She Didn't Ask The Questions & He Couldn't Answer Them

Were we watching the same debate Wed. night?  Because to hear Joe Klein and other Obama apologists talk, Hillary's suddenly the devil (republican) in Democrats clothing.  Let's get a few things straight here guys...

Hillary didn't set the tone of that debate by determining the questions - the moderators did.  To claim that she "went on the attack" is just complete and utter bullshit and it's time someone pointed that out. She had no more control over the tone of that debate than he did.  The only thing they could control as candidates and participants is how well things turned out for each of them by the answers they gave.

There's a reason people say Hillary won the debate - she handled the tough questions better than he did.  There was one question in particular that was designed to elicit one of Russert's signature gotcha moments from Hillary, and she answered it the only way she could.

Now folks have been declaring Hillary dead in the water since the Iowa results rolled in and she's proved them wrong time and time again.  New Hampshire, Nevada, Super Tuesday states and then Ohio and Texas - all of the millions of voters in those states told us this thing's not even close to being over.

And then comes Joe Klein...

He's taken Hillary's answer to a gotcha question in the debate Wednesday night (you boys thought only BO got those right?) and is trying to wave it about on one of the highest flagpoles in the land as proof that she can no longer win this thing.  She was asked about comments she may or may not have made in a conversation with Gov. Richardson.  She said yes, BO can beat McCain in the General election and that if he's our nominee, she'll do all she can to help make that happen.  She also said she's convinced she's got a better shot at beating him and that's why she was standing there in that debate Wednesday night.

She didn't say anything new Wed. night you guys - far from it.  She's been saying for months that if he gets the nod, she'll work her fingers to the bone to help put him over the top in the General election.  But Klein is clearly working from Axelrod's talking points on this one.  Forget that a) it was a political answer to a benign political question, and b) she whipped his ass on the important issues.  No, Axelrod declared that the main point of the debate and the press instantly embraced it.  

I woke up this morning with a gut feeling that the Philadelphia debate may have been the last straw for the Democratic Party, that the superdelegates are about to rush to Barack Obama in order to end this thing and liberate him to actually answer the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing. This New York Times piece is a pretty good indication of the zeitgeist. And these words from Obama pretty much sum up the current state of play:

"That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November. It happened just a little bit early, but that is what they will do," Mr. Obama said. "They will try to focus on all these issues that don't have anything to do with how you are paying your bills at the end of the month. There's no doubt that I will have to respond sharply and crisply, then pivot to talk about what exactly are we going to do for the economy and what are we going to do about the war in Iraq."

I'll repeat this one more time for those who're having trouble following the facts - Hillary did NOT choose the questions for that debate.  The moderators did and yet here we have BO on the campaign trail implying that Hillary's the one who "attacked" him, and went all republican on his ass.  But that ignores the real point of what he's raised here - this was a taste of what the rethugs will be saying in the general if he's our nominee and he failed miserably in answering those questions!

Sadly, he's turning his failures into something that's the fault of his opponent in all this.

The moderators chose and asked the questions.

He failed miserably in answering them.

Hillary put in her two cents worth when it came to her turn - this was a debate after all, where BOTH get the chance to answer.  And don't you dare tell me he would have said "I pass guys - I wouldn't want to damage Hillary on the chance that she'll be our nominee" if the shoe were on the other foot.

Yet somehow, this is all Hillary's fault?  Then Klein points to something BO said in an effort to pretend he was taking the high road in all this...

Until the nominating fight ends, Mr. Obama said, he is "trying to show some restraint." He added, "I won't have as much restraint with the Republicans."

He's trying to show some restraint?  Seriously?  Is he fecking kidding me?  He's sent out Harry & Louise style flyers on health care, flyers that lie about Hillary's trade record that were later discredited (and he agreed they were wrong!), has just sent out those same flyers again in Pennsylvania, and of course there were those flyers in Nevada urging republicans to become Democrats for a day to keep Hillary from being elected... we won't even go into the negative radio ads he's run, or that TV ad where he claims to have never taken money from big oil (implying that Hillary has).  

Holy mackerel!  How stupid do they think the voters in this country are?

Add to that his attacks on her character over the past 14 months, where he and his henchmen have called her everything under the sun.  Take a look at what the campaign sent out in mid-March about BO's "restraint" when it comes to his attacks on Hillary...

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?  

On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her.

Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

"Disingenuous"
"Too polarizing to win"
'Divisive'
"Untruthful"
"Dishonest"
'Calculating'
"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
"Attempting to deceive the American people"
"One of the most secretive politicians in America"
"Literally willing to do anything to win"
"Playing politics with war"

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

This "full assault" on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.

This "full assault" is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.
This "full assault" is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I've had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

This is a hard-fought campaign - as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief -- the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.  

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.    

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought - and winnable - contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

Yeah... that's some restraint all right.  I'd hate to see what he'd be like if he opened up a can of that Chicago smack-down politics he threatened her with last fall.

Klein closes out his screed with a bit of wishful thinking, saying that he thinks the supers are going to start heading to his guy in response to all of Hillary's "negative" campaigning.

I got news for you Joe... If anyone's gone negative in this race it's your guy Obama.  Wise the hell up and quit trying to throw this election to your candidate before millions of voters have had their say in this.  You want to live in a Democracy (you know... with a big "D"?), then you need to shut the fuck up and let the voters in PA, IN, NC, OR, KY & PR etc have their say.

Otherwise, you're no better than the Republicans.

I'd like to leave you with a bit of food for thought and remind Joe and all the other Hillary-haters out there of just how wrong the pundits have gotten things so far in this race.  They've been trying to declare Hillary's candidacy over for months and yet... here she is standing strong.  Take a look at their record so far...

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose New Hampshire and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire, defying the predictions and the polls

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose the big states on Super Tuesday and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins the big states on Super Tuesday - and wins them by double digits

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose Texas and possibly Ohio on March 4th and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio on March 4th - and she wins Ohio by double digits

THE PUNDITS
Despite Hillary Clinton's big victories on March 4th, "the math" works decisively against her and the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The math is simple: neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination and either candidate can win

THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the pledged delegate count; pledged delegates are the only measure of success; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The candidates are within fractions of one another on delegates; Barack Obama needs super delegates to win; and a marginal pledged delegate lead does not determine the outcome  

THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the popular vote; Florida and Michigan don't count; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan

THE PUNDITS
Once the remaining states vote, Barack Obama will be substantially ahead in delegates and votes and the race will be over
THE REALITY
The race is a dead heat now and no one knows where things will end up after millions of remaining voters in the upcoming states make their choice

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton's situation is dire; her campaign is struggling; her supporters are disillusioned and desperate  
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are calm, confident, and focused heading into the key state of PA, where she is running strong

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton's campaign lacks significant grassroots energy; only one candidate has mobilized supporters to take action for the campaign
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton's supporters across America have written letters, blogged, donated tens of millions of dollars, volunteered millions of hours and made millions of calls

THE PUNDITS
There is a loud and growing chorus of voices asking Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race
THE REALITY
Precisely the same number of voters (22%) think Barack Obama should drop out of the race as Hillary Clinton

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is the candidate running a negative, divisive campaign; she is throwing the "kitchen sink" at Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama has been throwing the sink, the stove, the plates and the garbage can at Hillary Clinton, attacking her integrity and character every day

THE PUNDITS
For Hillary to win the nomination, super delegates will have to "overturn the will of the people"
THE REALITY
The will of the people is split and both candidates need - and are making their case to - super delegates

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is threatening to poach pledged delegates from Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is reportedly already trying to poach pledged delegates from Hillary Clinton

THE PUNDITS
Florida and Michigan's voters won't be heard and their delegates won't be seated all because of complicated procedural roadblocks
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is intentionally disenfranchising voters in two critical states for purely political reasons, namely, that he'll lose his small advantage if they count

THE PUNDITS
Every single word or action from Hillary Clinton, her campaign, her surrogates and her supporters is part of a calculated and cynical political strategy
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat, a lifelong public servant, a tireless and tenacious candidate, and is fighting hard - and fair - to win with the help of millions of dedicated supporters

This woman doesn't back down - no way - no how.


UPDATED

Hey if you're as pissed off as I am over this garbage then please (!!!!) let Klein know he's full of shit guys and send Hillary some love...

HELP HILLARY TO VICTORY IN PA - CONTRIBUTE NOW!


Display:


Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.93 / 16)

Yeah!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:22 PM EST

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.55 / 9)

she is still losing the nomination


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.87 / 8)

We're talking 7th inning here with just a run or two separating them.  This ain't over - not even close.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

More like the 8th inning and 5 runs back.  The numbers she needs from here on out are daunting.

I am not saying people should count her out, but to say it's a one run game is just not accurate.


by mefck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 7)

How do you figure?  We've got about 20% of the contests yet to be held and when you include FL & MI (and I'm sorry but there's no way you can hold that convention witout seating those delegates) they're separated by about 1% of the vote.

She's still got a shot at this and to try to declare it over not is just absurd.  It makes me wonder what Klein et al are afraid of if this thing's allowed to play out.  Does he know something that will take BO out that we don't?  Is he trying to hide something?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

Party establishment is starting to gel around Barack now.


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 3)

heh! the party establishment is sitting on its hands after obama's dismal debate performance. howard dean is huffing and puffing and saying he'll blow their house down, and they're laughing at him.


by campskunk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

Right.

5 superdelegates for Obama in two days, none of them add-ons.

Nunn, Boren and Reich for Obama today.

17 US Senators support Obama, only 13 for Clinton.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

The only category of superdelegates where she isn't trailing is DNC members, meaning the unelected hierarch's of the party.

THEY love her to death.  Voters and members of congress? not so much.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 0)

Obama leads in the "elected" superdelegate count mainly because he has lined their pockets with about three times as much cash from his PAC.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

Because raising money for candidates is a bad thing?


by interestedbystander on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Suppose Obama 'wins' the nomination, but loses the (none / 0)

general election. We will have four more years of trickle dpwn economics and quite possibly at least one or two disastrous wars or regional conflicts, and the US will undoubtably be incredibly in debt. We will have millions of homeless and untreated sick people, and the educational system will be in a shambles.

I just don't think he can win. He hides it very well, but his positions
ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC POSITIONS on many issues.

And once he gets the nomination, he will swing right and his base will feel BETRAYED.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

Nunn, Boren & Reich have all been publicly supporting Obama for quite some time  I would say it's more likely that their announcements were coordinated for today to try and take some sting out of the difficult week Obama has been having.


by Trickster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

I follow the news closely and the ONLY one you could credibly say that about is Reich. The others haven't said a thing about the campaign.

And Reich, who is a very old friend of Bill's (they met on the way to being Rhodes Scholars) just now came out with an official endorsement.  He is so close to them that he was in their kitchen a day or two after Clinton was elected in 1992 and he held back because of these personal connections. So it's pretty meaningful that he still decided to come out for Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 6)

Give it up.  Reich hasn't been their freind for a decade - not since he wrote his tell-all book.

The guy's been in the tank for BO for the past year for feck sake. How desparate does BO have to be to put out his name as a brand new endorsement and have Reich go around claiming it's because of her performance at the debate wednesday night????

Seriously - it's beyond lame.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 0)

And Boren and Nunn?  

By the way, how much do you have to make to afford $400 a week for day care?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

Thanks.  I can't resist saying that it sounds like the Bush administration announcing the same capture multiple times.  Remember, so many enemies were "the no.2 man" that it became a joke?


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

Reich didn't endorse before. And neither did Nunn or Boren.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Boren endorsed in 1993.. (2.00 / 3)

when he went on the Rush Limbaugh show to excoriate Pres. Clinton for all manners of sins.

He was no surprise to me at all!!

Sam Nunn...yes, that was a good endorsement, but not Boren!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 0)

I have known for months and months that Reich is backing Obama.

BTW, let me tell you that Donna Brazile is also in the tank for Obama, although she calls herself 'unaffiliated'.  So when the time comes, we'll be waiting for that diary with baited breath.  


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

I for one would appreciate your not maligning a strong progressive Democrat like Robert Reich, Alegre.  What's this "in the tank" business, anyway?  Reich has been a staunch supporter of progressive policies, especially regarding labor, since the early '90's.  Just because the man endorses one candidate doesn't mean he's sold his principles or his soul to him.

As to the central aim of your diary: How surprised, delighted, and impressed we all --Clinton and Obama supporters alike -- would have been if Senator Clinton had told Gibson and Stephanopoulos that she would rather discuss the issues!  Obama couldn't do much of this, because as the clear frontrunner he would have looked like he was trying to duck questions.  But we heard candidates like Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson request on more than one occasion that serious issues be discussed.  

Imagine the reaction if Senator Clinton had said, "I don't think the voters of Pennsylvania care as much about flag pins as they do about the mortgage crisis. . . ."

Unfortunately, we all have to imagine such a reaction, because Senator Clinton has demonstrated that she'd rather make ads about "bittergate" than substantive issues, and she was thorough complaisant in discussing these tabloid issues during the debate.


by deminva on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:42:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well said (1.00 / 1)

but sadly alegre is not into facts, just bullsht


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

is that about the 20th time (2.00 / 1)

Reich endorsed him?


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:37:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.00 / 0)

Yours is not a reality-based observation.


by deminva on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.80 / 5)

Dream on.  This thing isn't over until this summer - period.  She got supers this week and so did he.  It's part of the process.

Seriously - what's the hurry man?  Are you afraid your guy is going to get clobbered in the upcoming states?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong, Alegre (2.00 / 1)

We're talking about the fourth quarter of a football game.
There's 1 minute to go in the 4th quarter.
The score is Obama 35, Hillary 24.
Hillary scores a touchdown and point after with 20 seconds to go. Then Obama gets the ball, the score is now Obama 35, Hillary 30.

20 seconds to go, Hillary still may have a chance. Except Hillary just scored the last touchdown.

So now team Obama has 20 seconds left to down the ball and run out the clock.

Final score: Obama 35, Hillary 30.

So does Hillary get the cheerleaders to give Hillary the win anyway?

I don't think so.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoops (none / 0)

I should have said, Hillary 31.
OK, I'll concede that point.
Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:55:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

I am not trying to say it's over.

Of course MI and FL will be seated, but after the nomination is decided.  And the delegate separation is closer to 6%.

I mean, just looks at the numbers.  Even massive wins in PA, KY and WV won't yield enough delegates to get it close.

Then, after June 3, it's up to the SDs.  Will these few hundred people overturn the "will" of the tens of millions who voted over the previous 6 months?


by mefck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.66 / 3)

After the nomination is decided?  Umm yeah... keep telling yourself that.  This all comes down to the credentials committee and last I checked she's got a slight edge there.

The votes in MI and FL will be couted and they WILL come into play in deciding our nominee.  To do otherwise would totally negate the entire process AND the result.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

How do you propose MI is counted?


by mefck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

Simple. You just count MI and FL. If that fucks Obama in the process, oh well. What matters are the voters and their votes, not some candidate trying to game the system.

BTW, Hillary was all for a revote and Obama was not. Now why it that, considering that while FL may be a sure thing for Hillary, MI could be a big role of the dice for her? Sounds to me like Obama isn't so sure MI can be had either, which only makes his chances more iffy come the GE.


by SoCalHillMan on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

MI (1.00 / 1)

I, like Clinton and millions of others, wanted a fair revote.  Obama stopped that so now we'll just have to count the votes as is.

If he's going to disenfranchise voters, he should pay the price.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

stop lying (2.00 / 1)

Obama did not block the re-vote


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop lying (1.00 / 1)

Yes, he did.  

You all can keep claiming he didn't but the people of MI know the truth.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

cut the shit (1.00 / 0)

you pulled that straight out of your ass


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: stop lying (1.00 / 0)

I dare you to watch this

<object width="425" height="355"></object>


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

alegre is afraid to comment (none / 0)

on this video.


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI (2.00 / 1)

"I, like Clinton and millions of others, wanted a fair revote. "

No she didn't. No you didn't.

You wanted a revote where only the people that had voted in the first "vote" would be allowed to vote again. So obviously Hillary voters would once again have a massive lead, since they were the only ones that back then could actually vote for their candidate.

This makes a mockery of the whole idea that you didn't want to disenfranchise people. That's exactly what you did want.

The lies are tiresome.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

She can't have a slight edge in the credentials committee without having an edge in the committee-at-large, which she doesn't.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 3)

It is stupid and foolhardy to have MI and FL have a role in deciding the nomination...

Do you have any idea what will happen the next time?  Well, FL and MI didn't get penalized...  my word, we will be having primaries beginning at Halloween...

I realize this sicks in peoples craw for some reason, but he time to have projected outrage over this decision is long past.  Could have made a difference over the summer... no one paid attention.. well, we did... it was our local news.

Seat them, but they should not affect the outcome.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 3)

There's also the slightly inconvenient fact that a contest where no campaigning is allowed and in one case where there's only one name on the ballot wouldn't be considered a legitimate election in any country in the world.

It certainly wouldn't pass international standards.


by Mostly on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.50 / 2)

Then he shouldn't have taken his name off the ballot, should he....

He made  a rookie political mistake  Michigan voters shouldn't have to pay for.


by TxKat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

Oh please....they were asked to take their names off the ballot because the votes would not count - hillary kept hers on in MI so that those going to vote would see it and press the lever for her.  it does NOT matter if all the candidates broke the rules and campaigned in the states and it doesn't matter who is at fault for the rules.  The votes do not count, period.  You can't run a race again unless the conditions are equal, and they never will be.  the delegates can be seated, but votes don't count unless you give both candidates equal amount - hillary said no to that.


by mariannie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they were not asked to (1.50 / 2)

take their names off the ballot.  That is an Obama campaign lie....just one of many


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:47:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes they were - stop lying (1.00 / 0)


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:44:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 0)

Some of us actually want to win the next election, JenKinFLA.

Your views don't reflect the feelings of any of the Floridians I know.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, real Democrats will not stand (none / 0)

for that kind of cheating


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary says that Michigan will not count (2.00 / 1)

Clinton:  "I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

here is the video of Hillary saying that:

<object width="425" height="355"></object>


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

The Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated, just not to your liking (well, Florida probably will).

Read Roberts Rules of Order, and weep.  People have this idea that the delegations are all-or-nothing affairs, and they aren't.  You could seat a Michigan delegation made up entirely of Obama's pre-selected delegates if you wanted to.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good luck... (1.60 / 5)

shoulder brush?


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good luck... (none / 0)

Thanks!  I don't feel like I need it but you never know.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

Actually, baseball is the wrong sports metaphor, because you can overcome any deficit in a single inning.  Senator Clinton needs to limit Obama to less than 40% of the vote in the remaining primaries to win, and it's hard to think of a sports metaphor that captures her situation.  


by deminva on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.00 / 0)

stop with the false talking points

everyone knows better


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.85 / 7)

According to you, without counting millions of more voters, that is.  Congratulations on determining the victor before the fight is over.  How very Democrtic of you.

Cut it short.  Predict the winner ahead of time, repeat, rinse, repeat, and perhaps it will stick.

Welcome to Democracy -1.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.25 / 4)

This race is over but no one has told the Clintonistas yet.


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You seem to be more irritating (1.75 / 4)

than most of the Obama supporters around here. Why is that?


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You seem to be more irritating (2.00 / 1)

Because the truth is hurtful


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're the only Obama supporter who's (1.75 / 4)

telling the truth? Interesting idea. Or is it possible that you're just inordinately annoying?


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (2.00 / 2)

I'll tell you straight - Barack Obama will win this nomination by early June.

If by the slim chance, Hillary goes all the way to the convention in August and wrestles this nomination away from Barack, that guarantees a President McCain in November.

That's the straight dope.


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (1.75 / 4)

I didn't ask you who'd win the nomination. I asked you why you went out of your way to be aggravating. Thanks for ignoring the question, though.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (1.75 / 4)

Pssst... Shh!

Let him keep thinking they've got this locked up.  Meanwhile, we'll be out there knocking on doors, driving folks to the polls and making phone calls ;o)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (2.00 / 1)

yeah... because that's something the Obama campaign hasn't thought of yet..../snark


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (1.00 / 0)

yeah - your voter outreach is going great


There's also an undercurrent of envy. Obama supporters were everywhere in Philadelphia, and in March and the first days of April, we were not. Tales came in from friends of friends: Obama's people get to organize their own rallies; they have local offices all over the city. This, of course, is the character of their campaign, and is the opposite of Clinton's 1990s-style campaign setup.

It was frustrating, and soon led to a semi-revolt at a Wednesday night Philly 4 Hillary meeting. A hodgepodge group arrived to talk about voter registration -- the primary registration deadline was five days away -- and meet a paid organizer.

The staffer talked about the importance of signing people up to vote. The volunteers said they'd heard enough of this, and wanted to actually do so.

"The other candidate's people are knocking at my door," said an older South Philadelphia woman who eventually just set up her own voter registration effort outside her local ShopRite. "When do we do that?"

We got our chance several days later. This is when I realized that most Hillary supporters I've actually met in this city have two main motivating factors: They're either supposed to support Hillary, or they're horrified of the alternative.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2008/0 4/17/i-was-a-clinton-volunteer


by OhPlease on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're the only Obama supporter who's (1.50 / 2)

That's the straight dope?

Okay, hang in there with the dope.  Us "straight" folks still have some sense.  Don't count your chickens before they hatch because of dopeyness.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:36:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 5)

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it - there's still a lot of voting yet to be done.

OR have you guys got dirt on Gov. Dean to where he's going to call off those primaries and just hand everything over to BO now?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

Please lay out your scenario on the margins in the states and the likely delegate pick-ups.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 1)

Sorry,

it's really not possible to predict the lay-out before the rest of the people have voted.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

What?

He is asking what is Clinton's path to the nomination?  What states do you think she will win and by what margins and how will that give her enough delegates to win?

I am sure you have something in mind since you think she has a decent chance to win.


by mefck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

I do,

but since I know you won't agree,and I'm too busy otherwise, I won't waste my precious time for you.  Do you own research, and just take my comment for what it is - my opinion.  I'm past explaining it to folks like you who have no intention on accepting anything I post anyway.  Waste of time.  Bye.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

In other words, you know there is no reasonable scenario.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (1.50 / 2)

That's one big copout.  If that's the case, why do you even post here?  Just to hear your echo?


by mefck on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:19:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 1)

You'll get nothing but crickets. None of the Clinton supporters will go on record with the sort of scenario it would take for her to capture the nomination, because it would look too much like a coup d'état. In light of her favorability numbers, silence is the best option for them.


by bookish on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:26:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 2)

Hillary Clinton wins by 15-30 points in PA, IN, KY, WV, PR.  Comes within 10 points in NC, OR, SD, MT.  FL and MI are seated as they voted, which will happen.

We go to the convention. Hillary leads the popular vote and is down about 12 measly delegates in a system so askew that TX and NV awarded more delegates to the person with less votes, IA and NH have a ridiculously disproportionate say in who our nominee is, and utilizes caucuses (November won't be a caucus).

By this point, the skeletons have come out of Obama's closet, and he is clearly unelectable in the GE.  A dozen Superdelegates decide to serve their designated purpose in the party, preventing yet another Democratic suicide, and we do all of this "uniting around our nominee" talk the Obamabots love to tell Hillary supporters to do.

There.  Satisfied?


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 1)

if the rest of the "skeletons" are anything like the ones already found, I don't think it's going to sway the SDs much. After all, Obama's been lessening the gap in SDs since Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc.

Even if FL and MI are seated as voted, I doubt the SDs are going to buy into the idea that the vote totals are representative of a fair race--especially in MI. Obama wasn't on the ballot.

So, the "lead" in the popular vote really won't be much of a lead at all.

As for the 15-30 point victories in PA, IN, KY, WV, and PR. I might by KY, WV, and PR, but judging from recent polls, I doubt that PA will be more then 15--if that, and IN will be closer.

Considering all of the so-called scandals that have rocked the Obama campaign, he is still doing well in the polls, is still in the pledged and popular vote lead, is still the frontrunner.

Basically, I'm saying that the idea that there will be some massive shift towards sen. clinton is wishful thinking.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 2)

Obama took himself off the ballot and there was a large campaign for his supporters to vote "uncommitted."  I doubt this dampened turnout any more than the demands of a caucus do.  I'm really sick of arguing about MI and FL, though.  I'll leave that to be decided by others.

Say what you want.  I presented a scenario as you requested.  If your best way to punch holes in it is to quibble about its probability, then you've already allowed for the possibility of it to happen.  Hillary Clinton has been in the national spotlight for over 15 years; Barack Obama gave a good speech in 2004, has been in Federal government for less than 4 years, and has been a national figure since January.  I'd say there's a lot more room for nasty surprises than you, or most people in the Obama camp, would like to allow for.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (none / 0)

"Obama took himself off the ballot"

Alongside Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Dodd.

It's not as if Obama alone did that, is it now? The candidates number 3,4,5 and 6 likewise did.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 1)

I didn't imply that he was the only one to do so, nor do I see your point as relevant.  The fact is that Barack Obama and only Barack Obama is responsible for his not getting any votes in MI.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (none / 0)

"nor do I see your point as relevant."

I didn't expect you would see it as relevant if the majority of contestants have a certain view on the legitimacy of a particular contest.

"The fact is that Barack Obama and only Barack Obama is responsible for his not getting any votes in MI."

Since the only Michigan primary that occurred is one that Clinton herself said wouldn't count and had pledged not to participate in, she didn't get any legitimate votes there either.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (none / 0)

In the unlikely even that any of this happens, you are still not considering the fact that 55 delgates from MI are not counted in that tally, you can bet your bottom dollar that if (an this is a really big if) MI is seated as is, the 55 uncommited will backlash and vote Obama.  The far more likely scenario is that they will be penalized 50% of their delegates which will not be enough for Clinton to close the gap.

Secondly Clinton will NOT win PA by more than 15, and that is the ONLY place with enough delegates to make the difference where she can win by 15.

She is not going to win in IN at all.  KY and WV do not have enough delegates, and are a ways away.  When the contest moves there, campaigning will erase any of these 20-30 point predictions as they have been erased in EVERY other contest that Clinton should have won in a landslide.  

By the time PR rolls around it may not even matter.

NC will erase PA.  OR, SD, MT will cancel out at least three of the "wins" Clinton could get outside IN (which she won't win).

The popular vote margin will remain essentially where it is.

The delegate gap will also remain pretty much intact.

So the answer to this scenario is that Obama comes out and decides he cannot win.  Don't hold your breath for that one.  Or that Obama is caught in a real scandal (dead girl, live boy type scandal) which is also very unlikely.

However, since you Clinton supporters are so convinced that she can still win this thing, great.  Compete, yell, scream, try to win it for her.  Who knows, I may still win the powerball jackpot, so Clinton could win the nom by that standard.

But lets have some sanity afterwards and make the commitment that when Obama wins this nomination you will all start acting like good democrats and support your nominee.


by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (2.00 / 1)

Let me shorten your post for you: "Nuh-uh, it won't happen that way!"  But no matter how much you don't like it, the scenario I painted is a possibility, even if everyone in the Obama camp thinks it's a longshot.  That's okay.  Everyone in the Obama camp thought Hillary was DOA in Iowa, and look where we are now.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (none / 0)

We are to the point of the campaign where Obama leads the delegate count by 6% with 87% of the delegates already chosen.

This is why it is so very unlikely that she will win.

You paint this as a possibility, I do not dispute that it is posible for this to happen.  But it is so highly improbable that the possiblity that it does happen, is neglegable.

I will not demand that you lose faith before the end of the voting, even if there is only a miniscule possibilty of Clinton winning, because we are all entitled to a fair and complete process.

What I do demand is that you, who doubt what is likely, make certain that in the event that your candidate loses your support will be behind the candidate of the party you claim to be a part of.

This is to say.  When Clinton loses, support Obama.

Most Obama supporters have already moved towards this conclusion some time ago if Clinton were to win.  But many Clinton supporters (to the tune of 30%) seem to think that it is ok to destroy the party and make an easy path for McCain to the white House.  I find this line of though unconcionable as it would result in the worst possible outcome for the people of the Democratic party, and the people of this nation.

So what say you, are you a Democrat or not?


by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've asked for this so many times (none / 0)

Go ahead and hold on to the illusion.  
I GUESS that is a way IT could happen.  

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kudos (none / 0)

You're the first to take the bet. And as incredibly unlikely as your scenario is - and by incredibly unlikely I do mean virtually impossible - you've at least put it out there.

The fact that your scenario includes the provisions that MI are seated as is and that Obama is going to have some damning skeletons evinced is relying on some pretty wishful thinking. Based on the negotiations we've seen thus far, the best MI can hope for is a 50/50 split of 50% of their delegates, and if that happens, FL will only have 50% of their delegates seated, as well, so that pretty much screws up your math. I'll also agree with shef that unless Obama is caught with a live girl or dead boy, nothing is going to hurt him. He's proven on so many occasions that he can pivot those issues to his favor that I can't see how he could be damaged by anything.

Of course, that's only so much speculation, but it's about as reliable as what you've offered.

Again, thanks for playing. I respect you for at least making a valiant attempt, which I haven't gotten from others.


by bookish on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kudos (none / 0)

Likewise, I appreciate your tempered, level-headed response.

The truth is that we don't know how this thing is going to turn out.  We simply do not.  And even if Clinton isn't currently favored to win the Democratic nomination, many of her supporters believe that we, as well as Hillary, need to do everything we can to make that happen.  If there's a chance--which there clearly is in the scenario I just gave--then we aren't going away.  From my perspective, I see a "PA slingshot" effect coming, where despite Obama's outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in the state, he still loses by about ~15 points, give or take 3 or 4.  This raises huge doubts about his candidacy, coupled with all of the dirt that was piled on him in the debate.  Next we have a primary with an 11+ point win in IN (where Obama has been campaigning and his numbers have only been going down, BTW), a stronger-than-expected showing in NC, and then we're really off to the races for the rest of the summer.

We can argue about MI and FL all day, but it's going to come down to the credentials committee--and I believe that it is a total game changer if HRC is close enough to Obama that, with MI and FL counted, she would be within less than 50 delegates of Obama.  If squelching the voices of MI and FL voters gives us our nominee, that nominee will be considered illegitimate by huge parts of the party.  If HRC is leading in the popular vote, it's going to be awfully hard for those Obama supporters to go backtrack on their "will of the people" talk.

Moreover, I sure hope that Obama's campaign staff thinks he's "invincible" as well.  Hopefully they'll start getting complacent.

I know that for many Obama supporters, they look back on the primaries and especially since Obama's winning streak, have been asking why this isn't over yet.  But the truth is that this process is simply not yet played out, and HRC and her supporters deserve the respect of being allowed every opportunity that they have earned.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

No Alegre...we don't have the 'dirt' on Dean.  That's something only the Hillary campaign collects and throws at fellow Democrats


by mariannie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

don't hold your breath (2.00 / 4)

I'd say she's still very much in this contest. he's being very unpleasant these days, and two close friend who'd been stalwart for him switched after that debate. He blew it, made excuses, didn't just take in on the chin and move on. He seemed very weak, and then to be spending the next day complaining, not very presidential.  Isn't that a great pic of Hillary?  It'll be so great to have a competent president.  I'm so sick of bush, and I LOVE her iraq exit plan, and of course universal pre-school. why does he liked private mercenaries so much? and why does he want to keep Bush's no-bid contracts that hog up whatever Iraqi resources they have that one might use for diplomacy purposes or to prove we don't want to profit from this mistaken war?  Why does he think he'll need 60 to 80K of soldiers for five more years? Why, why, why?   I mean, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong?????


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama wants to INCREASE military spending- (none / 0)

not a good thing to say to our addicted military industrial complex, regardless of what your plans are.. its like giving away the farm..

sound hypocritical?


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wants to INCREASE military spending- (none / 0)

And she wants to create an umbrella of protection throughout the entire Middle East... you really think she can withdraw troops from Iraq at the same time?


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't hold your breath (none / 0)

He was very weak.  Not at all Presidential.  


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

She may not have set the tone of the debate questions but she sure dragged them on and expanded-Hillary brought up Farakahn, hamas, she put in her own two cents on william ayers (you were a member of a board with him)...on and on.  
She does this because its her only chance to gain the lean - period.  Anyone knows when one is even or a bit behind, the only way to gain traction is to make your opponent look bad, unless your opponent does it to himself/herself.
Hillary knows what she is doing and saying every step of the way....she is on a mission, always has been.
She is probably not going to win, however.
by mariannie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pennsylvania Here We Come (none / 0)

Obama stepped into it on the Wright question.  After his initial answer, Hillary was asked if she thought all 8,000 members should have left the church.  She simply replied that was asked a personal question about what "she" would do, and she answered it.  The next question to Obama was on a different subject, but instead he stated his desire to return to the Wright issue.  After he did that, Hillary clobbered him, bringing up Farrakahn and mentioning the Hamas  bulletin (previously unreported by MSM.  Jay Cost at RealClear Politics provides a good analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/04/obama_takes_the_bait_1.ht ml  


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than