Virtually every day I see another personal attack on Hillary from the Obama campaign. No one would behave this way if their sole concern were bringing Clinton supporters into the fold for November.
I realize, in your head, it probably makes perfect sense to say "she can't win" at the exact same time you say the Obama campaign is still working on "securing supers and making their case." But don't expect to persuade many people.
I guess these Clinton insiders are just lowering expectations, eh?
That may well be the honest belief of those unnamed individuals.
I didn't question that, but simply focused on the fact that the Obama campaign continues to aim personal attacks at Hillary even though they've supposedly got this thing sewn up. If "it's over" were a statement of fact rather than a rhetorical taunt, there would be no reason for them to do that.
Why don't they just shut it down?
Geez...
I realize sarcasm is pretty much the only arrow in your rhetorical quiver, but I'm afraid sarcasm will not explain why a candidate who has the primary wrapped up would continue to engage in divisive personal attacks against the candidate whose supporters he will need in November.
Have a nice day, Bob. I'm sure you have many other Clinton supporters to go taunt in the name of unity.
Facing facts is not "taunting," Steve.
Have a nice day.
sooner rather than later. if this is so, they'd want to keep close to her in PA (she'll probably win) and keep close or win by large enough margins in other states in the hope that the math will be even more impossible to ignore. if the perception continues that she's still in this, she will be less likely to drop out of the race and this will go all the way to Denver, which could be bad for the party.
No candidate is going to unilaterally disarm.
Could you please itemize the daily personal attacks that you claim HRC has endured?
According to HRC campaign Spokesman Phil Singer- Obama's asking for an an apology to the American people for suggesting that she hadn't been involved in passing NAFTA when her schedules provide "direct, incontrovertible evidence that Senator Clinton was involved on this issue" was a "personal attack."
Asking for her to release her tax returns is a personal attack akin to Ken Starr.
It seems like challenging her with anything that is difficult to respond to is a personal attack. Obama is a real Monster with all the personal attacks he is levying</snark>
Asking her to release her tax returns is a personal attack?
Please explain this faulty line of reasoning.
I was just echoing her campaign saying it was like Starr... notice the closing snark tag...
That's o-n-e person who said that 10% crap.
Personally, I'm more optimistic about Clinton's chances than I've been since before South Carolina, when I thought she was the favorite. I still think Obama's the favorite, but only on about a 60% basis. I bought at Intrader this week, where Hillary is running at about 25%, similar to IEM and Rasmussen Markets prices.
whose assessment was then corroborated by at least two more inside the campaign, according to the article.
There was very little concrete sourcing in that slippily-worded article.
What states does HRC need to win, and by how much? What elected delegate deficit can she have going into Denver? Keep in mind that taking this from BHO (with more elected delegates) would have an affect for Democrats in November and beyond. What uncommitted super delegates can HRC count on? Keep in mind that there are many more uncommitted SDs in states won by BHO than there are in states won by HRC.
Do you think the Clintons care more about their own electoral success, or that of the party as a whole? See this link for historic data: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200102/sc hneider
Seriously. The credit crunch is bad enough already. People lose a lot by betting out of wish fulfilment rather than realities. I should know. I support the English soccer team. Bye bye money.
