Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination

This is rather remarkable. Apparently in conversations with The Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, the Clinton campaign now believes that it has a 1 in 10 shot -- at best -- at ending up with the nomination. Take a look:

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. [emphasis added]

It's not often in politics that you see this kind of blunt admission from a campaign -- particularly one that has generally been disciplined enough to stay on message for the last year or more. This statement cannot merely be written off as an attempt to lower expectations, which the Clinton campaign tends to be adept at. Unlike individual contests in which a candidate's performance is lined up against expectations, on that final ballot at the Democratic convention in August the thing that really matters is who can marshal the support of 2,025 delegates (or whatever the benchmark is by that point as it could shift as a result of how and whether delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated). There's no lowering expectations there, there's only winning or losing.

Now I'm not one to say that Clinton should drop out because it's nearly mathematically impossible for her to reach the magic number of 2,025. If she wants to stay in the race, I believe she certainly has the right. Yet at the same time, if her key campaign staff understands what the situation is -- that she has, at best, a 10 percent shot at the nomination now, as they put it -- is it really worth it to try to so tarnish the candidate who has the remaining 90 percent shot at the nomination while at the same time bolstering John McCain's national security credentials?



Display:


Whoever said that... (none / 0)

...must be tired of her current job.  Maybe that morale article from last month wasn't off.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:50:01 PM EST

Re: Whoever said that... (1.75 / 4)

Anonymous, unidentified "adviser" to the Clinton campaign?? Was this Obama's grandmother?

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.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (2.00 / 0)

Hope the reporter wasn't black, since average white people fear black people.

Seriously, Obama should stick to his scripts.  He sucks when he ad libs.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (2.00 / 1)

The ethnic origin of the reporter doesn't matter. Shoddy journalism is still shoddy journalism.

My point is that just about anyone with an opinion could be termed an "important Clinton adviser," which would include Obama's granny. And those "operatives" could be the entire Obama extended family.

Quoting an anonymous source in a private conversation and extrapolating that to claim this person speaks for ANY campaign is laughable.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (2.00 / 1)

Shoddy journalism. Agreed.

My own take was, the reporter is making this stuff up out of thin air. NOTHING corroborates it in the past several days.


by Fast Pete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Do you expect people to believe that BHO threw his granny and all white people under the bus?  Also, isn't this analogy really messy, with the guts and all.  Further, how many buses would be required to run over all white folks, wouldn't a single bus breakdown at some point?  How much gas would be wasted?  ...

I've heard the whole tape, nobody ends up with tire marks.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Obama claimed his grandmother made racist comments that made him "cringe." You can't tell me that Obama has never in his entire life made racist comments about caucasians that made his grandmother "cringe." Instead of exercizing LEADERSHIP on the issue of race relations and using HIMSELF as an example, he publicly attempted to humilate one of his closest family members. That's what I call dispicable.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

I can say he has never made his granny cringe.

That stuff about his granny was already in one of his books.  Not news.  The right wing (and HRC loyal) lie that BHO throws people under the bus is new.  And, it is silly.  

As HRC may have put it:  Shame on you wingnuts (and HRC loyal), shame on you.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Making cracks about a candidate's grandmother are extremely distasteful.  Unless of course you're one of those people who like the joke about pimping Chelsea.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (2.00 / 2)

Agreed, especially when you're the candidate making cracks about your own grandmother and her alleged racists comments to further your floundering political career.

Making cracks about a candidate's grandmother are extremely distasteful.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Obama's description of the granny incident in his book made it sound nothing remotely like racist.

She came home scared of a panhandler. Period. Obama asked for a description of the guy. Like what race was he? THEN she said, oh, black.

Based on the reactions at work in NYC today, I'd say many thousands of women have now jumped off his bandwagon.


by Fast Pete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Pretty much so, except that his grandfather (when explaining not wanting to give his wife a ride instead of letting her take the bus) told young Obama that the reason his grandmother was so fearful was that the man at the bus stop (who had not been happy with her $-donation and who'd pressed her for more, before the bus finally came) was (he whispered) black.  

That's a bit more than someone passing her on the street as portrayed in the speech.

This hit the 16-18 yr old Obama like a fist in his stomach, he said.  So for himself, while feeling hurt that she feared older editions of himself, he didn't think for even a moment about the plight of women alone on the street when accosted by men wanting money.  In the speech, he made this into the equivalent of Wright's rants against America, 'God damn America!' -- probably because he felt these two incidents, emotionally, as having the same weight for him, personally.

He has always been a Blend, a mixture of the races, something that seemed a little more than the sum of the parts -- that was his appeal.

With the statements about his grandmother and the effect on him, of her 'typical white person' reaction to what he said was seeing a stranger on the street (who was black) being a wrong reaction... he has identified himself more as black rather than a good mixture of the two, which is not a good thing for his campaign of unifying the two.  Earlier, he'd seemed an embodiment of a unity of the two and everyone saw him more as someone of somewhat higher quality.  What's hurt him is a sense of actual leadership there.

 Re the speech, for many of us, that was not new material about the whys and wherefores of the black-white dilemma.


by Andrys on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

I meant to type "What's hurt him is a sense of no actual leadership...


by Andrys on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

No, I'm specifically referring to your disgusting opportunism.  Sliming him for his comments about his grandmother does you no honor whatsoever, and that is why I would never want to meet you or your friends in this particular endeavor anywhere but on this website.  You sicken me.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever said that... (none / 0)

Sliming his grandmother and holding her up to public ridicule as a racist does Obama no honor. In fact, abusing the elderly in this manner sickens me.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoever said that is too honest for Hillary's Camp (1.00 / 1)

If Mark Penn finds out who it was they will be out of a job so fast it will make their head spin.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But what diarist does NOT say IS what matters! (2.00 / 1)

Buried at the end of the Politic story:

"This issue [Wright] is the first thing that's come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument," the strategist said.

And, let's see...about 100 days for something to happen? ("...the end of June.") In a Presidential primary race? Well...golly! 100 days ago, where were we? Oh! Now I remember, Obama wasn't even close to being contention then!

So, as any long-time political observer will tell you, a LOT can happen in 100 days. 'All Obama has to do is play hold the ball,' right? Look like he's fumbling already.

This is nowhere near over. Despite the repetitive Obamamaniacal diary here on MyDD to which I'm commenting now.  One never says "never," when it comes to politics. Lots of things can happen in just a few days. Just ask Elliot Spitzer.


by bobswern on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

You really believe the Clinton campaign has stayed on message for the last year or so?  They leak like a sieve in my book.  They're constantly undermining their own message with quotes from anonymous aides.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:50:38 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

You mean it's bad when the press finds out that Penn and Ickes are having an FU yelling match?

You could be on to something.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dont think the official campaign (none / 0)

endorses this 10% view, but her changes aren't as good as Obama's, absolutely. She should jockey for VP now...


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM EST

Back to The Senate (none / 0)

So the whole country can fund a primary challenger


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

against her? in 2012? (none / 0)

Right....


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would she even run in 2012? (none / 0)

She and President Clinton would be pretty much at normal retirement age.  Now of course Senators often go on long past that point.  I simply mean the might be ready for the role of Party Elder Statescouple.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Would she even run in 2012? (2.00 / 1)

If Bill and Hill are at retirement age, what the hell is McCain???
Always the young smart asses making age and issue.
by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a dinosaur (none / 0)

nt


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm closing in on 49, Pops (none / 0)

Not as young as you think nor as I would prefer.

And, as I said, in four more years the Clintons will be, what, 64?  The standard retirement age is 65.  So maybe just maybe THEY will decide for THMSELVES to retire.  I did not suggest they should, only that THEY MIGHT DECIDE TO DO SO.

I'm typing in caps because I know they eyes tend to go at advanced age.  


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha. (2.00 / 0)

I'm a New Yorker, I've voted for her three times, and though I don't want her to be the nominee, I do want to see her serve in the Senate for as long as she wants to.

Hillary Clinton is a kick-ass Senator, and New York Democrats love her. She has that job for as long as she wants.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think VP is a good slot for her (none / 0)

I don't think she would want it, I don't think Obama would want it for her. And realistically, looking down the road at 2012, we need a younger VP to pick up the reins and run.

IF she doesn't win the nomination I think she'd be way more valuable in other venues. Staying in the Senate, for one, or I dare say she would be a very good Secretary of State. She has the creds for it, and the respect of other countries, and she knows how to get things done. Unlike a certain current SoS I could name.

But of course I'm still hoping she pulls this out somehow. :-)


by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

To Hillary it is definitely worth tarnishing Obama... first of all there is the matter that she could run in 2012 if McCain were President...there is also the matter that I think she just flat-out dislikes Obama and wants to put an end to the 50 state strategy.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:52:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 2)

Don't you mean the 48 state strategy?


by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes you are right. (none / 0)


by Molee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

Right, because it is Obama's fault that Florida is GOP run and wanted the repubs wanted to screw the Democrats down there. It is Obama's fault that the DNC decided to go homicidal rather than act with restraint and it is Obama's fault that Hillary didn't care about your votes until she needed them.

Do I think you got screwed? Absolutely. But it isn't Obama's fault...and I can't believe that you are so blind that you can't see that Hillary's motives are just as political as Obama's are.

Should you get a re-vote? Yes, I think you should, and so too should Michigan. But you can't blame the Obama campaign for balking when the rules for the re-votes, as offered, were clearly stacked against them.  


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At last! Someone admits that Obama is (none / 0)

politically motivated! Cheers!


by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At last! Someone admits that Obama is (none / 0)

Yes. If only someone would admit the same about Hillary. Of course it will be a cold day in hell before that happens around here.

Guess what; politicians are, by nature, politically motivated.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At last! Someone admits that Obama is (none / 0)

There's never been any question about Hillary being politically motivated, at least not to me. Of course she is.

It's just that the smallish cabal of Obama fans who seem to rule the blogwaves tend to present him as too pure to have political motivations. Some will even try to deny that he is in fact a "politician" at all (and a good one!), because it interferes with the purity thing they've got going.

I'm not talking about you. Just the dreaded "Some people say" syndrome, lol. (Take my comments as they are intended, please: lightly and without rancor.)


by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At last! Someone admits that Obama is (none / 0)

Hearing you say that makes it easier to do...but if you read most of the comments on this site you will see how it is hard to take anyones comments lightly or without rancor at first glance...

It is sad really; I used to think this was a great community.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At last! Someone admits that Obama is (none / 0)

I fully understand, which is why I gave that little disclaimer. I feel the same way about the Big Orange, which I used to love. Oddly, I had to leave there and come here in order to regain my respect and admiration for Obama. I don't see why we have to hate one candidate in order to prefer a different one.

I just want fact-based, reality-based analysis, regardless of the candidate. Name calling and shrill finger pointing is counter productive. At the end of the day, I hope everyone regains their sanity on all the blogs and can shake hands and refocus on the real enemy-- which isn't other progressive Democrats.

People like you give me hope that this is possible. (smiling)


by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At last! Someone admits that Obama is (2.00 / 1)

I hope you are right...and I will be keeping an eye out for you in the future... and don't take my cynicism to heart either, there are plenty of people willing to engage in intelligent discourse on both sides of the fence... we just seem to be getting drowned out by the "screamers."

And I am with you regarding Kos... it has become virtually unreadable, sadly.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

as I've been saying.  Her ego/ambition trumps her loyalty to the progressive agenda.  She cares more about her personal presidential goal than she does about making sure that neoconservatism is repudiated once and for all in November.  She cares more about her lust for power than she does about making sure that we have a democrat in the White House who won't veto the legislative branch's efforts to reinstitute the constitution.  It's the only explanation for her willingess to employ the kitchen sink strategy while running as a McCain surrogate in the face of nearly insurmountable odds.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

please recall (none / 0)

that Obama's campaign officially announced they'd be 'going after' Hillary this week. In the past they've made things up about her record and repeated them and that's going on still, with pretending Ohio wasn't a fair election because she attended wh meetings where NAFTA was discussed, pretending the schedule alone trumps the people at those meetings who remember Hillary questioning parts of NAFTA and essentially predicting how it worked to the detriment of American workers.  He also says he plans Chicago slap down, I guess it's a card game.  He likes to interpret what she 'really means" that only he can properly ascertain and then express righteous indignation. I think it's an ugly political tactic and she doesn't do it. She talks about herself and what she has to offer, and he talks about her. He can't talk about his own record so he trashes her character?  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Start Looking Under The Couch For Spare Change (2.00 / 3)

Because her funding just went Poof!


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

"is it really worth it to try to so tarnish the candidate who has the remaining 90 percent shot at the nomination while at the same time bolstering John McCain's national security credentials?"

Only if the real goal is to help McBush win so that The Clintons won't be supplanted as leaders of the Democratic Party by President Obama.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST

Lame. (2.00 / 5)

A very misleading diary.  

Where is the official quote from the Clinton campaign about the 10% chance?

"Apparently in conversations..."

LOL.


by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:55:55 PM EST

Re: Lame. (2.00 / 0)

Denial.


by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (2.00 / 0)

Projection.


by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (2.00 / 0)

Redaction.


by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (2.00 / 0)

Impudence.


by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (none / 0)

Plate tectonics.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (none / 0)

Maguffin Ragamuffins.


by jc on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good catch! Thanks. (2.00 / 0)


by cjbardy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lame. (2.00 / 0)

No one in the campaign would say that on the record.

But these are good reporters, well-respected, and as I'm sure you know, the use of anonymous sources is a normal part of journalism.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No doubt some idiot said it (2.00 / 0)

That in no way justifies the title of this diary.  An anonymous source within the Clinton campaign is absolutely not "the Clinton campaign."


by Trickster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No doubt some idiot said it (none / 0)

another homage to the last season of the wire. quotes too good to be true from unnamed sources.. yeah. I don't buy this.


by hctb on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 4)

Now do you all understand what we Obama people have been saying?  We were just stating the bare, raw, undeniable facts.  Based on the number of contests left, there is no way Hillary can win UNLESS a lot of funny business is involved.

Let's end this thing now and get on to kicking some elephant behind!


by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 0)

Great - tell us how Obama wins if Hillary stays in the race. I haven't heard how that happens, short of not counting all the votes.


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Automatic delegates


by the mollusk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 0)

Go ahead - spell it out. Give us the scenario by which wealthy donors in Florida demanding the money back, votes in Michigan and Florida not being counted, Clinton supporters refusing to support Obama in the general, and 24 hour racist Wright tv, leads to Obama getting the nomination.


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

easy ~ after the PR contest, BHO has more pledged delegates, and any remaining undeclared supers go to obama en masse, getting him above 2024.5.  


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 0)

Well, your scenario is farcical.  The vast majority of Clinton supporters will come around, and that includes the money men, who aren't stupid.

Mostly, however, I think that a combination of Pledged delegates and Super Delegates will give him the 2024 he needs to win the nomination.  It's that whole 'math' thing that people don't like to think about, yaknow?


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Proof? My take is that a large number of Clinton supporters will never under any circumstances support Obama.


by DaleA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Then it is my take that there are a number of Clinton supporters who are fools that would rather see 4 more years of Bush than 4 + years of Obama.

Are you kidding me? Seriously?


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supporting whoever wins the nomination (none / 0)

I've heard the same thing from many Obama supporters who say they will never under any circumstances vote for Hillary (including a significant number who post on the Big Orange and my own brother-in-law, who is otherwise a very rational man). That view from either camp is so shortsighted and shows such a lack of understanding about how much is at stake as to be mind boggling.

We have to somehow overcome that kind of mindset; we must remember that we love our country and Constitution more than our personal candidate of choice. Both Obama and Hillary are good liberal Democrats, and either would be a better choice than McCain.

Want 4 more years of Iraq (and maybe Iran)? Want more Alitos and Thomases on the Supreme Court? Want more torture and bankrupting of the country? Why then, if that's what you want just go ahead and be selfish by putting your personal pique above the welfare of your fellow man...

Just sayin...


by Swedie on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning (none / 0)

So he wins the nomination "technically", but loses the hearts and minds of many voters over the summer and the Democrats lose the White House and Congress over this mess. Yea - that's a real win all right.


by pan230 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore, Carter, Biden, Pelosi All Drink Cyanide? (2.00 / 0)

Rather than help Obama?

I don't think so.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

In other words, superdelegates...neither of them can win except by getting enough superdelegates. Obama's campaign is itching to end it now, for fear that slippage in the final primaries might influence superdelegates to vote for Clinton.


by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Riiight... because it is really all about beating Clinton and has nothing to do with the desire to move on and start beating the proverbial crap about of McCain.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 1)

So, as soon as Obama gets enough supers, this race is over.

Whoops...he doesn't have them.


by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, great. (2.00 / 1)

So now the only way she wins is if she cheats?  I believe this is a new low for you folks.  In light of the past couple of weeks in the Obama campaign,  Hillary need only step out of the way to avoid being hit by Obama's fall from grace.  And to think, he did it to himself with no help from her...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

Nice generalization of all Obama supporters.  No, that is not what we are saying.  But in order for her to get the nomination there is only two availible options.  She either gets the super delegates which would be perceived in a very harmful way making her unelectable.  Or Obama completely implodes and the the Super D's back her to save the party.  No one is implying that she must cheat, just that in order for her to win, one way does not look legitimate.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

I quote:

"Based on the number of contests left, there is no way Hillary can win UNLESS a lot of funny business is involved."

Pittsburgh Pete, above


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

I didn't realize that Pittsburgh Pete now spoke for me and for every other Obama supporter. Thanks for filling me in...I guess I can go home now since Pittsburgh Pete is the loan voice of Obama supporters here at MYDD.

{BTW, Pete I have no problem personally with you... its just that I am sick and tired of everything any one person says suddenly being the belief of all supporters of that persons chosen candidate.}


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

It's called fallacy. Supporters from both sides use it.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

yep..and I am widely hated for speaking up against it as much as possible.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

I know, I have declared war on this site.  I am sick of the crap both camps peddle as truth.  Progressives have become ineffective.  Imagine if we were atleast united behind DEMOCRATS we could become a powerful voice.  But instead, people only attack like fucking children.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

Between Michelle's comments, the Rezko business, and the Wright debacle, I would say the implosion you talk about is already underway.

Obama's favorables, independent support, plus head-to-head match ups against McCain and Hillary are plummeting faster than the Hindenburg.

You can dismiss the Wright affair as a "non issue" and claim his little speech fixed it, but that type of delusion is par for the course for star-struck Obama fans. It's a long way till the convention and if Obama continues to implode in the way he's been, why in the world would the Democratic Party go on with a nominee who is damaged beyond all repair?


by need some wood on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

You of course have... oh what are they... oh yes, numbers to support this assertion of a full scale fall out?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

"You can dismiss the Wright affair as a "non issue" and claim his little speech fixed it, but that type of delusion is par for the course for star-struck Obama fans. It's a long way till the convention and if Obama continues to implode in the way he's been, why in the world would the Democratic Party go on with a nominee who is damaged beyond all repair?"

Nice job making assumptions on my position.  But facts are stubborn things.  We won't clearly know how the Rev Wright-gate affected him.  If you are going to make the argument that it hurt him then provide some numbers.  Otherwise it is very hard to believe empty rhetoric.  Also, I do not think Obama is near the implosion you imply.  A hard couple weeks? Absolutely.  But to act as if the stake is driven through the heart is "delusional" I really do not enjoy personal attacks on my judgement in that I can't decide for myself to support.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

His "little speech"?  Right out of the Penn play book.


by Tunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

I don't get this idea that the superdelegates can't go against a majority of pledged delegates.

Last I checked, more Democrats support Clinton than Obama.  I'm one of that majority.  It would be fine with me if they backed Clinton.  If Obama continues to slide, it isn't fine with me if they back Obama.  I might even riot in the streets.  I'm sort of looking forward to that. It isn't as if, considering the mess with Florida or Michigan, Obama has some democratic mandate.


by Kanzeon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

I'm not saying its right that the Super D's can't. But tell that to the Obama supporters who may look at it funny.  I frankly don't care who the nominee is but would prefer Obama just because of the electoral realignment he MAY offer.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

It's not that they "can't".  It's that they shouldn't.  Of course it would be fine with you as a supporter of that candidate.  But imagine if you supported the candidate who ended up with more delegates, states and votes.  Would you be still be fine with supers deciding that wasn't good enough?  

Add in that Obama is the grass roots candidate and an African American and you're talking about prodding a couple of voting blocks that (to generalize) could feel particularly slighted by finding their successful efforts overturned by a small group of highly powerful individuals.


by syrinx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

You might riot in the streets and you are even "sort of looking forward to that"?  Did you know your healh care professional is a phone call away?


by Tunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, great. (none / 0)

Why the "presumption" that there will be "funny business"? with the superdelegates. Let's just throw  the folks who have spent the better parts of their adult lives working in the trenches, raising funds, shaking hands, getting votes, making tough decisions as elected representatives, trying to uphold at least a few higher principles - let's just throw 'em all under the bus.


by pan230 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Define "funny business". And convince me (none / 0)

that were the tables turned Obama would play any differently.


by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

perhaps that's true, but Obama is imploding and Sean Hannity claims to have a lot more dirt on him, so until that gap closes to 0% she should stay in and fight for it.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 0)

Yeah, because Hannity has so much truth and honesty on his side; everyone respects what HE has to say.  I mean, if this is your basis for how we should elect a nominee, let's just as Hannity who he thinks we should nominate.  Because no matter who we select, O'Hannity will dig up something to use in a smear campaign.  It's what hateful people like he and Limbaugh do for a living.  What a gig.


by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok then... (none / 0)

tell me how those Rev. Wright videos he uncovered turned out for Obama?


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok then... (none / 0)

Those videos were public. So anybody could have found them if they had looked.  I highly doubt Sean Hannity has some kind of smoking gun.


by SocialDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok then... (none / 0)

If this is as bad as things get for him, they turned out fine.  Just fine.  B/c he is still way ahead and his numbers have BARELY dropped at all.  

We are at the absolute high point of media saturation on them as well.  You're kidding yourself if you think things are going to get worse based on that flap, then they are right now.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok then... (none / 0)

wow those sure are some mighty rose-colored glasses you are wearing.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok then... (none / 0)

And as an "HRC" supporter you are not looking thru "rose-colored" glasses?


by Tunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok then... (none / 0)

perhaps, but after the week your candidate just had, you should be getting drunk and crying into your beer like Barack and Michelle are probably doing right now....


by BlueDoggyDogg on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uncovered? (none / 0)

you mean they aren't "typical white" Democrats?


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Truth has nothing to do with it. Fox News, Karl Rove et al are salivating at the chance to Swift Boat Obama. I doubt his charisma will intimidate them much.


by jerseygirl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Well if Hannity said it it must be true.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh my... (none / 0)

There is probably no greater sign of desperation that waiting, with baited breath, for the disgusting utterances of SEAN HANNITY to come to your candidates rescue.

Are you sure you're not Clifford, the Big Red Dog?


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, there's always Victor (none / 0)

Davis Hansen, one of the least coherent writers of any political stripe ever, and yesterday's front page poster boy. That's pretty desparate.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Ummm... yeah.

I'm breathlessly awaiting the investigative genius of Sean Hannity.


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

right because those Rev. Wright videos didn't tarnish Obama at all right?


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

What say you Jerome? Still think this is going to August?


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:00 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

It's going to June...interesting how Obama's campaign is pushing the "it's over" meme just as Pennsylvania is getting ready to vote, and maybe to actually matter for the first time in, like, forever.


by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

It's not Obama's campaign that's pushing that meme... it's Clintons's.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

You know what, I live in Pennsylvania and I could give a shit whether or not our votes matter in deciding the nomination.

I don't know about you, but I am interested, first and foremost, in beating McCain. There is too much riding on THAT for me to worry all that much about how we get there.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (2.00 / 2)

I am afraid the other candidate is already tarnished beyond the ability to be repolished.  I think she should stay in it, because if more comes out about Obama, or people in states that already voted start changing their opinions, the smart supers may decide they don't want to concede this race to the Repubs.


by cjbardy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

Isn't this why folks usually "suspend" their campaigns?


by the mollusk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

No.  Suspend is the same as giving up, but not being ready to say it.


by cjbardy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

The Page says that Clinton is spending a three day weekend in NY starting now.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In fairnesss... (none / 0)

Its Easter weekend, AND her Senate office closed at noon for Good Friday today.

I'd like her to drop out and everyone get behind Obama as much as anyone, but I don't think you can read much into the "long weekend in NY."

My two cents.


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sucks to be dogged by this rumor all weekend (none / 0)

Bad timing to be sure.

Now if she comes out to deny it, she looks desperate.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sucks to be dogged by this rumor all weekend (none / 0)

What Hillary should do is remind people that Obama doesn't have the delegates EITHER!!!  So mathematically, he can't win either.

This is an undercover Obama tactic to try and put doubt in the voters mind on the electability of Hillary Clinton.  Sneaky bum.  Get your lemmings to do your dirty work.  Typical Chicago Machine tactics.

If Hillary blows his ass out the water on April 22nd, then there's IN and NC.  While people think he will win NC, I'm hearing different rumblings from family down there.  The Obama magic is fading... fast.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're Right! (none / 0)

She may gain, 50, 40, or even 12 delegates!


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sucks to be dogged by this rumor all weekend (none / 0)

Yeah... I hate it when candidates push a narrative that is positive for them too... I hate when candidates use spin... I hate when candidates...

Oh yeah... they all do those things! Or in some peoples minds all except their sainted candidates.

Guess what people; neither of them are saints. They are both politicians and they both want to win.

I forgot that actually wanting to win was against the principles of the progressive movement though.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

Nope.

"Suspending" means that you keep your delegates.

Clinton has enough delegates now that if every single SD switched to her, she'd get the nomination.  So she could suspend her candidacy and then still get the nomination if it came out that Obama killed a 5 year old or something.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

So where are Edwards' delegates from Iowa?  Oh, right, he suspended and they jumped ship.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

That's due to caucus processes.  He still has some of his.

Clinton would be very clear to instruct her caucus attendees to stick to her to be safe.  That is the best case of staying through PA.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

I'm sorry.  You are wrong.  Who suspends and lives to tell about it?


by cjbardy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I say (2.00 / 3)

In advance of all the people that are going to complain about the "unfairness" or "undemocratic" nature of the nomination process - I will state that everybody knew the rules going in, and each candidate had an equal opportunity to employ whatever strategy they wished.  Obama had a better strategy and staff.

In regard to FL and MI, I believe they will eventually be happily seated as is - after Senator Clinton acknowldges her defeat.  


by Chango on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:00:04 PM EST

Re: What I say (none / 0)

At this point I think that Hillary's Florida and Michigan supporters feel not only as though they are entitled to be seated but that they are entitled to Hillary being the nominee.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stay in, Hillary! (2.00 / 2)

No way should she drop out.  She is an historic candidate in her own right and she must continue until the race is over.


by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:02:01 PM EST

Re: Stay in, Hillary! (none / 0)

Well, a lot of folks would say the race IS over.

See this other politico story - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9147.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stay in, Hillary! (none / 0)

There is NO PROBLEM in Hillary staying in, as long as she doesn't run a "burn Obama down" campaign.  Seriously.  

Let people vote.  Don't declare it over.  Run a strong, non-negative race.  Say you believe yourself the best candidate, Obama the 2nd best, and 1 million people better than McCain, as the 3rd best candidate.

Come June, the votes will be in.

Same with Obama.  Both, at this point, run a clean campaign, because with as many votes in as we have, no attacking ad, no snide aside by either candidate, is going to shift the last 10 contents much.  As such, it isn't worth it,for either candidate.


by jc on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stay in, Hillary! (2.00 / 1)

Senator Clinton is welcome to stay in the race as long as she wants and her funds hold out.  However, she shouldn't be going negative on the candidate who has a 90% chance of being the nominee.  A positive race (while attacking McCain) would benefit the Party.  A continued negative campaign would only be destructive to the Party's chances in the fall.

Clinton would still be there to pick up the pieces in the unlikely event Obama suffers a scandal fatal to his chances in November.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stay in, Hillary! (none / 0)

She is a historic candidate; but she should be making decisions based on that. She should make the decision in regards to what is best for the party she represents.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stay in, Hillary! (none / 0)

Here are questions nobody on myDD has ever answered.

What states does she 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 delegates will have an impact on turnout in November.  What remaining super delegates can she expect to get.  Keep in mind that there are far more uncommitted SDs in the sates BHO has won than there are in the HRC states.

Can any HRC supporter answer these questions with specific numbers?  Of course they can't  At least the HRC campaign knows the truth.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton adviser (2.00 / 2)

The campaign acknowledged that winning in pledged delegates would be tough a while ago, while pointing out that one must win a majority of delegates.

As for "Clinton advisers" speaking, I'm surprised to see a MyDD front-pager falling for that kind of anonymous sourcing.


by souvarine on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:33 PM EST

Re: Clinton adviser (none / 0)

What do you mean by "fall by?"  Do you think these two well-respected reporters just made up the quote?  That's a wee bit silly.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton adviser (none / 0)

arghhh...late in the day...I meant why do you mean by "fall for"


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton adviser (2.00 / 1)

There are well-respected reporters at the politico? When did that happen?


by souvarine on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton adviser (none / 0)

Yeah, you'd think Politico would be under the bar of say... Michael Meyers here .


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (2.00 / 1)

A 1 in 10 shot?

"So you're saying there's a chance!" - Lloyd Christmas


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST

mojo for awesomeness (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

This primary is starting to sound like the most annoying sound in the world.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder if this is a way of telling her? (2.00 / 2)

Between this piece and Halperin's piece today, one has to wonder if these "leaks" are simply a way for insiders to let her know it's over without directly confronting her.

This seems to be a media narrative that is taking hold.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (1.50 / 2)

setting herself up for 2012 perhaps?  After the way Obama has conducted his campaign and lied about what he heard in that church I know I would never vote for him, I'll take Nader any day and wait for a sure winner in 2012- Hillary Clinton.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:06:20 PM EST

Whats with the "lied about church" bit? (none / 0)


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He flat out lied. (2.00 / 1)

Briefly, Obama said initially that he didn't know about Wright's comments, then later (in THE SPEECH) said he did.  Which is it, Senator?


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He flat out lied. (2.00 / 0)

He is saying that he knew Wright has made controversial comments, but that he was not present for the "God Damn America for killing innocent people" bit.


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He flat out lied. (none / 0)

Specifically, he said that the "controversial" remarks he heard related to child- and family-raising issues, per his interview with Anderson Cooper.  But the misinformed prefer to spew their vile and revel in their ignorance.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He flat out lied. (none / 0)

No he didn't.

In his interviews shortly after the hack-job videos broke he said he wasn't in attendance when the sermons at the center of the controversy occurred:

From the AC360 Interview:

Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape.

I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries.

And what I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor.

From the Countdown Interview:

OLBERMANN:  There's an awful lot of strong material that is now on videotape.  We have played it.  I see no reason to play it again, but a phrase that suggests that "God damn America" is a better phrase to use than "God bless America." Can you characterize your own reactions to this?  Did you know that he made these statements before the videotape appeared?

OBAMA:  You know, frankly, I didn't.  I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.  Now, I think it's, Keith, important to point out that he's been preaching for 30 years. He is a man who was a former Marine who served this country, a biblical scholar, somebody who's spoken at theological schools all across the country, and is widely regarded as a preacher.  That's the man I know.  That's the person who was the pastor of this church.

I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew.  He always preached the social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who'd speak out on social issues are controversial.

But these particular statements that had been gathered are ones that I strongly objected to and strongly condemned.  Had I heard them in church, I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright.


And finally, during the speech, he said:
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely
There's no contradiction there among any of the statements.  When the videos came to light he said he hadn't been in attendance for the sermons in question and during his speech he said that some of the remarks he had heard Wright make in church might be considered (by others) to be controversial.


by moreperfectunion on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

I think you should paint "Hilary in 2012" on a sandwich board, wear it around your neck and walk up and down the sidewalk aimlessly for the next four years. That would be a very productive use of your time. Laying the groundwork, as it were.

Seriously, declaring that you'll opt out until you get your perfect candidate--one who is inches apart from Obama on most issues--is the mirror-image mental processing of "The End is NIGH" fanatics that most of us cross the street to avoid. All you're missing are the new white tennis shoes and poisoned grape drink.


by Cole Moore Odell on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Sugar.  Water.  Purple.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And if Hillary doesn't run... (none / 0)

in 2012 then what? I can't wait to see what becomes on this site after she drops out. Jerome just seems like the take his ball and go home type.


by Erik on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure winner? (none / 0)

If she couldn't win in 2008 what makes you think she's such a shoo-in for 2012?


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure winner? (none / 0)

touche!  but I was thinking more in general election terms.  Women will rally around Hillary after McCain blows Obama out.  His female support is already fading thanks to his faux outrage with Geraldine Ferraro, a female Democratic icon he falsely painted as a racist along w/ his white grammy.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure winner? (1.00 / 1)

Oh, and I'm sure all those women will run into the arms of John McCain.  What the fuck...seriously, what the fuck.


by Globe199 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

The Democratic party doesn't need any fucking martyrs.


by Globe199 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

a vote for Nader is a vote for idiocy.

You should leave the Democratic party if you vote for Nader... end of discussion.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Oh really?  What are you going to do, call the "Democratic Party Police" on me?  I swear, Obama's annoying supporters are one of many reasons I'd never back him.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

I didn't say I could or would do anything about it. I said that is what I felt you SHOULD do.

Democrats voting for Nader is part of what got this country into the mess it is in... and you should, in theory, be informed enough to understand that.

In my opinion voting for Nader is just as bad as voting for McCain. It tells me you are fine with the war, fine with the economy, and fine with having conservatives named to the bench.

I have said the same thing to, and about, Obama supporters who swear they would never vote for Hillary. It is childish and idiotic; sorry the truth hurts you so much, but it is still the truth.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

If you're hoping for 2012, you're going to be mightily disappointed. You think McCain's numbers are good now? Wait until he's the incumbent. If you think that Dems have ANY shot in hell at beating McCain THEN when we can barely do it NOW (and even the BEST indications are that Hillary MIGHT pull off a win), you have no clue how American politics works. No. It's this year or not for another 8. Hillary might run in 2012, and you might get the satisfaction of voting for her, but she won't win by that point.

You people who wouldn't vote for Obama WHEN (not if) Hillary steps down are not real Democrats and the most petulant bunch alive. You deserve the guilt you'll feel after another four years of neoconservative rule. End of legal abortion, war in Iran (probably leading to a reinstitution of the draft), no healthcare. If that's acceptable to you, why the hell were you voting for a democrat in the first place??


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's a long shot? (2.00 / 2)

Another "can't win" "clinton should quit" " she's hurting the party" theme song.

Interesting it should come at the precise moment when Clinton's poll numbers are jumping up, because it has become crystal clear to non-koolaid drinkers that Obama just made himself unelectable, as surely as if he'd been caught with a prostitute.  It's not about judgment, although his continued association with both Wright and Rezko certainly casts grave doubt on that.  It's not even about integrity, although bold-faced lying on network tv confirms his truthiness problem.
 Mostly what it's not about, though, is race.  Although he (and now Bill Richardson as well) has played race-bait-and-switch to try to make it be about race, the real issue with Wright is PATRIOTISM.    No amount of uplifting speeches and media fauning will fool the public.  No one can be elected president who is deeply tied to a radical anti-american agenda.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST

You win! (2.00 / 0)

Congratulations!

You have won today's award for user name that most closely represents his/her statements:

No one can be elected president who is deeply tied to a radical anti-american agenda.  
.

But that's not all!

You have also qualified to enter the race for best hyperbole.  We wish you luck!


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You win! (none / 0)

Owned.  :)


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's a long shot? (none / 0)

You're right about the timing of this. Her numbers going up; Obama's down.  Doesn't make sense.


by moevaughn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll numbers going up? (2.00 / 0)

From Rasmussen Daily Tracking:

2/01: Hillary 43% - Obama 37%

2/15: Hillary 40% - Obama 48%

3/01: Hillary 43% - Obama 45%

3/15: Hillary 45% - Obama 46%

3/20: Hillary 43% - Obama 46%

Yeah, there has been some movement, and Obama was temporarily damaged by the Wright flap, but his support is solid.


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's a long shot? (none / 0)

Right on!
Not everyone is drinking the Kool-Aid.  People are starting to see through the hype.
by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

"1 in 10 Shot"

Take it, there have been worse odds that have won. Plus, that person would probably admit that it was 1 in 20, by their standard, a week before OH/TX.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:08:01 PM EST

sigh (2.00 / 1)

dont these odds demand a more responsible strategy by the Clinton campaign? How about not giving McCain campaign commercials?


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

And a 1 in 10 shot does not augur well for the race continuing into August as you posited earlier today. 1 in 10 is likely generous. Soon, when this is settled (and I fervently hope it is settled in Obama's favor) we will all have to figure out how to come back together and I hope it is Jerome leading the way.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

and yes, doesn't Jonathan have a point that trying to scorch the ground under the guy with the remaining 90% odds seem like a strategy with diminishing returns for both Clinton and the party. I find it hard to believe that she would like to "win" the nomination that way. Better to bow out gracefully (at least by June when there really will be no more chance as there won't be any more votes) and maintain her viability for future campaigns rather than continue on this scorched earth campaign that, even if she won the nomination, would lead to a brutal defeat?


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And they do have a better than even shot (none / 0)

at doing enough damage to Sen. Obama so that John McCain wins the general election, which would allow Sen. Clinton to run again in 4 years.  Plus, since she's already argued that McCain is more qualified, so she might prefer him to Obama.

If that does happen, Jerome, I really think that you should be able to claim partial credit for the Iran war (or Syrian war, its become pretty clear that McCain can't tell one Muslim from another).  Don't let the neoconservatives take all the credit, you and your new best friends at the DLC will definitely have played an important role.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And they do have a better than even shot (none / 0)

I have to take exception to this bit of anti-Jerome hyperbole, even though I am an Obama supporter and have spent a good part of my day trying to convince Jerome that he is helping lower the standards of dialogue in the democratic race. its one thing to say that he has taken an unnecessarily harsh approach to Obama and therefore lowered the level of dialogue on his own blog (as I have said) and quite another to lay a McCain presidency at his feet.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is what I'm saying untrue? (none / 0)

I make an argument that:

  1. Sen. Clinton is much more likely to damage Obama than help herself
  2. This will hurt Obama's chances in the general, making a McCain Presidency more likely and
  3. A McCain Presidency is likely to see more and expanded wars.

Now, if you feel any of these points are wrong, feel free to dispute them.  But if they are correct, than Jerome deserves all the snark I'm giving him.  

One of the big errors of modern discourse appears to be that intentions are all that matters, results are unimportant.  Ralph Nader ran in 2000 to promote a more progressive course.  Sure, the result was catastrophic, but its the thought that counts.  Moderates and "liberal hawks" voted to give George Bush authority on Iraq.  Sure, the result was a disaster, but their heart was in the right place.  

If Obama was in Hillary's positions, I'd be arguing he stop hurting the party.  But he's not.  He's the guy Hillary's campaign is 90% certain will be the nominee.  

I don't have to sugarcoat things for those who support her.  "You are making a McCain Presidency more likely" may be a statement that is difficult for them to hear.  That doesn't make it any less true.  

In the end, its Jerome's site, if he doesn't like people pointing out the likely outcome of the site's direction he can be me and anyone else he doesn't like.    


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Typo "ban me" not "be me" n/t (none / 0)


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

not so sure ~

since 03/01, we've seen 6 more contests happen, and now 2 more fall by the wayside (maybe).  And the delegate lead is higher!

if anything, it may be that this A. Nonymous would've given BETTER odds, thinking they'd be doing better in early march, and picking up a couple dozen delegates in FL/MI ~


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Breathtaking case of denial! (2.00 / 1)

Why do folks think so many have been saying that the race is mathemathically over?

Maybe because it's mathemathically over.

Unless you really don't understand the logic in the diary...a superdelegate coup would destroy the party.  Therefore Clinton is unelectable.

Period.


by Garret on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM EST

Re: Breathtaking case of denial! (2.00 / 1)

What will the Florida & Michigan debacle going to do? I will suggest that there will be a good enough portion of the people who supported Hillary who will not support Obama now. This whole process has been horrible and the Obama campaign has been more than happy to ignore Michigan and Florida now that he doesn't need them. I wonder which states an Obama Presidency would ignore


by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breathtaking case of denial! (none / 0)

The Sigificant ones


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breathtaking case of denial! (none / 0)

If you lose MI and FL in the primary, you will lose those states to the Republicans in November.

The DNC has made enemies with the 4th and 8th largest states in the United States.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breathtaking case of denial! (none / 0)

I was listening to NPR and they were saying that Michigan has voted blue since the 1996 elections, but by a narrower margin each time. We can't afford to lose those voters or the 3 million democrats that voted in the Florida election.
Both states have dumped it back in the DNC's lap- let's hope they don't screw up again.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breathtaking case of denial! (none / 0)

Here is the very likely scenario:

1. Clinton (at some point) concedes, endorses Obama, and releases her delegates

  1. Undeclared super delegates support Obama
  2. Clinton's declared super delegates support Obama
  3. No longer being decisive, Florida and Michigan have their delegates seated as chosen.

Florida and Michigan would thus be represented as they voted, but not be decisive in the primaries as punishment for moving their primaries too early.  Everyone's votes go to selecting delegates for the convention and everyone marches united into Denver.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, the truth is... (2.00 / 1)

that your comment is functionally making arguments for why you think Clinton is a better candidate, they aren't responsive to the fact that HE HAS WON THE NOMINATION. its great that you think she has won more important states than he has, but its irrelevant, because we dont decide the nominee based on random bullshit arguments, we decide it on who has the most delegates.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:14:11 PM EST

technically sure. (2.00 / 0)

but she has no shot if she can't win the pop vote, supers will not overturn the will of the people. im not saying she should drop out necessarily, im saying she should stop being so damn selfish and trying to destroy the nominee. They say McCain is more prepared on National Security and imply that Obama isn't patriotic.

frankly thats disgusting given her shot at winning.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check the floor. (2.00 / 0)

I believe your cheese has slid off your cracker.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: technically sure. (none / 0)

LOL ~

really, THIS is a funny, funny post ~

thank you ~ i have to go wipe my tears ~


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

two words. (none / 0)

vince foster.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vince Foster??? (2.00 / 2)

Oh, come on. That is...I don't even know what to say about that. And you accuse Clinton supporters of using right-wing tactics?

Here's why I think she should stay in it and why I feel so strongly about it.

Obama has not won the nomination. Odds are in his favor but he hasn't won it.

I strongly believe that Obama is a weaker GE candidate and that his blocking of revotes/seating of Florida/Michigan is yet another factor that will damage him in the GE. I think that his campaign has been all about getting the nomination at the expense of the GE.

If Clinton does very well in the next 6 primaries and bad news about Obama continues to dominate the cycle, the Supers are going to take a serious look at that. This would also motivate the rules committee and the DNC to arrive at some equitable solution for Florida and Michigan.

Look, I do not want a President McCain. I am a Clinton supporter because I think she is better qualified and has a better chance to defeat McCain. I want her to stay in it as long as she can because I want the country to have a Democratic president in 2008, and I don't think Obama can win. I really don't.


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i know its complete bullshit (none / 0)

my point is just that saying that the Clintons dont have skeletons in their closets is Rovian in its doublethink.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i know its complete bullshit (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for that clarification.

The difference is that all of those skeletons have long been out of the closet. Everybody has seen them. They've done the damage they're gonna do already.

Obama's skeletons have not had the same level of exposure until very recently, and we still don't know what else is in that closet.

BTW, I think the Wright thing is damaging not because of the racial aspects so much as the "anti-American" ones (and I am not a person inclined to argue with the notion that America has been a bullying imperialist, especially recently). But the Republicans have long used the meme of "traitor, hippie anti-American Democrats," and I think this gives them considerable ammo to reinforce that.


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two words. (none / 0)

ri-dick-u-lous.


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two words. (none / 0)

Now, that's either one word or four... ;)


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I support Obama, (none / 0)

but I'm having quite the hard time not troll-rating you for that.


by McNasty on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my point wasnt clear, it was about skeletons (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: technically sure. (none / 0)

TD... I would never suggest she is selfish anymore.  I have come around to the idea that we all owe it to Hillary to decide when is when, if ever. Having said that, I don't think you should be calling Obama selfish either.

The fact is that his rough patch this last week or so is NOTHING compared to what Clinton endured a number of times in '91...and he prevailed.  

Obama's campaign has whethered the storm and has gotten stronger for it.

We have 7-8 months for pity's sake!!  Obama, should he prevail, and it seems he will, will be able to win for these reasons:

War
Economy
Energy
 


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: technically sure. (none / 0)

Dude... How did he go from an Angry black pastor to a Black supremacist? WTF?
Have you actually listened to the WHOLE SPEECH? I know that republicans have a hard time with the whole story, but I thought progressives were better than that..
Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: technically sure. (none / 0)

SELFISH?!

Hillary Clinton was EASILY the most divisive Democrat in the entire country. Republicans had planned for her campaign for YEARS. YEARS!!!

No, SHE should not have run. She should never have run.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: technically sure. (none / 0)

Do you think Obama would be where he is if he had only John Edwards up against him? HELL NO. A great deal of Obama's support came from people who wanted someone other than Hillary. He had a superior campaign, but most of those Clinton votes would have hit Edwards. He would have beaten Obama AND McCain easily. But she decided to ignore all the polls showing her high negatives, ignore all the republicans just frothing at the mouth to campaign against her, and ignore the WINNING strategy put in place 2 years ago by Howard Dean that actually worked in favor of the one she has now, which DOESN'T.

SHE LOST THIS. She was ALWAYS going to lose the general, it was just a question of getting the nomination. So to call Obama selfish now... dunno what I can say about that.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, the truth is... (none / 0)

HE hasn't WON anything. And it is impossible for BO to get to the magic 2024/25 number UNLESS Hillary drops out. Nice way to win a campaign. And BO will not win in the GE... he assured that defeat all on his own.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sure. (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (2.00 / 0)

Unsourced gossip on a blog.  Boy, that really seals it.  Clinton should blow off the 13,857,346 Americans that have already cast votes for her and retire to the Senate.


by dwmorris on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:14:41 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 0)

Who is this person?  Is this someone talking off the record at Politico?  You aren't embarrassed to be reporting this as "news"?


by hearthmoon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM EST

No (none / 0)

Apparently it's someone talking anonymously on the record. There's a difference.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

There is no way someone from the Clinton camp would say that to Politico.  I read that piece of yellow journalism and you know what?  If you can't get someone to go on the record with that statement, then it is speculation.

From her poll numbers and her growing number of supporters, it is Obama who is in trouble.

Hillary is putting herself in the "underdog" position, which is smart.  Many people are rather bored with Obama now and they realize the MSM is too busy quivering in his presence (except Lou Dobbs, who has better sense).

It is the wishful thinking and story-planting from Obama shill sites that is feeding this rumor mill.  I wonder what they will say when the next Obama scandal comes out.  Or better yet, when Hillary wins PA and IN and perhaps even NC.  

Hope they have spoons for all the crow they are going to be eating.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

They're actually overstating her chances.  She has a  0/10 shot at winning the nomination. It's impossible for her to win the pledged delegates and there's no way the super delegates will actually give her the nomination.  That would be very bad.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

No, there is a slight chance.   If some HUGE scandal erupts on Obama - which it turned out that Wright wasn't - then Clinton would be the nominee.  It's just not looking likely that that will happen.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two points... (2.00 / 2)

First, Jon - bingo....

Yet at the same time, if her key campaign staff understands what the situation is -- that she has, at best, a 10 percent shot at the nomination now, as they put it -- is it really worth it to try to so tarnish the candidate who has the remaining 90 percent shot at the nomination while at the same time bolstering John McCain's national security credentials?

Second - frankly, Hillary would have a tough time running again in 2012 as a viable candidate under normal circumstances - witness how Kerry has been treated whenever he broached the subject since the 2004 elections.  But if she is seen by a majority of folks as having "poisoned the well" in 2008 for Obama and, as a result, for the Democrats in general....she might as well forget about any future in politics beyond where she is presently.


by palamedes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST

No way (2.00 / 1)

There is no way in hell Hillary will drop out before the last primary in June.  She'll see where things stand then.  If she has won every contest from now until then.....Obama will be in deep trouble. Even if he has a few more delegates.  We have not seen the worst of Obama swift-boating yet.  This is pretty tame actually.  He is in deep trouble if after 1 week of bad news coverage he is tanking this badly.


by karajan72 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST

Re: No way (none / 0)

i agree on that point.

IF she won every contest, then there would be a strong argument to overturn a, say, 50 delegate lead.

the likelihood of that?  mabye less then 10% ~


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Did you just compare Hillary to Hitler? Who was in the "Berlin bunker"?


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:25:51 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

I thought Downfall was a great film, too -- and I understand exactly what the thought is that you're trying to convey, but it's generally not wise to employ the fuehrerbunker metaphor in relation to your plight...

...unless you're Jason Alexander in Seinfeld.


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

The tidal wave has gone down... a lot.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not over for me until (1.00 / 1)

Clinton says it's over. If that moment comes, I'll be working very hard for Nader and even harder than before against Obama. Until Clinotn herself declares she is bowing out, I will continue to work for her. I just saw her yesterday and she was fantastic, the orowds enthusiastic, her politics and message, by far, the most sound. I tell you people, there is no way many of us will let Obama win. No way. No way....by any means necessary.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST

Then frankly you aren't thinking this through.... (2.00 / 1)

...if you think a McCain administration would be better than an Obama administration.

Stop drinking that kool-aid, partner.


by palamedes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go work for Nader then. (none / 0)

Clearly you're no Democrat.


by McNasty on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

What does THAT mean..."any means "?  

Come on sig... the very notion that a progressive candidate very similar to HRC (BO) in terms of policy positions but different in implementation would be rejected in favor of McCain whose policies are anti-woman, anti-environment, pro-war is downright disasterous.

WHAT is to be gained by supporting McCain or Nader over the democrat?  

I wouldv'e pulled the lever for Hillary, why can't you be aqs reasonable?


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

What don't you understand about the phrase? Any means is any means (legally, that is). As I indicated in another post, there are palns in place should O gain the nom for many actions. What makes you think that the thousands of diehard activists who have been watching how this nom prcess has gone down will not rise up? You're delusional if you expect us to shut up and just accept things under the meme of getting a Dem. in office.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

so, what are the plans?

could you link to your "other post?"  


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

It's called democracy.  More people chose the person other than your candidate.  This is the first time I've ever gotten my way in the primary, yet I never hesitate to vote for the Democratic nominee, as it's almost literally true that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Just exactly what are you suggesting?  You sound demented.


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:25:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Come on, friend. This is just plain silly.  

I appreciate the passion, but your suggestions carry a whiff of violence about them, which disturbs me.

What "plans" are you referring to?  What kind of "rise up" are you speaking of?


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

I would never vote for McCain either. What I'm saying is that I will work strongly against Obama, stronger than now that is, if Clinton bows out. I can't the thought of either of them in the WH, actually. Frankly, it's another devil I know being better than the devil I don't know. I have no faith, trust, or respect for O. I have no faith, trust, but a wee bit of respect for McCain. Future?: Working for Nader, working against Obama. Now?: Continue to work like hell for Clinton.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

hopefully, too, you'll find another site as THIS particular one deals with electing Democrats.


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Oh, stfu. I've voted Dem all my life. This is a very unique election.  


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

It is unique because you aren't getting your way in the primary?  It is unique because our country is in great peril and in desperate need of Democratic leadership?  Is it unique because the Supreme Court hangs in the balance?  Step out of your bubble and you will find that Obama may not be your first choice, but he is advocating for basically the same things as Senator Clinton.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

One of the ways it's unique for me is that I actually detest the Dem. more than the Repub. this time. I won't vote ever for McCain, but I can't and won't sit and watch Obama try to take over.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (2.00 / 1)

What is it you detest about Obama?  

Is it how he'll appoint progressive Supreme Court justices?  How he'll implement policies beneficial to working families?  Maybe because he'll get us out of Iraq and have a foreign policy that tries to avoid war?  You don't like reducing the influence of lobbyists?  


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

I don't like him as a human being. I don't believe that he will do what he is promising he will do. I don't believe in him at all. I think he is an arrogant ego-maniac. And I think those are plenty of reasons for me to work against him.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

He's already done alot of things including helping working families on taxes and health care, ethics reform, etc. and spoke out against the Iraq war before it even started.  

It takes quite an ego for anyone to think they should be leader of the free world.  Alot of women, working families, soldiers, our national security, and our environment will suffer if there are enough petulant folks like you who take their ball and go home.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Folks will suffer anyway. I hate that, but Dems are doing it to themselves. Blame Obama and Howard Dean instad of calling me petulant. Classy of you, by the way.


by Soitgoes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

This is what this kind of ongoing battle breeds.


by LarsThorwald on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Can we blame Hillary for actually, y'know, losing?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Quite a clever retort. Your Jr. High English teacher must be proud. Ugh. The only thing worse than Obama are many of his supporters.


by Soitgoes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:25:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.  You may not like it, but it's true.  Nader exists simply as an excuse to vote for a person whom liberals project to be their ideal candidate, instead of having to "settle" for the actual nominee.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not over for me until (none / 0)

Ok do as you wish.  Have 4 (maybe 8) more years of Bush foreign policy and an economic agenda that helps billionaires while pissing on working class men and women.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 2)

Jesus, the post says:

the Clinton campaign now believes that it has a 1 in 10 shot -- at best -- at ending up with the nomination

The article, misleading as it is demonstrably in other ways, says only:

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.

We are talking about the off the record comments by one adviser, which was "echoed by other operatives" (not even clearly Clinton operatives, otherwise, why not say so?)

Talking as though this opinion is the general consensus of the Clinton campaign is simply a distortion, and not a very bright one.


by frankly0 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

I'm telling you, witnessing the death of reading comprehension on the liberal blogs I once cherished as the "reality-based community" is just astonishing.


by FlipYrWhig on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Makes sense. Now if only (2.00 / 1)

Now .... if only the Clinton campaign could convince Jerome.


by Cleveland John on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:38 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 3)

Drama queen silliness. Breathe into a paper bag for two minutes.

Maybe when the primary is over and people are able to get some perspective, they'll be able to admit to themselves that both Obama and Clinton are decent, if not ideal candidates; good people with potential drawbacks. That's what almost all of us thought a few months ago, and it will still be true after the intense craziness that we're experiencing right now passes. Elections always make people demented. Rationality goes out the window.


by Cole Moore Odell on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (2.00 / 1)

Oh, you and that article is funny.  Talk about getting the facts twisted.

Uh, who's not reporting the real story on which candidate?  LOL

And, the race IS that close.  The delegate count shows that.  As a matter of fact, Obama has no chance of getting the delegates either.  

And mmmm gee, who are these people that all are so certain of that we didn't get their names?

Talk about spinning.  Thank goodness its Friday, so the dizziness from this faux story isn't too far off from the drinking that will be happening shortly.


by LindaSFNM on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:27:12 PM EST

Sigh... (none / 0)

Where to start?

Claim #1: She has won major states

First, this has litle/no correlation to winning in the general election.
Second, if you still insist on going by that false metric, Obama has won "major" states to (VA, WA, TX, GA)

Claim #2: is primed to win more states

Claim #3:especially the key state of PA
The best electoral analysis online is at fivethirtyeight.com, and their general election average for PA stands at

Obama +1.7     Clinton +0.6

Most polls show that PA will be competitive no matter who the Dem nominee.

Claim #4 she has support from more Dems within core constituencies than Obama:

BWAAHAhahA! Like...the ones that support her!? She's behind in the primary vote. You know that?

Claim #5: she raises $1 million a day
Nope. She only raised $22 mil in Febuary.Obama raised $55 mil.

Claim #6: and Obama has not been fully vetted, as we've all tragically seen in the past week.
While Obama may have been "vetted," all the people he's ever known apparently have not. If you'd like me to link to videos of preachers that Hillary has taken council with, I'd be glad to.

....blah blah blah


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM EST

More debunkage. (none / 0)

"Claim #5: she raises $1 million a day
Nope. She only raised $22 mil in Febuary.  Obama raised $55 mil."

And I think Senator Clinton's sources of funding will dry up rather quickly as this story spreads.


by McNasty on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh... (none / 0)

Actually she raised $35 million in February.
Get your figures straight, or go home.
by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am home (none / 0)

Corrected, rightfully. Goddard put up a link earlier saying otherwise, but that has been pulled. My apologies.

Now, onto the other 6 outlandish claims...


by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh... (none / 0)

You might want to check some of the diaries here and all over the rest of the blogosphere on her Feb fundraising - they don't make pretty reading.  Still, ignorance is bliss...


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh. I dig the responses (none / 0)

I hope that's not the case. I'm a very big Obama supporter and have said in the past that if Obama wasn't the nominee, I wouldn't vote for Clinton (or McCain).  I've changed my tune now.

If Clinton becomes the nominee, hopefully not in an unfair way, I will support her.  We have to put a Democrat in the White House.  Obama and Clinton are both terrific candidates.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST

Re: Heh. I dig the responses (none / 0)

I think the number of people who could vote McCain over Obama is greater than you think.

I'm reading lots of blogs, and not the political shills like DailyKos and Politico.  Regular blogs from newspapers and tv programs.  There is a growing disgust and distrust of Obama and I don't' think a couple of good photo ops or big rallies will change that.


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:35:23 PM EST

Re: Heh. I dig the responses (none / 0)

I don't think that's the case.  It's really just another case of the vocal minority believing they are the silent majority.

But, if that does happen.  Great.  I'd love to see Democrats try to blame someone else for putting another Republican in the White House when this time it will no one's fault but their own.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

The Republicans want to make sure they get to face him in the fall.  They're not going to unload on him while Hillary is around.


by Upstate Dem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST

Re: Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

So what?  Why is everyone always afraid of what "may" happen?  These negative ads (and in the future as well) are going to affect one group: those who would never vote for Obama anyways.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

Are you kidding? Over half the voters in the country now say they are less likely to vote for Obama after the Wright fiasco. And Wright is only the opening shot from the GOP.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

Um, no.

In a Fox News poll, only 24% believe Obama believes Obama believes what Wright said.  And they're mostly all Republicans anyways.

Only 35% have doubts about Obama because of it.  Against, mostly all Republicans.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

I didn't say what they thought Obama believed, I said they were less likely to vote for him. All it has to do is create enough doubt that people just can't pull the lever for him. It doesn't have to mean that they actually believe whether he has those beliefs.

Wright has severly damaged Obama hence the desperate spinning from the campaign. All the way from "hillary can't win" to "hillary doesn't have any money" etc. Really, Obama's stunts have gone beyond just damaging him and are now damaging the party. The primary voters and caucus attendees look like a bunch of idiots taken in my a smooth talker who never looked deeper into his background.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should be happy she's still running (none / 0)

I take great offense to this, as I'm sure Clinton supporters would if you had said the reverse.

We support candidates on issues, not rhetoric.  Don't fall for the media hype.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

but, you know, that WAS Hitler & co. in the bunker?  

in any case, that was indeed the end of the war ~ sometimes daydreams contain truth


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST

Re: HRC the comback champion 3 times (none / 0)

If HRC didn't quit then why would she quit now?

how many times these gasbags predicted the end of her bid?

the truth is neither BO and HRC can achieve the magic number of 2025 pledged delegates. SD will decide the nominee.

here is a golden oldie to fit the narrative that these gasbags are pushing for:

BETWEEN THE LINES
Jonathan Alter
Hillary Should Get Out Now
Mar 3, 2008 Issue

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now--before
the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries--and endorse Barack Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725

Alter self-appointed himself as guardian for what is good for the Democrats.

lol
;o)


by toddy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM EST

Re: HRC the comback champion 3 times (none / 0)

But this time it's not the "gasbags" predicting the end of her campaign, it's her own advisers and simple delegate math.

That being said I do admire your determination and dedication to your candidate.  I just hope you will acknowledge that we need to come together around our nominee, no matter who it is, and not vote for a third party or John "100 Years War" McCain.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh. I dig the responses (none / 0)

Oh please. Look in the mirror for once, or go to Daily Obama to see how many Obamabot kool aid drinkers would prefer to see McCain win if their golden boy Jesus 2.0 doesn't win.

Obama himself is making the divisive and condescending claim that only Hillary's followers would vote for him, but that his I guess, fanatical base would not vote for her because only He would be acceptable to his flock.


by need some wood on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM EST

Obama: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (none / 0)

The Obama campaign wants this to be over, that's obvious. Hillary supporters want it to continue because the longer it goes on the better chance she has. It's called buyer's remorse. I sincerely hope the media keeps asking him questions on race because a few more bon mots from him will start a superdelegate stampede.


If Hillary walked on water, she would be criticized for not swimming and if Obama swam, he would be lauded for being able to do what Hillary could not do.
by portia9 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM EST

Re: Obama: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (none / 0)

It's not what he says now that matters, it's how the electorate reacts...even though those of us who frequent these blogs consider Rev. Wright old news by now, the reaction of voters can be delayed...it's hard to tell how lasting or how serious the damage to Obama is among the public....and it is important to remember that the general election will not be decided by Democratic activists. Regarding Hillary having to "win ugly"--face, either one of them is going to win ugly....the whole thing is already ugly.


by Alice in Florida on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Don't cry BlueNoise.  This are lame tactics by the self-righteous Obama shills.

Hillary is not going anywhere, except the White House.  And room full of men ain't gonna stop her!

HILLARY '08  REAL SOLUTIONS, NOT SPEECHES, FOR AMERICA!


by stefystef on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

and obama's going to the white house, and a room full of whitey's ain't gonna stop him!  

see how ridiculous that statement is??


by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

stef...I respect Hillary.  i really do.  It is up to her to decide when, if it all, she'll suspend or withdraw.

But clearly, she is weighing her options with MI/FL being settled until the credentials committee seta the delegates.  

I know it sucks because there has been a lot of disrespect here, but please don't think that ALL of us Obama fans are the same way.  

I'd have voted for HRC in a heartbeat, but preferred BO.  Can you do the same?

McCain is anti-woman, anti-child and pro-war.


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All Obama fans are the same way (none / 0)

They will stop at nothing to put down a woman. Really disgusting. And how do they expect to win over Hillary's people? No idea beyond demanding support.


by DaleA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Obama fans are the same way (none / 0)

DaleA, come on.  Who are "they"?  We as progressives are not interested ...I know I am not...interested in neither race nor gender when it comes to our candidate.  

CHANGE...that is MEANINGFUL CHANGE is not going to be defined by either.  

The fact that she is a woman and Barack a black man is happenstance, not a reason to vote for one over the other.  

I respect Hillary, but she is not the candidate for this time.


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will lose. (none / 0)

So, millions of votes will not count, the gop will run the radical spiritual adviser's words over and over, nothing will change and Obama will lose the big States.

McBush will serve a third term winning on strong  national security for the third time in a row.

Dems never learn.

Sick of losing and fighting for the spineless dems.

Time to register as Independent.


by gotalife on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST

Re: Obama will lose. (none / 0)

Are you a fake-Independent like Lou Dobbs.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will lose. (none / 0)

Look like I might be.

Geez.


by gotalife on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (2.00 / 1)

It's been over for at least a month, for this reason:  HRC has only one path to the nomination, and that is to win ugly.  She can't overcome Obama's lead in the numbers, so her only viable strategy is to hope and pray for another dozen Pastor Wright moments.  The Democratic Party elders and and the superdelegates know that her only winning scenario isn't healthy for the Party, and they are going to end this thing sooner, rather than later.  I don't think Hillary survives to compete in Pennsylvania.  She is smart enough to realize that if she drags this out too long, her status in the Party will be so diminished that there won't be any sympathy for another attempt at the Presidency in the future.  And she has to give some consideration to her position in the Senate; she could be a fine Majority Leader, and thus she doesn't want to tarnish her image further by hanging around too much longer in this primary contest.  It's time to go, and I hope she will do it graciously.


by global yokel on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:44:46 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

If true, who cares.  It's not a big deal.  Let's not try to make it one.


by RussTC3 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

Wow...concern troll much?


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:49:20 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 2)

yeah, bluenoise just started posting this afternoon, and is suffering major depressive symptoms, since all is lost and hillary is trapped in the bunker like hitler. you'd think he would save the hitler comparisons until his second day as a hillary "supporter" ;-)

i think i hear his mom calling him.


by campskunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

I know...cause a Hitler comparison is so supportive of Hillary.

I'm assuming you've checked out some of his/her other "supportive" comments as well.


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Wow, if this is true, then we had better stop looking to win this election and start focusing on those downticket races. We'll be lucky to hold the house and maybe pick up two seats in the senate. We'll probably lose two or three Dem house seats here in GA alone with Obama on the top of the ticket.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Ga6thDem, how did your electable candidate do in 2004?  How about those down-ballot races?  

It stinks when your candidate isn't the nominee (I've been there multiple times), but maybe you ought to defer to the majority on this one rather than assume your word is the last word in presidential politics.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

I learned something from 2004. I learned that an endless loop of clips from someone like Wright are enough to kill downticket races. If Kerry windsurfing was enough to hurt, can you imagine what Rezko/Wright/Michelle ads are going to do? And there are clips of Obama actually saying things that will severely damage his chances in the general election. Republicans are already sending them to me, laughing and saying: Why Obama can't win with tapes of him making statements. I ignored this stuff in 2004 but I know better this time. Do you?

Obviously, you don't see a repeat happening here. It's not about my candidate. It's about winning and I know Obama can't win. Look at the polls. He's losing state after state. He's going to make Kerry look like a winner.

Don't you form attachments to imploding campaigns?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

So you don't think the GOP won't have anything on Clinton???  I don't think you know them or Clinton very well.  There's always going to be things they'll throw at our candidate, no matter who it is.  Nobody's bothering with attacking Clinton right now because she's not going to be the nominee.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Of course they have stuff. But she hits back and doesn't just have a speech where he can't even stand up against racism and claims a racist is "like family".

Look, I know you want Obama to be the nominee. That's fine. But he can't win the general election. That's a fact. Now, if you aren't concerned with winning the GE and just want a candidate that you like that's fine.

Did you see the reaction of the voters in PA to Obama after the Wright debacle. They were even slightly for him or not against him but are now moving toward strongly disliking him. Wright is the just the beginning. There are others that will be in that endless loop. The narrative is already being set and it's starting to stick.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Obviously you didn't watch Obama's speech, nor the full sermons of Pastor Wright which included the clips that got media play.  Obama is already recovering in the polls - people will have more important things to vote on in November than who has the nicest pastor.

But he can't win the general election. That's a fact.

Given your track record, I feel quite assured with Obama's chances.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

Oh, I could say the same thing about you right? Dean supporter right? Bubble that popped right?

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. Obviously you don't understand what the GOP can do.

It's not about who Obama's pastor is. It's about the fact that Obama chose a radical as his "spiritual mentor" and called him "like family." It gets to judgement and he has repeatedly shown poor judgement. He might be recovering with Dems but he's not recovering in the state polls vs. McCain.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

His speech is what ticked off the voters in PA. They didn't like being lectured about race.

No one is going to listen to the full sermons. The full sermons don't really help because there is no excuse for what Wright said.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

You live in Georgia. I do too. And you're going to seriously suggest to me that we'd see more anti-Obama voters than anti-Clinton? Maybe other people on here believe that, but I know you know better.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

I never mentioned GA did I? GA is out of the equation for either candidate. I think they will equally bring out the anti voters they'll just be different groups. Do you really think that Rev. Wright plays well in GA?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Jerome didn't get the memo, as he just said today, "There are those who hold the mis-guided opinion that only paranoid holdouts believe that Clinton has a shot at getting the nomination."

I dunno... I guess 10% or less doesn't necessarily make you a "paranoid holdout".  


by leshrac55 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Jonathan,
And if wishes were horses we all could fly....

Saying it won't make is so. Do you think you can meme into happening? Hillary Clinton is rising in the polls and your candidate is sinking like the dead weight he is.

In face, Obama should (and will) drop out, urged by Superdelegates, as the face he's losing after Wrightgate will soon be theirs.

Obama is a farce, his followers naive, and Hillary will win the nomination. I guarantee it.


by aroundtheblock on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:55:18 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Good luck with your fantasy.  We'll meet you on the other side after Obama wins the nomination.


by leshrac55 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The sooner she quits... (2.00 / 2)

... the sooner she could ask McCain to be his running mate.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:56:18 PM EST

Mark Halperin, Politico- paid shills for Obama (2.00 / 1)

My DD has a front page diary saying the race is over because of what Politico reports as " some important adviser's" comment and Time magazine's inaccurate facts.

Well these are some painful things that Mark Halperin should know.

1. "She can't win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats."

Elected delegates represent the will of people - says who?  So, what is the will of the people of Texas, for example?

2. "She can't win the nomination without a bloody convention battle -- after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain."

So is Obama. Even Obama can't win without a bloody convention if he doesnt secure 2209 delegates( not 2025)

Obama is the villain if he is the nominee after losing 8 or 9 of the 10 biggest delegations and popular vote but still goes on to become the nominee.

3. "Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question -- but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates."

Mark halperin or the media does not get the right to decide if 2.4 million votes from MI and FL should count.

4.  "Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don't think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile."

Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazile are not the only superdelegates that decide the nominee. There are numerous senators, governers, congressmen and party bosses that back Hillary.

5. "Obama's skilled, close-knit staff can do things like silently kill re-votes in Florida and Michigan and not pay a political price."

He is already paying a political price. If Obama does not set his foot in MI and FL until he gets the nomination, write off these two states in November. Added to this he has hurt the whites in OH and PA. Can someone tell how Obama will win by losing these 4 states in November?

6. "Many of her supporters -- and even some of her staffers -- would be relieved (and even delighted) if she quit the race; none of his supporters or staff feel that way. Some think she just might throw in the towel in June if it appears efforts to fight on would hurt Obama's general election chances."

Do you have a poll of her supporters( at least 14 million so far who have voted for her) and staffers before declaring " Many of the supporters will be delighted?"

7. "The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee -- and that has an impact every day."

This moron wants the media to decide the race!

8. "Obama might not be able to talk that well about the new global economy, but she (and McCain) can't either."

So- what do you imply. - Nobody should be the POTUS?

9. "Many of the remaining prominent superdelegates want to be for Obama and she (and Harold Ickes) are just barely keeping them from making public commitments to him."

Unsubstantiated bogus claim. How many superdelegates did you interview before making this claim?

10." She can't publicly say more than 2% of all the things she would like to say about race, electability, beating McCain and experience."

Don't you worry about that. Wait and see -the media will do it for her, once Obama starts crumbling in PA and all through May.

11."If she somehow found a way to win the nomination, she would have to offer Obama the veep slot, and she doesn't want to do that."

She will probably be waiting for a no from Obama. Obama doesn't want the slot either. There are ofcourse more qualified candidates willing to take that spot, people  who respect and love Hillary like Clark and Bayh or may be even Edwards.

12. "This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change."

Bush- clinton-bUSH had something that hillary doesn't have and vice-versa. Wait until you see atleast 40 million women come out in November and vote for the First woman POTUS- Is'nt that a historic change?

13. "Obama is having fun most days, and she isn't."

Correct, by saying things like "typical white" about his grandmother.

14. "Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, there's hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldn't slit Mark Penn's throat -- and such internal dissension won't help her in the home stretch."

Mark Penn is now not running the show in the homestrech. Everyone knows that. I wouldn't be surprised if Carville, Begala and even Dick Morris is roped in the last moment.

Shame on my DD to carry front page articles saying the race is over. Mark Halperin has lost his neutrality, even if he ever had one. The race is far from over.


by rinis74 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM EST

Re: Mark Halperin, Politico- paid shills for Obama (none / 0)

Great post!

The pundits have been rejoicing over The End for Hillary since Iowa. And have been doing their very best to assist Obama ever since.

When highly-paid journalists, some whose livelihood depends upon payment for 'intellectual property rights' sit around a polished table and announce that "plagiarism is trivial"  I fear for their sanity. When some of those nodding sagely include Doris Kearns Goodwin and Mike Barnicle, the sight becomes ludicrous.

Senator Obama spent last week carefully speaking in legalistic parsing: No, he never heard any of that from the Reverend's mouth when Obama was sitting in the pew.  Maybe he was standing, or perhaps he was hearing words from the public address system, and hence not precisely from the mouth of the Reverend, because in The Speech, Obama quite defiantly admitted YES, he had heard, YES he did know.

Did any of these journalists mention that Obama lied?  No, they proclaimed him better than Lincoln, better than King, JFK, RFK, Jesus, and Mr. Rogers put together.

When the Obama definition of Rezko's contributions went from 'about $15,000' to "maybe a hundred thousand' to "over $250,000" not one of the pundits managed to croak a comment.

When Obama claimed that he had NO IDEA that his real estate deal with Rezko might have been suspect, not one of those pundits who had been acclaiming him as a 'smart, civil rights attorney with an expert knowledge of the Constitution' found that explanation to be less than truthful.

When the Obama campaign derides a former President, a former Representative, and a sitting Senator as racists, not one of them demur. And when the Obama campaign issues slanders and lies against Senator Clinton, the pundits make gleeful sexists jokes, and then describe Obama as a "new sort of politician, above it all."

And they have been shouting that there is "no way Hillary can get 2024 delegates" while not once admitting that neither can Obama.  And of course, the appellations are always "Obama" or "Senator Obama" and "Hillary."  "Reverend Wright" and "Gerry."  

When Obama describes his grandmother as a racist (contrary to the version he wrote in his book) and a "typical white person"  he is 'bringing us to a higher understanding of the racial divide.' When Kerry declares that Obama can negotiate with Muslims because "he is a black man"  they nod sagely.

When Senator Clinton mentions President Johnson's name in the same sentence as Dr. Kings, she is immediately branded as a racist.

The drum beats go on. She can't win, she can't win, she can't win. And the silence over Obama's gaffes, lies, evasions, inexperience, arrogance and defiance continues.

"Then close your eyes and tap your heels together three times"


by AHoban on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Quit shilling for Obama, Jonathan Singer (2.00 / 1)

This is a transparent attempt to change a bad narrative for Obama with unsourced "some say" rumors that you are not featuring on this page.

I am aware of what you've been doing to Hillary Clinton supporters at MYDD behind the scenes but I am not sure Jerome knows.  You risk alienating much of your readership with these kind of stunts and I am about to spill the beans via email to Mr. Armstrong about your actions.


by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST

Re: Quit shilling for Obama, Jonathan Singer (none / 0)

It's a "vast right wing conspiracy"


by poserM on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Backwards: Obama only has ten percent chance. (none / 0)

Neither can win among elected delegates.  Elected delegates are irrelevant to who will be the candidate.

Superdelegates are smarter and will not vote for a clear loser in the national election.  As Obama's negatives pass Clinton's (and they are very close), and Obama loses in more polls to McCain, the superdelegates will switch to Clinton.

I would not want to be in the Obama camp now that the press has stopped exalting him and are starting to question the many negatives that come with his candidacy.


by Misanthrope2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:11:25 PM EST

Re: Backwards: Obama only has ten percent chance. (none / 0)

Your first sentence does not logically lead to your second sentence. Yes, it's true, neither can win solely among elected delegates. However, to then claim that elected delegates are irrelevant is absurd.

Superdelegates will vote for the candidate the majority of the Democratic party voted for, unless that candidate is fatally flawed.

You do know that current polling (post-Wright) shows that Obama runs stronger than Clinton in the GE and carries considerably more states and EVs, right?

Ask Rasmussen.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What you sort of ... ah ... don't get (none / 0)

is that saying "we're the underdogs here" is a fabulous way to get votes.  Especially from the bazillions of women who are your base.


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST

1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (2.00 / 2)

Hear Ye Clinton Supporters:

Have you actually stopped to consider what a thoroughly messed-up, incompetent, amateurish campaign your candidate has run?  There isn't enough bandwidth in the universe to catalog all of the screwups committed by HRC and her team, but I'll give you some of their greatest hits as a sampler.

First, let's put things in context by recalling that when this primary election contest began, HRC had $100 million in the bank, 96 committed superdelegates, a very famous husband who was the most visible and influential Democrat in the Party, major name recognition after two terms as First Lady, a compliant media that had all but annointed her the next President, and many, many friends and political allies in the Democratic Party hierarchy.  It is almost impossible to imagine a candidate going into a campaign with a greater headstart than HRC enjoyed.

So, blessed with every tactical advantage, HRC made Mistake #1 by going out and hiring the odious and incompetent Mark Penn as her key strategist.  He formulated the brilliant plan for HRC to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday, with no fallback position should that plan fail.
HRC thought that a shock and awe campaign to win 13 key states was going to be enough.  We all know how that turned out.

Obama battled HRC to a draw on Super Tuesday, doing particularly well in the states that caucus. The next morning HRC and the arrogant dimwits on her staff made Mistake #2 when they began dissing the voters in the caucus states, forgetting that those same voters would be convening once again before the national convention for the purpose of selecting the delegates to represent their state.  Dumb, and real counter-productive.

Mistake #3 happened when HRC allowed her staff to piss away $125 million dollars and empty the bank account, forcing her to give her own campaign an embarrassing $5 million loan just to keep the campaign afloat.  This snafu led to the firing of her first campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.

Mistake #4 was the failure of the Clinton campaign to control leaks.   There was a great deal of internal squabbling and dissension within the campaign, and HRC allowed that news to leak out into the media, giving the impression of disarray and incompetence.

Mistake #5 was the failure of the Clinton campaign to bother competing in those states where the polls indicated that she was weak.  Even after the lesson of Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign couldn't manage to get it through their thick skulls that it is important to run a 50-state campaign.  To this day, they continue to focus exclusively on targeted 'firewall' states.

Mistake #6 was Hillary's transparently self-serving attempt to steal the delegates from the flawed primaries in Florida and Michigan.  The Democratic Party had made it explictly clear that the results from those elections would not count, and those delegates would not be seated at the national convention.  HRC's insistence that she rightfully owned those delegates cost her the respect of much of the Party.  Anyone observing the MI and FL controversy only had to ask themselves if Hillary would have been just as adamantly in favor of seating those delegates had Obama come out ahead in those primaries.  If she was sincerely concerned that the voters of MI and FL not be disenfranchised, she should have advocated vigorously for full and fair primaries in those states from the beginning.  As it turned out, she ran out the clock, and now it appears that at this late stage of the game neither state will be able to summon the wherewithal to conduct do-overs.  If the voters in those states feel marginalized, they can direct their ire at HRC.

Mistake #7 is happening as we speak.  In the wake of the Pastor Wright affair, Obama has been looking Presidential by standing up and giving a monumental speech on the subject of race that earned him wide acclaim.  He followed that up by giving two major talks on foreign policy.
He also received an important endorsement from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a former Clinton ally and confidant.  Meanwhile, HRC has been traveling about in Michigan, waving her arms and complaining about Party rules and delegate allocation.

Bottom line, the conduct of the Clinton campaign and the way it contrasts with the brilliant Obama effort ought to be reason enough for us to conclude that she is a poor manager of her own affairs, thus she does not qualify to serve as our Chief Executive.  Obama started with none of the structural advantages that HRC had, yet he has run a very effective, 50-state campaign fueled by small individual donors.  His staff has employed 21st century technology and stands as a shining example of smart progressive politics.


by global yokel on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Yeah ... what he said.


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Cant believe this hasnt gotten more mojo. THIS is what Clinton supporters should be angry about.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Nomination (none / 0)

I love how the media ignores the backlash thats already begun...how can the Democratic Party ignore 20% of Clinton voters going to McCain?


by rossinatl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Nomination (none / 0)

Same way they ignore the 19% of Obama voters going to McCain. (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/21/1133 18/940)

Frankly, I think both groups (that would vote for McCain) are pretty stupid.  But then again, you bring it up as meida thing rather than try to convert those that would be so foolish.


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Nomination (none / 0)

Well, what's to be done about it? Does that actually sound like something that would change anything? Same people say it on both sides, and I don't know what to say about it except that I have nothing but the utmost contempt for anyone who would willingly let the Democratic party lose this election.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women have always made the difference (none / 0)

for Democratic candidates - and a lot of women are either going to stay home or vote for McCain.


by Larissa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

It stinks being on the losing end of the campaign that gets overwhelmed.  The good news is that we'll have the same candidate and the same campaign in the fall.


by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Note to concern trolls - generally you do better if you err on the side of subtlety.  This is a bit much even by the standards of MyDD trolls.


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

If Hillary wins the majority in the popular vote after the remaining primaries, then she deserves to have her case heard by the superdelegates at the convention. Let the system run its course, is all I have to say.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (2.00 / 1)

And Obama continues his ascent in the polls:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup -Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

Looks like the speech may have helped.

Damn good speech, so not suprising.


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hr for ugly speculation (none / 0)

I've heard enough nasty rumors in this campaign to choke a horse and this is no better. If you've heard rumors keep them to yourself or directly ask her campaign, so they'll know ugly rumors are afloat? please refrain from malicious gossip?  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:08:26 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

Maybe they are just lowering expectations...


by wasabi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:12:04 PM EST

From the top (none / 0)

Lately I've been thinking that this campaign is better left to the candidates, because on that level it has not been a particularly ugly one, than their surrogates and partisans, and ground supporters (where it has been pretty disgusting).

As soon as I put it in that context my old feelings of admiration for Hillary Clinton returned.  Even though I support BO for president, I have great respect for her. I hope whichever candidate wins, that we can step back and look at this as an extraordinary adventure, this campaign, groundbreaking and with two exceptional people.  I hope we can all, as I will, vote for the candidate who wins, and work for them in the GE.

Feeling this way, ignoring the ground noise and nastiness, is a huge relief.  It means skipping half the diaries here, but hey, that's a small price. As long as I don't listen to the trashing of Obama, and the sarcasm about Clinton, I can go happily into the voting booth in the GE and feel good about voting for the Democratic candidate.


by mady on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:22:34 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

You seem to like fear, perhaps almost as much as Republicans.


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST

Better becareful Jonathan (2.00 / 2)

The Clinton lynch-mob here at MyDD might attack you.


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Obama is an eventual loser.  He will never win,  his foreign policy is too far left for this country, simply put, no man who says the USA is wrong will ever be president.  Obama has absolutely no chance to be president.  so if the SDs are so stupid to place this nomination in his hands, they will lose badly this fall.  It will serve them right.  Obama is not ever going to win the WH unless he gets there by being VP first.  It just won't happen, not this year.  The votes in Ohio and Penn will tell the story of the Obama campaign.  If he cannot make inroads into the Penn democrats, he cannot win the WH.  It is that simple.  So if he takes this nomination we are done in, there is no way he will win.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:36:57 PM EST

This just in: 60% of Americans are far left (none / 0)

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Stay in, Hillary. You have come back before. The party is about to lose a lot of us for not counting MI and FLA. And, you may ask us to support BO, my dear special best candidate, but I will not, I cannot do it. The democratic party is one big shame...and I'm about to exit and I hope others follow. It is up to Howard Dean to step up and bring this primary back to higher ground.


by susanclare on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:44:28 PM EST

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (none / 0)

---
And, you may ask us to support BO, my dear special best candidate, but I will not
---

Yeah, you'd rather support someone whose policies include torture, privatizing Social Security, more tax cuts for the wealthy, wacko SC judges...


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (none / 0)

I got news for you. The "losing" you're talking about? Yeah, that came from HILLARY'S campaign tactics and strategy. I honestly don't know what you want if Obama is not a real democrat to you. DLC fan?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1 in 10 Shot at Nomination (none / 0)

How about everyone who is not willing to vote for the eventual nominee just find a different spot where you can all, on both sides, plan the destruction of the Democratic party.  The folk on both sides who feel this way have more in common than they would like to think.  This is soooo silly.  Two candidates, almost identical platforms, both from groups who have faced discrimination = if my guy does not win I'm going to hold my breath til I turn blue (or red in this case)

The process will take its course, the inequities level out, and someone will emerge from this mess.

Ugh.


by mady on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dishonest writing (2.00 / 1)

This was one of the most openly biased pieces Politico has put out since I started reading.  I found no fewer than 9 factual errors that were easily disproved citing credible sources.  I am not inclined to go through the exercise a second time, although you can see the debate about it in the discussion thread for the piece.


by bobbank on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:46:50 PM EST

Re: Dishonest writing (none / 0)

So why don't you list them here?


by Timetheos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes She Will get the nomination (2.00 / 2)

MI and FL votes should count. When they do Hillary Clinton will win with a big enough percentage to take the nomination. When she takes both PA and IN and the Obama as Chicago typical politician becomes clear people will be demanding the superdelegates make sure she gets the nomination.  
It is ridiculous to threaten the superdelegates into voting for one candidate because people might be upset if they don't. A large chunk of the voting population will be upset if Clinton doesn't win and latest polls show 53% of them won't vote for Obama. Superdelegates should vote their conscience just like Richardson did today and like Kennedy and Kerry did earlier. If the Obama campaign really believes the superdelegates should mirror the popular vote then he should not accept these endorsements.
Numbers can change and they will. Pundits and bloggers have been calling for Hillary Clinton to give up since she started. Just stop it. You sound like a broken record. Given recent developments, Obama should resign for the good of the democratic party.
by feminist123 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST

That means the Dem's have less than 10% chance of (2.00 / 1)

winning the whitehouse back.

If anyone thinks Obama has a good chance of winning the whitehouse they are not looking at the numbers or thinking hard enough about all the baggage he already has. More than enough to sink him.

If Obama is the nominee he better get Clinton aboard. If he doesn't it is over. Even if he does it might be over. I don't know what I'll do but many people will not vote for Obama in that scenario.

He vastly overestimates his ability to win over her supporters. It won't be just sour grapes. He's viewed as too inexperienced and polarizing, especially by the elderly.

What do the super delegates do if the numbers keep getting worse for Obama vs. McCain?  If the Democrats have clear data showing Obama losing the election and they nominate him anyway and he loses as predicted, I'm through with the party and politics in this country. I might just move to Canada if I can talk my wife into it.

As reported elsewhere on myDD, it will only get worse:

Based on "Electoral Math" by SUSA (Obama, Clinton) released March 6, 2008 and modified using updated results from 15 states released March 19 and 20. NB  The results:

Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
Tie 13

John McCain 288
Barack Obama 238
Tie 12


by mmorang on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:43:25 PM EST

We're supposed to hold hands with people who (2.00 / 2)

who called the Clinton's racists. Look the other way when the media, especially and unfortunately, the progressive voices on TV and radio, is totally in the tank for Obama.

I don't know exactly how it came about that Florida and Michigan aren't going to count. Two huge states that are pretty good representations of the nations demographics and they aren't going to count. Unbelieveable.

That's the best the party can do, run a 3 year senator with his problems against a war hero while the nation is at war. He has all the money in the world and can't win a big state. Ridiculous.

Guess what? If Obama and the sickening media types who were anything but impartial thinks they can shove Obama down our throats, dump on the last sucessful president, call him and his wife racists and think the party will hold hands, send in money and help the cause, guess again.

His loss will go down in the history books as one of the worst ever despite his money advantage and it was all predictible. Why would any voter in their right mind expect grand pa and ma to vote for someone with obviously limited experience after we just had someone try to learn on the job and fail?

McCain ALREADY is beating Obama by 8 points and the Republican slime machine hasn't even been warmed up yet.

I may leave the party on principle alone after this stupidity. Is Obama the best prepared candidate to face these very troubling times? Is he even in the top 100?

Mr Singer is worried about giving McCain credibility on national security? Really? If he's the only choice besides Obama in the general election, then, yes he will have all the credibility he needs, and all the votes. The senior vote is McCain's. The working-class white votes are McCain's. He will also win the Independents and many Dem's of course.

I think the Republican party's years are numbered. Bush has been that bad. Now I believe that the Democratic party as we know it isn't far behind them. I don't know what will take their place but something will. There will have to be a new alignment.


by mmorang on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST

Re: Not worthy of the front page (2.00 / 0)

Exactly, TexasDarlin.  I read that and thought, and why is this on the front page of anything?  How many times have we heard this same skewed argument over and over - and not even bothering to word it interestingly is going to really make a difference, sure.  


by Larissa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (2.00 / 1)

Mr. Singer, here's a novel idea - there's clearly a large number of people who prefer Hillary for president - most fair-minded people would characterize this as a close race, in the 50-50 range.

You can spin the words any way you want (she doesn't have enough delegates to win) and neglect to mention the logical counter-argument (neither does he have enough to win).

But you can't get around the fact that there is a VERY VERY VERY LARGE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WHO PREFER HILLARY.

So again, here's a novel idea - how about let's give all the states a chance to vote?  Without trying to psyche everyone out.  The "will of the people" arguments are so empty without actually giving a damn about - you guessed it - the people.

Since Obama's weaknesses are glaring to many Democrats, how is it that you think it's likely that Republicans don't see them?  And that Republicans will only see them if Democrats pretend they aren't there?  Let's see, we stop the primary now, before everyone in an extremely close race gets to vote, because then Republicans will never find out what we don't want them to know about Obama.  Right, and the Easter Bunny is coming, too.


by Larissa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:00 PM EST

1 in 10 Shot (none / 0)

You want to see a backlash? Give the nomination to Obama by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan. Then you will see a backlash among Clinton supporters that will make your head spin. Half won't vote for him, and many will leave the Democratic party altogether.


by cc on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST

Re: what fools these mortals be (none / 0)

They seem either completely unaware of this growing sentiment or else they completely dismiss the consequences of their actions.

Hillary has great male and female supporters, but I'll speak right now about the latter.

They either foolishly figure, who needs women anyway? or else figure we may not like it, but we will do what we're told.

Well, I'll tell you what, I'm going to take great pleasure in proving them wrong.

The best they can hope for from me if Obama is the nominee is that I stay home.

That's all she wrote.


by Larissa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what fools these mortals be (none / 0)

Well, then stay home but don't complain about how the Republicans and McCain messed up the country for another eight years.


by sbbonerad on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what fools these mortals be (none / 0)

I know this is something that Obama fans cannot fathom, but those of us who don't want to vote for him are actually afraid he will mess up the country worse than McCain.  We are genuinely alarmed.  Check out Joe Wilson's op eds.  Check out the fact that so many generals are backing Hillary.  Some of us can't bear the thought of voting for a Republican.  Others are worried enough they will.


by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

Look. Hilary has every right to stay in. If she wins most of the remaining primaries by a decent margin she could gain enough momentum to swing the super delegates her way. It's an outside chance but not impossible. The issue is that she has an obligation to campaign in a way (as does Obama) that will not hurt the chances of the Democrats winning in November if her gambit fails. That means running a positive campaigns and focusing fire on McCain not the Democratic opponent. Given the level of economic insecurity in the country, it could even work. What is not acceptable is running a crash and burn campaign that will leave the party in tatters in the fall. Again, this goes for both campaigns. This is the point I took from Jonathan's post. I agree whole heartedly.


by thinman on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: (none / 0)

BO can can only win the nomination by disenfranchsing voters in two critical states.  If he is given the nomination w/out MI an FL being seated, it will be completely illegitimate.

Even if the powers that be are cowed into giving him the nomination illegitamately There is no way that Americans will let him and his America-hating pastor near the White House.  Clinton will go into the convention having won all the critical states to winning the GE, close or ahead in popular vote and slightly behind in pledged delegates.  It's anyone's race at that point.

If the dems want to win in November, better figure out a way to make MI and FL count and better let the process play out instead of caving to threats from AA voter block.


by Boston Whaler on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:57:40 AM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign: We Only Have 1 in 10 Shot at (none / 0)

<<If she wants to stay in the race, I believe she certainly has the right.>>

I have the RIGHT to fart in the elevator, though it is not the best course of action for all the occupants.  Clinton has the right to do what's best for her and not the party.  Certainly that's what her husband did when he chose the priorities of his penis over his Presidency.  Her 10% shot will come from Rushover Limbaugh listeners and racists.  Now that's a true Democrat coalition, isn't it?


by braised cod on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:02:28 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.