I'm not sure how Hillary offering the VP slot to Obama is "reaching out" in this case, given that she was in second place when she made the "offer." Typically, the person in second place is in no position to offer a subordinate role to the person in first place.
More likely, as many commentators noted, Hillary's "offer" was simply an attempt to obscure Obama's frontrunner status.
I actually agree, that's what she was trying to do.
But she was also showing a willingness, at some point, to join political forces with Obama. I think an appropriate response from Obama would have been that once the primaries were done (with humor), he would gladly accept Hillary as his Vice President. But the response he gave at the time seemed to say clearly that there were no deals, no unity, it would be either him or her.
Although past bitter rivals have often surprisingly come together at battle's end. Reagan and Bush Sr. And as I listed above, McCain and Romney.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton walked somberly into a press conference Tuesday and stood before microphones. Reporters tensed, sensing something big might be afoot.
"This has been a very hard fought race," she said. "We clearly need to do something so that our party and our people can make the right decision. So, I have a proposal."
The tension grew. Reporters shifted in their seats. Was she dropping out of the race? Offering to join rival Barack Obama as his running mate?
April Fools!
"Today, I am challenging Senator Obama to a bowl-off," Clinton said, provoking relieved laughs from the assembled scribes.
Clinton carried on, making reference to Obama's disastrous outing at a Pennsylvania bowling alley Saturday.
"A bowling night. Right here in Pennsylvania. The winner take all," she went on. "I'll even spot him two frames."
"It is time for his campaign to get out of the gutter and allow all the pins to be counted. I'm prepared to play this game all the way to the tenth frame. When this game is over, the American people will know that when that phone rings at 3 a.m., they'll have a president ready to bowl on day one."
"Let's strike a deal and go bowling for delegates. We don't have a moment to spare, because it's already April Fool's Day. Happy April Fool's Day."
That was actually pretty damn funny.
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."
I'm not sure how Hillary offering the VP slot to Obama is "reaching out" in this case, given that she was in second place when she made the "offer." Typically, the person in second place is in no position to offer a subordinate role to the person in first place.
More likely, as many commentators noted, Hillary's "offer" was simply an attempt to obscure Obama's frontrunner status.
I repeatedly asked Wonder Boy how it makes any sort of sense for the person trailing in second place to offer the Vice Presidency to the front runner. It's nonsensical. Or as Obama says...
Obama reminds Hillary who the "Real Front-Runner" Is
Quote:
Oh, and guys: the term "tap" has long been used in politics to mean "nominate" or "choose" for an office. I don't know why the press should stop using it, simply because it currently has another meaning which may, given the shelf life of slang, vanish in a few years.
Yes yes, but it still makes me chuckle every time the press uses it. It's not as if I don't know what they mean, i'm just having a bit of fun with it.
Remember, I work in a part of the country where these slang words usually originate from. So i tend to hear them a lot more than say, Wonder Boy does.
In a recent poll of 1,503 adults, conducted by Pew Research Center, Senator Barrack Obama seems to be winning the popularity contest between Democratic Candidates. Twice as many Democrats, 28% feel Hillary Clinton is “phony,” as compared to 14% whole felt the same about Obama.
Over 80% felt Obama was inspiring, down to earth, and honest. Compared to only mid to low 60% for Clinton. However, 86% of respondents feel Clinton is more patriotic than her counterpart.
What does all of this mean? It seems to point to the fact that if you are going to lie about dodging sniper fire, be prepared to take a hit in the credibility department!
But she was also showing a willingness, at some point, to join political forces with Obama. I think an appropriate response from Obama would have been that once the primaries were done (with humor), he would gladly accept Hillary as his Vice President. But the response he gave at the time seemed to say clearly that there were no deals, no unity, it would be either him or her.
Like I said (and as your YouTube clip of Obama above confirms), Obama is just as divisive of Democrats as Hillary is accused of being. Obama is clearly saying: you have to choose Hillary Clinton or me. No coalitions.
Hillary is open to uniting forces, Obama is not. So it's partisan against Hillary to say that she alone is dividing the Democrats.
Obama was pointing out Clinton's hypocrisy in saying he's not qualified to lead on Day 1 but at the same time saying he'd be a great VP candidate, which in fact puts him a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It's speaking out of both sides of your mouth. And as G-Man said, it's trying to deceptively minimize his front runner status by having the person trailing in every sense of the word, offering a subordinate role, to quote G-Man, to the front runner.
Quote:
Typically, the person in second place is in no position to offer a subordinate role to the person in first place.
More likely, as many commentators noted, Hillary's "offer" was simply an attempt to obscure Obama's frontrunner status.
I don't see why Obama is incapable of changing his mind either. but as I posted in a recent poll, it's not exactly what the Democratic base wants. It simply underscores that Obama is a more likeable and unifying force than Hillary Clinton is.
Obama was pointing out Clinton's hypocrisy in saying he's not qualified to lead on Day 1 but at the same time saying he'd be a great VP candidate, which in fact puts him a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It's speaking out of both sides of your mouth. And as G-Man said, it's trying to deceptively minimize his front runner status by having the person trailing in every sense of the word, offering a subordinate role, to quote G-Man, to the front runner.
Obama: "Typically, the person in second place is in no position to offer a subordinate role to the person in first place.
More likely, as many commentators noted, Hillary's "offer" was simply an attempt to obscure Obama's frontrunner status."
I don't see why Obama is incapable of changing his mind either. but as I posted in a recent poll, it's not exactly what the Democratic base wants. It simply underscores that Obama is a more likeable and unifying force than Hillary Clinton is.
The Democratic base wants a united party.
Like I said: Hillary is blamed for dividing the party. But where Hillary opened the door to uniting forces, Obama slammed it shut, and basically said she's too tainted to have a place in his White House.
... I don't see why Obama is incapable of changing his mind either. but as I posted in a recent poll, it's not exactly what the Democratic base wants. It simply underscores that Obama is a more likeable and unifying force than Hillary Clinton is.
Ok Obama may be percieved as more likable & a unifying force but it's a crock of shit. This has been one of the most divisive races I can remember & you can't lay the blame all on Hillary. As WB pointed out, at least she's talked about a joint ticket. It wasn't just an offer for him to be her VP either. Hillary just naturally pushed for her to have the top slot but there was general talk about a unity ticket.
She's also lead in talk about how everyone needs to back the eventual nominee. While Obama is either "yeah what she said" or "My voters won't back her". There's been recent polling suggesting quite the opposite.
Actually, BSAMS, at this point, I think Obama leads the popular vote too and Hillary is just holding out hope that, as the primaries go on she'll take the lead in that.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer."
Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
WITHOUT HONOR In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.
Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."
The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.
Did you read the other reviews by the author on that page? Every one of them makes clear that he writes from a liberal perspective. As such, its not surprising he'd be suspicious, if not overly so, of a book that attacked a prominent Democrat.
Did you read the other reviews by the author on that page? Every one of them makes clear that he writes from a liberal perspective. As such, its not surprising he'd be suspicious, if not overly so, of a book that attacked a prominent Democrat.
It doesn't matter what his perspective is, no evidence is no evidence. He makes some very serious charges without a shred of evidence.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer."
Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
WITHOUT HONOR In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.
Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."
The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.
I think this represents the RKMB political forum at its best: two opposing political views, each with documentation to back them up.
Zeifman does say that he still has the incriminating fraudulent brief that Hillary wrote, and supporting documents to prove its misrepresentations. If those exist, I can't imagine Hillary's opposition would not reveal it.
If it's true, then this is the first seriously unethical thing I've seen Hillary Clinton do during this campaign. At this late date, while unquestionably damaging, it could be dismissed by the Hillary campaign as an indiscretion of youth, since it was over 30 years ago. The same way I assume McCain would field questions about the Charles Keating scandal, if he is asked. Ted Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating, but is today the 2nd longest serving Senator in the Capitol. Although as precarious as Hillary's stand is in the campaign, I think it might be just enough to end her candidacy.
The rest of her tactics so far, however acrimonious, don't extend beyond the maneuverings, slight exaggerations and pandering that are typical of presidential candidates, past and present.
Actually, BSAMS, at this point, I think Obama leads the popular vote too and Hillary is just holding out hope that, as the primaries go on she'll take the lead in that.
Or that she'll damage Obama enough to finally sway the superdelegates. From Sunday's LA Times:
Quote:
Not only do Clinton aides believe that scrutinizing the caucus process can help them squeeze out more delegates, due to math or certification errors,
.. which they failed to do.
Quote:
but they believe that a drumbeat of complaints about the caucuses bolsters Clinton's argument to superdelegates that they are not as legitimate as primary elections. In addition, the fighting delays the official delegate count, which helps keep Obama's lead from growing too fast and gives Clinton more time to raise questions about his electability.
That's pretty much her strategy. Stay in the race and kick up dirt and hope enough sticks on Obama to where the superdelegates have no other choice but to accept her as the candidate.
of course though the longer she keeps this up and strongarms her way thru the party, the more backlash she's generating. From Saturday's LA Times:
Quote:
"There's a lot of feeling among Democrats on the Hill that the Clintons did very little for the party. It was all about them," said one Democratic lawmaker, an Obama supporter who did not want to be identified in order to preserve a working relationship with Clinton. "We lost seats in Congress, we lost governorships, we lost statehouses. . . . And the whole time defending [President Clinton] through the impeachment process, the entire Democratic agenda got shelved."
The latent tensions might be just so much psychodrama, or a political footnote, except that Clinton is now turning to some of the same lawmakers who felt used and abused -- along with state party leaders, who have their own gripes -- to help win the party's presidential nomination.
"It sure would be helpful to her if there was a little more personal loyalty to her in the hearts of those 300 or 400 people who are ultimately going to decide this," said one neutral Democratic strategist who, like most of those critical of the Clintons, did not want to be identified to avoid angering the couple.
And of course the polls show her in steady decline and voters losing trust in Clinton.
Still, she continues to try to sell superdelegates on her electability. And, her campaigni is trying anything and everything to prove the point. Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central was told by top Clinton strategist Harold Ickes that Rev. Wright is a "key topic" for the Clinton camp's talks with the superdelegates. Allegedly thirty-five years of experience and that's the "key topic"? That's actually pathetic.
I imagine superdelegates aren't just listening to the Clinton campaign spin. Chances are, many of them are looking at polls. And, if anything, the constant flow of independent polling numbers undermines Clinton's electability argument. The longer the race goes on, the worse it is getting for Clinton. Today's Wall Street Journal analysis of polling on the trust issue doesn't help:
Quote:
In the weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton not only lags Sen. Barack Obama in the race for delegates, she also is losing ground in her effort to convince voters that she is trustworthy.
The debate over her record has left Sen. Clinton confronting her lowest approval rating since April 2006, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week.
According to the survey, 29% of the approximately 1,000 respondents said they had a very negative opinion of Sen. Clinton compared with 15% for Sen. Barack Obama and 12% for Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.
A Pew Research survey released last week shows 29% of Democratic voters describe Sen. Clinton as "phony," compared with 14% for Sen. Obama.
The Clinton campaign has created this dynamic. And, Hillary's own words continue to undermine her. As Jed shows again, there is plenty of material:
it's funny whomod admits more Democrats have voted for Hilary than Obama, yet he still sticks to his Dems like Obama better.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Actually, BSAMS, at this point, I think Obama leads the popular vote too and Hillary is just holding out hope that, as the primaries go on she'll take the lead in that.
Did you read the other reviews by the author on that page? Every one of them makes clear that he writes from a liberal perspective. As such, its not surprising he'd be suspicious, if not overly so, of a book that attacked a prominent Democrat.
It doesn't matter what his perspective is, no evidence is no evidence. He makes some very serious charges without a shred of evidence.
But you have to ask: what motive would he have had to fabricate these allegations over thirty years ago? It wasn't like anyone would have suspected that a young female lawyer would be running for president some day.
Clinton Leads Obama in Pennsylvania as Electorate Split by Race
By Christopher Stern
April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton is maintaining a lead over rival Barack Obama among Pennsylvania Democrats, who are split along racial lines three weeks before the state's primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
The poll also found Clinton does better than Obama in a match-up against Republican John McCain in Pennsylvania and two other swing states, Florida and Ohio. ...
Bloomberg Those 3 states represent 68 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win. There won't be a caucus anywhere in sight that helps prevent people with jobs, kids & a life in general from voting.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2008-04-023:45 PM.
But this poll says Barack Hussein Obama is within 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania. And this one has him slightly ahead.
If either turns out to be an accurate reflection of the PA results, then Hillary won't be getting the "big win" that many observers say is crucial to her effort to stay in the race.
Also, I mentioned this before, but the whole "she wins big states" argument seems specious to me. Just because one or the other beats their democrat rival in a state has no bearing on whether or not the ultimate winner would beat McCain in that state in November.
By that logic, since McCain won most of the big states on the GOP side, he's already a lock to beat either of them.
Also, I mentioned this before, but whole "she wins big states" argument seems specious to me. Just because one or the other beats their democrat rival in a state has no bearing on whether or not the ultimate winner would beat McCain in that state in November.
By that logic, since McCain won most of the big states on the GOP side, he's already a lock to beat either of them.
It sounds a lot like what I posted earlier. Tell me where you disagree with this assessment, G-Man.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Saying that Hillary is better qualified to take on John McCain because of her performance in those [large] states only makes sense if (a) you believe that the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries will not vote for Obama in the general election, and (b) you believe that no Democrat can win the traditionally red states (that is the old LOSING DLC strategy BTW as opposed to Howard Dean's successful "50 state strategy" which Obama and the new Democrats seems to be employing) . In fact, Hillary has mostly been winning the traditionally blue states —places like New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey —that are going to go blue in November anyway, no matter who is running on the Republican ticket. And even in the states Hillary has won, it has been registered Democrats, not swing voters, who have carried her to victory, while Obama has dominated her in virtually every contest among registered independents. Even in her home state of New York, Obama whipped Hillary among independents by fifteen percent. In Missouri, that margin was twenty-eight percent. In California? Thirty percent.
Obama, meanwhile, has performed extraordinarily well in traditionally red states like Louisiana, Georgia and South Carolina. And sure, some of that is due to the black vote. But all of his victories have been marked by two things: larger-than-usual turnout and routs among independents, leading to the large number of blowout wins that are basically responsible for his delegate lead at the moment. On Super Tuesday, Hillary won sixty percent of the vote in only one contest, Bill's home state of Arkansas. Obama won seven states by that margin or more.
In other words, Hillary is winning the Democratic voters who are going to vote Democratic anyway. Obama is bringing in new voters, and he's winning large numbers of swing voters in red states.
With just under three weeks to go til the Pennsylvania primary, there's a lot of air space to fill. Naturally, the state polls provide plenty of fodder. And, this week, there are a slew of polls to examine.
Over the past two days, four Pennsylvania polls have been released. Rasmussen caused a stir yesterday when it showed Clinton's lead had dropped to five: 47 - 42. Shortly thereafter, SurveyUSA released a poll giving Clinton a 12-point lead: 53 - 41 (down from her expected 19 point margin of victory). This morning, Quinnipiac gave its latest numbers for PA - Clinton was up by 9: 50 - 41. Then, this morning, came Public Policy Polling (PPP) with the first poll showing Obama in the lead, 45 - 43. The PPP lead for Clinton was 26 points a couple weeks ago. The PPP poll has a lot of people scratching their heads.
So what does it mean? Good question. Keep in mind that Pennsylvania is supposed to be Clinton's ultimate firewall state. She's not only supposed to win -- we've all been lead to believe she is going to win BIG -- like 15 - 20 points big. PA has to be a blowout for Clinton.
There are still 20 days til primary day. But, seems like this week, Pennsylvania got a lot more interesting. The big question is whether Clinton can meet the high expectations that her campaign has set.
And, I find it helpful to watch the trendline on Pollster.com:
As noted there are polls out there with differing results. There does seem to be a pattern of inflated Obama poll numbers that don't translate into actual votes.It would be foolish not to vote for a candidate because you didn't think he/she could win.
The poll I had mentioned though showed Hillary beating McCain in 3 large key states where Obama didn't fair so well. Polls are only snapshots in time of course but I doubt Florida will be attainable for Obama. Anyways I think it demonstrates that Hillary can still win this race. Then Obama can give one of his great speaches that unites the party & we win the White House!
MEM, what about the so-called "Limbaugh effect"? Couldn't part of Hillary's support in some of the key states be attributable to nothing but Dittoheads voting for her in an effort to create, as Rush puts it, "chaos" within the party?
For example, she barely eked out a popular vote victory in Texas (losing the state overall) and there were reports that her slight margin of victory there was a result of Limbaugh's listeners crossing party lines to vote for her, precisely so she would drag this thing out.
If that is, in fact, the case doesn't that call into question her entire argument in this particular area of debate?
MEM, what about the so-called "Limbaugh effect"? Couldn't part of Hillary's support in some of the key states be attributable to nothing but Dittoheads voting for her in an effort to create, as Rush puts it, "chaos" within the party?
For example, she barely eked out a popular vote victory in Texas (losing the state overall) and there were reports that her slight margin of victory there was a result of Limbaugh's listeners crossing party lines to vote for her, precisely so she would drag this thing out.
If that is, in fact, the case doesn't that call into question her entire argument in this particular area of debate?
Didn't she win Texas by 4 or 5 percentage points? If you feel that's close you should reallize there is an even much slimmer margin between her & Obama nationally. (about 1 percent) So Obama is just eke-ing out a lead?
Rush didn't jump in till the Texas caucus. Who knows how much of an effect that actually had. Whomod floated some numbers but I don't know how anyone would know who is & isn't a Republican at a caucus. Anyway, Obama had been caught in his NAFTA lie at that point & that was certainly hurting him in Ohio. Even though NAFTA isn't much of a factor in Texas it may have hurt him to be caught being a liar.
Either way, Hillary demonstrated she could beat Obama in all the previous big states ('cept his home state) without any help from the gop. At that point Obama was getting the crossover vote. (inspired republicans so I'm told)
MEM, what about the so-called "Limbaugh effect"? Couldn't part of Hillary's support in some of the key states be attributable to nothing but Dittoheads voting for her in an effort to create, as Rush puts it, "chaos" within the party?
For example, she barely eked out a popular vote victory in Texas (losing the state overall) and there were reports that her slight margin of victory there was a result of Limbaugh's listeners crossing party lines to vote for her, precisely so she would drag this thing out.
If that is, in fact, the case doesn't that call into question her entire argument in this particular area of debate?
One of the more ironic twists to come out of dittohead voting is in Mississippi. You will recall his Operation Chaos. No, not a reference to his doctor shopping. This was when he told Republicans in Mississippi to cross over and vote for Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary last week. He never mentioned, he didn‘t know, didn‘t care, wasn‘t conscious at the time, that Mississippi Republicans who did cross over in the primary could not then vote in next week‘s special Republican primary runoff for Congress in the state‘s first district. And that may wind up costing the more conservative of the two Republican candidates as many as 3,000 votes. That figures to be enough to give his more moderate rival the Republican nomination.
It gets worse. One of the Democrats running for the seat in the Mississippi first is considered more conservative than 85 percent of the Republicans in the state. Meaning Rush Limbaugh‘s big mouth may get a Democrat elected to Congress.
Someone needs to take his own advice. For the past couple weeks, Bill Clinton has been telling everyone to "chill out." That was his public message in California again this past weekend. But, behind closed doors, a different Bill Clinton emerged:
Quote:
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.
According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."
When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.
At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.
Seems Bill should be heeding his own advice. This does not sound like the voice of a winning campaign. Generally speaking, screaming at potential supporters is a bad policy. It's standard operating procedure for Team Clinton, from Bill on down.
Also, in an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post, Bill Richardson denied telling Bill Clinton that he was supporting Hillary:
Quote:
Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
Guess that means one of the parties isn't quite telling the truth. Hmmm.
I'd really rather be writing posts about John McCain's explosive temper and John McCain's tirades. But, we are where we are right now because Hillary and Bill won't accept that she's lost.
Not too long ago, Hillary Clinton was quite prepared for the process to end without most states having voted. Hillary Clinton has recently become the most ardent advocate for the long primary process:
Quote:
She has taken the calls for her to quit and re-cast them as attempts to disenfranchise the voters. In making it clear that Mrs. Clinton is not dropping out, Maggie Williams, her campaign manager, evoked a moment that for Democrats was a searing injustice: “The last time that we were told we’d better cut the process short or the sky would fall was when the Supreme Court stopped the recount in 2000.”
Always the overly dramatic responses from the Clinton campaign. And, they really do have no long term memory because, actually, Maggie Williams, your boss was very happy to cut the process short just a couple months ago. She said it would be over February 5th -- and seemed quite pleased with that prospect. What a difference a couple months makes. Jed, of course, has the video:
... I'd really rather be writing posts about John McCain's explosive temper and John McCain's tirades. But, we are where we are right now because Hillary and Bill won't accept that she's lost.
If that were the case you wouldn't be so busy Whomod. Hillary has a right to still be in this race & it's so close she can still win it. If she wasn't, you would be working on assinating McCain's character right now. Which is kind of sad. When did he & Hillary turn into the enemy Whomod?
Not too long ago, Hillary Clinton was quite prepared for the process to end without most states having voted. Hillary Clinton has recently become the most ardent advocate for the long primary process:
Quote:
She has taken the calls for her to quit and re-cast them as attempts to disenfranchise the voters. In making it clear that Mrs. Clinton is not dropping out, Maggie Williams, her campaign manager, evoked a moment that for Democrats was a searing injustice: “The last time that we were told we’d better cut the process short or the sky would fall was when the Supreme Court stopped the recount in 2000.”
Always the overly dramatic responses from the Clinton campaign. And, they really do have no long term memory because, actually, Maggie Williams, your boss was very happy to cut the process short just a couple months ago. She said it would be over February 5th -- and seemed quite pleased with that prospect. What a difference a couple months makes. Jed, of course, has the video: ...
I'm assuming by "cut the process short" they thought they would have had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by then. That magic number is part of the process Whomod & it should be noted that when it became mathmatically impossable for Obama to reach that number, also switched tactics.
Y'know MEM, i'm almost convinced. Yeah, Hillary should stay in this race a bit longer. It seems the longer she stays, the more she damages her credibility and stature while elevating Obama in kind.
Another Clinton superdelegate, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, talks about switching his vote. All that talk from the Clinton campaign about superdelegates having the right to vote for whomever they want is catching on, but not the way the Clinton campaign wants according to this report on First Read:
Quote:
Per NBC’s Tom Winter, Gov. Jon Corzine, a Clinton superdelegate, just said on CNBC's Squawk Box that he reserves the right to change his vote from Hillary Clinton if she doesn't have the popular vote. He stopped short of saying that he definitely would change his vote if she lost the popular vote and he did strongly emphasize that Sen. Clinton would win the popular vote in the end.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, another Clinton super, has said similar things regarding the popular vote.
“If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.
Jed also has a 3: AM video up that skewers Hillary's cash troubles...
Also there is a bit of an outrage right now as reports from Gov. Richardson are saying that Hillary told him that "Obama Can't Win". that seems to be her message to the superdelegates. And seeing as how she's the one behind in every sense of the word, it's creating something of a backlash for her. Good.
Quote:
I wish I could draw well enough to create an editorial cartoon showing Hillary as a 5-year-old child saying "He's going to lose," over and over again, in a sing-song kind of voice. Because that's how she's behaving.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton walked somberly into a press conference Tuesday and stood before microphones. Reporters tensed, sensing something big might be afoot.
um thedoctor? 
