Uh, your math is 100% inaccurate. Show me any delegate projection that has her within one percent. I will use CBS numbers as one example. You can use any you want. They have her with 130 delegates down out of 3300. Add it up. That's more than a 3% lead. And I am willing to bet you will throw out the ridiculously cooked popular vote numbers Clinton was throwing around today. They are wrong, and they don't decide primaries.
And literally the only way she can win is by stealing the election in a coup-de-grace by convincing enough party super delegates to usurp the delegate count. They will not alienate that many voters.
It simply is never going to happen. You don't have to agree with me. It is just a fact.
That's why many of us are quite happy to let her run and have never made the claim that she should quit. It is her right to go to the convention and try to win. No one can take that away from her.
One, this is an attack primarily on TWO OTHER democratic candidates. That is what is so bad here. She is letting them swing in the breeze.
Two, there is a major difference between a shock jock and a republican party attack ad.
Three, see the diary about the RR episode. In that I denounce the RR attacks and further go on to make a more accurate between the RR shock jock and Limbaugh's support of HRC, and defend Hillary by saying that she should not be equated to Rush's radio crap in favor of her any more than Obama should be equated to RR's crap in favor of him.
And four, you are making my point for me. Rather than being concerned with FINALLY doing the right thing, especially for other democratic candidates, so many people here and elsewhere are more concerned with making more he-said she-said claims than confronting the truth and moving forward in a more positive note.
I would love to see them both turn their attention to McCain, or failing that, at least see Obama stop wasting resources on Clinton and her never ending primary.
I think Obama could probably could still win even if he never acknowledged her campaign again. All the punditry is irrelevant, she can only win the primary by stealing it away from the majority of states, delegates, and popular votes with a coup-de-grace. It won't happen
But the danger would be the legitimately insulting message it would send to Clinton supporters. For reasons I will never understand, and don't need to, people still support her and would flip out if people simply started acknowledging her candidacy was dead and ignored her.
So let her ride it our as long she wants. Obama can still just keep taking the high road. And in the mean time, he can start working on McCain at the same time as he has been. It is the only approach he can take.
She is wrong when she does things like remain silent in the face of issues like this.
I am not making her stay silent on this to score points on a post. It is inexcusable for a candidate who claims to support the part to let Obama or these other candidates to be so unfairly attacked and not speak out against it.
I come over to MyDD once a day to see what Hillary's fans are up to. Huh. Today is no different than usual.
I'm an unwavering Obama fan. I also don't pay attention to Randi Rhodes any more than I do to Rush Limbaugh, who had been stumping for Hillary for weeks now. That does not mean that Hillary endorses what Rush has to say, and it shows how low you are willing to sink that you try to equate Randi Rhodes statements to Barack Obama by stating in your post:
"Now that is the the most racist attitude of all. Obama should just cut through the bull and adopt this as his knew campaign motto:
ANYBODY WHO IS WHITE AND DOESN'T VOTE FOR ME IS BOTH STUPID AND RACIST. (I am Barack Obama and I approve this message....)
This is the message I am now hearing from his campaign and his supporters. Well I've got news for Obama fans everywhere: If you want to convince people to support your candidate, this is not the way to do it."
What I do think is that your rhetoric is very telling.
What your saying is it is all relative, and that it is a matter of the degree of severity of the underhanded tactics. And politics is politics and we just have to expect this kind of crap. I disagree. I say that if we want any of this party unity people are so eager to bandy about...and I do...we have to hold people to a higher standard.
This has been such a common refrain to try to legitimize some level or another of these types of tactics...lately from Clinton and Neocons, previously from many others.
Do I excuse what John Kerry did? Absolutely not. It was disgusting that the best the Democrats could give us in 2004 was John Kerry. We had to shoot ourselves in the head repeatedly to lose what was literally the most imminently winnable election in history, yet somehow we pulled it off.
It is the same kind of tired political machinations that now has allowed Senator Clinton to stay in the race this long as a Democrat. My god we need to stop giving people like Kerry and Clinton a pass to do and say what they want. (And yes, for the record, I do know Kerry supports Obama now. Does not change what a poor choice he was for a candidate in 2004)
It is the same reason that no matter how many times I vote Democratic, no matter how much money I give to the DNC and Democratic candidates directly, or how much of my time I volunteer for progressive candidates who call themselves Democrats, I will still not identify permanently as a Democrat. Too many people are still too middle-right leaning in this party.
I have been to primaries for 18 years, in 3 states. Doesn't mean I am an expert, but it also does not mean I have to accept Senator Clinton's republican tactics just because she says I should.
I won't, and Senator Clinton lost my vote entirely because of her tactics. As someone who did not like either of them to start with, and has watched every day their behavior very carefully, their is no doubt he has run a much more honorable campaign. Neither of them had my confidence, Senator Obama earned my confidence, Senator Clinton completely lost my confidence.
Two final points. I only blame the state Democratic parties of Michigan and Florida for their own fiascos. They brought this entirely on themselves and failed their citizents completely. If I lived in one of these states I would replace them all wholesale.
Second, if you honestly don't attribute negative campaigning and media savvy as the key to Noeconservative success over the last 8 years, you are ignoring the facts.
I have no doubt that a lot of the people here, and Senator Clinton's supporters in general, are very good people and have the best of intentions. I just cannot understand the support for Senator Clinton.
But to speak to your actual post, The particular kind of rhetoric I hear from Senator Clinton is indistinguishable from the rhetoric I hear variously from McCain and/or the Neocons, depending on the issue at hand.
It does not matter if one calls oneself a republican or not. What matters is if your views, ideas, and opinions are recognizably distinguishable from republicans.
What much of your post is basically saying to me is, "I know many of the questions some us democrats think are important are very much the same questions republicans think are important, but darn it, we are democrats so it should be OK for us to bring up these republican leaning talking points."
Does this mean you are bad people. No. Is it intended to insult you. Not by me it isn't. Are these a huge part of why I will never vote for Clinton in the primary. Yes. Is this why I can't understand any democrat supporting her. Yes.
Ultimately what it means to me is that these priorities are more similar to conservative priorities than progressive priorities. That is not necessarily an insult, it's your right to ask any questions you want. But don't expect progressives to support someone while that person is doing McCain's job for him.
And finally, mentioning Osama, Al Qaeda and terrorism in an ad does indeed equate Hillary Clinton with Karl Rove. She is using the exact same kind of ads to get the exact same kind of reaction out of the exact same people Karl Rove has so successfully manipulated and terrified for 7 years. That makes her exactly like Karl Rove.
Your concerned about cursing, but not about throwing around the idea of obliterating an entire country to gain a percentage point in a primary?
Never mind the few million men, women, and children who will grow up listening to sound bites of this kind of crap, and form their opinion of my country from it. She is threatening to murder people who have no more to do with Iran's horrific and insane rhetoric than progressives do with Bush's.
My god, the cult of personality is amazing with you people. And I used to wonder how we got into the mess we are in with Iraq. After seeing Hillary's foreign policy ideas...years after she screwed up the most important vote she ever made to authorize force in Iraq...again and again...and years after insisting she is unrepentant for contributing to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's, her BEST idea is to threaten to obliterate a country.
And you people are worrying about cursing.
It is not responsible or reasonable, or sane, or Democratic to talk this kind of irresponsible rhetoric.
Clinton has finally completely adopted the Neocon play book. She may as well run with McCain.
I want to make a point about Clinton's reaction to Obama's remarks that I have not seen others make. Specifically as a gay man, I want to explain why his comments rang true for me, and why her reaction to them exemplifies why I will never support Clinton.
As a gay man, I watched as Bill Clinton signed away my federal marriage rights. I watched as President Clinton signed away my right to be honest about who I am and still keep my job in our armed services.
I have watched 8 years of media-wide and country-wide gay bashing by a huge majority of the population of this country.
I have watched as state after state have passed, for the first time ever, constitutional amendments limiting a group of citizens rights rather than expanding them.
I have watched as an entire religious movement has coalesced and flourished around the idea that I am a second class citizen, that the best thing you can say about me is "to hate the sin but love the sinner."
Having seen all of this, I would very much like to know a good reason why my fellow citizens feel it has been excusable to treat gay people this way.
I actually found that Obama once again had the only even remotely understandable (and frankly the most generous) explanation of this countries attitudes regarding human rights as they relate to gay people.
Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, knows Obama was right. People close down and look for scapegoats as their own prosperities grind to a halt. This is an understandable reaction. But it does not make it right.
And it certainly does not excuse Clinton's attempt to capitalize on Obama's accurate and honest assessment of why people have the attitudes towards gay people that they have displayed during the Bush and Clinton presidencies.
In her attacks on Obama's "bitterness", Clinton is implicitly saying it is an acceptable, defensible part of people's belief system for them to be bigots towards gay people.
And this is precisely the reason I could never support Clinton. Nothing is beyond reproach for her or her political machine.