. You have to wonder how well Hillary's staff is sleeping at night, knowing they lost this thing two months ago, and are now simply doing the Republicans' bidding. I suspect most Hillary staffers are good Democrats, simply doing their job. But at some point, your loyalty to the party, to the cause, needs to kick in. They're not just wasting their time, they're hurting their own party and all of us. And that's nothing to be proud of.
These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let’s go to the superdelegates.
At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top.
Getting 1/3rd of suerdelegates doesn't seem that hard as opposed to getting 2/3rds of them with a floundering campaign.
Well let's hope the superdelegates get a hold of these poll numbers that show Obama's steep downhill slide into a tie with McCain while we still have Hillary beating McCain. Hope the PA voters take notice too.
BTW I'm not sure how the delegate thing works but I think you need so many pledged delegates to get over the top. We passed that point a while back where either of them can do that. Now it's a case of who has the most delegates total at convention time. If Hillary closes strong & is beating McCain while Obama isn't, the superdelegates wouldn't be doing their job picking the unelectable Obama.
Only in your spin fueled fantasy world can the guy that's about 150 delegate points ahead and the one that only needs 1/3rd of the superdelegates as opposed to 2/3rds of them to win, is the unelectable one.
Plus why is Obama, who has sparked a Democratic registration, party switching, and fund raising extraveganza the like of which has never been seen in modern politics, unelectable but the candidate that is famous for being a habitual liar and one of the most polarizing figures in politics is the stronger candidate?
“The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf, also they would kill babies” said retiring Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.)
"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have, perhaps even more than Fonzie surfing in boots." - Barry Goldwater
20 years, millions of scapegoats, and hundreds of denials later(but they sure looked cool)
We're getting towards the end of the nomination process & the numbers are not looking so good for Obama...
Quote:
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.
Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent.
Yahoo!News It didn't take long to wipe out Obama's big lead. Hillary on the other hand is still beating McCain.
what the hell are you talking about?? Obama needs only 33% of SuperDelegates to get nomination.
The reason every single top liberal blog and a lot of the base has had it with Hillary is because she already lost the nomination, she knows she already lost, and now is throwing a Hail Mary pass that threatens to divide our party and jeopardize our chances against John McCain in the fall. You have to wonder how well Hillary's staff is sleeping at night, knowing they lost this thing two months ago, and are now simply doing the Republicans' bidding. I suspect most Hillary staffers are good Democrats, simply doing their job. But at some point, your loyalty to the party, to the cause, needs to kick in. They're not just wasting their time, they're hurting their own party and all of us. And that's nothing to be proud of.
These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let’s go to the superdelegates.
At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top.
Getting 1/3rd of suerdelegates doesn't seem that hard as opposed to getting 2/3rds of them with a floundering campaign.
Well let's hope the superdelegates get a hold of these poll numbers that show Obama's steep downhill slide into a tie with McCain while we still have Hillary beating McCain. Hope the PA voters take notice too.
BTW I'm not sure how the delegate thing works but I think you need so many pledged delegates to get over the top. We passed that point a while back where either of them can do that. Now it's a case of who has the most delegates total at convention time. If Hillary closes strong & is beating McCain while Obama isn't, the superdelegates wouldn't be doing their job picking the unelectable Obama.
Only in your spin fueled fantasy world can the guy that's about 150 delegate points ahead and the one that only needs 1/3rd of the superdelegates as opposed to 2/3rds of them to win, is the unelectable one.
Plus why is Obama, who has sparked a Democratic registration, party switching, and fund raising extraveganza the like of which has never been seen in modern politics, unelectable but the candidate that is famous for being a habitual liar and one of the most polarizing figures in politics is the stronger candidate?
I posted a poll that shows her doing better against McCain than Obama. It took less than a month to wipe out his lead. Hillary on the other hand seems to be able to hold her own against sustained attacks from the far left & right.
I posted another poll a couple of weeks ago that showed at that time she could win 3 big swing states that Obama couldn't. His pledged delegates are becoming less of an indicator of wether he's the one to send up against McCain.
