Reply With Quote
LOL
The best part is Obama beating her 4-3 AFTER the PA primary.
Yeah - and she's getting them at such good rates compared to Obama its amazing no one is talking about this!!!!!
Numbers don't lie! This is going to the convention!
LOL
The best part is Obama beating her 4-3 AFTER the PA primary.
This is so screwed up that by the time the Democrats pick a nominee, McCain will be finishing up his first 2 years in the White House.
If Cankles ends up leading Nobama in overall popular vote total this should get really interesting.
Yeah...........................right..........
Spinnslyvania....What's changed?
The MSM has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of a "race" since manufactured controversy and indignation is all the M$M does these days. They spend virtually no resources in the field actually reporting on important events, and no resources investigating issues in the public interest. It is much cheaper for them to just air a menagerie of blathering talking heads yelling at one another about matters of no practical consequence .
Only one guy was Turkish.
Superdelegates are moving to Sen. Obama slowly but surely. Even Hillary's fundraisers are jumping ship. The writing is on the wall, all she has to do is read it.
Hillary's and Bill's little boat is sinking and no one can save it, not even continued references to badass Rev Wright.
It was said many weeks ago that Hillary would have to win ALL remaining primaries, and 65%-35%, and PA was not that, nor will the others be 65%-35% Hillary.
She knows she is going down.
She just wants to take Obama with her. She's doing everything possible to sink his general election chances.
So if this thing is so clear cut over, if she is so "down and out", why is she still fighting for it, why are prominente Democrats still coming out and supporting her?
It's just a simple question, manny, don't get all frustrated with me . . .
Last edited by smeagol; 04-28-2008 at 11:14 AM.
The support she has now is the same support she has always had. She isn't gaining anyone and she isn't losing anyone. It's a stalemate, but he's ahead nationally.
Well Dr. Dean, Chairman of the DNC says:
Dead Heat Changes Dems' Strategy
Obama Reaches Out to Blue-Collar Voters; Clinton Fires Up Offense
By JOHN HENDREN
WASHINGTON, April 27, 2008
89 comments
FONT SIZE
SHARE
The head of the Democratic Party today declared the race for the party's presidential nomination a virtual dead heat.
Democrats worry that this long battle for a candidacy will hurt the party.
"This is essentially pretty close to a tie here," Howard Dean said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
That's good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., but it's probably an unpleasant surprise for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., whose narrow lead in delegates and the popular vote have allowed him to portray himself as the frontrunner, with the best claim to the Democratic presidential nomination. ............
And the "experts say"......To become the winner, analysts say, Obama has to reach out to the blue-collar vote. To that end, today the candidate ventured into the unfamiliar grounds of Fox News, where he has rarely appeared for an interview, admitting he needs to do more.
I say and still feel this race is wide open. The fat lady has even
started to sing. Stay turned for the finale that is to come.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/st...4736271&page=1
Yes, perhaps we have been misunderstood. I am not saying that Hillary's certainly going to nab the nomination. In fact, if I were to lay $$ on it, I'd say it's about 60-40 in favor of Obama right now, maybe 70-30. That said, this convention is going to be a load of fun. Second, the lack of a decisive winner from the D-side, and Obama's recently uncovered political associations with radicals, make him a weak candidate in the general. So ... at this point, I would say, get ready for a Pres. McCain.
That depends on the economy, and his ability to distance himself from Bush.
As much as Obama might be tied to Wright, McCain will be even more so tied to Bush.
My fern could beat Bush at this point, so I have no doubt how the electioneering will play out.
I still give the overall odds to the Democratic nominee, especially if the economy goes south before the election, as it likely will.
Did you notice I said "Bush" a lot?
Be ready to hear that word incessantly once the national campaigns start.
I didn't know Bush was on the ballot.
Yeah, perhaps I was being optimistic about McCain's chances. The base is not in love with him, but then again, conservatives tend not to get infatuated with politicians anyway. On the other hand, McCain hasn't exactly been in Bush's back pocket anyway -- he wants to close Gitmo, he reached across the aisle to reform campaign finance laws, he was one of the Gang of 14 that effectively blocked Bush's judicial nominees. So maybe Bush won't stick to McCain that much.
But the Democrats are in deep doo-doo themselves. They now have 2 divisive candidates racing each other to the left, and alot of centrist Democrats aren't going to follow them out there. I can see a significant number of middle-America Democrats defecting to McCain (war hero, socially conservative, and a decent guy), certainly more than the #s of conservative Republicans who'll vote for Ron Paul or Huck.
That said, I welcome an Obama candidacy. Really. And I hope he brings his preacher with him everywhere.
conservatives tend not to get infatuated with politicians anyway
No, really. Conservatism is as much a mentality as it is a political philosophy -- we are not particularly interested in big sweeping social programs or anyone's vision of "change." Conservatism is, in its best form, a philosophy that basically wants govt to stay out of the way (in a very small nuts ). While there have been political icons of the Right (Goldwater, Reagan), they are far less numerous and less intense than the many messiahs and such that liberals tend to become infatuated with and lionize (e.g., JFK, RFK, McGovern, Carter (at first), Clinton, and now Obama.)
so conservatism has been implemented in US govt about about as closely a Marx was in Russia?
"govt to stay out of the way"
so corps and super-rich can everybody over in pursui to of insane salaries and capital gains.
O, rly?
Conservatism is broken into two factions: social and fiscal conservatives. You'll hardly find a person who truly fits both definitions anymore. Generally, social conservatives are more than willing to bend their so-called fiscal principles if it means they have more right to intrude on other's lives. Fiscal conservatives are generally the same if it means they intrude less.
There used to be balance. And though the religious wing had become ever-increasingly important as the party base since the '60s, it wasn't until 2000 that they completely overtook my former party. The neo-cons have completely stolen their soul. My former party has abandoned it's principles and gone the route of more intrusions into people's lives. So I have abandoned it.
Ever since Bush has been in office, the Republican party has been the party of more intrusions, more ideology, more calls for social "change" (against sexuals, scientists, women, non-religious, minorities, etc). They have gone the route of wasteful spending, then abrupt cuts, the more wasteful spending. The economy isn't a friggin' yo-yo that you take on a ride whenever "daddy" feels like spending some money. That and poor-management of the fiscal markets by Bernanke have led to a climate where, ultimately, Bush will go down as fondly remembered as Andrew Johnson.
There is division over the party over something so simple as immigration reform. Bush actually had the right take, but the fundies thwarted his efforts. It made economic sense with Bush's plan, but apparently we are trying to protect jobs that no one wants. Or are the fundies afraid of the brown Mexican men bringing their Catholic faiths and their unfamiliar traditions over to their God-given land? Oh, yeah, don't forget about the children! And terrorists!
On the other side, we have two candidates ready to abandon all principles of free trade to get a few votes. Thank god neither of them are serious about it.
It's so friggin' frustrating to see not one economically competent candidate. It's so mind-boggling that our two great parties have drifted so far from sound economic principles that they aren't willing to use their full tools at their disposal to balance the budget, reduce the national debt, and create a principally-sound economy, all because they fear what their base might say (yes that means doing everything within your power ranging from cutting departments, services, and costs to applying appropriate taxes to the capable social strata). It's so aggravating that the party of less intrusion is all about the intrusions now.
How dare you call yourself a conservative? You aren't a conservative. You're just another religious lackey, ready to follow the party-line so long as they keep them gays, atheists, and Mexicans away from you. You and your ilk are destroying my country after having destroyed my party.
Wow.
Boutons may yet have some compe ion.
Lame.
You can come up with an insult better than that if you feel too unintelligent to debate the merits of my comments.
Paul Abrams, HuffPo
Bill Clinton Makes the Strongest Argument AGAINST Hillary's Nomination
Posted April 29, 2008 | 02:18 AM (EST)
In this strangest of political environments, where the exigencies of the moment supersede longer-term considerations, Bill Clinton has made the strongest case AGAINST the nomination of Hillary Clinton.
Remember a few weeks ago when Bill Clinton was telling everyone to "cool it," that Hillary's continuance in the race would have no impact on the November election? Remember the example he used?
Bill Clinton reminded us that he himself was in 3rd place, behind both HW Bush, and Ross Perot, going into the convention and yet he won. [Of course, he neglected to mention that the party with a convention fight has always lost, and that no one was arguing that he, who had won the delegates, ought not be nominated.]
From now until the convention -- and, do not be deluded, Hillary is not going to get out of the race until someone else gets the majority of the votes at the convention -- the Clintons will be arguing that the party needs to pick the strongest candidate, and will refer to polling evidence against McCain when it favors them, and 'logical' arguments when the polling evidence does not favor them, that Hillary is the stronger candidate.
But, Bill told us that going into the 1992 convention he was in third place, that the party unites behind the nominee and, in this political climate, that nominee will win.
The inexorable conclusion is that there is no basis for a determination about who might win the general election.
At least that is what he said a few weeks ago.
That means that the primaries are conducted to determine whom the voters want to be the nominee, period. Not, as the Clintons suggest, to construct an argument for whom should be nominated.
As indicated in "A Primal Scream to Superdelegates: Don't Fiddle While the Progressive Movement Burns, There is No Reason to Delay" (March 14, 2008) and "Superdelegates, How About Some Leadership"? (March 21, 2008), the Clintons have lost the elected delegates, they have lost the number of contests, and almost certainly will lose the popular vote. Moreover, the only measure of victory written into party rules is the delegate count.
The only case left is to the superdelegates, and the Clintons' only argument is 'electability', a position Bill Clinton's logic denies.
As indicated in "The Absurd Arguments of Both (Clinton & Obama) Campaigns" (February 15, 2008), the suggestion that Obama can expand the party because he has won states Democrats usually do not win, or that Hillary wins the states Democrats need to win -- based upon who won which state against the other -- is ridiculous. [It is a measure of how pathetic the MSM is that they discuss this nonsense interminably.]
Hillary herself said at the Philadelphia debate that Barack was electable. Indeed, Ed Rendell, the Hillary campaign chair in Pennsylvania, and Governor of that state, said more emphatically that Barack would carry Pennsylvania in the general election.
Thus, while Barack's numbers against McCain may fall due to the continued internecine warfare that Hillary will continue right through to the convention, Bill Clinton has said that it does not matter, and points to himself as evidence to the contrary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a...tml?view=print
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
