Well, of course, she could win. Shit happens. Scandals. Wars. Terrorist attacks. Assassinations. But barring some paradigm-shifting calamity crushing Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations (or the man himself), Hillary Clinton just can’t win the Democratic nomination.
I know the Clinton fans at DL were cheered by her 9-point victory in Pennsylvania last night, but she can’t win. She can’t catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, and there is absolutely no indication that the remaining superdelegates will sharply break her way, nor any reason that they should. Two weeks from now, when the vote in North Carolina and Indiana is counted, Clinton will be further behind Obama in the delegate race than she was the morning before her big “victory” in Pennsylvania.
I’ve got nothing against Clinton. I like her. I’d enthusiastically support her should she win the nomination. But she can’t.
So given reality, and given the need for Democrats to unite together behind a nominee sometime before the end of August, I’d really like the Hillary boosters here on HA to explain to me why the superdelegates shouldn’t just come out and do their job, and decide this thing once and for all for Obama?
The delegate math is tough for Hillary, but Obama’s inability to win votes among core Democratic constituencies is disturbing, and I have other reservations about Obama. I wish Al Gore was in this race, but he’s not, so the choice is between Hillary or Obama. While I don’t like the tone of Hillary’s campaign, or her sources of campaign funding, or her pro-Iraq war votes, or Bill’s antics, or a lot of other things about her, Obama has yet to give me a reason to flip. In any case, it’s out of my hands. Washington has already voted; and all I can do now is vote for the Democrat in November regardless of who it is. Which I will.
I agree. I would happily support Hillary and think she’d be a great President. But unless she goes Rove dirty on Obama, and sends out a lot more pictures of him in “funny” clothes or just makes things up, she can’t win.
It sucks. Ask Al Gore or John Kerry about coming SO close but not quite winning. Ask Dino Rossi in this state. It sucks when you come so close but don’t quite get it. Life sucks, wear a helmet.
She ran a great race, but she can’t get enough delegates to win. Only a massive career ending scandal would turn the vast vast majority of super delegates her way…where the ‘trend’ in the last 3 months has had Obama GAINING in net super delegates. I just don’t see any signs right now indicating that trend will stop, much less reverse itself is a massive way.
@1
The delegate math is tough for Hillary, but Obama’s inability to win votes among core Democratic constituencies is disturbing, and I’ve had reservations about Obama all along.
Which core Democratic constituencies would that be? He’s not winning by accident. He’s winning because he’s getting the most votes and he has the most motivated supporters.
Sure she can … if the superdelegates do their job.
The only trick that seems to be working for HRC is to go negative in a big way and drive Obama’s numbers down. That’s not something a strong contender needs to do and not something that should be going on in a primary fight.
It’s time for HRC to step down.
@3 If she goes Rovian, I’ll flip. I won’t tolerate that.
Yes, the most important core Democrat base she is apparently winning is the ever-wise Limbaugh Dems. Without her old friend Rush, her 10 point win in PA would’ve been only 5 points, well within the margin of failure instead of just the cusp.
Funny, if Obama isn’t winning over hard-core and soft-core Dems (and independents) alike, then who the hell is donating all that money?
The other day I speculated that maybe the Republicans and their -ahem- friends in the so-called “liberal media” have a vested interest in stirring up as much FUD about the Democratic race as they can.
On the other hand, this way more of the general public are likely to be paying attention when the Democracic convention opens its doors. By comparison, there ain’t a whole lot of suspense about what’s going to happen at the Republican one, other than wondering whether Liebermann’s going to deliver the keynote speech.
Google “Bill Clinton” + “race card” + shit …
And here’s what you get: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxsrGUTcEUc
America’s First Black President whining that he’s been race carded by America’s Second First Black President.
Democrats in heat say the darndest things.
“I wish Al Gore was in this race, but he’s not, so the choice is between Hillary or Obama.”
AlGore is Limbaugh’s secret weapon, the nuclear option. Limbaugh said this week that Limbaugh-Democrat Chaos will result in a superdelegate deadlock, broken only when the supers, in desperation, drag Gore to the top of the ticket.
Of course Hillary shills such as Rabbit, Ann Coulter, and Richard Melon Scaife probably have nuclear options of their own, and they’ll be such fun to watch.
Goldy .. just correcting the numbers a bit.
The near final numbers from Penn’s web site give her something like an 8.5% lead. In this spin fight, that is a lot different from 10%.
Second, Limbaugh has been pushing faux-icans to mis register as dems and vote for her. Assuming he got as many as 2% of the electorate to follow his bidding, that number needs to be subtracted in any evaluation of her “victory.”
In contrast, Obama is unlikely to have gotten many x over votes because he did not have a similar campaign.
The NYT hammers Hillary, though it has endorsed her, in its lead editorial today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04.....ref=slogin
She needs to stop. The superdelegates need to gather and tell her that sating her ego needs does not justify her continued candidacy.
re 10: The deadline in PA to register as D. or R. for the primary was 3/28/08 — two days BEFORE limbaugh started his ‘operation fooling the dittohead jerkoffs’.
I know you are great at math. Figure it out — dope.
Having voted Democratic in the last eleven presidential elections I will strongly support whomever the Democratic candidate is this year. That said, I’m gong to have to see a new and different side to Obama before I’ll believe he can beat McCain. I’ve been let down too many times by the American voter to have confidence in a candidate that is out of the mainstream of the country. Obama has not been helping himself avoid being painted outside the mainstream by the Republicans, the press and Clinton. Although both Obama and Clinton have essentially the same educational background, Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) and Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), there is a reason he is perceived as the effete, Ivy League elitist and she is not by much of the public and the vast majority of the press. Hope I’m wrong about this but experience has taught me otherwise.
Roger
Clinton has already been elected to the National Academy of Political Abuse. Her misuse of Rev Aright outclasses the Willie Horton Ads. He evocation of terrorism approached Bush’s create success with that meme. To top it all of she did all this in violation of Reagan’s 11th commandment, a breach of taboo previously only accomplished by the Bush crime famiies efforts to zap John McCain.
Add to this her willingness to threaten nuclear war if Iran transgresses, puts her in a status few other political miscreants of even the Rprican Party have reached.
I understand she is in the running to receive the Ignoble Peace Award, given previously to Al Hamilton for his Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson Davis and Abe Lincoln as joint sponsors of the civil war, Jo McCarthy ans Richard Nixon for the unique from of red hatred.
I hear she may also be the first female offered memebrship in the elite skull and bones governing society.
Know you’re bad at chronology, @12, and I don’t the precise day that Op Chaos began, but it was running strong for Texas and Ohio, and for sure was twisting your little pink tail on 12 March 2008, more than one month before the PA primary.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho.....guest.html
Know you’re bad at chronology, @12, and I don’t know the date that Op Chaos began, but it was running strong for Texas and Ohio, and for sure was twisting your little pink tail on 12 March 2008, more than one month before the PA primary and more than two weeks before the registration deadline.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho.....guest.html
The delegate math is tough for Hillary, but Obama’s inability to win votes among core Democratic constituencies is disturbing, and I have other reservations about Obama.
So, given that this has been and still is a delegate race, Clinton STARTED the primary season with a couple hundred superdelegates more than Obama and a well-financed campaign, as well as arguably being as close to a heavy favorite as you could be in this race, due to being married to a former two-term President who has a lot of connections and loyalty, and given that she’s now well behind him in the delegate race, why is Clinton’s BIGGER “inability to win votes among core Democratic constituencies” less disturbing than Obama’s?
Sure she can … if the superdelegates do their job.
What job is that? So why should the SDs hand the nomination to Clinton if she can’t beat Obama in the pledged delegate race? The logic I’ve seen bandied about is the same kind of bullshit, ad-hoc logic we saw in Rossi v. Gregoire, where we invent excuses (FL-MI, popular vote, caucus states don’t count, small states don’t count, OMG A FELON VOTED!11!!! MUST BE FRAUD FOR GREGOIRE!!11!!!) to get the result we want.
Rat City Roller Derby: Good stuff @ 13. That’s the way it looks, from the other side of the great divide, to me.
Hey, I’ve said before, I’ll vote for either Clinton or Obama. I started out leaning slightly for Clinton, figuring that Obama can still be available eight years from now. But now I’m more in favor of Obama, just to get the primary’s over.
But one thing that has discouraged me about this year’s campaign is the continued failure of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, to address some of our fundamental economic problems in America. Eight years ago we were rather patronizingly told that the days of a manufacturing economy were over in the U.S., and we needed to adjust (re-train) to a “service economy”. Of course, the “service sector” was quickly out-sourced overseas, right along with our manufacturing jobs. Instead, our nation’s businesses have turned essentially to finance, making money buying and selling each other and each other’s financial markets. First it was in stocks and bonds, then real estate, then real estate loans. Bush even proposed that our ultimate safety net – the Social Security pension fund – be up for grabs by private financial firms under his “privitization” scheme.
The result is that the seeds have been sown for collapse of the American economy. As Warren Buffett pointed out in his annual letter to shareholders a couple of years ago, we are spending our inheretance, the national wealth accumulated by our parents and their parents, at an alarming rate which probably can’t last more than another decade. As Kevin Philips pointed out:
“…U.S. politicians have made the fatal error of betting the nation’s future on finance. In 1950, manufacturing represented 29.3 percent of U.S. GDP, while financial services accounted for 10.9 percent, he shows. By 2005, the roles had reversed, with financial services accounting for 20.4 percent and manufacturing for 12 percent.”
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ney24.html
More evidence of this trend was in today’s news.
* Toyota passed G.M. as the largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world, concentrating largely on exports to countries outside of the U.S. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273631/
* In the meantime, one insurance company (Liberty Mutual) is spending a large sum of money to purchase another insurance company (Safeco). Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273071/
I guess it’s understandable why Presidential candidates wouldn’t want to talk about these issues. After all, their ability to control such macro-economic trends are limited. Also, they want to be able to focus on items which will show results within three years, thereby ensuring their re-election to the next term.
But until we have leadership in the White House and Congress which is willing to address the issues of the loss of manufacturing base in the U.S. and the loss of U.S. capital to foreign nations in trade deficits and due to deficit financing, we may find ourselves seeing what living in a third-world nation is really like – without having to go to the trouble of actually moving.
Obama has not been helping himself avoid being painted outside the mainstream by the Republicans, the press and Clinton. Although both Obama and Clinton have essentially the same educational background, Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) and Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), there is a reason he is perceived as the effete, Ivy League elitist and she is not by much of the public and the vast majority of the press
So the solution is for Obama to start trashing Hillary and cozying up to Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife?
Look, right now, McCain is in his honeymoon period during the Obama/Clinton Punch & Judy show… and he’s TIED and getting 45% or so of the nationwide vote. Quit freaking out that he’s going to walk.
My guess is this is over shortly after June 3, and that gives months for the general election campaign to go… and Obama will get his shot to make his case (and in the unlikely event that Clinton somehow gets the nomination, she’ll get hers, too).
@18 – Obama has run a clean campaign and I respect that, Clinton on the other hand is running a sladerous campaign, why? She should be telling the voters her plans and how she can accomplish those plans. Well maybe she really has no plans and all she cares about is winning, then she will figure it out from there.
I respect Obama for a clean campaign, looks like McCain is into the same ideas:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....amaad.html
Strange days, indeed. Am utterly and abjectly clueless about Scaife, godfather of the Arkansas Project. Maybe his Hillary swoon is a deucedly clever part of the master plan for effecting the final destruction of the Clinton Crime Family.
Still, if memory serves, the destruction went the other way: Bill&Hill vincefostered every combatant who tried to take them on and pull them down. Gingrich and Starr? Dead as dogshit. American Spectator? Aside from some good lawyer bashing by the Discovery Institute in the current issue, AS is on the junkheap of history. Limbaugh? A smoldering pile of rubble, just like the Murrah building that he blew up.
Never misunderestimate the Clinton-Flynt machine. Barack better watch his b(l)ack.
Hillary only has three scenarios for getting the nomination:
1. Popular vote. Regardless of delegate numbers, if she has the popular vote, all of the “Gore won” folks are going to have to shut up and that ain’t likely. However, she would need the FL/MI numbers to realistically make this happen.
2. Dirt. It is likely that Hillary’s folks have dug all of the dirt they can find, but the question is whether or not they’ve used everything. For one, it could be something that wouldn’t hurt him with the Dem base (e.g. attending Socialist rallies), but would kill him in the general. No point in Hillary using that. Or it could be something that is damaging, but just not enough to kill his nomination bid (though enough to alienate the independents in the general). But Hillary may decide at the last moment that this is HER shot — that she can’t wait through 8 years of Obama and be 68 when running for office — so she truly will “kitchen sink” with all her might.
3. Obama, in classic Dem fashion, screws the pooch himself, revealing another crack in that polished, manufactured exterior. Obama is an EXCELLENT speaker… when he has a pre-written speech and a TelePrompTer. However, this race has shown that he can hem and haw and ummmmmm his way with the best of ’em. The more “flopping fish in a boat” answers to hard questions, the more his stature falls. And then there are the stupid, stupid comments by him and his wife. They may not THINK they’re elitist, ivory tower liberals, but public perception is everything. Who in their right mind bitches about surviving on a $500K household income??!!
@ 10, Limbaugh’s secret weapon is his completely brain dead listeners.
If you doubt that, read @ 21
“The more “flopping fish in a boat” answers to hard questions, the more his stature falls.”
Mentioned the New Republic account of a Texas press conference in which, for the very first time, tough questions were asked of Senator Obama and he came unspewed. The article noted that he stuttered, stammered, and ran.
The Great Debate on ABC was denounced by the free-press left because their man, again, looked less than messianic or competent. Without the right TelePrompts at the right time to tough questions to which he was not accustomed, Obama looked unready for presidential prime time.
But he didn’t collapse behind the ABC podium. He didn’t run. He’s quickly climbing a steep learning curve and (just guessing here) will be the well-oiled and fine-tuned Clay-Ali part of a matchup with McCain-Liston this fall.
@18 Hanna
You got it!
Assuming 08= Obama v McC, I will bet they mutually commit to an anti swift boat effort.
Look, I see nothing wrong with negative ads. HRC has every right to sell her healthcare plan by claiming that only a universal tax will work, BUT climing his does not cover everyone is BS and she ough to be called for that.
Stephanie Miller Update: Heard the Divine Ms. M say she threw out her back while giving Scott Ritter a lap dance. Everybody knows that didn’t happen, because everybody knows that Scott Ritter (who conned even more dirty dollars from Saddam than McDermott did) doesn’t screw with anybody over 14.
@24
SeattleJew – wouldn’t it be nice to see a full on clean presidential campaign? I mean here in Washington our State Supreme Court rules the voters are (in less words) too stupid to understand what we are voting for but on the flip side, ruled it’s ok for campaigns to run “false” ads since it’s up to the voters to decipher the truth and lies.
I know there is no such thing as an honest politician, but rather than slander the opponent, I’d like them to tell us their plans and how they can get their plans in place.
Update of the tenths of a decimal point:
Hillary, as of this message has 9.2% lead over BHO.
Principla Campaign adviser, Wolfson (BTW isn’t a Wolfson a son of a bitch?) predicts,
We
gun totin white folksall congratulatethe young black guy wiht funny earsfor his hard efforts andarticulate high falutinrhetoric in this campaign.“When all the votes are tallied, Senator Clinton will exceed the 9.5% required by the iRS for rounding up to 10%. This double digit victory is convincing evidence that a
blackcandidate with only athreefew months elective experiencein the Senateand a history ofliving in the same neigborhood as a former terroristbeing an accomplice of terrorist a can not win in a general election.”12 & 15: Waiting patiently for pudless lucy to snivel, grovel, and to beg forgiveness.
@28-you will be waiting a very long time. Most here, when you provide factual data to back up an argument, you will find no apologies, some however do admit when they are wrong…very very few and not the ones you are talking to.
Good article on why O-blah-blah can’t put Chillary away:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_cam.....nnsylvania
1) RACE–O-blah-blah & his goons have played
the race card waaaaaay too often.
2) WORKING CLASS VOTERS–don’t trust him. O-blah-blah has belittled them!!
3) FRIENDS IN TROUBLE–Rezko, Wright & Ayers
4) INEXPERIENCE–4 yrs out of the Illinois Leg.
5) METTLE–NO Balls!! A coward.
@2: Poor Jack Flanders writes:
“she ran a great race”
Really?
Starting with all the advantages – money, endorsements and name recognition – she got beat badly by a one-term senator. She dismissed whole states as unimportant, she lied about Bosnia sniper fire (to try and show her credentials), she touted her record (such as voting for the war) and still can’t win. That is a great race?
Having Penn and Wolfson arguing with one-another – that was great?
No – she was disorganized – didn’t plan for anything other than a coronation and then scrambled badly with nothing but negative attacks when she fell behind.
Her main problem is her equivocating policies:
voting for the war in Iraq
voting for a “soak the poor” bankruptcy bill
voting for cluster bombs
claiming she would get health care passed this time (after screwing it up the first time)
claiming her time as first lady somehow qualifies as experience.
I love the quotes from Pennsylvania: She “deserves” to win – despite how poorly she has run her campaign and how badly she has voted on critical issues – what followers are drinking the Kool-aid?
Who says Obama can’t win those core Democratic constituencies?
He may be coming in a close second when running against another Democrat, especially one whose base appeal is in those very constituencies that dominate Ohio and Pennsylvania. But in November, he’ll be running against John McCain.
And he’ll have Bill and Hill by his side, exhorting “their” constituencies to vote for Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate.
@30: Mr cynical idiot:
Friends in trouble?
Ayers served on a board with Obama – you maroon.
Wright is a former pastor.
Rezko gave money to his campaign -0 it was returned.
You got nothin’ as usual.
But McCain:
Punched of Renzi
did favors for lobbyists
Employs an active lobbyist on his campaing staff
Cheerleads the war
Knows nothing about the economy
Sings about bombing Iran
Was a member of the Keating Five
Was against torture before he was for it
Accepts the endorsement of a minister that calls Catholics agents of the devil
voted against MLK day
and on and on…what a hypocrite
McSame is no maverick – he has completely given up any independence and has embraced GWB – the worst presidnet in history with the lowest apporval rating.
Hillary is done – she can’t catch up – under ten percent in PA – she is too far behind – and she is the only one who doesn’t know it. She will lose NC by ten percent or more…
Ok everyone!!!!! So we all seem to point out the negatives of the “opponents”….
What are the positives?
PROOF AND DATA?
PLANS?
HOW WILL THEY ACHIEVE THEIR “PLANS”?
This is against Hillary’s campaign, her motto is “slander the opponent but provide NOTHING to the US voters in terms of plans and actions”
Lee @3:
Which core Democratic constituencies would that be?
Well, Clinton has done consistently better in large primary states, states that will be crucial to Dems in the fall (Ohio, PA are just two examples). I am not impressed by the fact Obama did well in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. Surely you can understand why, but I’ll spell it out for you – those states are going to McCain in the fall (well, Nevada may be up for grabs, maybe); but who cares? How many electoral votes do they have, combined?
Blatantly Oblivious @ 22
Looks like some of the pot smoke from Lee’s threads has been wafting up your nostrils.
Instead of the typical Lefty name-calling, why not point out where you think my post is wrong?
So why does Goldy want to disenfranchise voters??
Obama still doesn’t have the votes to win, let this primary season run it’s course. It’s keeping the nation focused on the democrats and bringing in new voters.
Be honest, all those Obama supporters would be saying the exact opposite if the situation was reversed.
@ 13: Obama is mainstream?
Are you sure about that?
I mean for some place other than Seattle and San Francisco.
@10 If you want to see my nuclear option in action, post your address. I still need a delivery system, but I’m working on that! When the Joneses across the street got The Bomb, I decided I’ve gotta have it, too.
(Note: This comment is a parody of Chimp’s non-proliferation policies.)
Hillary’s strategy to victory is to keep going on in every primary election getting every vote counted only to have them all overturned by Super Delegates.
The nomination is based on pledged delegates not total vote count as her camp is now tyring to spin it.
How neat!
re 15: What the fuck do I care if some more Republicans vote for a Democrat.
Just remember who came up with the brilliant plan.
One good thing for Hillary last night is that she more than more up in Pennsylvania (84-74) for her losses in Mississippi (20-13) and Wyoming (7-5). Hillary Clinton is now 1 net pledged delegate better than she was after Ohio-Texas-Vermont-RI March 4, and 5 net pledged delegates better than she was after Wisconsin on February 19.
Maybe with another 100 to 150 primary contests, Clinton can overtake Obama in pledged delegates.
But seriously, aren’t we supposed to let every vote count? Why shouldn’t the voters in Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico be counted in early June? Previous primary contests have run for MUCH LONGER than this one.
Simply put, Hillary has to win ALL of the remaining contests by 63%, plus get 2/3 of the uncommited super-delegates, to win.
At last polling, Obama was leading in N. Carolina, with the most delegates at stake, by double-digits. It’s going to take a real hail-mary by Clinton to pull that won out of the hat. All the other remaining races pale in comparison.
In the meantime, the next primary/caucus is in Guam, with two delegates at stake? I wonder if the media will be breathlessly reporting who “wins” that one. Of course, if Guam uses proportional delegate allotment (as most Democratic Primaries due), then it will be one delegate to Clinton and one to Obama, unless somehow one manages to win by at least 75%. It would be fun to try to see the media call that 50/50 split as a “win”, one way or another!
http://www.ExposeObama.com
When it comes to the issues, most people simply don’t know where Barack Hussein Obama stands. The liberal media won’t give you that information!
For example, when it comes to crime, Barack Hussein Obama seems to care for criminals more than victims:
In 2002, while gang related crime infected Chicago like an open, festering sore, Barack Hussein Obama voted NO on HB 1812, a bill designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities.
rhp @ 45
Not true. There is plenty she could do to muddy the waters. As I mentioned above, she could go for a popular vote win, which would mean that a lot of spoutin’ Dems would have to back off previous “The Will of The People” statements, but she’d need FL and MI to be re-enfranchised.
The more likely scenario for Hillary is that Obama is forced out or drops out. Not that it is likely to happen, but I also highly doubt that Hillary has thrown the entire “kitchen sink” at him yet. Read my earlier post for details. He could also trip over his own tongue (or associations).
@ 47:
First, foremost and the ONLY thing that matters is PLEDGED DELEGATES, at least with the Democrats, to select a nominee for the presidency.
FL and MI will NOT be counted. They broke the party’s rules despite the warnings that their delegates will not be seated.
Barak, playing by the rules set forth by the party, did not even appear on the MI ballot. And, he didn’t campaign in FL. One thing that is certain win or lose, Barak always closes the gap wherever he campagins. At one point Hillary had a 25% lead in PA.
The Super Delegates were enacted in the mid 80’s to prevent a nominee from being selected that CAN’T win in the General Election. Over the past 21 debates both Barak & Hillary has stated that either one can beat McCain.
So, that negates the Super Delegate ploy.
What do you have left? A nominee who’s received more pledged delegates through cacuses and votes than the other, won the popular vote in states that were in play, won twice as many states including key SWING states not traditional Big Blue states like CA, NY, PA etc, a candidate whose turned the minority voters solidly Democrat for generations, has sparked the youth vote to turn out for Democrats (future of the party), and has smashed all known fundraising records.
In short, Barak is the Holy Cash Cow the Demcorats could only dream of.
Ladies and Gentlmen, allow me to introduce you to the Democratic nominee, and soon-to-be President Elect, Senator Barak Ooooooobama!!
The End.
@46: Another maroon
Went to expose Obama – a right-wing front group – they go nothin’ as usual, and neither do you.
@35: Hannah:
Positives: Obama is consistently against the war. McCain is for the war, for Bush policies and for torture. Clinton voted for the war. She made the crucial WRONG decision based on political expediency – she can be expected to do that in office.
Obama takes NO PAC money. McCain can’t even abide by the elections rules he sponsored.
McCain has lobbyists all over his campaign – including active lobbyists – how can he clean up Washington? Obama has more small contributions than any other candidate by far – he is not beholden to large contributors.
Clinton has brought up every negative possible – Obama has stuck to the issues. Obama knows the difference between shia and sunni (unlike McCain) and will go after bin laden – McCain supports the bush policy of keeping bin Laden out there to scare us.
McCain will lead to bigger budget deficits and cut taxes for the rich (over 200,000) – Obama will stop the bleeding by cutting back on Iraq and make the rich pay their fair share.
Obama will not equivocate on torture – waterboarding IS torture – McCain tries to have it both ways but voted to legalize waterboarding (hypocrite!).
@38: poor uptown – after NC Hillary would need about 85% of the rest of the votes to win the delegates and would have virtually no chance to win the electoral total vote – her only hope (Obiwan) would be for the superdelegates to overturn the wiol of the people.
The big state argument is also stupid – Obama will win those big states anyways (NY and Cal.) and be competitive in a lot more states – why do you think Limbuagh is urging people to vote for clinton – because she is more beatable and is already hopelessly behind. What are three good reasons to vote for clinton over Obama? Haven’t heard them yet – certainly not her health care plan….mandatory requirements that would not pass congress (so no universal care) and a track record of failure on health care.
GBS @ 51
Unless I’m misinterpreting the Dem rules, NEITHER candidate will have enough “real” (pledged, elected) delegates to lock up the nomination before convention time. So, it will all be up to the superdelegates. Right now, they appear to be leaning toward (and bailing from Hillary to) Obama, but if she overtakes him in the popular vote, there will be BIG problems. The Dems will have to abandon all of their “Will of the People” arguments about Gore and future races in order to justify giving it to Obama based on delegates alone.
Unless, of course, Obama’s mouth, wife or past sinks his campaign at the last minute.
Mark–
Actually O-blah-blah’s affiliations with lunatics and a pattern of beliefs is evolving that will make folks ultimately reject him.
Too bad the MSM didn’t do the job Hillary has exposing this pretender.
O-blah-blah is coming close to unelectable.
Not enough Black Racists who only vote for him because of the color of his skin.
@20 I agree with the things you say in #20, but
why do you think that paying alot more in taxes
and capital gains will help boost our economy?
Both dem candidates have stated they would do
just that. Considering the current inflation
and the fact that they also think we all can
afford healthcare on top of higher taxes…
I’m left with………WTF?
1 RR
Obama’s inability to win votes among core Democratic constituencies
Um, yes, that exists when he’s running against another Democrat. This is the silliest argument ever put forward. Surely in a close primary race in which he nonetheless leads there would be some so-called “core constituency” or other whose votes the other candidate is getting; otherwise it wouldn’t be close.
But unless you can convincingly argue that these “core Democratic constituencies” will vote Republican in the fall, it totally falls apart as an argument. I would argue that if they were going to go GOP, they aren’t core constituencies at all. “Core Democratic constituencies” will vote Democratic. QED
This will all be over well before July. Obama leads by every measure except a single, strained interpretation of “popular vote” (naturally pushed by the clinton campaign) which counts the 2 states he didn’t campaign in who have no delegates. Even in the aftermath of Hillary’s “doing as well as expected” win in PA, superdelegates are heading for Obama. It’s over, Hillary fans.
Many superdelegates will come out for Obama over the next couple of weeks. “A handful over the next few days” is a direct quote from an Obama insider.
One superD, that I’ve had several conversations with lately, thinks that the purpose of the “unpledged” delegates is to not vote until the convention, and it is the ones coming out early that are undermining the process.
And remember, not all superdelegates are even selected yet. Washington State selects 2 more at the June 14 convention in Spokane.
If you can stomach it, and if you haven’t already- read this link. HRC was part of the Watergate committee in ’74. She was less than above board, to be polite.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....70EF6F4180
I’m not particularly in favor of either candidate, but I do remember Obama’s campaign after Iowa stating that it would be a very bad move on the part of the superdelegates to vote for Hillary and disregard the popular vote.
Now I hear from Obama’s camp that rules are rules and the only thing that matters is delegates.
I think that what matters to Obamaites is whatever gets their guy the nomination. That’s no better or worse than what the Clinton campaign does.
AND, when the media lampooned Hillary for describing her anger and sorrow over the assasination of MLK, I can tell you from personal experience that those were the genuine feeling of many millions of young adults all over the country at that time.
If you want genuineness and honesty from your candidates, you have to have enough on the ball to recognize it when it is presented to you.
For instance: I think Obama’s self-admitted enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan is genuine admiration on his part, as is his admiration for Joe Lieberman. You should look up Obama’s vote on the punitive bankruptcy bill as well.
Obama’s no bargain —- by any stretch….